|
Post by Wayne Land on May 25, 2010 10:35:50 GMT -5
Take a close look at this letter. The last few words are written much larger than the main body of the letter and there is a stamped mark that has been cropped. Does it not appear that comments written on two separate pages have been pasted together to look like one letter. If that happened, then why? Are there other comments written by Geneval Pittmon that were omitted from this copy? Who has the original? I would have to assume it is in the possession of the BTKOG. I think we should demand answers to these questions. Here's the letter: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 25, 2010 11:51:12 GMT -5
If anyone has seen the most recent attempt by the BTKOG to discredit Brushy (see the link on their web page) it is obvious that it was written by either Jim Johnson or his friend Charles (Butch) Sanders. There are many misleading statements in that letter that could be questioned. Here's one to ponder regarding the Pittmon letter. And I quote "Mrs. Geneva Pittmon was born 26 June 1918 on RFD #5, Canton, Van Zandt Co., Texas, to Brushy's brother, Thomas U. Roberts and Mattie Jane Couch. She was 32 years old when Brushy died; not too young to have remembered Brushy as some have portrayed her." This is a misleading statement. No one has tried to claim Geneva Pittmon was "too young to have remembered Brushy". The question is not how old she was when Brushy died, but how old was she when he took on the alias of Oliver Roberts. And the fact is, Brushy took on that alias (if indeed it was an alias) before Geneva was even born. I don't mind if someone wants to disagree with my position. The problem starts when they want to put words in the mouths of Brushy defenders that were never there in order to make us look ignorant. An obvious attempt to discredit through misconception. There are many other misleading statements in the letter. If you'd like to read the entire letter the following link will get you there. Just go into it understanding that the person who wrote it is not looking to be objective. btkog07.angelfire.com/truehistory.html
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 25, 2010 12:08:19 GMT -5
Here's another one, from the same letter:
"Her (Geneva's) father, Thomas U. Roberts, died 16 June 1958 - almost eight years after Brushy. Mattie Jane, Geneva's mother, died 8 Sep 1954. Thomas U. known as Tom, was Brushy's next youngest surviving sibling. He was also the sibling who was closest to Brushy throughout his life."
Where did the information about Tom being so close to Brushy "throughout his life" come from??? I'll tell you where it likely came from. It came from the imagination of the person who wrote the aforementioned letter. The person who wrote the letter obviously loves to impress the reader with lots of dates and census data and then along the way, throw in opinion and hearsay. Hoping of course that the surrounding "facts" will obscure the hearsay and give it an undeserved air of authenticity.
If alleged brother Tom was so close to Brushy, why didn't he show up for the funeral and why didn't he come forward with the truth. After all, he "was" there in 1910 or so when Brushy first started calling himself Oliver!! His wife Mattie Jane would have known the truth too. Where are the statements from surviving family members that actually were around in 1910. Sister, Martha Vada Roberts and her husband reportedly denied that Brushy was their brother Oliver P. Roberts. Why doesn't the BTKOG want to address that? Do they really want the truth?? Of course they don't. The aforementioned web page starts out with admitting the organization was formed for the purpose of discrediting Brushy. Not for the purpose of researching his claim and getting at the truth, but for the purpose of discrediting him.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 25, 2010 12:36:52 GMT -5
Another statement from the letter reads
"The Jesse James claimant identified as J. Frank Dalton in this photograph was proven not to be the real Jesse James in a 1995 exhumation and DNA test."
