|
Post by Wayne Land on Jul 14, 2011 18:12:03 GMT -5
130 years ago, Billy The Kid made the greatest escape of his life. He escaped the legend. Long live the memory of the true Billy The Kid, William Henry Roberts.
|
|
|
Post by devinb on Jul 14, 2011 18:29:08 GMT -5
130 years ago...wow. I just caught a History Channel show about the "legend", with self-anointed "experts" blabbing on about what they thought they knew about the true Kid (not too much of it was accurate). They still made Billy out to be a blood-thirsty sociopath, which I don't buy anymore. The Kid was well-liked by many, and feared by those who had reason to (namely those who broke Billy's trust and screwed him over).
|
|
|
Post by searcher64 on Dec 9, 2011 14:09:32 GMT -5
if you are on the wrong side of billy, in, say the lcw, and understanding some of his basic psychology, you would inevitably call him a cold-blooded wanton killer. his presence didn't return anyone from the brink of violence, he was all go when the time came to kill. if you didn't make him a murderer, then you were admitting that there was some justice in what billy was doing, and in so doing you would make yourself seem more evil by comparison. btk was an 'instigator' when met on the plains by his enemies. but as is apparent in 'the lost interviews' btk was drawn into this situation over time. you couldn't show fear or hesitation in this dangerous game, so the only thing a lad could do is come out hard as the alpha party in all of this. part of what motivated him was this concept; the other part was that he was driven by anger over the death of tunstall and then brewer, and yes, he carried with him a sense of justice otherwise denied. i believe the only time he felt any real sense of power in his life was the day he killed ollinger. how bout a board that just examines the psychology/sociology of btk/brushy? i see so many places in the brushy story where their view/style/approach/mentality seem to be in high agreement.
|
|
Billy the Kid is my hero
Guest
|
Post by Billy the Kid is my hero on Jul 14, 2012 7:28:45 GMT -5
Wow and I cannot not believe it. It has now been 131 years since Billy escaped from the Bullets of Pat Garrett! NOTE: The following account is Brushy Bill Roberts's version of events. Riding from a nearby dance, Billy the Kid and his new friend, a young man new to the area known as Billy Barlow, ride into Fort Sumner shortly before midnight. Hearing rumors that Garrett is in town with a posse, the Kid and Barlow go to the house of Jesus Silva, a good friend of the Kid's. When the Kid starts asking Silva what he knows about Garrett's presence in town, Silva gets excited and tells him he should leave town immediately, so as not to be spotted by Garrett. The Kid shrugs this warning off, however, believing he will be safe as long as he stays at Silva's and doesn't venture out to the house of Celsa and Sabal Gutierrez, which he suspects Garrett will be watching. Silva begins to cook a meal of beans for the Kid and Barlow when Barlow asks for fresh meat. Silva says that he has no beef, but that there is a freshly slaughtered cow at the Maxwell house and if one of them will go cut some beef and bring it back, he will cook it. The Kid is content to go without the meat, but Barlow is not. Grabbing a knife, Barlow walks out the door, although the Kid, sensing a trap, tries to talk him out of it. A few moments later, the Kid and Silva hear a couple shots from the direction of the Maxwell house. The Kid grabs two pistols and runs out of Silva's towards the Maxwell house. Rushing through the gate of the Maxwells' yard, he begins firing his guns at the lawmens' shadows. Suddenly, a bullet hits Billy in the lower left jaw, knocking out a tooth as it strikes him. Turning around, another bullet hits him in the back of the left shoulder. Jumping back over the fence, a third bullet creases his forehead. Despite his wounds, Billy manages to make it back over the fence and crawls to the house of a Mexican woman who takes him in and bandages his wounds. Later that evening, Celsa Gutierrez enters the Mexican woman's house and tells Billy that Garrett has killed Barlow and that the body is being passed off as the Kid's. Garrett undoubtedly knows he killed the wrong man, and he also knows that he can't admit to it, since Barlow is not a wanted outlaw. Whereas the killings of Tom Folliard and Charlie Bowdre were also cases of mistaken identity, both of those men were wanted outlaws anyway, but Barlow was just an innocent civilian. With this situation, Billy knows that he must leave Sumner for good and let the authorities think him dead. So, at about 3:00 AM, Billy and friend Francisco Lobato saddle up and ride out of Sumner to a nearby sheep camp. For the next few days, Billy will stay at various friends' sheep camps as he heads south towards Mexico. With the law and his enemies believing him dead, Billy takes many aliases over the following years and leads a life as adventurous as the one he just left behind.
