According to "Back to Billy" the first ten minutes of the film pertained to Miller, but never had "Miller" show up in the courtroom and had his lawyer basically recuse himself from the courtroom instead of defend his clients case. "Back to Billy" addresses Miller in a previous video:
youtu.be/OpOmuPJRXgY?si=ALQaraOS_DU_8bRaAnd all he could really say was that there was so little information on Miller that one could not disprove Miller from being Billy The Kid, but neither could Miller be proved as Billy The Kid in a court of law. So he chose not to really address Miller at all in the film, and the "lawyer" dismissed him as someone just living a fantasy.
For me that is weak sauce and convenient to not really address the claim of John Miller or to see inconsistencies between his story and the "official story" of the night Billy The Kid allegedly died.
So the focus of the film is about Brushy Bill Roberts and his story. So let's break down the falsehoods, misinterpretations and assumptions/opinions used against Roberts:
1- Using the name William H. Roberts in the opening statements; Brushy was always known as Oliver/Ollie or as O.P. or O.L. or O.K. Roberts in newspapers, censuses and legal dispositions. Even his original tombstone refers to the name Oliver P. Roberts. The alias William Henry Roberts was merely the name Roberts claimed was his birth name in his alleged life narrative to Morrison only to become William/Billy McCarty alias Antrim alias Bonney.
(Unrelated but the actor playing Brushy Bill Roberts looked the part; if I had an actor to have played Brushy it would've been the late Richard Farnsworth he would've been excellent)
2- From 20:38 onwards the prosecution starts; Arguments against Roberts alleged birthdate of December 31st 1859 by using the Roberts family Bible and Geneva Pittmon's letter---- problem with this argument is not accounting for Roberts story of taking over the identity of Oliver Pleasant Roberts, or the fact that Geneva Pittmon was born 1918 and according to Brushy Bill Roberts he was already taking over the identity of Oliver Pleasant Roberts by at least 1910 considering he never claimed Anna Lee as his wife (m. 1909) and he was already remarried in 1912, placing him safely before anytime Geneva Pittmon could truly say he was or wasn't Oliver Pleasant Roberts. All her testimony amounts to is: "All my life I knew him as Oliver P. Roberts," which isn't strong enough to rule him out as an imposter. All the family Bible would prove is someone named Oliver P. Roberts was a family member, but it couldn't prove if the same O.P.R. was in fact Brushy Bill Roberts.
3- Bringing up Buffalo Gap Texas; they say that Buffalo Gap wasn't founded until 1878 and didn't have a post office until the 1880s. From my perspective, this is pointless because you could be born somewhere only for it to be named later on or a new county formed, etc and you would reference the name in its present tense so people would know where you were to begin with. You wouldn't just say, "Parts Unknown Texas," just because the place had no name at the time. Not a strong argument.
4- Roberts original headstone; mentions the date of 1868 as his birth. For me this goes back to point #2 if he was living out the identity of a cousin named Oliver Pleasant Roberts. His Find A Grave profile lists him as being born in 1862. For me conflicting ages means little. For example I have a great-great uncle named Albert "Bert" Defibaugh and he was listed in different newspapers under different ages when he passed away. In some he was younger than he really was and in others he was older than he really was.
5- Fort Sumner & Billy Barlow; mentioning that 200+ people never heard more than 2 shots the night Billy The Kid was allegedly killed. Problem with that assumption or assertion was only a handful of depositions were even given, not the entire town and by this films own admission Garrett's own narrative just didn't add up. There could've been more than 2 gunshots fired that night, especially if you have multiple people firing simultaneously. 2 shots can sound like 1 under right circumstances. They mention "nobody in 70 years" ever said anything countering the narrative that Billy The Kid was dead, but that is simply untrue because there were people out of Fort Sumner and nearby who believed The Kid was alive. They mention on the censuses there was a Billy Barlow on the 1880 censuses in Lincoln and San Miguel counties, but he was only 2 years old--- but they overlook the fact that Roberts himself said that he thought the name "Billy Barlow" was itself an alias. He wasn't saying concretely that the man's name was literally Billy Barlow so the name on the census means little to nothing.
