|
Post by nmjames on May 9, 2012 12:31:00 GMT -5
With the tintype of Billy, it's hard to tell anything. His hat and shadows cover most of his hair.
As for the hair in the Fort Sumner museum, who knows. It's not blond but it's not dark as I remember. I have picutres of the hair but need to find them.
As for the right hand , left hand. It's not just the tintype. It's other statments that I have. One little know fact about Billy is that he favored the Winchester over pistols.
|
|
|
Post by brianthedude on May 9, 2012 14:39:35 GMT -5
The original lighting and exposure of a black and white photo can very easily make brown hair appear black, or black hair appear lighter. Any number of factors from the original printing and subsequent copying can also readily affect the contrast enough to drop dark brown hair into shadow or accentuate highlights on black hair. Considering that the photos in question here are at least prints of prints and over a hundred years old, I don't believe it's possible to make an accurate comparison or determination on this detail to any legitimate degree of certainty.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 9, 2012 14:48:34 GMT -5
Thanks Brian:
I agree with what you say. What I'm going on it the color of hair people said Billy had and the 1918 Draft card that said Brushy had Black hair. The pictures of Brushy are much better and he looks to have dark or black hair. In my younger day's I had hair much as what is said Billy had and it never was black. (I don't think the pictures of Brushy date back as far as I fell Brushy was born in 1879.)
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 9, 2012 14:53:27 GMT -5
Wayne:
I found the picture of the hair in the museum and emailed it to you. It was said to be Billy's hair, cut while he was in Mesilla.
|
|
|
Post by brianthedude on May 9, 2012 14:57:18 GMT -5
Wayne, I like your speculation on the Oliver L. and Oliver P. saga, but I'm hesitant to embrace needless complexity unless the evidence requires it. Brushy's story all along was that he was impersonating Oliver Roberts, had been actively lying for years, and living under fraudulent identities. Given this circumstance, I would indeed expect to find inconsistencies in official documentation and details pertaining to his cover story. Oliver Pleasant Roberts is documented to have existed in the family Brushy had lived with. This would seem to be consistent with both claims -- that either Brushy was impersonating Oliver P. Roberts or he was him.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 9, 2012 14:57:45 GMT -5
I agree completely that hair color can't be accurately determined by looking at the black and white photos, especially not the very old tintype, but I do think it is obvious the hair in that tintype is not "blonde" or "light brown". The hair in the purse in Fort Sumner's museum is lighter (faded) where it has been exposed to light for many years, almost with a reddish hue and darker where it is enclosed within the purse. Seeing this, if it actually is Billy's, helps to support my theory that at times his hair appeared lighter due to being bleached in the sun. I don't believe his hair was black. I believe it was naturally dark brown when not bleached or lightened by the sun. We all know, there's black and then there's jet black and then there's brown that is dark enough some would mistakenly describe it as black.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 9, 2012 15:15:14 GMT -5
There are several reasons I feel there has to have been another Oliver with initial "L" born in 1867. We have documentation of Oliver Pleasant Roberts being married to Anna Lee in 1908 and on the divorce papers in 1910 we have a signature of O.P. Roberts that looks absolutely nothing like Brushy's writing. Not only does this prove to "me" that Brushy and Oliver P. were not the same person but it also shows that Oliver P. was still around up until 1910. We can also site evidence that this marriage was the real Oliver P. because Brushy freely described his other 3 marriages but in 1908 he had not yet returned to Texas. Oliver P. was born in 1878 or 79 and in 1910 he would have been just 31 whereas Brushy, born in 1859 would have been 51 or 52. It is difficult to think that Elizabeth Ferguson could mistake the 51 year old Brushy for her 31 year old son who had just left town recently no matter how young Brushy looked for his age. In fact, we have to consider the strong possibility that Brushy and Oliver Pleasant were both around at the same time for a short time.