|
|
|
Post by ruidosoman58 on Mar 18, 2013 2:01:36 GMT -5
I read that story in Sonchensons book, Alias Billy The Kid.
If the way this "Billy Barlow" was reported by Pat Garrett to have been shot (and I doubt the story is true), then Pat Garrett knew he was not shooting at Billy the Kid.
I read a report somewhere, years ago, that Pat Garrett and BTK shot a vagrant in the face with a shotgun one night and Garrett passed the guy off as BTK. True or not, I dont know.
In my opinion, Garrett knew the guy he shot that night was not BTK. I also believe that Garrett helped to set up BTK's escape from the Lincoln County Jail.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 18, 2013 10:03:06 GMT -5
I think you may be right. As I've said before, I don't think Brushy told the whole truth about what happened at Maxwell's that night. His story of how he escaped Garrett's bullets is not the reason I believe he was the real BTK. It was his physical similarity, knowledge of the events in Billy's life and his behavior in 1948-50 that convinced me. It makes sense that if he and Garrett were cohorts in planning his escape, the two of them would both lie about what really happened. Even in 1950, Billy would still seek to protect the reputation of the man who helped him get away.
|
|
|
Post by bensmith20 on May 7, 2013 5:45:51 GMT -5
Hi there, Im new to this forum but i've been researching a lot into this subject over the years and although I do believe Billy lived beyond that fatefull night, I do not believe either Brushy or John Miller were the real Billy. As much as i'd like to believe Brushy's story, I find it increasingly hard to do so. Pat Garret shot 2 of Billy's best friends thinking it was him and Billy wouldn't protect Pat Garrett by keeping quiet all those years. I find Jim Johnson's book very interesting and even prior to reading it, Brushy's story just didn't add up.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 7, 2013 10:01:35 GMT -5
Jim's book is very convincing if you take his logic as valid. However, without getting into specifics right now, there "are" possible explanations for all the anti-Brushy points he makes. As for Billy protecting Pat Garrett all those years, I think we have to realize he had made the decision after that escape from Fort Sumner that it was time to protect himself. I think he decided this chance to disappear that had befallen him was the way to go. And remember, Garrett was killed in 1908. According to Brushy's tales, he was pretty busy between 1881 and 1908 and was not in the same locale as Garrett. He was simply not willing to risk being exposed by going after Garrett.
I probably shouldn't go there but I'll throw out another possible reason he didn't go after Garrett. I've stated before that I don't believe the escape from Fort Sumner happened exactly the way Brushy described it. It is quite possible that Garrett and Billy made a deal to let him escape on the condition he'd never come back to Lincoln County. It is "possible" that Brushy made up the escape scenario rather than admit that he and Garrett had conspired to kill an innocent bystander in his place. Sometimes the truth can be stranger than fiction. And herein lies my problem with Jim Johnson's book. He presents his evidence as the only explanation of events rather than as one "possible" explanation while ignoring the other possibilities. He gives us a long list of comments made by Brushy that supposedly are incorrect without examining other possible explanations. I'd have to go back and read through the book again to give you specifics. Maybe I'll do that soon and start a thread to examine that book point by point. Could be interesting!
