|
Post by mckinley412 on Aug 2, 2017 22:10:38 GMT -5
But you are gonna say he couldn't have known Billy, etc.
|
|
rwr
First Post
Posts: 1
|
Post by rwr on Nov 23, 2017 13:27:15 GMT -5
Hi, I just joined this site, read alot, but not all. However, I have a couple of questions if I may ask, from what I have read, John Miller himself never claimed to be Billy the Kid, only associates of his made that claim, why would you entitle this Lies of John Miller? Why disparage him, calling him a liar, when he never claimed to be? Second, question, again with all do respect, how is it explained that BrushyBill also claimed to be part of the James Gang, before he claimed to be Billy the Kid?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 24, 2017 2:42:22 GMT -5
Welcome to the board. Very happy to have a new member.
This thread was started by one of our members who chose to call it that. I don't have a problem with that because I'm pretty sure John Miller did claim to be Billy the Kid but only when he'd drank too much and then only to close friends and family. The idea that he did not make the claim, I think, is just based on the fact that he never said it on the record to a reporter, lawyer, etc. If it were not for him saying it to family and friends then there would have been no claim at all. If the story of him being BTK did not come from him, then why would we put any stock in it at all. That wouldn't make it more believable, but rather less believable. Obviously he did in fact say he was BTK at least to someone.
I don't believe Brushy ever claimed to have ridden with the James gang, I've never seen any real documentation he ever made such a claim. He did identify J. Frank Dalton as Jesse James by saying he had known him as Jesse for seventy something years. I'm sure it is safe to assume there were hundreds of people who knew Jesse James that never rode with his gang. I'm not sure where it was said that Brushy made such a claim or who said it originally but before I would put any stock in that one I would want to know exactly what he said and who he said it to. As for as I've ever been able to determine it is nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay. I suspect it was a misquote based on his identification of Dalton. All that said, even if Brushy did make such a claim it wouldn't "prove" his BTK claim was a lie. I think it is safe to assume it likely the real BTK did lie on occasion, whether he was Brushy or not.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Nov 30, 2017 23:00:55 GMT -5
"I don't believe Brushy ever claimed to have ridden with the James gang, I've never seen any real documentation he ever made such a claim."
St. Louis paper, 27 Nov 1949.
Quote, beginning of first paragraph: "Then there was Brushy Bill Roberts of Hico, Texas, whose father, he said, was one of the oldest members of the James gang. He himself was a member for a time in his late teens."
|
|
|
Post by Erik on Apr 7, 2018 8:15:28 GMT -5
John Miller was NOT Billy the Kid, Brushy without a dobut was. there is proof that Miller was indeed not Billy the kid. ask what you think about this, will you please? 1.John Miller never told his story officially and the vast majority of his claim is based around second-hand information and speculation from those who knew him. 2.In a 1900 census report, Miller stated he was born in 1857. In a 1910 report, he claimed he was born in 1852. On the memorial plaque at the Pioneer Home Cemetery where Miller is buried, his birthdate is listed as 1850. All three of these dates would make Miller older than Billy the Kid. Although it's possible Miller would lie about his age to throw off potential pursuers, it's not likely he would make himself older, but younger, since the Kid was known to look far younger than he actually was. 3.Miller himself told several friends he only knew Billy the Kid, having worked as a ranchhand for the Chisum brothers. 4.Miller owned a .45 pistol with an extra-long barrel that he claimed he used as Billy the Kid. However, Billy was known to use .44s with normal sized barrels, or the smaller .41s. Furthermore, Miller's pistol had several notches on it, which he claimed were for the men he killed. Billy did not have such notches on his pistols, and it's doubtful that any other gunfighter did either. and 5. If John Miller was the Kid, how did he escape from Pat Garrett at Fort Sumner? Apparently, Miller told different versions of this to different friends. One version is that he was shot in the chest a week or so before July 14, and that Isadora was nursing him back to health when Garrett accidentally killed a Mexican sheep-herder in the Maxwell house. Another version is that Miller was himself shot by Garrett in the Maxwell house, and played dead while Garrett quickly inspected him. When Miller was then carried away by his Mexican friends to be prepared for burial, he showed signs of life and was hidden by Isadora. Meanwhile, a Mexican who died a day earlier was placed in the casket meant for Billy and buried. In this latter scenario, Garrett never learned that Billy was not killed.
