|
Post by mwb on Jun 1, 2010 13:48:05 GMT -5
So, you think this other person wasn't J. Frank Dalton? I was assuming they were the same. I wonder what ever happend to this other person. Regarding the fingerprint issue, no, I'm sure they didn't take fingerprints back them. The card probably was just indicating the info. the person who made the prints gave to the police. However, here's another like about Dalton that says he claimed to be born in Goliad, Tex. in order to obtain a Confederate pension. www.theoutlaws.com/outlaws5c.htm Also, this ends with a weird entry about how they tried to DNA test him, but the wrong body was exhumed. What the heck? Then they just gave up?!? What's the rest of the story there? I don't know, the Dalton claim just seems too far fetched to me. Further, I just can't see how Jesse would have left his wife and family to live in poverty while he went off someplace else. It just doesn't fit, to me. That's doesn't mean he couldn't have convinced Brushy and others, though.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 1, 2010 17:08:39 GMT -5
I'm quite certain the other guy was not J. Frank Dalton. He looked completely different to me and there was a 9 year break in those FBI files between the last one that was probably the first guy and the first one that was definitely about Dalton. I too am perplexed as to why they didn't just dig again and get the right body for DNA. Makes no sense but possibly there was some legal restriction on repeated digging? I suspect the "how dare you say Jesse ain't Jesse crowd" managed to block a second effort. I don't know.
I agree Dalton's story was a bit far fetched. But again, just like in the case of Brushy, (and Wyatt Earp) there seemed to be a common trait that ran rampant in those who survived the days of the Wild Wild West. They liked to improvise on the truth. They wanted to be bigger than life. I think Brushy's story about how he escaped Fort Sumner was either completely made up, or greatly exaggerated. I just believe if there'd been that many shots fired that night, someone would have said so other than Brushy. And if a bullet had gone through his lower jaw and knocked out a tooth, there would have been a very ugly scar. Now that doesn't mean I don't believe he left Fort Sumner that night. I absolutely believe he was there and he left after his friend was killed.
Likewise, I can believe Dalton was Jesse James. But I need more to convince me. Would he go away and leave his wife and kids to live in poverty? Maybe, but I doubt that just as you do. Then again, maybe he saw them quite often and gave them what help he could? So many questions, so few real answers?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 14, 2011 11:29:09 GMT -5
I read recently that the reason they didn't dig again to get the correct body was that they didn't have the money to continue. Seems to be a "likely" excuse.
|
|
|
Post by mwb on Jan 20, 2011 14:48:28 GMT -5
Hi Wayne,
Happy New Year! Do you remember where you read that? I'd be interested.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 21, 2011 12:15:30 GMT -5
Sorry, but I really don't remember. I saw it somewhere online 3 or 4 months ago. There wasn't any substantiating information as I recall but it was mentioned as factual rather than theorizing. I don't even know who funded the exhumation, but it probably is expensive to do. It's too bad though. If DNA from Dalton's grave was to match that of the James descendants we'd have a whole new discussion about a great many things including Brushy and John St. Helen. Dalton claimed he assassinated John St. Helen (John Wilkes Booth) to stop him from revealing too much information about the KGC. And now, the Booth descendants have requested Edwin, John Wilkes' brother, be exhumed to compare DNA to the vertebrae taken from the body in the barn.
If they don't match, then the guy in the barn was not John Wilkes Booth. This in turn lends voracity to Dalton who in turn lends voracity to Brushy. If it goes the other way, then the opposite effect. Now that's not to say St. Helen and Dalton had to be telling the truth in order for Brushy to be telling the truth. But the three of them are at least remotely linked to each other. Recall also, Brushy made claim to friends around Hico, TX that he knew where a great treasure could be found. Perhaps the missing confederate gold was taken by the KGC and Brushy knew stuff?
Forgive me for rambling on. I'm just sort of fantasizing of course. But who knows, they do say truth is stranger than fiction.
|
|
|
Post by mwb on Jan 21, 2011 15:47:48 GMT -5
It is fun to think about, for sure. There was a History Channel show the other night that I watched that was talking about the KGC and had some people going around looking for treasure. They were making it out to be like a Da Vinci Code or National Treasure like thing looking for clues and what not. Didn't seem to credible to me. They were even theorizing that there are people today still in the KGC that might be guarding the treasure. I don't know, seemed pretty far out. Exhumation is really the way to get to the bottom of these mysteries and that continues to be out of reach for whatever reasons. It would be good if the History Channel or someone with some deep pockets really got involved to push this and resolve these issues once and for all. Maybe they have a suggestions box somewhere that we can all request the same things. Maybe something for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 22, 2011 14:36:34 GMT -5
Yes, I've been watching "Decoded". They also had an episode on John Wilkes Booth. His descendants claim the family has always known it was not him that was killed in the barn on the Garrett farm. A man calling himself John St. Helen thought he was dying and on his death bed confessed to being John Wilkes Booth. He then recovered, disappeared, and later, in 1903, resurfaced using the name David E. George. Again he confessed to be Booth and the record says he committed suicide. The body was claimed by the friend he had confessed to, mummified, and displayed on the carnival circuit for years before being sold to a private collector. It's whereabouts now is unknown.
