Spanish American War Medal

[mckinley412]

Eventually, I'll write a book on it and then everybody will have new stuff to look at. What's interesting is that Morrison's book was more accurate and plausible than any other book on Billy written up until that time. ( If someone thinks there was a more accurate history of Billy 1859-1881 that was published before 1955, I'd like to know what book that is.)  

    Morrison worked extremely hard to gather real hard evidence. He actually discovered some of the facts/documents that everyone has today. Other writers quote him as doing so in their books, highly respected authors, Phillip Rasch, maybe Jeffrey C. Dykes or someone but I see him mentioned in books like those (apology if I misspelled their names) so you can kind of see, Morrison was no joke. Neither was Sonnichsen who wrote other respectable books. They were serious researchers. Nobody that believes in Brushy should ever have to feel like a conspiracy nut. I think there is better chance that Brushy's side is right and the others are wrong.I've had many argue with me on several sites and nobody has won a debate yet.  I would love if it could be settled either way but it hasn't been yet.  I do look forward to the day when more handwriting samples from Brushy are made public.    But as of right now I see too many similarities to count him out yet.

[wannabe12]

There are to many holes in the research done by Morrison to be considered a complete story on Brushy, or Billy even at that time. I agree he found some documents not known at the time, but feel he could have done more. The years following Brushy’s death could have been used to find more documents and the like. Conspiracy nut?? Not what I was trying to convey, but until proven fact this is just a conspiracy theory. The big problem I have with most books written on Brushy, they claim to have found this document or that document as proof to support Brushy, but none of these documents are ever shown only claimed to be real by the author. I look forward to reading it should you get around to writing your book, it’s good debating with you.

[Texas Truth Teller]

mckinley412,
That’s a good summary. I agree with some of your points, and respectfully disagree with others. I believe ”Alias Billy the Kid” is the most authoritative account of Brushy Bill’s story from 1859 until 1881. I do not agree that it is an accurate account of the life of Billy the Kid from 1859 until 1881. Henry McCarty was present when Catherine McCarty married William Antrim in Santa Fe. He was probably living with Catherine in Wichita, Kansas, when Catherine McCarty and William Antrim owned property there before leaving for New Mexico.
Morrison’s search for county and state records pertaining to Billy the Kid is commendable, and his documentation of trial and court actions is excellent. Brushy knew many details of events and characters in the Lincoln county war, although “The Saga of Billy the Kid”, published in 1926, contains almost identical information. The only facts about the life of Brushy Bill that can be confirmed are in the name of O P, Ollie, or Oliver Roberts. That includes marriages to 3 women, and brief ownership of 60 acres in Sevier County, Arkansas.

No record of any of any individual Brushy identified as a relative has been found other than Martha Heath. Her mother’s name was Caroline Dunn, which might have been his inspiration to identify his mother as Mary Adeline Dunn.

[mckinley412]

Okay, well he did say she came down from Indian Territory to get him which Kansas was Indian Territory. Did any know she lived in Kansas at the time he said it? I don't know. I'm not calling the book accurate either but I was saying it was the most accurate account at the time compared to others that had many things in them that are proven to be false. He was also the first to say that Billy's the Kid's birthday was not November 23rd??? I see there are many important things that I don't really have the answer to right off the bat, it's good to have these conversations. Maybe someone can answer these questions. I reread a lot of stuff so I will I keep an eye for certain things. I know Garrett mentions Kansas but not the same way Brushy does. Garret says Billy's father and Catherine both lived there. Now we know that it isn't likely and Brushy didn't make that mistake.  TTT,  I wish you understood the whole SAGA thing, but you don't and it is something you and I will both have to live with forever it seems. Many times he corrected books where they were wrong such as placing events in the right order, which it is hard to say if he actually did that or the author did but I'm sure if one studied it more closely you would be able to tell if it was his doing or the author's, but a couple times he actually refers to things he says that other people got wrong, such as Squire Wilson's house, and maybe the gun in the latrine. Also, I wonder if......hmmmm... I am starting to believe Billy was younger than people say.  I think ABTK messed it up but another book by Henry J. Walker who interviewed Brushy, says that Brushy said he was born on DEC. 31 1861.  It makes sense.  In Tuska's Handbook you can see that Billy came to work on a ranch in Ft. Smith (other details available upon request) and the guy said Billy claimed he was 17 but looked 14 and I believe one can see the difference and that puts Billy closer to 1861 and many other things might make better sense too, like I think people went to school with both but Joe sat in the back of the class usually with the older kids and Billy would have been new and smaller even tho Joe probably was younger.  ABTK on page 16 says Brushy lived with Catherine until he was about 12 years old.  That is how old Billy would have been when she died if he was born on DEC. 31 1861.   I know it can be debated other ways but that is good.  But maybe this idea will click for someone, and some other things might click because of it.  Yours Respect, Mckinley412, (the missouri truth teller.)

