|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 28, 2015 21:56:09 GMT -5
"In fact, no one is sure how many Ollie's there even was. Oliver L, Oliver Pleasant, Brushy, etc. So again we're stuck in a quandry over who was who, etc. BUT THE GREATEST EVIDENCE for Roberts story is the 1910 census where he lists his parents as being from Kentucky--- when the real Oliver Roberts' parents were from Arkansas. Why would a man (who for many years) ALWAYS listed his parents as being from Arkansas suddenly write Kentucky, and then for the rest of his life go back to writing down Arkansas?"
May I respectfully suggest that you are stating an opinion and not a fact. Brushy Bill Roberts appears in various official records as Ollover (sic), Oliver P., Oliver Pleasant, O. P., Olliver (sic) P., Oliver, Ollie, and Ollie L. Roberts. Find A Grave shows William Henry Roberts. Wikipedia has Oliver Partridge Roberts. Lots of different names for one man.
So the 1910 census shows that the parents of Oliver P. Roberts were born in Kentucky. Do you know if Oliver P. Roberts provided that tidbit of information, or was he away from home when the enumerator came by? Maybe Anna Lee was the respondent. Maybe no one was home, and a neighbor provided the erroneous information. Oliver P. Roberts and Anna Lee had been married for less than a year when the census was recorded. By the way, why did Brushy Bill fail to acknowledge his marriage to Anna Lee? He told Morrison of his last 3 marriages,
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 29, 2015 14:18:29 GMT -5
May I chime in here? I don't know the definitive answers to those questions but I must point out a few things.
1) The fact that Brushy went by so many different versions of the name Oliver might well be an indication he wasn't really Oliver at all. 2) Whether Brushy responded to the census in person or someone else answered on his behalf, the Kentucky answer was not likely just pulled out of thin air. If the responder did not know where Brushy's parents were born they likely would have said so and the field would have been left blank. "Somebody" believed his parents were born in Kentucky and where would they have gotten that info other than Brushy himself? 3) It is entirely possible that the real Oliver was married to Anna Lee and not Brushy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 14:39:27 GMT -5
Like I said in my previous reply on another thread... I keep finding the name Oliver P. Roberts in various parts of Texas, with different background information. One census says "Born in Texas", another says "Born in Arkansas", and yet another says "Born in Alabama". One says his parents were born in Texas, another says Arkansas, and yet another says Georgia. The date of births are also different, as early as 1861 and as late as 1878. I tend to think, either there was more than one Oliver P. Roberts, or Brushy in many census, even in the same year, passed himself off as 'another' Oliver P. Roberts every time. Maybe it's a combination of both, because as you pointed out: alot of aliases for one man.
As for whether I am stating opinion versus fact, IF that is indeed the same Oliver (Brushy) Roberts in the 1910 census who listed his parents as from Kentucky--- who is the same Oliver (Brushy) Roberts in the other censuses--- one can come to one of two conclusions: The Billy The Kid story was created a long, long time before people realize; or Roberts was The Kid, and assumed the identity of the real Oliver Roberts as he said. And as I pointed out before, all the family naysayers against Roberts are repeating second and third hand information from memory from when they were children.
I mean, in all honesty think about it. What if, it all was true. Wouldn't it be more likely to tell your children that their "uncle" wasn't some notorious outlaw? After all children have a bad habit of flapping their gums. Wouldn't it be more likely to make others believe that "uncle Ollie" was the same Ollie Roberts who died, rather than say you was housing a wanted killer? You do realize the crime or penalty involved in knowing the whereabouts of a known criminal? Let alone housing one? I can see that scenario just as credible, if not more so than the alternative explaination.
Why? Because IF Roberts wasn't the Kid, and everyone knew it, wouldn't it of been easier for the family to of come forward from the get go and say to Thomas J. Mabry and others (even William V. Morrison) that our poor uncle has been living a lie, claiming to be The Kid most of his life, when we all knew it to be a fraud? The fact is, most of the family believed that Brushy and Ollie were two different people. When one looks at the surface of the story, it seems only the grandmother believed Brushy was her son Ollie, and she was the only one in the dark over the truth.