|
|
|
Post by Erik on Apr 7, 2018 8:16:30 GMT -5
John Miller was NOT Billy the Kid, Brushy without a dobut was. there is proof that Miller was indeed not Billy the kid. ask what you think about this, will you please? 1.John Miller never told his story officially and the vast majority of his claim is based around second-hand information and speculation from those who knew him. 2.In a 1900 census report, Miller stated he was born in 1857. In a 1910 report, he claimed he was born in 1852. On the memorial plaque at the Pioneer Home Cemetery where Miller is buried, his birthdate is listed as 1850. All three of these dates would make Miller older than Billy the Kid. Although it's possible Miller would lie about his age to throw off potential pursuers, it's not likely he would make himself older, but younger, since the Kid was known to look far younger than he actually was. 3.Miller himself told several friends he only knew Billy the Kid, having worked as a ranchhand for the Chisum brothers. 4.Miller owned a .45 pistol with an extra-long barrel that he claimed he used as Billy the Kid. However, Billy was known to use .44s with normal sized barrels, or the smaller .41s. Furthermore, Miller's pistol had several notches on it, which he claimed were for the men he killed. Billy did not have such notches on his pistols, and it's doubtful that any other gunfighter did either. and 5. If John Miller was the Kid, how did he escape from Pat Garrett at Fort Sumner? Apparently, Miller told different versions of this to different friends. One version is that he was shot in the chest a week or so before July 14, and that Isadora was nursing him back to health when Garrett accidentally killed a Mexican sheep-herder in the Maxwell house. Another version is that Miller was himself shot by Garrett in the Maxwell house, and played dead while Garrett quickly inspected him. When Miller was then carried away by his Mexican friends to be prepared for burial, he showed signs of life and was hidden by Isadora. Meanwhile, a Mexican who died a day earlier was placed in the casket meant for Billy and buried. In this latter scenario, Garrett never learned that Billy was not killed.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Apr 7, 2018 13:54:42 GMT -5
"St. Louis paper, 27 Nov 1949.
Quote, beginning of first paragraph: "Then there was Brushy Bill Roberts of Hico, Texas, whose father, he said, was one of the oldest members of the James gang. He himself was a member for a time in his late teens.""
Of course we are all very aware of how "accurate" news reporters always are. They never miss a thing. (LOL) Brushy probably told that paper's reporter that he met Jesse when he was in his early teens. As for his father being a member, who knows what Brushy actually said about that.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Rickard on Apr 26, 2018 12:36:17 GMT -5
With all due respect, there is a wealth of evidence against Brushy Bill having been Billy the Kid; any serious Kid researcher knows this. Apart from Brushy Bill's total lack of resemblance to the only existing image of the actual Billy the kid--and yes, it was authenticated years ago--his story is as full of holes as J. Frank Dalton's. Dalton, as you must know, claimed to be the long-dead outlaw Jesse James. And, of course, his believers are convinced that, judging from verified images of Jesse, Dalton was a dead ringer: perhaps, this is another case of semi-mass- or at least selective-hypnosis, as the resemblances are not close. Interestingly, Brushy Bill served as a corroborating witness to Dalton, backing up the latter's claim. As mentioned earlier in this post, the evidence against ol' Brushy's claim is abundant and readily available; one need only visit any of several websites to get the truth: www.angelfire.com/nm/boybanditking/pageBrushy.html
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Apr 26, 2018 23:32:05 GMT -5
Respectfully disagree. Yes, there is evidence against Brushy. There is also evidence in support of his claim. Neither set of evidence proves beyond a doubt one way or the other. Whether Dalton was really Jesse or not, Brushy's ID of him was either correct or it was mistaken. Either way, it doesn't prove who Brushy was or was not. As for the website link you posted, that is run by a member of the Billy The Kid Outlaw Gang which was organized mostly for the purpose of debunking Brushy many years ago. It is not objective in any way.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Apr 27, 2018 12:12:43 GMT -5
Wayne:
You state: There is also evidence in suport of his (Brushy's) claim.