6- Governor Mabry; bringing up Roberts memory lapse and health issues at the governor's meeting, believing that Roberts claim of a stroke was a lie because they claim he did not seek medical attention after the meeting or when he went home to Hico. Problem is that story is an outright lie because Roberts upon getting home to Hico did in fact go to see a doctor and was told to get as much rest as possible (which he didnt) and he died while trying to send a letter to J. Frank Dalton. So this entire part of the film is a falsehood.
7- The Affidavits; they say Martile Able couldn't have known Brushy was The Kid because only her husband had met The Kid, and bring up DeWitt Travis and his birthdates, and say that "Robert E. Lee" couldn't have met Billy The Kid because Billy The Kid died in 1881 and Lee met The Kid allegedly in 1889. While I have issues with various affidavits, the arguments presented here amount to nothing because: Able could've met Brushy and her husband told her that he was Billy The Kid, and if indeed Lee met Roberts in 1889 what it'd mean is that he knew Roberts to go by Billy The Kid as early as 1889 and always knew him as such. While the latter would not prove Roberts was The Kid it would give credibility to Roberts story that he was known to at least identify himself as Billy The Kid in the 1880s. Same goes with Travis, because it'd mean as long as he knew Roberts he always knew him to refer to himself as Billy The Kid. They mention both Montoya and Gallegos, claiming that Morrison essentially lead/coached Gallegos into saying Roberts was The Kid and said Montoya was too young to make a positive identification. Gallegos needing a second look or second day at looking at Brushy, from my point of view, doesn't discredit Roberts but meant Gallegos wanted to be sure before giving a genuine answer. As for age, I think ten years old is old enough to remember someone. My grandfather died when I was ten, and if he walked up to my doorstep today claiming he faked his death I'd know my own grandfather if I saw him. At best, this kind of argument is weak assumption that someone couldn't remember someone positively because of age.
8- Judge Parker; The argument was that the famous Judge Parker wouldn't have let a known killer or outlaw not only escape justice but not work for him as a deputy. I'm no expert on Judge Parker, but I'm fairly certain he did indeed have ex-criminals working as deputies under his jurisdiction. Hell, the film TRUE GRIT was about Judge Parker (in part) and how ex-criminal Rooster Cogburn was probably his best known deputy or bounty hunter. Furthermore, how is it unacceptable to believe Parker wouldn't have turned a blind eye to a criminal when Lincoln County sure turned a blind eye to Pat Garrett who in fact was a known murderer and criminal?
9- Wounds; the argument here was to cast doubt because Brushy Bill Roberts had more scars than Billy The Kid was known to have. For me, it's weak sauce, because I'd fully expect an elderly man in the Wild West to accumulate a lot of injuries especially if he worked on cattle drives trying to prevent people from trying to steal the herd (ie, John Wayne in The Cowboys) and let's assume Billy The Kid did survive into old age, I'd assume that he would've accumulated more scars than what he had in his youth. Pointless argument. They also say that Morrison never took hitchers of the scars, which is also a lie because he did following the death of Brushy Bill Roberts.
10- The Pardon; the prosecution says that there was no promise from Lew Wallace to Billy The Kid about a pardon in a letter from Wallace to Billy The Kid. Problem with this nonsense is that Gale Cooper herself has proven there was correspondence between Billy The Kid and Lew Wallace about a potential pardon:
indianahistory.org/stories/a-billy-the-kid-mystery-solved/ So again this film is selling another falsehood to the public. There was a pardon either promised or discussed between the two men.
