|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 10, 2013 14:26:32 GMT -5
Here are four letters signed allegedly by Billy. Notice the differences in the signature. Look at the shape of the lower part of the "W". Look at the slant of the letters in the first one compared to the other three. No two B's in Bonney are the same. One is signed W.H. Bonney (capital letters separated and a period after the H), one is Wm H Bonney (no period),one is just W Bonney and one is WHBonney with all the letters connected. Even on the last two the slant is different. The "H" is very different each time it is used. Look at the first one, underneath the signature the name Kimbal is written with a script "K". In one of the other letters written mostly in script, the letter "k" is printed as if the person writing didn't know how to do a script "k". I know there are similarities in the extra swirls applied to some of the letters but these could very well be coincidental. I think there are some very obvious and important differences. Now, for anyone who still thinks Brushy was illiterate, here's an example of what I believe is the true writing of the real Billy The Kid. Quite different from any of the letters officially attributed to him. This is the signature on a letter written by Brushy, at a time when he was still trying to keep his identity a secret from his wife. Meaning she could not have been the one who wrote this. I think signatures all signed by the same person would tend to be more similar than those attributed to Billy and I believe Brushy was the real Billy The Kid. I think in his Lincoln County War days he was dictating those letters, not writing them. The writing on two or more of them might still have been done by the same person. Even the letter that was supposedly written while he was in handcuffs could have been dictated. Maybe Melinda Allison "did" know about Brushy's identity when that signed letter was written. I'm just saying what I believe to be correct. Bottom line, there's no real proof either way but I wonder if anyone has ever had a handwriting expert compare the letters attributed to Billy.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Dec 10, 2013 22:16:58 GMT -5
Wayne,
The only thing I can say is the one letter Billy had on handcuffs, the other letter that Billy states For the Last time, Last and Time are both underlined. I feel Billy was mad and very upset. He had been asking the Gov. to come and visit with him. If I remeber correctly, the Gov. was not even in Santa Fe. I don't always sign my name the same way and if I get lazy, I may print a letter and I know how to write. To me one needs to look at the whole letter. They Y's at the end of Bonney look the same.
Now for the statement, "Now, for anyone who still thinks Brushy was illiterate, here's an example of what I believe is the true writing of the real Billy the Kid."
I hate to tell you this but that writing is not Brushy's. I have been told that Melinda Allison Roberts wrote the letters to Ola Everhard. I have heard this from two different people while researching Mrs. Everhard. Then just today, I was given a copy of Billy The Kid And Me Were The Same by Tunstill. On the letters to Mrs. Everhard, he has by Lizzie, Billy's Last Wife. On the letter you have as Brushy's signature, there is this, Note: Mrs. Everhard took original letter and copied it in her handwriting.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 11, 2013 1:33:48 GMT -5
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree as to the letters attributed to Billy. I am very convinced they were written by at least two different people, maybe more. My point being that assuming Billy dictated at least one of his letters, it is very possible that more or even all of them were dictated. So regardless of what Brushy's handwriting looked like (and there is no doubt he "could" write), it won't look like the accepted Billy letters because he, Billy, did not write them. I hadn't mentioned this before now, but Billy had very little school. He may have attended as far as the 6th grade but I understand that was about it. Therefore, his handwriting would have been somewhat rudimentary. But in those days, anyone who could write at all, might have been described as being able to read and write well.
As strong an argument as it may be, I do not think the handwriting analysis is the smoking gun to prove Brushy's story one way or the other.
My honest opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 11, 2013 1:36:53 GMT -5
Oh, I forgot to mention, I understand an interview was conducted with Melinda Roberts in which she stated she did not know he was Billy The Kid until "after" the meeting with Governor Mabry. The letter to Ola Everhard mentioned above was dated October, 1950. The meeting didn't happen until the end of November. If Melinda is to be believed, she didn't write that letter and sign it Wilam Boney Billie Kid. Makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Dec 14, 2013 13:50:41 GMT -5
Wayne,
I was given a copy of Tunstill's book. I don't know if you have it or have read it. I'm not going to go into the whole book but Mr. Tunstill and his wife went to interview a second cousin to Brushy Bill. Early in the interview she quickly disclaimed Ollie as being the Kid. She stated she had met Brushy Bill when she was six and had seen Brushy many times. Mr. Tunstill ask her is Brushy could read and write and she said, no he couldn't. One other thing in the interview was that she took Mr. Tunstill into the living room to show him a picture of Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson Roberts. Mr. Tunstill said it is the same picture that is in Morrison's book on page 58 that Brushy said was Mary A. Dunn.
Mr. Tunstill also stated that Mrs. Roberts knew Brushy was Billy the Kid the fist time Morrison visited with them. He also states in his book that he presented postivie evidence that Brushy Bill/ William Bonney's wives did the hand writing of letters to his many friends. Mr. Tunstill did believe Brushy was the real Billy the Kid.
