Mike,

I am curious about why you say, "As to the WWHA findings, that discussion [the panel discussion on "Who Killed Pat Garrett?"] was not helpful and was inconclusive. I figure one of these days it will be revisited." What WWHA findings are you talking about? Please provide me with those findings. From my perspective, there were a lot of very good and positive comments to me about it, and people said it was helpful. I received no criticism. Further, I believe that anybody could, and should, have learned from it. And how could a panel representing four different views be conclusive? It was not even intended to be conclusive; it was intended to represent four different views. I know all of this because I was a part of the discussions that took place about the design of the panel during the weeks before the Roundup. But if WWHA has some kind of “findings,” or ratings system whereby it passes judgment on panelists and speakers, then maybe we should all rate WWHA, which itself is not above criticism. But I do not believe that WWHA has such a rating system. I have a letter of thanks from the moderator of the panel.

I was very pleased with my part on that panel. Many people were complementary, and there were even some nice reviews (and no bad ones) on this forum. I took the position that Jim Miller was most likely Garrett’s assassin, and I believe that even stronger today than I did then. I said at the time that I respected all members of the panel, and I still do; we are friends. I agree with the two very professional posts of Gary Roberts. Thank you, Gary. Anybody who knows me realizes that I am an independent person with a mind of my own; but, at the same time, I can work within the system and have an open mind. There was no such thing as a formal WWHA position on the identity of Pat Garrett’s murderer.

--Ellis