In July 1881, Sheriff Pat Garrett walked into a dark bedroom at Pete Maxwell’s home in Fort Sumner, New Mexico, and fired two shots at a man who had just entered the room. The wounded man collapsed and died. The territorial government accepted Garrett’s account, verified the body as William H. Bonnie, paid the sheriff a reward, and closed the case on Billy the Kid. But the story did not end there. Decades later, a rancher named John Miller was linked to one of the Old West’s biggest mysteries, and investigators even exhumed his remains for DNA testing. The question was simple. Was Miller really Billy the Kid, or was it just another legend?

The accepted historical account begins at Fort Sumner in July 1881. Billy the Kid, whose best-known alias was William H. Bonnie and who is generally identified as Henry McCarty, had been a fugitive since escaping from the Lincoln County Jail on April 28th. During that escape, deputies James Bell and Robert Olinger were killed. Sheriff Pat Garrett continued looking for Billy and eventually received information that brought him back to Fort Sumner.

nLATE on July 14, Garrett went to the home of Pete Maxwell. Garrett later said that he was inside Maxwell’s dark bedroom when Billy unexpectedly entered. Billy apparently noticed unfamiliar men outside and was carrying a pistol when he entered the room. According to Garrett’s account, Billy could not clearly see the man in the darkness and repeatedly asked, “Quién es? meaning who is it? Maxwell identified Billy to Garrett. Garrett fired two shots, one striking Billy in the chest while the other missed. Garrett maintained that the wounded man collapsed and died there.

nT他 basic version was not created decades later by Hollywood. Reports of Billy’s death appeared almost immediately, and Garrett reported the killing to territorial authorities. The Library of Congress still summarizes the historical record in essentially the same way, stating that Garrett killed Billy at Pete Maxwell’s ranch home on July 14, 1881.

T他 John Miller theory requires much more than proving that details in Garrett’s story were imperfect. For Miller to have been Billy, then man killed in Maxwell’s bedroom would have needed to be somebody else, and a number of people in Fort Sumner would have had to accept that body as William Bonnie

T he strongest evidence for Billy’s death is not Garrett’s later book. It is the documentation created immediately after the shooting. A local inquest was held after the death, and historical records preserved by New Mexico include copies of the jury’s verdict verifying the death of Billy the Kid. New Mexico’s state records center and archives also lists the territorial attorney general’s opinion concerning the reward due to Pat Garrett for Billy’s death or capture dated July 21, 1881. Records from the following year show territorial approval of the reward payment.

T he coroner’s jury identified the dead man as William H. Bonnie and determined that he had died from a gunshot fired by Garrett while Garrett was performing his duties as sheriff. Garrett therefore had documentary evidence that authorities had accepted the identity of the dead man

T his is important because Garrett’s 1882 book is sometimes treated as though it were the only evidence. It was not. Garrett’s book, largely written with the help of journalist Ash Upson, gave a detailed version of the encounter, but government records surrounding the death existed independently of that later publication. There were also people in and around Fort Sumner who knew Billy. This was not a case where an unidentified outlaw died hundreds of miles from anyone familiar with him. Billy had friends and acquaintances in the community

T hat does not make every detail of Garrett’s story automatically correct. Eyewitness accounts can contain errors, and Garrett had an obvious personal interest in defending his actions. But then survival theory has to explain why the inquest, the reward process, contemporary reporting, and local identification all treated the dead man as Billy the kid

T he official record looks substantial, but Billy the Kid is almost perfectly designed to produce survival stories. Large parts of his early life remain poorly documented. Even his exact birth date has been debated. He used several names, including Henry McCarty, Henry Antrim, Kid Antrim, and William H. Bonnie. That kind of identity history was not unusual in the American Old West. Records were scattered between counties, territories, churches, courts, newspapers, and private businesses. People could relocate and begin using another name without leaving the kind of paper trail expected today

T he physical grave also became a problem. Billy was buried at Fort Sumner, traditionally beside Tom of Charlie Boater. Flooding later damaged the old cemetery area and grave markers were moved or lost. By the time modern investigators became interested in DNA testing, knowing exactly which remains belong to which person was far more difficult than simply locating the modern Billy the Kid headstone. A forensic review connected with the modern investigation concluded that the exact location of Billy’s remains could not be established with enough confidence for a straightforward exhumation

