Alison and Paul,

Paul's advice is very good.

One bit of advice. If you can, double check the birthdate on a given
headstone with what the funeral home has on record for that person. My
great-great-grandfather's birthdate was wrong on his headstone, yet the
funeral home that held his services had the correct date for him. They will
send you a copy of what they have in their records if you are a descendant.
You can learn information such as what is in a death certificate from that
record. Also, sometimes the census has the wrong place of birth and other
information. If people were not home when the census was taken, it is
possible that someone who knew some of the information, but not all gave the
census taker what he needed when he couldn't wait for the family to return.
Likewise for death certificates.

Lee Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Drake" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:04 PM
Subject: [VA-ROOTS] evidence


> WOW, HUGE question, Alison !!  But I have been asked so many times that I
> will try to answer.
>
> You need NONE of those terms to do excellent and complete research, and I
> advise all my students to forget those words.  "Primary", "secondary",
> "direct" and "indirect" have no meaning EXCEPT to the person saying or
> writing those words.  Those are used by some to reveal, based on the
sources
> of the information, what they think of the QUALITY of the evidence being
> described by the words.
>
> As with all such terms and labels, we still must thoroughly examine by
> "whom, when, where, and why" those bits of evidence were created those
many
> years ago.  Only in that way, and NOT by paying attention to labels, can
we
> determine the value of that evidence in what we are trying to prove.  I
must
> add that such very fine students of genealogical evidence as Mrs. Arledge,
> Haun, and Leary, and Drs. Charles Drake and Kory Meyerlink suggest that
the
> terms have some value as first lessons for a newcomer to the hobby, later
to
> be abandoned after those neophytes come to understand that all -
> ALL -evidence must be examined carefully no matter what the source, and
that
> labels do NOT reveal quality.  I do not find that use necessary, but all
> teachers are different.
>
> The almost meaningless term, "preponderance of the evidence", at last is
> being abandoned as a standard in favor of "evidence that is clear and
> convincing", and that change is long past due. Preponderance is a term of
> the law and not appropriate as a standard in genealogy.  In fact, none of
> us - not you, me or anyone I know - really considers a mere preponderance
to
> be sufficient proof of ANYTHING (look it up in any good dictionary).  As
> with the terms already mentioned, you should try to not use that phrase
> again.  It tells your reader or listener nothing about your proof of any
> fact.  "Clear and convincing" is really what all of us try to achieve in
> proving lineage.
>
> There are no "clues".  There is only "evidence".  EVERY single fact,
> memento, writing, story, and state of being that in ANY way tends to
> establish lineage IS EVIDENCE, and the only difference in ANY of it is in
> the QUALITY - the worth, the evidentiary value, the weight - that those
> little pieces of evidence should be given, depending again on the "who,
> when, where, why" of the source.  Would you ignore a bit of evidence
because
> someone says it is a "clue"?  The answer is. "Of course not!"
>
> To speak or write the word "proofs" is simply poor usage; there is no such
> word.  There is but one "proof" in any question, and that "proof" is
> achieved when the little pile of evidence you have gathered tending to
> establish some relationship is large enough - has enough evidentiary value
> and weight - that you may state that the matter has been "proven".   We
> gather evidence, and then we conclude that there is enough of that to say
> the question is resolved and the relationship is proved.  Forget the word
> "proofs"; there ain't no such animal.
>
> Finally, words such as "circumstantial" and "hearsay" also are words of
the
> law, and have defined and precise meanings, that do not apply to our
> research.  As with "primary" and "secondary", we must examine the evidence
> no matter what label it may fall under.  Notice that a headstone is
> "hearsay" in its MOST classical form, yet should we not note and preserve
> what the stone says?  Again, of course not; to ignore a headstone because
it
> is hearsay would be utterly silly.  Again, then, of what value the label?
> NONE.  Finally, I have no idea what "circumstantial" means when the term
is
> used in genealogy.  The evidence that you are the child of a certain
mother
> and a certain father is purely circumstantial.  Oh, yes, by the way, the
> headstone also is classical circumstantial evidence that the person named
is
> the person buried there, so do we doubt it for THAT reason?  Again, simply
> silly.  Hope this helps.  Paul
>
>
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:36 PM
> Subject: Evidence question
>
> Paul, would you help me, please?  I am new and am confused about words
used
> by some friends doing genealogy.  Though you have the words in your
> dictionary that I have, I can't sort those out as to how they apply.
>
> I am most confused about primary, secondary, direct, indirect,
> preponderance, clues, hearsay, circumstantial, and proofs.  Thanks you for
> any help you have time for.  Alison
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html

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