Concerning Roy Haws
Nov 20, 2019 6:29:33 GMT -5
via mobile
clydec, mckinley412, and 3 more like this
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2019 6:29:33 GMT -5
The entire hinge of his book basically rests on the assertion that his mom was duped by Tunstill into believing Brushy Bill Roberts was Billy The Kid, when in fact he was merely a liar and conman.
Now, I could buy that argument, if there was more than one person discrediting Roberts from the family. Only Geneva Pittmon ever said Roberts wasn't The Kid. Everybody else in the family either believed the story or were agnostic about his claims.
Haws is so far removed from it all, that he's only looking at it from the perspective of a son who feels like his mom (and the family) was duped by Tunstill, because he somehow views the whole story of Brushy Bill Roberts to be some kind of curse that's brought them all ridicule.
The only credit I can give him is that he himself said that he couldn't say Garrett killed The Kid or not. That being said, I can't help but think this is a man whose axe to grind is targeted towards the wrong individual, Brushy, when it ought to be towards Tunstill.
Now my mother's friend fell victim to a hoax. Her daughter many years ago was murdered at a party along with a bunch of other kids by some crazed kid they all went to school with. Some ****, for whatever reason, writes a book about it all claiming that it was all a hit by local police who were corrupt and having underage relations with these poor people--- and everyone who read this book, including my mom's friend, fell for it as being the truth and started lawyering up to sue the town, the county, etc.
But this bastard who wrote this book, in the fine small print, had the words "historical fiction" on the opening page, and everybody overlooked that. For me, personally, that shouldn't be enough to legally cover your ass, but apparently that's all anyone needs to do to write whatever garbage they want.
So I understand the kind of frustration and hate Roy Haws has towards a guy like William Tunstill, who probably did fabricate some things to make himself important.
HOWEVER, I don't think that's enough to discredit Brushy Bill Roberts. To dismiss a subject of interest just because there's a fraudulent historian or person involved, is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Haws mother may have been conned to a point, but certainly there'd of been living relatives who knew Roberts personally and would've told her "the quote on quote truth". They probably told her they either weren't sure what to believe, or that he was who he said he was.
As I mentioned before on this forum as well as my own Brushy Bill Roberts Facebook page, Haws ought to "know better" that words alone will not end matters. If he's THAT convinced Brushy's a fraud, then wouldn't he have the sole legal authority to dig up Roberts and basically do a DNA test to prove whether or not his theory is true & if so, then he ought to do it.
It certainly would end the speculation whether Roberts was Geneva Pittmon's uncle or cousin. If Roberts comes up as cousin, well, it goes to show Haws has to rewrite his book saying that the genealogy is wrong--- that he duped all of his readers into believing something that wasn't true.
Not that such a DNA test would prove Roberts was Billy The Kid, but it would prove Haws and the harshest of critics wrong--- at least in the sense that their long substantiated claim is that Roberts was Oliver Pleasant Roberts, and if he's actually a cousin, then he wasn't Oliver Pleasant Roberts.
Then that makes everyone, skeptics and believers alike, ask: "Who the hell is this guy?", and an examination of the body would show just how old he actually was at death. A further DNA test could also determine WHO he's actually related to in the Texarkana area and beyond, by putting that DNA sample in the Ancestry database to compare to families already in the database.
Anyways, let's get back to topic. Haws being so far removed from the family to ever know things only they would know. I'd like to do a thought experiment, where the internet was suddenly gone tomorrow--- now I fought professionally once, but could I remotely prove it in a hypothetical world where it's difficult to get such records?
I'd be called a liar by everyone if I said I used to be a boxer. Hell, I have been called a liar before until I whipped out the record. But that's just it--- how can anyone prove anything about themselves without a record or a witness?
Even witnesses get dismissed, as everyone including Haws, dismisses the sworn affidavits from those who actually knew Billy The Kid and said Brushy was indeed who he claimed.
So how much harder is it for Haws to prove Brushy WASN'T who he claimed to be, especially when his own mother--- who had connections to living witnesses--- believed Brushy to be The Kid?
Haws, at the end of the day, is merely repeating everything everyone else says about Roberts except that he throws his mom under the bus claiming she was duped by Tunstill.
I think it's more of a leap of faith to believe that your mom, who knew all the old people, would buy into Brushy being The Kid by an outsider UNLESS there already existed a belief within the family that he either was or they weren't sure.
And if a family is unsure, that tells a lot from my perspective because why would you have the slightest doubts about a relative you supposedly knew your whole life unless THOSE old people couldn't confirm with the even older people that Brushy was Ollie or not?
