In 1881, the notorious outlaw Billy the Kid was supposedly gunned down by Sheriff Pat Garrett in a dark New Mexico bedroom. But what if history got it wrong?
Nearly 70 years later, an old man named Brushy Bill Roberts stepped out of the shadows claiming he was the real Billy the Kid. He insisted that he had faked his death to escape justice and had lived quietly for decades under a different identity.
Was he a fraud chasing fame? Or had the West’s most legendary gunslinger pulled off the ultimate disappearing act?
This story is one of the most bizarre and controversial tales in Old West history. It is a narrative filled with conflicting testimony, questionable witnesses, and a mystery that remains unsolved to this day. It just might change everything you thought you knew about one of America’s most enduring outlaw legends.
Brushy Bill Roberts, who also went by names such as William Henry Roberts, Ollie Partridge, William Roberts, Ollie N. Roberts, and Ollie Roberts, gained national attention during the late 1940s and early 1950s.
He made headlines by claiming he was actually William H. Bonney, better known to history as Billy the Kid, who was believed to have died in 1881. Roberts insisted that the story of the Kid’s death was false.
He maintained that he had lived quietly for decades under different identities, always looking over his shoulder.
In 1950, Roberts sought an official pardon from New Mexico Governor Thomas J. Mabry. After reviewing his claim and meeting with Roberts in person, the governor ultimately rejected the request.
Mabry stated there wasn’t enough evidence to support the old man’s story.
Despite the official dismissal, Roberts’s claim found lasting support in his hometown of Hico, located in Hamilton County, Texas. The Billy the Kid Museum there continues to highlight his version of events and keeps the debate alive.
His story has also appeared in popular media. It was the subject of a 1989 segment on Unsolved Mysteries hosted by Robert Stack. It was featured again in 2011 on the History Channel series Brad Meltzer’s Decoded.
The story of how Brushy Bill came to public attention is as strange as the claim itself. In 1948, a probate investigator from St. Louis named William V.
Morrison was conducting routine work when he came across a man who would change the course of his research.
This elderly man, identified as Joe Hines, had recently filed a claim on land left behind by his deceased brother. During their conversations, Hines shared detailed recollections of his involvement in the Lincoln County War, a conflict deeply connected to the legend of Billy the Kid.
To Morrison’s surprise, Hines claimed that Billy the Kid had not died in 1881 as widely believed. While he stood by the claim, he declined to provide the identity or specific location of the man he said was still alive.
Encouraged by the possibility, Morrison expanded his investigation. That same year, he encountered another intriguing figure, J. Frank Dalton of Lawton, Oklahoma.
Dalton had gained attention by declaring himself to be Jesse James, another famous figure from the Old West.
Dalton further fueled the mystery by asserting that Billy the Kid was still living as well. According to Dalton, the man known locally in Hamilton, Texas as Ollie Roberts was in fact the legendary outlaw in hiding.
Following the lead provided by Joe Hines, William V. Morrison initiated a written exchange with Ollie Roberts, the elderly man living in Hamilton, Texas. Over time, Roberts opened up and eventually declared that he was in fact Billy the Kid.
In his letters and conversations with Morrison, Roberts recounted numerous stories from his past. These tales, if accurate, would fill in many of the blank spots in Billy the Kid’s life that historians have struggled to document.
One of his main motivations for coming forward was to request Morrison’s help in securing a full pardon. Roberts claimed that New Mexico Governor Lew Wallace had promised him this pardon back in 1879 following the Lincoln County War. He said it was never formally granted.
Roberts also demonstrated what he said were skills from his former life, including the ability to slip out of handcuffs. He further explained that the man Sheriff Pat Garrett killed in 1881 wasn’t him at all, but rather another outlaw named Billy Barlow.
According to Roberts, this mistaken identity allowed him to disappear undetected and travel to Mexico. He claimed to have lived a life on the run, always staying one step ahead of the law that had once pursued him so relentlessly.
At the time of the reported death of Billy the Kid, only three individuals were present. Sheriff Pat Garrett and his two deputies, John W. Poe and Thomas McKini, were the only witnesses to the shooting.
