Before I get into the last part of this series of stories, which is looking at the Jonathan R. Davis 1854 gunfight, I want to explain that I had to make some changes to make my material fit into my blog. So I'm sorry if it's puzzling, but I did have to delete some of what I wrote so that I'd have room to finish this. My apologies for the confusion.
___________________
As for the story of Jonathan Davis and his supposed epic battle, it is very obvious that I believe it was a hoax. Was it an event where a man took on 11 murderers single-handedly, first with a pistol in each hand, shooting them all in the heart or the head, and then with a Bowie knife while all four of them simultaneously attacked him with Bowie knives and a sabre. And not, there's no record of the Placer County Sheriff or the El Dorado County Sheriff ever being notified or ever looking into it. And that makes it that much more unbelievable.
The reasons that the Davis story sounds so fishy to me are all the same reasons why the public started asking questions within a fairly short time. And yes, it was fairly quickly that the story's legitimacy came into question. Newspapers like the Georgetown News echoed the public's concerns in their report on January 4, 1855, saying: "As it now stands, however, one cannot but look at the whole affair as an ingenious 'sell' upon the part of Capt. Davis and his friends. Although that gentleman still affirms its truth, as he is not able to bring the least evidence to attest it, we are obliged for the present to place him upon the list of practical humbugs."
Other than what was published in The Mountain Democrat and syndicated on the wire in newspaper articles, there is no record of an attempted homicide, homicides, robberies, a gun battle, or a knife fight ever taking place with a large gang of men involved in December of 1854. And no, there is no evidence that a shooting, nevertheless multiple homicides, ever took place.
According to one source on this story, "Seven robbers lay dead, killed outright. ... Davis had the booty, which consisted of $491 in coin and several valuable watches, sent to the dead man’s family."
That source said that the $491 was all the booty they had. But how about their other valuable stolen goods? How about their guns? Two pistols apiece would have been 22 pistols. And let's not forget their ammunition, balls and caps, powder, and more. And if they had rifles or shotguns, then that would have been that many more guns. Yes, that sounds like enough guns and ammo for Davis to open up his own gun shop in the Old West.
And there had to be more. Those outlaws had Bowie knives while at least one of them had a sabre. And yes, they had boots, canteens, packs, coats, blankets, food, maybe watches, and their own horse and pack animals? I doubt such a large gang traveled on foot. So what happened to their gear, their horses and mules, their saddles, bridles, tack, tents, and the rest of their stuff?
The Public Wanted Evidence
If there was anything that most people wanted after a few weeks of reading about the Davis story, they wanted more evidence. I believe, more than anything else, it was the lack of evidence that made people question Davis and his story. And frankly, that was even more true after he came out with his letter to the Editor of The Mountain Democrat on January 11, 1855, to recant parts of his story.
Recanting a statement means the person formally or informally states that they no longer agree with, or believe, the previous statement they made. As for the consequences of recanting some of their initial statement, even if it was to a newspaper, that could mean possibly changing the impact of the story. It may change what may be seen as a crucial piece of evidence. While it doesn't automatically mean that something didn't happen, it can challenge a person's credibility. I believe it negatively affected how the public saw Davis and the whole story.
Thankfully for Davis, he changed parts of his statement to The Mountain Democrat newspaper, and it wasn't as if he were under oath giving a statement to the County Sheriff, where changing his story could have led to legal consequences like perjury charges. Then again, if there were an actual ongoing investigation of the supposed multiple homicide, even if the original statement wasn't sworn under oath, recanting it with a false explanation could still lead to charges of making a false statement.
Of course, in his letter to the Editor of The Mountain Democrat, in regards to the number of rounds that struck his hat, he says, "They must have counted all the holes where the balls came out of it, in their passage through the crown and brim of it. as well as where they entered. The miners have disfigured it very much by poking their lingers through the holes, and tearing it. so that it is somewhat difficult to decide upon the number. I do not believe that over one-half of that number touched it."
