Okay, so it has been determined that Anna Anderson was a clever imposter for Grand Dutchess Anastasia, but what do you all think of Brushy Bill Roberts claims to be Billy the Kid?

He is very convincing, but so was Anna Anderson. Unfortunetely, the city that the assumed body of Billy the Kid is buried in, will not allow testing on the body, more than likely out of fear of being proved wrong and loosing their main tourist attraction.

So, does anyone have any says on this case?

I'm torn. I thought Anna Anderson was Anastasia up until not to long ago. Tells ya how much I know :)

This is one of those cases I've seen a handful of times yet never really thought about outside the viewing of the segment. I guess he's no more credible than that guy who claimed to be Jesse James, or that businessman who claimed to be Butch Cassidy. It's kind of like the Frances Mealbach case; DNA testing could clear a lot of these issues up, but who really wants it done?

OT somewhat, but I saw another show about Jesse James. They proved that the man in his grave who was killed by Robert Ford, was indeed Jesse James. They did mitochondrial DNA testing on a living relative. James' grave was allowed to be exhumed because his identity was in question. Very interesting!!

Is Brushy Bill buried in Hico? That's a town you miss if you blink, kwim??

OT somewhat, but I saw another show about Jesse James. They proved that the man in his grave who was killed by Robert Ford, was indeed Jesse James. They did mitochondrial DNA testing on a living relative. James' grave was allowed to be exhumed because his identity was in question. Very interesting!!

Is Brushy Bill buried in Hico? That's a town you miss if you blink, kwim??


Very interesting! This is what they are wanting to do with BTK's supposed remains, compare them with I beleive his known grandmother? But the town where his supposed remains are, aren't allowing it. And yes, Brushy Bill is buried in Hico.

i thought that i remembered brushy bill claiming to be a famous lawman before claiming to be the kid. But that could have been the jesse james guy too. Although Brushy did know quite a bit about the lincoln county war and billy's life to have just read about it too.

Not too long ago I saw another show (on the National Geographic channel I believe) about Billy the Kid and the story of Brushy Bill. They claimed to have pictures of Brushy Bill as a youngster. When I saw the comparison of his pictures to those of Billy the Kid taken about the same age, I was unconvinced. So I really don't believe that Brushy and Billy were the same person. However, the skeptic in me asks if those pictures were really of Brushy as a young man. I have to do that- ask questions about everything I mean. :P

I thought for a long time that the DNA was wrong and that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, but over the years I changed my tune. Recently I heard that they finally located the remains of the missing Romanov kids.

On a related note, however, I do believe that John Wilkes Booth escaped Garrett Farm.

For some stupid reason, I want to believe that Brushy Bill is Billy the Kid. But I just can't. Too much doesn't add up and I have the feeling if it was really him he could have proven it.


On a related note, however, I do believe that John Wilkes Booth escaped Garrett Farm.

So is Booth still on the run?









;)

I don't know, I have always been torn on this case. The conspiracy theorist in me wants to belive it, but the other side is leaning towards that doesn't believe he's Billy the Kid. They say before he died that he asked the Governor of Texas for a full pardon, and was denied. My question is, that if he was really Billy the Kid/William Bonney, why didn't he ask for a pardon years ago? And how was he able to live as someone else all those years and not even have his other identity come up? Also, what did his relatives claim? I mean the guy must have some relatives alive somewhere to corraborate or disclaim his story right?

I actually watched this last night. I don't think Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. I think the historian (sorry I didn't catch his name) was a lot more credible. He said that 20 people who knew Billy the Kid positively identified his corpse before it was buried. The guy on the opposing side made no attempt to refute this. Also, and this is a minor point I suppose, the historian pointed out that there are no accurate records of Billy the Kid's boot and waist sizes. However, we know from historical reports that he had bright blue eyes. Brushy Bill's eyes were speckled. I can understand the town's motives for not wanting Brushy Bill's remains exhumed and tested because I don't see one shred of reliable evidence that he was Billy the Kid.

Aww, shucks! I liked Brushy Bill!

But do I think he was really Billy the Kid? I dunno, but it's fun to speculate. :)

Brushy Bill wanted a pardon because he was getting on in years and wanted to go to his grave with a clear conscience. It's kind of risky to come out and say you're Billy the Kid, he was still wanted for murder. There was still a warrant over his head, he would have been hanged.

I'm torn. I thought Anna Anderson was Anastasia up until not to long ago. Tells ya how much I know :)

Join the club. Strange thing is, of all the people who have shown up claiming to be someone famous missing or presumed dead, NOT ONE has EVER proven genuine! There were 14 candidates just for the Lindbergh baby! Kinda makes ya think.

For some stupid reason, I want to believe that Brushy Bill is Billy the Kid. But I just can't. Too much doesn't add up and I have the feeling if it was really him he could have proven it.




So is Booth still on the run?









;)

Hehehe...After all these years? Why the heck not...:D Stranger things have happened....;)

It makes me want to break out a stock picture of some dude, put Booth's face on it, and post it with a headline like "BOOTH FOUND IN 2008!!!" but somehow I think that's kinda in bad taste...:lol:

Yes there were numerous claimants that came about during the 30's to the 50's and each and every one of them paraded around in sideshows and tried to garner up as much publicity as possible. But Brushy Bill Roberts did not. He never once made the claim publically, until William V. Morrison discovered him. And when Morrison first question Brushy about being Billy (Morrison was told by several old timers that Billy the Kid was never killed and was living in Texas) Brushy denied it and said his brother was Billy the Kid. Morrison was dejected and only when he and Brushy were alone did Brushy admit it.

There are SEVERAL pieces of evidence that say Brushy was who he said it was. The fact that he came out seeking a pardon and not publicity is enough alone in my opinion.

Here's what I understand on the cases--someone wishing to go more in depth can look them up for further details.

John Wilkes Booth--the story presented on Unsolved Mysteries was a complete fabrication except the quote from the doctor saying the corpse had no resemblance to Booth nor could he believe it to be him. He really did say that. Moments later, however, Booth's initials tattooed on his wrist, and his scar from a procedure the doctor himself performed on Booth convinced him otherwise. A letter from the doctor himself states this. The other parts of the story, that the difference in appearance extended to hair color, skin tone, and the absence of a broken leg are absolutely untrue. Major, MAJOR screwups were made in that relatives of Booth's were available but were not asked to identify the remains, neither were they displayed to the public although Lincoln's were widely displayed. (Now, how wacked is THAT? That it's okay to drag the president's corpse all over the country, but not the assassin's?) Years later, the remains of Bonnie and Clyde were seen by tens of thousands of people. You don't see too many stories claiming that Abraham Lincoln or Bonnie and Clyde escaped being fatally shot, as are seen about Booth. The alleged Booth mummy has gone into hiding now that modern tests are available.

