|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 7, 2014 10:15:38 GMT -5
I would really like someone who believes Brushy was a fraud to answer that one question. In 1910 the census shows Oliver Roberts was born in Texas and his parents were born in Kentucky. In the late 1940's after Brushy admitted his true identity, he claimed he was born in Texas and his parents in Kentucky. Before 1910 and for the next 40 years after, Oliver Roberts was reported many times to have been born in Arkansas, father in Texas and mother in Arkansas. If it was a lie that he was born in Texas and parents in Kentucky, then why did he, or someone on his behalf, tell that same lie in 1910 and then abandon it until 1948-49?
Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Jun 11, 2014 1:23:17 GMT -5
I would really like someone who believes Brushy was a fraud to answer that one question. In 1910 the census shows Oliver Roberts was born in Texas and his parents were born in Kentucky. In the late 1940's after Brushy admitted his true identity, he claimed he was born in Texas and his parents in Kentucky. Before 1910 and for the next 40 years after, Oliver Roberts was reported many times to have been born in Arkansas, father in Texas and mother in Arkansas. If it was a lie that he was born in Texas and parents in Kentucky, then why did he, or someone on his behalf, tell that same lie in 1910 and then abandon it until 1948-49? Anyone? Wayne I did a little research and found that there was a town in Texas 18 miles from Sherman called "Kentucky Town" , it was sparsely settled in 1837, and grew to a town in 1849, I read that the Quantrill Raiders frequented the area and wintered there, it was also said to have been settled from persons from Kentucky thus the name, this may explain why Brushy's father was claimed to be from Texas and also from Kentucky?, assuming they meant "Kentucky Town Texas"?, it could be misunderstood or confused as meaning the town of Kentucky instead of the state? There is also a town in Arkansas named "Little Texas", dont know if it was a town in the1800's?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 11, 2014 17:04:03 GMT -5
I suppose those are possibilities but I'm pretty sure when Brushy told Morrison his parents were from Kentucky, he mentioned "near Lexington". And when he told Morrison he was born in Texas, he gave the specific area of Buffalo Gap. So I doubt he was referring to anything other than the literal State of Kentucky, and State of Texas, on the 1910 census as well. After all, I'm sure the census taker would have asked literally, "in what state were you born?" "in what state was your father born?" etc. If he truly was Oliver Pleasant Roberts, he would have gotten the correct answers (for Oliver).
No, I still need an answer to my above question.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Jun 13, 2014 6:05:22 GMT -5
I posted the State and Town idea assuming the census taker was inaccurate because I believe censuses are often unreliable, Morrison's interviews with Brushy does squash that idea, your right about that , I don't think Brushy is a fraud, Im just trying to figure out why some things don't match up. Your point about the census does make sense that Billy in 1910 assumed the I D of the relative Oliver Roberts and thus the reason the census shows a difference in the states of the parents, but If Brushy told Morrison he had married three times and if he told the census he was married in 1910 or 1909? to his first wife then looking at the censuses since shows Oliver Roberts having 4 wives? Was he telling the census he was married in 1910 because the real Oliver was? Or did Brushy miss calculate how many times he was married ? Or maybe Im just misunderstanding the census that was posted. Just wondering? It's confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 13, 2014 14:01:14 GMT -5
For a long time, I was convinced that the Oliver Roberts who was married to Anna Lee, was in fact, the real Oliver P. Roberts, thus Brushy's failure to mention her in his interviews. I'm not so sure about that anymore. In fact I'm almost convinced otherwise. Remember whomever was married to Anna, they divorced in 1910. If it was Brushy, then he had assumed Oliver's identity by 1908, which is quite possible. He may have left Anna out of his interviews because the marriage to her was very difficult and he just chose to "pretend" it never happened. Or because he didn't want to admit that "Billy The Kid" had been abused by his first wife. It certainly might have detracted from the legend, which I believe, even in 1948-49, he still wanted to protect.