[mckinley412]

No record of any of any individual Brushy identified as a relative has been found other than Martha Heath. Her mother’s name was Caroline Dunn, which might have been his inspiration to identify his mother as Mary Adeline Dunn. here

TTT, I posted some probably two-three years ago, I posted lots of J.H. Roberts married to Mary A. Dunn and all kinds of stuff I could find.  I will post again in case you missed it.  Maybe this is her and maybe it isn't but I have posted the same Dunn family we all know living next to another Dunn family in Kansas with similar names so it is hard to say who is related how and that will be something we can talk about later.  Remember Catherine living in Kansas?  I've also posted a Catherine Dunn living next door to this family in Arkansas but the people she is living with aren't named Dunn, doesn't that sound like a half sister or someone who is maybe an outcast?   Here is a Mary Dunn that would be old enough to give birth to him.

[Texas Truth Teller]

mckinley412,
There is nothing that supports the 23 November 1859 birthdate of Billy the Kid. That is one of many assumptions made by Ash Upson. The date of 17 September 1859 is a possibility.

A comparison of the story of Henry McCarty and Brushy Bill is interesting.
Some information in Garrett’s book can be verified; some has proven to be incorrect; and some has yet to be verified.
These are comments about Garrett’s book.
There is no evidence that the birth name of Billy the Kid was William H. Bonney. He may have been born in New York City. His father died when he was young. There is no evidence that Catherine and her two boys moved to Coffeyville, Kansas, in 1862. She was in Wichita, Kansas, in 1870 and 1871. Henry’s father did not die in Coffeyville. He probably died in New York City. Henry was the older of the 2 boys. There is no evidence that Catherine and the boys moved to Colorado after his death. Catherine married a man named Antrim but not in Colorado. There is conclusive proof that Catherine married William Antrim in Santa Fe, NM, not in Colorado. William Antrim, living in Grant County, NM, was not the only survivor of the 4 in 1882. Joseph was in Silverton, Colorado. Henry was about 14, not four or five, when Catherine married Antrim in 1873.
Antrim called her Kathleen, although her name was Catherine. Antrim did move to Silver City, not in 1868, but after 1872.

These are comments about Sonnichsen and Morrison’s book.
Nothing in Brushy Bill’s story before 1877, or after 14 July 1881 can be verified. There is no evidence that Catherine McCarty was ever known as Katherine Ann (Kathleen) Bonney, or that she was a half-sister of Mary Adeline Dunn Roberts. Nothing can be verified: Not his birth name of William Henry Roberts, not his activities before and after the Lincoln County war, not his relatives, nothing. Unless, of course, one believes everything he said is true. His description of events in Lincoln County during the Lincoln county war are similar to the description found in “The Saga of Billy the Kid”, published in 1926. Marriages of the women he said were his wives, and the land he bought in Arkansas, were not in his name, but in the name of Oliver Roberts, Ollie Roberts, O L Roberts, or O P Roberts. The theory that Brushy assumed the identity of the son of Henry Oliver Roberts about 1911 is a desperate attempt to keep Brushy Bill’s story alive.

There are discrepancies found in census records about Oliver P. Roberts. His name is spelled as Oliver, and his age is listed as 1 in the 1880 census of Sebastian County, AR. His age should have been reported as 9/12 (9 months). In the 1910 census, his birthplace was reported as Texas (he was born in Arkansas); Henry O’s birthplace was reported as Kentucky (he was born in Texas); the name of his wife was omitted, and her birthplace was reported as Kentucky (she was born in Arkansas). In the 1920, 1930, and 1940 census records, the birthplace of Oliver Roberts is recorded as Texas (he was born in Sebastian County, Arkansas).

There are no discrepancies found in records of William Henry Roberts. There are no records, so there are no discrepancies.

[mckinley412]

TTT, you know Brushy didn't say that her name was Bonney, he said it was a name Starr gave to him, but what is interesting is that everyone was saying it was her name up to that time including his own authors. Nmjames, just told me that the Mary Dunn from the census above died in 1898. I wasn't aware of that. She did marry a guy named Joseph Lane. Nmjames said he died in 1863. I have found many Joseph Lanes but I'll take his word for it that that is the right one. Mary did have a half sister named Mary Bolinger whose step father was Francis Dunn so it is possible that this may be the Mary Dunn that Brushy was referring too. Also that family has a Mary Bruton living with them at one point I believe. Also since there were two Mary's the same age living under the same roof at the same time it is possible that one might have started being called by her middle name which might have been Catherine and blah blah, now I'm really stretching things. I can't explain any of his family. It is interesting that his family is tied to McCarty's etc. It is interesting that he says his father was born in Kentucky because Henry Oliver Robert's father was born in Virginia which borders Kentucky. It is interesting that I can see where a William Henry Roberts settled in Nacodoches. But nothing ever adds up! It should have been figured out by now! I give up. I'm with TTT. Brushy had to have been a phony. There's so many holes in his story now and I am frankly tired of trying to dig him out of them. He had his chance to prove something, and he didn't do it because he can't do it.

