Do you think Brushy Bill was really Billy The Kid ? - Young Guns II (1990) Discussion

[–] Bad-Show 14 years ago

Short answer? Heck no. But I can see why people would want to believe he was.

reply

No way in the world. Brusy had a pic when he was a teenager. He looks nothing like Billy the kid. John Miller now looks just like him.

reply

[–] putter_b 13 years ago

Did you not read this part?

"In 1990, the famous tintype of Billy the Kid, a purported photo of the Kid at age 12, a photo of Brushy at age 14, and a photo of Brushy at age 90 were analyzed in the Acton-Bovik photo study. The study used the most advanced photo comparison equipment around as well as the best scientists. The photo purported to be a 12 year old Billy the Kid was determined to not be him. The photo of 14 year old Brushy was close match to the tintype. The photo of Brushy at age 90 had a 93% match to the famous tintype. The missing seven percent can be explained due to age and dental work, so said Dr. Bovik and Dr. Acton."

reply

[–] nitwolf373 13 years ago

Also as far as Geneva Pittman's Family bible is concerned, there are 2 Oliver Roberts. Oliver P. Roberts, who was born in 1879, who'm Geneva claims is Brushy Bill. And an Oliver L. Roberts, who was born december 31st 1859, whom Brushy Bill and the rest of the Roberts family claims he is. Brushy Bill's family bible account for all of Billy's aliases including Roberts, Antrim, and Mccarty. So why is that not considered as evidence for the people who have to prove that Billy died by Pat's hands in 1881. Now i personally believe that Brushy and Billy are one and the same, but since not one person alive was there when he was supposedly killed, and since his Brushy's claim is now 63 years old, there is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt either side of the debate.
Also want to add that Brushy Bill's claims to William Morrison, He showed in his family bible a William Henry Roberts born December 31st 1859. And claims that he use Oliver as an alias after his cousin died. So Geneva Pittman is using one family bible, while Brushy Bill used another. Nobody on this board myself included can say if he was for certain either person, however he did show proof that someone in his family was born about 5 weeks after the common used birthdate that came from Ash Upson.

reply

[–] ColinChapman 14 years ago

Of course not. Billy the Kid was born in 1859, so he'd be 90 in 1949. With the life he lived and the background he came from it's unlikely he would have lived to much over 60, even if he had never been shot by Pat Garret.

Back in those days it was highly unusual that people lived to 90, especially those from humble backgrounds.

People claiming to be long-missing people and others which were presumed dead appeared way into the 1960's. However with the advent of DNA testing no more frauds have stepped forward. For instance after the death of the woman who claimed she was Anastasia, the lost daughter of the Russian Czar, DNA tests revealed the she was most definitely not related in ANY way to the Romanovs (the royal family in Czar Russia).

Now, this is all irrelevant since Billy the Kid's dead body was identified and then buried. There were several witnesses to this, so Billy the Kid was indeed dead and buried.

reply

[–] mark-1883 13 years ago

I think if you actually study ALL the evidence, there's a pretty good chance he was. But I also think no one will ever really know for sure.

The testimony from "witnesses" to Billy's burial are very contradictory. Not to mention that Pat Garret's own daughter later said her father did NOT kill Billy the Kid. And several people who actually knew Billy did identify Brushy as the Kid.

But, as I say, who knows?

reply

[–] ColinChapman 13 years ago

A few "witnesses" identified Anna Anderson as "Anastasia" too, the lost daughter of the Russian Czar. Apparently she had certain facial features which was common for the family. She was the right age, the right height and some claim the resemblance was "uncanny".

However with DNA testing all this "was she really Anastasia?" nonsense was laid to rest, since it clearly showed she was a fraud.

In 2007 Russian archelogists found a grave, not too far from where the rest of the remains of the Imperial family had been shot and buried (discovered in 1991) and it seems very clear it is the remains of Anastasia. So even if we didn't have the DNA sample as proof we got the grave and the remains as proof.

Thus, we won't have too see anymore of those "Anastasia lives" movies or cartoons they made up to that point.

SO, this story serves to illustrate that a few "witnesses" that claim he was THE Billy the Kid doesn't mean anything. Most likely it is a classic case of sensationalist journalism, of which there is plenty of even TODAY.