On the other hand, if it was the Oliver L, born in 1867 (as Brushy himself said it was) whom he was impersonating, then there was only 8 years difference in age and Brushy, who looked young for his age, could have been more reasonably mistaken for Oliver L who the mother had not seen for 25 years or so. It just makes more sense to take Brushy's story literally. Brushy said he took the name from a cousin who was born in 1867, left home in 1884 and died in 1885. Oliver Pleasant Roberts was very much alive in 1910 and Brushy knew that so he could not have been referring to Oliver Pleasant.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 10, 2012 0:30:14 GMT -5
Wayne:
Who was the Olliver P. Roberts on the 1920 Van Zandt Co. Texas Census living in the house of James Cecil Murff? Allie Isacc Murff was the daughter of Abraham Isaac and Luticia Ballard. Luticia married Brushy and died on 22 June 1944.
Then on the 1930 Census, Oliver Roberts Est. Birth 1878, 51 years old. Lutisha Est. Birth 1873 Age 57.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 10, 2012 1:27:34 GMT -5
That would likely be Brushy, using the alias "Oliver P. Roberts", and I believe that's the case. So we have two instances of documentation that Brushy used that name, the other being the 1918 draft registration. Some Brushy supporters say he "never" used the middle initial "P" but I never suggested that. However, I still see most of his documents after Oliver Pleasant's 1910 divorce from Anna, showing either just "Ollie" or "Oliver" or "Oliver L" while most everything prior to that was referring to the real Oliver Pleasant as "O.P." or "Oliver P." or "Oliver Pleasant".
Must be said though, just because Brushy married Luticia Ballard, doesn't mean the real Oliver Pleasant Roberts couldn't have been staying with the Murffs. In that 1930 census there is no middle initial listed. So we really don't have proof here that those two censuses are referring to the same person. As I said before, I am inclined to believe they are both our Brushy.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 10, 2012 11:38:17 GMT -5
Wayne:
Why did you change or remove your other post. It' ok to think about it and come back, but I wouldn't remove or change the other post.
Just me however.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 10, 2012 12:05:20 GMT -5
Because I found the answer myself and the post was no longer necessary. Didn't mean to create any confusion there.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 10, 2012 12:20:58 GMT -5
If Brushy truly was Oliver Pleasant Roberts, what is your theory as to why he began using the middle initial "L"? I've heard it said it was because he was embarrassed by his feminine sounding middle name "Pleasant" but if that's the reason, why not change it earlier in his life?
Next question. If he really was Oliver Pleasant Roberts then why concoct a story about Oliver having died in 1885 when Oliver P. was no doubt, very much alive in 1910? Also, why claim his birthday was in 1867 when he would have known very well that year did not coincide with either his own real birthday or that of Billy The Kid? Why pick that year out of the clear blue?
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 10, 2012 20:48:54 GMT -5
I can't answer why. I have read that it had to do with a pension. I don't know if that's ture. The first time I remember seeing the L is when he married Malinda in 1945, again
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 10, 2012 21:50:35 GMT -5
Sorry, I had a phone call and hit the wrong button.
I can't answer why. I have read that it had to do with a pension. I don't know if that's true. The first time I remember seeing the L uses is when he married Malinda in 1945, again in Morrison's book and on his first tombstone.
I feel it had to do with Brushy running his scam of being Billy the Kid. Brushy had to concoct a story so he had to come up with something. I don't know why he chose 1867 or 1868. I feel Brushy was Oliver P. born in 1879. He had to sign his real name on the Draft Card and others. On some he could just use Oliver Roberts or Ollie Roberts. I don't always use my whole name.
I know you will not agree with this but I think a lot of the story had to do with J. Frank Dalton. That is how Morrison found Brushy in Texas. I also feel Morrison may have know Dalton and a man in Missouri by the name of Rudy Turilli. We also know Brushy had tie's to Dalton.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 10, 2012 23:53:27 GMT -5
If Brushy was a fraud, why would he even claim any relationship to Oliver Roberts? Why claim Katherine Antrim was his Aunt rather than his mother? Why such pointless detours? Why risk a death sentence for crimes he had nothing to do with?
I have to wonder if Brushy had been believed by Governor Mabry and been arrested and carted off to jail and scheduled for execution, whether there'd still be those who disbelieved his claim. What was he going to do if that had transpired? Come back to the Gov and say, "sorry Gov, I was just kidding"?
|
|