DNA Study

[scott winfield]

Bushy Bill Roberts has all the markings as Billy the Kid and therefore there was a story another man was buried in Billy the Kid's grave and if Bushy Bill Roberts markings match Billy the Kid maybe the story is true that Pat Garrett never killed Billy the Kid and the Kid lived longer than what was researched and so maybe exhuming his body would be a good idea to prove to the world Bushy Bill Roberts is Billy the Kid

[marchus]

I am very surprised to read some of the negativity about the DNA dig and the continuous bashing of these men who are just trying to get to the truth. I cannot believe the Governor of New Mexico (I think it was him...Not 100% Sure) called Steve Sederwall, Tom Sullivan and I am forgetting the third man....Henry Lee maybe? Idiots.
How do you call three men who just want to get to the bottom of this idiots? Steve and Tom are well educated, forensics experts with years and years of experience in law enforcement they just want to find out if it is Billy who is buried in New Mexico or if it is Billy who is buried in Hico or if it is Billy who is buried in Arizona. The last word used to describe these men would be idiots. They are crusaders, true historians in my opinion.
He can't be buried in all three places. I think what I find truly hilarious about this whole DNA Dig thing is that once again we have people with a lot of money and power who are stopping good natured human beings from doing something that should be done and yet you are celebrating the life and times of Billy the Kid? A boy who was against men with power and money who were using that power and money to persuade others back in the Lincoln County War?
As Steve Sederwall said....Billy himself would want the truth. He crusaded against men with money and power and risked his life repeatedly to defend his combatants and many poor people around the area who were being persecuted and shoved out by those men and yet he we are again. The people who Billy The Kid and his gang fought against are now again persecuting and shoving out the little guy just to make a buck.
I find it appalling! They are not interested in the west or Billy the Kid and they obviously don't have the first clue of who Billy the Kid was because he stood against the very thing they are doing! They are only interested in money.

I won't lie I love the mystery of it all and the mystery of not knowing because it keeps the talk and the mystery alive but if you are a true historian you would want the truth-You would want the dig-You would want your belief to be proven and the only way for that to happen is to let the dig go fourth.
I am also very very interested in this piece of cloth that Steve Sederwall posted. The fact that he has said he has no doubt Billy lived long after 1881 and has some evidence that he has seen but wants to leave for future investigators is extremely interesting..........Gosh! I want to know!

[Wayne Land]

Amen! I've spoken with Sederwall myself and I am completely impressed that he only wants the truth. I admire him for that and admire the work he has done. And I think it is appalling that he has been made to suffer as a result of his research. He has brought us all closer to the truth than we ever were before and for that, he deserves the utmost admiration and gratitude.

[MissyS]

I wonder if this has been discussed before? I don't know if this is the right thread to post it? it's an article about a 100,000 dollar lawsuit over Billy the Kid documents involving a writer, interesting about the part saying some of the documents were altered? This happened last month in New Mexico

www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_25799071/award-ends-lawsuit-billy-kid-records

[Wayne Land]

That's a big part of what I was referring to when I mentioned "been made to suffer". I'm not sure we should discuss it here though. Mainly because I just don't know the facts. I don't know when or how a public official can pursue something on their own time without their work becoming public domain, or if they can do that at all. I think I'll stay away from further comments on that.

[marchus]

I just once again find it amusing that this woman Gale Cooper who is a renowned Brushy Billy (or any other claimant for that matter) hater will not allow the dig. She also states she is trying to debunk a hoax....Really?
How else do you debunk a hoax? Huh? Please I am all ears because the only way I know to debunk a hoax is to prove to everyone else it is a hoax.....Now mmmhhh I am no brain surgeon but the obvious answer to this theory would be to go a long and let these men prove it is really Billy the Kid buried there. I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the only way to prove this particular claim a hoax is to go along with the dig but hey.....who I am to judge?-Lol
I just get very annoyed by all these (at least I thought they were educated) people (Frederick Nolan, This Gale Cooper to name a few)who say they know for sure that he was killed in 1881 but they refuse to listen to any other evidence and will not go along with something that would prove them correct....Or false.
I believe they have doubts. I truly do-why else wouldn't you want it? Greed? Okay they are greedy but there are historians who claim Brushy Bill and John Miller and others are complete frauds. I say put your money where your mouth is....Prove It! Come on prove it.....If you know for sure....Prove it...And they won't do it and that proves my theory that they are afraid and that they are not sure-once again it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