Lots of people spotted Hitler way into the 1960's and there were wild stories that he was alive. Heck, there was "Hitler's diaries", which were revealed to be forgeries. But people will believe any "good story".

Let's just remember that IF Billy the Kid was alive, then he would have been worth A LOT, and there was no shortage of bounty hunters and others out to earn a quick buck. Not to mention Pat Garret would have been revealed to be a cowardly liar, which would have resulted in his immediate termination from his employ.

To prove that Bonnie & Clyde was indeed dead to all the people in the countryside admiring them, their bullet ridden bodies and the car was shown. If not for that, I have little doubt people would have spotted them long after their deaths, as often as Elvis was.

As it was, a lot of people claimed to be Billy The Kid.

A lot of myths surround these western outlaws. The number of people Billy the Kid actually shot and killed was way less than the newspapers of the Wild West credited him with.

It is simply a question of likelyhood, and the likelyhood that Brushy Bill was THE Billy the Kid is slim indeed.

reply

[–] mark-1883 13 years ago

Billy had very distinctive aspects to his eyes---very unusual, even unique; the witnesses said Brushy had the exact same eyes, as well as every scar Billy was supposed to have had (and more). A number of Billy's friends claimed to have met and/or received letters from him well after 1881.

I have never, not once, bought into he's-really-alive-stories about anyone else. And I am not at all certain with this case. But the evidence (really, you should examine all the facts in THIS case, not Anastasia's or Hitler's) is pretty strong that Brushy Bill could have been the kid. As I said, even Pat Garret's own daughter (in 1983) said he did NOT kill Billy the Kid. And if he didn't, what did happen to Billy?

Slim chance? Not when you examine all the evidence. But not conclusive, either, I grant you. Still, even deputy John Poe claimed they killed the wrong man. It's also true that Garret refused to publicly display the body (which was normal practice back then), and very nearly forfeited the reward money as a result. Why would he do that? Out of respect? Hardly. Garret was by all accounts a pretty sleazy character; it hardly seems likely he would risk the reward money just to be nice.

It's a fascinating case, and not so easily dismissed if you look at ALL the evidence.

reply

[–] rooklaw 13 years ago

It's a fascinating case, and not so easily dismissed if you look at ALL the evidence.

Actually if you look at the evidence, Brushy's claims are incredibly dismissable.

I remember a forensic analysis was done comparing pictures of Brushy Bill to Billy the Kid.

Basically it concluded that based on the chin structures of both individuals as seen in photos, there is no possible way (short of Brushy receiving some kind cosmetic chin implant surgery) that the two people are one in the same. While chins do grow bigger as one ages, they absolutely do not radically restructure themselves in the way they would for Brushy Bill to have been Billy the Kid.

In short, it would be cool if his story was true, but it's not.

reply

[–] mark-1883 13 years ago

As I said, do some research; watching one television show is not nearly enough. Other photo analyzers have said, with convincing photographic support, that the chin is easily explained by camera angles. I saw the show which you referred to, and, IMO, it was heavily biased---not surprising given that its sources were people connected with New Mexico, and who have a vested interest in denying any connection with Hico, Texas.

And, again, even Deputy John Poe said they killed the wrong man.

reply

[–] McShave07 13 years ago

Was Brushy Roberts Billy the Kid?
Of course not!
I found a great site with many facts most people leave out. Here is a sample.

Brushy's niece Geneva Pittman mentioned that Brushy’s birth is recorded in the family bible as August 26, 1879. Pittman says, “I know for a fact my uncle was born in 1879 in east Texas, and Billy the Kid was supposed to have been shot by Pat Garrett in 1881 and that would have made him two years old.”

To support Pittman’s sources, Brushy Roberts a.k.a Oliver P. Roberts, is found in several census records: age one in 1880, Arkansas; age twenty in 1900 Hopkins County, Texas; age 30 in 1910 Van Zandt County, Texas; age 41 in 1920 again in Van Zandt. In the 1930 Van Zandt census Roberts turned up again at the age of 52 with a wife named Lutcida.

