Hello, There are several mistakes in the previous post that I wish to correct, as well as I feel a great need to explain my side of this debate.
The page on my website that best explains my views was not deleted. It was moved and can be viewed at A Wrong Corrected
: (from post dated 3/23/08) I claim that David Charvet took my words out of context in his books, not John Pomeroy. Thank you for sticking up for me.
: (from post dated 3/23/08) I do indeed say John Pomeroy lied to me...and he did! He lied when he told me he had paid for computer analysis on photographs that he thought might be Alexander Conlin. My website page indicated above shows the letter he sent to me in which he indicates he did the computer analysis. No such analysis was ever released from his notes. This is why I called his work regarding Soapy Smith, "invented research
." At the time I believed him and congratulated him by letter. This letter contains my words that continue to be taken out of context in David Charvet's book (first & second edition). These "out of context" words clearly make it appear in Charvet's books that I supposedly agreed with Pomeroy that Conlin shot my great grandfather, Jefferson Randolph "Soapy" Smith. In all our communications Pomeroy never mentioned to me any theory he had that Conlin killed Soapy. The first I heard of it was from David Charvet in his books.
I am sorry that John Pomeroy is no longer with us to defend himself but my family has been studying the history of our con man descendant for over 100 years, and I myself have researched his life for most of mine. I am not about to cease telling the truth of his death because John Pomeroy passed away. There is nothing remotely true in what Charvet wrote, but because it is in print it will continue to confuse anyone who reads it for the remainder of time, and that is just not acceptable. I am out to tell the true story of my descendant. I see no reason why I should not have that right.
, you wrote, "Smith has not addressed why a careful researcher like Pomeroy would conclude that Alexander and not Frank Reid killed his grandfather
." The reason I did not conclude it is because Pomeroy never mentioned any theory that Alexander killed my great grandfather. I first learned of it in Charvet's books. In fact, I am not convinced it was Pomeroy's theory at all
. Someone needs to ask David Charvet if he can prove Pomeroy has such a ridiculous theory in his notes in the first place.
, you wrote, "The Jesse Murphy story is not new, it saw print as early as 1941, and as Jeff Smith said, is common lore in Alaska. It should be noted however, that it is based on the unsubstantiated statement of one man, Mathew Sundeen
." Actually, the Murphy story first appeared the following day after Soapy was shot dead. It was exposed in a letter to R.C.M.P. commander Steel in a note written by J. M. Tanner, one of the three other men with Jesse Murphy on the wharf when Soapy was shot. Steel wrote to his superiors twice, stating that it was Jesse Murphy and not Frank Reid who killed Soapy. Documentation of these and other letters are in my book. Sundeen was only one of several men who exposed the truth of the shooting years later. You can find out more on the Murphy shooting on my website HERE.
, you wrote, "I have no agenda and am looking forward to buying Mr. Smith's book, I'm hoping it will help with my own research on the Cardiff Giant.
" Thank you in advance for the purchase of my upcoming book. I think I already answered your question about the Cardiff Giant on another forum. The Cardiff Giant is not involved with Soapy's history. I am guessing that you read that somewhere, and the fact that someone once wrote that is just another example of "invented research
." Soapy had McGinty, a petrified man that still exists and is a real corpse. My book will go into great detail on that story, including the possible identification of the corpse, another man who tried to kill Soapy.
The Soapy Smith Preservation Trust
What's New (discussion board)