Talk:Gunfight at the O.K. Corral/Archive 1

Name edits

Here's where to have a discussion on changes made to the O.K. Corral Fight page. If you find errors in previous changes, here's where to talk about them. I'll begin by noting that I changed the name-order in the picture of the 3 dead "cowboys." That's Tom on the left, with the face swollen from the day before. That's his brother Frank in the middle, looking much like Tom. And Billy Clanton is on the right. Sbharris 23:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill Claiborne

The link listed for the gunfight does not even mention the fifth cowboy who took part (briefly) in the fight, Billy Claiborne.

COMMENT: There's a reason for that: Claiborne said in testimony he wasn't armed and didn't fight, and nobody else thought he did, either. His role is one of bystander caught in the middle, who managed to get out of the way in time to avoid getting shot. I don't think Claiborne is important enough to be listed as a "fighter." Sbharris 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: I agree there's no evidence Billie Claiborne took part in the fight, so why is there mention in the main body that he "may" have fired a shot in ambush? No reliable source I can find even reports this as rumor. What is the genesis of this statement? There is no footnote attached to it. I seriously question it's inclusion in the main body of this page.(Buckeyes1, 7/1/08)

Moved Material from Wyatt Earp Page

I've finally moved a lot of O.K. Material from the Earp article to here. The Wyatt Earp page really was getting rather long (near the suggested length limit for Wiki articles), and the O.K. Corral material is the obvious stuff to move. This finally addresses some of the issues brought up on the Wyatt Earp discussion page. I still intend to flesh out the O.K. article some more, but this is a start.Sbharris 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC

Re: Tom was armed when confronted by Wyatt Earp.

I have a couple of difficulties with an assertion that Tom was armed at this time. 1. Tom was not involved in any of the proceedings of the night before in the Alhambra where Ike Clanton had been confronted and threatened by Doc Holliday and Morgan Earp. 2. If Wyatt Earp truly believed, and/or saw Tom with a pistol in his waistband, then why was Tom not arrested, disarmed and taken to court as was Ike Clanton just an hour or so earlier? It is more likely that Tom was not armed because Wyatt knew he had no cause to arrest Tom. However, Wyatt did see the necessity to beat Tom over the head with his pistol and then walk away saying "I could kill the s.o.b. (meaning Tom McLaury)"

I really believe the evidence points to Tom not being armed at the time of the confrontation with Wyatt.

Ellis Badon

You could be right, but I think the weight of evidence is that Tom was armed when Wyatt beat him. We know he was armed that day in contravention to town law, and in the way that Wyatt thought-- with a pistol hidden in waistband under shirt. We know this because he deposited the pistol (just the weapon, not holster) in the Capitol Saloon the day after his arrival, about the time Wyatt beat him. From which saloon it was recovered and exhibited at the Spicer trial. Mehan thought he deposited the pistol between 1 and 2 pm. Bauer, who saw him beaten, says he saw him AFTERWARD at the Capitol, again between 1 and 2 pm. Strong evidence that this is when he got rid of the pistol. Whether Tom was armed at the OK Corral gunfight (and I dont' think he was, being easily able to have gotten his own pistol from the Capitol less than a block away), I think it' pretty clear that at the fight the Earps and Holliday THOUGHT he was-- were sure enough to waste two barrels of a shotgun on him, which is something nobody in their right mind does in a firefight on a man standing next to men who are manifestly armed and shooting back at you, and who make obviously more immediate targets than a man who is unarmed (as exhibited by the fact that nobody shot Ike, though I'm sure Earps and Holliday wanted badly to). Think what you like about Doc's meanness-- this goes far beyond that into stupidity in the circumstances unless Doc really believed Tom armed. And if he did, there are only a couple of ways he could have: he saw the weapon, or he believed Wyatt.

Why didn't Wyatt arrest Tom? For the same reason he didn't try to arrest Frank, who was going about on 4th with a cartridge belt. Wyatt that day blustered about his being an officer to the court, but before the gunfight he didn't act like one. He wasn't wearng a badge or drawing pay and it really wasn't his business to be enforcing city law (he told Morgan the night before to take care of Ike). Certainly it was not his business to be taking men to jail. When specially deputized by Virgil an hour or two later before the walkdown to the OK Corral, he was FROM THEN ON acting as a deputy, which always was to him the same as the marshall. Before that, he split the difference, by considering himself enough a deputy to carry a weapon, but not enough of one to be arresting people on minor offenses. I'll add that this is not too different from a situation in which a cop is off duty-- most states still require him to carry an arm, but the laws he's going to enforce change. Felonies, yes. Misdemenors, no. Wyatt, who had filled in for Virgil as town marshal days before when Virgil was out of town for the Stilwell trial, considered himself a deputy off-duty. And behaved the part right up till Virgil demanded backup in confronting a group of armed and threatening men. This is neither hypcritical or irrational. It's not too far off SOP today. SBHarris 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is just my opinion but I think SBHarris makes a rather week argument. I think Mr. Badon is correct. If Tom was armed, he would have been arrested. He could have had his brother arrest him, or placed him under citizens arrest. The fact that Wyatt didn’t arrest him to me proves that Tom didn’t commit a crime. Wyatt did commit a crime (assault) so he walked away. We do not know that Tom was armed the night before. He could have checked his gun in the night before and then checked it out the next morning expecting to leave town. Then when he realized that he wasn’t leaving right away, he checked the gun back in. Also, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Wyatt had any confrontation between Wyatt and Tom had taken place the night before, so I don’t understand your statement that Wyatt thought he was armed based on Tom’s actions the night before. Finally I don’t believe that Bauer knew exactly when Tom checked in his gun. That evidence is circumstantial at best. Damian

Comment: I disagree entirely; I think Sbharris makes a good argument. If Tom had done all the machinations of dropping off his gun the night before, retrieving it the next morning and then dropping it off again why was none of this testified to at the Spicer hearing? Why should anyone create such an elaborate "back-story" with no supportable evidence other than their own pet theories?(Buckeyes1, 7/1/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckeyes1 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Frank's pistol

---Frank's pistol, with two unfired rounds remaining in it---

What is the source for this?

Answer: The Inquest Hearing and the Spicer Hearing, like everything else. Keefe says he agreed with Claibourne (after a re-examination where the cylinder was revolved to reveal the fired round that had been under the hammer) that Frank's pistol had "3 empty chambers." Obviously it didn't literally mean empty chambers. Probably it meant 3 actual empty brass, meaning 3 empty cases (Nobody would carry a Colt SAA (Frontier Six-Shooter, 44.-40) with a live round under the hammer, but sometimes people kept hammer down on a completely empty chamber to keep things simple, others used a fired brass case). But either way, 3 empty would leave a maximum of 3 live, and possibly 2 if the witnesses, by "3 empty" meant empty brass not empty chambers. I don't have Turner's book to hand here, but somebody else (perhaps at the Inquest) mentions Frank's pistol as the one with "two loads" remaining. Certainly it wasn't Billy's, and nobody ever found one for Tom. So I think it had 2 live rounds, 3 expended brass, and a truly empty chamber for carrying. I'll try to find you the other reference. Sbharris 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"You're a daisy if you do!"

I believe Doc Holliday's colorful "daisy" quote should be cut from paragraph 2 of the "Lead-up" section.

It's usually attributed to Doc during the gunfight itself, not during his confrontation with Ike Clanton on the previous day, and was reportedly addressed to Frank McLaury rather than to Clanton.