[Wayne Land]

Sometimes I worry that I chime in too much and too often on here when I should let other folks voice their opinions first. After all, we have over 130 members! But I just can't stay away especially when someone makes so much sense as you, Marchus, on that above post. Absolutely, they are afraid of what the investigation will prove. But let me clarify a bit of what was going on there, according to what I think I know. The "dig" referred to has already happened. It was an exhumation of John Miller's grave, the other noted Billy The Kid claimant. Those deputies wanted to prove that Garrett was a corrupt lawman and should have his image removed from the uniforms of the Lincoln County sheriff's department. They had found the bench (solid provenance) that Billy's body was laid on after he was shot, and it was confirmed to have very old blood on it from a white caucasian male. So they first went to Hamilton, TX and a public meeting was held to determine whether they'd be allowed to exhume Brushy and retrieve DNA. Now I must insert here, I don't fully understand why they wanted to compare that "bench blood" to Brushy, since if Brushy was telling the truth, he was not likely ever on such a bench. I think the only possibility was that he was on it the night of the shooting, not in the carpenter's shop but in the home where he hid for while before leaving Ft. Sumer. Anyway, when Hamilton said "NO" they began pursuing their second preference which was to exhume John Miller. They did later complete that exhumation and obtain DNA. But while everyone expected to hear results of the comparison, the suspense drug on and on for months and months and eventually years. There were all kinds of rumors. Some said they had found a match but were holding off on announcing anything because they wanted to write a book and make tons of money. Others assumed there was no match and they were holding back results in order to not get egg on their face. This reporter Gale Cooper apparently decided she would make an official request to which they failed to comply. Was she seeking the documents because she was afraid they had found proof or because she was convinced they had failed and she wanted to make sure the public knew? I would suspect it was more of the later.

Here's the truth as I think I know it. The results were inconclusive because they were unable to isolate the DNA from the "bench blood". The bench had apparently been bled on by more than one person or animal. Why were these deputies so reluctant to allow Ms. Cooper copies of their findings. I believe it was because they were hoping to eventually come up with the funding to complete their DNA comparison. The DNA could be isolated but the cost was prohibitive and they didn't want anything made public prematurely.

In spite of all that, I think you have an extremely valid point. Unfortunately there are lots of folks who are "afraid" to have proof one way or the other. Hamilton, TX was afraid Brushy would be proven a fraud, thus costing them a certain amount of notoriety and tourist income. My friend Dr. Valdez was at the meeting in Hamilton and he told me the motion to exhume was turned down because they wanted permission from a surviving family member. The only person there who claimed to be family (although I don't believe she really is) was the lady who owns the museum in Hamilton. She has circulars "on" Brushy's grave monument, inviting people to visit her museum. She claims to be a great niece or something. She objected to the exhumation and so the city council said "Nope", can't exhume. Did she object because she was as you say "afraid" to know the truth? Probably. At least that's what Dr. Valdez thought. But the council was afraid too, otherwise why would they just take the word of a "would be" niece who had no proof she was who she said she was?

Silver City was approached some years back with the request to exhume Catherine Bonney. They said "No", not unless you prove you have Billy's DNA to compare her's to. Otherwise you would be disturbing this woman's grave site without a valid reason to do so. Some say Catherine isn't really buried where her grave marker is anyway. Of course Fort Sumner was also petitioned for an exhumation of Billy's alleged grave site. They also said no for similar reasons. So we have two cities blaming their no answer on each other instead of both agreeing to agree and just get it done. Again, they're afraid what the results might prove.

Great post Marchus! Thanks!