It "is" possible, though unlikely, that Brushy was never married to Anna, and the 1910 census taker interviewed Brushy himself, very soon after his assuming the identity of Oliver, It is even possible that the real Oliver, while still married to Anna, just disappeared. Then Brushy shows up and assumes the identity. Anna wants a divorce from Oliver, so Brushy pretends to be him during the divorce proceedings in order to help her get the divorce. I know, it's quite a stretch, but stranger things have happened and it really is a "possible" explanation.
Silliness aside, now back to the census matter. I believe in 1910, Brushy reported the true birthplaces of his real parents because he just didn't think about the possible consequences of such conflicting information. Then in the censuses that came after that, he was more cautious about protecting his assumed identity by reporting the information of the real Oliver's parents instead.
I see that 1910 census as somewhat of a "smoking gun" in support of Brushy's story.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Jun 14, 2014 20:37:59 GMT -5
Those are alot of good explanations, thinking about it I guess I'm guilty of forgetting Brushy was around 90 when he did those interviews, and I should take that into concideration when Im puzzled about something he said when he made them, the fact is even though Brushy was very sharp with his memory , I should expect some inaccuracies, he could have told Morrison about the number of wives he had around the time he suffered his stroke, his memory may have been cloudy?, the few inaccuracies in his story if any can be explained, and really taking all in concideration such as his age, his stroke, the number of wars & battles he served, the rough and adventurous life he had, I guess I should have expected alot more mistakes in his interviews. this is one reason why I don't think Brushy is a fraud. BTW Happy Fathers Day to all the fathers here on the board.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 14, 2014 23:22:46 GMT -5
I certainly agree with your comments about Brushy's advanced age. But I also believe he intentionally lied about a few things in order to continue, if not "expand on". the Billy The Kid legend. I'm not convinced he told the truth about how he got away from Garrett in July 1881. I believe he did serve with the Rough Riders but I doubt some of the specifics he gave about that time. I believe he was not Catherine Bonney's natural born son, but I'm not sure he got the story straight about who his real parents were. Some of the things he said, I believe were unintentional mistakes based on hearsay, while other things were exaggerations of the facts and still others were total lies. Yet through all that, I believe the important "true" fact he shared was that he and Billy The Kid were one and the same person. I believe that is a fact because of his physical similarity, his behavior in coming forward when he did, and his uncanny knowledge of Billy's life prior to 1881. And it's just not logical to think he put himself forward as a convicted killer with a death sentence hanging over his head, just for the notoriety, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 19, 2014 19:54:18 GMT -5
I agree with RWT's records that Brushy was Oliver P. Roberts. It's the only thing that makes sense. All other opinions as to who Brushy was involves rampant speculation. I have no dog in this fight and I am just using common sense and facts to resolve this. Brushy constantly lied, and as Wayne points out he would have needed to in order to conceal that he was BTK. But Wayne also points out that Brushy lied when there was no reason to. The 1 time Brushy was compelled to tell the truth was on his draft card. Lying was punishable by prison. BTK(Brushy) was supposed to be so smart and yet he pulled the ultimate stupidity: anyone born before 1872 did not even have to register for the draft. If he was born in 1859 or even 1868, why would a 50-60 year old man(that was going to be hung until dead), even register at all? Nobody is that stupid. The government is really good at 2 things: 1)collecting taxes from average people, and 2)making sure that everyone who is of draft age register for the draft. Brushy was 38 years old (born 1879 Oliver P. Roberts) and was compelled to tell the truth. To say Brushy took someone else's identity and then basically moved in with the family makes absolutely no sense, and even it that were true, how did Brushy(Oliver L.) know that the other Oliver P. was never coming back?