Jesse James--yes, VERY strange! Not only were the remains related to his family and presumably fit his description in other ways (age, gender, skull matching known photographs, and so on--a careful examination was made), but the bones in the grave were REVERSED from where they should have been--in other words, he was buried FACE DOWN, "facing his fate," as someone said. And Frank James, Jesse's brother, had business dealings later with Robert Ford, the man who shot him! This was one reason people claimed the man shot couldn't have been Jesse!

Anastasia--her remains turned up after papers written by the executioner giving a more exact description of their location were released. Two years later, tests have yet to satisfy the Russian Orthodox church to allow the remains of the presumed Grand Duchess and her presumed brother to be buried with the others identified as the Imperial Family, but when that happens the case can be considered closed.

Lindbergh baby--all indications are that the remains found and identified by the family really were of Charles, Jr. Later accusations of lies and coverups were perhaps reactions to Lindbergh, Sr. later being revealed as not so nice and doing things unpopular with the public.

Billy the Kid--I think I saw some proof as to Brushy Bill not being him but don't remember the details.

Butch Cassidy--at least one claimant was proven not to be through photographs, but what of the man who visited for years who his own FAMILY said was Butch? Was the family deluded, or lying? I think the jury is still out on this.

Limburg's "kid" was on Coast to Coast a few nights ago explaining his version of events

http://www.charlesalindberghjr.com/

Not to hijack the thread about Brushy Bill but I thought it was ascertained some time ago that the remains discovered were indeed those of Charles Lindbergh Jr.

Some claim the Lindbergh baby wasn't really killed and thus Bruno Richard Hauptman was innocent of murder and his execution was unjust; it's usually the same ilk who claim Hauptmann was innocent of any wrongdoing in the Lindbergh case when the evidence clearly suggests otherwise.

Not to hijack the thread about Brushy Bill but I thought it was ascertained some time ago that the remains discovered were indeed those of Charles Lindbergh Jr.

No, I think what happened was the family petitioned to have the last of the remains (which hadn't already been cremated) returned, and got them, but did not have them tested. They did, however, submit to DNA tests when some people in Germany claimed to be illegitimate children of Lindbergh's, and readily accepted them as relatives when the DNA matched. They have not submitted to DNA tests with any of the Charles, Jr., claimants, or, as far as I know, the remains of Charles, Jr.

I think there are enough problems with Brushy Bill's story as to call him into serious doubt... I recall reading that he had a fantasy-prone personality and often pretended to be people he wasn't.

Besides, from what i know of Billy the Kid, he was a sociopath, so it would be unlikely he'd just settle in to a quiet existance.

Most of these legends originate in the minds of disturbed persons; I think Anna Anderson (a/k/a "Grand Dutchess Anastasia", real name Franziska Schanzkowska) as a classic example... she clearly had severe mental problems. Her story was dubious enough to me prior to DNA to make me doubt it, but DNA has 100% settled the issue. I start to question the sanity and/or motives of supporters who still insist in it. Magical thinking dies hard, i suppose.

Most of these legends originate in the minds of disturbed persons; I think Anna Anderson (a/k/a "Grand Dutchess Anastasia", real name Franziska Schanzkowska) as a classic example... she clearly had severe mental problems. Her story was dubious enough to me prior to DNA to make me doubt it, but DNA has 100% settled the issue. I start to question the sanity and/or motives of supporters who still insist in it. Magical thinking dies hard, i suppose.

Yes, the minor war that started with her claims did not end with her death, even though all the original principals are dead. The story featured on UM about the Tzar's doctor's son, Gleb Botkin, painting animal pictures and Anastasia making up stories to go with them is true. He and his sister were coaching Anna Anderson and trying to give her credibility, but did not have enough insider information--for instance, to recognize certain individuals and correctly describe certain rooms in the palace.

Yes, the minor war that started with her claims did not end with her death, even though all the original principals are dead. The story featured on UM about the Tzar's doctor's son, Gleb Botkin, painting animal pictures and Anastasia making up stories to go with them is true. He and his sister were coaching Anna Anderson and trying to give her credibility, but did not have enough insider information--for instance, to recognize certain individuals and correctly describe certain rooms in the palace.

I think Gleb Botkin was unconsciously coaching... I don't necc. think he was being purposely deceitful (although some would cert. disagree), but so badly wanted a piece of his former life again that his judgment was warped.

Her claim had bigger problems then little things... when found, she didn't speak english, didn't speak french, and didn't speak russian. Anastasia spoke english and russian natively and fluent french... and her story about being in bucharest for months, but not going to see Queen Marie, one of the girls' closest and dearest relatives and someone who wouldn't have batted an eye at pregnancy, illegitimacy, etc., etc., is prepostorous.

I think Gleb Botkin was unconsciously coaching... I don't necc. think he was being purposely deceitful (although some would cert. disagree), but so badly wanted a piece of his former life again that his judgment was warped.

For years I thought the best of him, but there is good evidence he and his sister were deeply involved.

I have done extensive research on Brushy Bill. He never claimed he rode with Jesse James nor did he ever claim to be anyone famous other than his ultimate admission he was Billy. Jesse James claimant, J. Frank Dalton was never proven to be a fraud since the DNA they used did not come from Jesse's alleged grave. Here are a few of the physical similarities between Brushy and Billy The Kid:
Same height, small feet and hands, double jointed thumbs, ambidextrous, identical facial dimensions (pupils to nose to mouth corners to ear openings, etc.), right ear larger than left with identical inner ear openings right and left, tendency for right shoulder to hang lower than the left, mouth slightly askew toward right side, nostrils same size and angle, same proportion of torso floor to waist to shoulders, scars in the right places, to name a few. Brushy was eyewitness identified by as many as 8 people who claimed they had met the real Billy The Kid, 3 of which are historically accepted as having known Billy. He was reported to talk like (high pitched voice), walk like (stood very erect), laugh like Billy. Brushy has been falsely accused of not being able to speak Spanish like Billy did and that is untrue. He was relatively fluent in Spanish. I could go on, but suffice it to say, everyone should research Brushy more thoroughly before buying into all the hearsay about him and not knowing the facts.

Nifty stuff, Musicplay, thanks for your info. :)

I wouldn't put it past Brushy Bill Roberts being an associate of Billy the Kidd, maybe even a member of his gang at some point. Or that Brushy Bill might be some other famous outlaw.

a thought that came to me was that there is so much mis-information and lack of knowledge regarding Billy the Kids history. I wouldn;t rule out that Billy the Kid might have been more than one person. What i mean is that someone else used his moniker as well and that persons history rolled into the actual Billy the Kidd.

