is Lynn suggesting that the implication here is that Ringo may have been killed by someone with a connection to Martin in order to collect the $250 bounty? It's an interesting footnote to the topic at hand and it certainly specifies by name a party, one James H. Martin, who can reasonably be described as a Ringo enemy--the man is so p.o.'d that he's writing sheriffs, writing governors, and singling out Ringo by name (more or less)--but is that raised specter enough on its own to alter the opinion of those who are convinced that the preponderance of the evidence points to suicide?

Not in my book, because it makes little sense, wouldn't you agree, that someone, much less one of the sheriff's that Martin mentions, or sheriff surrogates, who would kill Ringo for the bounty money would leave the corpse and the "death scene" in the manner in which both were discovered.

Moreover, we have nothing more, no further facts, not a word about the matter from Martin or anyone else, at least that I am aware of. Why? Particularly in light of Martin having made it a matter of public record, why would the Ringo-killing party not own up to the act of ridding the vicinity of an undesirable alcoholic rustler? Even if Leslie got wind of the bounty and took it upon himself to do the job, why not say as much (as far as we know) when he made his later claim in Yuma?

Think I'll stick by my guns for now while waiting on Gatto.