In 1989, Bill Allison (step-grandson) gave Frederic Bean the Morrison note pads and the tapes, and let him make a list of everything in the trunk. As far as Allison was concerned Brushy Bill Roberts was Billy The Kid, so clearly that family belief existed independent of Haws mother.
Now, I could buy that argument, if there was more than one person discrediting Roberts from the family. Only Geneva Pittmon ever said Roberts wasn't The Kid. Everybody else in the family either believed the story or were agnostic about his claims.
Haws is so far removed from it all, that he's only looking at it from the perspective of a son who feels like his mom (and the family) was duped by Tunstill, because he somehow views the whole story of Brushy Bill Roberts to be some kind of curse that's brought them all ridicule.
The only credit I can give him is that he himself said that he couldn't say Garrett killed The Kid or not. That being said, I can't help but think this is a man whose axe to grind is targeted towards the wrong individual, Brushy, when it ought to be towards Tunstill.
Now my mother's friend fell victim to a hoax. Her daughter many years ago was murdered at a party along with a bunch of other kids by some crazed kid they all went to school with. Some ****, for whatever reason, writes a book about it all claiming that it was all a hit by local police who were corrupt and having underage relations with these poor people--- and everyone who read this book, including my mom's friend, fell for it as being the truth and started lawyering up to sue the town, the county, etc.
But this bastard who wrote this book, in the fine small print, had the words "historical fiction" on the opening page, and everybody overlooked that. For me, personally, that shouldn't be enough to legally cover your ass, but apparently that's all anyone needs to do to write whatever garbage they want.
So I understand the kind of frustration and hate Roy Haws has towards a guy like William Tunstill, who probably did fabricate some things to make himself important.
HOWEVER, I don't think that's enough to discredit Brushy Bill Roberts. To dismiss a subject of interest just because there's a fraudulent historian or person involved, is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Haws mother may have been conned to a point, but certainly there'd of been living relatives who knew Roberts personally and would've told her "the quote on quote truth". They probably told her they either weren't sure what to believe, or that he was who he said he was.
As I mentioned before on this forum as well as my own Brushy Bill Roberts Facebook page, Haws ought to "know better" that words alone will not end matters. If he's THAT convinced Brushy's a fraud, then wouldn't he have the sole legal authority to dig up Roberts and basically do a DNA test to prove whether or not his theory is true & if so, then he ought to do it.
It certainly would end the speculation whether Roberts was Geneva Pittmon's uncle or cousin. If Roberts comes up as cousin, well, it goes to show Haws has to rewrite his book saying that the genealogy is wrong--- that he duped all of his readers into believing something that wasn't true.
Not that such a DNA test would prove Roberts was Billy The Kid, but it would prove Haws and the harshest of critics wrong--- at least in the sense that their long substantiated claim is that Roberts was Oliver Pleasant Roberts, and if he's actually a cousin, then he wasn't Oliver Pleasant Roberts.
Then that makes everyone, skeptics and believers alike, ask: "Who the hell is this guy?", and an examination of the body would show just how old he actually was at death. A further DNA test could also determine WHO he's actually related to in the Texarkana area and beyond, by putting that DNA sample in the Ancestry database to compare to families already in the database.
Anyways, let's get back to topic. Haws being so far removed from the family to ever know things only they would know. I'd like to do a thought experiment, where the internet was suddenly gone tomorrow--- now I fought professionally once, but could I remotely prove it in a hypothetical world where it's difficult to get such records?
I'd be called a liar by everyone if I said I used to be a boxer. Hell, I have been called a liar before until I whipped out the record. But that's just it--- how can anyone prove anything about themselves without a record or a witness?
Even witnesses get dismissed, as everyone including Haws, dismisses the sworn affidavits from those who actually knew Billy The Kid and said Brushy was indeed who he claimed.
So how much harder is it for Haws to prove Brushy WASN'T who he claimed to be, especially when his own mother--- who had connections to living witnesses--- believed Brushy to be The Kid?
Haws, at the end of the day, is merely repeating everything everyone else says about Roberts except that he throws his mom under the bus claiming she was duped by Tunstill.
I think it's more of a leap of faith to believe that your mom, who knew all the old people, would buy into Brushy being The Kid by an outsider UNLESS there already existed a belief within the family that he either was or they weren't sure.
And if a family is unsure, that tells a lot from my perspective because why would you have the slightest doubts about a relative you supposedly knew your whole life unless THOSE old people couldn't confirm with the even older people that Brushy was Ollie or not?
In 1989, Bill Allison (step-grandson) gave Frederic Bean the Morrison note pads and the tapes, and let him make a list of everything in the trunk. As far as Allison was concerned Brushy Bill Roberts was Billy The Kid, so clearly that family belief existed independent of Haws mother.
