|
Post by Bonzo on Nov 19, 2023 14:20:50 GMT -5
Asking if I was there is rather silly don't you think?.Newspaper articles state that Billy went to retrieve his rifle and was shot in the left thigh by Billy mathews with his wounds treated by Dr Ealy. Brushy said that wait was with him this is incorrect, Jim French was also shot but no one knows if this was the same situation. The so called shoot out at the Maxwell's house was never reported or documented by anyone that was there so this is completely untrue it would have been a major development. Let's not forget the supposed bullet to the jaw that Brushy received but had no evidence of this injury in later pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 19, 2023 15:50:30 GMT -5
If I might chime in here, I think the point was that unless you were there (which you obviously were not) then you can't know for sure whether Brushy's version was correct or whether the newspapers were correct. Many things about many subjects have been written in newspapers that later turned out to be false. I will admit though, as I have many times before, I believe Brushy's story about the shootout when he escaped Fort Sumner was an exaggeration but that doesn't mean he wasn't Billy The Kid.
For example, later in life Wyatt Earp told versions of the OK corral shootout and other encounters that were exaggerated yet no one questioned whether he really was Wyatt Earp. You could question his stories for sure, but you couldn't question his identity. I view some of Brushy's stories with the same perspective. I question his description of his lineage and whether he was really there when his cousin Oliver died. I question some of his tales of adventure as a rough-rider, etc. But in spite of all that, his overall story including the things he knew about Billy that were not common knowledge at the time, convince me of the truth of his claim of being BTK.
|
|
djmatt
20 - 49 Posts
Posts: 21
|
Post by djmatt on Dec 15, 2023 5:56:36 GMT -5
One piece of evidence not easily dismissed is the fact that Brushy told Morrison that at the Greathouse ranch gun fight it was actually posse members who shot Jim Carlyle dead by mistake, thinking it was the Kid they were firing upon. Now if Brushy wasn't Billy the kid, how could he have known this is what occured? Or rather how exactly did Brushy Bill learn that this was exactly what Billy the kid had written in a letter to Governor Wallace? Did Brushy learn about this through studies at the university or did he know simply because he wrote that letter himself? I think the answer is obvious. The story about the shooting may have been true or not, it doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that Brushy Bill and Billy the kid both told exactly the same story about this event. This is one of the things that stands out for me. Brushy described the event exactly like the letter. This isnt the only letter to Wallace that backs Brushy either.
|
|
45colt
20 - 49 Posts
Posts: 25
|
Post by 45colt on Dec 16, 2023 11:04:18 GMT -5
What's the most compelling evidence that Brushy is Billy? What proof supports the evidence? Don't need the snide comments. Just the evidence and proof that supports the evidence. I'll give you my opinion. If I had to use one thing and one thing only it would be the blanket statement that in more than 70 years they have never been able to prove Brushy wrong without misrepresenting or outright lying about things. Every single time you look at the source of what they say its never what they say it is. This is why I wrote my book to start with. The critics were not being honest about the evidence.
By the way, Gallegos was 14, not a small child. None of the other sound bites they use are true. Morrison did agree to have historians at the Governor's mansion just not the press. These letters from a "co-worker" are stupid and are not evidence.
|
|
trace
2 - 19 Posts
Posts: 3
|
Post by trace on Jan 5, 2024 13:32:12 GMT -5
What's the most compelling evidence that Brushy is Billy? What proof supports the evidence? Don't need the snide comments. Just the evidence and proof that supports the evidence. I'll give you my opinion. If I had to use one thing and one thing only it would be the blanket statement that in more than 70 years they have never been able to prove Brushy wrong without misrepresenting or outright lying about things. Every single time you look at the source of what they say its never what they say it is. This is why I wrote my book to start with. The critics were not being honest about the evidence.