Didn't the segment show pics of Billy the Kid and a young Brushy Bill? To my recollection they didn't even look similiar! To me that's enough. I often think of the Ana Anderson case, the woman who convinced many she was the Grand Duchess Anastasia. She even had me believing it until DNA tests confirmed that Anastasia died that day with the rest of her family.

Hmm, who knows?

The discovery channel show was influenced by individuals who were New Mexico residents (who did not want to lose tourist dollars). As for the photos of young Brushy "looking like" the tintype, the fact is that Paulita Maxwell and others are on the historic record as having stated the tintype did not do Billy justice. Also, I just recently discovered that not only the Fort Sumner tintype was a reverse image but also the young photos of Brushy were reverse. Even one photo of him around age 58 was reversed. I realized this when I noticed his coat had the buttons on the wrong side. A man's coat has the buttons on the right side and the button holes on the left. When these photos of Brushy are flipped horizontally the faces are very, very similar in the details. The overall look is different because of the mouth hanging open in the tintype, the sleepy eyed expression and the clothing, hat, no mustache, etc. As an analogy, consider Jesse James photos. There are a number of them that have been accepted as authentic that do not appear at first glance to be the same person, yet they are. Daguerrotype photos like the famous Billy tintype required the person to stand motionless for several minutes of exposure. I don't think you can just look at those pictures without analyzing the dimensions and details of the face and just say "oh, they don't look alike". First impressions can be and often are, "wrong".

Some say, oh well, Billy had bright blue eyes and Brushy's eyes were gray with specs. I say, Severo Gallegos who helped the Kid mount his horse when he escaped Lincoln, met Brushy in 1949, and signed an affidavit stating Brushy was Billy the Kid. His reasoning, "because no one else has eyes like that". In fact, Billy's eyes were described differently by different sources including being "clear blue", "blue with speckles", "bluish gray with speckles" and so on. Some folks' eyes look different depending on the light they're in, but Gallegos saw Billy's eyes and saw Brushy's and on that basis signed the affidavit.

One other comment here. The world is full of people who see the glass half full and others who see it half empty. They'll never agree. The Brushy debate is the same. There are those who want to give his claim a chance and those who do not. All I'm saying his don't jump to conclusions without studying the details.

What I find frustrating about Billy the Kid is that his death is accepted without question. But when it comes to other notable outlaws of that era (Butch Cassidy, Sundance Kid, Kid Curry, etc.), historians simply say they "may" have died at such and such date or "may" have lived to a ripe old age and died a farmer. Why is Billy the exception to this rule?

And in regards to the DNA testing...this would solve absolutely nothing. According to Brushy Bill, Catherine Antrim (Billy's mother) was actually his half-aunt who raised him after his mother died when he was young. I don't know how DNA testing would really prove anything. They don't even know the real location of Billy's remains.

What I find frustrating about Billy the Kid is that his death is accepted without question. But when it comes to other notable outlaws of that era (Butch Cassidy, Sundance Kid, Kid Curry, etc.), historians simply say they "may" have died at such and such date or "may" have lived to a ripe old age and died a farmer. Why is Billy the exception to this rule?


His death is established record because a coroner's report determined that he had been killed and accepted Garrett's testimony about the circumstances. Butch and Sundance weren't formally declared deceased because the Bolivian authorities didn't know the real identities of the men killed, although in all likelihood it was them.

It's possible that Garrett wasn't being entirely truthful about the circumstances that led to Billy's death - one of the more interesting speculations is that Pete Maxwell may have tipped off Garrett as to Billy's whereabouts at his farm - but there's no evidence that the man killed that night wasn't Billy. At least twenty eight of Billy's friends and associates, such as Paulita and Deluvina Maxwell and Jesus Silva, saw his body and identified him as the Kid in the hours following his death. Deluvina and Silva later publicly stated that it was Billy who had been killed. Unfortunately there wasn't a photographer anywhere nearby so that photos of the body could be taken, which probably would have put most of the rumors to rest. Also interesting to note that Billy's younger brother Joseph possibly may have met and talked with Garrett a year later at a hotel (http://books.google.com/books?id=rSQAbMtClsYC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=joe+antrim+pat+garrett&source=bl&ots=VcIIeOgEQI&sig=zi9ejS7ci8EI4V6xQwMFxhI5Llg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RespU73VI4KCyAGS_YGIAg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=joe%20antrim%20pat%20garrett&f=false)in Albuquerque, NM.

His death is established record because a coroner's report determined that he had been killed and accepted Garrett's testimony about the circumstances. Butch and Sundance weren't formally declared deceased because the Bolivian authorities didn't know the real identities of the men killed, although in all likelihood it was them.

Paco Anaya claimed that he and his brother were members of a first "lost" coroner's jury, in which on the way to viewing the body, Garrett stopped them, handed them a piece of paper and they simply signed it without ever seeing the body. The Milnor Rudolph jury (second jury according to Anaya) contradicts what John Poe has stated. Poe makes no mention of a jury coming immediately after the shooting, but rather residents of Ft. Sumner who took the body to hold a "wake". The Rudolph jury says they entered the house to view the body the next day at the Maxwell residence. To top it all off, the verdict was never officially filed. Why on Earth would Garrett and others be that bumbling to not file the death of the most famous outlaw of the American west?

It's possible that Garrett wasn't being entirely truthful about the circumstances that led to Billy's death - one of the more interesting speculations is that Pete Maxwell may have tipped off Garrett as to Billy's whereabouts at his farm - but there's no evidence that the man killed that night wasn't Billy. At least twenty eight of Billy's friends and associates, such as Paulita and Deluvina Maxwell and Jesus Silva, saw his body and identified him as the Kid in the hours following his death. Deluvina and Silva later publicly stated that it was Billy who had been killed. Unfortunately there wasn't a photographer anywhere nearby so that photos of the body could be taken, which probably would have put most of the rumors to rest. Also interesting to note that Billy's younger brother Joseph possibly may have met and talked with Garrett a year later at a hotel (http://books.google.com/books?id=rSQAbMtClsYC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=joe+antrim+pat+garrett&source=bl&ots=VcIIeOgEQI&sig=zi9ejS7ci8EI4V6xQwMFxhI5Llg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RespU73VI4KCyAGS_YGIAg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=joe%20antrim%20pat%20garrett&f=false)in Albuquerque, NM.