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 19, 2014 22:26:19 GMT -5
Brushy was not the villain here. Morrison was the 1 trying to become famous. Morrison did the Morrison-Maxwell-Menard genealogy and that is where he learned about the LCW & facts about BTK that he spoon-fed to Brushy(that he couldn't remember). Where is all of this "EVIDENCE" that Brushy "Authors" (the trunk)have. They all have seen it and yet even they still cannot come up with a cogent story. Wayne is 1 of Brushy's biggest supporters and yet these "Authors" will not even show Wayne their evidence. If the evidence shows Brushy was Billy the Kid, then show it!!! Do not just write about it. Have these experts not heard of a thing called a "CAMERA". Fact of the matter is, Wayne, these people who have written books on Brushy now know he wasn't BTK(based on their OWN evidence) and they are trying to save face by going underground. Wayne, they do not see you as an ally, your willingness to even consider that Brushy was not BTK, makes you their enemy. Morrison said he knew Brushy was BTK before he heard J.F. Dalton was Jesse James. Morrison was from Missouri and so was J.F.Dalton and the Dalton story was National news in 1948 at the latest, so how did Morrison not hear of it? Morrison was picking up where P.T. Barnum & Lester Dill left off. Lester Dill is the 109 year old(NOT)Col. Davis in the famous Dalton newspaper photo. Morrison failed miserably trying to make a name for himself, he told Brushy they will not hang an old man, and Brushy went along. If Brushy had not met Morrison he would have lived to the ripe old age of 80, but the constant stress put on him to lie, by Morrison, caused Brushy's demise. If this were tried in a court of law today, the Roberts' family would win millions of $$$$$$$$$$$$'s against Morrison in a wrongful death suit. I think the decendents of Brushy should still sue Morrison's survivors.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 20, 2014 1:00:34 GMT -5
Wow, thank you for sharing all that Sherlock. There is a great deal of good old common sense in what you posted and I acknowledge you make some excellent points. It's difficult to know where to start in answering so I'll just jump in there and pick out a few items. How did Brushy know the real Oliver P. was never coming back? Remember according to Brushy, Oliver was a cousin who had died. It's tough to come back from that. I haven't been shown the tapes or notebooks because I don't know the descendant who has them and he doesn't know me. There are theories why he registered for the draft even though he didn't have to. I believe the draft first started about that time. I don't know what age men were required to register, but since Brushy was pretending to be Oliver Pleasant Roberts who I assume would have been within the age required to register, Brushy registered in order to avoid questions about his true identity. Brushy always had reasons for his lies.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 20, 2014 11:59:24 GMT -5
Wayne, i thought Oliver P. ran off after his embarrassing divorce. This is the 1st time that i heard he had died. Did he commit suicide? What proof is there that he died? Oliver P. died and Brushy took over his life and he met and stayed with Oliver P.'s relatives, and nobody cared and then he reverted back to his REAL alias Oliver L., that makes no sense. Do these experts not know how to take pictures with a camera showing what is in these notebooks? I am sure they will say they weren't allowed to use a camera, but if I owned these books(evidence) and they would prove Brushy was BTK it would be on page 1. Why would the truth be such a secret for people trying to prove Brushy was BTK? As for the draft registration men aged 18-45 HAD to register. Birthdate 1872-1899. This info was easily researched, then later revised up 2 years. If Brushy was not Oliver P. (and had no id since he was not him), but was Oliver L.( and he had id that he was O.L., because that is his real alias), why would Brushy apply at all? All Brushy had to do was show the Oliver L. id and say that he was too old to apply and case closed. The military had no photos to id Brushy as Oliver P., OR DID THEY? Brushy would take a chance on getting killed in a war, or getting found out as BTK, then hung to death, rather than avoiding registration altogether, makes no sense. However, my theory that he was compelled to tell the truth makes all the sense in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 20, 2014 16:55:08 GMT -5
Let's consider for a moment that possibly there "were" two Olivers. Oliver L, born 1868, left home as a teenager and got killed while Oliver P, born 1879 left Texas around 1910 or possibly a bit earlier, never to return. Lets also consider that Oliver L was never accounted for on any census because he was an illegitimate child who had basically been shunned by the Roberts family. Billy the Kid shows up around 1910 or possibly a bit earlier, and Mrs. Roberts, the mother believes he is her long lost son, Oliver L. Billy sees this as a great opportunity to assume an alias and goes along with her, pretending to be Oliver L. The father Henry O. goes along as well, because his nephew, Billy, needs a way to hide out from the law and he is willing to help him. However, they all soon realize, this ruse is likely to be discovered by the authorities and since Oliver P. is a documented person with birth certificate on file, etc., it would be safer for Billy to be identified as Oliver P. Henry even signs the 1918 draft registration identifying Billy as his son Oliver P.
