the information in your post to prove your assertions that this Curly Bill in the 1895 article was Curly Bill Brocius and that he was also William A. Brosius of Paris, Texas. Unless you have more evidence to provide, your assertions in the post are either premature or fundamentally flawed for the following reasons:

1. You still have not produce any evidence proving William A. Brosius of Paris, Texas, was Curly Bill Brocius.

2. You have provided no evidence to prove that the Curly Bill in the 1895 article was Curly Bill Brocius.

3. You have provided no evidence to prove that the Curly Bill in the 1895 article was Curly Bill Brocius and that he was also William A. Brosius of Paris, Texas.

4. You have provided no evidence to prove that the Bill Smith who transported Cherokee Bill to jail was William A. Brosius of Paris, Texas.

In addition, your claim that the two men who aided Sheriff Lot Ravenscraft in capturing Charley Parker were detectives because the men were referred to as "officers" in an article is tenuous at best. For example, the article you cite states: "He replied with a shot from his Winchester, which killed Curly Bill's horse. The officers returned fire, and the result is that Parker now lies wounded in the shoulder, though the wound is not considered dangerous." As anyone can see the reference to "officers" was to all three men including the sheriff (who actually shot Parker) - not because the men who assisted the sheriff were detectives. Indeed, in other accounts the two men who assisted Sheriff Lot Ravenscraft in the capture of Charley Parker were identified as "deputies" of Sheriff Ravenscraft who held the office of Clark County Sheriff from 1891 to 1895.

Your attempts to connect William A. Brosius to this incident using Cherokee Bill are completely without merit as well. First, there is no proof that the "someone called Curley" who was "indicted for bringing liquor into the Indian Territory" along with a "Cherokee Bill" during 1872 (that you cite in your book on Page 178) was Curly Bill Brocius or a 14 year-old William A. Brosius. Further, your comments about Cherokee Bill illustrate why you can't assume that a man using a nickname is another man because he also used the same nickname - Crawford Goldsby aka Cherokee Bill who was arrested in 1895 was born in 1876 - he could not have been the Cherokee Bill that was indicted along with a man named "Curley" during 1872.

So the bottom line, at least in my opinion, others are free to draw their own conclusions, is that you have not provided any evidence to prove that this article supports the assertion that it is evidence that Curly Bill survived the so-called Iron Springs encounter with with Wyatt Earp in March 1882 or that this Curly Bill was William A. Brosius.