|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 29, 2018 11:56:30 GMT -5
1881,
First, I've just read through the recent posts to this thread and was very impressed with your ideas and objectivity. Thank you for sharing.
In the overall scheme of things with this debate, there are indeed facts and there are hypotheses that get thrown about like hayseed. But then, that's what a message board like this is for so forgive me if I present a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence. And that is simply that there "may have been" two Olivers. One born around 1867-68 with the middle initial "L" and Oliver Pleasant Roberts born 1879. This 1867 Oliver wasn't necessarily born to the same mother as 1879 Oliver but if he was, then she would have been only about 13 years old when he was born. The Roberts family may have tried to protect her by having someone else raise the illegitimate baby who grew up barely knowing his real mother. This baby may have been in the census under some other surname or may have been left out altogether by his guardians choosing to protect his true identity from discovery. All the while the mother, Mary Elizabeth Ferguson, would have known she had a son named Oliver but may not have seen him grow up. So when Brushy did show up with his belongings around 1910, it becomes much more believable that she would possibly mistake him for her lost son, Oliver L. and that in fact, Oliver P. and Brushy may have both been around at the same time.
This hypothesis would explain a lot. It would explain why Brushy told his last wife he was born in 1868 which was what she reported on his death certificate and what was on his first grave maker. It would explain why he used the middle initial "L" at times and later, after Oliver Pleasant had disappeared, the initial "P".
Certainly there are holes in this hypothesis and no "credible" evidence to support it. So I'll save TTT the trouble and just admit that upfront. But I do believe it is possibly correct. I also believe it is "possible" Brushy's true identity was that of Oliver Pleasant Roberts and that he certainly was not the real BTK. But I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I believe Brushy was BTK but I do not believe his story of his lineage and how he eventually became known as Oliver L. Roberts is totally factual. I think some of what he said was lies and some of it was exaggeration and some was improvisation that he "thought" was correct.
Just thought if you hadn't seem my ideas about the possibility of two Olivers elsewhere on the forum, that you might like to consider it. Again, I don't know if it is correct or if I even think it is. I just present it as a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by 1881- on Sept 29, 2018 19:41:01 GMT -5
1881, First, I've just read through the recent posts to this thread and was very impressed with your ideas and objectivity. Thank you for sharing. In the overall scheme of things with this debate, there are indeed facts and there are hypotheses that get thrown about like hayseed. But then, that's what a message board like this is for so forgive me if I present a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence. And that is simply that there "may have been" two Olivers. One born around 1867-68 with the middle initial "L" and Oliver Pleasant Roberts born 1879. This 1867 Oliver wasn't necessarily born to the same mother as 1879 Oliver but if he was, then she would have been only about 13 years old when he was born. The Roberts family may have tried to protect her by having someone else raise the illegitimate baby who grew up barely knowing his real mother. This baby may have been in the census under some other surname or may have been left out altogether by his guardians choosing to protect his true identity from discovery. All the while the mother, Mary Elizabeth Ferguson, would have known she had a son named Oliver but may not have seen him grow up. So when Brushy did show up with his belongings around 1910, it becomes much more believable that she would possibly mistake him for her lost son, Oliver L. and that in fact, Oliver P. and Brushy may have both been around at the same time. This hypothesis would explain a lot. It would explain why Brushy told his last wife he was born in 1868 which was what she reported on his death certificate and what was on his first grave maker. It would explain why he used the middle initial "L" at timels and later, after Oliver Pleasant had disappeared, the initial "P". Certainly there are holes in this hypothesis and no "credible" evidence to support it. So I'll save TTT the trouble and just admit that upfront. But I do believe it is possibly correct. I also believe it is "possible" Brushy's true identity was that of Oliver Pleasant Roberts and that he certainly was not the real BTK. But I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I believe Brushy was BTK but I do not believe his story of his lineage and how he eventually became known as Oliver L. Roberts is totally factual. I think some of what he said was lies and some of it was exaggeration and some was improvisation that he "thought" was correct. Just thought if you hadn't seem my ideas about the possibility of two Olivers elsewhere on the forum, that you might like to consider it. Again, I don't know if it is correct or if I even think it is. I just present it as a possibility. Wayne, Thank you for the compliment. You’re very kind. We have something else in common besides an interest in BTK/Brushy. I lived in Louisiana for a long time, though never in “N’aw lins”. I wish I was still there. I’m glad you summarized your hypothesis. I’ve seen the Oliver L. question discussed before but didn’t grasp the significance of he dates. I wouldn’t dismiss your idea. It’s at least based on some known oddities in the historical record. Most research begins with a theory and then evidence is gathered to confirm or refute it. As an aside, there’s a meaning to the dash at the end of my user name. I don’t usually care for symbolism or such things but this is a hobby for me so I thought I would have a little fun with it.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Sept 30, 2018 16:59:51 GMT -5
1881, I'm saying there are all kinds of names you can find including a Mary A Dunn who was married to a J H Roberts but it wasn't the right couple. You can find all the names somewhere but nothing that fits Brushy's story. The authors didn't record it or repeat it properly anyway so I believe he was Billy but we need to find the missing link.