Of these, McKini claimed only a vague familiarity with the Kid, while Poe had never seen him before. In fact, Poe reportedly expressed immediate doubts after the shooting, telling Garrett he believed the wrong man had been killed.
Due to the poor lighting at the scene, none of the men could provide a clear visual identification. Garrett later said he recognized the man by his voice, although only hushed words had been exchanged in the room.
Despite early hesitation, both deputies eventually supported Garrett’s account. Though years later, McKini changed his position, joining Poe and suggesting that Garrett may have misidentified the individual.
Skepticism wasn’t limited to law enforcement. Local residents in Fort Sumner also questioned whether the real Billy the Kid had died that night.
Garrett quickly arranged a formal inquest with associates who were politically connected. This helped him secure credit for the killing and collect the reward money.
The man buried the next day was placed in a grave that over the decades was damaged and likely washed away by flooding. Today, the marked grave believed to be Billy the Kid’s may not contain any remains at all.
Despite modern interest, requests for exhumation and DNA testing have consistently been denied by authorities. The mystery of what lies beneath that weathered headstone remains locked away.
Roberts insisted to Morrison that he would fully reveal his story, provided he received the pardon he said had been promised to him decades earlier. His claims stirred strong emotions, particularly among descendants of Pat Garrett, who viewed the accusations as an attack on their ancestor’s legacy.
Brushy Bill also stated that his real name was William Henry Roberts, born on December 31st, 1859 in Buffalo Gap, Texas near Abilene. Throughout his life, however, he had used several different names and identities.
Marshall Trimble, the official state historian of Arizona, references the work of Frederick Nolan, a respected expert on Billy the Kid. Nolan highlights a 1987 letter written by Mrs. Geneva Pitman and sent to Joe Bolan, founder of a historical interest group called the Billy the Kid Gang, Inc.
In her letter, Mrs. Pitman identified her uncle, known publicly as Brushy Bill, as Oliver P. Roberts.
She further stated based on the family bible that he was born on August 26th, 1879.
This account, if correct, would place his age at 71 when he died in Hico, Texas in 1950. That would make him far too young to have been the Billy the Kid who was born in 1859.
On the other hand, author W. C. Jameson, a vocal supporter of Brushy Bill’s claim, argues that Brushy Bill’s true name was William Henry Roberts.
Jameson insists that Oliver Pleasant Roberts and Brushy Bill were two separate individuals.
However, this position directly contradicts Geneva Pitman’s statement which firmly linked her uncle Brushy Bill to the name Oliver P. Roberts. She also rejected the idea that he was Billy the Kid.
If Brushy Bill had indeed been born in 1859, as some supporters claim, he would have been approximately 90 years old at the time of his death. The age discrepancy plays a key role in the debate over his identity, further complicating the narrative.
A 1950 article from the Austin American Statesman reported that Roberts initially claimed to have been a member of Jesse James’ gang. Only later did he come forward asserting that he was in fact Billy the Kid.
In early 1950, Brushy Bill reportedly stated that as a young man he had ridden with the James-Younger gang. He also identified J. Frank Dalton, another controversial figure, as being the real Jesse James.
William B. Morrison claimed that during a personal examination of Brushy Bill Roberts when Roberts was unclothed, he observed 26 old wounds which he described as scars from bullets and blades. This physical evidence, Morrison believed, supported Roberts’s claim to be Billy the Kid.
As part of his investigation, Morrison also attempted to find individuals from Billy the Kid’s past. He successfully located Jim McDaniels, a former member of the Jesse Evans gang in Round Rock, Texas.
McDaniels, along with Ceso Galagos, Martiel Ael, and José Montoya, all of whom had known Billy the Kid during his lifetime, signed sworn statements expressing their belief that Roberts was indeed the same person.
However, not everyone agreed. Bill and Sam Jones, also believed to have been acquainted with the Kid, declined to sign affidavits.
Sam Jones responded in a letter stating that he was too old to take on such a responsibility. He wrote, “Received your letter and am sorry, but feel that I can’t sign your affidavit. I’m old and I just don’t feel like being obligated.”
Meanwhile, Bill Jones’s grandson, writing on his grandfather’s behalf, expressed doubts and declined participation. The refusal of these potential witnesses added another layer of uncertainty to the already murky case.
