Butch Cassidy (25 page)

It should be pointed out that Kyle also conducted a similar photo-comparison study on Billy the Kid and a claimant, William Henry Roberts. The study was sponsored and commissioned by the Lincoln County Heritage Trust in a transparently biased attempt to perpetuate the historical status quo of Kid history in New Mexico. While embraced by hobbyists, Kyle’s study was described as being replete with a “gross degree of error and misinterpretation” and that such an analysis “cannot be tolerated in any professional photo-comparison” (in my work
Billy the Kid: Beyond the Grave
).

Ultimately, not only was Kyle’s study statistically invalid, but also the entire design and the methodology were illogical and unsound. Conclusions were drawn primarily on the basis of elements that are never included in professional facial photoanalyses. In short, it was completely meaningless.

As a result of the above considerations, Kyle’s analysis cannot in the remotest sense be deemed acceptable and must be rejected. In truth, the Kyle photo study did not prove William T. Phillips was not Butch Cassidy.

Betenson’s Claims Disputed

Those who would discredit the claims of Lula Parker Betenson that her brother, the outlaw Butch Cassidy, returned are quick to point to the notion that even her own relatives disagreed with her contentions and that her book,
Butch Cassidy, My Brother
, was even somewhat controversial among family members. Researcher Meadows levels mild criticism at the author, stating truthfully that Betenson “never provided any evidence to substantiate her stories” (in Meadows and Dan Buck’s “Showdown at San Vicente”). Meadows’s husband Buck is quoted as saying, “We’ve always thought Lula was just looking to cash in with that book of hers. If Butch had really survived, she would have had a livelier tale to tell.”

Writer Dullenty has also been a severe critic of Betenson, pointing out that her story is filled with inconsistencies. Dullenty has also referred to an interview he once conducted with Max Parker, a nephew of Butch Cassidy, who stated that Betenson was not telling the truth and that events did not transpire as she related.

On the other hand, Betenson’s grandson, Bill Betenson, stated the majority of the Parker family did not want her to write a book about their famous relative because of a family agreement never to reveal what actually happened. Regarding Betenson’s book, the grandson said it told the complete truth.

Researcher Buck was quoted by author Richard Patterson as saying that “members of the Parker clan . . . have not gone on record in support of Lula’s story” (in
Butch Cassidy: A Biography
). Given Bill Betenson’s observation, it is easy to understand why many of them refused to do so. A greater truth is that, while some of the family did not support Betenson’s contentions, a greater number were convinced Cassidy did return and that he used the alias William T. Phillips.

Ultimately, many of the criticisms leveled at Betenson’s book have been shallow and without basis. Some appear to have been borne of jealousy, and a good many of them have never contained as much substance as the book itself.

It has also been argued by some Betenson critics that her book was not particularly well written or extensively researched. Yet, it is a book not of research but of her recollections, most of them stated as best as she remembered them, given the circumstances associated with the passage of time. True or false, they are her recollections. As far as the quality of writing is concerned, this book is an “as-told-to” publication, and the prose is the contribution of writer Dora Flack, not Lula Parker Betenson. Furthermore, until the past few years, academic presses such as the one that published Betenson’s book have seldom been known for publishing good writing; rather, they are better known for academic treatments.

While harshly criticized by several whose motives for doing so are suspect, Betenson’s recollections as recorded in her book, taken as a whole, are difficult to reject.

Handwriting Analysis

An oft-heard claim is that an analysis of the handwriting of Butch Cassidy and William T. Phillips proved they were two different men. The truth is somewhat different.

Author Pointer recorded that an authentic letter written by Cassidy in Argentina in 1902 was compared to a letter written by Phillips in 1935. The letters were given to Jeannine Zimmerman who was identified as a “legally certified handwriting expert.”

In Zimmerman’s final report, she offered the opinion “that both of the [letters] . . . were executed by the same individual.”

In response to Zimmerman’s report, Pointer wrote, “There can no longer be any question . . . William T. Phillips was Butch Cassidy.”

It would not turn out to be quite that easy.

