Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:55:55 GMT -5
Therein lies the problem. As insightful as such a thing could be, it reminds me of when they attempted to do DNA tests on The Elephant Man to trace the gene responsible for his deformity and compare it to living descendants. Because of the age, the constant handlings of the skeleton, etc. it proved futile. I'm afraid a couple of teeth locked away in a box, and exchanged ownership, etc. would only be worthless at this stage. No, what needs to be done is search of court/probate records to conclusively know where Mr. Roberts is buried. HOWEVER, even if the body is not found, there is an alternative route one can take in proving his story. That route would take matching DNA of Roberts siblings and matching it to Catherine McCarty. If I am not mistaken Brushy had a half sister and a half brother, along with a full brother. I could be wrong on this, but regardless--- that is the only viable option left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 20:34:52 GMT -5
This got me to thinking (again) and there is another option out there that no one I think has ever considered. Brushy said that he was Catherine McCarty's nephew, and that he assumed the identity of his cousin Ollie Roberts (around 1910). According to Geneva Pittmon Brushy was her uncle. There are indeed living descendants of Brushy Bill Roberts, and IF dna could be extracted from Brushy it can be compared. If Roberts is indeed telling the truth, then dna would show him to be a cousin rather than an uncle. And while THAT wouldn't prove he was The Kid, what it would do is substantiate his claim that he was living as Oliver Roberts for decades.
And maybe the OTHER plausible answer would be to do a dna test on Joseph Antrim. This can be done a few ways:
-Compare DNA with Brushy -Compare DNA with Brushy's living relatives to see if a link is actually there
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on May 26, 2015 21:14:31 GMT -5
Rufus, you make a good point about using Joe Antrim's DNA for comparison because I believe he's buried in a different state than New Mexico I think its Colorado? , it may be easier to get permission to do an exhumation on him instead of Catherine cus a different state wont care to lose money on tourist attractions if they don't have one. What about Sweat DNA?, if DNA can be taken from sweat, could Brushy's hatband from his hat be used if it's been kept?, or his rodeo gloves?, The Brushy Museum may have an item like that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 17:51:03 GMT -5
I think DNA from sweat over 60 years old, and being handled by many hands over the years, makes it 'dead in the water'.
Joe Antrim's blood, could still be used (however). Cus if there is indeed any truth to Brushy's story, then his living descendants blood can be cross-referenced to Joe's to determine if there is indeed a DNA connection. After all, wouldn't they all be cousins, if Brushy's story is indeed true? While that wouldn't prove Roberts to be The Kid, what it would do is prove that Robert's story is CONSISTENT with the life narrative that he gave William V. Morrison.
IF THAT TIE can be made between Antrim and Brushy's living descendants, then the next step would be to dig up Roberts, and match his DNA with Joe Antrim. If it shows that they are first cousins, then that only further strengthens his story because that would mean Brushy was (more or less) telling the truth and that he is NOT Ollie Roberts and that he is older than previously thought, and by proxy that he would of known first hand (at the very least) The Kid and that is how he knew so much about The Kid's life and adventures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 16:47:06 GMT -5
Btw, did a search and found out when Joseph Antrim died NOBODY claimed the body, so his body was donated to medical science in Colorado. That is very sad and unfortunate. HOWEVER, there is some hope (in my opinion). EVERYTHING has a paper trail. Hell, they still use Lon Chaney Jr's remains in a university. As long as the body wasn't boiled and bleached, I don't see why DNA couldn't be used. So, I guess in the following days, weeks, the search for Mr. Antrim's body will be the task.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 28, 2015 23:35:06 GMT -5
"This got me to thinking (again) and there is another option out there that no one I think has ever considered. Brushy said that he was Catherine McCarty's nephew, and that he assumed the identity of his cousin Ollie Roberts (around 1910). According to Geneva Pittmon Brushy was her uncle. There are indeed living descendants of Brushy Bill Roberts, and IF dna could be extracted from Brushy it can be compared. If Roberts is indeed telling the truth, then dna would show him to be a cousin rather than an uncle."