S imilar difficulties surrounded Catherine Antrim, Billy’s mother. Those gaps do not prove survival. They explain why a survival claim cannot easily be dismissed through one simple modern test. If investigators had an unquestionably identified skeleton of Billy and a verified close relative, DNA analysis could address the mystery directly. They did not. That uncertainty left room for men such as Brushy Bill Roberts and John Miller to become part of the story many decades after Garrett’s famous shooting

J ohn Miller is different from many people who were later promoted as famous Old West outlaws. He did not build a public career around claiming to be Billy the Kid. Most versions of the story say the identification came mainly through people who knew him and through stories that became public after his death. Miller lived for years as a rancher in New Mexico and later Arizona. He eventually entered the Arizona Pioneers Home in Prescott, where he died in 1937. The Pioneers home itself now lists John Miller among its notable residents under the description, possibly Billy the Kid

S upporters of the theory say Miller privately admitted that he was William Bonnie to selected friends or family members. Other stories say his wife, Isidora, told acquaintances that her husband was really Billy. Because these statements were usually recorded long after the supposed conversations, historians have to treat them as oral testimony rather than direct proof. There is no known document written in 1881 in which John Miller says, “I am Billy the Kid.” There is no authenticated confession from Miller that can be independently tested. The story depends heavily on memories collected years later

T his actually makes Miller more interesting than a simple publicity seeker because there is little evidence that he spent his life trying to profit from Billy’s fame. At the same time, it makes the case harder to prove. A private story repeated by friends can preserve genuine information, but it can also change as it passes from one person to another. By the 1990s, those scattered stories would become the foundation for a much larger historical claim

O ne of the most repeated details in the John Miller story concerns August 1881, only weeks after Garrett reported killing Billy. According to the traditional Miller account, a young man calling himself John Miller married a woman named Isidora in Las Vegas, New Mexico territory on August 8,1881. Later versions of the story describe Miller as pale, weak, armed with a revolver, and recovering from a recent chest wound. That timing is the reason this detail became so important. If Billy somehow survived the Fort Sumner period, a wounded young man appearing under a new identity a few weeks later would fit the theory almost perfectly

B ut there is a major problem. Modern researchers sympathetic to investigating the Miller claim have themselves acknowledged that parts of the marriage and wound story have not been conclusively documented. The account appears prominently in Helen Aries research and in later retellings, but then exact evidence behind some of the dramatic details is much weaker than the way they are often presented online. The careful way to describe it is this. The Miller tradition places Jon and Isidora together in New Mexico very soon after Billy’s reported death, and later witnesses said Miller had been wounded. The claim that a clearly visible fresh bullet wound was documented at his wedding should not be presented as proven fact

E ven if the August 1881 marriage is accepted, it still does not establish identity. John Miller was a common name. The real question is whether then man who appears in later records can be connected backward to Henry McCarty or William Bonnie through evidence stronger than resemblance and oral stories. That connection has never been securely demonstrated

J ohn Miller eventually leaves a much more visible trail. Census material associated with the man later identified as the Billy claimant places John and Isidora Miller in New Mexico by the beginning of the 20th century. Researchers have located a John and Isidora Miller in the 1900 census for Valencia County. Later records placed the family around Rama and other parts of western New Mexico. Miller worked with horses and cattle and became known as a rancher

T his is where the story starts collecting the details that attracted Old West researchers. People who remembered Miller described him as comfortable around firearms and horses. Some said he spoke Spanish well. Others remembered him as someone who knew a surprising amount about Billy the Kid and the Lincoln County War. Those traits sound significant because they also fit the historical Billy. Billy lived for years in Hispanic communities in New Mexico, spoke Spanish, worked around cattle and horses, and had extensive firsthand knowledge of the Lincoln County conflict. But none of those traits is unique. A cowboy living in New Mexico during that era could easily learn Spanish, become highly skilled with a revolver, and no local stories about famous outlaws and lawmen

T he census records also create complications. Miller’s reported birthplace and the birthplaces of his parents changed between different census entries. His reported age was not completely consistent either. Supporters interpret those changes as the behavior of a man protecting a secret identity. Skeptics point outthat inconsistent census information was common and can also result from mistakes, memory, or information being supplied by different household members. The records establish a real John Miller. They do not establish that John Miller had once been William H. Bonnie

M uch of the survival theory comes from people who said they personally knew Miller. Their stories were later gathered by researchers, especially Helen Ary. One recurring account says Miller occasionally told trusted companions that he was Billy the Kid. Another says Isidora told people that Jon was not his real identity. Friends also described Miller demonstrating impressive shooting ability and becoming irritated when popular stories about Billy were discussed incorrectly. There are accounts of Miller apparently knowing details about people and events connected with the Lincoln County War that believers suggested personal experience rather than knowledge obtained from newspapers or books

