|
Post by Wayne Land on Feb 23, 2011 0:41:10 GMT -5
When Brushy died, he left behind some photos of himself that he claimed were taken when he was around 14 years old and a photo of his real mother who died when he was 2 or 3 years old. He also left a family Bible that belonged to his real father. So where were all these items while he was riding with the regulators in the Lincoln County War? Where were they when he was fighting with Roosevelt's Rough Riders or chasing outlaws for Judge Parker or riding in Buffalo Bill's Wild West show or running his own wild west show or riding with the Anti Horse Thief Association?
I'm surprised none of the Historical Status Quo Brushy Bashers ever made an issue of that question. When he escaped Garrett's gun in Fort Sumner and ended up in Old Mexico, did he have those photos and that family Bible with him? Did he go back to Texas after 1881 and retrieve those items from his father?
These questions have always perplexed me. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by mwb on Mar 3, 2011 7:45:26 GMT -5
I guess these items were small enough that he could have kept them with him in saddlebags or something. However, more interesting to me, where are these pictures and Bible now? Does someone have these?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 3, 2011 9:36:06 GMT -5
In 1989 author Frederic Bean met with the step grandson of Brushy, namely Bill Allison, the grandson of Brushy's last wife Melinda Allison. The aging Allison had given Bean permission to examine the contents of a trunk that had been passed down to him by his Grandmother. Bean lists the following items he found inside the trunk:
<<A very old and moth-eaten woolen handmade serape.
Three Big Chief writing tablets. Each one was partially filled with barely legible script accomplished with a dull pencil. The printing, according to Allison, was that of William Henry Roberts, and was a crude attempt at telling his life story.
Several letters from friends of Roberts, people who had known him for decades and who were aware that he was the out- law, Billy the Kid.
Five original affidavits from people who knew Billy the Kid and who identified Roberts as the same man. The affidavits were initiated by Morrison between 1949 and 1951.
About two dozen photographs of Roberts – some as a young man, some as an old man, and several taken with friends. There was one old photograph of a woman Allison identified as Roberts’ aunt Katherine Bonney, and one of Roberts taken when he worked for the Anti-Horsethief Association.
An aged Bible, the edges of the text partially eaten away by insects. The Bible was originally owned by James Henry Roberts, the father of William Henry. In the first few pages of the Bible, Bean discovered a genealogy of Roberts’ parents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives. Bean noted that some of Roberts’ relatives had the surnames Bonney, Antrim, and McCarty, the principle aliases used by the outlaw while living in and around Lincoln, New Mexico.
A service medal. It was eventually learned that this medal was given to participants in Teddy Roosevelt’s Cuban cam- paign.
An Anti-Horsethief Association badge.
Two large incisors, believed by Bean to be the buck teeth Billy the Kid was known to possess. The incisors, it was subse- quently learned, were extracted by a dentist in Gladewater, Texas, in 1931.
And finally, Bean found eight six-inch reels of tape, each one labeled as an interview with William Henry Roberts.>>
Bean, borrowed the tapes and meticulously transribed the contents of the ones that were still intact. The tapes were then returned to Allison. Bean says Allison "gifted" him the five affidavits and "several photographs".
It is my understanding "through the grapevine" that the Bible and most of the photos are now in the possession of Bill Allison's descendant, I believe a nephew. This is based on a message on a discussion board from a participant claiming to be Allison's nephew and claiming he had the tapes, etc. and was having them restored to eventually be released on CD. I tried to contact the gentleman but to no avail. We can only hope something is made public at some point. That Bible would be very strong evidence in favor of Brushy's story.
At least we have someone who claims to have seen the Bible. To my knowledge, no one other than Geneva Pittmon herself has ever seen the Bible she claimed to have that contained the 1879 entry for Oliver Pleasant Roberts.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 3, 2011 13:24:05 GMT -5
Just to clarify my comments above about the Bible(s). The Billy The Kid Outlaw Gang sent a letter to Geneva Pittmon and she wrote back saying she knew Brushy was her Uncle Oliver born in 1879 and she had the family Bible to prove it. It's not that I doubt she actually had a family Bible with Oliver Pleasant Roberts listed as born in 1879. After all, that's when Oliver P. was born. It's in the census records as well.