TTT, I know Walker's book isn't perfect. Maybe Walker got things wrong that happened before he was born. I'm pretty sure he can somewhat accurately record a conversation he had with Brushy while he was a live tho. Anyway, one author didn't quote Brushy as saying her name was Bonney and another author did quote Brushy as saying where he got the name, not from her. Morrison mentions it also in a letter, sorry for my sloppy notes but all I recorded about it was May 13, 1952 and at the top of the notes it says Microfilm/College in Silver City. But Brushy did mention it to Morrison in a letter first after he had already mentioned it to Walker.
Also the author Henry J. Walker says he corresponded with Brushy and that he will always cherish those letters forever. The book is dedicated to his two sons Gary F. Walker and Henry Walker so maybe someone still has them.
|
|
|
Post by 1881- on Oct 24, 2018 6:48:14 GMT -5
1881, Thanks for the critique. You are observant. Service on civil juries is the closest I have come to the legal profession, where the preponderance of the evidence presented is the basis for the decision reached by the jury. Lawyers present evidence, some of which may be facts and some may be interpretation of facts. I am an engineer with a healthy regard for facts and history. You are correct that there can be different interpretations and conclusions based on evidence presented.
I agree there is no irrefutable proof that Billy the Kid was killed. No death certificate; no death photograph. There is a preponderance of evidence that Brushy Bill was not Billy the Kid. There is no credible evidence that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid other than Brushy's story as recorded by William V. Morrison.
TTT, Glad to know you're not a lawyer. I've worked around many engineers throughout my career, and as a rule I certainly prefer their company to that of scientists with PHDs. Engineers tend to be more down to earth.
I think there is strong evidence favoring Brushy though I wouldn't call it a preponderance.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Oct 24, 2018 10:36:56 GMT -5
"I think there is strong evidence favoring Brushy though I wouldn't call it a preponderance."
1881, I consider Brushy's knowledge of events in Lincoln County the only strong evidence favoring Billy the Kid, except even that closely approximates information published by Walter Noble Burns in 1926 in "The Saga of Billy the Kid".
|
|
|
Post by 1881- on Oct 27, 2018 10:07:46 GMT -5
"I think there is strong evidence favoring Brushy though I wouldn't call it a preponderance." 1881, I consider Brushy's knowledge of events in Lincoln County the only strong evidence favoring Billy the Kid, except even that closely approximates information published by Walter Noble Burns in 1926 in "The Saga of Billy the Kid". TTT, Yes it is, but from what I’ve read it seems to me that the number of details adds credibility even if the information was previously published. So if we assume he wasn’t Billy and was only ~70 years old at the time of the interviews, it would still be extraordinary for him to have remembered it all simply because of his age. I also think the physical similarities are strong evidence in his favor because this is forensic in nature. Most especially the rare hand deformity is important because we’re dealing with a statistical probability. In this instance it strongly favors him.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Oct 27, 2018 21:32:01 GMT -5
“So if we assume he wasn’t Billy and was only ~70 years old at the time of the interviews, it would still be extraordinary for him to have remembered it all simply because of his age.”
It would indeed be remarkable if he remembered it all. There was more than one interview. Brushy could have referred to his notes between interviews. Brushy had several notebooks of his history as he wanted it told. Why did Brushy refuse to allow Morrison to make a thorough examination of three of those notebooks, or take notes? Did those notebooks contain details from “The Saga of Billy the Kid”? Why did Brushy’s notebooks indicate that he was born 31 Dec 1868? Why did Morrison neglect to identify Joe Hines’ late brother, who died in North Dakota? Surely a competent researcher would have known that information would contribute to the credibility of the story. Why did Morrison believe J. Frank Dalton knew Billy the Kid? Dalton made many statements that were not true. Dalton’s claims:: His names - John Frank Dalton before he became Jesse Woodson James His birth dates - 8 March 1848 before he became JWJ 5 Sep 1847 His birthplaces - Goliad, Texas before he became JWJ Clay County, Missouri Dalton's version of history JFD said Quantrill taught school in a small Texas town, after the war, but Quantrill died of wounds in a Kentucky hospital 6 June 1865, and his headstone is located in the Fourth Street Cemetery, Dover, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.. JFD said the real name of William Clarke Quantrill was Charlie Hart, but his mother, Caroline Quantrill, came to Clay County, Missouri, in 1888, and met several guerrillas who had ridden with Quantrill. Census records prove the Quantrill family resided in Canal Dover, Tuscarawas County, Ohio. JFD said the Bill Anderson was not killed in the Ray County Ambush in 1864, and lived and died in Brown County, Texas, until about 1928, but that Bill Anderson was William Columbus Anderson, the husband of my great- great-aunt.