Also, "daisy" was not a threatening reference to cemetery flowers. It was a popular 1880's slang phrase meaning "someone or something very good." Cteght 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'll take it out and perhaps re-insert it. As I remember, it's attributed to Doc during the fight by an Inquest witness (the miner) who seems to have been omniscient (I think he claimed to have seen the bullet travel over and hit Doc on the holster, too). His account is also the newspaper account, since he said he talked to the paper, and the accounts match. I'll look into the reference meaning. B.B. Bell, of course, agrees with you. Sbharris 02:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Doc said, "You're a good one if you do." The "daisy" quote is from the movies. While "Tombstone" was a great film, it was fiction; for example, it is extremely unlikely that Doc killed Johnny Ringo, since his whereabouts on that day are known and he was nowhere near the site of Ringo's death. -cneron

The "daisy" quote is NOT from the movies. I'm sure it's contemporary, perhaps from a newspaper account, but I can't locate it the moment.SBHarris 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

cneron: I've seen Doc's utterance rendered as "You're a daisy if you do," "You're a good one if you do," and "You're a good one if you have." Since "daisy" meant "good one" in 1880's slang, even Doc himself probably couldn't have sworn to what he actually said in the heat of battle by the time a day had passed. Kevin Jarre astutely used the more colorful "daisy" version in his screenplay, but it's no more or less likely than the alternatives. Footnote: a little online noodling reveals that some slang etymologists believe that the modern term "doozy" evolved from the old-time slang usage of "daisy." Cteght 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cowboys

The use of the term "cowboys" on this page is a little unclear. Although not as formalized an organization as portrayed in the movieTombstone, the "Cowboys" were a loose gang of sorts. The page appears to be using "cowboys" as a generic description of these guys, rather than as all being members of the same gang. Chuck 07:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is the whole thing is unclear, and was even to the people of the time, who were there. There wasn't an organized gang like the mafia or the Crips. And they didn't wear signature clothing or colors or sashes as you see in the last movie Tombstone (that's a modern addition which is cute but misleading). These were a loose collaboration of semi-anarchistic stockthieves, which included, as a subgroup, a few people who would go so far as to rob a stage. They liked the country, and they knew each other and covered for each other, but there was no "capo" and nobody gave orders. One person who knew Curley Bill well noted that he came as close as anybody to being the head of the operation, but even he was a loner (his last "partner" shot him through the throat in mid 1881). All this complicated by the fact that some people in the group only robbed Mexicans. Others never crossed the border, but occasionally poached from local ranchers. Some of these sometimes worked as legitimate stockmen for legitimate ranchers like Hooker, and moved back and forth between legal and illegal worlds (nothing like working as an honest ranch hand to teach you skills you need to rustle). So nobody had any idea how many actual full-time rustlers (if you can define a cowboy that way) there were. They DID know that it was practically impossible to raise stock honestly in the area due to losses, that there was a huge illegal beef trade (supported by town butchers and thus by townspeople who ate beef--- this was the drug trade of its day). And that there was a certain class or number of men who had no jobs, no visible means of support, but always had lots of money to eat and drink and gamble with. They didn't work in the mines or saloons and they didn't work for honest ranches. Prime examples being the McLauries with their $3000 in cash from cattle sales but no registered brand (which you had to have to raise cattle). And so on. As lillies of the field; they toiled not, neither did they spin. But their pockets bulged, and it wasn't always with a pistol.

This class of people pissed the Earps off, no end, especially as Virgil had been embarrassed with everybody else over the Patterson/McLaury mule theft, and Wyatt by having the Clantons steal his own horse. The Earps themselves were into a Nevada-type lifestyle of gaming and bartending and maybe sometimes (in the past) even pimping. They also worked now and again for private and goverment security. They looked down on rustlers. They thought that a man who will steal a cow from a Mexican may later steal a horse from an American. And a horsethief may go on to rob a stage and maybe shoot somebody doing it. There are lines you don't cross, and working for Wells, Fargo or the City or the Feds, I think helped the Earps never lose track of where that line was. Holliday too, for that matter. Sbharris 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good, except that the article keeps referring to "cowboys" as though they were just some guys who happened to be, well, cowboys. It even wikilinks to the cowboys article, which is completely misleading as to what is meant by "cowboys" when discussing the goings-ons in Tombstone. There's even a whole section titled "More Cowboys enter town", as though it was just some random ranch hands that happened to come to town. You can prattle on all you want about how the Cowboys weren't the Crips (I never said they were), but that doesn't mean the article is not misleading on this issue. For example, there's a sentence "Wyatt Earp thought that all the cowboys, including Ike, were arming themselves in the store..." Huh? All the ranch hands in Tombstone were arming themselves? Why? Well, because that's not what happened. Only the Cowboys were arming themselves. (Even then, the modifier "all" probably shouldn't apply.)

I tried to fix it by changing as little as possible. Let me know what you think. Chuck 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Doc Holliday

On the doc's page there is some confusion about whether the photo shown on this page is actually of the man himself. Perhaps it should be changed to the verified graduation photo?

The one used in the Holliday article of course is the verified grad photo. We're trying also to get a usable version of the 1879 standing photo. After a lot of looking, I suspect the guy in the 3 "Tombstone" photos in dark suit and dyed hair (including the bowler hat one), is probably Holliday. Comparison with a good version of the 1879 photo will help. I've used a dark haired "Tombstone" photo in the Gunfight article until I resolve this. At least it's probably close to what Holliday WOULD have looked like at 30, whereas the grad student photo of 1872 at age 20, is still rather boyish, and I thought putting it in the Gunfight article would jar. Steve 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsolved History

I'm marking the "A legacy of questions" section NPOV, since whoever wrote has quite obviously formed the opinion that Unsolved History is simply wrong. It's also original research unless a source for the criticism can be cited. -Anþony 07:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Now has been rewriten to remove the conclusion. It is a fact that this episode attempted to recreate the shotgun blast without using any period shotgun equipment. That's a boneheaded thing to do, but I will simply state the fact, and leave the reader to draw conclusions. This is a section about a controversial topic. So far as I can tell, one does not deal with controversy on WP simply by deleting all reference to it. SBHarris 17:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

introduction

Hello. Ive just arrived at this page and, never having heard of this event before ofund it unclear as to the actual occuranc of the event from the opening paragraph. I suggest a little restructering to make it easier to undertand.--Chickenfeed9 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At the beginning of the whole thing, there are the words "Lead-up to the event", or something of that nature. Anyway, that is not what I am talking about. Right below that, are the words "Relevent Law in Tombstone". The word "relevent" is spelled wrong. It is really spelled like this: Relevant. I guess it is a typo or something.....~~DustieE~~

Lord and Williams?

The newspaper article mentions the names Lord and Williams. Would they have been deputies of Behan? knoodelhed06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Discovery Channel Episode

I saw the program "Unsolved History" referenced by dismissal in "A Legacy of Questions." My observations relate to (1) whether Tom McLaury had a concealed pistol (2) would Holliday waste a shot on an unarmed man. In the recreation, Tom was behind a horse on the off side from the rifle scabbard. If he had a hidden pistol, this was a safe place to fire from cover. However, he reached over the saddle to pull the rifle from its scabbard. An awkward move to perform from the off side when a horse is skittish and wheeling as you push against it. When he finally began to withdraw the rifle, his arm would have been raised in the motion. Less lucky, he had wheeled around and become exposed to Doc Holliday. Tom, no longer unarmed, presented a self-defense target to Holliday who fired the coroner's reported twelve OO buck into Tom's side and exposed armpit. Dropping the rifle, it fell back into position and the horse ended up out on the street. Virgil's statement Tom reached for a rifle is upheld; and Holliday is not the fool for firing at an unarmed man. I recall from the program. further, that test firings with vintage arms and ammunition were made on sides of beef to show the effect. A request to Discovery Channel (now the Science Channel) might yield a copy of the program and answer other questions. Finally, regarding the number of cartridges in one of the revolvers. Truly no experienced owner would carry with six loaded chambers. By the same token, no experienced hand would prepare for a fight and leave the sixth one empty! JimBeam 08:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to take a look at that Discovery Channel episode again, as my recollection is that they used NO period arms or ammo, which makes it all completely bogus. But I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on the issue.