Well, Dalton claimed the fellow didn't really commit suicide but that he and another KGC member went to visit Booth and put arsenic in his drink to stop him from revealing what he knew about the organization. This of course has long been thought to be one of the more absurd claims that Dalton made.
Permission to exhume Edwin's body has been obtained. Now they're attempting to get permission to extract DNA from the vertebrae of the man killed in the barn. It is going before a panel of Judges to decide. I hope finally, "someone's" DNA is going to get tested and we'll have a difinitive answer regarding one of these claimants.
|
|
|
Post by mwb on Jan 25, 2011 11:00:25 GMT -5
This is good! Personally, I think Booth was killed, but it will be great to finally get an answer, one way or another. I wish History Channel would get behind the Brushy story and push for a DNA test there.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 25, 2011 17:52:07 GMT -5
I hardily agree. "Decoded" should do an episode on whether Billy was actually killed in 1881 and investigate both John Miller and Brushy. What I'd really like to see done is an objective, legitimate facial comparison by the most highly qualified experts in the field. Everything that's been done in the past has been attacked as fraudulent by one side or the other and my efforts, however convincing they are, can't be accepted as proving anything at all because I'm not trained in the field of facial recognition.
And maybe enough interest would be stirred up that a renewed effort to get DNA would produce something. If Hamilton, TX would just allow Brushy to be exhumed, his mitochondrial DNA (the mother's side) could be tested against known descendants of the family of Oliver Pleasant Roberts and we'd have proof whether Brushy's was or was not Oliver Pleasant Roberts. If it were proven he was not Oliver Pleasant then his claim of being Billy The Kid would be immensely more difficult to dismiss.
|
|
|
Post by Thain Timmertberg on Apr 19, 2011 21:03:43 GMT -5
where do i find out about Dalton poisoning St. Helen?
|
|
|
Post by devinb on Jun 25, 2011 6:59:29 GMT -5
It's crazy to me how steadfast some Wild West historians are in outright dismissing Brushy Bill as a fraud. Sometimes, ppl fall so in love with a legend, they'll do anything to chase away the truth (or shun any reasonable efforts to prove/disprove the facts behind a legend) When history is concerned, I always keep an open mind. I'm not a revisionist...I'm a factualist. This came to play in the case of Brushy Bill and his assertion that he was the Kid--rather than dismiss it outright with eyes/ears clasped tight, I thought, "OK...if there are photos, I'll compare faces in Photoshop". I took a web capture of the iconic tintype (flipped it for accuracy-- Billy reportedly wasn't a leftie), and the alleged image of Brushy Bill at 25-29 yrs of age (moustached, dapper, clean-cut). Below are the results--in my mind, they both represent the same man (the features literally melt into one another!). It's then reasonable to conclude (IF the alleged Brushy photo was verified as having been taken post-1881) that not only was that man the Kid, BUT his demise in 1881 was "greatly exaggerated". I want the truth. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 25, 2011 9:54:28 GMT -5
Consider these two photos. One shows a fellow with a moustache and scruffy looking clothes. The other a clean cut well dressed gentleman. If you didn't know better, would you immediately recognize them as being the same guy. Many would say "no way". Yet they both are accepted by some as photos of Jesse James. Here lies a difficult problem with photo comparisons. Many want more than just measurements that match up. They want "recognizability". In other words they don't trust computer graphics and such as much as they trust their own knee jerk reactions. In Billy's tintype, he is squinting or excessively tired, he's dressed sloppy and may even be intentionally "making a face". Remember Paulita Maxwell said the photo was Billy but did not "do him justice". So the gut reaction many have when compared to photos of Brushy, is understandable. Yes, I'm sure there are those who are just predisposed to not accept the truth regardless. But I also think some of it is just that recognition factor. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by devinb on Jun 25, 2011 13:59:00 GMT -5