And in regards to 4 men attacking me with knives and a sabre all at the same time, he tried to tamp that number down by changing the story. To do that, he said in his letter to the Mountain Democrat's Editor, "Mr. Lyles is perhaps correct in his assertion that two of the four who made the charge upon me were unable to fight on account of their old wounds." So all in all, his letter to the Editor changed a 4-on-1 knife-fight against healthy outlaws to a 4-on-1 knife-fight against 2 healthy and 2 wounded outlaws. Yes, it's laughable.
Let's Talk About Those Outlaws & Davis's Hat
If each of them had 2 pistols, the same way that Davis supposedly carried 2 pistols, then that's a lot of rounds being rained on Davis and his party. Two pistols for one man is 12 shots if the pistol is loaded with 6 rounds each -- which is what one would load in a pistol if you know you're going into a fight. If you are just carrying a revolver of the time, like say a Colt 1851 Navy, you only load 5 and keep the hammer down on an empty chamber as a safety.
So, thinking that killers would load each of their pistols with 6 each for action instead of being loaded with 5 each for carry, that means those 11 murderers had 132 rounds to Davis's 10 rounds. And yes, that's just thinking that those outlaws were only carrying 2 pistols each -- when it was not unusual for bandits to carry more than that at one time.
Because, according to Davis's story, we know James McDonald was shot once and killed, Dr. Sparks was shot once and died later, there were supposedly 11 bullet holes found in his coat, and 17 bullet holes in his hat. That means the bandits expended 30 rounds, shooting 1 for McDonald, 1 for Sparks, 11 into Davis's coat, and 17 shot into Davis's hat. That means those bandits, if they were armed like Davis and had 2 guns each, had almost 100 rounds left after shooting McDonald, Sparks, and Davis's coat and hat.
And, again, according to Davis's story, we know the killers ran out of bullets after not hitting Davis with all of those rounds before resorting to simultaneously charging Davis with their knives and a saber. That means those bandits couldn't shoot straight. While that is a presumption on my part, I'd say I'm justified in looking at this like that since the bandits didn't hit and kill Davis with their pistols.
Now, before I talk about the great 4 to 1 knife fight, let's talk about Davis's shot-up hat. Those outlaws must have been the worst ever assembled. Besides not being able to hit Davis with a lot of rounds, especially since he is said to have stood his ground during incoming fire, the only thing those pitiful bandits did was shoot is shoot his coat and hat. They shot his hat. Yes, they shot his hat with 17 rounds!
Well, I have a small shooting range on the side of my home on my property, so I tried to recreate that scene. My father-in-law and I used his replica Colt 1851 Navy Revolver, .36 caliber, six-round cap and ball revolver, and we tried to shoot a few different hats to see if it was possible to shoot a hat 17 times, or even 8 times, without hitting the foam head inside of it.
For our test, my father-in-law and I used white foam heads to hold the hats in place. And yes, we both tried to only shoot the hat and not the foam heads. By the way, the replica 1851 Navy Revolver matches the design by Samuel Colt. The original Navy Revolvers were in production between 1847 and 1850. Replica Colt Navy revolvers, particularly the 1851 Colt Navy, are popular among black-powder shooters like my father-in-law. As I said before, the replica that we used belonged to my father-in-law and was made by Uberti.
We shot a modern fur-felt "cowboy hat," a straw "cowboy hat," a replica of a California Gold Rush miner's slouch hat with a very low crown, a replica of a Mexican-American War wheel hat, and a Dickens Christmas type of top hat to try to match the bogus Jonathan R. Davis picture being circulated on the Internet.
We shot the standard .36 caliber ball round at different speeds. What I mean by different speeds is that we tried to move faster and draw and fire and hit the hats as fast as I could. And yes, my father-in-law helped me do these tests. The reason that I bring this up has to do with the fact that Tom Prickett, aka Nickle Jim, my father-in-law, was a much better shot than I am, was faster than I am, and was much more proficient at using a cap-and-ball black-powder pistol. He was perfect for helping with this test.