Also, how does one even begin to explain how Roberts (if he was Ollie) happen to know so much about everything, and knew so many obscure things that only a handful of people knew (like the tintype being traded for the scarf)? How did he know how certain places looked in the 1870's? How did he know a horse named Cyclone won a race in Wyoming? How did he know there was a Rattlesnake Bill in the Buffalo Bill shows? How did he know the Rough Riders made their way through Mobile, Alabama? How did he know dozens and dozens of other facts and figures, when he would of been a mere child when they happened? And most telling of all, how did so many people--- including Yginio Salazar--- believe Roberts to be The Kid when they met him?
It's taken over 65 years since his death, but the records and newspapers and other odds and ends of evidence are coming out, to support the "crazy old man" and his stories. I don't know if he was The Kid, but he's proving himself to be one of three things: A) He was The Kid, B) He was related to The Kid, C) He was there alongside The Kid. Maybe the latter could be the most likely of them all. A Billy The Kid apologist who was there that night in Fort Sumner. But then again, that isn't strong enough, because he was able to replicate so much--- and based on photographic comparisons with high functioning computers, from prestigous universities, shows him to be a match. Also, he looks very much like Joseph Antrim. So it makes one believe, at the very least, he had to of been actually related to The Kid. And maybe that's the truth. A relative of The Kid, who traveled with The Kid, who saw the death of The Kid, etc. campaigned the rest of his life as The Kid, to see his cousin 'avenged' and get the pardon he deserved.
THAT, of course, is opinion. My first statement on the census record, though, is NOT opinion but fact. For whatever the reason, Brushy Bill Roberts, changed his s.o.b. (state of birth), d.o.b. (date of birth), and his parents place of birth multiple times in his life time. And in the 21st century, we're finding that he was who he said he was "William H. Roberts", and not Oliver P. Roberts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 14:49:40 GMT -5
And of course, there is the final thing to bring to attention.... Why would a man go to such lengths, to PROVE he was The Kid, and do it in such secrecy to have a private meeting with Thomas J. Mabry the govenor of New Mexico?... Why would he go to such lengths to convince all those who really knew The Kid, that he was The Kid?... Why would he give out all these stories, with paper trails and affidavits from people in the Wild West shows and other places, to confirm his story?... WHEN THE FACT REMAINS, Billy The Kid was a wanted "dead" outlaw, and had Brushy convinced Mabry and historians that he was The Kid, he would be putting his life in the hands of the highest authority in the land, when the more likely result is that Brushy would of been incarcerated and probably put to death, rather than get his "pardon"?
Why would someone willingly go to such lengths, to possibly be put to death? That's something the Kid sceptics have NEVER been able to answer. And its a question they don't want to answer. They will say "But he wasn't the Kid so nothing would of happened," and the truth is you don't know what would of happened, had he convinced them he was. But the fact remains, WHY would you put yourself at the mercy of a govenor when you're claiming to be a wanted killer?
This isn't like the John Miller situation where from 1926-1955 he was given free publicity from a friend in the El Paso press for being The Kid. This isn't like the other men who came forward claiming to be The Kid, who did it with full press coverage. This was a man who didn't want publicity, who wanted it all done in secrecy and the ONLY reason why we know about it today is because Thomas J. Mabry went against his word and turned it into a media circus. Otherwise, who knows, we may NEVER of heard the story at all.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 30, 2015 19:00:07 GMT -5
"May I chime in here? I don't know the definitive answers to those questions but I must point out a few things.
1) The fact that Brushy went by so many different versions of the name Oliver might well be an indication he wasn't really Oliver at all."
Let me introduce you to the facts: 1880 AR census, Olover (sic) Roberts 1900 TX census, Oliver P. Roberts 1909 marriage license, O. P. Roberts 1910 TX census, Oliver P. Roberts 1910 divorce decree, O. P. Roberts 1918 AR warranty deed, land purchase, O. P. Roberts 1918 AR warranty deed, land sale, O. P. Roberts 1918 WWI draft card, Oliver Pleasant Roberts 1920 TX census, Olliver (sic) P. Roberts 1930 TX census, Oliver Roberts 1935 TX, Brushy Bill, J. Frank Dalton, and DeWitt Travis were residents of Gregg County 1940 TX census, Ollie Roberts 1950 TX d/c Ollie L. Roberts 1950 cemetery marker Ollie L. Roberts
A dead man could not have provided the name, Ollie L. Roberts, for his death certificate or his cemetery marker. He could have provided that incorrect information about his birth date, birth place, and name to his wife of 4 years.
