|
Post by mckinley412 on Aug 17, 2016 21:31:17 GMT -5
Another point for Brushy: p.75-76 Burns estimates about the year 1872 Billy stabbed on man, hugged his other goodbye and that was the last time he ever saw his mother Catherine Antrim. It is more likely that Billy was there when Catherine died per eyewitnesses. Did Brushy know when to copy Saga of Billy the Kid and when not to, -how? I don't think so. He wasn't going by that book.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Aug 18, 2016 2:48:03 GMT -5
I noticed a few more things while reading SAGA. Brushy left out the part where him and Evans save the people in the wagon from Indians. This story was in SAGA and Garrett's book, but Brushy never mentions it. Brushy also never mentioned all the piano playing Mrs. McSween does while her house is burning down in SAGA. SAGA's version is that Harvey Morris, Semora, and McSween left the house first. They were followed by others including Scurlock, Jim French who weren't even there and then Billy came out last. But Billy testified in court how it really happened and that version matches Brushy. I don't think he had SAGA memorized, I think SAGA is a very well written, researched book for what it is, but it is not as accurate as Brushy's version.
|
|
|
Post by clydec on Aug 18, 2016 6:32:38 GMT -5
Brett said that Campbell had asked Morrison not to reveal that he was the one that told him about Brushy and where to find him. Morrison did not meet Dalton till much later. Morrison did lie when he stated that it was Dalton that told him about brushy.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Aug 18, 2016 16:42:43 GMT -5
In an email i have from 2001 Brett says Joe Hines led Morrison to Brushy and that Dalton just reaffirmed the information after Brushy had passed. I guess technically it was a lie, though he claims he did it out of respect per Hine's request. Brett never mentioned Campbell to me and I don't feel like getting up and seeing what his book says. Back to SAGA, SAGA has Billy ride up to meet the governor in broad daylight in front of his enemies before the Chapman murder took place and they meet at Juan Patron's, Brushy corrected this information saying he met at night at Wilson's. Also he properly places the meeting after Chapman's murder and agrees to the pardon unlike SAGA where Billy tells the governor no and rides away. SAGA skips all the court stuff so far when Brushy added it into his story. SAGA says Billy was not present when Chapman was killed. True History tells another tale, and Brushy got it right. Does this sound like man getting all of his info from SAGA,? Does it? By the way if Burns earns any points against Brushy I will post them, I just don't think he has and I do not count the French/Wayte controversy, but you can if you want. Go ahead and count it, give Burns that point and say he was wrong and Brushy copied him---Brushy has enough points, Burns ain't even close.
|
|
|
Post by clydec on Aug 20, 2016 12:47:01 GMT -5
I believe I read somewhere that there were different witness reports that said it was Fred Wayte that went out with Billy to retrieve the guns and was wounded in the leg.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Aug 20, 2016 19:15:48 GMT -5
Its obvious Brushy didnt copy info from Saga of Billy the Kid, also there were others books as well that are made up of partly fact but mostly fiction, weeding through what is historically correct about Billy's life as he lived it was pretty much impossible for Brushy and even the aurthors who wrote the books, Billy's birth in New York has never been proven, even his age is questionable, how many he killed varies, his whereabouts before he joined up with Tunstall is also debateable, who rode with him at certain times and who joined him in certain fights , all of them varies from book to book, because Brushy's version is pretty much different should give him more merit. Interesting I found that former President Harry Truman wrote a letter to Morrison indicating he believed that Brushy was Billy the Kid after he read the book" Alias Billy The Kid" Truman couldn't have seen the facial matches or other things discovered since the book.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Aug 21, 2016 17:56:58 GMT -5
Burns says Folliard was killed Christmas eve and Bowdre on Christmas day, although Brushy doesn't mention the dates he does mention that they did a couple days of riding in between the deaths and that Bowdre was killed a few days after Folliard which is correct. It is also plain to see that when Paulita is talking about the girls of Fort Sumner that she mentions they were married if they were married as in the case of Pat's two wives and Bowdre's wife, others who she says were the Kid's favorite dancing partners she doesn't mention husbands probably because they were single, Abriana, Celsa, Nassaria Yerby which matches what Brushy said. Although Paulita doesn't mention it, she basically says Celsa was one of the kid's main girlfriends. Burns said at the time of jail break there were stairs on the front of the courthouse, Brushy also corrected this. One point you could use against Brushy is that Burns and Brushy both say Goss cut the chain in two pieces with an axe. Goss said he gave the kid a pick-axe and the kid got the chain loose from one of the manacles thus one piece of chain to tie to his waste.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Aug 22, 2016 12:57:54 GMT -5
Even though Paulita made it clear enough that Celsa was the kid's sweetheart and single Burns went ahead and said Celsa was Saval's wife. If Brushy was copying Saga he would have said the same but actually Brushy's version makes more sense. I would go by Paulita before I would Burns even though Burns did a great job with his research. Also in SAGA it has Charlie Foor explaining the history and he says Billy left Saval's house to go get meat. Brushy claims Silva came to Saval's to warn him but him and Celsa were at a dance, Silva claims he went to a neighbor's house. Silva claims he ran into Billy outside and drank some beer with him and Billy said he was gonna go get some meat, Brushy claims they were at Silva's hiding, and Barlow wanted the meat. it is interesting, all the parallels and same people involved. that Saval and Silva and Rudolph were involved in the last hours of his death and they all happen to be on the coroner's report is something to think about. Brushy's story is the more believable version when you consider that he was not copying Burns and was very specific when he said Celsa and Pat's wife were Saval's sisters which makes better sense according to Paulita. Burns leaves out Silva but Brushy included him and we know from interviews that Silva was involved in those last few minutes--again another point for Brushy. That was a great book. I'd have to say that as crazy as Brushy's story sounds he gets more details right than those who researched and wrote the books. Sometimes I even want to find out Brushy was making it up but logically I have to conclude there was a cover-up and Billy/Brushy did fake his death. According to Frederick Nolan it wasn't the first time Billy had been reported dead either, I do believe I remember reading the newspaper, not sure where, maybe in Nolan's book. But there's always more to discuss. Celsa's son claims he remembers Billy taking his mom's knife to cut the meet which would mean Billy or Barlow left Celsa's house and not Silva's.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Aug 22, 2016 15:57:02 GMT -5
