|
|
Post by tboor74 on Sept 10, 2020 10:53:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 10, 2020 16:02:07 GMT -5
Wow! Where to even begin. The article is full of assumptions. It's almost all assumption. Plus some out and out false information. There is no evidence the body was put on public display at Beaver Smith's saloon. Witnesses said two things, neither of which involved Beaver Smith's saloon. It was said the body was taken to a "carpenter's shop" for a wake but it was also said the body stayed in Maxwell's home "all night". We don't know which of those is correct. Yes, there was a coroner's report (more than one actually) but there is at least some evidence it was written by Garrett and signed by the members of the jury even though they never saw the body other than when it was inside a "closed" coffin. There is also evidence one of the signers wasn't even in Ft. Sumner at the time. The bottom line is, the only people that definitely saw the body before it went in the coffin were Garrett, Poe, McKInney, Pete Maxwell, Deluvina Maxwell and Jesus Silva. If it is true the body was laid out in a carpenter's shop for a wake, then yes, it was likely seen by others but we don't even know for a fact that it wasn't already inside a closed coffin. Mr. Stahl might be tired of reading comments that the body might not have been the real BTK, but that doesn't change what the known facts are and his attempt to lay out a series of facts that he "wishes" were true doesn't change the real fact that we really just "don't know" exactly who saw the body other than the ones I mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerry on Sept 11, 2020 0:22:20 GMT -5
The fact that the question is still being asked- who viewed the body ? -speaks for itself....the fact that Pat constructed another coroner's jury verdict once more of his friends showed up(replacing some Hispanics] and specifically requesting Pat be paid the reward -yet not specifically identifying the body other than to accept Pete Maxwell's evidence in support of Garrett's story.Poe clearly said the body was given to the women requesting it almost immediately because the Lawmen felt it necessary to retreat into the Maxwell home for their own safety...I think after that -no one saw the body because it was stll alive and was being cared for by the Hispanic community...even though -it wasn't BTK.
|
|
|
|
Witnesses
Sept 11, 2020 1:25:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by leeb on Sept 11, 2020 1:25:02 GMT -5
TTT posted the exact same article about a year ago. It throws up the same question now as it did then. Why would that long list of names ALL LIE to cover for Mr Garrett??
|
|
|
|
Post by tboor74 on Sept 11, 2020 2:12:38 GMT -5
TTT posted the exact same article about a year ago. It throws up the same question now as it did then. Why would that long list of names ALL LIE to cover for Mr Garrett?? Apols if it's been posted before, I've been an avid follower on here for years but didn't recall seeing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 11, 2020 11:48:13 GMT -5
TTT posted the exact same article about a year ago. It throws up the same question now as it did then. Why would that long list of names ALL LIE to cover for Mr Garrett?? Most of them were not lying. They were misinformed, misquoted and/or mistaken. Read the article carefully and start by subtracting all the names he included because he believes they just had to have seen the body and all the evidence he sites that is hearsay. The ones who did lie were not covering for Garrett. They were covering for their friend Billy, so he could stay in hiding. This is not complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Sept 11, 2020 12:05:47 GMT -5
TTT posted the exact same article about a year ago. It throws up the same question now as it did then. Why would that long list of names ALL LIE to cover for Mr Garrett?? Most of them were not lying. They were misinformed, misquoted and/or mistaken. Read the article carefully and start by subtracting all the names he included because he believes they just had to have seen the body and all the evidence he sites that is hearsay. The ones who did lie were not covering for Garrett. They were covering for their friend Billy, so he could stay in hiding. This is not complicated. "They were covering for their friend Billy, SO HE COULD STAY IN HIDING. This is not complicated."
An opinion, and a gross assumption.
Where is the proof that BtK was alive after 1882? Where is the proof that Brushy Bill and Oliver P Roberts were two different men? Brushy registered for the WWI draft as Oliver P Roberts.
|
|
|
|
Witnesses
Sept 11, 2020 12:50:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by leeb on Sept 11, 2020 12:50:11 GMT -5
TTT posted the exact same article about a year ago. It throws up the same question now as it did then. Why would that long list of names ALL LIE to cover for Mr Garrett?? Most of them were not lying. They were misinformed, misquoted and/or mistaken. Read the article carefully and start by subtracting all the names he included because he believes they just had to have seen the body and all the evidence he sites that is hearsay. The ones who did lie were not covering for Garrett. They were covering for their friend Billy, so he could stay in hiding. This is not complicated. and how do you know they were misinformed, misquoted or mistaken Wayne? And I have read the article 'carefully '. |
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 11, 2020 13:59:07 GMT -5
And how do you know they were not? When you read the article "carefully" did you count how many names he used without proof they had made the comments he attributes to them? For example:
"John Holland, 71, of Fort Sumner, was a live–in carpenter in the Luz Maxwell household. He "undoubtedly heard" the gunshots and "went to the scene", where he "likely saw" the Kid’s remains. Furthermore, since his carpenter’s work shed was within a few feet of the back of the Maxwell house, he "may well have" helped build the Kid’s wooden coffin."