T he problem is dating those statements. Billy the Kid became a national legend almost immediately after his death. Garrett’s biography appeared in 1882. Dime novels, newspaper articles, later histories, and stories circulating across New Mexico made information about Billy widely available. Knowing Billy’s history decades later does not prove that someone had participated in it

M emory is another issue. Many accounts were recorded long after Miller died. A witness remembering a conversation from 30 or 40 years earlier may sincerely report what he remembers while still getting exact words, dates, or details wrong. There is also a difference between Miller saying that he knew Billy and Miller saying that he was Billy. Some recollections describe him as a former associate. Others describe a direct confession. When oral histories produce several different versions, historians usually look for contemporary documents that can anchor the story. That kind of supporting documentation remains limited in Miller’s case. The witness stories are evidence that then Billy identification existed around Miller. They are not by themselves evidence strong enough to overturn the documented 1881 death

P hotographs are probably the easiest part of the Miller story to understand. Put an older photograph of John Miller beside the famous Billy, the kid tintype, and there are similarities. Supporters have pointed to the shape of the face, prominent front teeth, ears, shoulders, and other features. During the 2005 exhumation, then condition of the teeth became especially interesting because one of the skeletons had prominent front teeth that investigators thought resembled Billy’s appearance

S till, facial resemblance is weak identification evidence when then comparison involves one young photograph and later images of an elderly man. Billy’s famous tintype is also not a perfect identification photograph. Camera angle, clothing, expression, lens characteristics, and the photographic process all affect appearance. Aging changes the jawline, skin, hair, weight, and overall proportions of the face. Even teeth are not enough unless detailed dental records exist. Saying two men both had overlapping or prominent front teeth is very different from comparing complete dental charts, restorations, tooth positions, and X-rays

T he exhumation made the physical comparison even more complicated. Investigators uncovered two neighboring sets of remains. One skeleton had the dental appearance and shoulder trauma that excited supporters of the Billy theory. The other had an injury that better matched information about Miller’s health near the end of his life. So, then physical evidence did not simply produce a skeleton that looked exactly like Billy and could confidently be labeled John Miller. Instead, it created a new identification problem. That problem would become crucial once DNA testing began because extracting DNA from a skeleton is useful only when investigators know whose skeleton they are testing

O ne of the biggest problems for the Miller theory is age. Billy the Kid is generally believed to have been born around 1859. He was therefore about21 when Garrett shot the man identified as Billy in 1881. Records held by the Arizona Pioneers Home reportedly listed John Miller as having been born in1850. If accurate, that would make Miller roughly9 years older than Billy. The same Pioneers Home records reportedly gave Miller a childhood history that does not match Henry McCarty’s known biography. They stated that Miller’s parents had been killed and that he had been adopted by the Kya as an infant. Billy’s documented family history is different. His mother, Catherine McCarty, later Catherine Antrim, lived until 1874 when Billy was already a teenager

S upporters can argue that Miller intentionally provided false information because he was hiding his identity. That is possible in theory. But once that explanation is used, then records stop functioning as supporting evidence. Every matching detail is treated as proof while every contradiction can be explained as something Miller invented. Other records make Miller’s age less clear. Different census entries contain inconsistent birth years and birthplaces. One census associated with the claimant gives a birth date much closer to Billy’s expected age than the Pioneers Home record does. That inconsistency is interesting, but it does not tell us which date is correct. A strong identity case would ideally connect Miller’s life backward through documents until it reached Billy’s known life. Instead, then paper trail becomes uncertain exactly where then theory needs it to become strongest

J ohn Miller remained far less famous than Brushy Bill Roberts until researcher Helen Ary developed then case in detail. Her book, “Whatever Happened to Billy the Kid,” first published in then1990s, argued that Miller deserved serious attention. Ary collected recollections from people whose families had known Miller and attempted to reconstruct his movements across New Mexico and Arizona. Then book connected several pieces that were already part of local memory. There was then supposed1881 marriage, then stories of a chest wound, Miller’s ability with firearms, his Spanish, his physical resemblance to Billy, and claims that he privately admitted his real identity

F or readers interested in American Old West mysteries, it created something more substantial than a simple rumor. There was now a proposed alternative biography. Billy did not die at Fort Sumner. According to this scenario, he became John Miller, married Isidora, worked as a cowboy and rancher, stayed away from public attention, and lived into old age

