|
Post by MissyS on Jan 15, 2015 19:37:43 GMT -5
I know there are persons that are sensitive to anything but concrete evidence, but were trying to get concrete evidence and in order to do that we may need to concider all sources including hearsay because hearsay may just be where the answers are, not everything was well documented. I know this thread was to discuss the Geneva Pittmon letter, but I wonder about another letter? of course it's hearsay, but I'm trying to research it anyway. In one of the books listed on a previous post" Beyond The Grave" by W C Jameson on pg. 102, there's a chapter about Billy's good friend Yiginio or Higinio Salazar, it's the only source that I have read about Yiginio receiving a letter from Billy The Kid after he was shot explaining what happened, and the only source I read that Yiginio could have said the killing by Garrett was faked , I say COULD have because the way it's put as like hearsay , that he was known to tell some persons it was a fake, but no mentions of who he told? and also William Henry Roberts aka Billy The Kid had paid him a couple visits according to a descendant, of course this is hearsay too, but it's from a good source. I do believe Brushy Bill sent that letter if there was a letter, it's just an idea of mine that what was in that letter may have been why Yiginio believes the killing was a hoax?. I had thought Yiginio had believed Billy was shot by Garrett? After Billy escaped the jail and killed Bell and Ollinger he supposedly rode straight to Yiginio's and told him about his escape and stayed a few nights, it would make sense that if Billy had also escaped Fort Sumner that he would again contact Yiginio and tell him what happened , and if the letter is true, it could very well have been sent from Brushy? I want to find more information about the letter. Miguel Antonio Otero interviewed Yiginio sometime in the 30's I believe for his book about Billy that he wrote sometime later and more about the letter may be in that book?, don't know? I would like to know your thoughts about it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 15, 2015 20:53:41 GMT -5
Joe Salazar is the grandson(?) of Yiginio and still lives on the family property outside Lincoln. I'm certainly paraphrasing here but Joe says the family has always known about the letter and the visit. I don't think he necessarily believes Brushy was the Kid, but he does believe Pat Garrett did not kill Billy in 1881. He says the letter was lost and he has searched for it but with no success. I may not have the details correct but Joe strongly insists there definitely was a letter(s) and Billy visited Yiginio after 1881. I doubt you'll have any luck learning any more about the letter(s). Maybe there's a way to contact Joe Salazar but I don't know. I expect if he can't find the letter, then no one can.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Jan 16, 2015 9:18:53 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne, All I can find is few mentions that there was a letter nothing more, I was hoping to find maybe an interview or someone mentioning Yigininio telling more specifics such as when or where it was mailed from, his grandson may remember something if he saw it but it being so long ago I doubt it would help to contact him, although it would be interesting to chat with him about his grandfather and his part in the Lincoln County War and all.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 16, 2015 11:10:23 GMT -5
As I recall, he said the letter was mailed to Yiginio from Mexico. I saw this in a taped interview with Joe as part of a DVD I bought. When I visited Lincoln I had hoped I'd get the chance to meet him but did not. I did meet an old fellow who was running the Tunstill Store museum and we asked him if he believed Billy was killed by Pat Garrett he said no, he did not. That his family had always believed Billy got away and he mentioned Joe Salazar. I don't think he was related to Joe but he knew him.
|
|
|
Post by RWT on Jan 17, 2015 11:50:50 GMT -5
"This next comment is for RWT, if you're still reading. Scenario: In a hundred years or so from now, someone decides they want to trace my whereabouts throughout my life and they pull up the census data to try and find me. The records will show that in 1950, 1960 and 1970 I was in Florida. In 1980 I was in Alabama and in 1990 and in 2000 I was back in Florida. In 2010 they'd find me in Washington state. So, my question to you and others who rely so heavily on census records is, when did I live in Georgia for 6 years and Louisiana for 5 years? You might find that in other records but you won't find it in the census."
So? What's the point?
|
|
|
Post by RWT on Jan 17, 2015 11:54:36 GMT -5
RE: www.hico-tx.com/originals/objects/Dr._Albert_Tunstill_on_Billy_the_Kid.pdfExcerpt from page 17, Dr. Albert Tunstill, "William Henry Roberts alias Billy the Kid; Brushy Bill Roberts", Genealogy and Life Activities: "1883 Billy The Kid returned to United States, crossing the border at El Paso, Texas He stayed a few days with Mr. and Mrs. John C. and Martile Able of El Paso. They furnished him with horse, saddle and funds to go to Hamilton County, Texas to locate his father and relatives." IF THIS IS A TRUE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE WORK of Dr. Albert Tunstill, Historian, Arizona and New Mexico, and is typical of his work, the accuracy and value of Tunstill's research is extremely questionable if not worthless. "Eyewitness identifications from Martile Able and Severo Gallegos among others mean a great deal as well." Both John C. Able (31 July 1853 - 28 Oct 1918) and Martelia "Martile" Billberry Ables (2 Nov 1873 - 23 May 1952) are buried in the Concordia Cemetery, El Paso, El Paso County, Texas. In 1883, Martile was 10 years old. She did not marry John C. Able until 23 Jan 1898 in Taylor County, Texas. Even you must acknowledge that Billy the Kid did not stay a few days in 1883 with John C. and Martile Able in El Paso, or that they loaned him a horse and saddle.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 17, 2015 13:55:19 GMT -5
"This next comment is for RWT, if you're still reading. Scenario: In a hundred years or so from now, someone decides they want to trace my whereabouts throughout my life and they pull up the census data to try and find me. The records will show that in 1950, 1960 and 1970 I was in Florida. In 1980 I was in Alabama and in 1990 and in 2000 I was back in Florida. In 2010 they'd find me in Washington state. So, my question to you and others who rely so heavily on census records is, when did I live in Georgia for 6 years and Louisiana for 5 years? You might find that in other records but you won't find it in the census." So? What's the point? Well just for example, Martile Abel (sp?) may have lived in New Mexico for a time?