"undoubtedly" is an assumption
"went to the scene" is a guess at best
"likely saw" the kid's remains
"likely helped build the coffin"
Come on, we don't even know if John Holland was in town that night. Including his name is nothing more than an attempt to pad the numbers of people who "likely saw the body".
"According to an interview printed the following Monday afternoon in the Las Vegas Daily Optic, George helped dig the Kid’s grave and attended the funeral later that same afternoon." Who gave the interview? Was the coffin open when he "attended the funeral"? Had he ever seen Billy The kid prior to that day? Did George actually say that he knew Billy well and that the body was him?
"No one who was in Fort Sumner that day has ever denied that they saw Billy the Kid Bonney’s body." Wow! I wonder if anyone in the whole state of New Mexico ever denied it. I guess that means everyone in New Mexico saw the body.
I could go on and on with this but I won't. The article is almost laughable.
|
|
|
|
Witnesses
Sept 11, 2020 14:16:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by leeb on Sept 11, 2020 14:16:20 GMT -5
It's funny how no one mentioned a continuous gun fight were old lying brushy copped a bullet to the jaw either?
|
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Sept 11, 2020 19:30:31 GMT -5
"As for Brushy Bill Roberts "lying", much of what he claimed was true. The point of contention is whether he was Billy The Kid or not."
Brushy Bill statements:
Lincoln County events - mostly true
Ranch in Arkansas - true, if 80 acres is considered a ranch
Married Mollie Brown, Lutecia Ballard, and Melinda Allison - true, if Brushy's birth name was Oliver P Roberts
Probably not true, since there is no credible evidence to support any of the following claims - served as Texas Ranger, U S Deputy Marshall, anti-horse thief association, lived with Yaqui Indians; knew Buffalo Bill, Pawnee Bill, Belle Starr, boxing school in Cincinnati, round up in Shetland Islands, Rough Rider in Cuba' etc.
Not true - Brushy's claim that Mollie Brown was a member of a pioneer Brown County family. The Brown family, of which Mollie was a member, was not a pioneer Brown County family. They lived in Titus and Franklin Counties until at least 1880. The first pioneers arrived in Brown County in 1858. The population of Brown County by 1880 was over 8,300.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerry on Sept 11, 2020 20:39:15 GMT -5
The fact that Brushy can't be traced by US Govt Census or Ancestor.com -doesn't mean his detailed recollection of people places times and events are certainly false....on the night of 14 July 1881 Brushy claimed there was a gunfight at the Maxwell house and that he received two head wounds.Kip Mckinley who was crouching outside the picket fence next to the parade ground- would eventually tell his family that he shot BTK--obviously he wasn't talking about the man in Pete Maxwell's bedroom!
Why did the Lawmen withdraw into the Maxwell house -according to Poe -for their safety and give away the proof of Pat's bounty ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Sept 12, 2020 13:07:32 GMT -5
Rufus, I respect your desire to determine the ancestry of Oliver P Roberts. I do not find any of Brushy Bill's claimed family relationships to be accurate or verifiable other than his marriages.
Any source of information is subject to error. Genealogists rely on many different sources, varying from the most accurate to least accurate, in this approximate order: personal knowledge of immediate family members; state vital records; draft registration records; land records; cemetery records; Bible records; funeral home records; obituaries; baptism records; census records; DAR records; SAR records; published family histories; Ancestry.com family trees; anecdotes and stories.