Questions about Brushy Bill’s identity continued to emerge. It is well documented that Billy the Kid could read and write English and spoke Spanish fluently.
In contrast, Roberts was unable to read or write and had only moderate skill in spoken Spanish. This linguistic gap has been used by critics as a key point against his claim.
The discrepancy is significant because the historical record clearly shows that the real Billy the Kid was educated and bilingual. Supporters of Roberts have struggled to explain how he could have lost these abilities.
In 1950, Roberts traveled to Santa Fe for an official meeting with New Mexico Governor Thomas J. Mabry, who had publicly announced the event. The meeting drew significant media attention.
After hearing Roberts’s account and reviewing the evidence, Mabry declared that he did not believe the story. He formally rejected the pardon request.
The attention combined with the stress of travel from his home in Hico, Texas reportedly took a toll on Roberts’s health. Not long after the meeting, he passed away.
For many years, both Roberts and his story faded from public memory. The controversy seemed to die with the old man who had claimed such an extraordinary past.
Interest in his claims was revived in 1990 when the film Young Guns 2 portrayed Brushy Bill as the narrator, recounting the life of Billy the Kid and the events of the Lincoln County War.
Following the film’s release, new books began exploring the mystery. Fresh attention was given to the possibility that Roberts may have been telling the truth.
Several efforts were made to obtain permission for exhumation and DNA testing to resolve the matter definitively, but all such requests were ultimately denied. The case remained frozen in uncertainty.
Since 1950, a number of books have explored the possibility that Brushy Bill Roberts was in fact Billy the Kid. The first major work on the subject was Alias Billy the Kid, co-authored by William V. Morrison and Western historian C.
L. Sonnichsen.
While Morrison and Sonnichsen attempted to take a fresh look at the story, most research on the topic, including theirs, relied heavily on the 1882 account published by Sheriff Pat Garrett.
However, Garrett’s book was largely shaped by Ash Upson, the postmaster of Roswell, who contributed both factual elements and fictionalized material. Upson’s embellishments helped solidify the legend of Billy the Kid that would endure for decades.
Upon its release, Alias Billy the Kid received mixed reviews from readers and critics. Despite this, it found a surprising supporter in former US President Harry Truman.
Truman wrote to Morrison expressing his belief that Roberts may indeed have been the Kid. He regretted that Brushy Bill had passed away before being given the opportunity to present his case to a different governor, one who might have been more receptive to his request for a pardon.
In 2005, author W. C. Jameson, who had studied under Sonnichsen, revisited the subject in his book Billy the Kid: Beyond the Grave.
Jameson’s research renewed interest in the case and prompted further investigation into Roberts’s claims.
One prominent figure who joined the discussion was Steve Sedwall, a former deputy sheriff of Lincoln County and a former mayor of Capitan, New Mexico. His local knowledge added weight to the ongoing debate.
In April 2015, broadcaster and author Bill O’Reilly added his voice to the debate. In his book Bill O’Reilly’s Legends and Lies: The Real West, he suggested that the evidence supporting Brushy Bill’s claim might actually outweigh the traditional narrative.
O’Reilly cited the original Alias Billy the Kid as a foundational source. He also featured the story on his national television program, presenting a segment that reconstructed the events surrounding Billy the Kid’s supposed death, this time from Brushy Bill Roberts’s point of view.
In 1989, the Lincoln County Heritage Trust sponsored a computer-based facial comparison study. The research was conducted by Robert Elar and Dr. Thomas G.
Kyle, who utilized a custom-developed analytical method rather than the standard procedures commonly used by law enforcement agencies.
Their process involved scanning photographs of Brushy Bill Roberts, Billy the Kid, and 150 additional individuals. These images were then analyzed by a computer using a similarity index that compared 25 key facial landmarks.
When the results were ranked, Roberts’s image placed 42nd, meaning 41 other individuals more closely matched the well-known tintype image of Billy the Kid.
Researcher Robert Snow noted that if Roberts and the Kid were truly the same person, the photo should have ranked near the top, ideally within the top two matches. He also pointed out that photo comparisons are highly dependent on the alignment and angle of the faces being compared, which may have affected the outcome.
