The McLaurys in Tombstone, Arizona: An O.K. Corral Obituary

Chapter 27: “I Do Not Like Your Letter”

233 An O.K. Corral Obituary Tucson’s Weekly Star published an editorial titled “Some Light” which quoted a large section of Clanton’s last day of testimony and concluded: The facts brought out by the foregoing looks very suspicious, and should be followed up with diligence. It may be possible to get those of the robbers who are alive, as it is believed that two of them are still at large. If they are in Tombstone, or have been acting under the shadow of officials, the public want to know it. If they have been in with some of Wells, Fargo & Co.’s agents, the express company want to know. The testimony is certainly damaging, and if uncontradicted, places the parties it implicates under a dark cloud of suspicion.1 At the conclusion of Ike Clanton’s testimony, after five days on the witness stand, the prosecution rested its case. The defense opened with the testimony of Wyatt Earp on Wednesday, November 16, three weeks to the day since the shootings. Wyatt’s testimony was read from a transcript. Through his lawyer, Thomas Fitch, he was able to take advantage of a statute that allowed a defendant to make a statement in court without being cross-examined. The authors of the statute probably didn’t anticipate a defendant reading from a multi-page document prepared over a series of days or even weeks, though nothing in the statute specifically prohibited it, either.2 Earp’s testimony began with an incident that had taken place over a year before. It involved Frank McLaury’s confrontation over the stolen mules. According to the prepared testimony, this led to ongoing enmity between the Earps and McLaurys. How much of Wyatt Earp’s version was true? Much of what he told—threats made in private—was simply not provable. For his part, Frank McLaury wrote a disclaimer that was published in the Tombstone Nugget immediately following the incident, and the “card” never mentioned the Earps. McLaury’s version of events at the time was quite different from the version being read at the hearing; only Frank could no longer rebut the charges. “I Do Not Like Your Letter” Twenty-Seven Margaret McLaury Appelgate, oldest of the sisters, disapproved of her brother leaving his motherless children “in the care of strangers.” (Author's collection) 27. “I Do Not Like Your Letter” 235 An O.K. Corral Obituary It may be assumed that Earp would tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but there were no checks on any new evidence, no way of questioning him on points of testimony, no way of challenging his version of events. It was presented as “from the horse’s mouth” even though his attorney, Thomas Fitch, probably had a hand in crafting it, making sure the right points were covered, and perhaps other points were excluded. His character assassination of Ike Clanton and the McLaurys was unsparing. It was generally understood among officers and those who have information about criminals, that Ike Clanton was sort of chief among the cowboys; that the Clantons and McLaurys were cattle thieves generally and in the secret of the stage robbery; and that the Clantons’ and McLaurys’ ranches were meeting places and places of shelter for the gang.3 Wyatt’s testimony went into details surrounding the telegram that was introduced during Ike’s testimony. But his interpretation of the telegram and its context was a mirror image to Clanton’s. It included the same characters and gave opposite explanations as to each one’s role. He told of meetings with Frank McLaury and Joe Hill (Olney) when they were said to take part in the plan to ambush the Benson stage suspects. Perhaps it seemed unnatural for the Earps and Holliday to share their crooked dealings with someone like Ike Clanton (Clanton’s version). Would Wyatt Earp truly advance his cause by sharing his aspirations for the sheriff’s office with arch-enemy Clanton (Earp’s version)? His deposition was rife with third-party hearsay and innuendo. He speculated that both McLaurys took part in the killing of Mexicans in Skeleton Canyon the previous July. He insinuated that Billy Clanton took part in stealing his prized thoroughbred racehorse. Could he prove any of it? He didn’t need to. These characterizations and accusations were either too difficult or impossible to disprove. It was his sworn testimony. When he completed...