|
Post by nmjames on May 3, 2012 21:25:19 GMT -5
Wayne,
In answer to you statement, Morrison does not specifically say the picture came from Brushy, he does say, Brushy Bill said this woman was Billy the Kids aunt.
I would think that Morrison would have seen all the pictures and would have known what Brushy said. I always thought Morrison was the expert on Brushy.
I have a another question. In Morrison's book on page 60 he states, There is some reason to believe that he (Brushy) spent all his mature life impersonating one of his own relatives. This was the real Ollie Roberts, a cousin, who was born in 1867, ran away from home about 1884, and was killed in the Indian Territory. Question who was his mother and father. Oliver P. Roberts was born in 1879. His father was Henry Roberts and Elizabeth Roberts.
One more thing, some time back we were talking about Brushy knowing the courthouse in Lincoln. I stated that he said the Armory was across the hall from Garrett's office. In W.C Jamerson's book he has the Armory across the hall but behind what was Mrs. Lloyd's room, in Nolan's The West of Billy the Kid on page 274, the armory is in the Dolan & Riley quarters where I have always been told it was since I was a little boy.
I don't think Jamerson's drawing is correct because there was no door between Mrs. Lloyd's room and the Mosonic Room, but I do think Brushy was saying the Armory was across the hall from Garrett's office. (Not down the hall).
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 4, 2012 0:47:50 GMT -5
Regarding Morrison's statement, I read that as intended to clarify that Brushy stated Katherine McCarty/Antrim was "not" his mother but rather his aunt. He doesn't say that Brushy's statement was in response to viewing that particular photo. It's more like, "here's a picture of Katherine" and Brushy said Katherine was his aunt, not his mother. If Morrison acquired that picture in the process of getting his book out, then no, Brushy probably never saw that photo.
Regarding the real Oliver Roberts. I do so wish Brushy could have lived long enough to answer some of these questions. I have a theory about Oliver Roberts that is a bit radical and I certainly have no proof it is correct. The only evidence I have is simple logic. Hold on to your hat. Here goes:
My theory proposes that there was a real live Oliver "L" Roberts born to Elizabeth Ferguson out of wedlock in either 1867 or 1868. Since she would have been just a 13 year old girl, the baby might have been raised by other family or friends either to protect her reputation or in the best interest of the baby or both. This child would never have been reported to census takers obviously. Then in 1878 or 1879, Oliver "Pleasant" Roberts was born to the same parents who were now married. Henry and Elizabeth may have had limited contact with that first baby who left in 1884 as the family later said, never to return. But Brushy knew about this cousin Oliver L. Roberts and when he discovered he'd been killed, later returning his belongings to Elizabeth and Henry, Elizabeth mistook Brushy as the missing Oliver L. I theorize the real Oliver Pleasant, born in 1879 was the one who married Anna Lee in 1908 and divorced her in 1910. I further theorize that Oliver Pleasant then left his family to claim a new life elsewhere, about the same time Brushy showed up with Oliver L's belongings. I theorize that Elizabeth, the mother of the two Olivers, was having some mental issues and the family didn't want to make her worse by forcing her to accept that both Olivers were now gone. Maybe she did think Brushy was Oliver Pleasant, maybe she thought he was Oliver L., it doesn't really matter. It is reported as fact that Martha Vada Roberts, sister of Oliver Pleasant, insisted Brushy was "not" her brother Oliver.
Mind you, all this is just theorizing. So some may ask me how I could come up with such a theory. You see, I believe the evidence suggesting Brushy really was Billy The Kid to be so strong that while others see contradictions in Brushy's story and say "that means he was lying", I see contradictions in his story and think "there has to be an explanation". Maybe my theory is totally bogus. It probably is. But even so, I believe there has to be an explanation because I am so convinced by the other evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 4, 2012 10:54:50 GMT -5
Wasn't the armory both "down the hall" and "across the hall"? I mean, it was on the other side of the hall from Garrett's office wasn't it? When I visited back in 2007, they had the armory identified as the room down the hall but on the opposite side of the hall from Garrett's office. To get there from exiting Garrett's office door you'd turn left, walk down the hall a bit and then turn back to the right to enter the armory.
Assuming I am correct on that, if Brushy would have said the armory was "down the hall" could that not have been interpreted as meaning it was on the same side of the hallway? It seems to me that it is equally as correct to describe the room as "across" as it is to describe it as "down" since it really was both. He didn't say "directly across", just that it was "across". In my mind, it's just a question of semantics and anyone of us subjected to such scrutiny over the way we speak about people, places, things, and events could be proven to be an imposter.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 7, 2012 16:21:18 GMT -5
Wayne,
The way Morrison has it on page 42 of his book and what makes me think that Brushy told him the armory was across the hall and not down the hall is this: Across the hall from Garrett's office door (notice office door) was another door opening into the armory room. (notice another door).
The other reason is because because of the complete statement. The stairway began on the first floor on the west side, Runing east into the large hall which run north and south in the building. At the east end of this hall a door open into Garrett's office. On the east side of Garrett's office a door open into the room where I was confined in the northeast corner room.
Notice he used west, east, north and south . At the east end of this hall. On the east side of. nothease corner room. To me if Brushy told Morrison that the Armory was down the hall, he would have used South.
It's not big deal as there are many other things that he got wrong. As I have said before, I just don't see how people say he knew so much about the LCW and Billy the Kid when he got so many things wrong.
Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 7, 2012 16:30:43 GMT -5
Wayne,
I know you believe Brushy was Billy, but I just don't see it. You state in one of the above post: I believe the evidence suggesting Brushy really was Billy the Kid to be so strong.
Help me out. What am I missing? I have all kinds on information that shows different.