A year later in 1990, a second study was carried out at the University of Texas. This research used advanced facial comparison tools at the Laboratory for Vision Studies and the Advanced Graphics Laboratory.
The analysis was led by imaging experts Scott Acton and Alan Bovik. Unlike the earlier study, this one corrected for differences in facial angle and applied a facial recognition system that had been used by agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and Interpol.
These tools offered a greater degree of statistical reliability. One early photograph of Brushy Bill, reportedly taken when he was around 14 years old, was found to closely resemble the famous tintype of Billy the Kid.
Additionally, a photo of Roberts at age 71 produced a 93% similarity rating to the known image of the Kid. Acton and Bovik concluded that their findings showed a very close resemblance between Roberts and Billy the Kid.
However, they acknowledged that for the results to be accepted scientifically, the study would need to be independently replicated. So far, no follow-up studies have been conducted to confirm these results.
Even if the facial comparison findings were replicated, they would not serve as definitive proof of identity. Facial similarity alone cannot verify that the two individuals were the same person without supporting evidence.
In 1996, the results from the University of Texas study were reviewed by Judge Andre McNeel of Arkansas’s 12th Judicial District and attorney Helen Grinder, a respected legal figure in the state.
Both expressed confidence in the strength of the findings. Grinder in particular described the case for Brushy Bill being Billy the Kid as strong, substantial, and excellent based on the photographic study and other supporting evidence.
In 2003, an effort was launched to resolve the longstanding mystery surrounding the final resting place of Billy the Kid. The initiative was led by Lincoln County Sheriff Tom Sullivan, Capitan Mayor Steve Sedwall, and DeBaca County Sheriff Gary Graves, all based in New Mexico.
Their goal was to use modern DNA testing to confirm whether Billy the Kid was truly buried in Fort Sumner. To do this, they proposed exhuming the remains believed to be his along with those of his mother, Catherine Antrim, for comparative analysis.
However, the plan faced immediate challenges. One major obstacle was the uncertainty over the exact burial locations of both individuals. Historical records lacked the clarity needed to pinpoint their graves with confidence.
In addition to logistical issues, the project encountered a series of legal complications. Ultimately, in September 2004, a court ruling blocked the proposed exhumations, effectively halting the investigation before DNA analysis could be conducted.
At the end of his life, Brushy Bill Roberts resided on West Second Street in the town of Hico, Texas. After his passing on December 27th, 1950, he was laid to rest in Hamilton, the county seat located about 20 miles south of Hico.
Although numerous inconsistencies exist in his story, the town of Hico has embraced Brushy Bill’s legacy. The local chamber of commerce has supported the establishment of the Billy the Kid Museum located in the historic western district of the town.
The museum highlights Roberts’s claim and its place in the broader legend of the American frontier. Visitors can explore the exhibits and decide for themselves whether the old man was telling the truth.
A commemorative marker stands in downtown Hico recognizing the man and the controversy surrounding his identity. The inscription reads, “Ollie L. ‘Brushy Bill’ Roberts, alias Billy the Kid, died in Hico, Texas, December 27th, 1950.”
The plaque also acknowledges Roberts’s final mission to convince the world that he was truly Billy the Kid. It references his quest to secure the pardon he said had been promised to him by Governor Lew Wallace of the New Mexico territory.
So, was Brushy Bill Roberts a forgotten outlaw who slipped through history’s cracks, or just a man who got caught up in the legend of Billy the Kid?
Despite decades of investigation, sworn affidavits, photo analysis, and even DNA discussions, the truth remains elusive. What we’re left with is one of the Old West’s greatest unsolved mysteries.
A tale where fact and folklore ride side by side, inseparable after more than a century of retelling. Was Brushy Bill telling the truth? Or was he just another figure chasing a legend bigger than himself?
The answer may never be known with certainty. The grave that supposedly holds Billy the Kid may be empty, and the old man who claimed to be him took his secrets to the grave.
What remains is a story that continues to fascinate and divide those who study the American frontier. It is a mystery that refuses to die, much like the outlaw at its center.