Well, I'm not saying he was, or was not Jesse. But the absolute fact is, there was no "proof" one way or the other. In fact, they were determined to come up with something that would prove Dalton to be a fraud. So determined, in fact, that they used a tooth that didn't even come from the alleged Jesse gravesite to secure DNA. The tooth came from the James family farm. Duh??? Can we spell obvious?
|
|
|
Post by mwb on May 27, 2010 8:09:36 GMT -5
I agree that the Pittman letter certainly looks odd the way there seems to be an abrubt line across the paper prior to the completion of the last sentence. Also, the stamp looks cut off. It looks to me like this was written on two pieces of paper or maybe a front and back and it was put together for purposes of scanning. It would be shocking to find out that someone deliberately omitted something that would support Brushy. However, I can see how you'd be sceptical in reading some of the anti-Brushy write ups. Some seem to have a desire to not just state their case, but to go on an all out blitzkrieg and completely obliterate Brushy and anyone who dares to give him any consideration. It really does take away from their case when they start adding in hearsay and opinion as fact.
|
|
|
Post by mwb on May 27, 2010 8:15:21 GMT -5
The Jesse James DNA thing was handled badly. Wasn't the problem that they couldn't get DNA from the body because it was too badly decomposed or water damaged or something? However, my personal opinion is that Jesse James was killed as the standard story goes. Brushy's support of J. Frank Dalton has always bothered me because of that. Do you know if he really claimed to have been in the James Gang? This picture is from 1950.
|
|
|
Post by mwb on May 27, 2010 9:57:46 GMT -5
I meant to add something about the date of the picture. Appears to be January 21, 1950. That would have been right in the middle of his dealings with Morrison. That seems very strange. Does Morrison mention this episode in his book? Maybe Brushy was misquoted or just didn't want to say who he really was and Dalton really was Jesse James. Aren't there stories about Billy the Kid meeting Jesse James at some point? Or, maybe Dalton wasn't really Jesse, but somehow had convinced Brushy that he was. At age 90, he can't be expected to be sharp as a tack on all subjects anymore. That's one of the things that bothers me when people try to discredit Brushy. Bringing up all the small errors about things that happened decades prior. He was 90 years old!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 27, 2010 12:46:47 GMT -5
You make some excellent points in those posts. I too have serious doubts about Dalton being Jesse James. I also believe Brushy may have been misqouted but I suspect the most likely reason for his alleged claim to have been a member of the gang was that he wanted to support Dalton's claim (either because it was true or because he believed it was) and he couldn't tell them he really was Billy The Kid. Couldn't tell them the real circumstances of how he knew Jesse. So when a reporter asked "how do you know Jesse James" he just spit out the quickest lie he could come up with. Or the reporter asks "were you a member of the gang" and Brushy didn't deny it. Reporters often misqoute or mislead.
Yes, Billy The Kid did indeed meet Jesse James. I forget the details on that. Of course, Brushy claimed to have met Jesse while he was staying with Belle Starr for a few months, before he ever became known as Billy The Kid. Belle Starr was calling him "Texas Kid" at the time.
And you are so right about the age and the memory thing. If I live to be 90, I'll be lucky if I still remember my own name. I also believe Brushy may have made up some of his answers to Morrison. But we can't declare him a fraud just because he unintentionally or intentionally got some things wrong. I'veal often said, if we believe a person's true identity must be measured in that way, we would have to wonder if the old guy who died claiming to be Wyatt Earp was really him. Of course we know for a fact he was Wyatt, but he told many false tales about what happened in his days as a law officer.
|
|
|
Post by mwb on May 27, 2010 13:24:54 GMT -5
I think it is plausible to conclude that Brushy, having met Jesse James at one point, may have agreed to meet with J. Frank Dalton. It especially makes sense seeing as how if he was trying to set the record straight about himself, he wanted to support someone who appeared to be doing the same thing. Like we've said, we both doubt Dalton's claim, but having met with someone only briefly 70 or so years earlier, it isn't unreasonable to assume that Brushy might have really thought he was really Jesse (or maybe he was). Dalton was able to convince others, obviously, who probably were more Jesse James experts than Brushy would have been. Also, one would think that if you were trying to perpetrate a fraud, you wouldn't purposely align yourself with someone else that you knew was also a fraud. That would be a counter-theory to what others have said that Brushy was just a publicity hound.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 27, 2010 14:49:57 GMT -5
Interesting viewpoint about him aligning himself with a fraud. Another of those glass half full/glass half empty things. Clarifying my earlier statement, let me say I am very open to the possibility that Dalton really was Jesse James. The whole matching DNA thing was a joke. An obvious conspiracy to prove him a fraud, in my opinion. I lean toward Dalton being a fraud but not a whole lot so.