It's entirely possible that those who were interviewed later in life lied to simply protect Billy. Yginio Salazar (ex-Regulator, one of Billy's closest friends) never believed he died, and actually said he received a letter from Billy detailing his escape. George Coe went to his grave believing the possibility that Billy was alive (he actually would go meet claimants hoping that they were the real Billy). None of this does help nor hurt Brushy's claim, but I do think there is a real possibility that Billy did not die on July 14, 1881.

You've brought up some good points. We don't know the reason it wasn't officially filed, although the distance required to file it with the county clerk could have played a role. Nonetheless, the report signed off on by Segura was an acceptable document by the standards of the era. Pro and anti Brushy Roberts sites tend to have widely varying opinions on George Coe's beliefs. It's hard to find any neutral ground, although this site lays out the information as objectively as possible: http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/billythekid/qandi.html. There are plenty of inconsistencies about the shooting and the coroner's report to be questioned, but this doesn't necessarily lead to the theory that a large conspiracy to hide the fact the Billy wasn't killed took place.

Paco Anaya wrote his recollections in the 1930's, and his statements about Garrett's behavior, even if accurate, don't disqualify those of individuals who saw the body and publicly stated years later that it was indeed Billy, including Deluvina Maxwell, who knew him well and prepared the remains for burial. Anaya, from what I can recall, never claimed that Billy was alive after the shooting, only that Garrett's behavior was suspicious. Even if this first jury and report did occur, it suggests haste and less than ethical behavior by Garrett, not a conspiracy to hide the fact that some other guy had been shot. Garrett later claimed he felt unsafe in a community where many liked Billy. Such a conspiracy also would have required the immediate silence of the numerous witnesses who had viewed the remains, in an extremely hastily improvised scheme to protect a still living Billy. Garrett's posse had already killed Billy's associates Charles Bowdre and Tom O'Folliard, while attempting to shoot Billy - why would Garrett later knowingly pretend that Billy had been killed? Contrary to legend, the two were acquainted but not close friends; there's no evidence that Garrett would have any compelling motivation to protect Billy. The body was displayed to many people who could have easily gossiped that it was not Billy. While Billy was popular in the area, not everyone in Ft. Sumner was a fan.

Even given the improbability that Garrett believed he killed Billy when he hadn't and was deceived by many witnesses who hid the truth, or that he lied to hide the fact that they shot the wrong man, an escaped Billy, given his rustling, violent tendencies and habits of returning to old haunts, could easily have turned up at any time and ruined Garrett's reputation. The later unsubstantiated sightings seem reminiscent of sightings of missing persons all over the place. After Garrett's own murder, any of the witnesses, some of whom bore no good will towards Garrett, could have stated that they lied about the identity of the man shot that night. Silva and Maxwell, who seem to have died in 1940 and 1927 respectively, never changed their testimony that Billy had been killed. Some people changed their stories, or even allegedly told multiple tales of the event, which if true tends to damage their credibility.

My take is that Billy was killed that night, but potentially not in the exact circumstances that Garrett claimed. Possibly Garrett was also withholding information about a local informant (Garrett was known to pay informants, sometimes friends of criminals, in order to more effectively ambush them). Brushy Bill was one of several claimants purporting to be Billy the Kid; certainly he was convincing in some aspects, but the same could have been said of Anna Anderson at one time as well. Some of these claimants contact old friends of the individual in an attempt to drum up support, and three of Billy's acquaintances did at least give some support to Roberts after they met him. Roberts had some information surprisingly correct and got other facts quite wrong. It's not impossible that he was previously acquainted with someone that knew Billy or that he was able to cold read information out of Billy's acquaintances that he later encountered, which is what Anderson also did at times.

Paco Anaya wrote his recollections in the 1930's, and his statements about Garrett's behavior, even if accurate, don't disqualify those of individuals who saw the body and publicly stated years later that it was indeed Billy, including Deluvina Maxwell, who knew him well and prepared the remains for burial. Anaya, from what I can recall, never claimed that Billy was alive after the shooting, only that Garrett's behavior was suspicious. Even if this first jury and report did occur, it suggests haste and less than ethical behavior by Garrett, not a conspiracy to hide the fact that some other guy had been shot. Garrett later claimed he felt unsafe in a community where many liked Billy. Such a conspiracy also would have required the immediate silence of the numerous witnesses who had viewed the remains, in an extremely hastily improvised scheme to protect a still living Billy. Garrett's posse had already killed Billy's associates Charles Bowdre and Tom O'Folliard, while attempting to shoot Billy - why would Garrett later knowingly pretend that Billy had been killed? Contrary to legend, the two were acquainted but not close friends; there's no evidence that Garrett would have any compelling motivation to protect Billy. The body was displayed to many people who could have easily gossiped that it was not Billy. While Billy was popular in the area, not everyone in Ft. Sumner was a fan.

We don't know how many people saw the body. Varying accounts say a few close friends prepared it for a viewing, while others say the villagers of Ft. Sumner all arrived to view the body. And you bring up a good point (to strengthen the argument that Garrett shot the wrong man), he shot O'Folliard and Bowdre thinking they were Billy. His policy was shoot first, ask later. But shooting both O'Folliard and Bowdre was justified since they were wanted outlaws. Had he killed a sheepherder, or a Maxwell ranch hand, or even a drifter thinking he was shooting Billy this would be bad for his career. This would be pretty good motivation to cover up the fact that he killed the wrong man. Not to mention that reward money was a large sum for that time.

Even given the improbability that Garrett believed he killed Billy when he hadn't and was deceived by many witnesses who hid the truth, or that he lied to hide the fact that they shot the wrong man, an escaped Billy, given his rustling, violent tendencies and habits of returning to old haunts, could easily have turned up at any time and ruined Garrett's reputation. The later unsubstantiated sightings seem reminiscent of sightings of missing persons all over the place. After Garrett's own murder, any of the witnesses, some of whom bore no good will towards Garrett, could have stated that they lied about the identity of the man shot that night. Silva and Maxwell, who seem to have died in 1940 and 1927 respectively, never changed their testimony that Billy had been killed. Some people changed their stories, or even allegedly told multiple tales of the event, which if true tends to damage their credibility.

By all accounts all Billy ever wanted to do was settle down and live peacefully. They (the Sante Fe ring and politicians) made him an outlaw, more so than he did himself. Billy just made the most daring escape of his life (from the Lincoln county jail) a couple of months before July 14th. Had he truly escaped a second time, this could have been motivation enough for him to leave the country for good.