The other question I have is there has been, I don't know how many people, research Billy the Kid and wrote books since 1925 until now. I have talked to a lot of them and none of them buy into the Brushy story. Why do you think so many of them get it wrong?
Thanks!!!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 7, 2012 19:29:55 GMT -5
In a word "predisposition". We're all, myself no exception, predisposed to be more or less suspicious of claims like Brushy's as well as the historic status quo. Note I am not alone in my opinion about Brushy. There are many others who believe Brushy's claim and books have been written in support of it. Many (if not most) historians will ere on the side of caution. They won't accept anything that alters history unless it is 100% proven beyond a doubt. I'm not going to launch into a list of reasons why I believe him here. I've worked hard to present what I believe to be very strong evidence at my website at www.musicplay.com/Brushy/Story.html and as I said above, I believe the evidence supporting Brushy's claim outweighs the evidence against.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 7, 2012 21:09:13 GMT -5
Wayne,
I have been to your other site many times. I am no expert but as I have told you before, I don't see it and as you have found there are experts that say no way and others that do.
On the 1918 World War I draft card, was that Brushy or someone else?
Thanks,
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 7, 2012 22:07:29 GMT -5
I think that was Brushy that registered for the draft in 1918. It is the one and only example of Brushy using the middle name of "Pleasant". I think he used it that one time, possibly because he was afraid if he used "Oliver L" they would find out he was impersonating a dead man and he'd be discovered.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 7, 2012 22:28:51 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne,
Here is why I ask that question. In the Description of Registarant, they have Build, Slender, Color of Eyes Gray, Color of Hair Blk. I have never heard of Billy having Black Hair. He is also said to have had Blue eyes.
In all the pictures said to be of Brushy at early age and in his 20s. I have always thought he had dark skin and black hair.
Then the other question I have, you and I have discussed before. If Brushy was born in 1859, even using his cousins names born in 1867 or 1868, also having served with Teddy, why would he register for the draft in 1918? If he were born in 1879, he would have to register for the 1918 draft.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 7, 2012 22:52:22 GMT -5
One other question that I forgot to add to the last post is about Brushy's name while he served with Teddy. I have seen it stated he used William H. Roberts. Why would he use that name and then go back to Oliver P. Roberts or Oliver L. ?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 8, 2012 1:36:51 GMT -5
I think Billy wasn't described as having black hair because his hair was not completely black. Looking at the famous tintype, I believe his hair was a darker shade of brown. He is thought to have matured late as he didn't even have much beard growing up to 1881. Some men start out with relatively light hair as a child and it gets gradually darker as they mature and in adulthood is almost black or at least dark brown. Then there is the fact that two people can see the same hair and one describe it as black while the other sees it as dark brown or brown. I know Billy's hair was described as being lighter than that, but I think it may have been bleached in the sun as he was spending most of his days outdoors.
The color of the eyes was also described differently by different people, even among those who knew Billy before 1881. Severo Gallegos studied Brushy's eyes very carefully and declared a positive ID of Brushy as Billy based on the eyes. "No one else has eyes like that". There seems to be a consensus that Billy's eyes were unique. And yes, bluish eyes can become more grayish with age.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 8, 2012 1:41:14 GMT -5
Why did he register for the draft in 1918? Some say he was hoping to become eligible for a military pension. I don't know how any of that would have worked. We'll have to ask Brushy what his logic was at the time regarding the registration, the name change, etc.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 9, 2012 9:31:55 GMT -5
As for the hair color, in the picture said to be Brushy at the age of 14, his hair looks black or dark.
Billy's was said to be sandy blond to light brown hair.
As to Brushy hoping to get a pension, why didn't he just go down and enlist?
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 9, 2012 10:40:12 GMT -5
On page 6 of Morrison's book they are talking about the different scars. Morrison ask Brushy about a scar on the back of his right hand just behind the knuckles, and another across the first joint of the trigger finger on the same hand.
"I emptied this one in a fight once," he explained, patting his left hip, " and had to draw the right one. I wasn't as fast with my right hand as I was with the left. I could fire the pistol with both hands. ..... My left hand was never hit because the man never lived who could beat me to the draw with that left. ..... I have been ambidextrous all my life, but I am left-handed naturally."
On page 53 of Morrison's book; Brushy states: In January, 1890, Indain Jim sent me to a boxing school in Cincinnati, Ohio, where I trained. ...... I was left-handed and fast, but they put me in the ring with a long-armed fellow........
We know Billy was right handed. The only known photo shows that he was right handed as well as other information. Brushy people state: well Brushy and Billy were Ambidextrous so that proves nothing. My wife is truly ambidextrous and I know what that means. I don't feel Brushy or Billy were truly ambidextrous. I feel Brushy was left-handed and Billy was right-handed.
I was going to type what Ambidexterity is but you can look it up. I think it is quite different than what Brushy was.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 9, 2012 11:52:46 GMT -5
I might put some stock in the question about the hair color except for one clear fact. In the tintype, Billy's hair looks dark brown or black as well. Again, I believe the only explanation for those eyewitnesses who described it as light brown, etc. were either seeing him at a younger age or after his hair had been bleached out by the sun, or they were just mistaken for whatever reason. The hair on that person in the tintype does not look like blond or sandy brown hair.
Regarding the hair, have you been to the museum in Fort Sumner and do you think that hair on display is really Billy's? It's definitely not blond.
We don't know for sure that Billy was right handed. What we know is that in the tintype he was wearing a pistol on his right hip. Can we automatically assume that proves he was right handed? I don't think so. Maybe he couldn't find a scabbard/holster made for a left handed person. Maybe he was truly ambidextrous. Do we know for a fact that Brushy/Billy wasn't ambidextrous? I don't think so.
|
|