|
Post by tboor74 on Sept 15, 2020 2:41:32 GMT -5
Morning all, apologies if all/some of this has been covered elsewhere on here, it's hard remembering where you read various things.
My query is this.
Looking objectively at Brushy, if he wasn't Billy, how did he come by the intricate knowledge he had? It's easy to read a book and repeat it, claiming to 'know' the facts, but Brushy dropped a lot of litle known, or later proved correct, information that nobody else knew. I don't mean random bits that we can all join the dots, but specifically things like :
How did he know the exact layout of the McSween house pre fire? How did he know the story of exchanging the tintype for the scarf? How did he know that Ira Leonard has got the Buckshot case thrown out and the terms behind it? How did he know about the girlfriend in San Patricio? How was he aware of the cave outside Lincoln?
Things like the above were not known at all, only known by a few people, or only proved correct much later. If Brushy was just a chancer, how did he have such specific, intimate, information?
I'm not coming down on one side or the other, just wondering how he knew these things?
Is there any chance if he wasn't Billy he was another Regulator who quietly slipped into the background? I don't see how he knew the above without being right at the heart of the LCW?
Just a train of though, any opinions or explanations much appreciated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 8:32:11 GMT -5
Unless Brushy was fully psycho I don't know how an old man could pull off such a lie and betray a good man like Morrison. Everyone lies in their lifetime but to pull off such a detailed feature film length lie with no hesitation is quite frankly amazing. The effort Morrison went to for Brushy means he saw and felt something in the man that was genuine. I believe in intuition and following your gut instinct. I think Morrison didn't just see and hear something genuine in Brushy. I think he felt it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 15, 2020 9:46:02 GMT -5
Excellent posts guys. You've really touched on why "I" believe Brushy was the real deal. Also, I just can not fathom how a man of his age (any age) would risk jail time and even execution by trying to convince the world he was a convicted killer on the hopes of receiving a pardon. Ask yourself, what would have happened had Gov. Mabry believed his story. Would he have gotten the pardon he was asking for or would he have been thrown in prison or even had the execution carried out? I even wonder sometimes if Gov. Mabry actually did believe Brushy was BTK and just didn't want the controversy of trying to decide whether to grant a pardon. The easiest way out of that quandary for Mabry was to just dismiss the claim as being fraudulent. As for Brushy's knowledge of things others didn't know at the time, you'll hear from a few board members that he learned it all by reading a book by Walter Noble Burns, "Saga of Billy The Kid". And some of the things Brushy said which were not widely known at the time "were" in that book. Some of the things historians think Brushy got wrong are also wrong in that book. But there are also things Brushy knew that were "not" in that book and some of the things he is believed to have gotten wrong may well have been correct. For example, the jury is still out on whether Billy was at Tunstall's funeral. There's evidence he "was" there. We did an entire thread on the comparison of Brushy's knowledge and Burn's book here on this board and the conclusion was obvious. That book was "not" the source of all of Brushy's intimate knowledge. Here's a link to that discussion if you're interested. brushybill.proboards.com/thread/240/walter-said-brushyOf all the things that are unexplainable I believe the story from Josephine Sanchez about the girl friend in San Patricio is "the" most convincing. Anyway, great discussion above. Your thinking is logical and you ask some very important questions.
|
|
|
Post by tboor74 on Sept 15, 2020 11:13:43 GMT -5
It is a strange one. I like the Devil's Advocate approach, ignoring anything else ie, Brushy was not Billy because of A, B or C.....how did he know the likes of the info I mentioned in my original post? There's lots not mentioned in Burns's book that Brushy claimed that has all been proved correct....HOW could he possibly know these things?
Ignoring all the rest of the facts in the case, how do we answer that question alone?
HOW did Brushy know all the extra nuances and detail known to few, or no others?
How?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 11:47:19 GMT -5
Looking someone in the eyes and telling a lie and having the other person believe that lie is hard to do. It's a skill that any decent human should never wish to master. Did Brushy spend his whole life practicing and perfecting his lie to himself in the bathroom mirror hoping that someday a lawyer will track him down living in a shack in a small town so he could finally drop one of the greatest lies ever told on an unsuspecting Govenor?. I've personally grown tired of reading the same old debate over boring census records, World War 1 draft cards and things like that. I keeping hearing there's no credible evidence that Billy was alive after 1881. I reject Pat's evidence. It's not good enough. Pat should have given us more. I don't think Billy's life is the mystery people say it is. I think there's plenty of truth in spoken stories passed down from people that knew Billy. I think it's the "credible" records that are actually stopping the real truth from being accepted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 13:19:08 GMT -5
Thanks Rufus. I definitely had a feeling that some these Billy experts aren't actually experts or really know much more than the average Billy enthusiast. I think they have just spent so long searching that they feel they deserve to be called experts. I actually came to this forum for the first time in December last year looking to read about all the proof that Brushy was a fraud because I was against the idea that Brushy was the kid but in time I've ended up on the other side of the fence. I really don't mind if Brushy is proven to be a fraud. I just want the evidence to smack me in the face and blow my mind. I wish you all the best in your research and I hope you find something that really changes history. It would be a terrible shame if in 10 or 20 years time we are still where we are now with information on Billy. I just hope more truth comes out. It's 4am in Australia and I'm still awake searching for Billy. Hahaha. I love this forum. Thanks Rufus and thanks Wayne.
