Many skeptics of Roberts claim that nobody in Roberts family believed him. However this is not true. The skepticism in Roberts family began with Geneva Pittmon, who stated that Roberts and Oliver Pleasant Roberts were one and the same and that she was his niece. This has spitballed into the 21st century with Roy Haws, whose mother was Eulaine Haws that William Tunstill basically used and abused by feeding her wrong information.
The fact of the matter is this, there was more than a few people who were Oliver Pleasant Roberts siblings, and they NEVER countered Brushy Bill Roberts claims. These individuals include:
-Thomas Ulysses Roberts (d. 1958)
-Cordelia Roberts Adams (d. 1968)
-Samantha Belle Chancellor (d. 1956)
And of course their spouses:
-Mattie Jane Couch (d. 1954)
-Irvin Asberry Adams (d. 1960)
None of these people "in the know" ever countered Brushy's claims in public, and quite honestly, in private the family was either agnostic or believed him.
Geneva Pittmon was born well into the 20th century, to Thomas Ulysses Roberts. She wouldn't pen her letter until 1987. There are problems with her letter, however.
First, she didn't even know what the "P" in Oliver Pleasant Roberts stood for. You'd think such a fact would've been denoted in the family Bible she was citing.
Second, the information she cited conflicts not just with his original tombstone birthdate of 1868, but also the information Morrison jotted down from Roberts own family Bible.
Third, she notes her husband told her NOT to say anything until Joe Bowlin (Outlaw Gang founder) explained exactly what his interest in their family was. This, for me, seems contradictory because the information in the letter seems to "answer" whatever the man requested to begin with, so something seems "off" about the letter itself.
Fourth, she gives the address of William Tunstill in the letter, remarking that he too was "asking questions which I have not written," which seems strange as to why she'd mention Tunstill to an absolute stranger. It also begs the question, what did Tunstill ask her? Why did she write to Dowlin and not Tunstill? It makes no sense.
Fifth, she notes that Tunstill claimed that a man named Ben Roberts was her grandfather and that he came from Kentucky and settled near Austin in 1835. Mind you, Tunstill was fabricating things seemingly out of thin air, because Brushy Bill Roberts said he was a COUSIN to the Roberts family, therefore Ben Roberts (if he existed at all) wouldn't have been her grandfather anyways.
So, all in all, between Tunstill's fabrications & Everhard's fabrications, since she was in cahoots with him, and Geneva Pittmon reacting to those claims--- what we have here is a whole lot of nothing.
It does nothing to diminish Roberts claims, ultimately, because he said he was a cousin to the Roberts, and not necessarily directly related to them. There's also the matter of there being two different family Bible's and until both are examined for telltale features (ie, printers marks) one cannot just say Roberts just bought and made up a record, or that Geneva Pittmon had the same Bible that he had, etc.
There's also the motive, what was her deal? How would a woman know whether the man actually was her uncle or not? Why would she reply to this Dowlin and not Tunstill? Why would she go against her husband's wishes to say nothing until she knew what the man's intentions was? Why would she spill the beans, so to speak, without knowing what the man wanted to ask to begin with?
It seems to me that it's probable that the Geneva Pittmon letter may have been fabricated by Dowlin himself. After all, has anyone compared the letter to known handwriting samples of Pittmon's?
It doesn't make sense, when one really thinks about it, why she'd say X, Y, and Z without knowing what Dowlin wanted to know. And we never again heard another thing from Geneva Pittmon again. Not another letter. Not a newspaper article. NOTHING. You'd think a woman willing to go against her husband's wishes and all would've spoken out again and more loudly for the whole world to hear. But, nothing more.
Again, the living family members listed above, who could have blown him out of the water while Brushy Bill Roberts was alive and after his death, never did no such thing.
The skeptics will say that they didn't want to cause more drama, and wanted to put it all behind them, as if Roberts was an embarrassment, but isn't that too convenient of an answer?
William Morrison and C.L. Sonnischen and several others reached out, investigated, and continued pursuing information until the day they died. None of the family ever personally challenged or contradicted what these people said and published for the whole wide world to see.
Of course some skeptics may say that the Roberts family just rode the gravy train, saying that they were related to Billy The Kid, etc--- but there's no evidence that any of them rode the coat tails of Brushy Bill Roberts. So that doesn't hold any water either.
Jesus bless you all š