Tom Horn: do you think he was guilty or framed

[john keyes]

what do you think, did he really kill that young boy...

I know the movie was pretty cool, especially what he said when they asked him if he had anything to say
and then when he dropped his indian stuff at the end of the rope

[GatCat]

I haven't studied the matter in depth, but I think he did kill the boy, thinking it was the father. He was a "rough-rider" in his day, and appealled his sentence to T.R., who refused to commute it.
I do believe it was Tom Horn who Geronomo ( sp?) surrendered to. Quiet a story, I'd like to see another movie made of his life, and early days.
Mark

[williamlayton]

I am doubtful of the guilt. It was a differnt life then,
Blessings

[kynardsj]

If you go by the movie then I believe he was framed. I haven't read any books about him that may tell a more accurate account of things.

[williamlayton]

Not acknowledging the movies, The general history of the whole situation and the method of obtaining the evidence makes it a railroad job---IMO.
That was then but would not play in modern courts.
Blessings

[Skunk]

The general history of the whole situation and the method of obtaining the evidence makes it a railroad job---IMO. That was then but would not play in modern courts.

Agreed. Apparently there were no witnesses who actually saw Horn shoot the boy. Horn's alleged confession was supposedly given while Horn was intoxicate. The jury was said to be biased against Tom Horn’s employers because of the employer's misuse of power throughout the community. If Horn had been tried in today's court, I think he would not have been convicted.

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

  Over the years I have done lots of reading and had a couple very interesting talks with folks. I am convinced Horn did not kill the Nickel kid. It seems the most likely it was one of the Millers. If I remember all my reading, there was no motive for Horn to kill Nickels. They were sheepmen, but not cattle thieves. That was Horn's domain. Ridding the country of cattle thieves. They were told to leave, or be tried by the "system that never fails."  Horn was a fascinating character. When drunk he would admit to killing Linclon. There is much to say about him, one good source said, he simply could not cope with the changing world around him. Too much had changed since his days of hunting Apaches in Az. Hunting rustlers was small game compared to the days of hunting Apaches, but it was the best game in town for excitement. Today Horn's case would have been thown out of court, he was brought to trial twice for the same crime.(But I guess that is now acceptable if the liberal govt. wants to find you guilty). One man I met while shoot trap in Cheyenne happened to mention he had owned the Iron Mt. Ranch. The ranch Horn headquartered out of while in Wy. I waited for my chance and ask if it was the one Horn was associated with. He seemed hesitant to talk, but finally said yes, he worked for my grandfather, and I will tell you this Horn had a pair of 10 power Ziess Binoculars. He knew exactly what he was shooting at. He was not a thug, he was a professional. Some one walked up, and he said no more. I think the distance which Nickle was killed was like 50 yards. So from all I have read and heard, Horn was not guilty of this crime. He died without turning his employers over to the gov'.t Many felt that was the purpose behind the whole trial, to get Horn to tell who hired him.

[powderman]

I never believed he was guilty. POWDERMAN. 

[hillbill]

good post yote hunter.very informative.kinda sounds like he may of had ptsd from the apache days. wouldnt blame him if he did.never have made up my mind about this subject, the info from both sides is often very biased

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

  hill, thanks, it is generally accepted now I think that Horn was railroaded. They have had several mock trials, and evertime Horn was found not guilty. As mentioned, he had no reason to go after Nickels. He was not someone who just killed people for no reason. It is really pretty complicated. His religious background taught there was nothing worst than a thief. So his ridding the ranges of cattle thieves was doing good work.  Also it was almost impossible for the cattle owners to get a conviction of cattle theft in those days because the peop,e on the jury were also small time rustlers.

[Echo4Lima]

Framed

[williamlayton]

It is a complicated issue.
The ruling class was the BIG cattle interest and they had little concern for anyone else.
Horn was a paid gun---emphasis on GUN.
There was little that individuals could fight with against the Cattlemen and it was a fight against them.
Horn was in the middle and expendable too the Cattlemen.
Ridding themselves of Horn was not the goal but too break up the power of the Cattlemen.
It was a changing time and some folks loved the old way and the power they yielded.
The subject of guilt got lost in this struggle and Horn paid a price that was not deserving of this crime---not too say that he was squeeky clean and other charges could have been just as severe.
Blessings