Now, I know you're probably close to laughing at such a ridiculous, convoluted interpretation of what happened, and I wouldn't blame you if you did. I present it only for one reason and that is to point out how we can interpret things so differently depending on our point of view. The truth is, none of us know what really happened because no matter what side we take of this debate, there remain unanswered questions. Some would beg to differ. They'd suggest that the answers are all obvious and they all point to Brushy being a fraud. I say, answer me this. Why would Brushy, or someone on his behalf, report to the 1910 census taker that he was born in Texas and his parents were born in Kentucky when every other census prior to that shows that Oliver Pleasant Roberts was born in Arkansas and his parents in Texas and Arkansas? In 1910, Oliver P. was not pretending to be Billy The Kid. In interviews with Morrison however, in the late 1940's Brushy said the same thing the 1910 census showed. Answer me another one. How did an Arkansas farmer end up with bullet wounds in similar locations as we know Billy The Kid had? Answer me another one. Why is Oliver P's signature on his marriage certificate to Anna such an obvious mismatch to any signatures of Brushy's. I could add more but those three questions should be enough to prove my point. My point being, that even though you may come up with answers, you will be forced to "fill in the blanks" to find those answers and you won't have the facts to prove your answers are correct. Meaning that all the good logic you posted is, whether you will accept this or not, filled with conjecture, just as mine is and no one has any solid proof either way, on Brushy Bill Roberts.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 20, 2014 17:02:55 GMT -5
At the risk of not getting answers to my previous post, I need to add this. Not everyone carries a camera around with them all the time. Not even historians. I could describe many events in my life when I would have loved to have taken a photo if I'd had a camera handy but rather missed important shots. You'll say for example, "what scars"? Why didn't anyone take a photo of the scars? And I'll say, I spoke in person, myself, with the druggist in Hico, whose father, also a druggist, had seen the scars himself and had witnessed Brushy escaping from handcuffs. You will never convince me this man or his father were liars, yet they didn't take photos. I wish they would have. Please do respond to my previous post. Answer the three questions I posed.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 21, 2014 0:25:06 GMT -5
Oh, and by the way, there are photos/photocopies of some of the pages from Brushy's notebooks. On display at the museum in Hamilton, TX.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 21, 2014 7:28:46 GMT -5
Wayne as long as you allow me on here, i will try to answer all questions and i expect the same. About the camera,one making or possibly seeing history being made would certainly want to memorialize the event on some kind of media, do you not agree? The 1910 census question is an easy one (with minimal speculation), the info was given when Brushy was not home and the person who gave the info was "to the best of their knowledge" accounting of his life events. Other than an honest mistake by the interviewee theory, the research done by MissyS is not only plausible,but likely. I did some research into Pittsburg-Camp, Texas, mostly called Pittsburg, Texas, and if I put Pittsburg on a census form, even though it is missing the (h), most census workers would think I meant Pittsburgh, Pa. No rampant speculation here, just minor steps. I do not put much faith in the scar, bullet wound evidence for any of these outlaws(unless it is a significant loss, limbs, etc.), people back then had all kinds of injuries, so trying to match up injuries is not all that compelling to me. If I missed anything, Wayne, let me know. I didn't get down this road trying to prove "Brushy" wasn't Billy the Kid, but rather, trying to prove "Brushy" WAS Billy the Kid. I only seek the truth. Why won't Hico(or Hamilton?) allow for the exhumation of Brushy? If he is BTK, the area will take the tourists of other towns and make a fortune(it's all about the money $$$), if he is not they will lose everything. If they are as sure as you Wayne, they would allow the exhumation, but for reasons that are so obvious to me, they will not.
|
|