[Texas Truth Teller]

mckinley, it is not just the fact that no record has been found of any individual Brushy identified as his relative, or that none of his exploits can be verified, or that the dates that Brushy gave of his marriage to Mollie Brown conflicted with his story of returning from Mexico, or that Brushy never mentioned that Catherine was Catherine McCarty. It is Brushy’s list of absolutely ludicrous claims that are beyond belief: he was captain of 200 men in Mexico; went to the Shetland Island to round up ponies; was sponsored by the Cattleman’s Association to travel to Argentina to break horses; was sent by Indian Jim to boxing lessons in Cincinnati; was with Pancho Villa and Carranza during the Mexican revolution.

[Wayne Land]

If I might chime in on this, "Brushy was a liar." There's no question about that. Much of his story was fiction. Even Morrison/Sonnichsen's book says so. His parentage, place of birth, and the story of what actually happened the night Garrett allegedly shot him could all be fiction. We need to stop arguing about the side stuff, Poncho Villa, Cuba, Indian Jim, and all the rest and focus on the important question. Was he Billy The Kid? I still think he likely was. But Brushy was a liar so, if he "was" Billy the Kid, then Billy was a liar in his old age. Would that be such a huge surprise? Are there other outlaws and lawmen of the old west who lied about some of their exploits? Absolutely. Does that mean they weren't who they said they were. Absolutely not.

[wannabe12]

Wayne,

Brushy used much of what you listed as supporting evidence that he was Billy. Many of the people he came in contact with through these events, supposedly knew he was Billy the Kid and protected him. As I said before if he lied about his lineage, and his parents didnt exist then William Henry Roberts didnt exist and could not become William H Bonney. The fight at Ft Sumner, if it didnt happen then how did he escape Garrett and his deputies?? His story would not need any of the fluff added if he was the real William Bonney. It would be interesting enough to get attention. Nothing else matters, except what he did up to 1881, he was not Billy the Kid after that, if thats who he was.

[Wayne Land]

wannabe12,

I'm not saying everything he told was a lie. I do believe his real name was William Henry Roberts, or at least that is the name his Aunt Catherine gave him. He would have been only 3 years old or so when she got him. He wouldn't have remembered much about his real parents, if anything at all. So his report of who they were, their names, their birthplaces, his grandfather's name, his birthplace was all information given to him by his Aunt Catherine. Or possibly, she never told him any of that and he made it all up. Either way, we can not assume because there is no record of them in any census or anywhere else that it means Brushy was not Billy The Kid. If he really was Billy then Catherine must have told him of his relationship to Henry and Elizabeth Roberts. Does that mean he really did encounter his cousin Oliver dead in Indian Territory and took his valuables, held on to them for years and eventually returned them to the family in Texas? Not necessarily. I happen to believe he really did go to Cuba and serve with the roughriders but that doesn't mean I have to believe all the details he shared about that time in his life. Maybe he was exaggerating the events that took place. I do believe he was in Ft. Sumner the night Garrett allegedly shot him but maybe he just heard two gunshots and ran? The gun battle as he escaped, probably didn't happen. At least not to the extent he said it did.

My point is this. There are so many questions that can't be definitively answered that we sometimes can't "see the forest for all the trees". If it were proven through DNA that he really was Billy then none of those questionable stories from Brushy would change who he was. They might make for interesting discussions, as they do now, but explaining every comment he ever made would be totally unnecessary and pointless. It isn't likely that proof will ever be obtained but even so, I already am in the position where I find those debates interesting but they don't change the "forest". Not for me. For me, the forest is still a forest and Brushy Bill was really Billy The Kid. My reasons for believing that are simple. He had many physical traits the same as Billy, Gallegos said he was Billy, and yes, it matters that "he" said he was Billy, and he knew things the real Oliver P. Roberts would not likely have known. Do I have some doubts about it? Of course I do. I'm not blind or dumb. But do strongly believe that the reasons to accept his claim as fact far outweigh the reasons to doubt him.

[Texas Truth Teller]

Wayne,
You have identified the basic question. Brushy Bill claimed he was Billy the Kid. Was he? Only if you believe his story without any supporting credible evidence of his life, adventures, and relatives. He did know many details of events in Lincoln County. Similar details had been published in 1926. There is no rational explanation for the myth that he assumed the alias of Oliver P Roberts about 1910, even the same birth date, August 26.