|
|
|
Post by tboor74 on Sept 15, 2020 13:51:17 GMT -5
Just to show how easy these things are, we had a murder in my family in 1910, 2 brothers arguing over a horse. After the murder the murderer's side of the family moved away from the area. ( The murder victim was my grandfather's grandfather, and my grandfather's father saw it happen, aged 11). Our family were told they'd all moved away, none of them had any children, and they'd all died...end of story. My father and Uncle firmly believed this and repeated the fact whenever 'the story' came up. It all seemed a bit far fetched to me so I tracked them down, lo and behold there's a family line living only an hour away. Even after I met one of them and we filled each other in on 3 generations of relations, my father and Uncle still didn't believe me and insisted the other side had died out! Obviously my gradfather's father had forbidden any talk of what had happened (what he'd seen), my grandfather wouldnt allow any talk of it and repeated the "died out" line, and my father and uncle followed suit. The fact my father and uncle didn't ask questions was, I believe, down to my grandfathers's horrendous and overbearing 'personality'. There we go, a ghost family....in the UK....now. Easily done. If only relying on word of mouth it's easy to see how facts distort. Our family name also disappears in 1880...almost certainly due to mis spelling. It's easy to see how all these old timers, constantly using aliases, or needing to cover up a 'murder' of the wrong man could have propogated the tale. Joseph Antrim having a chat with Garrett and peacefully parting ways always makes me think there was more to it too.
As a last titbit, in my family murder, the murderer killed his brother by cutting his throat, he then killed himself in the same fashion, apparently almost severing his neck......which apparently is impossible.........
Nothing is as it seems
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Sept 15, 2020 14:56:53 GMT -5
Jesus Silva interview 1936, I'm the only person still alive who was there when BTK was killed and it was BTK. Jesus Silva interview 1937, I'm the only person still alive who was there when BTK was killed and it was BTK. What more proof do you need, unless you're all gonna call Silva a liar and question he's integrity. You can't be BTK when your only 2yrs when he was killed.
|
|
|
Post by kerry on Sept 15, 2020 15:23:51 GMT -5
Jesus also asserted BTK was shot on the porch with a Winchester .44 -so who did Garrett shoot in Maxwell's bedroom with his revolver? Poe said Garrett had left his rifle leaning against the wall. .. Jesus also said their was a cattle detective making a nuisance of himself in Fort Sumner at the tme -what price John Miller alias Billy Barlow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 20:34:12 GMT -5
When a person is murdered the murderer tries to hide the body and any physical evidence. Since Pat didn't keep anything of Billy's as evidence to back up his actions it suggests he has something to hide. Or in this case nothing to show OR hide. Why didn't he keep Billy's clothes? Since when are the bodies of dead outlaws treated with dignity and respect. Yes he kept the knife. Was Billy completely naked holding a knife when he was killed? Also don't we all proof read our written letters and documents before we send them or submit them? We check for 2 reasons. The first being to check spelling mistakes. The second being to check if the letter or information sounds articulate and well written. Were the first and second attempts at writing the coroner's jury report both just full of spelling mistakes or did Pat just not like the way it sounded and needed to amend it's believability?
|
|
|
Post by kerry on Sept 15, 2020 22:09:10 GMT -5
Well - Pat back at Lincoln produced a Colt pistol and saddle said to be BTK's...the Thunderer (or Lightning) would have been useless to an active shootist like BTK as it was to the man holding it in Pete Maxwell's bedroom. What happened to BTK's horse? He needed it -of course!
|
|
|
Post by tboor74 on Sept 16, 2020 1:56:10 GMT -5
I'm not being inflamatory here but throughout this discussion there;s still no direct answer to how Brushy would know the intricate info he supplied. Even if there is a family link and he heard stories, I can't imagine the stories involving exact descriptions of houses and repeated testing to make sure the layout was exactly right, or being told someone hid in a cave but and also being able to go exactly to said cave etc etc. I've been told loads of stories over the years but I'm certain my mind's eye reconstruction is nowhere near the actual picture. Taking all the was he, wasn't he' out the equation completely, HOW do we investigate the methods by which Brushy came by this knowledge. That is the thing that has vexed me for a long time. Isolate that question and other elements may susequently fall into place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2020 8:09:56 GMT -5
I can't even imagine what an excruciatingly painful and tedious task it would be to learn intricate and mundane details like layouts of buildings from a book to the point of it being memorised clearly in my head. Brushy must have been completely obsessed with wanting to be Billy. I wonder how many other answers Brushy had up his sleeve to questions about Billy's life in the hope that someday someone may ask.
|
|
|
Post by kerry on Sept 16, 2020 15:23:12 GMT -5
To personally know the McSween house the cut off date was 1878 after which it no longer existed.I believe Susan is on Billy's right in the Croquet picture -that she paid for his lawyers -and that she wrote the letters to the Governor...not because he couldn't write but because she could put a nicely written plea for clemmency -there some experts who suspect the letters to be written by a woman...
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Sept 17, 2020 1:37:25 GMT -5
To personally know the McSween house the cut off date was 1878 after which it no longer existed.I believe Susan is on Billy's right in the Croquet picture -that she paid for his lawyers -and that she wrote the letters to the Governor...not because he couldn't write but because she could put a nicely written plea for clemmency -there some experts who suspect the letters to be written by a woman... The problem with the theory of Susan McSween writing the letters to the Governor is that Dr. Hoyt while in Tascosa with Billy the Kid, had received a hand written receipt for a horse that Billy gave to Dr. Hoyt, the writing and signature looks similar on it compared to the letters written to Governor Lew Wallace from Billy, and McSween was not mentioned to have been in Tascosa at that time to have helped Billy to write the receipt, Hoyt said in his book that Billy he gave him the horse and wrote out the receipt, because of that receipt I believe Billy wrote the other letters also. In one letter dated March 4, 1881 written from the Santa Fe Jail in it Billy wrote “I am not treated right by Sherman, he lets every stranger that comes to see me through curiosity in to see me, but will not let a single one of my friends in, not even an attorney.” From the letter none of Billy’s friends were allowed in to see him at that particular time to have helped him write that letter.
|
|