|
|
|
Post by 1881- on Oct 28, 2018 4:37:56 GMT -5
It would indeed be remarkable if he remembered it all. There was more than one interview. Brushy could have referred to his notes between interviews. Brushy had several notebooks of his history as he wanted it told. Why did Brushy refuse to allow Morrison to make a thorough examination of three of those notebooks, or take notes? Did those notebooks contain details from “The Saga of Billy the Kid”? Why did Brushy’s notebooks indicate that he was born 31 Dec 1868? Why did Morrison neglect to identify Joe Hines’ late brother, who died in North Dakota? Surely a competent researcher would have known that information would contribute to the credibility of the story. Why did Morrison believe J. Frank Dalton knew Billy the Kid? Dalton made many statements that were not true. Dalton’s claims:: His names - John Frank Dalton before he became Jesse Woodson James His birth dates - 8 March 1848 before he became JWJ 5 Sep 1847 His birthplaces - Goliad, Texas before he became JWJ Clay County, Missouri Dalton's version of history JFD said Quantrill taught school in a small Texas town, after the war, but Quantrill died of wounds in a Kentucky hospital 6 June 1865, and his headstone is located in the Fourth Street Cemetery, Dover, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.. JFD said the real name of William Clarke Quantrill was Charlie Hart, but his mother, Caroline Quantrill, came to Clay County, Missouri, in 1888, and met several guerrillas who had ridden with Quantrill. Census records prove the Quantrill family resided in Canal Dover, Tuscarawas County, Ohio. JFD said the Bill Anderson was not killed in the Ray County Ambush in 1864, and lived and died in Brown County, Texas, until about 1928, but that Bill Anderson was William Columbus Anderson, the husband of my great- great-aunt.I think you're going about this backward. The veracity of Dalton's claims about Jesse James, William Quantrill, and Bloody Bill Anderson is irrelevant to whether or not Brushy was or wasn't Billy the Kid. First we determine if Brushy was or wasn't BTK, then we look at Dalton's statements for relevance in their connection to the Brushy question. By themselves they neither prove nor disprove anything. I would like some proof that Brushy wouldn't allow Morrison to see his notes. The way you worded it gives the impression that he was adamant and that his decision was permanent. Was that really the case? I consider it unlikely that he studied old notes between interviews rather than that he actually knew the details from having lived them. I think the forensic evidence is the better way to examine Brushy's claim. Very interesting bit of family history regarding your great-great-aunt's husband. Do you have any other personal connections to the Brushy/BTK/LCW story?
|
|
|
Post by 1881- on Oct 28, 2018 4:44:17 GMT -5
It would indeed be remarkable if he remembered it all. There was more than one interview. Brushy could have referred to his notes between interviews. Brushy had several notebooks of his history as he wanted it told. Why did Brushy refuse to allow Morrison to make a thorough examination of three of those notebooks, or take notes? Did those notebooks contain details from “The Saga of Billy the Kid”? Why did Brushy’s notebooks indicate that he was born 31 Dec 1868? Why did Morrison neglect to identify Joe Hines’ late brother, who died in North Dakota? Surely a competent researcher would have known that information would contribute to the credibility of the story. Why did Morrison believe J. Frank Dalton knew Billy the Kid? Dalton made many statements that were not true. Dalton’s claims:: His names - John Frank Dalton before he became Jesse Woodson James His birth dates - 8 March 1848 before he became JWJ 5 Sep 1847 His birthplaces - Goliad, Texas before he became JWJ Clay County, Missouri Dalton's version of history JFD said Quantrill taught school in a small Texas town, after the war, but Quantrill died of wounds in a Kentucky hospital 6 June 1865, and his headstone is located in the Fourth Street Cemetery, Dover, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.. JFD said the real name of William Clarke Quantrill was Charlie Hart, but his mother, Caroline Quantrill, came to Clay County, Missouri, in 1888, and met several guerrillas who had ridden with Quantrill. Census records prove the Quantrill family resided in Canal Dover, Tuscarawas County, Ohio. JFD said the Bill Anderson was not killed in the Ray County Ambush in 1864, and lived and died in Brown County, Texas, until about 1928, but that Bill Anderson was William Columbus Anderson, the husband of my great- great-aunt.I think you're going about this backward. The veracity of Dalton's claims about Jesse James, William Quantrill, and Bloody Bill Anderson is irrelevant to whether or not Brushy was or wasn't Billy the Kid. First we determine if Brushy was or wasn't BTK, then we look at Dalton's statements for relevance in their connection to the Brushy question. By themselves they neither prove nor disprove anything. I would like some proof that Brushy wouldn't allow Morrison to see his notes. The way you worded it gives the impression that he was adamant and that his decision was permanent. Was that really the case? I consider it unlikely that he studied old notes between interviews rather than that he actually knew the details from having lived them. I think the forensic evidence is the better way to examine Brushy's claim. Very interesting bit of family history regarding your great-great-aunt's husband. Do you have any other personal connections to the Brushy/BTK/LCW story? I apologize for my reply beginning without a separation immediately after your post. I'm still learning the format.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Oct 28, 2018 11:37:52 GMT -5
No apology necessary. Posting procedures are not intuitive.
