|
Post by Repka on Mar 24, 2024 13:31:48 GMT -5
He did use a 'P' because his name was Oliver pleasant Roberts born August 26th 1879.
|
|
|
Post by Repka on Mar 24, 2024 14:16:39 GMT -5
James is a friend of mine and an absolute authority on the history of the LCW and BTK. His research is second to none. He back's everything with facts when asked. I dont want to be rude but why does he still come here trying to convince us? Ive read a ton of books on BTK and I still believe that Brushy and Billy are one person. Garrett's story is far from true, and the coroner's jury was total bs. Again Im not trying to provoke any of you... hat's off for reading a ton of books but you've got to take into account if the authors were historians/researchers who done their due diligence or just money makers with incorrect opinions.
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Mar 24, 2024 14:49:53 GMT -5
I dont want to be rude but why does he still come here trying to convince us? Ive read a ton of books on BTK and I still believe that Brushy and Billy are one person. Garrett's story is far from true, and the coroner's jury was total bs. Again Im not trying to provoke any of you... hat's off for reading a ton of books but you've got to take into account if the authors were historians/researchers who done their due diligence or just money makers with incorrect opinions. A little bit of both, I love BTK and the mystery that surrounds him, you have to admit that even the historians dont even know exactly what happened to BTK the night he was maybe killed. His deputies told different stories and in my opinion the coroner's jury was fabricated by Garrett; 2 names were misspelled and signed with an X. (3 in total were signed with an X) That's a major red flag to me. And most historians believes Garrett's version, but also many people dont
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Mar 24, 2024 16:24:25 GMT -5
I wasn't asking about Brushy, the question was about Oliver P Roberts and what's up with Pleasant/Partridge, why was he using two different names, or was he?
|
|
djmatt
20 - 49 Posts
Posts: 21
|
Post by djmatt on Mar 25, 2024 7:55:17 GMT -5
He did use a 'P' because his name was Oliver pleasant Roberts born August 26th 1879. Actually thats been proven false by the dating of the photo of Brushy at 27 yrs old. Was taken when ollie p was 8 to 12 yrs old.
|
|
|
Post by Repka on Mar 25, 2024 13:18:59 GMT -5
hat's off for reading a ton of books but you've got to take into account if the authors were historians/researchers who done their due diligence or just money makers with incorrect opinions. A little bit of both, I love BTK and the mystery that surrounds him, you have to admit that even the historians dont even know exactly what happened to BTK the night he was maybe killed. His deputies told different stories and in my opinion the coroner's jury was fabricated by Garrett; 2 names were misspelled and signed with an X. (3 in total were signed with an X) That's a major red flag to me. And most historians believes Garrett's version, but also many people dont the x's your talking about have quite a simple explanation. They were for people who couldn't read or write. They spoke their report which was written down by a third party, their statement was then read back to them and if they agreed with what they was hearing the third party signed the name on their behalf and the person who made the statement verified this with a 'x'.
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Mar 25, 2024 13:57:17 GMT -5
A little bit of both, I love BTK and the mystery that surrounds him, you have to admit that even the historians dont even know exactly what happened to BTK the night he was maybe killed. His deputies told different stories and in my opinion the coroner's jury was fabricated by Garrett; 2 names were misspelled and signed with an X. (3 in total were signed with an X) That's a major red flag to me. And most historians believes Garrett's version, but also many people dont the x's your talking about have quite a simple explanation. They were for people who couldn't read or write. They spoke their report which was written down by a third party, their statement was then read back to them and if they agreed with what they was hearing the third party signed the name on their behalf and the person who made the statement verified this with a 'x'. Thanks for the reply and good point, do you know where can I find this info?
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Mar 26, 2024 17:16:55 GMT -5
Just has I tought, no source, the coroner's jury smells bad and always will. Im aware that most of the hispanics could not read or write in those times but they could hold a pen in their hand and make some kind of a signature instead of a single X. It stinks all over
|
|
|
Post by Repka on Mar 27, 2024 13:24:01 GMT -5
It's the same with the misspelt names. When someone tells you their name you write it down as it sounds, if that person cannot read then they can't correct the spelling. Take into account the mistakes were only the first letter of witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 27, 2024 20:42:43 GMT -5
OK. At a risk of being laughed at I'll give you one possible answer. One for which I have absolutely no proof nor evidence to support, but one which I believe is a distinct possible explanation for the middle initial "L". First consider that original tombstone which was engraved Ollie L Roberts born 1868. That information obviously or most likely came from his widow who was likely using info given to her by Brushy himself. Now Brushy knew that BTK was not born as late as 1868 so why would he tell her he was born in 1868? There is only one record of Brushy identifying himself with the middle initial "P". That was when he registered for the draft. I believe he registered that way because he hesitated to use his real name or the alias of Ollie L, for fear of being discovered. So, just maybe he did use the alias Ollie L. most of the time. Now the $64,000 question. Was there a real Ollie L. Roberts and if so, then who was he?
We know Brushy claimed to have brought the belongings of his cousin Ollie to Ollie's family and that the mother of Oliver P. mistook him to be her long lost son. Yet the real Oliver P. was still around his mother as late as 1910. So maybe Oliver P. was not the cousin Brushy was impersonating. Isn't it possible that the real Ollie L. was the long lost son she thought was Brushy? Of course there's no record of her having a son born in 1868. After all she would have been only 12 or so at the time. But.... If she did have a son at that age it was illegitimate. And in those days a young girl getting pregnant and having a baby so young would have been something her family would have tried to cover up. Maybe the infant was raised by some other relatives or friends who gave him their last name, explaining why I've never found any record of "Ollie L. Roberts" other than Brushy's use of the alias. But the birth mother was allowed to see him occasionally until he ran away from home as a teen. So when Brushy showed up with his personal items in tow, the mother really had not seen that son Ollie L. since he'd become an adult and Brushy was only 9 years or so older that Ollie L.
Now, if you've read this whole thing and are now laughing hysterically, I warned you. The only way we'll ever know if this theory is partially on target would be if there was a way to find records of this Oliver "L" born in 1868 raised by a family that would have been related to or acquainted with the Henry O. Roberts family. I've tried and never found anything. But I'll always wonder if the theory is possibly correct.
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Mar 28, 2024 0:26:35 GMT -5
It's a good theory. The only reason for using an alias is hiding your real identity. The obvious reason Brushy wanted to hide his identity is that he was in fact a fugitive running from the death penalty.
|
|