Talk:W. D. Jones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1920 Census[edit]

He was listed as "W.D. Jones" and was living with his parents in Van Zandt County, Texas. He was listed, in Janauary of 1920, as 3 6/12 years old. I don't know why, but the birth month is often wrong in census records. However, his age does support 1916 as his birth year. 71.172.26.139 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing blockquote[edit]

This paragraph was added Sept. 15, 2009:

quote

Since portions of this man's entry are unverifiable to begin with, you might as well hear from a family member that his "confession" was agreed to by Bonnie and Clyde. They knew they were going to meet with the law sooner rather than later, because their ability to hide was quickly running out. Their safe houses had dried up, and W.D. was reportedly told by Bonnie and Clyde to "go home and if you get caught tell them whatever you want so that you get a light sentence, no sense in you ending up like us". W.D. Jones was trusted by the gang and had he stuck around, he would have been a casualty in Louisiana. W.D. was a blood relative of mine, and there's always one person in every legend like this who got the dirty end of the stick when the telling's all done. If he had offered any information that was damaging or threatening to their interests, he would never have survived after the telling was done as long as he did. W.D. Jones would likely have died for Bonnie and Clyde if asked.

/quote

This is extremely interesting, especially about the safe houses and what B&C reportedly told WD, but it needs verifiable citations and a neutral point of view to stay in the main article. I hope someone can develop it! LaNaranja (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of this page...[edit]

The hard work of editor LaNaranja has transformed this into one terrific article. A lot of it now should be in the main Bonnie and Clyde article. Thank you, LaNaranja. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's fun to do. I hope other editors will jump in. I think all these more important secondary characters should be developed -- Buck, Ray Hamilton, Ralph Fults, Henry Methvin -- create quite the little nosegay. The Barrow Gang article could be developed too since Clyde had different groups of associates at different periods, for different reasons -- makes the big B&C picture stronger and its details wouldnt have to clutter up the main article. LaNaranja (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph on W.D.'s role in the gang?[edit]

Hello to all editors. I just learned this morning we're not to edit articles without asking permission of the group on the Talk pages first, so I'll propose changes and ask questions regarding this article here. (And will reply and suggest in turn, if anyone asks!:)) Ive already made a lot of changes to it so I cant go back and ask about every one, but I hope editors will presume that every addition or change I've made is only a suggestion, and will step in and boldly correct and add and shape the article with the goal of improving it. I guess you should ask first, though.

Here's a question. The second paragraph in the Platte City-Dexfield Park section, about WD telling Blanche on the morning of the 22nd that he wanted to go home, chronologically belongs there but would better belong, IMO, in a paragraph about WD's relationship with Clyde and his role in the gang. But -- would such a paragraph be considered speculation, or an invitation to readers to speculate and draw conclusions -- influencing them emotionally? There's no statement from Clyde or Bonnie's side on their relationship, only actions, but does even setting forth actions lead the reader to draw conclusions?

I ask because the paragraph includes one of WD's woes, that Clyde was harassing him about Frank Hardy and the D Johnson murder; where would this belong? (It follows the line of thought at Guinn p. 221; Guinn states this about the harassment but doesnt substantiate it. If someone has the source for it, please add!) It's important information and would logically fit in a section about Clyde and WD's relationship since we have no date for it or, so far, any further information about it. But I really think it's out of place in the Dexfield section.

A paragraph on his role would also include what he physically did for the gang -- cut phone lines, steal cars, shoot -- basically act as Clyde's assistant, his right arm. He wasnt a full partner IOW. This is definitely important. (Once Buck came on the full and unflattering measure of WD's value to Clyde was thrown into relief, but that's maybe not necessary to include, though it begs the question why he ran off at Ruston.)