11- Dalton & Jesse James; Without question the biggest black eye to Brushy's life story and testimony was his association with Dalton. The prosecution shows a newspaper article with Brushy claiming to be a member of the James Gang prior to him claiming to be Billy The Kid. Extremely difficult to get out of this one, especially when Ola Everhart claimed that the two men were friends all the way to Brushy's death (when he died he allegedly was sending a letter to Dalton according to her). The film gives the impression that Roberts wholeheartedly believed Dalton to be Jesse James, and that the newspapers misquoted or misrepresented what he said about Dalton, etc. That's obviously fictional, as dead men don't tell any tales, and there is audio of Brushy Bill Roberts saying Dalton was Jesse James on the radio program "We The People." There is, however, evidence that Brushy Bill Roberts felt uneasy and conflicted about giving Dalton credibility (in private) as Jesse James. He knew at some point, maybe he always did, that Dalton wasn't Jesse James and made his concerns known to others. Still, I must admit that this piece in the movie is/was the strongest argument against Brushy Bill Roberts.
12- The Bearded Billy; using the argument that if one newspaper got it wrong (Dalton) that surely the newspaper article saying Billy The Kid had a beard at death and was tanned must also be wrong is silly. Newspapers often get things wrong, but that doesn't mean they are all wrong, or that they are all correct. This argument is weak at best. Furthermore, this newspaper was long gone and forgotten for decades before it was rediscovered. The Bearded Billy story was seldom known outside of Fort Sumner, and the fact that both Miller and Roberts knew about it is interesting. Then again rumors spread for years by word of mouth that Garrett shot a Mexican that night and not Billy The Kid, so it could've gotten all over the country.
13- Indian Scout; old newspaper story from 1947 mentioning Roberts was born January 1867 in Buffalo Gap mentioning he was a member of the James Gang. Again, this is a fictional confrontation about Roberts saying newspapers tell lies, etc. Far as I ever knew Roberts never claimed that his previous story about being in the James Gang was a lie, or that newspapers printed falsehoods about him. So this bit in the film is nothing more than a showpiece of previous newspapers about Roberts, and changing stories over time. From our own research (courtesy of this board) we have seen newspapers going back to the 1920s showing "OK ROBERTS," "OL ROBERTS," or "OP ROBERTS" as always claiming to have been an Indian fighter, rodeo champion, masterful shooter, etc. So for the most part the story seems to stay largely intact over time. According to the tapes, allegedly, Brushy Bill Roberts claimed he knew the Dalton Gang. Historically speaking, there is evidence that Billy The Kid did in fact meet Jesse James at least once in Las Vegas. Furthermore on my own research Roberts did have an uncle Francis Dunn who was said to have known Jesse James; this is written on Francis Dunn's Find a Grave page. Perhaps Francis Dunn knew J. Frank Dalton and always knew of him as Jesse James, and therefore Brushy always thought he was Jesse James. Just a working hypothesis.
Therefore ends the films arguments against Brushy Bill Roberts, and begins arguments against Pat Garrett. The film presents Garrett as this above all criticism type of figure, as if his word is unquestionable, but the prosecution points out quite a few blunders or errors or inconsistencies in his account:
1- Shoot First Ask Questions Later approach to law enforcement; Folliard and Bowdrie. Gives the reasonable doubt that he had no qualms killing the wrong people in pursuit of money.
2- Poe said he killed the wrong man.
3- That had he killed the wrong man he would've been recalled so even if he killed the wrong man he would've had to pass off the wrong man as the intended target.
4- His book was written by another man and the many facts and figures within the book are inaccurate or misrepresented.
5- The Dedrow report and the status of The Kid's grave being in conflict with Garrett's account of the body being identified, which it was not.
6- The missing coroner's report.
7- By law Garrett should've sent the report to the County Clerk of San Miguel and not to Santa Fe as he claimed.
8- Garrett didn't get the reward until a year later, as the Governor didn't believe Garrett supplied sufficient evidence that he did originally.
9- Conflicting stories between Garrett and Poe, concerning the body of The Kid; the citizens held a wake according to Poe, while Garrett claimed that they held vigil over the body inside the house, etc.
The film didn't exactly go into other unanswered questions about the alleged death of Billy The Kid but it left enough reasonable doubt that Pat Garrett and company wasn't telling the truth about the events in question.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