Our tests took about 6 hours, and his pistol was great. It truly mimicked the feel and function of the original Colt 1851 Navy Revolver. Yes, including a loose cap that jammed the pistol on four separate occasions.
As for the hats, the results varied but it wasn't good for the foam heads. Our tests found that we missed the hats altogether if we drew the pistol from a holster and shot too fast. It was very hard to just hit the hats if we were moving at a combat action pace. Of course, we slowed down so that we could hit the hats, and that's when we found out that the foam heads were hit every time we shot. My worn-out old modern fur-felt "cowboy hat," the straw "cowboy hat," the replica California Gold Rush miner's slouch hat, had about an inch or two about the foam head where a bullet wouldn't hit the foam head. As for the replica of a Mexican-American War wheel hat, the area about the foam head was reduced to about a half an inch to an inch. As for the Dickens Christmas top hat, that was hit and miss.
We found that we needed to purposely aim high at the hats and shoot very slowly to deliberately try to hit the very top of the hats to get a round to miss hitting a foam head. We also needed to shoot slower to hit any of the hats and miss a foam head. We found it easy to shoot the hats without the foam heads in the hats.
Now, as for the gang being lousy shots? They might not have been if they were trying to deliberately shoot Davis's hat without hitting him in the head. Our tests showed that they must have been aiming high and intentionally trying to miss hitting him in the head.
There is something else, something that we found very important to note is how long it took us to reset the hats for their next shot since in most every case the hat would get knocked off the foam head when shot, and how long it took us to deliberately put 17 rounds in that Charles Dickens top hat. Remember, this is the type of hat that most bogus pictures of Jonathan R. Davis on the Internet depict him wearing.
To hit it 17 times took a long time. As a moving target, shooting those hats was not easy. To make it easier for us to shoot them, we put them on a wooden post to shoot them. And to simulate it being shot by several assailants at once, I asked a couple of friends to help us shoot the top hat with 17 rounds.
We shot a modern fur-felt "cowboy hat," a straw "cowboy hat," a replica of a California Gold Rush miner's slouch hat with a very low crown, a replica of a Mexican-American War wheel hat, and a Dickens Christmas type of top hat to try to match the bogus Jonathan R. Davis picture being circulated on the Internet.
We shot the standard .36 caliber ball round at different speeds. What I mean by different speeds is that we tried to move faster and draw and fire and hit the hats as fast as I could. And yes, my father-in-law helped me do these tests. The reason that I bring this up has to do with the fact that Tom Prickett, aka Nickle Jim, my father-in-law, was a much better shot than I am, was faster than I am, and was much more proficient at using a cap-and-ball black-powder pistol. He was perfect for helping with this test.
Our tests took about 6 hours, and his pistol was great. It truly mimicked the feel and function of the original Colt 1851 Navy Revolver. Yes, including a loose cap that jammed the pistol on four separate occasions.
As for the hats, the results varied but it wasn't good for the foam heads. Our tests found that we missed the hats altogether if we drew the pistol from a holster and shot too fast. It was very hard to just hit the hats if we were moving at a combat action pace. Of course, we slowed down so that we could hit the hats, and that's when we found out that the foam heads were hit every time we shot. My worn-out old modern fur-felt "cowboy hat," the straw "cowboy hat," the replica California Gold Rush miner's slouch hat, had about an inch or two about the foam head where a bullet wouldn't hit the foam head. As for the replica of a Mexican-American War wheel hat, the area about the foam head was reduced to about a half an inch to an inch. As for the Dickens Christmas top hat, that was hit and miss.
We found that we needed to purposely aim high at the hats and shoot very slowly to deliberately try to hit the very top of the hats to get a round to miss hitting a foam head. We also needed to shoot slower to hit any of the hats and miss a foam head. We found it easy to shoot the hats without the foam heads in the hats.
Now, as for the gang being lousy shots? They might not have been if they were trying to deliberately shoot Davis's hat without hitting him in the head. Our tests showed that they must have been aiming high and intentionally trying to miss hitting him in the head.
