Audie L. Murphy Memorial Website Message Boards

They still have it incorrect! Almost all history resources still have his birth in 1924. Even his famous tombstone in Arlington has it 1924. That is wrong, I am 98% sure. I've read too many publications on Murphy and I know the little rascal lied about his age.
Though, I am still confused about this age when he enlisted, or was finally accepted? I believe he was only 17 because his sister helped alter his birth date, right? So, the Army thought he just turned 18, though in fact, he was only turning 17.

Who can verify his genuine birth-date and his true enlisted age?
Thanks all! It's good to be back and alive. Sometimes bad things happen to people when we're away for sometime. Even Audie Murphy fans.

I believe he was born in 1924. Looking over his family tree i noticed that Richard was born February 16, 1926. It is unlikely that Audie and Richard were born 8 months apart. I think he lied about his age and tried to enlist a 17 1/2 but it didn't work so he went back with proof at 18.

I agree with Jackie. If Richard was born in Feb 1926 it only makes sense that Audie was born in June 1924 and that is the date I have always accepted as the correct one for him. It is also possible that Richard Rodgers is right in stating that we may never truly know when he was born because of all the missing records but unless Richard's birthdate it wrong it seems highly unlikely that Audie was born in 1925 which was on his driver's license.

Sharon

I personally asked Nadine (sister) and Gene (brother) and they both told me 1924.

Okay, but here is an interesting bio on Audie that tells of once having his birthday in 1925 and then moved back. Am I confused? Read the story. http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/190 ... Murphy.htm
Still, we need more verification on which is indeed the correct date.
Mr.Williams, did Nadine explain why his birth is listed in 1925, many places? She might be covering for that birthday lie out of respect for Audie?

I remember asking Nadine a couple years ago in her living room while we were visiting and I got the impression that it was a too often brought up subject. Of course she and Gene were both younger than Audie and could both be just going by what they were led to believe growing up.

Either he died at 45 or 46, and he would have been 86 or 87 right now. If it was 1925, he would have been 3 weeks prior to turning 46, which in four weeks, I will be 3 weeks till I turn 46, so in four weeks I will be the same age he was when he died. I don't plan on getting on a plane any time soon.

It is one of those subjects that we will never get the straight of so might as well not dwell on it, cause this late in the game, it just doesn't matter.

We can all agree to disagree on it and leave it at that.

If you look carefully at the Census records I found last week, you will note that Audie's birthday on one of them was listed as 1923! Supposedly, the census worker wrote down what he was told by Emmett and Josie when they answered his question - and Christie thought of a scenario which would explain the error.

Imagine a rather unwelcome person knocking on the door of a shabby rundown home, kids running around all over the place, and Josie and/or Emmett uncomfortably answering the questions as they are asked. Answers were probably given quickly and accuracy wasn't necessarily of paramount concern. When it came to the kids, the parents probably rounded ages up to the closest year for one or more kids - especially if they were within a month or so of a birthday. It's logical.

But the fact is, it is yet another mistake on the recorded age of Audie and it only muddies up the issue even more.

As much as I hate to admit it (and I believe Audie was born in 1925), this mystery will never ever be solved conclusively. You can't discount Nadine's and Gene's view and you can't discount the nearness of Richard's age ... even though you can explain how an error could be made and it is possible for Audie to be born in very close proximity to Richard.

At the same time, there are too many references to Audie admitting he falsified the records and these can't be discounted either. You can't ignore the the driver's license either.

There are only two people that I can think of (not including Josie and Emmett) who could actually solve the mystery - Corrine and Audie and both are gone. Neither will ever be able to confirm or admit that the county birth records were falsified.

Unless something absolutely concrete, like a family bible penned in Josie's own hand, is found ... I am afraid the mystery will never be solved. Mike West feels the same way.

In a way, it could be a good thing not knowing for sure ... I would HATE to be the fellow to have to tell every organization that carved a monument to Audie that they got the birth year wrong. I mean, can you imagine how hard it would be to get all the markers and monuments recast and recarved?

Sometimes I wonder if Audie intentionally messed with the reporters by planting a story about falsifying his age ... it would be like him to try and have a joke on some of these reporters. If he did, maybe Audie is having a good laugh over it all right now. Hope so.

_________________
Richard L. Rodgers
Webmaster
Audie Murphy Memorial Website

Thanks R.Rogers. Very interesting subject. And like you, I believe it's also 1925. I've read so much detail and history on AM, I do not recall where I was convinced he indeed, was only 17 at enlistment. You know he tried to enlist at 16 and was denied. After that, is when this controversial birth change supposedly happened.

We may have to bring in Sherlock Holmes to unravel this mystery. Great mystery though!

Hi Folks, It seems this birthday question just never goes away does it? I have asked this question before,
and I will ask it again now. Granted, times and policies and procedures were a lot different in the "OLD"
days, however, I am quite sure, when Audie moved to California and set up residence, one thing he had
to do like all of us today, was Renew his driver's license in California. He probably had a "Texas" driver's
license, and submitted that along with a copy of a birth certificate to prove citizenship, age, and the fact
that he was indeed licensed to drive prior to moving to California from Texas. I am also quite sure, that
at the time this was done, California DMV would have contacted Texas to verify the information submitted
by Audie. Therefore, I truly believe that Audie was born in June of 1925, not 1924. Also, why would
Audie have a license that had a 1925 date on it, if it were not in fact his true birth year ? Also, even it
Richard was born in February of 1926, that is eight month's after June of 1925, and it is NOT unusual
for a sibling to be born a mere 8 month's latter. There are a lot of incidences of that occurring quite
often in families. I agree with Richard and other's on this board who believe Audie was actually born in
1925. To bad their wasn't some way one of our member's could inquire to DMV for both Texas and
California. The fact that the census as stated by Josie and Emmett was 1923 was not that unusual
either. I think Richard set up the perfect scenario as to how that occurred. As Richard has pointed out
the only two folks who could clear this matter up are Audie and Corrine, and I believe Audie already
did when years latter, 1970, when his California license was renewed, he made sure it had a 1925
date on it. Respectfully, Shirley Jean.