[marchus]

Thanks so much Wayne! I appreciate that.
I love discussing these topics on here. I hope I didn't get too heated? Lol
I just get frustrated with it as I know you do too. I appreciate the above explanation of how it started and where it is now. I had heard they exhumed John Miller and it was inconclusive. I agree with you about the bench not sure if that blood is going to help with finding the best results.
I had also read that Brushy said Catherine Bonney was actually his Aunt and not his blood mother? I can see where some people are coming from with there businesses and all but historians should want to get to the bottom of it, if they consider themselves true historians-that is what it is about, finding the truth.
I do enjoy the mystery as I said before-I really do. I enjoy discussing is he or isn't he Billy the Kid topics on here and so a part of me doesn't want it either-Lol I know but ultimately I would want it to go fourth.
Thanks again Wayne for creating such a cool site!
I enjoy the discussions and the site has kept me very intrigued.

[Wayne Land]

Yes, according to Brushy, Catherine Bonney/McCarty was his half aunt. She and his birth mother were half sisters. However, the sisters had the same mother. Therefore Catherine and Mary Adeline (Billy's real mother) would share the same mitochondrial DNA (passed from mother to child). Billy (Brushy) would also have had the same and should be a match with Catherine.

I'm very pleased you are enjoying the board. Thanks again.

[brianthedude]

I'm afraid they could dig up every grave in the West, and none of this would be settled by it.

[aladatrot]

Both Fort Sumner and Hamilton have something to lose if the DNA proves not to be Billy or Brushy. Nobody will spend tourist dollars to come see a grave purporting to be Billy if there's DNA evidence he isn't in either one. By blocking the exhumation of both grave sites, both entities continue to see tourist dollars - everyone wins except the true Billy enthusiasts who only want the truth settled once and for all.

I'm not a Brushy advocate, but I do find all of these arguments for and against his being Billy intriguing. My romantic side wants to believe that our anti hero got away that night in 1881. The portion of my brain that processes evidence tells me that he more than likely met his end at the hand of Pat Garrett that fateful night. I don't think it happened the way Pat described, but I believe it did happen. I would love to know truthfully otherwise, I just think that the Historical record supports his death over his survival with much less leaps of faith and circumstantial evidence.

All of this does highly interest me, and I won't fault any Brushy believers for their stance.
Cheers
M

[jgaines]

Anti Hero ? yes, he likely stole some cattle and some horses, but he fought against a well known organized crime ring whose members were documented cold-blooded murderers. more hero than anti hero in my book. And yes you are exactly correct on grave sites not wanting to do any DNA testing. but more on that subject- the tests I'd like to see would be Brushy vs Oliver P. Robert's mother. This would carry much validity because these grave locations are undisputed, unlike the Ft Sumner grave, which was moved / and or washed away, etc. And no, this test wouldn't prove Brushy to be Billy, but if not a match, it would prove he is not Oliver Roberts, which the Brushy nay sayers say he is. Likewise, if it did match - he's not billy, he's Ollie.

[Wayne Land]

For that matter, all they'd need to do is retrieve some DNA from Brushy and compare it to the real Oliver's mother's descendants (mitochondrial should match if he is Ollie). However, there actually is "some" dispute over where Brushy is buried. There are those who claim his grave is really at the back of the cemetery and that the current marble marker was placed closer to the highway as a tourist attraction. Maybe, Maybe not, but the city of Hamilton "should" know the true location of Brushy's grave. There should be records. We can always hope that one day, something will be done.

[jgaines]

The location of Brushy's grave should be ( and very likely can be) positively nailed down right now and documented in the event that someday there is a DNA test. Good point on testing Oliver's mother's descendants.
Here's a thought: If Brushy's front teeth that were removed could be located you could test them. But I guess its not likely anyone kept them, unless the doc thought they belonged to BTK. Maybe they are in Brushy's "box" wherever that is.

[Nik Oak]

In "Billy The Kid The Lost interviews" Page 33 Jameson says that two incisors (Brushy's?) were in Brushy's trunk then held by Bill Allison. He also says that they were extracted by a dentist in Gladewater Texas in 1931.

If these teeth could be recovered then they should yield a sample of DNA which would probably be contaminated to some degree.

However there is a forensic test that could be carried out on these teeth that would be interesting, and that is to examine the layers in the tooth enamel. A transparent layer develops in tooth enamel which gradually widens with time. examination of these layers should enable Brushy's chronological age in 1931 to be calculated and then his age in 1950 to be determined.

You would of course have to be sure that the teeth were Brushy's, and to be sure of the date of their extraction.