Now here’s where Brushy supporters deny that Oliver P. Roberts, in the above census, is not their Brushy Bill Roberts. They say it’s because Brushy wife’s name was Louticia, not Lutcida, so therefore this Oliver P. Roberts is not Brushy. Come now…hasn’t anyone else had their name spelled incorrectly? Are you going to tell me that Lutcida and Louticia are not the same woman just over a misspelling error? If only I got a dollar every time my name was misspelled as Marcella or Marcel. So in other words, it’s purely coincidental that Oliver P. Roberts and Brushy just happen to marry women with similar to identical names -I don’t thinks so.

Brushy supporters also say the Oliver P. Roberts was dead and buried in 1939 at Alto, Texas, so again, he can't be the same man, but yet his name is not listed in the cemetery records.

To read it in full http://http://www.aboutbillythekid.com/billy_vs_brushy.htm
THE GAME

reply

[–] putter_b 13 years ago

Actually, that site you linked is a joke. At one point their main reasoning on why Brushy wasn't the kid was due to Brushy being a righty, at the time it was believed Billy the Kid was a lefty due to the one picture of him. It was later concluded that the picture was in fact reversed and the kid wore his gun in a way that he would shoot with his right hand.

Here is an unbiased site loaded with facts. http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/billythekid/brushy.html

As for Geneva Pittman, her own family said that Brushy was in fact Billy, she was the stand alone claiming different.

Someone mentioned the "photo analysis" done in the 80's. The guy who did it wouldn't say how he did it only that he did it on his personal computer, which was an Apple 2. Not exactly cutting edge technology. BUT In 1990, the famous tintype of Billy the Kid, a purported photo of the Kid at age 12, a photo of Brushy at age 14, and a photo of Brushy at age 90 were analyzed in the Acton-Bovik photo study. The study used the most advanced photo comparison equipment around as well as the best scientists. The photo purported to be a 12 year old Billy the Kid was determined to not be him. The photo of 14 year old Brushy was close match to the tintype. The photo of Brushy at age 90 had a 93% match to the famous tintype. The missing seven percent can be explained due to age and dental work, so said Dr. Bovik and Dr. Acton.

reply

[–] mark-1883 13 years ago

Well said, Putter!

Seriously, gang, why did Pat Garret's own daughter insist that he DID NOT kill Bill the Kid?

Think what you like about Brushy Bill, but many people who were actually there, as well as relatives, say that the story handed down to us by history was flat out wrong.

reply

[–] McShave07 13 years ago

Well done Putter, you've just shown to me that you didn't even read the article, if you'd looked properly you would have seen that it went into good detail about the photograph and how Billy wasn't left handed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Geneva Pittman's story is wrong, how come it matches the family tree book detailing everyone's births or the census details showing Brushy to be 2 when Billy was killed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also feel that the photo analysis isn't even needed, if you looked at the top of the site I linked, the two photos are completely different people. The jawline the key.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for you're link, well done for linking the very first site Google comes up with when you search for Brushy Bill, top marks for looking around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And lastly, Pat Garret's daughter. Why did she insist that he DID NOT kill Bill the Kid?

Fact is, she said it to interviewer Paul Cain, so you'd have to ask her ghost!

Give it up people, I know you wish with all your heart that this was true, but it ain't and the moon landing weren't fake, no one was on the grassy knoll and 9/11 wasn't a government plot. You probably believe any *beep* you read.

What about the time Brushy Bill turned up at the Henry Hudson hotel (claiming he used to be in the James gang) to meet J frank Dalton (who claimed to be a 102 year old Jessie James), as reported in the New York times (with pictures I might add), You believe that as well, FULL OF *beep*

THE GAME

reply

[–] putter_b 13 years ago

Well done Putter, you've just shown to me that you didn't even read the article, if you'd looked properly you would have seen that it went into good detail about the photograph and how Billy wasn't left handed.

Did you even read what I posted? The site you linked us to used the "Billy was a lefty" fight constantly, then when it was found out to be wrong, they quickly changed it. The site sucks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Geneva Pittman's story is wrong, how come it matches the family tree book detailing everyone's births or the census details showing Brushy to be 2 when Billy was killed.

By "the family tree book" I am assuming you are talking about the family bible. And, once again, Geneva Pittman (who was Brushys niece) was the ONLY person who claimed that Oliver Pleasant Roberts (name in bible) and Oliver L. Roberts (Brushy) were one in the same. I don't know about your family, but in mine, there are many people who have common first names (being named after such and such relative). Brushy even said that he assumed the identity of a dead cousin years before Geneva Pittman was even born.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also feel that the photo analysis isn't even needed, if you looked at the top of the site I linked, the two photos are completely different people. The jawline the key.