My take is that Billy was killed that night, but potentially not in the exact circumstances that Garrett claimed. Possibly Garrett was also withholding information about a local informant (Garrett was known to pay informants, sometimes friends of criminals, in order to more effectively ambush them). Brushy Bill was one of several claimants purporting to be Billy the Kid; certainly he was convincing in some aspects, but the same could have been said of Anna Anderson at one time as well. Some of these claimants contact old friends of the individual in an attempt to drum up support, and three of Billy's acquaintances did at least give some support to Roberts after they met him. Roberts had some information surprisingly correct and got other facts quite wrong. It's not impossible that he was previously acquainted with someone that knew Billy or that he was able to cold read information out of Billy's acquaintances that he later encountered, which is what Anderson also did at times.

I don't think as strongly as I did back when I was younger than Billy wasn't killed, but I still think it's a very real possibility. Brushy Bill's "errors" have been called into question over the years as to just how incorrect they were. Because the only people who would know whether or not they were incorrect were people that would have had to have been there at the time. If he wasn't Billy, he had to have been acquainted with him. The information he had (the layout of the old Lincoln County Courthouse for example, which was remodeled at the time he was making his claims) would have had to have come from someone who was there during that era. The other point in favor of Roberts (as compared to Ana Anderson) was that Roberts did not seek fame and fortune. He wanted a pardon. Which seems odd for someone pretending to be someone else.

Had he killed a sheepherder, or a Maxwell ranch hand, or even a drifter thinking he was shooting Billy this would be bad for his career. This would be pretty good motivation to cover up the fact that he killed the wrong man. Not to mention that reward money was a large sum for that time.

It would have been even worse for his career if Billy showed up weeks or even months later, very much alive. No one could have confidently predicted what Billy would do. It wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility for Billy to write to Lew Wallace.

While there can be some disagreement on the amount of witnesses, it seems that Garrett did allow people to view the remains. It would have been far more suspicious had Garrett immediately hid the remains or had attempted to have them buried the same evening. I find it difficult to believe that Garrett could lie about the identity of the man, and conspire with a various amount of Ft. Sumner citizens to cover up the mishap, including Deluvina, who allegedly yelled at Garrett for killing Billy at the burial. As I've said, it's unfortunate that there doesn't seem to have been a photographer anywhere nearby.

By all accounts all Billy ever wanted to do was settle down and live peacefully. They (the Sante Fe ring and politicians) made him an outlaw, more so than he did himself. Billy just made the most daring escape of his life (from the Lincoln county jail) a couple of months before July 14th. Had he truly escaped a second time, this could have been motivation enough for him to leave the country for good.


I'd disagree with that assessment; Billy repeatedly made choices to engage in violence. He murdered at least two men in cold blood when he had the opportunity not to. He had numerous chances to cut ties, change his name and flee the region, yet failed to do so. I think that both he and Jesse James tend to romanticized. Despite the qualities that made them likeable to some who encountered them, the reality was that both were petty criminals and had no qualms with killing if it suited their purpose to do so. Butch Cassidy, while being a criminal, tended to avoid killing and their is no evidence he ever murdered anyone (although members of his gang, such as Kid Curry, did). Their characters as youths may have been shaped by hardship and political clashes beyond their control but neither as adults could be called victims of circumstance.

I'm open to the possibility that Roberts had some prior contact with associates of Billy, or that if he wasn't lying about his age he may even have had some contact with Billy himself. I don't find his claim to be Billy particularly compelling when weighed against the statements of Maxwell, Silva, and others who were present and saw the remains. Then there are accounts of both Roberts' sister and niece, who both stated that Roberts falsely claimed over the years to be Billy the Kid, and that he was actually younger than he claimed to be (as he would have only been a small child when Billy was alive). Either Brushy Bill was being deceptive or a host of people were.

Anyway, thanks for the good discussion! I do feel that there may have been some holding back about some of the actual events of that evening, but my thoughts are is that it was more about the circumstances and not the identity of the victim. But Garrett certainly had his own motivations and was not a saint.

It would have been even worse for his career if Billy showed up weeks or even months later, very much alive. No one could have confidently predicted what Billy would do. It wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility for Billy to write to Lew Wallace.

This is true. But it wasn't as if Billy was parading himself around after his escape from the Lincoln County Courthouse. He was actually hiding, although he technically didn't leave the area. I think it was arrogance on his part to not flee the country. But then again, maybe he figured he'd be caught eventually anyway, so he didn't feel like fleeing. It was his "home" after all. But the other big reason why he wouldn't want to "return" would be because he almost surely would have been hanged. Sure he could have ruined Garrett's reputation, but he still had the murder of Sheriff Brady (not to mention JW Bell and Bob Ollinger) hanging over his head. This essentially would have been his get out of jail free card.

While there can be some disagreement on the amount of witnesses, it seems that Garrett did allow people to view the remains. It would have been far more suspicious had Garrett immediately hid the remains or had attempted to have them buried the same evening. I find it difficult to believe that Garrett could lie about the identity of the man, and conspire with a various amount of Ft. Sumner citizens to cover up the mishap, including Deluvina, who allegedly yelled at Garrett for killing Billy at the burial. As I've said, it's unfortunate that there doesn't seem to have been a photographer anywhere nearby.

I've read that the Deluvina Maxwell interview was actually not all from Deluvina herself. She essentially said that she began to cry outside of the Maxwell residence and cursed Garrett, but that she didn't go in. The part about her getting a candle and seeing her "little boy" was added by another source, but credited to Deluvina. So again, if the residents of Ft. Sumner knew Billy was alive and Garrett had killed the wrong guy, they very well could have ruined his reputation...but that would go back to Billy still being wanted. I don't think there was any collusion between Garrett and the residents.

I'd disagree with that assessment; Billy repeatedly made choices to engage in violence. He murdered at least two men in cold blood when he had the opportunity not to. He had numerous chances to cut ties, change his name and flee the region, yet failed to do so. I think that both he and Jesse James tend to romanticized. Despite the qualities that made them likeable to some who encountered them, the reality was that both were petty criminals and had no qualms with killing if it suited their purpose to do so. Butch Cassidy, while being a criminal, tended to avoid killing and their is no evidence he ever murdered anyone (although members of his gang, such as Kid Curry, did). Their characters as youths may have been shaped by hardship and political clashes beyond their control but neither as adults could be called victims of circumstance.

He didn't engage in violence unless provoked. Which two men are you referring to? Windy Cahill was shot and killed in self defense after the over 200 lbs. Cahill began to beat the crap out of Billy. Joe Grant was shot by Billy after Grant drew his pistol on him (there are various stories about Billy wanting to see his gun, taking out the bullet or spinning the chamber, etc. but there's no verification to any of these outside of Billy's remark of "it was a game of two and I got there first"). Bell and Ollinger were killed because he was going to hang for a murder he didn't commit. There was no evidence at all that Billy was the one who shot Brady. There were 5 other Regulators behind that fence in Lincoln shooting in the direction of Brady, and Billy was the ONLY one who ever got convicted for ANY murder from the Lincoln County War. And the account goes that he only shot Bell because Bell broke for the stairs to run away and escape. Had he not, Billy probably would have locked him in the armory and quietly escaped without Ollinger even noticing. That does not strike me as someone with a propensity for violence.