You could of course be right that Tom was shot while reaching for a rifle, and that would explain his side wound under the arm. However, there's a simpler explanation, as this is exactly also the kind of wound you expect from a man in defensive posture who sees he's about to get blasted by a shotgun-- turned to the side and with arm raised to protect HEAD and FACE. It's a flinch. I've actually seen a man with shotgun pellets though the eyes in an LA gang-shooting, and it's not pretty. There are worse things than being shot in the body and the (correct in this case) instinct is to protect the head. But Tom was so close to the shooter that nothing helped.

Yes, Tom reaching for the Winchester upholds Virgil's version (which isn't given very convincingly you'll notice-- even Virgil isn't too sure about it, and same is true for Wyatt's testimony on his point), but the major problem is there's no way to uphold the rest, which is that Tom had a pistol and fired it over the horse. Tom doesn't have time to do that. By Ham Light's account Tom is hit in the first salvo before the gap in shots that everyone heard, and that also fits with the unusually large blast of smoke that somebody else saw on the first salvo. No time for Tom to do anything with a pistol at all. The other problem is that we know somebody took a horse into the street and fired a pistol near it, using it for cover (two witnesses saw that, AFAIK), but this was almost certainly Frank, using his own horse, which makes sense (in emergencies you use your own gear). Tom didn't have a horse on site. Frank is going to be using his own for cover, etc. So are we going to have Tom reaching for BILLY'S Winchester-- an unfamiliar weapon on an unfamiliar horse? I just don't buy it. That's for James Bond films-- in emergencies with no time to think, real people use weapons and animals (and cars) they're used to, or else run like hell. We know that Tom DID run like hell, but alas for him he was already fatally wounded.

I'm sorry to ruin the Old West romantic version of this tale where everybody does everything possible in a firefight, but I think the truth is more prosaic. All the fighting on the Cowboy side was done by the two men ready to do it. Men who'd just arrived in town, fresh, sober, angry, and armed and with mounts. The other two guys who'd been up all night and were sleep-deprived, beaten up, bandaged, disarmed, horseless, gearless, and in one case still drunk, both did just what you'd expect in a firefight: they ran. In one case, not before being shot fatally. Gunshot people almost always don't just fall down, in real life; they turn and run. Coroners and medical examiners everywhere know the syndrome where the body has one wound from front to back, and several others from back to front. Side wounds under arms from defensive fliches in close quarters are not uncommon, either :)

On the issue of how many rounds in pistols. Seems reasonable that the Earps and Holliday, going down to what they thought might be a fight, would put that 6th round in in the cylinder. I don't quite think Frank and Billy really believed in their heart of hearts they were about to be involved in a shootout, or else they'd certainly have had rifles in hand, just as Ike had a couple of hours earlier. Anyway, the confusion on how many rounds remained in Frank's revolver suggests to me that there was an empty chamber in it. Can't prove it.SBHarris 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Although Tom McLaury being armed seemed to mean little to Judge Spicer when handing down his decision, it remains one of the most interesting puzzlements of the street fight. It is not at all clear that Tom tried to retrieve the rifle on Billy Clanton's horse during the gunfight. Virgil Earp testified that as the Earp party entered the lot, Tom had his hand on the rifle in question. Later Virgil said Tom failed to retrieve that rife. This could mean Tom tried to get the rifle and failed, but it doesn't necessarily imply that. It could also mean that after he took his hands off the rifle, Tom didn't grab for the rifle again. Later when Tom was being shot by Doc Holliday, it appears he was reaching out towards Billy Clanton's mount. It could be supposed that he was indeed reaching for the rifle on that animal. However, it could also be that Tom was simply trying to regain the animal as a protective shield. The only one who could tell us Tom's McLaury's , intent at that specific moment was Tom, himself. And, of course, Tom died without his ever explaining his movements.

The most curious part of the testimony relative to the possibility that Tom was armed comes from R.F. Coleman. He claimed that as he reached The Union Market, two bullets hit a wagon situated in front of that location. The puzzle then becomes - who was shooting in an easterly direction down Fremont St? Michael Hickey claimed two bullets from Doc Holliday's pistol bounced off of Fly's wood frame building and careened back out to hit that particular wagon. There are two problems to this scenario. 1.) No witness described Holliday as shooting at Ike Clanton as that cowboy fled. The first time this allegation appears in print is in Burn's TOMBSTONE book. 2.) Slugs fired at Fly's building would most probably have lodged into the wood structure rather than bounce off. Remember, the cowboys were situated west of the Earps. So, it doesn't make much sense for any of the Earp party to be firing in an easterly direction. Thus, it would appear that one of the cowboy party fired the shots which hit the wagon in question. Since Ike was fleeing and Frank Mclaury was out in the middle of Freemont St., it would have been either Billy Clanton or Tom McLaury that hit the wagon. I don't know if Tom was responsible but the two shots Coleman referred to keeps the question of Tom's being armed alive because it is not at all clear that Billy was in a position to have hit that wagon. Tom, on the other hand, was standing on the street directly in line to where the two shoots ended up.

