In a message dated 3/31/2002 6:19:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> You yourself likened Gordon-Reed's analysis to a "legal brief," and if so,
>  by the practical standards of legal briefs, you must surely recognize that
>  it is an effective one.

Professor Hardwick:
No, I said, "The book by Annette Gordon-Reed was essentially a lawyer's brief
that never could quite demand a verdict of guilty, but drifted around the
evidence until it could be massaged into a pretty strong hope of guilt." The
evidence and how it would be admitted in a legal proceeding is addressed by
me in the book, "The Jefferson-Hemings Myth." That analysis can be found at
http://www.angelfire.com/va/TJTruth/trial.html
I also commend for your study the Scholars Commission Report which will be
published this summer but can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/tjshcommission/ If you are a member of H-SHEAR you
can find a string where I debate in much more detail a thicker skin in
Richard Bernstein.
____________________________________________________________________
Richard E. Dixon
Attorney at Law
4122 Leonard Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
703-691-0770 fax 703-691-0978
____________________________________________________________________

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html