Would you list the evidence in support of his claim that is true.
Thanks, nmjames
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Apr 28, 2018 0:29:21 GMT -5
I would rather just refer you to my website that lays out much of my reasoning. Other than that, the evidence is discussed in great depth throughout this message board and is beyond the scope of a simple list which you wouldn't accept any way. musicpla9.wixsite.com/searchingforthekid
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Apr 29, 2018 9:43:56 GMT -5
nmjames, A review of posts on this board might reveal some evidence that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid: Brushy Bill said he was Billy the Kid, and that's firsthand knowledge. DeWitt Travis, Robert E. Lee, and Martile Able signed affidavits that they believed Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid, even though none of them had seen William Bonney before 1881. Servero Gallegos signed an affidavit that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid, even though he had just said Brushy Bill was too young to be Billy the Kid. Brushy Bill knew many details of the Lincoln County War that were almost the same as those described in “The Saga of Billy the Kid”, published in 1926. Some believe Brushy Bill assumed the name of Oliver P. Roberts, although he never made that claim, and no evidence had been found that Oliver P. Roberts died or left the area. The 1910 census shows Anna was the wife of Oliver P. Roberts, and his parents were born in Kentucky as Brushy claimed, but Brushy Bill did not say he had married and divorced Anna Lee. Brushy Bill said he married Mollie Brown, Loutecia Ballard, and Melinda Allison, although the spouse was not identified as William Henry Roberts or Brushy Bill Roberts. A Spanish American War medal was found in Brushy Bill’s collection, but it was for stateside service, not for service in the Cuba campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Apr 29, 2018 11:48:16 GMT -5
TTT, I think nmJames knows all those claims made in your post. He was asking me to cite evidence supporting Brushy. You were trying to shoot holes in evidence that supports Brushy. Well, didn't want to get into the minutia on this question but I can't resist shooting at a few of your perceived holes.
1."Brushy Bill said he was Billy the Kid, and that's firsthand knowledge."
Yes, that is first hand knowledge. And it "is" evidence. I'm quite certain if you had any documentation citing Brushy as saying he was "not" Billy, you'd jump on that with both feet as absolute proof he was not. Does his own statement that he was Billy equal credible evidence? Considering the fact that making such a claim put him in legal jeopardy, and he made the claim to the Governor of New Mexico with law enforcement officers on hand, then yes, it does carry at least "some" credibility. Therefore it absolutely does qualify as "evidence."
2. "DeWitt Travis, Robert E. Lee, and Martile Able signed affidavits that they believed Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid, even though none of them had seen William Bonney before 1881."
I'm not positive but I don't think any of those people actually said, specifically, that they had known Billy prior to 1881. Maybe you can cite where they said that? Take Martile for example. I've explained several times before that her husband John Ables certainly could have known Billy prior to 1881 and I assume she trusted her husband as a completely honest and credible person when Brushy visited with them "after" 1881 and was introduced to her as Billy The Kid. Therefore, she believed 100% that this person was Billy and said so when she saw him again in 1950. Her statement and the others represent "evidence" in support of Brushy's claim. Be very clear on the following points. I did "NOT" say it represented "PROOF". I said it was evidence. Evidence is not PROOF. nmjames asked me for "EVIDENCE."
3. "Servero Gallegos signed an affidavit that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid, even though he had just said Brushy Bill was too young to be Billy the Kid."