Actually, in his testimony, Wyatt didn't claim to have seen Tom fire. He said he was under the impression that Tom fired. It was Virgil who said he saw Tom shoot over the horse. This seems to be what Wyatt told Bat Masterson. Some of this confusion comes from a certain reading of Mrs. J.C. Collier's newspaper interview wherein she says she saw a cowboy shoot under his horse's neck. While some researchers have viewed this as confirmation that Tom McLaury did actually fire during the street fight. It could also be argued that Mrs. Collier was really describing Frank McLaury shooting back toward the Earps as he exited the lot while pulling his horse behind him. However, if you believe it was Frank she was referring to (and by her own account she was a block or so away from the fight) then your left answering the question of how and why a man with a fresh gut wound was still clutching his horse as he stumbled out into the street while attempting to return fire? (Buckeyes1, 7/1/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckeyes1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is even worse for a guy with 12 buckshot through this chest from right to left through the thorax. :) You can shoot while gut-shot, but try it while not being able to breathe. But as noted below, C. H. Light saw Tom fall long before Frank, who was messing with this horse in the middle of the street, lost it and then went down. So that's the end of it. That guy shooting over the horse with pistol, was Frank. Not as interesting as the various descriptors have it, but interesting enough. SBHarris 21:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I don’t think it’s quite as black & white a question as your reply makes it seem. Tom was indeed shot as you say however, I beleive that those people who believe he was armed and did fire over (or under) his horse beleive he did so 'before" Doc leveled the fatal blast. As I mentioned in a previous comment, a second ‘forgotten’ witness was Mrs. J.C. Colyer of Kansas City, who was visiting with her sister in Tombstone that day. When the shooting erupted, Mrs. Colyer was sitting in a buggy in front of the post office on the southeast corner of Fremont and Fourth streets, less than a block away from the vacant lot. She returned to Kansas City, and her belated account of the gunfight was published in the December 30, 1881, issue of the Tombstone Epitaph: ‘The cowboys opened fire on them. And you never saw such shooting. One of the cowboys, after he had been shot three times, raised himself on his elbow and shot one of the officers and fell back dead….[A]nother used his horse as a barricade and shot under his neck.’ And since other testimony confirms that neither Billy Clanton nor Frank McLaury ever got behind a horse to use it as a barricade, then it could only have been Tom McLaury that Mrs. Colyer saw shooting under the horse’s neck. The biggest key to the question of whether Tom McLaury had a gun is the testimony of another impartial witness, laundryman Peter H. Fellehy. According to the wording of the Hayhurst transcript of the coroner’s inquest, Fellehy testified: After the shooting commenced…,[t]he younger one of the Earps was firing at a man behind the horse. Holliday was also firing at the same man behind the horse, and firing at a man who had run by him to the opposite side of the street. Then I see the man who had the horse let go the reins of the bridle and kept staggering all the time, until he fell on his back near a horse. He still held his pistol in his hand, but [I] did not see it go off after he had fell. I then went to the young man who was lying on the sidewalk and offered to pick him up….I picked up a revolver that was lying five feet from him and laid it at his side. This was the man that lay on the north side of Fremont Street. Fellehy’s words make it clear that the ‘man behind the horse’ that Doc and Morgan were shooting at was a different man than the one that Doc shot at who ran ‘to the opposite side of the street’ and collapsed on the sidewalk on the north side of Fremont Street. Based on other testimony in the Spicer hearing, we know that this second man, who led his horse out of the vacant lot but was never behind the horse, and who then fell on the north side of Fremont Street, was Frank McLaury. So Fellehy’s ‘man behind the horse’ has to be either Billy Clanton or Tom McLaury. And we also know from other testimony that Billy Clanton never got near his horse. Therefore, Fellehy’s ‘man behind the horse’ who ‘fell on his back near a horse ‘ and’still held his pistol in his hand’ could only have been Tom McLaury. But this basic Fellehy evidence doesn’t stop there. I emphasized the word ‘horse’ in Fellehy’s testimony, because the wording in the versions of his testimony that appeared in the Nugget and the Epitaph contains two startling exceptions to the wording in the Hayhurst transcript: The Nugget states that the ‘man with the horse…was staggering all the time until he fell; he had his pistol still when he fell.’ And the Epitaph version quotes Fellehy as saying, ‘Then I saw the man who held the horse let go the bridle and keep staggering until he fell, his back within a few feet of a house; had a pistol in his hand, but I did not see it go off.’ And so, we see that the Hayhurst transcript version of Fellehy’s testimony states that the ‘man behind the horse’ with a pistol fell on his back near a ‘horse,’ while the Epitaph version states that he fell with his back within a few feet of a ‘house.’ That difference in one letter in one word of Fellehy’s testimony brings us to the witness you mentioned above, ‘mining man’ Charles Hamilton ‘Ham’ Light, who was in his room at the Aztec House on the corner of Third and Fremont streets when he heard two shots and ‘jumped’ to his side window on Third Street looking up Fremont Street. According to the October 29 Nugget, Light testified, ‘I saw a man reel and fall on the corner of Fremont and Third streets on the south side, right directly on the corner of the house….I saw another man standing, leaning, against a building joining the vacant lot….The man never stirred after he fell at the corner of the street….I did not see that man fire any shot.’ Because Light didn’t see the beginning of the gunfight, he also couldn’t have seen the man who fell on the corner fire any shots. But Light’s testimony clearly identifies two different men being shot on the south side of Fremont street — Billy Clanton leaning against the Harwood house in the vacant lot, and Tom McLaury falling on the southeast corner of Fremont and Third. Therefore, Light’s man beside the ‘house’ confirms that Fellehy’s man with a ‘pistol’ beside the ‘house’ — not Hayhurst’s ‘horse’ — could only have been the same man, Tom McLaury. (Buckeyes1, 7/2/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added byBuckeyes1 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that, in the section of the main article titled A legacy of questions, a warning is appended to the unidentified "episode of Discovery Channel's Unsolved History". All I was able to find out is that Shoot-Out at the O.K. Corral figures as Episode no.10 in the List of episodes in Unsolved History, with no indication of date.

Some details about a DVD titled Shoot Out at the O.K. Corral (and presumably containing the videorecording of the aired episode), can be found at the website of the Public Library, Call #: 979.1 U59w and also atAmazon.com, ASIN: B000MWFTZC.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the warning appended to the unidentified "episode of Discovery Channel's Unsolved History", and replaced it with a footnote essentially detailing the above info.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Guadalupe Canyon

There exists an article (which is in sad need of attension) on the Guadalupe Canyon Massacre of August, 1881. It cites a "theory" that Earps and Holliday somehow slipped away from Tombstone down to the AZ/NM/Sonora Mexico "three corners" area[1]. The problem with the "theory" is that there's basically no evidence for it. 5 men were killed in the ambush but 2 survived, and both of *them* said they saw Mexicans doing the shooting. Perhaps the Earps and Holliday were up behind a grassy knoll, controlling the Mexicans. If so, history is silent. I personally think the Mexicans acted alone. I'm not willing to have conspiracy theorists ruin a perfectly good historical article like one on the O.K. Corral. SBHarris 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Billy's wound

[An interesting discussion which probably deserves to be preserved here]

Regarding your recent edit, I'm curious about the details of your edit summary. You edited the article text to say:

Billy Clanton was shot through the right arm, close to the wrist joint (Keefe testified the bullet passed through the arm from "inside to outside," entering the arm close to the base of the thumb, and exiting "on the back of the wrist diagonally" with the latter wound larger)

With this in the edit summary:

Difficult for bullet to go from thumb to outside of arm with arm in any "up" position. This becomes important to final Spicer verdict)

I'm not an expert on this particular gunfight or the Spicer verdict you mention, but if you mean to say that the injury would be difficult to sustain if Clanton were in the act of surrender with arms raised, I disagree.. It's difficult to explain using text but if Clanton had his right hand raised that injury seems entirely consistent... especially if the attacker was firing from Clanton's left. Robotsintrouble 07:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything works from Clanton's left, agreed. But if the attackers are facing squarely off, which I can't imagine them not doing in the circumstances described, it just doesn't work. Also, Billy, if he uses his right arm first to fire with, is going to have right side toward attackers, if anything. Again, no way for a bullet to hit his inside-thumb part of wrist and exit at the back, behind the hand. Not with hand up in surrender.SBHarris 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, pleased to meet you too... but I don't follow your logic. First, the fog of combat and time make this discussion academic without a better record of the original autopsy records. Then again, I'm something of an academic so I don't mind a little intellectual exercise.

In an attempt to show the anatomical contradiction in your argument, let us assume for a moment that the fighters were indeed in a standoff, and that Clayton's pistol was pointed at his assailants. In this posture, the only angles of attack from which a bullet could enter his inner arm and exit through the wrist are at least slightly to the attacker's left (unless Doc Holliday called in aerial support). While this by itself is completely plausible given the close range of the gunfight (mostly 10 feet or less according to the article), the resulting injury track would likely travel towards his elbow before exiting.

This matters because of one detail: I note that you've changed the wording of the original text slightly: according to the quote, the entry wound was at the inside (ventral/palmar surface) of his arm, not his wrist as you just said. This is in contrast to the exit wound, which is specifically described as being from the back of his wrist. If Clayton were pointing his pistol anywhere near his attackers, it should be the other way around-- entry wound closer to the hand (distal end of the arm), exit closer to the elbow (proximal end of the arm).