T he book also attracted criticism. A contemporary review noted that many of its sources were interviews with descendants or people recalling what parents and grandparents had said. Historian Robert Utley rejected then survival claim and emphasized then absence of credible documentary evidence showing that Billy survived1881. That disagreement is important because Aries book later influenced then modern investigators who became interested in testing Miller. Then case was about to move from oral history and photographs to something that sounded far more definitive. Forensic science and DNA

I n 2003, law enforcement officers in New Mexico reopened questions surrounding Billy the Kid’s death. Lincoln County Sheriff Tom Sullivan and investigator Steve Sedwal became two of the most visible figures in then effort. Their investigation considered whether Pat Garrett had really killed William Bonnie in Fort Sumner and whether modern forensic methods could settle then issue

T he original plan was much more direct than testing John Miller. Investigators wanted DNA from remains believed to be Billy and DNA from Catherine Antrim, Billy’s mother. If then two sets of remains produced matching maternal genetic information, investigators could strengthen then identification of then Fort Sumner grave. Then office of then medical investigator became involved because exhuming historical remains is not as simple as opening a marked grave

F orensic anthropologist Deborah Commer researched then known burial information and later presented then case to then American Academy of Forensic Sciences as an example of then problems that can occur in historical identification projects. Her research found that then exact location of Billy’s remains was uncertain and that disturbing Catherine Antrim’s grave could also disturb other burials. She additionally raised questions about whether some of then proposed DNA comparisons were scientifically capable of answering then questions investigators wanted answered

T his was a key turning point. Then investigation had DNA technology available, but it lacked something more basic, unquestionably identified reference remains. Without that foundation, investigators started looking for another way to test then survival theory that brought John Miller, buried hundreds of miles away in Prescott, directly into then case

D NA identification sounds simple when reduced to one sentence. Take DNA from John Miller and compare it with Billy then Kid. Then real problem was finding Billy’s DNA. Investigators considered Billy’s Fort Sumner grave, but questions about then exact burial location made an exhumation difficult. Catherine Antrum seemed like another option because mitochondrial DNA can be useful for testing maternal relationships. But her burial situation also presented identification problems

F orensic scientists emphasized another issue. DNA answers specific biological questions. It does not identify a historical person simply because two old samples happen to be available. If investigators had uncontaminated DNA from Catherine and uncontaminated DNA from a candidate believed to be Billy, a properly designed maternal comparison could provide useful information. If they had DNA from a verified close relative, that could also help. But if then reference sample came from an object that merely might contain Billy’s blood, then logic becomes much weaker. A DNA match would establish that then same genetic profile appeared in both samples. It would not automatically establish that either sample belonged to Billy

T his is why providence matters. Providence simply means knowing where an object came from and what happened to it over time. For a firearm, document, piece of clothing, or bloodstained object from then Old West, a continuous history can make then difference between strong evidence and an interesting artifact. Then investigation eventually relied heavily on a wooden bench said to have been connected with Billy’s body. That bench became then attempted bridge between Fort Sumner in1881 and John Miller’s grave in2005

I nvestigators located an old carpenter’s workbench associated with descendants of then Maxwell family. According to then story attached to then object, Billy’s body had been placed on then bench after Garrett shot him. Then bench contained old stains believed to be blood. Forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee examined material from then bench and samples were later sent for DNA work

T his sounded like then breakthrough then investigation needed. If then bench really carried Billy’s blood, investigators could compare that DNA with John Miller. But then words,”If then bench really carried Billy’s blood,” are then entire problem. Then bench was more than a century old. It was not preserved as criminal evidence beginning in1881. It had been handled, moved, stored, and exposed to environments that modern investigators could not completely reconstruct. Other people or animals could potentially have left biological material on it. Even establishing that a stain was old human blood would not identify then person who left it. Investigators would still need reliable historical evidence proving that Billy’s body had been placed there and that then tested biological material came from him rather than someone else

C ourt records from then later dispute confirm that forensic work on then carpenter’s bench was part of then Billy then Kid investigation,and that samples were processed for DNA analysis. Then bench was therefore real evidence in then modern investigation. What remained uncertain was its identity as a verified source of Billy, then Kid’s DNA. That distinction became even more important once investigators opened John Miller’s grave

