|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Oct 2, 2015 13:37:30 GMT -5
XS59, Brushy Bill's story cannot be considered as a possibility unless two conditions are met. Credible, verifiable evidence is found that Billy the Kid was not killed in July 1881. Credible, verifiable evidence is found that Oliver P. Roberts, son of Henry Oliver Roberts and Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson, died, changed his identity, or otherwise permanently left Texas on or about 1910.
If those two conditions are ever met, there are several significant flaws in Brushy Bill's story. These are three of several problems with his story.
Brushy referred to his aunt who cared for him several years as Kathleen Bonney. Her name was Catherine McCarty.
Brushy identified Ben Roberts as his grandfather, J. H. "Wild Henry" Roberts as his father, Mary Adeline Dunn as his mother, and James Roberts as his step-brother. None of them have ever been found and identified in any record.
Brushy implied that the marriage of William Antrim and Kathleen Bonney occurred in Colorado. The marriage was performed in Santa Fe, New Mexico Territory.
Brushy did not know when the marriage occurred. Brushy said he had left Mrs. Antrim and returned to Texas to search for his father and step-mother in 1872, where he remained until 1874. William Antrim and Catherine McCarty were married 1 March 1873. Henry McCarty was a witness at the marriage while Brushy Bill was in Texas.
It really makes no difference how much Brushy Bill knew about the characters and events in the Lincoln County war. There were at least 4 books published before 1948 by Garrett, Siringo, Burns, and Otero about Billy the Kid and the Lincoln County war that could have provided the detailed information Brushy quoted to Morrison.
|
|
|
Post by XS59 on Oct 18, 2015 7:29:51 GMT -5
Texas Truth Teller, I was travelling and couldn't answer. Thanks for shedding more light on Robert E Lee and telling us your opinion re: his overall credibility. As I said earlier: he might have erred in good faith when he identified Brushy as the person who was introduced to him as Billy the Kid nine years after the Kid was supposedly killed. But it is inconceivable to me that Pobert E Lee could have erred in good faith about having been introduced to the Kid just a few years after Pat Garrett allegedly killed him. IMO Robert E Lee was either telling the truth and he was really introduced to someone who said he was the Kid or Lee was flatout lying. I can't imagine an in-between scenario as far as this point of his affidavit is concerned. If you are right and Robert E Lee could've known Olli P Roberts while they were still very young that would add an interesting twist to this affidavit story and might indeed supply some sort of a motive for a deliberately false statement. The risk would've been very small. How could anyone prove that Lee was not introduced to someone who identified himself as the Kid a long time ago? Wayne, you touch again the crucial psychological question at the heart of the Brushy Bill conundrum: why would he come out with a false claim at such an advanced age and without gaining any material advantages? I find your scenario of an unfulfilled childhood phantasy very interesting - even if you yourself don't believe in it. Frank Dalton's claim might've triggered something in Brushy. Maybe old age was dreary and boring and acting out a childhood phantasy made life exciting and worthwhile getting up in the morning again. To those more knowledgeable than me: when were the earliest documented claims to be a surving Billy the Kid were made? There were rumors early on about something not adding up in Pat Garrett's story. But when was the first time that a person actually came forward and claimed to be the Kid? Robert E Lee said it happened to him as early as nine years after the Kid officially died. But Lee hadn't any witnesses for that extraordinary claim. We have to take or leave his word for this. Are there other better documented early claims?
|
|
|
Post by XS59 on Oct 18, 2015 7:39:12 GMT -5
Texas Truth Teller, it is indeed important to show how much of the information Brushy Bill supplied in his stories was out and available at the time he came out with his claims. What I find interesting is that Brushy Bill contradicted some of the known facts and supplied a different story. Why would he do that if he was an impostor? Was he simply sloppy with his research or was it a clever move in order to generate some authenticity - as in "I know things everybody else got wrong"?
