|
|
Post by leeb on Aug 6, 2022 13:51:21 GMT -5
For the record then, Brushy's own kin rubbished his claims?.
|
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Aug 6, 2022 15:28:34 GMT -5
For the record then, Brushy's own kin rubbished his claims?. One reason I read Roy Haw’s book was because he was a relative to Brushy, what the family had to say is important, even seventy years later, their claim should be respected and considered. However some claims could still be questionable, such as did that Grand parent or whomever really make a remark so long ago? The person who said it is deceased, so we have to take the word of the relative’s recollections from back then and that’s really up to whoever to accept it as a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Aug 6, 2022 15:55:08 GMT -5
Why is it that census records (or the lack of them) are considered by some to constitute unquestionable evidence when affidavits are at the same time considered completely worthless? I dont get the logic? Were census takers usually cross-examined? And what about books? Should we only trust books where the author was cross-examined? Im sensing we may be dealing with confirmation bias here? Everything that supports your own beliefs is considered unquestionable evidence. Things that point in the opposite direction is automatically being labeled "not credible"?
|
|
|
|
Post by TEXAS TRUTH TELLER on Aug 6, 2022 18:40:50 GMT -5
Why is it that census records (or the lack of them) are considered by some to constitute unquestionable evidence when affidavits are at the same time considered completely worthless? I dont get the logic? Were census takers usually cross-examined? And what about books? Should we only trust books where the author was cross-examined? Im sensing we may be dealing with confirmation bias here? Everything that supports your own beliefs is considered unquestionable evidence. Things that point in the opposite direction is automatically being labeled "not credible"? Good question. Census records are not notarized. Census records contain many errors. Misspelled names. Approximate ages. Even wrong gender. Missing family members. A single census record is nothing more than a clue. Information in census records was recorded at the time by a disinterested party with no agenda. Multiple census records of a specific individual that provide the same approximate information are credible. An affidavit is a sworn written statement of facts, made under oath, and under penalty of perjury, that the statements are true to the best of his or her knowledge. The person making the oath signs the affidavit form in front of a witness, most commonly a notary public, who verifies the identity of the person signing (the "signatory"). Affidavits are notoriously suspect, primarily because they do not give the court an opportunity to watch the witness give his or her evidence nor do they allow for cross examination. These words are found in each of the 5 affidavits. "to the best of my knowledge". At most, the 5 sworn affidavits signed by Severo Gallegos, Jose B Montoya, Mrs Martile Able, DeWitt Travis, and Robert E Lee simply mean they are providing information that is TRUE TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE. They each may have been CONVINCED and BELIEVED that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. That does not mean that any of the five affiants KNEW that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. |
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Aug 6, 2022 21:04:05 GMT -5
On a copy of Severo Gallegos affidavit, it doesn’t look to include the words “to the best of my knowledge”. It says before the signature, This affiant states that he is of firm belief that Billy the Kid and O L Roberts are the same person. Unless there’s parts missing on the copy I read of it. The words “ to the best of my knowledge” I don’t see on that affidavit. I myself believe that they believed Brushy was Billy. How many people who have a doubt about something would even think of signing a sworn affidavit? I’m not an authority on human behavior, but I’m just guessing most people would be reluctant to sign their name to something they’re not sure of.  |
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Aug 6, 2022 23:04:40 GMT -5
"Information in census records was recorded at the time by a disinterested party with no agenda"
-Generally true yes, even though its not impossible for a census taker to be interested or have an agenda in a specific person or family, it would be rare.
"Multiple census records of a specific individual that provide the same approximate information are credible"
-Well again, generally that is true. However, obviously this assumpton would be incorrect in cases where a person gave the same false information at multiple censuses in order to hide his or her identity.
"Affidavits are notoriously suspect, primarily because they do not give the court an opportunity to watch the witness give his or her evidence nor do they allow for cross examination"
-Census records dont allow for cross examination either, yet they're not suspect? An affidavit is given directly in front of a judge or notary public under oath on penalty of perjury. Thats not the case with census records and still they dont get labeled "notoriously suspect". Why is that? Perhaps you just percieve affidavits as notoriously suspect because they support Brushys claim?