So, what does anyone think about including such a paragraph/section? LaNaranja (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this for a foundation:

W.D. Jones was most useful to Clyde as a right arm, stealing cars, changing tires, climbing poles to cut telephone wires, comforting and quieting Bonnie and Blanche. Though often characterized in the press as "Bonnie and Clyde's driver," W.D. drove only "some," when Clyde was tired.[1] When the gang would visit their families Jones rarely had money or presents to give his mother; Bonnie and Clyde kept all the money the gang stole, doling out a dollar or two at a time to Jones.[2] Blanche Barrow, who knew he was afraid of the dark, felt that he had been impressed by the outlaw life before he actually had to live it, and got in over his head.[3] Facetiously or not, she wrote her mother, "[T]he poor little innocent thing.... should be in his mother's arms with a diaper on."[4] He was less helpful in circumstances that called for suicidal dedication, such as at Joplin[5] and Platte City.[2]

This is what I mean by 'speculative" and 'leading" - footnotes to come - suggestions? Maybe none of it is even necessary.

He told Dallas police that on Christmas Day 1932, just before Doyle Johnson was murdered, he told Clyde he wanted to go home. After the murder of Deputy Davis in January the three spent a merry vacation together, but when Buck and Blanche joined them the group chemistry changed. He kept his plans to leave to himself, and vanished in Ruston as soon as he was well enough to go. He made himself scarce in Dallas, and it appears Mrs. Barrow, Mrs. Parker and LC were protecting him there; according to his confession (and Blanche at p. ) he had to be kidnapped back into the gang. He told Blanche at Dexfield Park that he wanted to go home. Though he may have had Clyde's blessing to blame every serious transgression on those who had nothing to lose, nevertheless, since there is no record of the three communicating again after early September, they likely did not part amicably.

LaNaranja (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph Ive incorporated into the article, though as a footnote.LaNaranja (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference cinetropic.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference confession was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Barrow pp. 42, .
  4. ^ Barrow p. 164.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference joplin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Guinn on Clyde's harassment of Jones re Hardy[edit]

It just dawned on me that Guinn's statement about harassing WD re the Johnson/Hardy thing, if there's no outside substantiation for it, must be Guinn drawing a conclusion based on WD's confession -- that by (almost) admitting complicity in the Johnson murder Jones was following Clyde's orders, i.e. taking Hardy off the hook -- and Guinn is just making up the threaten/harass business to suit his own story. Guinn does like the idea that Jones followed a script as to his confession.

Hmm, could be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaNaranja (talk • contribs) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Guessing that Guinn is guessing, Im going to take out that part about the harassment. LaNaranja (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... the earlier change was by me... lol. LaNaranja (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joplin section needs help[edit]

The Joplin section and its footnotes contain a lot of information, but right now it's confused and confusing. Not sure of what's missing and what's valuable, or how to arrange it. Should the MSHP officers' information be made into footnotes, or not be included at all? LaNaranja (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting telephone wires...[edit]

I've seen all manner of mentions of B&C&WD stopping during a getaway to cut the telephone lines heading out of town — yet — I've never encountered a single specific reference of it: "they stopped near the Kirchner farm and chopped down a pole." Thinking it through, it wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world to effect. Cutting down a pole with a hand saw (no chain saws in 1933) or an ax would be a lot of work in the heat of fleeing. Climbing the pole without a ladder (and I don't recall any photos with a ladder on the car roof) is way harder than it looks, probably requires special strap-on spikes, and once up there, those tough, bulky cables would probably need a real stout bolt cutter to snip.

You know what? I'm starting to think they never did this! --HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it I dont recall reading about cut wires or downed poles in *any* books or newspaper reports describing getaway aftermaths. That certainly would have been news. "Our town remains voiceless today as Mr. Kneirim and Carl struggle to repair the lines slashed by the bandits...." I'd have bought that paper.
As for B&C I've only seen WD's mention of doing it, right after Doyle Johnson: "Riding with Bonnie and Clyde"
Would be interesting to see if/how it was reported in the Temple TX papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaNaranja (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Biffle Interview[edit]

Does anyone know about an interview between WD and Kent Biffle of the Dallas Morning News, from 1969? LaNaranja (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on W. D. Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:W._D._Jones&oldid=1205059792"