Welcome to the Old West of Brushy Bill Roberts!
|
Who was Brushy Bill Roberts?
In 1948, William V. Morrison, a probate investigator working in St. Louis, Missouri, was sent to Florida to work on the case of an elderly man
named Joe Hines. Hines was claiming that the land of his recently deceased brother now belonged entirely to him, since he was the only surviving
heir. While Morrison and Hines talked, Hines admitted that he was Jessie Evans, who, after he had been released from prison in Texas in 1882, had
by all accounts disappeared. Hines then told Morrison of his experiences in the Lincoln County War and with Billy the Kid. This held a special
interest for Morrison, since he was related to the Maxwell family of Fort Sumner. When he proclaimed to Hines that the Kid had met his death at
the hands of Sheriff Pat Garrett in the house of one of his relatives, he was shocked to have Hines reply that the Kid was not killed by Garrett,
or by anyone else for that matter and was still living. Hines went on to say that besides himself and Billy, there was only one other surviving
veteran of the Lincoln County War, namely Jim McDaniels, a member of the Jessie Evans Gang. Further intrigued, Morrison probed Hines for “the
Kid’s” name and address and the old man finally consented. He gave Billy’s current name as Ollie L. “Brushy Bill” Roberts and his address as
Hamilton, Texas.
After finishing his probate work with Joe Hines (aka Jesse Evans), Morrison traveled to Hamilton County, Texas to look for Brushy Bill Roberts.
He found him there, living in a little place called Hico. After interviewing the old man, what he then learned from him is the stuff of legends.
I invite you to explore this page to learn more about the legend of William Henry Roberts, aka Brushy Bill, aka Billy the Kid.
|
|
Return to the Old West
Books about Brushy Bill Roberts
The Return of the Outlaw Billy the Kid
Billy the Kid: Beyond the Grave
Billy the Kid:The Lost Interviews
Billy the Kid “Killed” in New Mexico— Died in Texas
LINKS
|
Did Pat Garrett Kill the Wrong Man?
If Pat Garrett didn’t kill Billy the Kid on that night long ago in Fort Sumner, New Mexico, then obviously the Kid lived on to be someone else, no
doubt under another alias. Indeed, it would have been extremely likely that he would have adopted another name to live his new life under since
he had shown such a propensity for adopting alias’ for most of his life. If historians know anything at all about the Kid, they know that he
absolutely defies being pinned down to a real name and date and place of birth. So, if Billy the Kid survived his supposed grave at Fort Sumner,
New Mexico, it would come as no surprise that he would be found years later living under such a name as William Henry Roberts in a place like
Hico, Texas. Indeed, one of the real given names that many historians subscribe to the Kid was William Henry.
So, if we are to admit to the possibility that William Henry “Brushy Bill” Roberts was in fact Billy the Kid, then we must first address the issue
of whether or not Pat Garrett killed Billy on that summer night in Fort Sumner, New Mexico on 14 July 1881. There are several people who were
there that night who say that he did not. Among these people are John William Poe, one of the two deputies who were with Garrett at the time of
the shooting. When Garrett came running out of the darkened room from which he had just fired the fatal shot, he remarked, “That was the Kid in
there and I think I got him.” Upon a moment of reflection, Poe was said to have replied, “Pat, you shot the wrong man. The Kid wouldn’t be
here.” In later years, regarding the shooting of Billy the Kid, Poe has been quoted as saying, “I had felt almost certain that someone whom we
did not want had been killed”.
What about the other deputy there that night, Thomas McKinney? He never spoke publicly about the shooting, although various second-hand sources
claim that, in private, he did tell the “real” story of what happened. According to miner Frederick Grey, who allegedly knew McKinney, the deputy
told him that he, Garrett, and Poe went into the bedroom of Paulita Maxwell, tied and gagged her, and when Billy came by later that night, Garrett
shot him from concealment. Although at first listen this does seem more likely than the versions Garrett and Poe told, on closer inspection it
loses credibility. Surely, Pete Maxwell would not have permitted his sister to be abused in such manner, and, even if he did, Paulita herself
would have been very vocal of her mistreatment. According to some McKinney relatives, he told a different story from the one he reportedly told
Grey. In this version, McKinney stated that he killed the man in the Maxwell bedroom. This man was discovered to not be Billy, while the real Kid
escaped. Another story that McKinney reportedly told other relatives was that Garrett shot the wrong man on the porch, while the real Kid escaped.
Why did McKinney tell all these different versions in secret? Whatever the reason, the differing claims he made tend to destroy his credibility
completely.
With so many different versions being told about the events that happened that night in Fort Sumner, by the witnesses involved, how can we know
with any degree of certainty what actually happened? After over 130 years we have only the recorded testimonies, both on and off the record, of
those who were there, and all those people are long since dead.
One of the biggest problems I have with believing that Billy the Kid was killed that night, are the stories of numerous witnesses who knew Billy
well and who reported having seen him in the years after his supposed death at the hands of Pat Garrett. Take, for instance, the report by Mrs.
J. H. Wood, of Seven Rivers, who claimed she served Billy a dinner on July 17, 1881, just three days after he supposedly died at the hands of
Garrett. Manuel Taylor, who was a boyhood friend of Billy’s when he lived in Silver City, claimed to have seen him in 1914 at a bullfight in
Guadalajara, Mexico. Mrs. Syd Boykin, of Lincoln, also claimed to have seen the Kid after his supposed death in 1881. Jesse Cox, a wagon driver
from New Mexico, claimed he had seen and spoken to Billy numerous times after 1881.