All the monkey business with Brushy Bill's age and name variations appears to begin after Brushy Bill moved from Van Zandt County to Gregg County and met J. Frank Dalton, a Jesse Woodson James impostor, and DeWitt Travis, who signed misleading affidavits.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 31, 2015 8:40:17 GMT -5
"May I chime in here? I don't know the definitive answers to those questions but I must point out a few things.
1) The fact that Brushy went by so many different versions of the name Oliver might well be an indication he wasn't really Oliver at all. 2) Whether Brushy responded to the census in person or someone else answered on his behalf, the Kentucky answer was not likely just pulled out of thin air. If the responder did not know where Brushy's parents were born they likely would have said so and the field would have been left blank. "Somebody" believed his parents were born in Kentucky and where would they have gotten that info other than Brushy himself?"
Let me introduce you to the facts: 1880 AR census, Olover (sic) Roberts 1900 TX census, Oliver P. Roberts 1909 marriage license, O. P. Roberts 1910 TX census, Oliver P. Roberts 1910 divorce decree, O. P. Roberts 1912 marriage license, Oliver Roberts 1918 AR warranty deed, land purchase, O. P. Roberts 1918 AR warranty deed, land sale, O. P. Roberts 1918 WWI draft card, Oliver Pleasant Roberts 1920 TX census, Olliver (sic) P. Roberts 1929 marriage record, O. Roberts 1930 TX census, Oliver Roberts 1935 TX, Brushy Bill, J. Frank Dalton, and DeWitt Travis were residents of Gregg County 1940 TX census, Ollie Roberts 1944 d/c of Luticia, Ollie Roberts 1945 marriage license, Ollie L. Roberts 1950 TX d/c Ollie L. Roberts 1950 cemetery marker Ollie L. Roberts
All the monkey business with Brushy Bill's changing age and name appears to begin after Brushy Bill moved from Van Zandt County to Gregg County and met J. Frank Dalton, a Jesse Woodson James impostor, and DeWitt Travis, who signed misleading affidavits.
Assigning significance to the Kentucky place of birth of Brushy Bill's parents in the 1910 census is speculation and a desperate attempt to manufacture support for Brushy Bill's unsubstantiated story.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 31, 2015 15:43:32 GMT -5
"Assigning significance to the Kentucky place of birth of Brushy Bill's parents in the 1910 census is speculation and a desperate attempt to manufacture support for Brushy Bill's unsubstantiated story."
OK. Then where did the Kentucky info come from and why? Don't tell me it simply doesn't matter and don't tell me it is just someone's simple mistake. I might consider that as an answer if it weren't for the fact that Brushy was providing the same info to Morrison almost 40 years later. How can you say it is speculation when it's right there in black and white. Explain it if you can.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 31, 2015 17:00:51 GMT -5
"Explain it if you can."
Anything printed is in black and white, regardless of whether it is the truth or a lie,
The only information provided to William V. Morrison by Brushy Bill that has been confirmed as true are three marriages, although he neglected to mention the fourth which ended in divorce. 1912 marriage to Mollie Brown 1929 marriage to Luticia Ballard Isaac 1945 marriage to Malinda Elizabeth Murrell Allison
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 31, 2015 21:00:25 GMT -5
So you don't have an explanation why someone would just happen to mistakenly identify Brushy's parents' birthplace as Kentucky? There were 47 other states that could have been identified, yet someone just happened to give the same info Brushy was going to give erroneously nearly 40 years later. If he told the same lie twice, then why not tell it again some time between 1910 and 1948? The odds of that being a coincidence have to be astronomical.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jun 1, 2015 16:30:39 GMT -5
The explanation is obvious. The information is wrong. The respondent was not knowledgeable or lied, of the enumerator made a mistake in recording or transcribing the information. Very little if any of the information provided by Brushy Bill to William V. Morrison is correct. Information about Brushy Bill's presumed relatives and birthplace and date is garbage. Brushy did correctly identify 3 of his 4 wives. Can you explain why Brushy did not admit that he married Anna Lee?
The Land theory that Brushy slipped up and gave the correct information makes no sense.
Wayne, no offense intended, but only 46 states had been admitted to the union by 1910. Arizona and New Mexico were admitted in 1912.