|
|
|
Post by bensmith20 on May 8, 2013 4:12:25 GMT -5
I do see your point Wayne and Jim Johnson himself points out that he is not presenting facts, but possibilities and theories based on records which he has discovered. He does uncover an interesting fact that a William McCarty was recorded on census reports after the date of his supposed slaying as living on the same street as his old school teacher and a few old childhood friends in the Kansas area if i remember correctly. Like what has been mentioned before, I don't think the truth will ever surface unless DNA testing can be done and that seems unlikely to happen as too many people seem too afraid of what might become and there's the added expense. It would be interesting to see what links would come of testing the DNA of John Miller, Brushy, Billies grave (if they have the right grave), Catherine McCarty (again if they have the right grave), Joseph Antrim, the bench on which Billies body was supposedly laid upon after the shooting, the hair sample they have and even a direct descendant of Telesfor Jaramillo. There could be some very interesting results if they had the necessary data, which could either prove very little or prove a hell of a lot. Does anyone know if there have been any further developements with the Steve Sederwall investigation?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 8, 2013 9:27:43 GMT -5
Steve told me they had tried to compare the DNA on the bench with that of John Miller but there was a problem "separating?" the DNA on the bench. I'm not an expert on this and I'm trying to remember exactly what he told me but I think it had to do with more than one set of DNA on the bench. They could do the "separation?" but it would be much more expensive than they had anticipated and thus they could not proceed. They just didn't have the finances. Also, it had been reported in a news article that he had decided not to pursue testing Brushy's DNA because he no longer thought Brushy might be the real Kid. Sederwall told me on the phone that this was blatantly untrue. He remained "very interested" in Brushy's story and believed Brushy might have been telling the truth. He said the problem with getting Brushy's DNA is that Hamilton, TX won't reveal the true location of the grave. They believe Brushy is actually buried at the back of the cemetery and that Hamilton should have a record of it and is blocking any attempts to locate the real grave. But I also see that Sederwall no longer has his website up about Billy. This all suggests to me that he has pretty much given up on pursuing the matter. Who knows though? Maybe there'll be more forthcoming one of these days. We can always hope.
I'm pretty certain it has been confirmed that Telesfor Jaramillo was not Billy's son. I don't remember where I read this, it's been some years ago. Possibly on another message board, but as best I recall, it was confirmed that Jaramillo was born too long after 1881. And I don't think Billy/Brushy was around Paulita at that time.
On another point you brought up, I also read that ground penetrating radar had been used at Billy's grave in Fort Sumner and there was apparently nothing there, anywhere near the marker. This was not revealed to the public because it would hurt the tourism business. Many of the bodies in that cemetery got moved to another location at one point and there was also a flood that washed some up. So even if the marker is in the right place, it is unlikely an exhumation would produce anything.
Joseph Antrim, I believe, was cremated and no one even has a clue what was done with the ashes.
Silver City has made it clear they will never allow Catherine's grave to be exhumed unless DNA is first retrieved from Fort Sumner's grave site.
Much of what I've stated here is based on memory of what I've read elsewhere so it certainly isn't cast in stone. I'm just sharing what I've heard.
|
|
|
Post by bensmith20 on May 8, 2013 10:04:51 GMT -5
It is frustrating to say the least researching this subject, but hopefully something will pop up some time soon to answer all the mysteries surrounding the legend. A couple of interesting points though is I read that Joseph Antrims body was donated for medical studies so maybe there is something worth looking at there. Regarding John Miller, again Jim Johnson doesn't disprove his claim but provides his opinion. I find a few things rather interesting, 1st I remember reading that when his wife Isadora was ill, they moved to where there were hot springs to aid her health, the same remedy Catherine McCarty tried (perhaps this was common back then?). He also said that the only way Garrett could have shot him (due to his poar aim) was if he shot him in the back, maybe this was him expressing how he felt betrayed by Garrett or embarressed that he let his guard down. John Miller also said a Mexican sheep herder was killed in Billies place in a different version of his story. The 'Mexican' description has popped up a few times eg. Millers story, Billies story and the description that Billy had stained his skin and grew a beard to disguise himself. Maybe they all knew something we don't? I also read that Billy Barlow was something to do with the Clement family, allegedly the Clement family also had something to do with Garretts murder (revenge maybe?). Who knows and I certanly can not make my mind up of which theory to believe. Wayne, do you have any contact with Steve Sederwall in which you could push for answers to his case or even what it would cost to finance with the possibility of donations?
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 8, 2013 21:38:46 GMT -5
Nice Post Wayne and bensmith,
I think Telesfor was born in 1885.