There is something else, something that we found very important to note is how long it took us to reset the hats for their next shot since in most every case the hat would get knocked off the foam head when shot, and how long it took us to deliberately put 17 rounds in that Charles Dickens top hat. Remember, this is the type of hat that most bogus pictures of Jonathan R. Davis on the Internet depict him wearing.
To hit it 17 times took a long time. As a moving target, shooting those hats was not easy. To make it easier for us to shoot them, we put them on a wooden post to shoot them. And to simulate it being shot by several assailants at once, I asked a couple of friends to help us shoot the top hat with 17 rounds.
The bottom line from my hat test was simply this: One, if Davis was wearing that hat when it was shot, he must have been standing absolutely still the whole time to let them hit it. Two, Davis must have spent a lot of time putting back on his head every time one of the outlaws shot it off his noggin. Three, there is no way a hat could have been shot 8 to 17 times without hitting the wearer in the head. And four, Davis's hat was probably shot when he wasn't wearing it to perpetrate the hoax.
So now, let's talk about Knife Fighting 101.
Now, besides being lousy shots, let's talk about how that gang was made up of a bunch of lousy knife fighters. Let's talk about those outlaws and their inability to kill someone using a knife -- when the odds were in their favor.
So now, let's talk about Knife Fighting 101.
Now, besides being lousy shots, let's talk about how that gang was made up of a bunch of lousy knife fighters. Let's talk about those outlaws and their inability to kill someone using a knife -- when the odds were in their favor.
According to the Davis story, there were three gang members with knives and one gang member with a sabre. The four of them attacked him abreast of each other, all at once. They should have been able to take one man with a knife, no matter if he was an "expert fencer" as he was portrayed by The Mountain Democrat. How? By simply overwhelming him.
The supposed knife-fight between Davis and 4 killers is a real point of interest to me. While in the Marine Corps, and just a young Marine PFC, I remember going through knife-fighting training at Infantry Training School. During the training sessions, it was almost always a 1-on-1 scenario meant to get your form and stance down pat. But I do remember how, after one training session, I asked my Instructor, "What do we do if there is more than one at a time or even more who come at you all at once and try to overwhelm us? What do we do then?"
Though over 50 years ago, allow me to paraphrase what my Close Combat Instructor, Staff Sgt Weathers, said, "No amount of training will get you ready for Armageddon. You have to take it as it comes, move away, and try to line them up behind each other to take on one at a time. By keeping moving back, you let them come to you."
I still remember how he tried to instill in us the belief that when fighting with a knife, you fight like your very soul depends on it. Your attack should be with viciousness and veracity. And if there is more than one enemy with a knife, you slash everywhere of your attacker at once. Slashes are designed to keep an enemy off balance and allow Marines to come in close. Once you close the distance, you can then stab your attackers. Stabs do more damage and are more lethal. You probably won't have time to parry or thrust with more than one coming at you at the same time. And yes, more of them makes it that much more likely that they will try to overwhelm you. If you can get them to come to you, keep your balance, stay on your feet, keep slashing, punching, grabbing, and maybe throw them off balance if you can, then maybe you'd survive. The whole idea of surviving such a last line of defense fight for your life is all about keeping moving, cutting them up and bleeding them out.
The supposed knife-fight between Davis and 4 killers is a real point of interest to me. While in the Marine Corps, and just a young Marine PFC, I remember going through knife-fighting training at Infantry Training School. During the training sessions, it was almost always a 1-on-1 scenario meant to get your form and stance down pat. But I do remember how, after one training session, I asked my Instructor, "What do we do if there is more than one at a time or even more who come at you all at once and try to overwhelm us? What do we do then?"
Though over 50 years ago, allow me to paraphrase what my Close Combat Instructor, Staff Sgt Weathers, said, "No amount of training will get you ready for Armageddon. You have to take it as it comes, move away, and try to line them up behind each other to take on one at a time. By keeping moving back, you let them come to you."