|
|
|
Post by XS59 on Oct 19, 2015 14:36:11 GMT -5
Wayne, you supplied a scenario concerning childhood phantasies which might've triggered Brushy's old age coming out as a fraudulous Billy the Kid. You don't really think such an explanation holds water and you state correctly that Brushy couldn't have known as a kid that he would grow up to look just like his hero. And he looked VERY much like the Kid - as the newly presented tintype impressively underlines IMO. It has the instant-reckognition factor which the other tintype sorely lacks. And that newly presented tintype set me on a trail of thoughts: If Brushy wasn't the Kid, did he get into the habit of identifying with the Kid as soon as he became aware of the fact that he actually looked a lot like the Kid? Entirely possible, but that raises the question how exactly he became aware that he looked just like the Kid. There was only one tintype available which doesn't even suggest an extraordinary likeness between Brushy and the Kid. And also that tintype was probably not widely circulating when Brushy was a young man. So, who might've told him that he was a dead ringer of the famous outlaw? Couldn't only people do this who actually knew Billy the Kid? Is it logistically possible that Brushy met people who knew Billy and noticed the extraordinary likeness of the dead outlaw with the young man in front of them? Could those people have told Brushy facts and stories from Billy's life and the old Brushy made use of them much later? If something like this happened it becomes clear why Brushy could only make his claim in old age - when those who might remember the young man who looked so much like Billy were dead and gone. But what might've even motivated him to make up such a claim so late in his life? Here his old comrade Frank Dalton comes into play. The dynamics between the two could've been much like the dynamics between the famous literary conman duo The Count and The King from Mark Twain's novel "Huckleberry Finn". When one fraudster starts pretending to be an English count and Huck and Jim treat him accordingly the other conman becomes very jealous and ups the ante by claiming to be the long lost Dauphin and rightful King of France. When Dalton came out with his claim of being Jesse James, Brushy might've decided it was the right time to put his likeness and knowledge of Billy the Kid to good use. It could also have been the other way round: Brushy was constantly talking about his likeness with Billy - maybe even playfully suggesting that he was Billy. And that gave Dalton the idea to concoct his claim of being Jesse James, thus eventually triggering Brushy's coming out. Needless to say that these dynamics could've been at work even if one or both claims were true. But again my question: how could a fraudulent Brushy have become aware of his likeness with Billy? If he actually was Billy, this question is obsolete of course.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 19, 2015 19:38:38 GMT -5
XS59, those are certainly some interesting observations you make. Unfortunately, just like some of my ideas, they can only be "possibilities". I still believe Brushy and Billy were one and the same. A thought comes to mind. What would it do the value of that new photo if we ever found proof of Brushy's story?
|
|
|
Post by XS59 on Oct 20, 2015 7:09:53 GMT -5
Wayne, I'm sitting on the fence re: Brushy's true identity. Texas Truth Teller and nmjames have raised a few good points against him being the Kid which can't be ignored or explained away easily. On the other hand we have this extraordinary likeness which gets confirmed IMO by the newly presented tintype. How likely is it that someone not genetically related to Billy shared not only his face but also his height and posture with the famous outlaw? Maybe even some mannerisms. I know that there have been speculations here that maybe Brushy WAS related to Billy somehow. Olli P Roberts could've been illegitimate and just has been raised as legitimate. That would be a powerful motivation for coming out in old age and trying to get a Pardon for the Kid. As you say, all this and other ruminations are mere speculation and can't be proven without a DNA test. But Brushy looking so much like the Kid shouldn't be just brushed away as being a curious coincidence. And the question how Brushy might've become aware of his striking similarity with the Kid isn't trivial but actually rather complex. Since the famous tintype is apparently - and according to Paulita Maxwell - not a very good likeness, only people who have seen he Kid in real life knew what he actually looked like. Only they could've told Brushy that he was a dead ringer of the Kid. After considering all the pros and cons presented on this excellent site (thanks for hosting it, Wayne) I'm sitting on the fence. But right now I lean more towards Brushy not having been the Kid. Especially his association with Frank Dalton, his announcement that "Billy the Kid might soon make his appearance" and the mistakes he made concerning the name and marriage of his mother (mistakes that are in Pat Garrett's book and only corrected after rushy's death - as Texas Truth Teller pointed out) make me question the veracity of his claim. Also the difficulty to fit in another older Olli Roberts into the fairly well documented genealogy of the Roberts family. But I do believe there's a hidden powerful story nonetheless. The question if Pat Garrett really shot the Kid is a different matter alltogether. I do believe something was covered up and it didn't happen the way Pat Garrett told it. As to the new tintype: if it helps to uncover hidden things in Billy's life that contradict mainstream history it would be worth even more IMO. It made me realize that Brushy's similarity with the Kid wasn't superficial and must be treated as one of the main facts in Brushy's story
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 20, 2015 10:57:02 GMT -5
Well you make one thing perfectly clear and that is we simply don't know all the facts of the Billy The Kid story. I remain convinced even though Brushy's story has many holes and inconsistencies in it. I will admit, and have done so before, that I am just as guilty as some others when it comes to forming an opinion and then looking for all kinds of ways to justify it even if they aren't reasonable. It's very, very difficult to avoid that when we just don't know all the facts either way and there are so many unanswered questions. But your posts show you to truly have an open mind about it and your comments are very objective. So you motivate me to try and do the same.