So you are correct we are going to have to agree to disagree but I do agree that just the handwriting is not the smoking gun to prove Brushy's story. I have way more material in my files that I feel prove it.
A couple of weeks ago, I found Caroline Dunn Roberts grave and much more. I am still working on it to make sure that I am correct but I also found the grave of Mary Dunn, Caroline's half sister.
nmjames
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Dec 14, 2013 15:17:04 GMT -5
Correction:
In my last post I stated: I have way more material in my files that I feel prove it. I wanted to say to disprove Brushy's story and that he was not Billy the Kid.
Thanks, nmjames
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 17, 2013 16:52:12 GMT -5
Very interesting post there nmjames! I'd be curious as to the identity of the second cousin you mentioned so I could know what year it was when she met Brushy at the age of 6. I'd also like to know how "she knew" that he couldn't read or write. Was this just the impression she had, something she assumed, was told, or did she witness it for a fact?
I already knew that the picture in Morrison's book of Brushy's Mother is actually Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson but as you'd probably guess, I have a theory on that as well. I believe that was a photo that was in Brushy's possession that he may have identified as his mother. But it is quite certain that he did at times refer to her as his mother, even though she was not his real mother. And if that is what happened, then it is quite possible that Morrison mistakenly assumed it was a picture of Mary Adeline Dunn when Brushy did not intend to make that claim. It is very possible this was a case of mistaken conclusion on the part of Morrison.
I would be more than appreciative if you would let me know what you find out about the Mary Dunn gravesite, where it is, any dates showing, etc.
Thanks so much for your posts and continued interest in the discussion board.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Dec 17, 2013 23:04:40 GMT -5
Wayne,
All Tunstill said is he and his wife went to interview a second cousin to Brushy Bill in August 1987. He did not give her name or how old she was. She said that the first time she met Brushy Bill was when she was six years old. She visited her grandparents Oliver and Sarah Elizabeth Roberts almost every summer until she was about Grown. I have a picture of Henry O. and Sarah Elizabeth's grave and they both died in 1924. So if she was six the fist time she met Brushy and was at her grandparents until she was about grown you may be able to figure out about the time frame. She said she witnessed it ao it had to be before 1924.
I have been told by others that said they saw Brushy in Lincoln that Brushy could not write. However, like you I feel he could read and write some.
A few weeks back I found Caroline Roberts grave in Arkansas. I know it's her because on the tombstone it has her name and Wife of H.O. Roberts. Caroline was born about 1850 - 1852 and died around 1874. However I have seen where she died in 1870 but I feel this is wrong because she and Henry O. had children. Also in the same cemetery are several of their kin. Her father is there. A Nancy Adeline Dunn is there but she was married to Caroline's half brother, Mary's full brother. Nancy was said to have been full blooded Cherokee. Does all this ring a bell? Mary Dunn was born in 1837 and died in 1898. She was married but not to a Roberts. I am going to hold off on her last name as I am still working on her life. She is buried in Arkansas but not in the same cemetery. Mary was the half sister to Caroline. Also next to Caroline is a John W. Roberts and on his tombstone it has son of H.O. & S.E. Roberts. John died in 1882 at the age of 1y. 2m. 21d. He was Brushy's brother as I am certain that Henry O. and Elizabeth are Brushy's mother and father. I have just about all the family line and names.
Brushy used all the family names but mixed them up. In Tunstill's book he states that Brushy's cousin died in 1885 and that Brushy took his name. Well we know that Brushy used Oliver P. Roberts and his family. Wild Henry and Elizabeth. If Brushy was using Oliver P. and he was killed in 1885 he would have only been about six years old. To me you can't put another cousin Oliver L in there and say it was Henry O. and Elizabeth's son and you can't say he used the Oliver L. because then Henry O. and Elizabeth wouldn't fit. One other thing about Brushy, is everone keep saying Brushy was to young to have been Billy. Well if he was born in 1879 he was to young. Even if by some chance he was born in 1868 he was still to young.
Thanks Wayne. I love to do the research and even though you and I do not agree, I tell everyone that you seem to be a nice man. Thanks for letting me post on your site.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 18, 2013 12:56:05 GMT -5
I so much appreciate your sharing specifics. So here goes my side of the debate. If the interviewed cousin who met Brushy at the age of 6, met him around 1910 or shortly after and continued to visit until she was about grown in 1924 (lets say she was 20 when the grandparents died) then it is quite possible that she met Billy The Kid and was told by relatives that he was her cousin Oliver. Like Geneva Pittmon, she would have no reason to suspect otherwise.
At the museum in Hamilton, there are a number of binders containing letters and/or copies of letters written by Brushy. Who is to say they can prove he didn't write them? It seems to me, the whole business of Melinda writing for him has no real evidence of being a fact. If somewhere, there is a sample of her writing that could be compared to the letters attributed to Brushy, and an expert said they were a match, then we'd have real evidence that those rumors are accurate.