O n May 19th,2005, investigators went to then Arizona Pioneers Home Cemetery in Prescott to exhume John Miller. Then grave itself immediately presented a problem. It was unmarked. Investigators used cemetery information to estimate then correct location, but they were working with a burial that was nearly70 years old. A backhoe removed then upper soil,and then team continued more carefully as they approached then remains. Then old coffins had deteriorated and collapsed. Then they discovered something that greatly complicated then operation

T here were two sets of human remains in nearby graves. Then second man was identified as William Hudsmith, a cattleman buried close to Miller. Then remains had become difficult to separate because then graves were unmarked and then coffins had deteriorated. Forensic anthropologist Dr. Laura Fuljaniti examined then bones. Investigators photographed, measured, cleaned, and reconstructed then remains as much as possible

T he presence of Hudsmith changed then entire DNA problem. Investigators could no longer simply remove a tooth from then presumed Miller skeleton and confidently label it John Miller. They needed to determine which skeleton was Miller first. Samples from both sets of remains were eventually involved in then investigation. Court documents later referred specifically to John Miller and William Hudsmithin connection with DNA extraction and attempts to compare then Arizona remains with DNA associated with then carpenter’s bench. Instead of solving then identity mystery, then grave had created another identity mystery inside it

T he forensic examination produced one of then strangest parts of then entire John Miller case. One skeleton had prominent front teeth and healed trauma to a shoulder blade or scapula. Supporters of then Billy theory immediately noticed then teeth because Billy’s famous photograph shows prominent front teeth. They were also interested in then shoulder injury because stories about Miller described old gunshot wounds. Some investigators publicly characterized then damage as consistent with a bullet injury. Dr. Laura Fuljaniti was more cautious. She said she could see evidence of trauma in then scapula, but could not determine that it had been caused by a gunshot

T he second skeleton did not have then same shoulder damage. Instead, it showed a hip injury that was still healing at then time of death. That detail was important because then known story of John Miller’s final period included a serious fall and hip problems before or during his time at then Arizona Pioneers Home. Fuljaniti therefore considered then skeleton with then hip injury then more likely candidate for Miller. Some of then investigators favored then other skeleton, then one with then teeth and shoulder trauma

T hat disagreement cannot be treated as a minor detail. If then experts and investigators disagreed about which skeleton was actually John Miller, then any DNA profile from one skeleton had to be interpreted with that uncertainty attached. Then exhumation had produced physical details that looked exciting, but then bones did not provide then clean identification then investigation needed

D r. Rick Stab of Orchid Cellmark Laboratories was connected with then DNA work involving then Prescott remains. Reporting after then exhumation described an important difference between then two skeletons. A usable DNA sample was reportedly obtained from then skeleton with then shoulder trauma, while usable DNA could not initially be extracted from then skeleton with then hip injury. That created an obvious difficulty

I f Fuljaniti was correct that then hip injury skeleton was John Miller, then usable DNA might have come from William Hudsmith instead. If then investigators were correctthat then shoulder injury skeleton was Miller, then usable profile could belong to then man they wanted to test. This is why archaeological and forensic identification has to occur before dramatic comparisons are made. A laboratory can accurately determine a genetic profile from a bone while then investigation can still be wrong about then name of then person whose bone was tested

C ourt filings later documented then intended comparisons. DNA from then Arizona remains was to be tested against DNA associated with then carpenter’s bench. But even a perfect laboratory match would face two separate identity questions. First, did then Arizona DNA definitely belong to John Miller? Second, did then DNA from then bench definitely belong to Billy then Kid?. Without confident answers to both questions, a match could connect two biological samples without proving that either person was William H. Bonnie. Then science of DNA was not necessarily then weak link. Then historical identification of then samples was

A fter then exhumation, public interest naturally focused on one question. Did then DNA match?. Then answer never developed into then simple yes or no result that then headlines had promised. Contemporary reports said samples from Miller’s presumed remains were sent to a Dallas laboratory for comparison with biological material taken from then old bench. In2006, Steve Sedwal declined to publicly disclose then result,and said that what he had learned differed from then accepted history. Other reports said no results had been publicly released

L ater court filings became even more confusing. Documents connected with then public records dispute stated that investigators had claimed to have obtained a matching result. But a claim inside litigation is not then same thing as a published forensic report establishing that John Miller was Billy then Kid. Then actual laboratory documentation became part of a long records dispute