With so many stories from people who knew the Kid quite well claiming to have seen him since his supposed death in 1881, how can we be so sure
that Pat Garrett killed the right man? And if he didn’t kill Billy, then who did he kill? That question may never be answered with any
definitive proof, because if the man that Garrett killed wasn’t Billy the Kid, like Garrett claims it was, then he certainly wouldn’t have wanted
anyone to learn the identity of who he really did kill. Although there has been some speculation on who that man really was, we will probably
never know for sure with any degree of certainty. Evidently, Pat Garrett did a good job of covering up his mistake.
For many decades the history of Billy the Kid and the account of what happened to him that night so long ago in Fort Sumner, New Mexico has been
based largely upon a book that has been described by some historians as containing several contradictions and even a few outright lies. I think
that the history of the life of the Old West’s most legendary outlaw and who he really was is long overdue a serious reexamination. Billy the Kid
wasn’t born in New York City — there’s simply no documented evidence to support the claim that he was — and he didn’t die in Fort Sumner, New
Mexico. He was born in Texas… and he died there too. History needs to be rewritten.
Why I Feel That William Henry Roberts Was Billy the Kid:
Billy the Kid’s fame as a notorious outlaw had spread beyond the boundaries of this country by the time of his supposed death at the hand of Pat
Garrett. I find it to be absolutely incredible that Garrett made no effort to summon a photographer so that such a momentuous moment could have
been fixed into immortality upon a photographic plate. He could easily have arranged for one if he had so chosen. This conduct of Garrett’s is
totally at odds with the usual scenario that surrounded such events in the Old West. A good case in point is the violent demise of the Dalton
Gang in the streets of Coffeeville, Kansas a few years later. It was a carnival event, with hoards of the local citizenry vying alongside the
lawmen to be photographed in company with the dead outlaws. Why didn’t Garrett do the same thing with the dead body of the West’s single most
notorious outlaw? The thousands of dollars in reward money would certainly have been more than enough to compensate the photographer for his
services. In fact, any photographer of that time would have been more than happy to take the pictures for free because of the value that such
photos would be to him. But of course, photographs would have revealed the true identity of the man he killed.
In 1990 a study was conducted using the Dedrick-Upham Tintype and a photograph of William Henry Roberts. The study was conducted by Dr. Scott T.
Acton at the Laboratory for Vision Systems and Advanced Graphic Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin. The study was supervised by Dr.
Alan Bovik, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Using state-of-the-art facilities designed for such studies, the photographs were
then digitized and image improved by employing a variety of image processing techniques. Similarities and differences between the two photographs
were searched for, concentrating on facial features that criminologists use in their identification of criminals. The most important part of the
study involved a computerized recognition system. These systems are statistically proven for a 92% success rate in face recognition and employed
by the CIA, FBI, Scotland Yard, Interpol, and the Israeli Mosad. The actual parameters of comparison used to compare the two photos are too
technical for inclusion here, but in the final analysis by Dr. Acton, “the similarity between the facial structure of William Henry Roberts and
the man in the tintype is indeed amazing.” Later, in 1998, a similar study using the same technology was made by Dr. James J. Jurkanin of the
Photo Institute at SIUC. In this study Jurkanin used a photo of a much younger Roberts, when he was 27 years of age. This later day comparison
yielded an MSE (mean squared error) of just 3.0. According to Dr. Jurkanin, “I’d say that the similarity is indeed amazing. It is a near perfect
match.”
So here we have two independent studies by professionals, using state-of-the-art photo comparison equipment of the type used to track down
criminals around the world, technology that can see right through age and disguises, telling us that the only known authenticated photograph of
Billy the Kid and two different photos of William Henry Roberts at different ages are all pictures of the same man. I find evidence like that
hard to dispute.
Through the years it had been noted by many people that there were remarkable physical similarities between Billy the Kid and William Henry
Roberts. The list below gives a comprehensive overview of what these similarities were:
General apprearance: Robets had been characterized as slim, spry, and very muscular. Sonnichsen and Morrison
described him as “straight as an arrow…about five feet eight inches tall” in cowboy boots. Billy the Kid has been portrayed by Robert Utley as
being “slim, muscular, wiry, and erect, weighing 135 pounds and standing about five feet seven inches tall” without boots.
Teeth: One thing that people who knew Billy the Kid remember about him the most were his two large and prominent
front teeth. They were evident everytime he smiled, which was often. According to an affidavit sworn to by Dewitt Travis, Roberts possessed two
such teeth until they were removed by Dr. Cruz, a dentist in Gladewater, Texas in 1931. Relatives going through Roberts possessions after his
death found a jar containing two large front teeth.
Hands and wrists: It is a well known fact that Billy the Kid had large wrists and small hands. This is why he was
able to slip out of handcuffs so easily. According to Sonnichsen and Morrison, Roberts also possessed “small, neat hands with well shaped
fingers, unusually large wrists, heavy forearm, and well developed biceps.”
Ears: Both Billy the Kid and Roberts possessed rather prominent ears. Photographic comparisons of the tintype and
photos of Roberts show a remarkable similarity.
Eyes: Perhaps the most remarkable characteristic about Billy the Kid were his eys. They have been described by
people who knew him as being bluish gray with tiny spots of brown in them. According to Sonnichsen and Morrison, as well as the sworn statement
by Severo Gallegos on November 11, 1950, Roberts had exactly the same kind of eyes.
Scars: A postmortem which was performed on Roberts following his death in 1950, verified the existence of scars on
his body that were in the same position as were those known by history to have existed on Billy the Kid.
Photos of Brushy Bill Roberts
Photos of Brushy Bill Roberts, Page 1
|
");
Counter installed 23 March 2014
Brushy Bill Roberts and Billy the Kid—The Complete Facts