Some observations of mine you may find interesting.
1) If Brushy really was rescued by Katherine McCarty at the age of 2 or 3, then he had little or no personal memory of the events surrounding his birth, his true parents, etc. He would have gotten information from Katherine as to his real parents' identity and while living with his father for a time, of course, from him. Were there reasons to feed him false information? Quite possibly. Maybe he was illegitimate? I suspect there was no Mary Adeline Dunn.
2) It is quite possible that he was the real Billy The Kid and was also a habitual story teller (made up or enhanced stories).
3) Maybe he was the true son of Katherine McCarty but was so angry with her for getting married to and abusive William Antrim that he left home to spite her and decided to disown her as his real mother. So he made up a new name and a story of how he came to be with her?
4) It is also possible that much of what he said to William Morrison was fabricated in an effort to make his story more exciting. I'm not saying that's logical. I'm saying at that advanced age, people begin to imagine memories that didn't happen.
Does all that, no matter how reasonable it may or may not be, get us anywhere in proving Brushy was the real Billy? Of course it doesn't. But I think one of those scenarios or some other one I haven't thought of yet, may be close to what really happened. Why do I hang on to such ideas? Because I can not accept the following scenario.
1) The real Oliver P. Roberts had scars that matched some of the ones Billy would have had. 2) The real Oliver looked so much like Billy, They spoke about an 80.1% match between this new photo and the Dedrick Tintype. Brushy was a 97% match to the Dedrick tintype. 3) The real Oliver knew the layout of the Lincoln County courthouse, the McSween house, the location of the cave outside Lincoln, the identity of a girl Billy dated that was never published or spoken of publicly, the presence of the black soldiers in the battle in Lincoln, among many other things. 4) The real Oliver at age 79 decided to present himself to the authorities as a convicted murderer, sentenced to hang, just for the notoriety of it? 5) The real Oliver was the same height as Billy, with the same sloping right shoulder the same contrasting eyebrows, the same inner ears, the same nose with uneven nostrils, the same uneven mouth, the same unique eye color (as attested to by Severo Gallegos), the same high pitched voice, the same love of dancing, etc. 6) The real Oliver heard a mother shout "Billy!" when her young son ran into the street in Hico, TX and his reaction was to spin around and reach for his side arm. (The real Oliver's name had no relation to the name "Billy") 7) The real Oliver somehow picked up the nickname Brushy "Bill".
I could go on, but I think that's enough to make my point. One final thought though. If Brushy was not the real Billy, he did him a great favor by risking his life to try and clear Billy's name and he brought the question of a pardon to the limelight where it has remained for 65 years. Even if he was not Billy, he made himself a very important part of Billy's legacy and as such, we need a place like this message board to examine that legacy.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 20, 2015 11:09:05 GMT -5
Sorry but I have to add this one. It is said Brushy had scars some of which matched Billy's probable scars and it is said Brushy could pull his hands out of handcuffs like Billy is alleged to have done. But the question has to be asked, who saw these scars? There are no photos. Who saw him pull his hands out of handcuffs? Morrison just says he saw him fold his hands to make them smaller than his wrists.