Lol, so you are an expert at this too? Are you kidding me? Did you not read this part?

"In 1990, the famous tintype of Billy the Kid, a purported photo of the Kid at age 12, a photo of Brushy at age 14, and a photo of Brushy at age 90 were analyzed in the Acton-Bovik photo study. The study used the most advanced photo comparison equipment around as well as the best scientists. The photo purported to be a 12 year old Billy the Kid was determined to not be him. The photo of 14 year old Brushy was close match to the tintype. The photo of Brushy at age 90 had a 93% match to the famous tintype. The missing seven percent can be explained due to age and dental work, so said Dr. Bovik and Dr. Acton."

That right there can explain the "jawline is the key" idea that you shot out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for you're link, well done for linking the very first site Google comes up with when you search for Brushy Bill, top marks for looking around.

It's also one of the few sites that is unbiased in their analysis. Where as the crappy Billy the Kid site you linked to has been discredited time and time again. Hell, the webmaster and his girlfriend/sister/wife (what ever) are the president and the vice president of their own fan club.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And lastly, Pat Garret's daughter. Why did she insist that he DID NOT kill Bill the Kid?

Fact is, she said it to interviewer Paul Cain, so you'd have to ask her ghost!

So wait, the killers daughter says he never shot him, several of Billy's friends who met Brushy claim it was him, Brushy knew an incredible amount of info on Billy (even tiny details that were unknown at the time), Brushy had every scar that Billy had, Brushy was also ambidextrous like Billy was, Brushy could speak Spanish fluently like Billy could, etc. BUT NO, someone has a family bible that has a similar name in it, so that's got to be the real deal. Lol, get real man.

Give it up people, I know you wish with all your heart that this was true, but it ain't and the moon landing weren't fake, no one was on the grassy knoll and 9/11 wasn't a government plot. You probably believe any *beep* you read.

Yeah, not really the case here. But sometimes the truth is stranger then fiction.

What about the time Brushy Bill turned up at the Henry Hudson hotel (claiming he used to be in the James gang) to meet J frank Dalton (who claimed to be a 102 year old Jessie James), as reported in the New York times (with pictures I might add), You believe that as well, FULL OF *beep*

I do not have the Morrison book handy or I would tell you exactly what he had told him about the James gang.

reply

[–] nitwolf373 13 years ago

To rooklaw. The picture analysis done by the Linclon County Historical Society, can hardly be offered as proof. Considering how much tourism money they could loose if Brushy was proven to be the kid. The had a need to prove they were two different men. Robert Hart who was hired by the trust in 1987.He ecided to use his home computer, an apple mcintosh II, while a good computer not the best available.He also used his own methods of comparing the 2 pictures, and didn't use well known techniques used by many police agencies, including the FBI, CIA, Interpol, among others to analyze the pictures. However a University of Texas analysus done in 1990 by a doctor Alan Bovik of the department of electrical and computer engineering, stated that there was a 92% chance that they were the same man.

reply

[–] Bob_Zerunkel 11 years ago

Pat Garret's daughter testified over 100 years after the event.

I'm here to even up the score. I want to testify 130 years after the event that Pat Garret never told me that he didn't kill Billy.

Now we have conflicting hearsay evidence on both sides with no real facts of any kind.

I guess it's a tie.

reply

[–] nitwolf373 11 years ago

Only flaw in your logic is you never met Pat Garrett. However his daughter has met him, and I'm sure,but can't prove they had conversations about Billy the kid. However back to your argument, according to some reports even his wife claimed that He did not kill the kid. So would that be 2-1 Garrett family?

reply

[–] nitwolf373 13 years ago

J street. I agree with you 100% on historical records and research will always prevail. In Jesse James as you mentioned, I've never seen anything to suggest he wasn't killed by Bob Ford. However in Billy's case, the research into his death can clearly suggest He did not die in 1881. Now I can't absolutely prove he did not die, but have a hard time accepting his death at Garrets hands.

reply

[–] nywilson 13 years ago

Do I think he was Billy the Kid? While not 100% sure, I would say yes. There was just too much evidence to support it, versus the evidence against it. Even in the documentary that everyone watched the seemly discredited him, one of the historians said that "if this man wasn't Billy the Kid, he definitely was someone. He knew too much unknown information to have not been".

