Sam Mohawk or Chicken Warrups

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BEARSE/2001-02/0981530724

I have a question for those interested in the history of Native Americans in
Connecticut, which I am trying to resolve in reading the monograph of
Franklyn Bearce.
He describes Sam Mohawk, or Chicken Warrups, as being born about 1650-55, son
of Kyne, a war sachem of the Mohawks, having killed an Onondaga youth, sent
to wander in Connecticut, captured by the Ramapos, and saved from death when
the daughter of Katoonah chose him for a husband, died in 1749, at nearly a
hundred years of age, leaving a son, Capt. Thomas Chicken Warrups, and a
daughter Ann Warrups, who married or otherwise had a child with Richard
Baldwin, a white man of Milford, named John Baldwin, whose daughter Rebecca
married Josiah Bearce.
I am trying to reconcile this scenario with what is known historically of Sam
Mohawks, or Old Chicken Warrups.
He is known to have lived at Greensfarms, near Westport, CT, and committed a
murder there, of another Indian, for which he escaped justice by removing
himself to Reading, CT. (He is supposed to have had a grandson named
Reading, as well.).
In 1720, he is recorded as receiving an Indian belt in Reading, which he
forwarded to the village of Potatucks.
In 1725, he sold his land to Samuel Couch of Fairfield, reserving fishing and
hunting rights, and an area around his house, the size to be determined
later. There was a dispute about this much later, in 1746, that went to the
New Haven assembly, and they granted him 100 acres of good arable land to
resolve the matter.
Then, in 1748, John Read proposed to exchange with him this 100 acres in
Reading for 200 acres in Schgaticoke, which was bounded by the Housatonic,
with good fishing. It was also near the Scatacook settlement of Indians.
Apparently Sam Mohawk or Chicken Warrups liked what he saw, because he
accepted this exchange in 1749, and moved there. However, he must have been
getting on, because in 1762 he petitioned the Assembly to ask that 30 acres
of his land be sold, and the money used to pay his debts and provide for his
future support. He died not long after, it is supposed, and left his land
to his woman and one or two children.
Which of these two narratives is correct, as they seem to be incompatible?
Does anyone have further information that might clear up this mystery?