John,

I believe I know what year this year is.......it's been 10 years since I
agreed to assist Dr Foster with the DNA test. My post well explains the
limits of the DNA in this case. It is not a matter of a mouth swab......it
is a matter of the Hemings to give approval to get DNA from William Hemings
(son of Madison) who is in a grave in Leavenworth, Kansas. They REFUSE! Dan
Jordan, Past Monticello President, REFUSED to ask them to cooperate and
asked me to do it, which I did, and they REFUSED.  
As mentioned below, the science of DNA is NO problem.......the rigging of
the subjects without warning Nature of this amateur study is the PROBLEM.

Herb Barger


-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Philip Adams
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Serve Sally? Serve truth?

This is 2008, in case anyone has not noticed, more than 8 years of
technological increases and advances in the DNA studies have been
accomplished. 
All one has to do is submit swabs og DNA material, to a firm in HOUSTON,
Texas, that does this sort of thing for a living and a lot of family studies
being conducted daily. This is the same technology that just identifed a
cadaver of a child that had been killed over 37 years ago by conducting this
'new fangled' DNA research to identify him with matches from his sisters. 
So, this being said, let's get the Hemmings to submit a swab and the
Jefferson's to do the same.
This would settle all of these discussions and then we would be back to TJ
or to removing the other Jefferson's, if there are any matches.
Good luck on acquiring the swabs.
John Philip Adams
Texas


We have all read the many theories on what DNA can and cannot prove BUT only
one thing of science in this test INSURING a Jefferson-Hemings match was
when Dr. Foster insisted on testing a KNOWN carrier (John Weeks Jefferson),
of the Jefferson DNA without informing Nature as I had suggested. There
could only be a match and there was. All OTHER discussion of DNA is
extraneous in this particular case......the case was (use your own judgment
and words here). I assisted Dr Foster and I know of which I speak. In my
opinion, the reader and the media have been "used" and Mr. Jefferson has
been degraded in the eyes of our citizens.  

The Fraser Neiman so called "Monte Carlo" approach that some readers have
wondered about was a complete FARCE, in my opinion. This study was used by
the Monticello Study Group and was also used in a lengthy William & Mary
Quarterly Review (Jan 2000). When my copy of the Monticello Study arrived
from Monticello my attention was "first" riveted on the study and the many
statistical possibilities. It was so outrageous (in my opinion), in it's
approach as applied to this particular case that I laughed out loud. I knew,
as explained above, what the real problem was, I didn't need charts, graphs,
percentages and statistics. But of course Mr. Neiman using his "expertise"
as Director of Archaeology (that's a real asset in DNA research on this
particular case and TJ family history is it not), was and still is a
Monticello employee. In my opinion, this person knew NOTHING of the study
first hand from his training and only relied on the mission and guidance of
Cinder Stanton, and       
his Chairman, Dianne Swann-Wright, African-American slave ORAL history
specialist.

One or two bewildering statements (among several), made by Mr. Neiman are:
A. "DNA Study "suggesting" that Thomas Jefferson OR A MALE-LINE RELATIVE was
the father of Sally Hemings youngest son, Eston." 2. In trying to find an
excuse for Sally's NON birthing for almost six years after return to
Monticello, Mr Neiman proposes, "the preceding five years during which
Hemings apparently bore no children MAY POINT TO A HIATUS." Really Mr.
Nyman? I suppose that you were pretty well disappointed when you came
running to Dr. Ken Wallenborn, slapped down your "FACTS" on his desk with
"what you had determined "a smoking gun" by gleefully announcing, "NOW WE
HAVE HIM" (is this a show of eagerness on your part? "NAILING" TJ seemed to
me to be your assigned mission, in my opinion. Dr Wallenborn pointed out
your missed analysis. Dr Wallenborn's Minority Report was later "swept under
the carpet" by Dr. Dan Jordan, then Monticello President, until I informed
the Chairman, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation of this act and Dan then
apologized to Dr Wallenborn. There is MUCH more to this but space is limited
here.
      
Herb Barger
Jefferson Family Historian
 

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