I have no personal connection to the Brushy/BtK/LCW story, nor to the JFD/JWJ story, nor to William T. Anderson, also known as Bloody Bill Anderson.
The fact that Morrison relied on Dalton to locate Brushy Bill is relevant. Dalton was a great storyteller, but not necessarily truthful. He had fallen and broken his hip before 1948, never to walk again. He wrote his congressman, Lindley Beckworth, asking for assistance for admission to a V A Hospital. Dalton wrote that he had served in every war since 1863, and was gassed while serving with the Canadian Army in WWI (Dalton, born in 1848, was about 58 in 1916).
Going about this backward? Skeptics doubt that Henry McCarty was killed in 1881, and try to prove Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. Skeptics must first prove the coroners jury report of 15 July 1881 does not describe the death of Billy the Kid in 1881, and that Oliver Pleasant Roberts and Brushy Bill Roberts were 2 different men. Neither of those criteria have been met.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Oct 28, 2018 22:29:32 GMT -5
"I would like some proof that Brushy wouldn't allow Morrison to see his notes. The way you worded it gives the impression that he was adamant and that his decision was permanent. Was that really the case? "
1881, Please refer to the second page of Chapter 8, "Alias Billy the Kid", and you will find this sentence.
"Three of notebooks have disappeared; Morrison had a brief look at them but the old man would not allow him to make a real examination or take many notes."
|
|
|
Post by 1881- on Oct 29, 2018 0:34:54 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1540744672000" class="o-timestamp time" title="Oct 28, 2018 11:37:52 GMT -5">Oct 28, 2018 11:37:52 GMT -5</abbr> Texas Truth Teller said: The fact that Morrison relied on Dalton to locate Brushy Bill is relevant. Dalton was a great storyteller, but not necessarily truthful. He had fallen and broken his hip before 1948, never to walk again. He wrote his congressman, Lindley Beckworth, asking for assistance for admission to a V A Hospital. Dalton wrote that he had served in every war since 1863, and was gassed while serving with the Canadian Army in WWI (Dalton, born in 1848, was about 58 in 1916). Going about this backward? Skeptics doubt that Henry McCarty was killed in 1881, and try to prove Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. Skeptics must first prove the coroners jury report of 15 July 1881 does not describe the death of Billy the Kid in 1881, and that Oliver Pleasant Roberts and Brushy Bill Roberts were 2 different men. Neither of those criteria have been met.
The point is that Dalton's statement proves nothing either way. As I stated, first we determine if Brushy was BTK, then we look at Dalton's statements for motive, etc.
Of course skeptics must prove the things you mentioned. That's the whole point of the search for evidence and for the existence of this website. There's nothing backward about that. In fact it's exactly how one is supposed to go about it.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Nov 1, 2018 18:02:29 GMT -5
Once Brett Hall told me that Hines actually gave the location of Brushy and that they made it up in the book that Dalton did because Hines didn't want any attention. Brushy and Dalton were friends so I guess it would not matter but Hines was mentioned in the book so I don't know what privacy it would have saved him. Idk. True story. Make of it what you will.
|
|
|
Post by 1881- on Nov 13, 2018 1:29:05 GMT -5
Once Brett Hall told me that Hines actually gave the location of Brushy and that they made it up in the book that Dalton did because Hines didn't want any attention. Brushy and Dalton were friends so I guess it would not matter but Hines was mentioned in the book so I don't know what privacy it would have saved him. Idk. True story. Make of it what you will. I doubt the question of who gave away Brushy’s location will ever be resolved, but I’ll take Mr. Hall’s word for it unless something significant comes along to contradict it. I prefer to stay away from speculation but I’ll make an exception regarding the relationship between Brushy and Dalton. Is it possible that Brushy first confidentiality revealed to Dalton that he was Billy the Kid? Did Dalton then take advantage of Brushy by claiming he was Jesse James, and secured Brushy’s cooperation by threatening to reveal Brushy’s identity?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 13, 2018 11:37:05 GMT -5
Chiming in here, I must say I believe "speculation" is a useful tool in discovering the facts. Yes, that is possible. I've always said and still believe that whether Dalton was or was not Jessie James does not prove or disprove Brushy's identity.
|
|