My comments were in response to the doubts that Brushy had a Bible belonging to his dad that proved he was born Dec. 31, 1859. It's like no one wants to believe such a Bible exists yet they all want to point to Geneva's Bible as some kind of proof against Brushy. My point being that if one is to simply take Geneva's word that she had a Bible, then why wouldn't we believe Brushy had a Bible with his true family history inside? Morrison saw it, Sonnichsen saw it, Brett Hall saw it, and Frederic Bean saw it. They all made statements to that fact. But those Brushy "naysayers" love to jump up and shout, "he wasn't born until 1879 and Geneva has the Bible that proves it!"
I don't doubt she had a Bible, but it doesn't prove Brushy was Oliver Pleasant Roberts. Several eyewitness accounts clearly describe the Bible Brushy had and unless they're all lying about what they saw, it pretty much proves he was Billy The Kid.
|
|
|
Post by kidcanuck on Mar 3, 2011 18:34:31 GMT -5
wayne to me there is just to much information pointing to the fact that brushy was billy the kid. what an amazing story it could be if the history books were ever to be rewritten.
i havn't had a chance to join that website with the investagators but iam curious to why they investagated john millers claim first over brushys? do they also lean towards brushy being billy the kid threw the information they have?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 3, 2011 20:46:16 GMT -5
The site you refer to does not delve into the question of Brushy or John Miller. The site is really focused on the "historic" Billy and reveals a great deal of interesting information. They absolutely agree that Garrett did not kill Billy in 1881 but they don't go the next step to discuss what happened to him after that. Although it isn't discussed on the website, they did attempt to get permission to exhume Brushy in hopes of comparing his DNA to that found on the bench by Dr. Henry Lee. It was their desire from the beginning to get DNA from both Brushy "and" John Miller. However, it was discovered that Brushy is likely not buried in the location marked by his headstone but rather he is at the back of the cemetery somewhere. The City of Hamilton would not cooperate with efforts to determine the true burial location and/or to exhume. After that, a newspaper article appeared online that quoted Sederwall as saying he "no longer believed Brushy might have been Billy The Kid." I personally asked Steven Sederwall by telephone about that statement and he told me he never said any such thing. He does in fact believe Brushy "may have been" Billy The Kid. The continued pursuit of Brushy's DNA has been tabled, yes. Sederwall is a professional law enforcement officer, or at least was, and as such he is quite literal in his investigations and would never make a statement he didn't have the evidence to support. So it really seemed to me in speaking with him that he was maintaining an open mind regarding Brushy "and" John Miller.
|
|
|
Post by kidcanuck on Mar 4, 2011 18:06:16 GMT -5
i remember reading that statement in an online article where they claim that sederwall said he did not believe that brushy was billy the kid. i was disapointed after seeing that and never believed john millers claim that he was billy the kid.
shortly after that i came across your website as i was searching for more information about brushy. to hear you spoke with sederwall himself and he said that those comments were not accurate is a relief.
i will get to that website eventually, once curiosity completely gets the better of me lol.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Apr 29, 2012 15:14:03 GMT -5
Re: Where were the photos:
In Morrison's book, there is a picture that is said to be Kathrine Ann Bonney, Brushy said this woman was Billy the Kid's Aunt. In the 1930s it gained acceptance as a photo of the kid's mother. It later years it was confessed to be a hoax.
Why do you think Brushy stated this was Karthrine Bonney (Catherine McCarty Antrim). If he was Billy the Kid, he would have known this was not a picture of her.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Apr 29, 2012 21:49:47 GMT -5
I don't know if the photo in Morrison's book is the one Brushy had in his possession. It is labeled "Rose collection", whatever that means. There is a different one in Brett Hall's book and he claims to have had access to the items in the trunk. And there is a third and different one in Jameson's book "The Lost Interviews" and Frederic Bean claims to have had access to those items as well. I'll try to put together a side by side showing all three photos but it might not be until tomorrow.
In the meantime, are you sure it was the photo in Morrison's book that was declared a hoax and are you sure the one in his book is the one Brushy had? And also, who said it was a hoax? If it was Brushy's photo, what possible way would there be for someone other than him to know it was a hoax?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Apr 29, 2012 22:12:17 GMT -5
Here are the three Katherines. The first one is from Morrison's book, the second one is from Brett Hall's book and the third one is from W.C. Jameson's book. All of these writers had first or second hand access to the items found in Brushy's trunk. So do we know which one was confessed to be a hoax and which one actually came from Brushy's trunk? I could be wrong but I don't think any of these are of the same woman. What does everyone else think? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Apr 29, 2012 22:25:21 GMT -5
The picture in Morrison's book and the picture most used in history books are the same picture. It came from the Rose Collection. It is the one used by Morrison and he is the only one I use for Brushy Info. The only other book I have on Brushy is W. J. Jameson beyond the grave. In Jamerson's book there is a different picutre. All of this started with Morrison so he should have known what Brushy said and what pictures Brushy had.
