Awww...Peanuts

[Cliff Roberts]

(07-10-2014 09:44 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:24 PM)Rsmyth Wrote:  In Steers "The Evidence" pg. 140, there is a statement by John Bohran and in parenthesis Joseph Burroughs. The statement lists John C. Bohran "Peanut John."

This is a very interesting development, Rich, and worth looking into. I seems to me that Steers and Edwards added the bracketed information [Joseph Burroughs] under the Bohran name to indicate that Burroughs was his real name, and in their footnote, they give the possibility of "Borrows" and "Bohran."

In the trial records, the name is given as Joseph Burroughs - so who in the heck is Bohran. Betty and Susan, city directories please; Cliff, what's your take on the "Bohran?"

This guy has plagued historians for 150 years. It's time that we clearly identify him.

Hi Lori. I've found many legitimate variations of the Burroughs surname over the years, some traditional and some merely to differentiate one family from another with the same name in the same town. But in the case of Peanut's statement, I think it's simply a matter of mistaken phonetics. Whoever recorded his name simply wrote what he heard, "Bohran," rather than what the boy actually said. At the time, what was really important is what the witness saw and heard, not precise spelling of names. If you say "Burroughs" quickly with a slight Southern drawl (something like "baurra") it's easy to see how the transcriber could make that error. I'm fairly confident the correct spelling of his surname is Burroughs.