Joseph Antrim died in Nov. 1930 in Denver and his body was donated to the Colorado Medical School.
S.M Ashenfelter in Silver City, Grant County Herald wrote the story about Billy being dark skin and having a beard. I think it was picked up several years later as well. However there were many wild newspaper stories when Billy was killed. One said his body was dug up and his bones were bleached. Another had his trigger finger in a jar in Las Vegas, NM. and was charging people to see it.
In Morrison's book he states that Brushy thought Billy Barlow might have been a Clements. Carl Adamson was with Pat Garrett when he was killed in 1908. Carl was married to Amanda Clements. The Clements were cousins' to John W. Hardin. They came to the area about 1894 but in all my research I can't find where the death of Garrett had anything to do with the death of Billy the Kid. From a book that I am reading by George McNew, Oliver Lee thought that Pat Garrett was hired to kill him like he had Billy the Kid.
I have met Steve Sederwall but don't know him very well. I have a email address for him but haven't made contact with him in a couple of years. If you have trouble making contact with him, let me know and I will contact him for you.
|
|
|
Post by bensmith20 on May 9, 2013 5:56:17 GMT -5
Thanks for your input NMJames, I had never heard some of them points before and its good to learn more. Like I said to Wayne, any contact with Steve Sederwall in which you could push for answers to his case or even what it would cost to finance with the possibility of donations would be usefull. Is this something either of you could pursue? Also what are your thoughts about my comments about Miller above? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on May 9, 2013 7:01:54 GMT -5
Any Time Ben,
I will let Wayne make contact with Steve if he can. If he is unable to I will try the last email I have for him. I can get in contact with him but I will not be back to Lincoln for about three weeks. I know several people that know him and can get me in contact with Steve. I have seen him many times but only visited with him a couple of times. I know Tom but he the last time I visited with Tom, he just will not discuss the case anymore. When they first started working on the case I talked to Tom quite often.
I have not looked into Miller that much. I believe that Billy was killed on July 14, 1881 but after Young Guns Two came out, we stated getting people coming into Lincoln asking about Brushy Bill being Billy the Kid. I started researching Brushy, went to Hico and Buffalo Gap and have done research on him. I have a home near Lincoln and know many people that are kin to different ones that were in the Lincoln Co. War. I am able to ask them questions and find many things that Brushy said and Morrison wrote about are not what they say. I know a lady that her family is used in most Brushy books and her great granparents were in Texas in 1880, 81 and didn't come back to this area until 1882. They came to Seven Rivers in 1879 but left in early 1880. The lady I know was quoted in one of the Brushy Billy books and the statement started off The Late ----------.. When I showed it to her we had a big laugh. She is very much alive.
|
|
|
Post by bensmith20 on May 9, 2013 8:04:16 GMT -5
I would love to believe Brushy's story but I just can not bring myself round to it for some reason, and it looks like you have firm reasons not to believe his story either. John Miller is well worth looking into, the book 'Whatever Happened to Billy the Kid?' by Helen L. Airy makes for a very interesting read. However, Jim Johnson's book 'Billy the Kid, His Real Name Was ...' does contradict some of the info on both Brushy and John Miller, so it's worth reading both with an open mind. What I find most interesting about John Miller is the many similar characteristics he supposedly had with Billy and the fact he never seeked recognition but lived his life in constant fear of the law. He supposedly rode into Las Vegas NM with a bullet wound in his chest with a Mexican women less than a month after Billy was supposedly shot. He always denied he was Billy but apparently told only a few people who he really was after a few drinks. I believe that if Billy wasn't killed that night, the only likely way he got away was if Garret actualy shot him with the intention to kill him but he survived the shooting by playing dead as goes Millers story...most of the time and that they used a recently deceased Mexican sheep herder to pass off as his body. That way, Garret (who wanted him dead hence the killing of Bowdre and O'Folliard in mistaken identity) could claim his reward without fear of any possible deal they may have made coming back to bite him as some believe. Again this is just another possible theory and I try to be as open minded about it as I can be.
|
|