|
|
|
Post by RWT on Jan 17, 2015 14:09:44 GMT -5
Wayne, Although census, marriage, and divorce records provide a timeline, birth to death, of Oliver P. Roberts, that apparently does not meet your very high standard of what constitutes proof.
I can play that "high standard of proof" game too. You probably think you know who your biological parents are, but you may not. Perhaps you were adopted and were never told; perhaps your identification bracelet in the hospital nursery was switched; perhaps your mother's husband was infertile and there was an unknown sperm donor; perhaps you have no birth certificate, or that it is incorrect. These are not abstract ideas, but real world situations that have happened to others. So you have no proof. Of course, common sense dictates that you do know your biological parents, just as common sense lends much greater credibility to census records than to the story that Billy the Kid was not killed by Pat Garrett and traveled to Mexico, Argentina, the Shetland Islands, worked for the Pinkertons, joined the Rough Riders, was a Deputy Marshall in Oklahoma, and then showed up in the 1910 TX census of Van Zandt County as Oliver P. Roberts of Texas, parents born in Kentucky.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 17, 2015 14:12:50 GMT -5
I wish I knew all the facts for certain but I don't. I wish all the authors got their dates and quotes correct but they didn't. I wish Brushy was remembering everything with laser focused accuracy in 1949 but he wasn't. Therefore there are a number of possibilities regarding Martile Abel (sp?). I too question the integrity of the stuff Tunstill wrote. Of all the Brushy authors he is probably the least trustworthy. But let's assume for discussion sake that he didn't just pull that date out of the air or "figure it out" for himself based on faulty assumptions. If he was accurately reporting something Brushy had said, then Brushy was again quoting a date that was way off the mark. He did that a lot. Or, he remembered visiting John Abel in 1883 and since John did eventually marry Martile, and Brushy did, after their marriage, visit them, he just got the facts mixed up. Maybe Brushy was misquoted. Maybe he only mentioned John, and Tunstill mistakenly (honest mistake) inserted Martile in the event. We'll never know for certain.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 17, 2015 14:31:33 GMT -5
Ok, lets talk common sense for a moment. Does it make "common sense" for a 70 year old who spent his entire life in East Texas to claim he was a convicted killer with a death sentence hanging over him? Forget Martile Abel for a moment. We do know that Severo Gallegos had seen Billy in 1881. You can't say Gallegos was just a crazy old man looking for celebrity status. Common sense says if you have an old man who was not an avid reader yet knew as much about Billy's life as Brushy did, just happened to have very similar facial features, overall stature, the same color eyes (according to Gallegos), the same manner of speaking, the same love of dancing, the same unusual hand structure (verified by a hand expert I've spoken to), the same small hands and large wrists, the same sloping right shoulder, recognized by former Pinkerton agent Henry Anthony, the same ambidexterity, and more, that he would want to risk his life to prove he was somebody he was not. Does it make common sense that he would know how to speak fluent Spanish? If he was just a poor East Texas farmer, does it make common sense he would have 26 scars on his body? You'll probably say none of that "proves" anything and you'd be right.
I just wish we could discuss this without one of us taking the position that the other one is just being stubborn or unrealistic and recognize that two very intelligent, reasonable people can look at the same information and come to two very different conclusions, both using their common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 17, 2015 14:41:51 GMT -5
Here's another case in point. If we knew for a fact that William Morrison took Brushy to meet Martile Abel without telling him who they were about to see and we knew for a fact that the first thing that happened was Morrison questioning Brushy as to whether he knew who she was and Brushy responded, "sure, that's John Abel's wife", then the case is closed. Because "common sense" says Brushy could not possibly have known who she was unless he really was telling the truth about being Billy The Kid. Of course, we don't know for sure that Morrison didn't tell Brushy who they were going to visit "before" walking in and saying "do you know this lady?" Actually Morrison doesn't really say in his book whether he'd mentioned her name before entering her home. He certainly makes it appear he had not said anything about who she was prior to that. And I believe Morrison was an honest man who was truly trying to get to the facts. Since I believe that, my common sense says Brushy really was Billy The Kid. Again, you'd be right to say that doesn't prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by RWT on Jan 17, 2015 15:57:24 GMT -5
"Ok, lets talk common sense for a moment. Does it make "common sense" for a 70 year old who spent his entire life in East Texas to claim he was a convicted killer with a death sentence hanging over him?"