Rufus, to whom are you referring as descendants of Brushy Bill? Living relatives, yes. Living descendants, no. There were no children from the marriage of Anna Lee and Oliver P. Roberts. There were no children from the marriage of Mollie Brown and Oliver P. Roberts. Ther were no children from the marriage of Lutecia Ballard Isaac and Oliver P. Roberts. There were no children from the marriage of Malida Elizabeth Murrell Allison and Oliver P. Roberts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 14:10:11 GMT -5
First I must apologize for the crudety of screen shots. But all these are of Oliver Roberts, that many say were Brushy Bill. It's the LAST census that gets me. This was a TEXAS census for Hill County, and it shows Oliver P. Roberts (Brushy?) being from Alabama and that his parents were born in Georgia, and having a slew of children: Margaret, Thomas, Martha, Nettie, Aron, and a brother named Daniel. Apparently this was when Brushy was in between marriages. So, either I am in error on that last census record (the wrong Oliver Roberts)--- or maybe these were adopted kids, etc--- or this is Brushy. Idk. This census was in 1920, and lists Roberts birth date as 1861. Now, I do realize that in 1920, there was another Oliver Roberts (b. around 1878) from Texas, and it is that man most people say was Brushy Bill Roberts. But from what I am seeing, there was alot of men in the general area/region by the name of Oliver P. Roberts--- and I find that rather uncommon. To me, I think it's likely, that Brushy was "covering his tracks" and in more than one census (in the same years) was passing himself off as someone else each time.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 29, 2015 16:08:48 GMT -5
Rufus, No apology necessary. Oliver P. Roberts of Hill County in the 1900, 1910, & 1920 census is living in Walker County, AL, in the 1880 census. His brother, Daniel, is. In the same household in Alabama. Daniel is living with Oliver in the 1910 census of Hill County. Definitely not Oliver Pleasant Roberts in Hill County.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 17:11:55 GMT -5
Well its a good thing I said a few options, one of which saying that was someone else.
But I think it does leave one to believe there was more than one Ollie Roberts.
After all, the censuses show birth dates from 1861-1878. Could it be there was really two completely different Ollie's?
If not, why is it that there is such differences in birth dates? You would think some government official at these offices would have contacted Roberts and of asked what the issue or problem was with all this. After all, its a federal crime to give false information of yourself when it concerns your birth, state of birth, etc.
I think, because of the differing dates, etc. there had to of been two different Ollie's, else there would of been hell to pay. HOWEVER, I will concede in my own family genealogy projects, there have been different dates given by family members. Often times their children, cousins, etc. had same or similar names, living in similar areas, etc. and it becomes very hard to separate WHO was WHO. I will also concede, too, that in those times (cus its happened in my own genealogy) that people give information, then leave state, seemingly never to be seen or heard from again--- only to find them living other lives elsewhere, while their relatives (even children and ex-spouses) are on their own in the previous state with no ties to them ever again.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 29, 2015 21:07:59 GMT -5
"After all, the censuses show birth dates from 1861-1878. Could it be there was really two completely different Ollie's?"
I agree that records show a wide variation in birth year after the 1930 census. 1880 - Olover Roberts, about 1878 1900 - Oliver P. Roberts August 1879 1910 - Oliver P. Roberts, about 1879 1918 WWI Draft Card - 26 Aug 1878 1920 - Oliver P. Roberts, about 1879 1930 - Oliver Roberts, about 1878 1940 - Ollie Roberts, about 1870 1950 - TX d/c, 31 Dec 1868 Ollie L. Roberts original cemetery monument 31 Dec 1868 William Henry Roberts cemetery monument 31 Dec 1858
I do not believe there were 2 different Ollies. The parents of Oliver P. Roberts, H, O. and Sarah Elizabeth Roberts, moved from Sebastian Co, AR, to Hopkins Co, TX, to Van Zandt Co, TX, to Little River Co, AR, and back to Van Zandt Co, TX. Oliver P. was in the same county as his parents in the 1880, 1900, & 1910 census years, and had been in Little River Co in 1918 when his wife Mollie died.
All census records of Van Zandt County show no more than 1 man named Oliver Roberts.