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ColinChapman 11 years ago

And my rational look on it is still the most sensible one.

Likelihood and lack of any real proof.

1. Age. Did somebody forget he would have been 90? 90 years people! Most people today don't live to see that age. People in the old west lived hard lives and wore out by their 40's. I read in the other posts that Brushy Bill was 2 years old when Billy the Kid died, which would have made him 70-71 in 1949, and that still was a respectable age for a person of humble origins at that time. 90 years alone is one of the most important factors to remember and that makes the likelihood he was incredibly SLIM.

2. Sensationalist journalism. Any good story will sell. People will eat it up since they WANT to believe it and switch off their common sense. Check out the Bosnian Pyramid scam. The guy digging the site up claims he is an archaeologist even though he has no diploma, but some people take him seriously indeed. What proof does he have? A small mountain looking like a man made pyramid of dirt and his "ancient tunnels and stairways", which have been revealed by real archaeologists to be of Medieval origin and leading to a long gone wooden fort that is mentioned in old records. His fans and dedicated amateur archaeologists still believe he is a victim of "University elitism" since his "great discovery" would re-write history books. People with even half a brain knows Europe was full of hunter-gatherers in the Stone Age who were nomads and would never start building a geometrically correct pyramid in the middle of nowhere for no reason whatsoever. Brushy Bill wanted some fame in his old age and knew very little records existed of Billy the Kid, so he might as well claim he was him.

3. Fake and manufactured "evidence" by witnesses (in this case people who hadn't seen him alive in almost 70 years!!). None of which hold up to scrutiny and hence had no chance in hell in any court had it been a case. As I mentioned before a lot of people claimed to be long dead or lost famous (and infamous) people. Before the advent of DNA-testing these were fairly common and today none has ever dared claiming they are somebody else knowing they would be revealed to be scam artists. The fake-Anastasia is the perfect example. Right up to her death she claimed she was her. A lot of people believed her and thought she had no reason to lie at such an old age. After her death her remains were tested with the living descendants of the Romanov family and it was made clear she wasn't even a distant relative let alone Anastasia herself. So far not a single one claiming to be somebody else thought dead has EVER proved to be true. NOT ONE. What makes you think that Brushy Bill was the ONLY one that was true? Likelihood, likelihood, likelihood people.

Let's study modern day "proof" some things are conspiracies. No aircraft can be seen on the surveillance camera outside Pentagon. Aha! say the conspiracy theory people, this is proof there was no aircraft and that the explosion was caused by explosives. Tons of "evidence" exists of why the WTC attack was a government conspiracy. People see no stars on the skies of the Moon landings. Aha, they were in a studio!

There exists "evidence" the witnesses of the Roswell incident in 1947 were telling the truth. The Philadelphia Experiment in 1943 on USS Eldridge really happened and Nikola Tesla was the brain behind it. The Inkas really had contact with extraterrestrials and their "landing strips" for UFO's on their mountain tops "proves" this.

With that in mind I wonder what kind of a sane person would still see the "evidence" that Brushy Bill was Billy The Kid as fact and not once question their authenticity. Especially since most of this "proof" is obviously made up to fit a wild story.

The not-so-famous entertainer Criswell in the 1950's and 60's was known to make wild predictions of the near future. None of which ever came true. Except one: He did say in March 1963 that President Kennedy would not run for re-election in 1964 because of something which will happen to him in November 1963. As it turned out John F.Kennedy was assassinated in November in 1963. Was Criswell really a psychic who could see into the future? No, that is just bizarre luck. But this kind of mere coincidence becomes "fact" for any believer of a wild story.

We had Elvis spotting way into the 1990's. People who were long time admirers of "The King" while he was alive and knew every single wrinkle, pore and hair on his face were convinced they had seen him walking past them. Aged, but very much alive.

As to what Pat Garrett's 80's year old daughter said LONG after Pat Garrett himself was dead (herself only being 8 when he died) can be taken lightly. These western outlaws were admired by people and being the man who shot Billy the Kid probably followed Pat Garrett like a stigma. Being the wreck he was in his final years it's possible he lied to himself in order to cope with it or told a "white lie" to his little daughter who probably heard that her father was "a murderer of a western hero who was innocent". For all we know may Pat Garrett didn't actually fire the shot that killed Billy the Kid but took all the credit for it.