I still remember how he tried to instill in us the belief that when fighting with a knife, you fight like your very soul depends on it. Your attack should be with viciousness and veracity. And if there is more than one enemy with a knife, you slash everywhere of your attacker at once. Slashes are designed to keep an enemy off balance and allow Marines to come in close. Once you close the distance, you can then stab your attackers. Stabs do more damage and are more lethal. You probably won't have time to parry or thrust with more than one coming at you at the same time. And yes, more of them makes it that much more likely that they will try to overwhelm you. If you can get them to come to you, keep your balance, stay on your feet, keep slashing, punching, grabbing, and maybe throw them off balance if you can, then maybe you'd survive. The whole idea of surviving such a last line of defense fight for your life is all about keeping moving, cutting them up and bleeding them out.
To paraphrase what the Marine Corps teaches in regards to knife-fighting: "The primary objective when fighting with a knife is to insert the blade into an aggressor to cause massive damage and trauma. This is done with a thrusting technique. Thrusting techniques are more effective than slashing techniques because of the damage they can cause. But, slashing techniques distract the aggressor or cause enough damage so that you can close with him and apply more damaging techniques. Primary target areas are usually the limbs or any portion of the body that is presented."
Remember, what the Davis story said, "The only four surviving robbers made a charge upon Capt. Davis, three with Bowie knives and one with a short sword or sabre. Capt. Davis stood firmly on his ground until they rushed up abreast within about four steps of him. He then made a spring upon them with a large Bowie knife, warded off their blows as fast as they were aimed at him, and gave three of them wounds that soon proved fatal!"
When I read how Davis supposedly waited until the 4 attackers were about four paces away before he launched himself into the group, into a gang of 4 knife-wielding assailants standing abreast of each other, I remember thinking that someone charging forward against 4 men with knives is asking to be swarmed and stabbed from all sorts of directions. Instead of moving and fighting it out to maintain some sort of control on who is coming at you from the side and the back, he jumped in the middle of four others with knives, taking away any sort of advantage he would have had if he kept moving and let them come to him. Besides the silly claim that his hat was shot 17 times, this is one of the reasons that I see this story as pure fabrication.
Even if Davis were a trained martial arts fighter, which he wasn't, even if he was a professional soldier and not merely a volunteer who spent a mere a year and a half in the South Carolina Volunteer unit, even if he was actually trained in close combat which most Mexican-American War volunteers were not, launching yourself into four attackers with knives is a dumb move. And yes, it's way too hard to believe that it would be successful without getting yourself killed. So really, if you can take away anything from this hoax, it should be this: allowing yourself to be swarmed in a knife fight would not work in a real-world fight for your life.
And really, think about how dumb this sounds? "Capt. Davis stood firmly on his ground until they rushed up abreast within about four steps of him; he then made a spring upon them with a large bowie knife, warding off their blows as fast as they were aimed at him."
In fact, while we all know that Julius Caesar was stabbed to death when he was swarmed by about 40 Roman senators on the "Ides of March," according to Davis's story, Caesar would have survived if he were Jonathan R. Davis. He would have killed them all.
As for this hoax, the question isn't if the story is a hoax -- simply because there's too much evidence pointing to how it was a hoax. The question really is, why would Davis and the others, including the folks at The Mountain Democrat back in 1854 commit fraud? And yes, as you can tell, I really believe that it was all a poorly made-up news story.
The Georgetown News newspaper called the story a "sheer fabrication" and "an unmitigated hoax." And yes, I truly believe they were right. I believe it was concocted between Davis, his friends, and folks at The Mountain Democrat newspaper for the same reason that all hoaxes are tried.
It was all about attempting to deceive the public and gain fame, celebrity status, increase circulation, and make money. No one ever heard of Jonathan R. Davis before his tale hit The Mountain Democrat. But his tall tale had folks instantly treating him as an important man. Such attention can be intoxicating to some folks. That's why hoaxes are still pulled today. That's why I believe the whole Capt. Jonathan R. Davis gunfight story of 1854 was a hoax.
Tom Correa