In 2006 as part of a nationwide RV trip, I visited Hico, TX and while there I spoke to the local druggist who's father before him had owned the same drug store. He remembered as a child seeing Brushy visit the store and he remembered his father telling of having seen the scars and having seen how he could pull his hands out of handcuffs. This druggist had no reason to lie to me and his father had no reason to lie to him.
|
|
|
Post by XS59 on Oct 20, 2015 12:36:41 GMT -5
Wayne, thanks for your detailed answer. Yes, I try to be open concerning the identity of Brushy Bill. Actually I started out with the tendency to believe in his claims. Some recent arguments somewhat changed my tendency. A lot of it has to do with the character and role of Morrison. And once you start doubting him the slope becomes very slippery. I don't necessarily believe that he made it all up but he might've been less than careful with his statements. The alleged scars are a good example. He didn't even describe them in any detail. Since the pharmacist's grandson coroborated the existance of the scars I don't doubt that Brushy Bill had scars on his body. But how can we say for sure that they matched the Kid's scars? I think the only certainty we can build on is that Brushy had and extraordinary likeness with tne Kid - something which cannot be easily explained away with mere chance. If he actually was the Kid nothing needs to be explained. But if he was not the Kid things become very complex and it doesn't do just to state that he was simply out for some old age fame. I will say more about that later. But kudos to you for pointing out the many similarities between Brushy and the Kid despite the lack of an instant-reckognition factor re: the earlier tintype. Your critics have taken that point far too lightly.
|
|
xs59
2 - 19 Posts
Posts: 7
|
Post by xs59 on Oct 21, 2015 9:53:30 GMT -5
Wayne, I've created an account in order to participate easier. Unfortunately it wasn't possibble to transfer my guest name 1:1. So I will be xs59 from now on. Looking forward to fruitful discussions!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 21, 2015 12:44:58 GMT -5
Hey, thanks for joining the board. I find your posts to be thought provoking, well conceived and well written and I hope you'll post often. It is great to have someone to exchange ideas with who is willing to look at both sides of the issue. I still "try" to do that myself.
I wanted to comment on your previous post regarding Morrison. I've seen s few private letters written by Morrison in which there would have been no reason at all for him to put up a false front and in which he is obviously seeking truthful information about Brushy. These were in the possession of Dr. Jannay Valdez who owns a museum in Canton, TX devoted to Brushy and Billy. He has a large room in the rear of his museum with a dozen or more file cabinets and lots of photos, junk, etc. that are not on display in the museum itself. He gave me free rein of the stuff for several days. Even left me a key so I could let my self in and out and provided parking space for my RV on his property. At the conclusion of the visit, we stopped in Hico and visited with Judge Bob Hefner and his wife (Dr. Valdez came over as well). A memory I'll always cherish. Judge Hefner even loaned me a copy of Ola Everhardt's "unpublished" manuscript for a book telling all about her experience with J. Frank Dalton and Brushy. I scanned the entire thing but unfortunately that hard drive later crashed and even though I still have it, I've not been able to retrieve the contents yet. I still hope to do so.
I stray from my point. I don't see Morrison as someone who was out to make a buck because his letters seem sincere. He probably made less than $1000 off the book and he certainly spent more than that in his efforts to help Brushy. A respected historian (Leon Metz, I think it was) met Morrison and attested to his integrity stating he was convinced Morrison truly believed Brushy was the kid. And last but not least in significance, Morrison did not proclaim he had proof of Brushy's identity. He and Sonnichsen, left it open to some question at the end of their book by asking. "If he was not Billy The Kid, then who was he?"
As for the scars, no we can't say they definitely matched Billy's scars. But the mere fact that there were scars at all does mean something. If he was Oliver P. Roberts, then where did he get so many scars? On the other hand, if he had no scars then he couldn't be Billy The Kid. So the scars are significant. Put it this way. The fact that he had scars that "may have been" in the locations matching Billy's means we can't rule out his being Billy on that basis.
|
|