Those who claim remarkable revelations concerning this history and even more stupendous theories, but then go out of their way to hide them-- hold a special place of disdain within my heart and mind. It's my view, those who possess extraordinary historical knowledge-- have a personal responsibility to bring their info to the fore in a timely fashion. To me, it's a bit like knowing you love someone, but never telling them. So what's the point and who benefits?? As Billy Preston so aptly put it-- "Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing". However for all involved-- that shouldn't be the case concerning Bonnie & Clyde historical knowledge.
Case in point. As I often am-- I was recently approached by an individual who apparently happened onto some items purportedly related to Bonnie & Clyde History. That in itself is not unusual-- as I am routinely asked to give historical opinion on supposed artifacts linked to this history, and answer questions related to pretty much everything Bonnie & Clyde. And let me preface further comment-- with a disclaimer that since this person fancies rattling sabres and threatening legal action seemingly at every turn-- in an effort to protect thoughts, perceived evidence, and supposition as if supposition was fact-- that my opinion here is not meant as a personal affront. Rather, commentary on the manner and approach made-- which I find historically offensive and demeaning to Bonnie & Clyde Historians and aficionados alike. Thus I will choose my words carefully in protecting not only myself, but also this person's identity-- while getting my points across.
Anyway-- along with these items held so close to the vest, I was asked to consider helping with an ongoing effort to support this person's view of the ambush-- a take on this history built on greed, and excluding all but it's last few minutes-- as if nothing else ever happened or mattered, including I assume all that died. As this individual seems to think evidence possessed is irrefutable, as to the straight and skinny of what "really" happened when Bonnie and Clyde were killed, and for all these years-- the true story of the ambush has been in plain site for all to see-- perhaps the best way to proceed is the following. An aside here in saying, perhaps what this individual didn't count on while piecing together so many published sources as gospel (although published sources "can" be flawed)-- was my knowledge of unpublished info "still" not revealed. Frustrating but true.
And just the fact of my and others knowing of non-shared research-- highlights the problem at hand. But what can anyone do, when those who control valuable info-- won't reveal secrets before they're good and ready?? Not much-- if those in whom they've trusted won't tell-- and to tell, means violating that trust. A real quagmire, for many of us who study Bonnie & Clyde History on a high level. For the benefit of those who genuinely care about this history, and for this person who goes to such trouble to protect theories believed unique-- please consider the following.
I would think many believe the ambush didn't happen as stated, and many believe some sort of cover up was conceived and carried out by the ambush posse. Based on the fact that 6 experienced and well-hardened Peace Officers, couldn't come up with some consensus of a story-- it's no secret I agree with this assessment.
Some over the years, have questioned the Coroner's report of Dr. James Wade, in documenting the deaths of Bonnie & Clyde. It's been asked, why a modern forensic follow-up based on the evidence known ie: Dr. Wade's written report, statements made by the ambush posse, those at or near the ambush site, those at Congers that day and a review of mortuary photographic evidence hasn't been performed-- and whether it might still be worthwhile??
Reward monies for all involved have been talked of for years-- including monies said received by those other than lawmen including John Joyner, for his role in helping take down Bonnie & Clyde. I wonder if most believe Mr. Joyner received his tidy sum, as thanks for being the go-between for the law and Ivy Methvin?? I've asked why someone like John Joyner, who may have been even more ruthless than Clyde-- and who likely had knowledge of Bonnie & Clyde's whereabouts-- wasn't employed to take out at least Clyde prior to the ambush, or choose to do it himself?? John later ended his life and the life of his wife Clara on Sept 24th, 1942 in violent fashion. I've also asked, why with so few locations available for Bonnie & Clyde to frequent for necessities in and around Sailes (still true to this day)-- and with so many knowing the conspicuous and wanted couple were among them-- why a sniper laying in wait (civilian, local law or Federal)-- didn't neatly take out Clyde prior to the ambush??
Henry Methvin's whereabouts just prior to the ambush no matter how it was conducted-- is still a matter of debate. Some believe Henry was indeed the guest of Sheriff Jordan in the Gibsland jail, on the morning of May 23rd, 1934. However to my knowledge-- no definitive proof is known.
For those with more extreme solutions for this over the years, such as an altered ambush without Ivy's truck in the road-- at least 2 witnesses, young student Levohn Cole and school bus driver Dan Cole-- were noted via interview to have seen Ivy's truck in the road at the ambush site between 7:30 and 8 o'clock the morning of May 23rd. Filmed interviews with those alive at the time, including with Buddy Goldston to tell which way the wood truck was going and Olin Jackson in recounting the sound of the gunfire-- can be seen within "Remembering Bonnie & Clyde". For some theories to be true-- many if not all of these people would need to be wrong, or coerced, or threatened with death or some such thing-- which would affect their credibility.
These interviews and others made over the years, carry great weight in cataloging 1st hand recollections-- of those present in and around Sailes when Bonnie & Clyde were there and later killed. Also when you watch these clips, listen for statements putting Ivy and his truck in Gibsland at the filling station owned by Mr. Townes. Descriptions and traits of both Bonnie & Clyde as well as other interesting aspects of this story, are told within this documentary via valuable eyewitness accounts. Those who wish to depict a completely different ambush scenario, to me-- need to dispute these accounts as well as ones not yet made public.
I could go on. Suffice to say it's my view when someone has information of potential importance to this or any history-- they need to step up, identify themselves and be willing to accept the scrutiny of their "revelations". And "here" within Bonnie & Clyde History-- they need to possess a thick skin, and bring their flack jacket with them. For this is an "impassioned" and "polarized" history-- with many less polite than me to deal with.
And some words of advice to those who approach folks like me, who are intent on seeking truth within Bonnie & Clyde History within an ethical, civil and clear way. Don't insist your theory is absolute, and that it must be agreed with wholeheartedly-- before sharing your Bonnie & Clyde secrets. What kind of nonsense is that?? For I and others will just wait you out-- and hope you reveal your theories without the control and lack of scrutiny you seek?? And if you decide to just throw in the towel and shelve your effort, in being unwilling or unable to take the heat-- if you honestly have something, that would truly be a loss-- history's loss.
For you see-- "history" is what this is all about.