A Spokane newspaper employed its own handwriting analyst to reexamine the same two letters that had been submitted to Zimmerman. The second analyst, like the first, concluded that the letters might very well have been written by the same person. A third handwriting analyst, on the other hand, provided the opinion that the letters were not written by the same person.

Researcher Buck noted correctly that Zimmerman was a graphologist, not a forensic document analyst. Also, the other two opinions offered relative to the handwriting of the two men were likewise provided by graphologists. A graphologist uses handwriting to provide a personality profile. With reference to this, author Patterson quotes Buck as stating that graphologists “are not held in high regard among forensic document examiners” and that “their conclusions are open to question” (in
Butch Cassidy: A Biography
).

Pertinent to Buck’s opinion on graphologists, a leading forensic handwriting analyst was consulted. Howard Chandler, a former state policeman and investigator, is recognized throughout the United States as an expert handwriting analyst, and his opinions, deductions, and court testimony are regularly sought, often in high-profile cases. Chandler stated the rift between forensic examiners and graphologists is not as wide as Buck implied and that representatives of the two specialties often work together to solve cases.

Regarding the handwriting samples of Phillips and Cassidy, no final decision has been made. The truth, as it relates to this issue, is that the handwriting analyses did not disprove Phillips and Cassidy were the same person. If anything, they were suggestive that the two different letters could have been written by the same man.

Additionally, there are a number of similarities, not only in the handwriting, but in the style of prose employed by Phillips and Cassidy as well. Both men exhibited a consistency in beginning sentences with “and,” both tended to misspell the same words, and both used the same punctuation patterns.

Ultimately, one cannot use the extant handwriting analyses to reject the hypothesis that William T. Phillips was Butch Cassidy.

Using the aforementioned considerations, a number of Butch Cassidy aficionados have attempted to discredit and dismiss William T. Phillips as Butch Cassidy. While they have garnered a great deal of support among their ranks, they have never provided conclusive evidence that the two men were not the same.

Arguments for William T. Phillips as Butch Cassidy

As with the arguments against William T. Phillips being Butch Cassidy, the claims that he might have been the famous outlaw also invite examination. Among the prevailing arguments that the two men were the same include the testimony of friends and family and Phillips’s manuscript “The Bandit Invincible.”

Identifications Made by Friends and Family

Although this topic has been discussed elsewhere in this book, aspects of it are worth a brief reprisal in this section.

If William T. Phillips was an impostor, is it reasonable to assume he would have fooled longtime Cassidy friends and family members? It is not. It is distinctly possible he could have tricked a few but not the dozens who reported the visits with the outlaw. To accept that Phillips fooled all of those people is simply too much to ask.

Some have claimed Phillips assumed the Butch Cassidy identity because he intended to profit from it. Such a claim is as ludicrous as believing a Cassidy impostor could have fooled so many people who knew the outlaw. Actually, Phillips never profited from his identity as Butch Cassidy—there is no evidence he ever made a dime from the connection. Phillips never went public with his claim to be Butch Cassidy. During his lifetime, with very few exceptions, it was only his family and friends who knew of his identity.

“The Bandit Invincible”

This manuscript, written by William T. Phillips and apparently intended to reveal the truth about the life and times of the outlaw Butch Cassidy, offers a number of compelling considerations pertinent to making a determination of whether or not the author was Cassidy.

It is clear from a reading of “The Bandit Invincible” that the author must have been present during the occurrence of many, if not all, of the events recorded therein. The only alternative explanation would be that Phillips immersed himself in a study of Butch Cassidy, his associates, his activities, and the Wild Bunch so totally that it compared to that of any past or present Wild Bunch scholar. His research into the topic would have taken him to the archives of small newspapers and to interviews with dozens of Cassidy contemporaries. This did not happen. While Phillips was a literate man, it was clear from his writing, and from the testimony of others, that he was not well educated in the formal sense.