|
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Aug 6, 2022 23:20:58 GMT -5
On a copy of Severo Gallegos affidavit, it doesn’t look to include the words “to the best of my knowledge”. It says before the signature, This affiant states that he is of firm belief that Billy the Kid and O L Roberts are the same person. Unless there’s parts missing on the copy I read of it. The words “ to the best of my knowledge” I don’t see on that affidavit. I myself believe that they believed Brushy was Billy. How many people who have a doubt about something would even think of signing a sworn affidavit? I’m not an authority on human behavior, but I’m just guessing most people would be reluctant to sign their name to something they’re not sure of. Furthermore, even if all five had used the phrase "to the best of my knowledge" there would be nothing suspect about that? |
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 7, 2022 10:23:08 GMT -5
I believe the affidavits were truthful, but I've long said the important ones are Ables and Gallegos. Because her husband knew Billy prior to 1881 and Gallegos knew him before 1881. Their ID's carry a lot of weight. The others saying they'd known him since 1889, etc. may be truthful and probably are but they don't come as close to proving he really was Billy.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Aug 7, 2022 14:50:14 GMT -5
I believe the affidavits were truthful, but I've long said the important ones are Ables and Gallegos. Because her husband knew Billy prior to 1881 and Gallegos knew him before 1881. Their ID's carry a lot of weight. The others saying they'd known him since 1889, etc. may be truthful and probably are but they don't come as close to proving he really was Billy. he knew him, she knew him, carry a lot of weight?. They all took a brass farthing. |
|
|
|
Post by cassandra jane on Aug 7, 2022 15:02:14 GMT -5
I believe the affidavits were truthful, but I've long said the important ones are Ables and Gallegos. Because her husband knew Billy prior to 1881 and Gallegos knew him before 1881. Their ID's carry a lot of weight. The others saying they'd known him since 1889, etc. may be truthful and probably are but they don't come as close to proving he really was Billy. he knew him, she knew him, carry a lot of weight?. They all took a brass farthing. You’re aware this is entering into defamatory and libellous territory, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 8, 2022 12:05:58 GMT -5
I would just suggest to Leeb that posts need to contribute some thought or reasoning to support a particular position. Sarcasm has no place on this board and the only reason I've tolerated from him thus far is that we need some folks on here who don't believe Brushy in order to keep the discussions more meaningful. But when all you offer is sarcasm or name calling, then you aren't helping. Please explain "why" you think Ables and Gallegos' affidavits aren't "worth a brass farthing". And in the future try to stay helpful with your posts and avoid the sarcasm. Explain your position or don't post at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by texas truth teller on Aug 8, 2022 12:14:35 GMT -5
I believe the affidavits were truthful, but I've long said the important ones are Ables and Gallegos. Because her husband knew Billy prior to 1881 and Gallegos knew him before 1881. Their ID's carry a lot of weight. The others saying they'd known him since 1889, etc. may be truthful and probably are but they don't come as close to proving he really was Billy. I agree that all 5 affiants might have believed that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. Morrison’s introduction of Brushy Bill to Severo as William H Bonney was not an objective request for identification, but an unspoken request for confirmation of a known fact. Even then, Severo needed a second meeting to agree. Severo looked for brown spots in Brushy’s blue eyes before signing the affidavit. The seven year old Severo must have been up close to Billy several times, and had a phenomenal memory to retain an image of Billy’s eyes for almost 70 years. Severo also was able to visualize the effects of 69 years of aging on a 22 year old young man. Martile made some questionable assertions. “I had not seen Billy since before Pat Garret said he shot him.” (1881) Martile, born in Cooke County, Texas about 1873, was a resident of Lampasas County, Texas, in 1880. It is not obvious that she had an opportunity to meet Billy before 1881. “that Wm. Bonney visited with the Able family before and after, the time it was said that Pat Garret killed him in New Mexico” John C Able and Martelia Bilberry Henderson were married in 1898. William Bonney could not have visited that Able family before 1881. John C Able was living in the household of his parents, John Jackson Able and Nancy Smith in Uvalde County, Texas in 1880. It is not obvious that Billy had an opportunity to visit this Able family. There is a revealing Bilberry family story about Martile’s half-brother, Henry Herrod Bilberry, written by Mollie Bilberry Stoneman, Henry’s daughter. She was born in Texas in 1885 “Henry H. Bilberry and his family settled in James Canyon, near Mayhill in what is now Otero County, New Mexico. The family worked hard to build a house before winter and then had to deal with several other problems. Their cattle were not accustomed to the low temperatures, so Henry and his family traded their cattle for goats. For some supplies, they had to go many miles to the south to Pecos, Texas. It took several days to make a round trip by wagon. By the spring of 1887, almost all of the Bilberry family wanted to go back to Texas. On their return trip to Texas, they went first to Carlsbad, New Mexico, and then across country until they reached the Colorado River, which they followed to San Saba, Texas.” This might explain the reference to the Pecos photograph. |
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Aug 8, 2022 14:25:15 GMT -5
I would just suggest to Leeb that posts need to contribute some thought or reasoning to support a particular position. Sarcasm has no place on this board and the only reason I've tolerated from him thus far is that we need some folks on here who don't believe Brushy in order to keep the discussions more meaningful. But when all you offer is sarcasm or name calling, then you aren't helping. Please explain "why" you think Ables and Gallegos' affidavits aren't "worth a brass farthing". And in the future try to stay helpful with your posts and avoid the sarcasm. Explain your position or don't post at all. Obviously if you're in the Brushy Bubble then you can di |
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Aug 8, 2022 14:32:14 GMT -5
I would just suggest to Leeb that posts need to contribute some thought or reasoning to support a particular position. Sarcasm has no place on this board and the only reason I've tolerated from him thus far is that we need some folks on here who don't believe Brushy in order to keep the discussions more meaningful. But when all you offer is sarcasm or name calling, then you aren't helping. Please explain "why" you think Ables and Gallegos' affidavits aren't "worth a brass farthing". And in the future try to stay helpful with your posts and avoid the sarcasm. Explain your position or don't post at all. Obviously if you're in the Brushy Bubble then you can di disrespect Mr Garrett on previous threads but that's fine. Obviously I cause offence because I don't agree with your views. Please treat everyone the same Wayne. The comments that you ignored about Mr Garrett where nothing more than offensive but you chose to do nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 8, 2022 19:25:09 GMT -5
Possibly I didn't see those comments. I don't remember reading anything that was disrespectful to Garrett. I try to visit the board everyday and read anything new but sometimes I may overlook something. Can you locate the specific incidents you refer to and let me know who wrote it and when? I'll look into it. In the meantime, please lay off the sarcasm.
|
|