If you have The West Of Billy the Kid, by Mr. Nolan on page 7 you can find the information that I am talking about the Catherine McCarty Antrim picture.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Apr 29, 2012 22:39:33 GMT -5
Wayne the first picture is the picture in Morrison's book and the one I'm talking about.
To me none of the above picture are the same person. I feel the last picture would have been to old for Catherine. She died in 1874. I also feel the last picture was taken after 1874.
Thanks for posting these however.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Apr 30, 2012 16:28:37 GMT -5
In Morrison's book, the photo is labeled "Rose Collection" therefore Morrison does not specifically say the picture shown came from Brushy. I do consider other books written by individuals who claim to have had access to the contents from Brushy's trunk to be of importance.
I don't know why Morrison might have used a picture in his book other than the one Brushy owned. We'd have to ask Morrison himself. But I do suspect he didn't get that picture from Brushy.
I also suspect the other photos may have actually been the ones that were in Brushy's possession and I suspect that either Brett Hall or Frederic Bean were simply mistaken as to which photo was suppose to be Katherine Bonney. Morrison's book also shows a photo that is identified as Brushy's real mother, Mary Adeline Dunn. I believe that is also a mistake on the part of Morrison and that photo is actually of Oliver Pleasant Roberts' mother, Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson/Roberts.
I suspect none of these pictures were labeled and Morrison and Brushy failed to communicate clearly on which one was which.
My opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 2, 2012 10:01:41 GMT -5
I though I would try to explain my thinking further.
That third picture has clearly been colorized but it is a very interesting photo. From my visits to various Indian museums I know that sewing coins into clothing as decoration was pretty common at times and that woman looks part Indian to me. Brushy's real mother, Mary Adeline Dunn, was half Indian and I just wonder whether that is a photo of her and not of Katherine Bonney. At the same time, the photo Morrison labeled as Mary Adeline Dunn was actually Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson who was Brushy's aunt, the mother of the real Oliver Pleasant Roberts, who Brushy referred to as "his" mother in the later years of his life while he was living under the alias of his dead cousin. I've seen other photos of her in later years and there is a marked resemblance. That leaves the first two photos. I suspect the second photo, the one I have in the middle, is actually Katherine Bonney and is the photo that was in Brushy's possession at the time of his death. I suspect Morrison saw that photo but by the time his book went to print, he no longer had access to it, as everything in the trunk was then with Brushy's widow Melinda. I propose he did have access to the photo from the Rose collection, and the two women are of at least similar appearance, (similar enough Morrison might actually have believed it was really Katherine). Then I think he just took the easier route and put in the photo from the "Rose Collection"
I know that sounds like quite a comedy of errors and mix ups but it "is" possible it happened that way and unless I could see evidence to the contrary, that is my theory and I'm sticking to it for now.
So to clarify, of the three photos I posted earlier, the first one is from the Rose Collection, the second one is Brushy's photo of Katherine Bonney, and the third one is Brushy's birth mother whom he identified as "Mary Adeline Dunn". And finally, the photo in Morrison's book labeled as Mary Adeline Dunn is actually Brushy's pretend "mother", Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson. I can see Morrison and Brushy looking through photos back in 1948-49, none of which had labels on them. Morrison asks about the picture of Ferguson, and Brushy just said, "that's mother", because he did in fact refer to her that way. She was the closest thing to "being" his mother of any woman he'd known, Mary Adeline having died when he was too young to really remember her. The second photo above is shown and Brushy says "that's aunt Katherine", a correct identification. The photos are put back in the trunk. Then years later, the book is going to print and the pictures get misidentified.
Then in more recent times, Brett Hall gets to look at the trunk and picks out the picture of Katherine and takes a photo of it and puts it in his book, a correct identification. On a separate occasion Frederic Bean takes a copy of the photo of Mary Adeline and thinks it is Katherine Bonney and that one ends up in Jameson's book.
Whew! Don't think I'm crazy! Truth can be stranger than we would expect.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 2, 2012 10:11:19 GMT -5
Here's another, clearer copy of the photo from the rose collection. These two photos are clearly the same photo but notice they are reverse images of each other, as if one was originally a reverse tintype like Billy's photo. Also, the version in Morrison's book has had parts of it masked out or cropped out. That alone would indicate Morrison didn't get that copy of the photo directly from Brushy's collection. Attachments:
|
|