In order for the wound to exit from the back of the wrist after entering the inner arm near the thumb, one of the following is true:

• One or more of our many assumptions is wildly incorrect (most likely)
• The attacker was almost directly to Clayton's left (or to the left of where his pistol was pointed)
• Clayton had thrown up his hands, in which case this wound is completely plausible: he would have turned his hands, and thus the inside surface of his arms, towards his assailaints. —The preceding unsignedcomment was added by Robotsintrouble (talk •contribs) 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

• Back in the bad old days there often were no autopsies-- certainly not full ones-- and there was none here. The doctor acting as temporary Coroner in the case, Dr. Harry M. Mathews, only describes the fatal wounds (and then only from superficial exam of the stripped bodies), and ignores the wrist altogether. The ONLY description we have of Billy's wrist is that of Thomas Keefe, a witness and carpenter, who felt the wounds on the dead Billy, and even poked a finger into one to the bone (rather in the matter of Thomas the Apostle, one supposes) to see for himself. He testifies in the Spicer hearing. Nobody else says anything about the matter until Judge Spicer declares in this judgement that "William Clanton was wounded on the wrist of the right hand on the first fire and thereafter used his pistol with the left. The wound is not such as could have been received with the hands thrown up, and the wound received by Thomas McLaury was such as could not be received with his hands on his coat lapels." Regard this, Spicer had seen during the trial a demo, and the only document we have of this reads exactly:

  In response to shot on wrist: "It went from the inside to the outside." Course of ball was diagnonal across the wrist [here witness illustrates upon the arm of Mr. Fitch, the direction in which the ball passed through the arm of Billy Clanton, by showing that the ball entered nearly in line with the base of the thumb, and emerged on the back of the wrist diagonally.] Says the orifice on the outside of the wrist was the largest. Did not see any powder burn on Billy Clanton's body or clothing."

  So far as I know, that's all the info history has for us. Except that we know the demo apparently convinced the judge.

  From our description we can put this in various ways-- obviously in anatomic position the base of thumb is lateral with arm down and there's no way to get a bullet into it except to rotate the forearm somewhat inward so the thumbside (what we usually call the lateral side of the forearm) is more forward, so it can receive a bullet. You can do that easily with the arm down and rotated 45 degrees inward, naturally. It's very hard to get into that position (thumb forward, ventral surface diagonally exactly behind, to allow a posterior exit on the ventral/back wrist) with the arm UP. Because you really have to crank that arm around to get the thumb in front, with the arm raised. That's what the judge apparently concluded.We have only verbal description.

  Finally, I might add that the bullet may well have hit Billy while he was in the act of drawing his pistol from a holster, which would for a moment have put him in exactly the right position to get a bullet above the thumb and out through the back of the wrist. Try it. SBHarris 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the one problem I have with Alford E. Turner's reconstruction The OK Corral Inquest. Turner says that the first shot to hit Billy was fired by Morgan Earp and hit him in the chest. The fact is that the chest wound was in the left breast, above the nipple. This was the killing shot. Morgan and Holliday opened the firing (Wyatt aparently lied on this point to protect his brother and his friend), with Doc Holliday drawing his pistol, shoving it into Frank McLaury's belly and then stepping back a couple of paces. He and Morgan fired almost simultaneously. Morgan's shot would have been the one that hit Billy in the wrist as he drew, forcing Billy to continue the fight by firing left handed. He showed his mettle, however, by hitting at least two of the Earp Party before going down himself.~~Doktorschley. 2 March 2008.

A. Bauer (who knew none of the men) saw a man we presume to be Doc poke one of the cowboys in the stomach with a "large bronze pistol". Doc himself was mentioned to carry a nickel-plated pistol, so if this was Doc, he wasn't using his pistol to poke with. But the mystery is easily solved if we remember that Doc has a very short barrelled coach gun shotgun, which presumably would have been the right color and size. Bauer, a dressmaker, cannot have been expected to know this if Doc was holding the weapon one-handed. Light's testimony suggests Tom was hit early in the first two shots, and we know that was a shotgun blast from doc. That would put this early in the fight. The idea that Doc poked Frank has no basis that I know of. Doc would not have carried a loaded shotgun while using a pistol in a close up gunfight-- that's simply crazy. Wyatt said one of the first two shots was him shooting Frank, and this may be true. He also said the other was Billy shooting at him, and I think this is NOT true, and covers for Doc. Old timers do think Doc fired first. They are probably right, but it was surely with the shotgun. SBHarris 04:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fascinating historical aside. In fact, I had the same thought myself - a bullet impact in the act of drawing a pistol - a few hours after leaving the comment. An interesting little snippet of history.. I've never actually seen Tombstone (movie), do you have any films you would recommend that re-enact the battle? I'm particularly interested in the story of Doc Holliday. Robotsintrouble 05:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The best I know of so far are Tombstone and the Costner Wyatt Earp. Both are much closer to history than anything before, though the O.K. sequence will necessarily be short and not complete. The Doc in both of them is pretty good. Kilmer and Quaid are both excellent. SBHarris 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The best and most historically accurate re-enactment I've ever seen is from an old TV series from the early '70s titled David L. Wolper presents "Shootout at the O.K. Corral". Narrated by none other than Bonanza's Lorne Greene. Extremely difficult to find now-a-days but well worth the time if you can find a copy. Also, the old TV series "You are There" presented a rather accurate re-enactment also with the added bonus of going into the build up that lead to the shootout. That one is available at Amazon.com I believe. (Buckeyes1, 7/1/08)

Wes Claiborne?

I see other sources on the net say that he wasn't even there. Do we have reliable sources to place him there? Arker21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a Wes Fuller and a Billy Claiborne. Who exactly are you talking about? SBHarris 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Note left for last editor

Would you stop deleting the fact tags in the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral article? The fact tags asking for citations in how the fighters were armed, are there for a reason. I want to know why you think you know this information. We know how Frank and Billy were armed, from the serial numbers on their Colt Single Action Army .44-40 "Frontier Six Shooters" given at the Spicer hearing. These have been been traced by Alford Turner and are given in his book The O.K. Corral Inquest (1981) [2]. Turner states we don't know for sure what anybody else had that day, and so far as I know, he's right. So if you know more, cite your sources. Otherwise this material is going to go as "guessed" from various places. I'm formally asking you to stop putting in history you have no source for.SBHarris 06:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wes Fuller, participant in the gunfight?

In the article's introduction, it groups Wes Fuller as a participant in the gunfight on the cowboys' side. I'm surprised to read this. Wikipedia, in fact, is the only place I've ever read such a claim, though it is not repeated in the article's main body. According to Paula Marks's And Die in the West, and according to Fuller himself, he was "on his way to warn Billy [Clanton] to get out of town when he saw the confrontation develop from a position in the alley behind Fly's" (pg. 222). As far as I can tell historians have always viewed him as just a witness, no different than John Behan or Billy Allen. No one, that I can tell, claims he fired a shot, or was shot at. Why then has he been thrown into the middle of it here?

Also, this article claims Fuller was a member of the "Cowboy Gang," which I took to mean he was a cowboy like the victims. For what it's worth, Marks says he claimed his occupation was a gambler when he gave his testimony on the gunfight, so perhaps it would be best to just call him "a friend of the cowboys". 71.129.81.136 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are completely right. Fuller wasn't part of the original article, and somebody keeps adding him as a participant. If you believe the testimony of Fuller himself, as you note, he wasn't. I've fixed it. SBHarris 05:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Biased

I have been doing a personal study of the O.K. Coral shootout for a history progect. After Reading most if not all of the trial testimonials i was convinced for the cowboy side, in a non-conventional way-Virgil was the real cause of the killing(in my opinion)to me he purposly took holliday with him not to hide a shotgun as your article says but to start the fight (why in his right mind would he bring a drunk man to hide a shotgun)if you would try to show a little more dead cowboy piont of view it would help the articles quality alot thank you 66.182.95.86 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We have no evidence that Doc was drunk. SBHarris 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But why would he bring Doc, who had already threatened Ike, to confront them. There were several other people that offered there help, but Virgil decided to bring someone that had already had a motive and had threatened to kill a member of the group. I think that was the users point. Damian