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, logic says that if you believe Brushy, you need to believe Dalton, and if you believe Dalton you need to believe John St. Helen (since Dalton claimed St. Helen was the real John Wilkes Booth and that he, Dalton, poisoned him to keep him quiet). And do you have to believe others who identified Dalton and/or Brushy? So, what is the real answer here?
A different view would be that the question isn't whether Brushy associated himself with frauds but whether frauds wanted to associate themselves with Brushy and he allowed it to happen. After all, Billy The Kid's alleged death happened "before" these other possible frauds' deaths. Brushy and Dalton lived in the same town for awhile long before either of them came forward. Maybe Brushy confided his true identity to Dalton, who then decided he too would like to be a famous dead outlaw. And just maybe, Brushy went along with identifying Dalton because he didn't want Dalton to spill the beans about him being Billy???
I know this is thinking outside the box, but sometimes that's the way we find the truth.
|
|
|
Post by lacowboy on May 28, 2010 12:01:13 GMT -5
If you study the books about Brushy, you find that it was after he went back to Texas to live with his father John Roberts. After a brief stay and learning what an **** John was Billy ran away. It was during that time that he met up with Jesse for the first time. Jesse took him to Bell Stars place in the Oklahoma territory. That's where Billy learned to be an outlaw. So Billy/ Brushy would have known Jesse from way back.
|
|
|
Post by mwb on May 28, 2010 13:25:19 GMT -5
Wayne, check out this site foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/jessejames.htm. These are FBI files about J. Frank Dalton/Jesse James. They are facinating and at times very funny and entertaining! The buttoned down professionalism in the face of some of the letters is really hilarious at times. It consists mostly of letters from citizens to J. Edgar Hoover about Dalton's claim, along with some other tidbits about Jesse James. I especially enjoyed the letter from the concerened citizen that the late 30's or 40's movie about Jesse James (wildly historically inaccurate, apparently) was corrupting the morals of youth. Hoover apparently assigned an agent to see the movie and provide a report, which is in these files! He (Hoover) actually responds to all these letters. There's also a funny situation about some kids that accused J.D Rockefeller of being Jesse! These files don't make Dalton look very good. Seems that he was appearing at carnivals and theatres and such kind of like a side show attraction. I'm not sure that having anything to do with him reflects well on Brushy, either, I'm afraid. I can't imagine the real Jesse James doing that, unless maybe he was suffering from dementia or something, too. Maybe Brushy got roped in somehow, like you said.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 28, 2010 13:44:01 GMT -5
I tried your link but it wouldn't work. I'd love to review those letters. Actually, you may not be aware there was more than one Jesse James claimant at the time and the other fellow is sometimes mistaken as being Dalton. I'll have to research that again, but I think the other fellow may have been the one touring the carnivals and such. Check your link if you would and make sure it's correct. Thanks for the post.
|
|
|
Post by mwb on May 28, 2010 14:02:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 29, 2010 12:23:59 GMT -5
The link works now. Thanks. I had seen this material some years ago but needed to refresh my memory. The fellow who toured the carnivals and such in the 1930's was not J. Frank Dalton. At least I'm pretty certain that is the case. The last reference to that first claimant I think is in Part 3 of the papers and is dated 1940. Then in 1949 you see the first mention of the name J. Frank Dalton who I believe first made his claim public in 1948. There is one thing that jumped out to me in the papers on Dalton. It seems Lawton, OK sent a copy of his fingerprints to (the FBI?) who then responded that while Dalton was born about the same time as Jesse, he was born in a different city and state. But it doesn't explain how they knew that. Was it customary in the 1840's to take fingerprints of children at birth? I doubt it.
I still don't see any and have not seen any real convincing evidence that Dalton was a fraud.
|
|