I'm open to the possibility that Roberts had some prior contact with associates of Billy, or that if he wasn't lying about his age he may even have had some contact with Billy himself. I don't find his claim to be Billy particularly compelling when weighed against the statements of Maxwell, Silva, and others who were present and saw the remains. Then there are accounts of both Roberts' sister and niece, who both stated that Roberts falsely claimed over the years to be Billy the Kid, and that he was actually younger than he claimed to be (as he would have only been a small child when Billy was alive). Either Brushy Bill was being deceptive or a host of people were.

Roberts never had a sister, but his "niece" so far is the only Roberts family member who has spoken out against him. Here's where things get very strange. If Roberts was in fact born in 1879, and wanted to pretend to be Billy, why the heck didn't he use the "traditional" history of him being born in New York, his mother being Catherine Antrim, etc.? And if Roberts was born in 1879, would he really be that cunning to just construct an entire "false" genealogy by creating two parents who didn't exist? Why not just use his real parents names, change the dates of course, and go from there? It's not like he knew people would use the internet back in the day to cross check census records to verify his story. He not only would have to be lying about being Billy the Kid, but he would have also had to have made up an entire lifetime from 1859 to about 1948 when Morrison discovered him. Just doesn't seem like that's something a phony would be able to do without being caught somewhere in a lie.

Anyway, thanks for the good discussion! I do feel that there may have been some holding back about some of the actual events of that evening, but my thoughts are is that it was more about the circumstances and not the identity of the victim. But Garrett certainly had his own motivations and was not a saint.

I love discussing Billy the Kid! Like I said before, I'm not as sold as I once was on Billy surviving post-1881, but I still think it's a possibility that historians shouldn't scoff at. Did you know how Roberts was discovered by Morrison in the first place?

Bell and Ollinger were killed because he was going to hang for a murder he didn't commit. There was no evidence at all that Billy was the one who shot Brady. There were 5 other Regulators behind that fence in Lincoln shooting in the direction of Brady, and Billy was the ONLY one who ever got convicted for ANY murder from the Lincoln County War. And the account goes that he only shot Bell because Bell broke for the stairs to run away and escape. Had he not, Billy probably would have locked him in the armory and quietly escaped without Ollinger even noticing. That does not strike me as someone with a propensity for violence.

Yes, I was talking about Bell and Ollinger. We'll have to disagree on the perception of the event: my take is that Billy had no qualms with killing if he felt that someone stood in his way (in this case, of escaping). By some witness accounts, he was whistling after shooting the two men, while attempting to remove the leg irons - hardly a way to behave after regretting the killing of Bell (he and Ollinger heartily loathed each other, so one can't be surprised if he didn't lose sleep over shooting him). I tend to agree with what Robert Utley has written about him: despite his friendly demeanor and his loyalty to some individuals, he could act out impulsively and violently without hesitation if he felt it benefited him to do so. This doesn't make him a clear sociopath like Jim Miller, nor an unbalanced individual like Jesse James, but neither was he a young man who sought peace over violence either. His behavior wasn't atypical for his disjointed upbringing after Catherine Antrim's death and his exposure to casual violence.

I've read that the Deluvina Maxwell interview was actually not all from Deluvina herself. She essentially said that she began to cry outside of the Maxwell residence and cursed Garrett, but that she didn't go in. The part about her getting a candle and seeing her "little boy" was added by another source, but credited to Deluvina. So again, if the residents of Ft. Sumner knew Billy was alive and Garrett had killed the wrong guy, they very well could have ruined his reputation...but that would go back to Billy still being wanted. I don't think there was any collusion between Garrett and the residents.


I don't think Garrett colluded with Ft. Sumner citizens either. However, if one is going to examine the theory that an unrecorded "Billy Barlow" rather than Billy was killed that night, one has to look at both theories: that Garrett knew he had killed the wrong man, or that locals who knew Billy knew that the wrong man had been killed and failed to inform Garrett or his deputies of this. Taking Brushy Bill's claims out of it, what contemporary Ft. Sumner accounts do we have of a conspiracy to cover up the death of Billy Barlow? There is a later mention that a woman and her husband had supper with Billy after his supposed death, newspaper reports of sightings all over, rumors that Billy had survived. Not accounts by anyone who is alleged to have witnessed the remains or the burial.

Deluvina was actually interviewed by Miguel Otero for his book, while some of her statements were indeed secondhand accounts from Lucien Maxwell's grandchildren. Jesus Silva and John Poe also discussed her behavior. Silva was interviewed around 1937-1938 by Jack Hull for an article that was published in 1938, and stated that he had heard the rumors of Billy's survival, but that Billy actually had been killed that night. Miquel Otero apparently also interviewed Silva for his book. I attach more credit to these statements than those of an individual who told conflicting accounts of his background and activities that could not be substantiated by historical record.

Obviously the photo hasn't been authenticated, but here's an image purportedly of Deluvina, Billy, and Paulita Maxwell (whom Billy allegedly was involved with): http://truewest.ning.com/photo/36853-1338240777241-1267773658-30712292-1001987-n?xg_source=activity It's possible that it is a photo of Paulita and Deluvina but the man may not be Billy.

Roberts never had a sister, but his "niece" so far is the only Roberts family member who has spoken out against him. Here's where things get very strange. If Roberts was in fact born in 1879, and wanted to pretend to be Billy, why the heck didn't he use the "traditional" history of him being born in New York, his mother being Catherine Antrim, etc.? And if Roberts was born in 1879, would he really be that cunning to just construct an entire "false" genealogy by creating two parents who didn't exist? Why not just use his real parents names, change the dates of course, and go from there? It's not like he knew people would use the internet back in the day to cross check census records to verify his story. He not only would have to be lying about being Billy the Kid, but he would have also had to have made up an entire lifetime from 1859 to about 1948 when Morrison discovered him. Just doesn't seem like that's something a phony would be able to do without being caught somewhere in a lie.

Roberts claimed that he didn't have a sister, but Martha Roberts did indeed state that she recognized Roberts as her half brother, not cousin as Roberts claimed. Geneva Pittmon (Tom Roberts' daughter) also stated that Brushy Bill was actually her father's brother. Again, once has to weigh the statements of two of Roberts relatives against the account of Roberts that he appropriated Oliver's identity.