Can't tell you for sure what was going through Virgil's mind, but Virgil said later that Doc always showed up when there posse work to be done. He'd ridden with the Earps many times in the past in that role, and probably expected to be included. That day he had a long coat which could hide a shotgun, so he was extra-useful. If he looked sober, Virgil probably figured he was a fearless posseman. Virgil did have some reason to exclude him, but Ike had had hard words with Wyatt, and doubtless with Virgil and Morgan too, earlier, when they had brained him and taken his weapons. Who was Virgil going to bring that he trusted, and who Ike had NOT threatened?? Ike threatned all the Earps and Holliday that day. And Frank had basically done the same some days earlier, when Virgil had re-arrested Pete Spence, and thereby pissed off the entire Clanton/McLaury faction. This was a no-win situation. The Cowboys didn't recognize the authority of *anybody* in law enforcement. They wanted VIRGIL disarmed. They didn't hate Behen, but they totally ignored him, too. Virgil was in the position of either 1) Taking people the Cowboys didn't fear (who would no doubt be ignored like Behan), or else 2) Taking people the Cowboys DID fear, but who then would be accused of having a reason to do violence to the Cowboys. A lose-lose proposition. SBHarris 01:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This response is totally accurate, and even Judge Spicer notes the absurdity of the Cowboys' insistence that the law enforcement officers be disarmed. No one even disputes these claims, as members of the cowboy faction actually made them publicly. Reading the terstimony of the disinterested parties to fight, as Judge Spicer did, demonstrates that the Cowboys were lying in most of their particulars, and that the idiotic Ike Clanton even undercut his own testimony. Behan was complicitous with the Cowboys, and probably held his position out of their sufferance.~~Doktorschley. 2 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorschley (talk • contribs) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No single perspective can claim accuracy when arguing a point in history. It is known that multiple witnesses to the onslaught saw Billy's hands in the air as he was killed. It is known that Tom McLaury was not armed. All stories corroborated except Wyatt's until Ike Clanton's convoluted testimony corrupted the defense's case. Ike's inconsistencies were about an unrelated event, namely the stagecoach robbery. Let's remember, folks, in order to convict a Marshall and his brothers of murder in the far west in 1881 you would need a case that was 110% solid. Ike was an idiot and certainly didn't have the organizational abilities nor the aptitude to work within the status quo that Wyatt Earp did, as was shown during this trial. Without every element suffering the acid test and coming out unscathed Wyatt and his Gang would walk. And what happened? They walked. -Kieran McLaury Taylor99.141.56.160 (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the Cowboys raised their hands into the air was cooked up by Behan, Ike Clanton, and others of that party to make the accusation of premeditated murder stick. Yet this claim does not jibe with the wound in Billy's right wrist, which had to be made while drawing his gun right-handed. It also is contradicted by the unaffiliated witnesses, such as Addie Bourland, who was more than willing to implicate the Earps, describing Doc Holliday as drawing a bronze pistol and shoving it into Frank McLaury's stomach and stepping back before the shooting started. If the Earps wanted to shoot unarmed surrendering men, they could easily have shot down Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne. This fact came out in the Spicer hearing. The McLaury entry above that Wyatt and or Holliday had a hand in robbing the stage is totally abstruse: it has no basis in fact and appears to have been fabricated by Ike. His claims in this regard are again contradicted by the fact that Wyatt could easily have shot Ike down in the street when Ike was unarmed and did not. At least Wyatt thought it was a fight only between armed men, and his actions bear that out. To speak of "Wyatt and his Gang" is really interesting, since Virgil Earp was the leader of the Earp faction at this time. Only when Virgil was crippled and Morgan was dead did Wyatt form his famous posse and set out to eliminate those who remained of the Clanton-McLaury group. Interestingly enough, Wyatt, Holliday and the rest of this group did not immediately kill Ike Clanton and his father. I hope I am not stepping on family toes here.Doktorschley (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Billy Clanton's "only" photograph

The caption under the photo of the deceased McLaury brothers and Billy Clanton says that it is "the only known photograph" of Clanton, however I just returned from a trip to Tombstone and there is a sign/map at the site of the shootout with a picture of all participants, including Billy Clanton. Just a heads-up.

There are no known photos of Billy except the one of him in his coffin. A "picture" is not a photograph. If you saw anything which purported to be a photo, it was a fake one. Which wouldn't be unusual for Tombstone. SBHarris 05:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources?

I'm not saying that there is any false information, my knowledge of American history has never been that extensive beyond surface details. I was just curious why the article doesn't seem to cite any actual sources. It is at all possible that the person (or persons) who wrote the article are knowledgeable and wrote based on credible research and reference materials. I'm just wondering why none of the sources seem to be cited in the article itself. It just seemed to me that something as mythologized, fictionalized and retold from a number of complex and contradictory perspectives should be clearly and articulately based upon in depth factual research that is actually cited. Again, not saying that it is wrong, just that I don't see any footnotes on research material used in the article. Maybe I am wrong, and I am just missing what is being cited, but I just wanted to point this out in case there is a correction that should be made.

Ideally, all Wikipedia articles will eventually have footnotes listing references. If there's any particular statement you're especially unsure about, add a to it and hopefully someone with the material on hand will quickly add an appropriate reference. 69.108.230.116 12:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well here's nice story on Billy, some of your answers should be answered:

True story, gunfight at the o.k. corral

Imdb info http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050468/ as article says

The "nice story on Billy" is rife with inaccuracies. Love the Atari 2600 recreation of the gunfight though! Kkbay(talk) 22:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the article is about, I don't see a problem with including links to information about related topics, such as the imdb link - that's the purpose of external links: Even if this article was perfect, it wouldn't have that information on the movie, however it is very closely related and contributes to the reader's understanding of the topic. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue is directly addressed by Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided (item 13). The IMDB link does not directly relate to the topic of this article and thus should not be included here. It instead relates directly to Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957 film) where a link to the IMDB page already exists. There is also a link to the article about the film available in this article's Representation in film, TV and literature section. Thus the information you wish to see included is available at the cost of an extra click without causing confusion to anyone following the link from this page only to find that the IMDB page provides no information directly tied to this article's topic. --Allen3 ^talk 18:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of sources, what is left out here is Alford E. Turner's OK Corral Inquest--the complete documents from the Spicer hearing. Reading Judge Spicer's treatment, it is clear that he disspelled the competing claims of the Earps and Holliday on one hand, and Behan and the Cowboys on the other. The deciding testimony was provided by seamstress Addie Bourland, across the street from the gunfight, and Cochise County Probate Judge J.H. Lucas, across the street and about 200 feet away in the Mining Exchange Building. The testimony of these two disinterested persons refuted claims by Behan, et al., that Billy Clanton had thrown up his hands at Virgil Earp's command, and that Tom McLaury had thrown open his vest to show that he was unarmed. Interestingly enough, editor Turner, one of the leading authorities on the Earps at the time, concluded that Doc Holliday and Morgan Earp had opened the firing almost simultaneously, hitting Frank McLaury (Holliday, with a pistol to the stomach) and Billy Clanton (Morgan Earp; probably to Billy Clanton's right wrist, which is why witnesses reported that he was firing left-handed). That Tom McLaury was unarmed is doubtful, and it is likely that Behan or some other Cowboy confederate removed his pistol surreptitiously. Certainly, the Earps could have shot down both Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne, who ran through the middle of the fight, but did not do so. No one confuted Wyatt Earp's testimony that he screamed at Ike Clanton, "Commence to fighting or get away!" Given these facts, Tom McLaury probably was firing as Wyatt testified, but had his gun spirited away by a confederate after the shooting was done and the street was littered with the dead (3) and wounded (3). I'm of a mind to revised these parts of the account with copious notes. I am glad to see that someone had the sense to cite Marks' And Die in the West, which points out the determination of Morgan Earp and Doc Holliday to open the fray, as related by Martha King, who was in the Butcher Shop on Fremont Street when the Earp's passed. Marks' work, nevertheless, is an apology for the Cowboy side. I prefer Alford E. Turner's more critical work, with its detailed reliance on the public testimony and his own copious notes on the course of events.~~Doktorschley 2 March 2008 —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Doktorschley (talk •contribs) 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the transcript of Inquest and Trial (both partly available online, but completely available with additional valuable commentary in Alford Turner, are THE primary sources for all this. If you have something that disagrees with this stuff (which disagrees with itself, but is at least contemporary and taken under oath), you might want to question it.