Why the difference in birth years after 1930? Maybe Oliver Pleasant "Brushy Bill" Roberts and J. Frank Dalton were already planning their future. J. Frank Dalton announced to the world in 1948 that he was Jesse Woodson James. Brushy Bill told William V. Morrison in 1949 that he was Billy the Kid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 13:27:34 GMT -5
That is a interesting conclusion to make about J. Frank Dalton and Brushy. Of course you said "maybe", so that is opinion, rather than fact. So that much I will give you credit for. As far as anyone knows, the two men did not have an association with one another until the late 1940's. Your assumption is that they knew eachother as early as the late 1920's, otherwise Brushy wouldn't of falsified his 1930 census. And that is a rather interesting theory to make.
However, all we can go by is what paper there is on both Brushy and Dalton. The Morrison letters with Brushy, etc. also confirm that Brushy apparently did the whole thing with Dalton for some sort of financial gain, that he knew Dalton was not the real deal, etc. Of course one can easily say that Brushy only said that because he was now proclaiming to be The Kid--- but if we are to believe Brushy's relatives, that isn't true either because it was common knowledge in the family that Brushy (as long as they ever knew him) claimed he was The Kid.
So, by proxy, I would think that thesis doesn't hold much water. I do have my own theory, though, on the change in census data following the 1920's. However, my theory is based off the idea that Roberts was The Kid--- but I think it would still work even if he was a man pretending to be the Kid--- and that is the El Paso newspapers from the 1920's-1950's claiming that The Kid was still alive, that they knew where he was living, etc. These articles, of course, were about John Miller. But it never did mention the name of WHO this person was.
So my theory is, whether Brushy was The Kid or that he told so many stories about being the Kid, that when these newspaper articles started circulating that there was a man living "within 500 miles of El Paso" who was The Kid--- I think that may of put the fear into Roberts. Cus after all, he was living within 500 miles of El Paso. And maybe you're thinking to yourself (one of two scenarios) "I don't know how but they found me!" or "I should of stopped telling those stories!" and Roberts from that time on changes his date of birth, etc. and even moves a few times, remarries, etc. out of fear that he would be tracked down and questioned.
|
|
|
Post by Nik Oak on Jun 9, 2015 14:51:56 GMT -5
Although not strictly DNA testing, there are tests that could be done on Brushy's teeth if the incisors from his trunk could be made available. There are a number of these tests that may give interesting results, but I believe the latest tests described at
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875176808001819
should be very informative about Brushy's age at the time of their extraction. However we would have to be sure that the teeth were Brushy's, be sure of the date of extraction, and possibly take account of Billy the Kids known delayed onset maturity.
Lets just hope that no one tries a DIY exhumation in the middle of the night, which would only result in confusion and disbelief no matter what the outcome of any resultant tests.
|
|
the Collins brothers
Guest
|
Post by the Collins brothers on Dec 21, 2015 8:14:43 GMT -5
Love history in the year 2016 will be bringing out proof that Roberts and the kid where not the same person however will also show bill and the kid where friends but the real Billy did live until his mid 40','s Roberts was trying to do his old friend a favor and get the pardon billy so longed for there is a evidence to support that Roberts was a regulator my brother and I have been collecting photo,s since 1976 we have no vested interest in how history plays out just that it is played out there is a lot of money and Arthur's who have a vested interest in keeping Billy dead if billy showed up alive this would be a problem first almost every book written about billy would be a lie number 2 the state of new Mexico and the billy the kid Museum would stand to lose at lot of money and tourism if billy is not in that grave fill free talk to keithlc777 @gmail.com
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 21, 2015 11:02:24 GMT -5
Well, if Brushy was a friend of Billy's and a regulator then he was definitely not Oliver P. Roberts, born in 1879. So if your theory is to hold any water you need to find his true identity and how he became connected to the Roberts family in the early 1900's. Otherwise, I think you're completely off base.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2015 17:28:50 GMT -5
I've been of one of two opinions: either Brushy was The Kid, or he was a member of his gang, else how would he know things nobody else knew (only to be confirmed decades later by historians). I think, however, if one gives credence to the notion that Brushy was indeed a friend of Billy's, it only strengthens Brushy's claims of being The Kid. Why? Because it would throw a bunch of skeptics out into the cold, if there was indeed proof that he was NOT Ollie Roberts, and was indeed born in the 1850s. Because that has ALWAYS been their greatest weapon against Brushy, is the assumption of identity and Brushy's niece saying that he was Ollie.
|
|