It sure didn't do Robert Ford any good for having shot Jesse James dead.

Why didn't Billy The Kid come forward after Pat Garrett was dead? He decided to come forward at the age of 90?? Wouldn't he have been pardoned for his crimes in his 50's already? He could have made tons of money from being the legend alive in person. What did he have to loose?

The bottom line is that no real historian believes this story so whatever loose evidence exists pales to the counter evidence.

reply

[–] nitwolf373 11 years ago

ColinChapman I do have some issues with your post. I'm not here to say Brushy is in fact Billy, but with the real evidence leaves open a possibility that he could be.
1. You claim he was 2 years old at the time of Billy's death, however his family bible states a date of birth for him as Dec. 23rd,1859. That would make him the appropriate age of the kid. The family bible shows him being born in Texas, which gives a far more logical explanation of being fluent in Spanish than being born in NY or IN. Also since there is no record of his birth. it's feasible that he could have been born in TX. Brushy's family bible also has records of all of the kids aliases including Bonney, McCartey, and Antrim. AS far as age is concerned you are right that 90 was rare a the time, but not impossible, for example Wyatt Earp died at 80, and his father Nicholas Earp died at the age of 94,he was born 46 years before Billy.

2. You state that we can discount Elizabeth Garretts telling of her dad claiming that he did not kill Billy. Now if it was just that then I could see your argument. But His wife had also made similiar statements in the 30's and 40's. She was around when those events happened. Now it is very plausible to do what you said and try to lie to those close to you, like you suggested, however wouldn't his wife know if he really killed the kid or not?
3. In the 1940's Joseph Hines was working with William Morrison, the paralegal that brought Brushy's case out, proved beyond a doubt that he was Jesse Evans, one of the regulators, in a court of law. Now he stated that he had been in contact with Brushy,as Billy the kid for a number of years. So it wasn't like they didn't see each other for 68 years. My grandfather went to a WWII memorial last year and hadn't seen some of his shipmates since 1945, but he recognized them instantly. Now that may not always be the case but that shows it can be possible that people can recognize each other after long years. Also several close friends claimed to see him in the months after the shooting also, in 1881 and 1882. They surely would have recognized him in les than 1 year seperation. Now I don't get how it is automatically faked and manufactured just because of the 7 decades. People who knew Billy, even if not seeing him in such a long time surely would remember the way he spoke orcertain mannerisms, that is surely possible.

4. As far as evidence being manufactured like you claim. If you look at the Akton Bovik study done at the Univerity of Texas. They took a picture of Brushy Bill in 1948 and compared it to the tintype. They used the same software and methods used by the CIA, FBI, Interol, and KGB among others. This study showed that Brushy had a 93% match to the tintype.The other 7% can be accounted for by age and dental work. Other pictures taken of Brushy Bill in 1948 showed he had every scar known to be on Billy's body plus more. William Morrison had documentation showing that Brushy could do the same techniques that Billy did to escape the handcuffs used on Billy. Now I will have to look up the judge and prosecutor,don't have exact names with me, but these Items were shown to a local Texas Judge and state prosecutor. The prosecutor stated that she had enough evidence to suggest Brushy was Billy the kid to take and prove the case. The judge stated that if this evidence was presented in his court room he would find in favor of these two men being the same.

5 There were arrest warrants placed on Billy the kid twice after July 1881, one posted in San Miguel County on December 30th, 1882, and the second on March 5th 1883. Why would a New Mexican county place two arrest warrants for a dead man? I have found 23 seperate newspaper articles that have sightings of the kid after July 14th, 1881, including people who were close to him. Deputies Poe and Mckinney both questioned Garrett and did not believe he shot the kid seconds after the shooting.

6. Now I agree with you that it was improbable that they were the sam man, but not impossible. I have studied this stuff for over 18 years, and have seen this evidence first hand. I truley believe they are the same man, but since there is no smoking gun, I realize it still is unlikely. You ask why didn't Billy the kid come out after Pat Garrets death, because if found alive he would still have a death sentence over his head. You ask wouldn't he be pardoned in his 50's, how would he? Brushy's claim has alway been that he wanted to die with a clean conscience, and waited so long since if proven to be Billy, still technically had a death sentence. He claimed he was afraid to turn himself in due to that death sentence.

reply

[–] Jules02 11 years ago

The beauty is that this will undoubtedly stay an unprovable mystery forever. It makes an interesting twist to Billys story.