I'm coming into this investigation with no preconceptions--just with the curiosity and eyes of an artist. The tintype looks like someone seriously hung over (disheveled), sick w/the flu, or purposely putting on airs (trying to look tough). I noticed the same "snake-eyes" on a profile image of the elderly Brushy Bill (eye and eyebrow matched the tintype). I'm looking at it purely from an artist's POV--in my mind, they're the same guy. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by RWT on Jun 5, 2014 20:34:59 GMT -5
Oliver Pleasant Roberts 26 August 1878, Sebastian County, Arkansas 27 December 1950, Hico, Hamilton, Texas
1880 AR census, Sebastian Co, m/f page 668B, line 27 Henry Roberts, 30, Head, TX - - Elizabeth Roberts, 24, Wife, AR TN AR Samantha Roberts, 8, Dau, AR TX AR Martha Roberts, 6, Dau, AR TX AR Berry Roberts, 3, Son, TX TX AR Mary C. Roberts, 2, Dau, AR TX AR Olover Roberts, 1, Son, AR TX AR
1900 TX census, Hopkins Co, m/f page 246A, line 29 Henry O. Roberts, Head, May 1852, 48, TX VA TX Sarah E. Roberts, Wife, Feb 1856, 44, AR VA AR Oliver P. Roberts, Son, Aug 1879, 20, AR TX AR Thomas U. Roberts, Son, Oct 1885, TX TX AR Irvan Roberts, Son, Feb 1895, 5, TX TX AR
1910 TX census, Van Zandt Co, m/f page 105B, line 65 Oliver P. Roberts, Head, 30, 1st marriage, married 0 years, TX KY KY Anna Roberts, Wife, 22, 1st marriage, married 0 years, TX LA TX
O. P. Roberts and Miss Anna Lee were married 11 July 1909 in Van Zandt County, and he filed for divorce 16 September 1910. O. P. Roberts and Miss Mollie Brown were married 21 August 1912 in Canton, Van Zandt County.
1918 WWI Draft Registration Card, Arkinda, Little River County, AR 12 September 1918 - Oliver Pleasant Roberts, born 26 August 1878, Arkinda, Arkansas. Nearest relative, Mollie Roberts, Arkinda, Arkansas Mollie Brown Roberts, born 11 March 1880, died 20 Feb 1919 in Little River County, AR, and is buried in Pauley Cemetery, Cerrogordo, Little River County, Arkansas
1920 TX census, Van Zandt Co, m/f page 26, line 46 Oliver P. Roberts, 41, boarder in the Murff household, is a widower, TX TX AR
Oliver married Luticia Ballard, widow of Abraham Isaac who had died 10 December 1920 in Van Zandt County, Texas
1930 TX census, Van Zandt Co, m/f page 48A, line 46 Oliver Roberts, 52, Head, TX TX AR Lutisha Roberts, 57, Wife, MO TN IL
1940 TX census, Gregg Co, m/f page 296, line 78 Ollie Roberts, 70, Head, TX Luticia Roberts, 65, Wife, MO
After the death of Luticia Ballard Isaac Roberts 22 June 1944 in Grand Saline, Van Zandt County, Texas, Oliver married Malinda Elizabeth Murrell, widow of James Thomas Allison who died 14 February 1943 in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
The 1950 death certificate of Ollie L. Roberts was signed by Malinda E. Roberts.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 6, 2014 13:39:57 GMT -5
I suppose the point is that the life and identity of one Oliver Pleasant Roberts can be traced from his birth in 1879 to his death in 1950, thus proving that Brushy Bill was that person and therefore could not have been Billy The Kid. I agree on the surface, that's what the census data seems to indicate, but let's look a little closer at the question of whether this data could possibly be recording information on two different people. If the Olover, born in 1879 left the area shortly after that 1900 census then the person who was reported on the 1910 census could have been Billy The Kid, assuming the name of Oliver Roberts, having married Anna Roberts. Notice the states reported as the birthplace of he and his parents. That 1910 census says he was born in Texas, and his father and mother were both born in Kentucky. We know the real Oliver P. Roberts was born in Arkansas, father born in Texas and mother in Arkansas, as is reported on all the records "after" 1910. Why the discrepancy on that 1910 census? Before that census he seemed to know the correct states on several other occasions and he got them correct every time after that. I believe it was Billy's first time answering a census using the alias of Oliver P. Roberts and he just slipped up and gave the birthplaces of his real parents, then on subsequent occasions was more careful that he gave those of Oliver instead. When I ask others about that, the answer is always "I don't know" along with a stance that seems to indicate it just isn't important. That it doesn't matter. Well, it does matter. It is a verifiable, documented, reason to question whether all that data listed in the previous post is all from the real Oliver P. Roberts are whether from 1900 or 1910 on, it was from none other than Billy The Kid himself, living under the presumed identity of Oliver P. Roberts.
|
|