As to whether or not Tom was armed, my guess is not. Turner thinks so (see pg 202) but I think he's wrong. C. H. "Ham" Light, no friend of the Earps (in fact a mining business partner of Stilwell's!) saw most of the fight from the Aztec House, which still stands, just northwest of the site at 3rd and Fremont. Light testifies at the earlier Inquest (not the later trial, where he does not testify) that he heard the first two shots of the fight, and reached the window while all participants were still standing. Billy was at the house corner shooting, and others were shooting him. Somebody was out in the street with a horse (this would have to be Frank, with his own horse-- it wasn't Tom, for reasons which will be coming). And there was Doc, getting hit and turning around from a bullet struck to the hip, but not falling (so this was not Morgan). The most important thing Light saw was that immediately after the first couple of shots, and while everybody else was still firing, Tom was already running away from the battle, going West on Fremont, to fall at the corner of Fremont and 3rd-- a run and fall that Light saw. So he'd been hit before Light ever saw him, as also concluded by Light. Now, we know two relevant things: The shotgun was used by Holliday early, perhaps in one of the two first shots, because nobody who is burdened with a shotgun (and isn't used to it) starts off shooting a pistol one-handed while they dangle a loaded shotgun (even a short coach gun in the other!). Bourland's testimony also implicates a very large pistol, which was probably the coach gun. Tom was hit by NOTHING other than this shotgun blast, which was early, and nobody else HAD a shotgun. Thus, Tom was hit in first few seconds of the fight. And was already running like hell to get away, by the time Light looked in on the first part of the fight. Nobody gets a double load of 12 buckshot though the chest side-to-side, and then starts shooting off a pistol. Nor did Tom really have TIME to do this. Light says the guy lying at the corner (who is surely Tom) lay there nearly the whole time of the fight and must have been one of the first people shot. Clear enough? If Tom was armed, he didn't use his weapon-- he just didn't have time or means.

The guy in the street with the horse, shooting after this, mistaken for Tom by many, was instead his brother Frank-- which is natural because it was Frank's horse, after all (also the two looked a lot like each other, if you see the caskets pic).

And if all that's not enough, we know where Tom's weapon was-- half a block away, fully loaded, at the Capitol Saloon, as testified to by Andrew Mehan, bar-keep, where Tom had left it between 1 and 2 pm on the day of the fight. (Turner knows this, but refuses to believe it!) The idea that Tom picked up a second pistol on 4th Street (Spangenberg's) or on Allen (The Butcher shop) just before the fight, means he would have had to walk it right by where his own pistol was checked at 4th and Fremont, to get to the fight! Those people who think they saw Tom get a pistol at the butcher's really saw no pistol but infered it. They SAW him get something to bulge his pants pocket. We know what may not have been anything but a lot of money and receipts, which were found on his body.

Was Tom armed all night? Of course, since he didn't drop off his pistol till the next day. Was he armed when Wyatt buffaloed him, at just about the same time he dropped his pistol off? Very probably. Bauer said he saw Tom at the Capitol Saloon AFTER Bauer himself saw Tom pistolwhipped by Wyatt. So either Tom visited that saloon twice that day (once just before being beaten and once after) or else (as seems more likely), he went there shortly after being beaten to drop off his pistol and get a drink. SBHarris 21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources and <! tags

I removed all the thoughts within the <! tags; they were pointless and unsubstantiated to boot. I also put some citation needed tags in, since, as someone mentioned above, we don't have many resources proving what seem to be opinions. -CaptainJae12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Harwood house

The "Harwood house" which is at the corner of 3rd and Fremont today, wasn't there in 1908 (see the photo in the article). I believe it was removed to another position and then returned to its present place. However, it was not the house against which the gunfight occurred and Billy Clanton died. The testimony at the hearing makes clear that in 1881 there were two houses "below" (West) of Fry's, and these on maps show as the McDonald House and the Harwood house, which was on the corner (in the same position as now). The gunfight lot was very narrow--scarely an alley (and may actually have been an alley, and an alternate entrance to the Corral lot, accounting for a lot of confused history, and for Wyatt's "bad" drawing of 1926). But the narrowness is also alluded to, in testimony. Both houses also show in an 1881 photo made by Fly from the hill to the West of town, which is reprinted in closeup in places like Bob Boze Bell's illustrated books on the fight. In 1881, two houses are (again) seen to the West of Fly's, before 3rd street. Presumably the closest to Fly's is the McDonald house, though nobody mentions it by name in the Inquest or Trial. However, the house on the corner was where the dead and dying were taken, possibly because Tom McLaury was closest to it. We don't know why, but if Tom (nearest to death when found) was taken to one house, the one nearest to him on the corner, then the other two men would have been taken there also, by default. I've changed some text. I think Turner himself may be wrong on this point. I'll have cites in a bit from the Inquest/Trial transcripts, which are the primary sources for everything. SBHarris 03:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for confusing the McDonald and Harwood houses...a careless mistake on my part.Jmtremg (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding C.S. Fly and mention of Jersey's Livery Stable, this info was found on the web site www-legendsofamerica-dot-com.

Very tendentious edits

"Wyatt shouldn't have been armed by this point either, but felt securely "on the side of the law", which would be to say, above the law."

In court, Wyatt said he considered himself a deputy town marshal under his brother, as he had temporarily held the town marshal's just just a couple of weeks before when Virgil was in Tucson, and hadn't been "undeputized". This statement was made in open court and the defense had every change to attack it as being unfactural, but they did not. Apparently Wyatt did indeed serve in his brother's capacity as chief of police. That makes him a deputy. There's circumstantial evidence that he wasn't drawing pay to do this and was not carrying a badge to do this, at the time of the shootout, but that only means he didn't have to work regular police deputy shifts. As an off duty lawman he had every right to carry a concealed weapon, just as off duty peace officers do today. So, you're wrong about the "above the law" part. Now, you can question nepotism and say Virgil shouldn't have been apointing his brother for high position, just as JFK wasn't supposed to make Bobby Kennedy (who'd never tried a legal case in his life) attorney general of the US. But that's a problem for the voter; it's not a problem of legality. And in this case, the voter had their say, and they said nothing. We have no record of petitions from townspeople that Virgil had left the city and left Wyatt Earp in charge!