What's interesting to me about that night in Fort Sumner is that in the book "Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid as I knew them" by Meadows, he knew Billy he worked for him selling livestock, and he first met Billy at Fort Sumner, he pretty much described the living situation concerning Billy , after reading how he met him its clear Billy had his own room in Fort Sumner, he told Meadows that arrived in Sumner tired, and badly sunburned because he lost his hat, that he can use his room and loaned him his bed while he was gone, also Billy's gang welcomed themselves to Billy's room as well, when Meadows left and returned to the room some of Billy's gang was there playing cards. Anyway if Billy did have his own room then he didn't have to stay with anybody? If Brushy said he was at a dance when he was warned that would make sense.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Jul 12, 2017 4:07:33 GMT -5
I noticed in The Lost Interviews book by Jameson, Chapter 12, Brushy tells about the capture at Stinking Springs, he made note that the small rock house as having a door opening but NO Door, he said Bowdre went to feed the horses and stepped through the door opening - there wasn't no door. My question is, How did Brushy know that the rock house had only an opening and no door? I don't believe Burns mentions an opening with no door? I remember reading somewhere that the original rock house had no door only an opening and there was a photo of it without a door, I dont remember where I saw it? And I don't know if that was known or not before Brushy said it? I don't know if its mentioned in Garrett's book? I can't find my copy of it, does anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Jul 12, 2017 4:51:13 GMT -5
Ok, I just want to update my findings I researched and there being no door only an opening is mentioned in Garrett's book , in the Saga of Billy The Kid its not, and there's mention of a door as "the door opened" and Bowdre stepped out. Brushy could have read about there being no door in Garrett's book? or he knew because he was there?, but I don't believe he got it from Saga of Billy the Kid?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Aug 31, 2017 12:50:10 GMT -5
"No, the most convincing arguments that he was Billy the kid is that people who knew the kid said that he was and that professional photo analysis twice said that he was the same man! I have a question for you texas truth teller, where are all the pictures of Oliver P Roberts as a child? There must be pictures of him from his birth up till 1910 when brushy took over. Show me a picture of a young Oliver P that matches up to brushy and I will believe you!"
clydec, The affidavits of individuals who said they knew Billy the Kid are not convincing. There is conclusive proof that 3 of the 5, Robert E. Lee, DeWitt Travis, and Martile Abel, who signed sworn affidavits that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid had never seen him before 1881.
The photo analyses are not convincing. Identification is matter of opinion and conclusions are disputed. The FBI still uses fingerprints for positive identification.
There is significant evidence indicating Brushy Bill was Oliver P. Roberts. Consequently, pictures of Oliver P. Roberts when he was younger are the same pictures represented as photographs of Brushy Bill when he was younger.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 1, 2017 12:17:42 GMT -5
Can we please just be objective for a moment and settle this affidavit business once and for all. Martile Able, Dewitt Travis, and Robert E. Lee never made the claim they had known Billy prior to 1881. It's easy to assume that is what Martile meant when she said "the family" had known him, but the assumption is not valid. She was referring to the Able family, of which she was not a part prior to 1881. That doesn't make her a liar. Robert E. Lee specifically said the first time he had seen him was in 1889. Travis probably made up some stuff and his statement I doubt. These witnesses can have reason to believe to the bottom of their hearts that Brushy was the Kid even if they had not known him before 1881. That doesn't make them liars. Their conclusions might be wrong but we need to understand their statements can not be just thrown out as "unimportant" on that basis. Prove their statements are wrong and then and only then do they become invalid.
Even "if" you can prove that 3 of them are invalid (and I don't believe you can prove that), there are still the other 2 that must be taken seriously on their face value. If you had 100 affidavits that were not valid, all it takes is one that is valid to then suggest Brushy might have really been Billy The Kid. In other words, you can't disregard all of them because one or more can be proven invalid. The valid ones are still valid. You can not refuse to believe Severo Gallegos just because Dewitt Travis may have lied. As far as I know, Severo never knew Dewitt or even heard of him. They were not "conspiring". I'm not saying we do, but if we had just "one" affidavit that could be proven correct then we would no longer need to argue whether Brushy was exactly who he said he was. And we do have at least two that can not be "proven" "incorrect".
|
|
|
Post by clydec on Sept 4, 2017 18:57:35 GMT -5
I also know for a fact that Brushy and Yginio Salazar were known to each other. Brushy stated in the lost interviews that he visited Yginio Salazar twice after he escaped from Fort Sumner. This is true. Joe Salazar, Yginio's grandson stated that Brushy Bill did visit his grandfather and that the family believed him to be the kid. It's too bad that Yginio was dead by the time that Morrison and Brushy went back to Lincoln County, because I believe that all this discussion of whether he was or was not would be mute. I believe that Yginio would have confirmed brushy as the kid.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 4, 2017 21:11:42 GMT -5
Clydec,
I'm curious where you heard or read that. I was aware Joe Salazar described visits to his grandfather by Billy "after" 1881 and that the family claimed to have letters from Billy after 1881 but no one seems to know where those letters ended up. I was not aware that Joe Salazar claimed Brushy, per se, was Billy The Kid. It would be great if we could see or hear that directly from Joe Salazar.
Thanks
|
|