Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
K.t.K.
Randy, one thing to beware of:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 03:03
2605:6000:8e20:df00:e5aa:53f4:4ac2:5b70

Coming into this field I was led astray for several years by the false notion that the San Francisco Call was ant-Wyatt. Thank God I was also cursed with an obsessive compulsive disorder which manifest itself greatly in the research department. What I found out through excessive study into the Call for the decade of 1890s was that the Call was not anti-Wyatt at all, but rather anti-crime to the max. In comparing the Call with two other San Francisco papers it became clear that the Chronicle was equally hard on Earp, and in some cases harder than the Call.
It was as if the Call sought to be a righteous arbiter against wrongdoing anywhere it was found. There were instances in which undercover reporters were sent out incognito to gather the damning evidence, and then get it published.
Here's just one example for the CHRONICLE exposing the fixed fight:
"It is a wonder then, that Wyatt Earp was selected as the most daring and brazen rascal to do the bidding of Sharkey and the other sharks of his entourage. A man of nerve was required to boldly face an audience of 10,000 people or more [actually 15,000] and calmly decide contrary to all rules of right, and actually rob a man of $10,000.
But this man is not through yet with such a flagrant steal. His very boldness and effrontery have rushed him into a position where he may have to face a charge of perjury based upon his testimony given before Judge Sanderson on Tuesday last [December 15]….."

We know from Tombstone days that a charge of perjury in court didn't scare any Earp.

Security for "Long Green" Laurence and the Examiner main office on Mission street was fully covered without any need of Wyatt Earp. According to news reports Earp was more of a recent novelty described as "special guard" but placed on the Examiner payroll as something else, referred to as "literary attaché, because of his supposed writings of the Sunday serial stories. Earp did not write those stories but had a "confidential relationship" with Laurence, it was believed, up until the fixed fight expose'.

Yes, Wyatt was paid $50 per week by for shadowing Laurence about town and from and to his home. But this could have been handled by any number of "Long Green" henchmen, prior to and after Earp. In fact the Call reported that Earp had been approached by one of Laurence's "henchmen" to ask if he wanted to make some extra money, to which Earp agreed, and was then "installed as chief swashbuckler, with headquarters in the anti room," somewhere upstairs in the three-story office structure. For years the guy in charge of security in that place was handled by prizefight Charlie Rochette,

  • I found an article by a ringside reporterRandy King, Tue Sep 11 10:12
    who wrote every round of that fight blow by blow, miss by miss. I know that Fitzsimmons won that fight, hands down, no way to say otherwise. A sports reporter deals with his newspaper, thus the... more
    • Randy, one thing to beware of: — K.t.K., Wed Sep 12 03:03
      • As ususal Kenny you have supplied me with Randy King, Wed Sep 12 11:13
        interesting stuff, I wondered about Wyatt role, to protect the families and Laurence, he would need a team of men, no where have I located evidence to support a team. I do thank you for your insight... more
        • ….I thought you might like to see his explanation: "I took every precaution to avoid a foul. I fought very carefully and very fair., and I waited until I could get a good opportunity to deliver a... more
          • Proper evaluation of evidence..B.J., Tue Sep 18 10:06
            1) The Fitz-Sharkey bout was not legally sanctioned. 2) It is not possible for the fight to have been "fixed" unless Fitz was also involved in the misconduct. 3) If Wyatt was actually being paid to... more
            • Totally disagree.K.t.K., Tue Sep 18 14:10
              For decades before getting into the Old West field I had become a walking encyclopedia on pro boxing. My indoctrination began as a boy (with my father) in 1954. By 1973 I was a very decent fight... more
          • thank you (nm)Randy King, Thu Sep 13 09:42
Click here to receive daily updates