If Phillips was an imposter, why did he not simply use the real names of some of the people he wrote about in “The Bandit Invincible” instead of providing them with aliases? An explanation that has been offered is that, at the time, he sought to protect some of his former companions who were still alive, or relatives of the same. This is what Butch Cassidy would have done. A man who was merely assuming the identity of Cassidy, and who wanted others to believe he was Cassidy, would have used the real names of participants.

Phillips wrote about geographic locations oft frequented by the Wild Bunch. He also wrote about obscure places few people would have known about had they not lived there at the time and with those involved. In order to have described the geographic locations as he did, Phillips had to have ridden or walked many of the trails during the time certain events happened. His detailed descriptions of people, places, things, and the time period are too precise and too intimate to have been derived from contemporary resources.

Phillips also showed an intimacy and insight with the process and timing of Wild Bunch robberies that, many claim, could only have come from being a participant. Events relating to the Tipton train robbery were never described more clearly, accurately, or completely than by Phillips. It appears from reading “The Bandit Invincible” that, if William T. Phillips was not Butch Cassidy, he most certainly was present in some other capacity during the occurrence of many of the events therein related.

In “The Bandit Invincible,” Phillips spoke of close friends and acquaintances Western historians never knew about. Following an investigation, however, it was discovered that Phillips was correct and the “official” historical record up to that time as it related to Butch Cassidy was incomplete.

Phillips also knew about and accurately described tiny towns in South America that had little or no significance to anyone except that Butch Cassidy visited them.

Phillips’s account of what occurred relative to the Aramayo mine payroll robbery and subsequent events differs markedly with Arthur Chapman’s interpretation, which had appeared approximately four to five years prior to Phillips writing his manuscript. If Phillips were an impostor, and if he wanted others to believe he was Butch Cassidy, why would he not simply have parroted much of Chapman’s popularly accepted but erroneous descriptions of events, people, and places? Instead, he provided completely new and different insights into what occurred in Bolivia.

The business of William T. Phillips is a confusing one. Why is his identity prior to 1908 a mystery? Who was he? Could it be only coincidence that Phillips appeared about the time Cassidy allegedly died in Bolivia? Could it be only a coincidence that Phillips looked amazingly like Cassidy? Could it only be a coincidence that both Phillips and Cassidy possessed deep-set blue eyes and a square jaw; were outgoing, generous, and intensely loyal to friends; and had a good sense of humor? Could it only be a coincidence that the man identified by family and friends as Butch Cassidy who visited during the 1920s and 1930s gave his alias as William Phillips? Could it be only a coincidence that William Lundstrom, Phillips’s closest friend and neighbor in Spokane, was also a friend of Butch Cassidy’s in Wyoming during the 1890s? Could it only be a coincidence that Phillips presented a gift to Lundstrom of a pistol, on the grips of which were carved a reverse E Box E brand that was Cassidy’s? Could it be only a coincidence that Phillips manifested impressive acrobatic skills on a bicycle similar to those attributed to Butch Cassidy? Could it be only a coincidence that, in addition to looking like Butch Cassidy and being identified as Butch Cassidy by family and friends, Phillips knew so much about the history, life, and times of the famous outlaw, as well as those of his close friends?

Could all of the above be coincidence? It is almost too much for one to accept, but some insist on maintaining they are nothing more than coincidence. However, experienced researchers and investigators don’t believe in coincidence.

There are a number of perplexing elements associated with the hypothesis that William T. Phillips could have been the outlaw Butch Cassidy.

First and foremost, it must be remembered that all of the above is evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is always the possibility that this evidence, along with other, could lead to proof, but at this late date, it is doubtful this standard will ever be achieved.

Therefore, one must examine and interpret the quality of the evidence available. Frankly, given all of the previously mentioned evidence, it is difficult to dismiss a Phillips-Cassidy connection on the basis of logic and reasoning. Furthermore, when one compares the logic and abundance of the evidence associated with Phillips being Cassidy with the evidence relating to the death of Cassidy at San Vicente, the latter falls far short of substantial. The evidence for William T. Phillips being Butch Cassidy is considerably more substantial and compelling than the evidence for Cassidy having been killed in Bolivia.