As for me, I'm undecided.

The problem with photo comparisons is that you've got to be sure the pictures you are comparing are really the people they are supposed to be.

He could easily have assumed the identity of someone else who had died and lived under their identity. After all, security and identity checks were so much less common in those days.

If I had to pick a side, I'd say he did survive the shooting that night and lived on. Whether he was Brushy or someone else, I'm not totally sure.
But just because he would have been 90 at the time he came forward is not a good enough reason to discount it. It may not be the average age, but there were people who were pretty old back then, so it's not unheard of.

reply

[–] jcshetler 11 years ago

look at these pics on these 2 pages...

the pic of bill with the diagram on it. his weird eye/brow and large ears.

http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/did-billy-the-kid-die-in-1881-or-1950-another-folklore-mystery/

scroll down this page and see the overlay comparisons of the real billy the kid photo and brushy bill's.

http://brushybill.proboards.com/thread/34

very compelling evidence. keep in mind billy's pic was taken when he was very young and unable to grow true facial hair. he was also skinnier then. it's claimed billy was 21 when he was killed in 1881 but no one knows his true birth date or if it was even him. people live into their 90's all the time. also...

"He showed his ability to slip out of handcuffs, he also reported that Pat Garrett had actually shot and killed another gunslinger named Billy Barlow, passing his body off as the Kid, allowing him to vanish for Mexico."

and the biggest one...

"Five people who knew Billy signed affidavits that they identified Roberts and the Kid as one and the same."

anyway either this very, very, old man was an amazing liar who knew a tremendous amount of highly detailed information AND billy's own tricks AND happened to look just like him or he was telling the truth.

The Dumbing-Down of America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbing_down

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nitwolf373 11 years ago

J Street, you are right that most notable historians do believe Pat killed the kid, which is the most likely scenario. However even these same historians will admit that they will not research Brushy Bills claim. Now the inconsistences doe not mean that He was not killed that night. However there is enough info out there to suggest there is a slight possibility that he was not killed by Garret in 1881.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nitwolf373 10 years ago

J-street I agree about DNA testing. However some issues arise. 1st issue is that we do not know the definite spot of Catherine Antrim's body due to flooding of her cemetery and poor management of moving the bodies. 2nd if Brushy Bill's statement is true, that Catherine Antrim was not Billy's mother than DNA testing with her would be useless. I would love to have DNA or some other form of evidence that could put this debate to rest once and for all.
Also to answer your question about having the kids photograph taken on his alleged night of death. Everything that I have ever read suggests that the nearest photographer was a 2 day ride away from Fort Sumner. So it could have been just a simple case of not being able to get a photographer out there in time to snap the picture.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SunCanyonRoad 9 years ago

I think it's possible he was. Why? Well for starters, the ONLY history we know about Billy's demise was written directly by Pat Garrett. There were no witnesses to Billy's alleged death and the "body" they buried was done so at night by Garrett's crew. There is no one to collaborate his story...

On the other hand, Brushy Bill had wounds that matched those that Billy reportedly had, he knew so much detail about the Lincoln County war that he had to have lived it and experienced it (I realize that doesn't necessarily make him Billy) However, Brushy had people associated with the Lincoln County war come forward and collaborate his story. Brushy was at the end of his life and sought only a pardon for his past crimes, not money, not fame. He died soon after.

And then finally, a recent Brad Metzler's Decoded on the History channel dove into the idea that The Kid and Garrett were actually working together and that it was Garrett that put the gun in the outhouse to help him escape. I forget what their evidence was for this, but I remember having one of those "ah ha" moments watching it. Plus they did one of those facial recognition tests and it came back as a match for Roberts and the Kid... I could be wrong, it might have been a different show where I saw that part.

"I don't want your watch, man. I want your friendship!" - Lightfoot

reply

[–] pop-actor 8 years ago

The eyes of Brushy Bill and Billy The Kid don't match when you compare the two photos - Well at least Brushy Bill gave the town of Hico Texas something to talk about.

reply