[MissyS]

I believe it's possible Brushy may have went from wanting to be believed to wanting to be disbelieved, fear could do this, that fear could be the fear of possibly hanging, and or revenge from old enemies still living, perhaps he thought he better start to cover up the truth? Brushy's trunk with evidence came up missing for a reason, I believe he himself made sure it was stored away somewhere where it could not be found. Bob Hefner in an article said Brushy destroyed his own evidence, if he did this wouldn't he also lie too? I believe he told things he knew could not be proven, he may have even had help from persons he knew to change records for him? Billy was known to be very smart, he certainly had a reason not to trust any Governor. I'm sure if Brushy was Billy then he thought ahead of the risks. My question is when did Brushy start telling the brunt of the lies was it right before the meeting with the Governor? or was it right after he met Morrison?, because it seems to me he started out telling Morrison about his life as Billy the Kid and a lot of it sounded believable, it could be later sometime close to the time before he attends the meeting that he got scared, he may have sat down with Morrison at that time and told the stories he knew could not be proven or found, and elaborate enough that many persons would find hard to believe, and he destroyed evidence, and gave his trunk to a trusted family member to hide away, he then purposely answered questions wrong, or not at all maybe due to wanting to be disbelieved or possibly suffering a stroke. I want to give Brushy the benefit of the doubt because I tend to believe he felt he had a reason to say the the things he did.

[mckinley412]

(Wow! Nice pic Missy. I'd like to see some other people try to find unique pics for their profile.)

          Basically, Brushy's childhood is as mysterious as the Kid's.  Morrison admits he didn't think it was important at the time or he wrote something like that in a letter.   I'm pretty sure Brushy claimed his birthday as 1861 and somehow it ended up as 1859 in his Billy book but I don't think the authors added too much to his story because if they did then they would have changed the part where Brushy stayed with Catherine until he was 12,-- if he was born in 1859 he would have been 14-15 years old when she died.  But if Billy really was born Dec. 31 1861 as Brushy originally said then he would have been 12 when she died.  Apparently, they didn't get the father's name either, only J.H.  so they weren't getting a lot of details about his youth, you can see they didn't ask him much because they are clearly calling her Catherine Bonney when we know Brushy didn't say that.   They just didn't ask him much about it, they obviously never asked him how he got the name Bonney or he would have told them what he told the other guy.  Or if he did tell them, which I have good reason to believe he did, then it simply didn't make it into the book and the publishing process was a difficult process for Morrison, he wrote in a letter.  Thank goodness we have another source to go by so that we know everything we see in ATBK might not be exactly the way Brushy told it.

            The gunfight part at Sumner does seem a tad bit ridiculous, maybe the publisher needed a big ending, it wouldn't be out of the question, sometimes publishers are stupid like that.   Do not forget that Gallegos did tell another version to the newspapers that didn't huge gunfight but he still knew the alleged person killed instead of Billy was also named Billy, so he got that story from Brushy most likely. 

    In Jim Johnson's book it lists the children of Virgil Roberts, and the youngest is born after J.H. would have been born so it's possible there could have been a J.H. who was born earlier and moved out by the time of the census.  Idk. 

[MissyS]

mckinley412
Thank You for the compliment on my avitar. If Brushy said his birth year was 1859 it would fit in better by reasoning, and predicting the actions of the persons and scenarios at that time. I read that after Catherine died in 1874, Billy was sent to stay with a family named Truesdell and they had a boy that he knew named Chauncey, they supposedly had a restaurant and Billy worked as a dishwasher to earn his keep until he got into some trouble, he was arrested for supposedly stealing laundry, and he was put in jail just to be taught a lesson, he was clever enough to escape out the fireplace chimney. I'm wondering would a sheriff lock up a 12 year old?, especially if he looked younger than his age?, he would likely still be attending school at 12. I'm guessing the Truesdell's would have sent Billy to school along with their son Chauncey? I imagine the sheriff would have left the discipline action to the Truesdell's and fine them for the crime at that age due to him missing school. I read that arrest occurred on Sept.23,1875, school would have started around that time, assuming it started in fall. The school that Billy the Kid attended was opened to youngsters “under” sixteen." according to a footnote in the book “Antrim is My Stepfather’s Name", so depending on how strict the age requirements were back then for enrollment,  Billy would have been 15 just a few months shy of 16 if his birthday was 1859 and the last day of December  as Brushy said, anyway theres a good chance Billy didn't enroll in school that year due to his age turning 16 that soon, it would be more likely for a sheriff to not have been concerned of Billy missing school work if that were true. So 1859 seems more likely the birth date based on that theory with the actions of the sheriff and the school scenario. But this is just a theory based on assuming the sheriff cared about his missing school, and if he was still attending and not home schooled.