|
Post by MissyS on Apr 15, 2019 16:23:47 GMT -5
If Brushy was proven to be Billy then I suppose there would be or should be an investigation into who was actually shot and buried in Fort Sumner? I guess the question would be open for debate if he were a drifter, a detective, a bounty hunter, or a drunken passed out local, or who?, much like now that question would still be discussed on the board, but I think if Brushy was proven to be Billy then officials and historians, investigators, and researchers would all be more eager and willing to work together to get that question answered and more as there would still be a lot of who's, how's and why's left unanswered. There would probably be a lot more tourism to Hico Texas, and I think Texas could and should place new historical markers, and historical landmarks for Brushy. I suspect it wouldn't be easy for some to accept at first, but I believe all of the people that doubted Brushy would be glad to finally have a proven answer.
|
|
|
Post by Sam Fraser on May 15, 2019 15:23:57 GMT -5
I wonder how Texas Truth Teller will think if Brushy was proved to be BTK.
|
|
|
Post by lacowboy on May 16, 2019 7:17:06 GMT -5
I wonder how Texas Truth Teller will think if Brushy was proved to be BTK. He'd never accept it. That would make his self published book the trash that it is.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 16, 2019 10:00:20 GMT -5
I wonder how Texas Truth Teller will think if Brushy was proved to be BTK. Not to worry. An eventuality that will never come to pass.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 16, 2019 13:43:19 GMT -5
Typical response. When you can't bring yourself to provide a real answer, just divert the question. The question was not whether you thought it would ever come to pass. The question was "what would you do, ""IF"" it did?" TTT, you'd make a great politician. Who knows, maybe you are one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 3:48:36 GMT -5
I think it'd cause a political and cultural crap storm, not just among the public but the academic. I think the present govenor of New Mexico would "stand firm" on not giving Brushy a pardon because they'd say outlaws are outlaws regardless of public admiration.
I think the Garrett family, and probably some Western historians, would probably protest the DNA results saying that they must be faulty--- and if rerun and still shown to be accurate, they would still paint Garrett as a hero who let his buddy get away and still stick the knife in Brushy Bill by saying his account of that night in question, as well as his life story, was mostly fictitious.
Anything to remain on top and keep Brushy Bill Roberts down. That's my opinion. Although I can see the tourism industry boom in both New Mexico and Texas with a "Follow The Brushy Bill Trail" tour all the way to Hico.
|
|
|
Post by kerry on Dec 15, 2019 1:23:04 GMT -5
complete pardon would not seem enough for brushy .. one side of the lincoln county war had weaponized the law...brady stayed in lincoln so dolan and olinger could use a posse to assasinate tunstall...garrett left lincoln so deputy olinger could do kill brushy while in custody...chisum had turned on brushy and goodnight had sent poe who was the reason garrett was in fort sumner on the night of 14 july 1881 poe was a comlete stranger in fort sumner and so was billy barlow when he rode down the same avenue only days before..
..
|
|
|
Post by Elwood on Dec 15, 2019 12:16:32 GMT -5
It will likely require DNA to prove who Brushy Bill Roberts was. Since Joseph Antrim was buried in Denver, Colorado in 1930, after spending a few days as a cadaver at the Medical College there, it would be great to try to trace his genetic lineage from DNA. We can surmise forever, but will not come to any concrete conclusions without DNA. Just my two cents ...
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Jan 5, 2020 5:24:33 GMT -5
Hey, Leeb. I'm just reading old posts. I meant to say that Frederick Nolan said Brushy's story was plausible until he saw the family bible (not Fredrick Beanπππ) oh God. big mistake on my part. I post less now because I make less mistakes if I post less. Take care. ππ
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Jan 6, 2020 13:51:48 GMT -5
Hey, Leeb. I'm just reading old posts. I meant to say that Frederick Nolan said Brushy's story was plausible until he saw the family bible (not Fredrick Beanπππ) oh God. big mistake on my part. I post less now because I make less mistakes if I post less. Take care. ππ at least it wasn't judge roy bean!!
|
|
|
Post by Elwood on Apr 10, 2020 19:16:35 GMT -5
In reference to the Kid's height, from an interview with him in jail, after his capture at Stinking Springs.
Dec. 28, 1880 Las Vegas Gazette
"He did look human, indeed, but there was nothing very mannish about him in appearance, for he looked and acted a mere boy. He is about five feet, eight or nine inches tall, slightly built and lithe, weighing about 140; a frank and open countenance, looking like a school boy, with the traditional silky fuzz on his upper lip; clear blue eyes, with a roguish snap about them; light hair and complexion. He is, in all, quite a handsome looking fellow, the imperfection being two prominent front teeth, slightly protuding like squirrel's teeth, and he has agreeable and winning ways."
|
|