Claimants are well known to deviate from established accounts, such as Franziska Schanzkowska's early statements that the Romanovs had millions hidden in a secret bank account and that the family were sexually assaulted before being murdered in the cellar. She later even claimed that some of her siblings were still alive. (There was no hidden Romanov fortune. Yurovsky, in part, had the family and their staff killed in the house because he had concerns that soldiers waiting at forest site would be susceptible to assaulting the Romanov daughters.)

We can't be certain why Roberts made the statements about Billy's origins that he did. If he had to claim to be a cousin of Martha and Tom Roberts to establish why he had Oliver Robert's identity, he couldn't also easily claim to be Catherine Antrim's son. Stating that he was her nephew, rather than her son, made it harder to prove or disprove his genealogy. Making up two parents whose records can't be traced made it easier, rather than more difficult, since the lack of records could be explained by poor record keeping, lost records, etc. It's more difficult to actually be caught in a lie when there is no way to verify a claim with records.

A claimant's background is often filled with accounts that are impossible to corroborate - Brushy Bill told a variety of unverifiable stories, including of riding with Jesse James' gang, despite there being no credible account of Billy ever being involved with James' criminal activities. Certainly Roberts had the scars to prove that he'd been through a few interesting scrapes, but this in itself does not establish that he was whom he claimed to be. Claimants aren't always motivated by fame or fortune either - some seem to have strongly fantasy driven personalities, desperately want an identity other than their own, and so latch onto the notion of a person they found fascinating 'surviving', so they can live out that life to some degree. People romanticize such lost figures that they are willing to believe that they indeed survived, so it's not out of the question that a claimant, in taking on that dead person's identity, could also be motivated by that notion. In that, obtaining a pardon that Billy sought in his youth is living out Billy's dream for him - he lives to be a peaceful old man, the violence put behind him and hopefully can get the pardon that Billy was denied. Anna Anderson/Franziska Schanzkowska was able to die after living for decades as Anastasia. Not everyone believed them, but enough people did that they could die as Anastasia and Billy and be known as such even decades after their deaths.

I first heard about Brushy Roberts as a kid, but didn't start researching him until after the UM segment. He was an interesting and personable enough character where I understand that some people want to believe his account. But such an extraordinary claim requires strong, verifiable evidence, both from contemporary witnesses at the time of the shooting and those who had known Roberts all of his life, not merely testimony that ran the gamut from surprisingly accurate to dead wrong and had unverified gaps in the interim years.

As far as the DNA squabbles, why not take samples from Brushy Bill and a cheek swab from living descendants of Tom and Martha Roberts? Wouldn't mtDNA establish if Brushy Bill and Martha were siblings or cousins? If Brushy was indeed their sibling as was claimed, that should pretty much put the nail into the coffin of his claims. Unfortunately, Joseph McCarty Antrim (Billy's half-brother) died in Denver, CO in 1930, his body was donated to a medical school and he seems to have died childless, so that rules out obtaining an mtDNA profile from him either.

And again, thanks for the conversation - even if we don't agree, there's plenty of anecdotes and evidence that contradict each other that it's still a fascinating case to discuss. I'd have liked to believe that Butch Cassidy survived. Unlike Jesse James or Billy, he wasn't a murderer and actually seemed to be pretty affable - but I think he met his end the way it's recounted as well.

It's been awhile since I've seen the segment, but I always was open to the possibility that Brushy Bill was Billy. He knew quite a bit about Billy's history to have been just an observer. At the very least, I think he could've been another similar outlaw or in Billy's gang. I don't know if we can even take records from back then at face value anyway.

In the segment, it was mentioned that he didn't seek publicity, but other people sought him out. And he only wanted a pardon because he was 90/91 years old and wanted a clear conscious before he died. No matter what the case was, I found it a bit heartbreaking that he died lonely and dejected and denied his pardon.

P.S. If he was Billy, I wonder what his life between the late 1880s and 1949 was like! If he stayed on the run, where did he live all those years, and how did he escape detection? Granted, we didn't even come close to any modern technology in the early 20th century (like computer databases), but that's the only thing that makes me a little bit skeptical.

Imagine how cool it would've been to live over those years. When he was in the car with the historian and describing the places he'd had gunfights at as a young man, and to compare it to the then-modern world of 1949/1950 with indoor plumbing, cars, electricity, phones, radio, and the very beginning of the "futuristic" sci-fi era with the invention of TV! As big as the sociopolitical changes in the later 60s/70s were, or the technology and pop culture of the 80s, or again now in the late 2000s/10s...that completely pales in comparison to what someone Brushy Bill's age would've witnessed in their lifetime.

That's somewhat OT, but I just find it fascinating since the old west/19th century was literally living history perhaps even as late as 1975/1980! (even if the youngest people were just kids then and not actually cowboys in gunfights, but still). I think that's one reason I was interested in this case.

Yes, I was talking about Bell and Ollinger. We'll have to disagree on the perception of the event: my take is that Billy had no qualms with killing if he felt that someone stood in his way (in this case, of escaping). By some witness accounts, he was whistling after shooting the two men, while attempting to remove the leg irons - hardly a way to behave after regretting the killing of Bell (he and Ollinger heartily loathed each other, so one can't be surprised if he didn't lose sleep over shooting him). I tend to agree with what Robert Utley has written about him: despite his friendly demeanor and his loyalty to some individuals, he could act out impulsively and violently without hesitation if he felt it benefited him to do so. This doesn't make him a clear sociopath like Jim Miller, nor an unbalanced individual like Jesse James, but neither was he a young man who sought peace over violence either. His behavior wasn't atypical for his disjointed upbringing after Catherine Antrim's death and his exposure to casual violence.

Fair enough. But most witness accounts of Billy's actions after killing Ollinger and Bell was that he yelled at the crowd of gathering citizens and took his time in fleeing the town. The guy was going to hang for a crime committed in a "war" when there were several other men who had murdered people in the "war", yet Billy was the only one of out hundreds ever prosecuted and convicted.

aking Brushy Bill's claims out of it, what contemporary Ft. Sumner accounts do we have of a conspiracy to cover up the death of Billy Barlow? There is a later mention that a woman and her husband had supper with Billy after his supposed death, newspaper reports of sightings all over, rumors that Billy had survived. Not accounts by anyone who is alleged to have witnessed the remains or the burial.

There is a newspaper article titled, "Exit the Kid" which was written shortly after his death which described him as staining his skin and growing a beard to resemble a Mexican. And a Ft. Sumner resident named John Collins (who allegedly helped bury the body) said the coffin did not contain Billy's body.