Let me say this about the whole family lineage thing. I am a logical person and although I have put forward a "possible" scenario in which there was a real Oliver L, born in 1868, there is no evidence to support that other than Brushy's word. And as far as his word is concerned, I have also said I believe he was prone to exaggeration and even fabrication in much of what he told Morrison. Is it possible that John W. Roberts was named after his uncle, John H. Roberts, Brushy's real father? Maybe, maybe not, but if one accepts that there were family members who were never documented in any census and whose graves are not to be found anywhere, (a stretch of the imagination, I know) then it is possible that Brushy was "trying" to tell the truth about his family lineage. It is even possible that since he was whisked away by his aunt Catherine at a very young age, that he really didn't even know his true family lineage accurately enough and had tried to "fill in the blanks".
All that ranting and wandering put aside, I still question why, if he was lying about being Billy, that he even bothered with any of that. Why not just say "yes" I was the natural born son of Catherine Bonney. In the late 1940's no one was going to test his DNA or anything. Why "make up" all these fictitious relatives? There weren't any surviving relatives of William H. Bonney who were going to pop up and scream "NO" he was not her son.
Bottom line, there are many reasons not to believe his story but there are reasons to believe it as well and none of what he said about his family lineage "has to be" true in order for him to have truly been the one and only Billy The Kid. Again, I believe he was Billy because of his similar if not identical physical traits, his willingness to risk imprisonment or execution by revealing his identity, his remembrances of situations and events that even historians didn't know, his scars, etc.
Thanks for the kind comments. It is a pleasure to debate this with someone who remains respectful and genuine. I can tell you are a reasonable and considerate person as well.
Thanks! And Happy Holidays!
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Dec 22, 2013 14:18:24 GMT -5
Wayne,
About the letters that Tunstill had that he states Melinda wrote. I haven't seen them but he did have at least one letter that did come from Melinda after Brushy had passed away. It was dated January 11, 1951, Temple, Texas and was sent to Mrs. Ola Everhard and signed, Lizzie. I also remember Morrison writing to Mrs. Roberts after Brushy passed away when he was getting material for his book. So I think there are letters out there to compare and if you take Mr. Tunstill at his word, he states in his book that he proved it.
Now for a little up date on Mary Dun. She was married to a Lane that died in 1863 in the Civil War. That is the name on her Tombstone. What I was checking on, was she later married another man but his name is not on her tombstone. I know a lady that is very good at genealogy and she has been a big help. By the way I don't find a Catherine Bonney and we have looked back a ways. The real Catherine Bonney was in New York in 1862 and 1863 because 1863 is when Joseph was born. (Check 1880 census, Silverton, CO.)
I feel we have come full circle because of your statement, His remembrances of situations and events that even historians didn't know, his scars, etc. This was one of the reasons I started looking into Brushy Bill. I would still like someone to show me what scars the real Billy the Kid had and how they know.
I hope everyone has a great Christmas and a Very Happy New Year.
nmjames
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 23, 2013 11:08:06 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing all that. Do you have a date of death on the grave marker for Mary? I doubt this Mary was Brushy's mother. And I'm really beginning to doubt his version of his entire lineage, more than I ever have before. Too many similarities between real family members and the ones he reported to Morrison, yet they can't be the right ones? You may be winning me over on those points but I'm not convinced that means he was lying about his own identity.
Merry Christmas everyone.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Dec 24, 2013 13:16:29 GMT -5
Yes Wayne, the dates are b. 1837 - d. 1898. You are correct Mary was not Brushy's mother, That is my point. His real mother was Sara Elizabeth Ferguson and his father was Henry O. Roberts.
As Wayne said Merry Christmas everyone.
nmjames
|
|
|
Post by Mat on Jan 15, 2014 5:19:21 GMT -5
It's amazing after all these years, Billy is still in our thoughts and causing debates daily. The legend will never die
|
|
|
Post by doug polk on Jan 30, 2014 20:58:52 GMT -5
I come at these pgotos from a different angle; mainly the equipment each photographer was using. We really have no idea of what camera, and particularly what lens the 'alleged' photo was made from. High quality lenses of the time, and how they were ground and polished, is somewhat of a mystery today. The most minute flaws, invisible to the naked eye, could cause considerable changes in spaces between facial features. I've always felt that the 'alleged' photo shows a body sokewhat squished down, and if that is true, and the pic was stretched out to proper size, there might be far less of a comparison. We'd loose the chevron shape of the upper ball of the chin just under the lower lip. You can also see that the left shoulder on the new image, while somewhat stuffed as has always been common, ends before the sleeve. That man simply has bigger shoulders. Is it Billy? The truth is that there is no way to know.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Jay on Feb 17, 2014 16:39:59 GMT -5
My research into William H. Bonney and Bill Roberts has made me come to this conclusion...I am convinced that "Brushy" Bill Roberts was Billy the Kid. History is written by the winners. Unless they Dna test Bill Roberts corpse and match it with Billy the Kids Dna sample that could survive 133 years, the truth will never be known... You think that old daguerreotype of billy the kid's got his dna on it? Lol
|
|