The obvious answer is yes. There is documentation that the New Mexico governor did not grant Brushy's appeal for a pardon in 1950. Brushy was probably a nobody, craving attention and fame, and had seen the media frenzy attending J. Frank Dalton's claim that he was Jesse James. Brushy was also in New York City in 1950 with J. Frank Dalton.
You may believe that Severo Gallegos saw Billy in 1881. Severo Gallegos probably said he saw Billy in 1881. That is hearsay, not fact. If Severo did see Billy in 1881, and was able to recognize Brushy Bill as the same person over 60 years later, that is remarkable.
" You'll probably say none of that "proves" anything and you'd be right." Not only does it not prove anything, it is a lot of meaningless fluff. Brushy Bill had large wrists, small hands. That is credible, but so what. The rest is all hearsay.
I'm waiting for the first credible, verifiable fact from any of the various books in your private collection that leads you to believe that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid.
|
|
|
Post by RWT on Jan 17, 2015 17:01:57 GMT -5
"Here's another case in point. If we knew for a fact that William Morrison took Brushy to meet Martile Abel without telling him who they were about to see and we knew for a fact that the first thing that happened was Morrison questioning Brushy as to whether he knew who she was and Brushy responded, "sure, that's John Abel's wife", then the case is closed."
The case is not closed. John C. Abel died in 1918. John C. and Martile were married in Taylor County in 1898, and were living there in 1900 before moving to El Paso about 1902. We've already seen that Tunstill's story that Billy the Kid stayed with the Abels in 1883 in El Paso, and that's a crock.
We do not know if Morrison alerted Brushy Bill about Martile and her late husband's name. We do not know if Brushy Bill had ever met John C. Abel. Nor do we know that the first thing that Brushy said was "sure, that's John Abel's wife." We apparently do know that is what Morrison wrote in his book. It's still hearsay and not a fact.
|
|
|
Post by RWT on Jan 17, 2015 17:19:41 GMT -5
www.hico-tx.com/originals/objects/Dr._Albert_Tunstill_on_Billy_the_Kid.pdfExcerpt from page 10, Dr. Albert Tunstill, "William Henry Roberts alias Billy the Kid; Brushy Bill Roberts", Genealogy and Life Activities: "He had two ranches in Mexico but lost them during the Mexican Revolution. He rode with rode with Pancho Villa's men during the revolt." IF THIS IS A TRUE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE WORK of Dr. Albert Tunstill, Historian, Arizona and New Mexico, and is typical of his work, the accuracy and value of Tunstill's research is extremely questionable if not worthless. The Mexican Revolution lasted from 1910 until 1920. You maintain that Oliver P. Roberts in the 1910 and 1920 TX census records was Billy the Kid. Oliver P. Roberts must have flown on Aeromexico from Dallas to Mexico City to ride with Pancho Villa.
|
|
|
Post by RWT on Jan 17, 2015 22:13:32 GMT -5
Wayne, You have dismissed the letter of Geneva Pittmon, questioning the handwriting, the integrity, and stating that it proves nothing. I strongly disagree with your conclusion. Census records prove that Geneva Roberts Pittmon, daughter of Thomas U. Roberts, was a niece of Oliver P. Roberts. Her letter is dated 16 December 1987. She mentions that William A. Tunstill has contacted her for information. William A. Tunstill is probably Dr. Albert Tunstill, the Historian of Arizona & New Mexico, whose work is posted at www.hico-tx.com/originals/objects/Dr._Albert_Tunstill_on_Billy_the_Kid.pdf. That assumption is reinforced in the letter where she mentioned his reference to her ancestor as Ben Roberts. Geneva allegedly is citing information from a family Bible. She stated that the father of Oliver P. Roberts was H. O. Roberts. Census and cemetery records confirm that to be correct. He was Henry Oliver Roberts. Geneva stated that the mother of Oliver P. Roberts was Shara (sic) Elizabeth Ferguson. Census and cemetery records confirm that her given name was Sarah Elizabeth. No Texas death certificate was found, and it's possible that she died in Arkansas. There is no public record confirming that her surname was Ferguson. Geneva stated that Oliver P. Roberts was born 26 August 1879. The WWI draft registration card completed and signed by Oliver Pleasant Roberts confirms that he was born on the 26th day of August. There is a 1 year discrepancy between the birth year of the two sources. The probability that Brushy Bill would have chosen at random the same month and same day that Geneva identified as the birth date of Oliver P. Roberts is 1 in 4,360. Certainly seems to me to be reasonable proof, if not absolute proof, that Brushy Bill Roberts was Oliver Pleasant Roberts. I don't think anyone will ever find a deathbed confession where Brushy Bill admitted that he was a fraud, and that's what your high standard of proof seems to require.
|
|