Roberts claimed that he didn't have a sister, but Martha Roberts did indeed state that she recognized Roberts as her half brother, not cousin as Roberts claimed. Geneva Pittmon (Tom Roberts' daughter) also stated that Brushy Bill was actually her father's brother. Again, once has to weigh the statements of two of Roberts relatives against the account of Roberts that he appropriated Oliver's identity.

Martha Roberts may have stated she recognized Brushy as her brother, but other members of the family (I can't recall off the top of my head, but I believe it was either her husband or one of her brothers) chided her and said that he was NOT her brother, only he looked like him.

We can't be certain why Roberts made the statements about Billy's origins that he did. If he had to claim to be a cousin of Martha and Tom Roberts to establish why he had Oliver Robert's identity, he couldn't also easily claim to be Catherine Antrim's son. Stating that he was her nephew, rather than her son, made it harder to prove or disprove his genealogy. Making up two parents whose records can't be traced made it easier, rather than more difficult, since the lack of records could be explained by poor record keeping, lost records, etc. It's more difficult to actually be caught in a lie when there is no way to verify a claim with records.

Well that was my whole point, he had to "invent" a backstory, and every time he retold this story he had to make sure he remembered these fake people, and then go on to recite a near perfect historical account of the Kid's exploits. It's just not that easy for some old phony who wants to pretend to be someone to do. Others had tried and were easily refuted. The fact that Roberts still gets discussed today is very telling. If he's lying, he not only made up the names of his parents, but he also made up their entire genealogy because he also had details about his mother's family and his father's.

A claimant's background is often filled with accounts that are impossible to corroborate - Brushy Bill told a variety of unverifiable stories, including of riding with Jesse James' gang, despite there being no credible account of Billy ever being involved with James' criminal activities. Certainly Roberts had the scars to prove that he'd been through a few interesting scrapes, but this in itself does not establish that he was whom he claimed to be. Claimants aren't always motivated by fame or fortune either - some seem to have strongly fantasy driven personalities, desperately want an identity other than their own, and so latch onto the notion of a person they found fascinating 'surviving', so they can live out that life to some degree. People romanticize such lost figures that they are willing to believe that they indeed survived, so it's not out of the question that a claimant, in taking on that dead person's identity, could also be motivated by that notion. In that, obtaining a pardon that Billy sought in his youth is living out Billy's dream for him - he lives to be a peaceful old man, the violence put behind him and hopefully can get the pardon that Billy was denied. Anna Anderson/Franziska Schanzkowska was able to die after living for decades as Anastasia. Not everyone believed them, but enough people did that they could die as Anastasia and Billy and be known as such even decades after their deaths.

Brushy Bill never claimed to ride with the James gang. That myth got started when a newspaper article switched him with another elderly man about J. Frank Dalton (Jesse James claimant). The article said Brushy claimed to be a James gang member and the other man was a former US Marshal, but they simply got the two men mixed up.

As far as the DNA squabbles, why not take samples from Brushy Bill and a cheek swab from living descendants of Tom and Martha Roberts? Wouldn't mtDNA establish if Brushy Bill and Martha were siblings or cousins? If Brushy was indeed their sibling as was claimed, that should pretty much put the nail into the coffin of his claims. Unfortunately, Joseph McCarty Antrim (Billy's half-brother) died in Denver, CO in 1930, his body was donated to a medical school and he seems to have died childless, so that rules out obtaining an mtDNA profile from him either.

Well that might disprove Brushy as Billy, but it wouldn't be the final nail in the coffin of whether or not the Kid survived that night.

And again, thanks for the conversation - even if we don't agree, there's plenty of anecdotes and evidence that contradict each other that it's still a fascinating case to discuss. I'd have liked to believe that Butch Cassidy survived. Unlike Jesse James or Billy, he wasn't a murderer and actually seemed to be pretty affable - but I think he met his end the way it's recounted as well.

No problem, enjoyed it as well.

DNA can't be tested in the case of Billy, but can it be tested with Brushy against others known to be from his purported family? http://www.texasescapes.com/CFEckhardt/Was-Oliver-Partridge-Brushy-Bill-Roberts-really-Billy-the-Kid.htm

DNA can't be tested in the case of Billy, but can it be tested with Brushy against others known to be from his purported family? http://www.texasescapes.com/CFEckhardt/Was-Oliver-Partridge-Brushy-Bill-Roberts-really-Billy-the-Kid.htm

I'm not too sure how DNA testing works, but if Roberts was tested with people purported to be his family (if he were born in 1879), it could still show a match and not really prove anything. Because even though Roberts claimed to have been born in 1859, he still said that he was related to the family of Oliver P. Roberts (born in 1879), so there still might be a match.

I hadn't realized the families might be related (Billy the Kid was named Bonney and Brushy Bill had a relative named Bonney) or the thing about the ear. If the ear thing is true that seems pretty conclusive! :rolleyes:

I have to dissect the argument made by interviewees in the segment that Brushy not seeking publicity is a strong indicator he was Billy. He was getting attention and some fame with this desire to get a pardon. But let's be honest: If you were 91, Billy the Kid, and had escaped scot-free for 70 years, would it really be so important for you to get a pardon? If he wanted "peace" he could have turned to spirituality. I also doubt that Billy would just settle down without committing any crimes for 70 years.

I enjoy the segment, but it's not a convincing one.

I have to dissect the argument made by interviewees in the segment that Brushy not seeking publicity is a strong indicator he was Billy. He was getting attention and some fame with this desire to get a pardon. But let's be honest: If you were 91, Billy the Kid, and had escaped scot-free for 70 years, would it really be so important for you to get a pardon? If he wanted "peace" he could have turned to spirituality. I also doubt that Billy would just settle down without committing any crimes for 70 years.

I enjoy the segment, but it's not a convincing one.

According to Roberts, he was shot multiple times on July 14th, 1881. He actually was going to go back out and confront Garrett when he regained consciousness, but his friends begged him to leave the area and that Garrett was saying that he was already dead. So he fled to Mexico and lived there for 2 years, before wandering around the country. Roberts also detailed about how he was a good bronc buster (prior to being known as "Billy the Kid"), so he started to do that to make a living. And if Roberts is to be believed, he didn't exactly settle down until he was in his 40's.

And with regards to the pardon, imagine if he really was Billy. Billy was promised a pardon for the murder of Sheriff Brady, for testifying in a trial for another murder. When he did testify at the trial, Lew Wallace reneged on his end of the deal and didn't pardon Billy. Essentially, Billy the Kid was the only man (out of hundreds) who was arrested and tried for crimes committed during the Lincoln County War. And he always denied murdering Brady (or even firing at him). So it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for Billy, if he did in fact live to be 90, to want to clear his name before he died.