Census, cemetery, and death records identify the parents, siblings, aunts, and uncles of Oliver P Roberts. Land records and family histories identify his grandfather, Joseph Roberts. Maybe his great-grandparents were Alexander Roberts and Sarah Shepard based on Ancestry.com trees, but there are no records cited that provide a conclusive connection between Joseph and Alexander.
|
|
|
|
Witnesses
Sept 12, 2020 13:38:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by leeb on Sept 12, 2020 13:38:43 GMT -5
It's funny how no one mentioned a continuous gun fight were old lying brushy copped a bullet to the jaw either? Arguments from silence are almost always weak at best or nonsensical. That being said, when several people allegedly there fail to mention a detail like that it does make the validity of the claim seem rather unlikely. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen however, especially when the eyewitnesses were largely individuals dead set on killing Billy The Kid anyways. Considering Pat Garrett many years before killed a man in cold blood during a buffalo hunt, I imagine that a messy shoot-out with multiple gunshots and other casualties or injuries would've made Garrett more villain than hero. Lawmen do what they gotta do to "get their man", but not to the point of going above and beyond the law. Considering Maxwell was involved, and considering his family was under his mercy, it's not a surprise that everyone would go along with whatever narrative Garrett and company said--- especially when Billy The Kid was beloved in the area, and an admission of partnership on Maxwell's part would've caused problems for sure. Personally I do think it wasn't as "cut and dry" as Garrett said it was. Largely because of conflicting details on the shoot-out, and partly because much of what Garrett ever said on any given subject was anecdotal at best or was unsubstantiated or were flat out lies. He wasn't a trustworthy man. I do think that it's most likely Billy The Kid died that night. But I also think someone else died that night, and there might have been others wounded in the crossfire. That's why I think there are conflicting stories about the burial of Billy The Kid, because people merged two different funerals in their memories, or they thought they witnessed the burial of The Kid when it was the burial of somebody else and The Kid was buried earlier or later. Though remote, the possibility that The Kid survived is plausible BECAUSE of all the inconsistencies. However, if that was the case it's more likely that The Kid died long before Brushy Bill Roberts came along because I cannot imagine the media loving, braggadocios Kid staying quiet. Nor can I see the Kid, who was such a person of vengeance, not go after Garrett and his posse after such an attack. If he was indeed shot that night, it's likely if he did escape that he died of his sounds not long afterwards. Being shot at point blank or near point blank range is almost a guarantee especially back then. Until a DNA test is done on the body of Brushy Bill Roberts compared to Henry and Sarah, we may never be able to fully rule out Brushy Bill Roberts as being Billy The Kid. But even if Roberts was ruled out, it is one of those what if's that'll probably never die out because of all the inconsistencies in the so-called official documents concerning the event in question. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all 😊 P.S. As for Brushy Bill Roberts "lying", much of what he claimed was true. The point of contention is whether he was Billy The Kid or not. so basically everyone and everything told lies? Also trying to use ridiculously long words don't impress, half the time you trip yourself up. |
|
|
|
Witnesses
Sept 12, 2020 16:08:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by leeb on Sept 12, 2020 16:08:27 GMT -5
so basically everyone and everything told lies? Also trying to use ridiculously long words don't impress, half the time you trip yourself up. In short, it's a good possibility that everyone lied to cover up the fact that Garrett went above and beyond the law to kill Billy The Kid. Also, I was in the 98th percentile in literature and comprehension. I am fairly certain that I haven't tripped myself up when I write out a hypothesis, but in the future I will try to keep all my fancy words to no more than two or three syllables so you don't get confused. Yes, that was sarcasm, but since you are oftentimes sarcastic to most everyone on the board you shouldn't be surprised to get sarcasm back. In the future leeb it would be more beneficial for yourself if you were a bit more courteous and respectful to those you disagree with. We get it, you don't believe Brushy Bill Roberts claims. A lot of us don't on the forum, but we still get along. Instead of being argumentative (my bad that was five syllables, just kidding I know you can read I'm just messing with you) it would be better to create your own thread and fire off your own opinions on the various claims that Brushy Bill Roberts has made--- and don't get frustrated if people disagree or challenge your logic behind your post. That's part of the fun. It helps to make a stronger case by being cross examined and reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of your positions. Also, don't take this post the wrong way. Part of it is just giving you a hard time all in fun, and part of it is to hit back at you a tad bit so you know what it feels like. Still, I think all of us would like to get along with you but that's entirely up to you. If you want friends you have to show yourself as friendly. Lastly, I'm aware that I probably do rub people the wrong way with how I write and how passionate or long-winded I can be. I reckon part of it is a form of insecurity on my part, either wanting to be taken seriously or to be heard, but I think much of it is that's just the way I write and talk in general. In the future I'll try to keep responses shorter, and no that's not sarcasm this time around. I hope to see you post more often. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you and Jesus Christ Almighty God bless your family 😊 I don't get confused with long words Rufus and I'm a champion of sarcasm because it fits well in this forum. If you haven't noticed all I do is question? You can't change people's mindsets, I've no need to keep going round in circles. But trust historians not author's. |
|