"3) It is entirely possible that the real Oliver was married to Anna Lee and not Brushy." On which side of the fence do you stand on the 1910 census record? First you are not sure that Brushy married Anna Lee. Then you adamantly insist that the Kentucky birthplace of Oliver Roberts's parents is of great significance. Correct me if I am wrong, but 1) no one knows if or when Oliver Pleasant Roberts disappeared, providing Brushy Bill an opportunity to become Oliver P. Roberts, and 2) no one knows the approximate date that this transition occurred. It is all WAG and speculation, right?
Competent genealogists recognize that information, a single census entry for an individual, is much less credible than the same information that appears in multiple census years.
Birthplace of O. P. Roberts' parents Year. H. O. Roberts. Sarah E. Roberts 1880 Texas Arkansas 1900 Texas Arkansas 1910 Kentucky Kentucky 1920 Texas Arkansas 1930 Texas Arkansas
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 1, 2015 19:41:35 GMT -5
Birthplace of O. P. Roberts' parents
Year. 1880 Texas Arkansas - As reported on behalf of the real Oliver P. Roberts 1900 Texas Arkansas - As reported on behalf of the real Oliver P. Roberts Sometime before 1910 Brushy steps into the identity of Oliver P. Roberts 1910 Kentucky Kentucky - As reported by Brushy or on his behalf (he may well have not yet known the real info for Oliver) Sometime before 1910 Brushy had learned the real birthplaces of his adopted parents and began reporting that on the census. 1920 Texas Arkansas 1930 Texas Arkansas
As for Anna Lee, I didn't say Brushy was not married to her. I said it is possible he was not. That is unlikely but "possible" under the following scenario. I know you'll get a kick out of this one, but here goes: The real Oliver P. married Anna and soon ran off, abandoning her. Brushy shows up prior to the 1910 census and volunteers to play the part of Oliver in order to help Anna obtain a divorce from him and even plays the part of Oliver during the divorce proceedings. I know, that one is laughable. Brushy probably was married to Anna but I have my doubts.
BTW, with all due respect, you still need to answer the question regarding the coincidence of Kentucky being reported, as you say, in error, and then reported again by Brushy nearly 40 years later. What are the odds of such a coincidence? You just keep insisting the 1910 report is wrong, but do you believe that report and Brushy's claim 40 years later are nothing more than coincidence? If it is not coincidence then what explains it being used twice, 40 years apart.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jun 1, 2015 23:59:26 GMT -5
BTW, with all due respect, you still need to answer the question. When did Oliver Pleasant Roberts, son Henry Oliver Roberts and Sarah Ferguson disappear, what happened to him, and when did he become known as Brushy Bill?
Simple math problem where 2 strangers provided birthplace information. 1910, birthplace Kentucky - one chance in 46 1950, birthplace Kentucky - one chance in 48
Probability that both strangers happened to choose Kentucky as birthplace 46X48=2208 One chance in 2,208
Naming Kentucky as a birthplace 40 years apart is more likely than winning the lottery or getting struck by lightning, and those things do happen.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 2, 2015 9:55:09 GMT -5
So you believe it was pure coincidence? Would you continue to insist on that no matter how high the odds were?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jun 3, 2015 13:42:48 GMT -5
Wayne, you are hanging your hat on a broken nail. NOBODY knows who, if anyone, in the Roberts household in 1910 said that his parents were born in Kentucky.
It is a fact that Brushy told William V. Morrison he was born in Kentucky. That does not make it true.
It is a fact that Brushy signed an affidavit stating that he knew J. Frank Dalton was Jesse Woodson James. Brushy lied.
It is a fact that Brushy told William V. Morrison that Martha Vada Roberts Heath was his cousin. He lied. Martha was his half-sister,
It is a fact that Brushy told William V. Morrison that Sara Ferguson Roberts was his step-mother. He lied. Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson Roberts was his mother.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 4, 2015 9:27:15 GMT -5
Of course you know I do not believe those statements are all "fact". And none of them address the question I asked you? I believe that is because you have no answer. But just to be clear, the question was "Would you continue to insist the Kentucky info was just coincidence, no matter how high the odds were? Or if you'd rather, answer this one posed a bit differently. "How high would the odds have to be, to convince you the Kentucky information was more than coincidence?"
|
|