I'm not suggesting that Wyatt was not interviewed or otherwise participated in the development of the articles. It is obvious that he did. What we don't know is how much editorial control he had over the result. The Earp articles were not news stories. They were feature articles written as much for entertainment as for information. You've read enough articles of this type from that period to know that liberties were taken. You're attributing those liberties to Wyatt (and some of them may well have come from him), but feature writers like Robert Chandler and E. D. Cowen were quite capable of adding "extras" to their stories. This was the age that gave us "yellow journalism" after all. It is not so much a matter of fabrication as making the story more dramatic. And--as my own experience with interviews confirms--sometimes the interviewers just plain get it wrong. It is not always easy to figure out who is responsible for the mistakes. I doubt that Wyatt was as concerned about that in 1896 as he would be in 1920 and after. What we can do, though, is to look at the various accounts attributed to Wyatt and pick out consistencies--points he makes every time, including consistent errors--as a way of better understanding his claims as opposed to journalistic liberties. Best!