Big whoop! First he said Brushy looked to young, then he took a closer look at his eyes and agreed he was Billy. So the man isn't allowed to revise his opinion? That's a ridiculous assertion. His statement is EVIDENCE. And he absolutely "DID" know Billy prior to 1881.
4. "Brushy Bill knew many details of the Lincoln County War that were almost the same as those described in “The Saga of Billy the Kid”, published in 1926."
You said it yourself, details that were "ALMOST" the same. On another thread on this site there are numerous examples of where Brushy's statements differed from that book. Maybe you should read that thread again? If the book made a statement that was accurate and Brushy made a statement that was accurate, wouldn't they then be the same? I don't see why you don't get that. Can you cite any examples where the book and Brushy made the same statements that turned out to be "inaccurate"? If so, then you have a stronger case that Brushy got at least "some" of his knowledge from that book, but you still don't have proof, and those statements he made that were clearly accurate "are" evidence. Again, none of it is proof but much of it is evidence that supports Brushy.
5. "Some believe Brushy Bill assumed the name of Oliver P. Roberts, although he never made that claim, and no evidence had been found that Oliver P. Roberts died or left the area."
I'm not sure what your point is with that statement, but Brushy did claim to be Oliver Roberts, O.L. Roberts, Ollie Roberts and later, Oliver P. Roberts. Was there a typo or something in your statement? We were suppose to be talking about evidence that supports Brushy's claim. Not the lack of it in certain points like the unexplained disappearance of the real Oliver P. Roberts.
6. "The 1910 census shows Anna was the wife of Oliver P. Roberts, and his parents were born in Kentucky as Brushy claimed, but Brushy Bill did not say he had married and divorced Anna Lee."
OK, again I don't see your point here. Are you trying to cite evidence for Brushy that is bogus, or do you mean to cite evidence "against" Brushy. I think you're losing sight of the original question. But I'll bite anyway. Brushy did not claim he was married to Anna Lee, but maybe he wasn't. The census of 1910 would have been taken in the second half of that year. If Brushy was already pretending to be Oliver P., then he is the one that was interviewed for the census and he is the one that reported his parents as being born in Kentucky, even though we know the real Oliver P. Roberts' parents were born in Texas and Arkansas. That census "is" evidence that supports Brushy's claim. So, why was he answering census questions on behalf of Oliver P., unless he was married to Anna. My opinion is, he must have been trying to help her obtain a legal divorce from Oliver P. who had skipped town. In my opinion, this may have had more to do with his taking on the identity of Oliver P., than the story Brushy gave us about the mother thinking he was her son. He may have made that part up in order to avoid revealing that he and Anna had deceived the authorities. Do I have any evidence to support my theory? No, none other than logic, but it's still my theory, so deal with it.
7. "Brushy Bill said he married Mollie Brown, Loutecia Ballard, and Melinda Allison, although the spouse was not identified as William Henry Roberts or Brushy Bill Roberts."
Duh! He was hiding his true identity.
8. "A Spanish American War medal was found in Brushy Bill’s collection, but it was for stateside service, not for service in the Cuba campaign."
OK, maybe the medal was awarded stateside? It's still evidence he was in the Spanish American War at a time when Oliver P. Roberts would have been in Arkansas. Are you suggesting stateside medals were "only" awarded to those who did "not" go to Cuba? Maybe they had run out of the Cuba medals and had to give him a stateside one? He had a Spanish American War medal. Would the real Oliver P. Roberts have one? It's still evidence that supports Brushy.
|
|
|
Post by Umm on Aug 21, 2018 20:49:05 GMT -5
Brushy.... Looks nothing like Billy the kid
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Aug 26, 2018 20:58:47 GMT -5
Umm, he has same large wrists, small hands, same height, same colored eyes with specs, same body shape, both have strange chin/jaw line, dumbo ears, similar hair color and both wore flashy clothing.
|
|