I have the same complaint about your edits that Wyatt was ready to commit "homicide". Wyatt had every chance to commit homicide against Tom McLaury and especially against Ike Clanton. He didn't shoot either of them. Ike had been armedw with rifle and pistol and drunkenly hunting Holiday hours before-- that would have got him killed by a SWAT team today. I find Virgil and Wyatt's policing, considering the provokation, quite exceptional. The key thing about Oct. 26 is that Ike Clanton lived through it. He shouldn't have. Even today, he probably wouldn't have, and no court would have held the officers liable. SBHarris 01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• My edits were indeed tendentious, even biased. My name is Kieran McLaury Taylor and I have been taught the story of the massacre at the OK Corral as perpetrated by Wyatt Earp, allowed by his brother Virgil and assisted by Doc Holiday since I was just a wee child. You guys have obviously done your homework but is anyone aware of the relationship between the Earp family and the King Ranch? Thought about what the King Ranch might stand to gain if the heirs of the Clanton dynasty were to up and git killed? Wyatt knew he could do anything he wanted in Tombstone, and most of Arizona, including beat the tar out of a passerby for acquaintanceship with one of Wyatt's annoyances. There was good reason the Cowboys were frightened of disarming. They were on their way out of town and Wyatt had been trying to get away with killing them all day long. By some accounts they may have considered themselves out of town already, and Wyatt finally got what he was looking for: a pile of dead Cowboys. I'll remind you that Wyatt was vying for sheriff and randomly killing people was probably not in the interest of his long-term goals. Playing drama-queen and taking Ike's posturing personally, implicating several more individuals (whom he did his best to determine were unarmed) and then killing them all was far more defensible in court, as he proved quite effectively. Incidentally, do off-duty lawmen get to pistol whip individuals in the midst of arguments these days? How about on-duty lawmen? If Tom had a gun and that gave Wyatt the right to attack him, why wasn't Tom arrested? Why, at the very least, wasn't Tom relieved of his weapon? (Remember, we're talking about one of those dangerous, no-account, murderous Cowboys here). If Tom didn't have a weapon and Wyatt was just tipping towards psychotic, why was Virgil willing to assist him in pursuing his political aspirations? Well, because they're family, man. The description you give of The Cowboys seem more applicable to the structure of the law at that time and place. The argument that Wyatt's gang was just a bunch of innocent, upstanding fellows doesn't make sense in the context of Arizona during that time-period and most certainly not in terms of their handling of one loud-mouth punk (Ike) and a couple of guys in town on BUSINESS (my cousins).

  This is my first experiment with editing on wikipedia. I'm glad I could do it and I'm glad I haven't destroyed your guys's work, though I think it mostly banal, pedantic and one-sided. It seems you are being as honest as you can, considering your sources. You are, for the most part, literally, reading from the pages of history, written in the crookedest town in the West. As we all know, post-Doctorates and hacks alike: history is written by the survivors, and that's just what Wyatt Earp meant to insure. My intention has been to shake things up here and give the world a different perspective on events upon which we can only speculate at this great distance. Oh, and just a tad bit to annoy you dudes that read a consensus amongst a crooked judge and his testifying, murderous, crooked lawmen and decide that equals the truth. (I would have been happy to begin my rant on the talk page had I known it existed **sorry for the inconvenience**)99.141.56.160 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kieran: I would only say that Wyatt and the Earps did not own Arizona, and that if they had had ties that deep to the King Ranch in Texas, they would have sought refuge there, not, as they did, in New Mexico first, then Colorado, and finally California. The King Ranch never took over the area around Tomstone or the Clanton holdings. Wyatt ended up a Californian, living with Johnny Behan's former commonlaw wife as his own commonlaw wife, and successfully mining a small ore claim. I do not think of the Earps and Holliday as white knights, but as hard men who were willing to do what it took to survive and uphold their interests. The cold-blooded killing took place in reprisal for the assassination of Morgan Earp and the wounding of Virgil, not at the OK Corral. The physical evidence of the fight is the Morgan and Doc were determined to shoot it out with the Cowboys, and that the Cowboys were determined to fight, hence Billy Clanton's wound in the right wrist, received as he drew his gun. I don't find any credible evidence that anyone other than the Earp party fired first. Morgan and Holliday fired first, as they had decided on the way down the street, but Wyatt and Virgil were not in on this. Virgil actually carried a cane in his right hand to demonstrate that he was not coming for a gunfight. He even called for his own side to halt as he heard hammers click back. On the other hand, Wyatt's claim that he and Billy opened the firing was contrived (as Josie Marcus forthrightly stated in her own account) to secure his innocence--and that of his entire party--from a charge of premeditated murder. Family histories are often deliberately constructed to support a particular interpretation. I was always taught that my family was Confederate, but research shows that they were Southerners who fought for the Union. It was quite a shock to learn that the Confederate connection, as related by my father was completely fictional. We were and remain Southerners by culture, just as the Earps were Unionists. But our politics I learned about 8 years ago (after believing otherwise for over 40 years) were Unionist. C'est la vie!Doktorschley (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Earp Brothers of Tombstone was purportedly written by Virgil Earp's wife Allie. However, the incidents in the book are almost certainly fabricated by an "editor" (see Barra, 1998, book postscript). The same is true for much of I married Wyatt Earp which has been shamelessly fictionalized on top of a manuscript which doesn't contain specifics about the gunfight (Yes, Boyer made these up). As for the people in the Fremont meatmarket who heard Morgan tell Holliday "let them have it," it's meaningless without the prelude words, if any. If they'd been heard to say "Let them have it, no matter what," that would have been different. But for all we know, somebody caught only the tail-end of "If they make a move for their guns, let them have it," which might have been the whole sentence.

I suspect Holliday's was one of the first two shots, from both the unusual amount of smoke and big report heard in the first two shots, and the fact that Tom (shot by Holliday) is shot early (since he's seen running away before most of the fight shots are fired). But we don't know who fired the other shot. It could as easily have been Frank as Morgan. I think Billy too young and Wyatt too cool to have done it, but we'll probably never know.

And yes, the North-South thing, only 16 years after the Civil War, was very much alive in the City/Fed/Yankee/urban/Republican gambler politics of the Eastern Earps, vs. the Rural/County-Sheriff/Democratic/Southern Cowboy politics of the ex-Texans on the other side. That's how history goes.SBHarris 09:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lack of death certificates for the cowboys

The State of Arizona does not seem to have death certificates on file for anyone surnamed Clanton or McLaury (or any of the usual variations of McLaury accounted for in Irish or Scots family histories in North America) for the period 1880 to 1882. Rather odd. Would such have been "sealed" in the matter of a suspect who died in an officer involved shooting? Thanks.208.127.133.133 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The abbreviation "O.K." in "O.K. Corral"

What does the "O.K." in "O.K. Corral" stand for after all? I read through the entire article and discussion, but unless my ADHD let me read over it, it's not written anywhere. Kennin (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I think I read in a magazine that it means Ormsby Kimberly. (Citation needed). Urbanus Secundus (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See the wiki on okay. The abbreviation O.K. had been used for half a century to mean "good" or "in order" before the business in Tombstone. The debate about how it came to be is in the Wiki. It's not germane here, since lots of things were called O.K. by 1881, just as today. SBHarris 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The style, the particulars

Somebody has complained about the style of the report of the action, and I agree, but unfortunately it has been added to by people who think a Western story should have a Western campfire story-style narative. I'll be glad to clean it up if that doesn't dry too much fire.

One thing that is clearly wrong is the recent addition that the lot of the gunfight was being used by Harwood (owner of the house on the corner) to store firewood in. The OK Corral inquest makes note of "two houses" below Fly's (West of Fly's) which would put another structure between Fly's and Harwood's, which contemporary maps put on the corner. That's the McDonald Assay building according to maps, and it was against this that Billy was shot. It no longer stands. But there are clearly two buildings below Fly's in the 1882 photo in Bob Boze Bell's book on the shootout (see his book on Doc Holliday for a closeup), taken from a Fly photo from the Hill West of Tombstone (I forget the name of this hill, but I've stood on it myself). Even Harwood's house wasn't always where it is today: it's gone in the 1908 photo (see the photo in this article) and has obviously been someplace else in Tombstone in the meantime, but since moved back. I don't know this exact history of the perigrinations of the Harwood residence. In any case, it's clear that Billy died in the house near the corner near where Tom fell, and that's presumably the Harwood house. The most badly wounded man (Tom) was taken there, and probably that's why they took Billy there also. I'm not even sure the Assay building was open or livable at the time, and it would not have made sense to put the two wounded men in different buildings next to each other while waiting for the doctor. Frank died where he fell, across Fremont, but his body was eventually taken to the Harwood house also, to await the coroner. SBHarris 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)