P BS later summarized then situation by noting that Miller’s bones had been tested against blood believed to be Billy’s, but that then results had not been made public at that stage. A later Washington Post examination described then attempted comparison as producing results that were not useful for settling then identity question. Then key point is that no accepted forensic result emerged demonstrating that John Miller and Billy then Kid were then same person. There is no publicly established DNA identification comparable to cases in which historical remains have been matched to well-documented relatives using clear laboratory methods and authenticated reference samples. Then famous DNA test happened. Then definitive DNA answer did not

T he exhumation also produced a legal dispute separate from then scientific question. Investigators had received permission connected with opening Miller’s grave. But controversy developed over whether they had proper authority to remove remains,and whether they had authority concerning William Hudsmith, whose grave was also disturbed. Arizona authorities investigated then matter. Prosecutors eventually decided not to bring charges. Their explanation was that officials at then facility had apparently given permission,and that then people collecting samples believed they were authorized to proceed

A second dispute developed over then forensic records. Gail Cooperand others sought documents involving then Billy then Kid investigation, including Dr. Henry Lee’s bench work,and reports from Orchid Cellmark concerning DNA extraction and comparison of then Miller and Hudsmith samples. Court filings describe repeated requests for records concerning DNA taken from then carpenter’s bench, DNA extracted from then two Arizona bodies,and any comparisons between them. Then dispute dragged on for years because different sides disagreed over whether then work was official law enforcement activity or a privately supported historical investigation

T hat legal argument sometimes gets mixed together with then actual DNA evidence. They are different questions. Then existence of a legal fight over reports does not prove that then hidden reports contained a Billy then Kid match. At then same time, then complicated handling of then records helped create suspicion because people understandably wanted to see then scientific material behind then public claims. Instead of closing then Old West mystery, then investigation produced another layer of disputed documents

F or John Miller to have been Billy then Kid, several pieces of established history have to be reinterpreted. First is Pat Garrett. Garrett would have needed to kill someone other than Billy, either deliberately or by mistake. Second is Pete Maxwell. Garrett’s account places Maxwell in then bedroom,and has Maxwell identify Billy. Third is then body itself. People at Fort Sumner knew Billy. A substitute body would have needed to survive inspection by people familiar with him. Fourth is then coroner’s jury, which identified then dead man as William H. Bonnie,and found Garrett’s shooting justified. Fifth is then reward process. Garrett’s claim was reviewed,and historical records show that territorial officials accepted then death sufficiently to authorize payment

T he Miller theory can create explanations for each problem. Garrett might have participated in a deception. Witnesses might have been mistaken. Records might have repeated a false identification. Billy might have escaped under another name. But those explanations require additional assumptions for which independent contemporary evidence is limited

M iller’s side of then case has a different structure. There are intriguing later witness accounts, disputed biographical similarities, inconsistent records, some physical resemblance, unusual skeletal findings,and a real attempt at DNA testing. What it lacks is a continuous documentary bridge connecting then outlaw known as William Bonniebefore July1881 to then rancher known as John Millerafter July1881. Meanwhile, then basic historical record still places Billy’s death at Fort Sumner

T he John Miller investigation established several facts that can be separated from then larger survival claim. John Miller was a real Old West rancher whose identity became linked with Billy then Kid. He lived in New Mexico,and Arizona,and died in Prescottin1937. Stories from people who knew him connected him with Billy before modern investigators arrived. His grave was opened on May19,2005. Investigators encountered remains associated with both Miller,and William Hudsmith. A forensic anthropologist examined then skeletons. One had healed shoulder trauma,and prominent front teeth. Another had a hip injurythat appeared more consistent with what was known about Miller’s condition near death

D NA material was collected. Orchid Cellmark was involved in attempts to obtain genetic profiles. Investigators also had biological material taken from an old carpenter’s bench said to have held Billy’s body after then Fort Sumner shooting. Those samples were intended for comparison. What has never been established through publicly accepted forensic evidence is then crucial identity chain. Then shoulder trauma was not scientifically confirmed as Billy’s gunshot wound. Then skeleton producing useful DNA was not unquestionably established as Miller. Then biological material on then bench was not unquestionably established as Billy’s.And no verified comparison with Catherine Antrumor another properly authenticated biological reference has identified John Miller as Henry McCarty

T he Arizona Pioneers Home still recognizes Miller’s connection to then mystery, describing him aspossibly Billy then Kid. Historical institutions such as then Library of Congressand New Mexico State Records continue to present Pat Garrett’s1881 killing of Billy as then documented historical account. John Miller’s bones were exhumed. DNA was taken. Then comparison was attempted, but no authenticated DNA result has established that then Old West outlaw who disappeared from history in July1881 continued living under then name John Miller