By the way, Gallegos was 14, not a small child. None of the other sound bites they use are true. Morrison did agree to have historians at the Governor's mansion just not the press. These letters from a "co-worker" are stupid and are not evidence.
|
|
trace
2 - 19 Posts
Posts: 3
|
Post by trace on Jan 5, 2024 16:03:34 GMT -5
Good afternoon y'all. Forum rookie here. I have lurked here and read most, if not all of the threads on the forum, but have just now joined the discussion. I have not found, nor do I think there ever will be "proof" of either Garrett's version or Roberts' version. Too much time has passed for any conclusive forensic evidence to be found. That being said, each piece of information can be called evidence, either for or against one side or the other. Thus far, in my reading, I believe that the preponderance of the evidence supports Roberts. In my opinion as a former LEO, there is enough probable cause to obtain an arrest warrant for Roberts on at least a fugitive from justice charge.
Mabry really dropped the ball when Roberts was alive and available. It would have been logical and proper for Mabry to take the private meeting with Roberts, Morrison, and include a stenographer to transcribe the meeting. If he was legitimately interested in trying to find the truth, he could have then scheduled a formal hearing on the pardon. Had he done that, the burden of proof would have rested on Morrison and Roberts in the application for pardon. Instead, it was turned into a **** show and the opportunity was lost forever.
Garrett's account is thin and lacking in witnesses. It would have seemed prudent of him to have everyone that he could muster that night, and the next day to view the body and provide a statement attesting that it was indeed The Kid that had been killed. It is reasonable to think that The Kid knew Garrett was in town or nearby and his reported actions that night do not make sense to me.
On the other hand, I have not heard anyone give a logical reason for Roberts to come forward when he did. It does not seem that he was seeking the attention nor to my knowledge, has anyone shown a motive for him to claim to be the kid other than to obtain the pardon that he felt he had been promised. Is there an agreement between Roberts and Morrison discussing financial gains for making the claim? Roberts could have been arrested immediately as a fugitive.
Just my thoughts without listing every piece of evidence as presented by both sides.
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 5, 2024 16:32:45 GMT -5
Thank you Trace and welcome to the board. Your comments are on target in my opinion. I hope you'll visit often and share more of your thoughts. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 7, 2024 8:06:07 GMT -5
On target in your opinion but perhaps not those that believe the real narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 7, 2024 11:52:07 GMT -5
Bonzo,
You "choose" to believe the status quo historical record and call it the "real narrative". But you "really" don't know which narrative is real. I choose to question the status quo. I don't claim to know the facts. I search for truth without proclaiming I'm the determinant of it. Can you not accept that you just might be wrong about the "real narrative"? I wouldn't ask you to decide you are wrong but I would ask you to consider the possibility and refrain from deciding that I'm wrong, simply because you prefer it to be that way.
|
|
trace
2 - 19 Posts
Posts: 3
|
Post by trace on Jan 7, 2024 15:04:36 GMT -5
And therein lies the fun in studying history. There is no "real narrative". There is "traditional narrative", "popular narrative", etc. but there is no "real narrative". Our understanding of historical events evolve and change as new information is discovered. Take for example, Custer's last fight. When I was a kid, the story was of Custer's brave last stand with the gallant officer being the last man standing. We now know much more about what happened through archeological surveys and studies and comparing that with stories collected from native sources that were never part of the original, sensational reporting. I could go on and on with other historical events as well. So it is with Garrett vs Roberts story and perpetual debate. I do not completely believe either man's story of the events that night in Ft. Sumner. Garrett's doesn't pass the smell test for me and Roberts' seems to have greatly exaggerated his version. I believe he told the story as he did because it sounded much better than "I heard the shots, was told someone had been killed so, I ran like hell as fast as I could go."
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jan 7, 2024 20:53:17 GMT -5
Very well said Trace. I agree with your suggestion Billy just basically ran from the scene in Sumner that night. And he didn't want to admit there was no shootout, etc. I think Brushy, like Wyatt Earp and others, embellished his story quite a bit in order to make himself look like the hero of it all. But that doesn't mean he wasn't the real BTK. I know he had scars that Oliver P. Roberts wouldn't likely have had and I know he really could slip out of handcuffs, because in HIco, I spoke to the local druggist whose father, the druggist during Brushy's time there, had shared his witness to these facts. In other words, Brushy's druggist saw him slip handcuffs and saw his scars. He then told his son who grew up to inherit the drug store and who was kind enough to share his memories with me in 2006. This man was not lying or exaggerating anything. He was simply conveying to me what he had learned from his father. So I believe it to be true.
|
|