Brent, you are absolutely correct that DNA does not prove Jefferson's
paternity. Even the later editions of Annette Gordon-Reed's. "Thomas Jefferson
and Sally Hemings, An American Controversy" clearly states: "The DNA test does
not prove that the descendant of Eston Hemings was a direct descendant of
Thomas Jefferson."  According to Dr. Ken Wallenborn, a longtime Monticello
employee, at the time,  and member of the Monticello Study Group, now
President of Thomas Jefferson Herirtage Society (www,tjheritage.org), states
that the above Gordon-Reed book was used as sort of a "road map" for their
study. Several assessments made by this group, chaired by African-American
oral history specialist, Dr. Dianne Swann-Wright, were challenged and one in
particular, a letter from Ellen Randolph Coolidge to her husband. According to
the Scholars Commission Report (13 independent scholars),  the letter was
completely rearranged in her book and assumed "another meaning." The group of
ten prominent African-Americans, including NAACP Chairman, Julian Bond and Ms.
Swann-Wright can be read on the Monticello Web Pages under the Getting Word
Project.

The previously named, Thomas Jeffertson Memorial Foundation, owners of
Monticello, would change their title to Thomas Jefferson Foundation, DROPPING
"Memorial." May we not now ask, WHO are they now memoralizing if not Thomas
Jefferson?   Reading from the Monticello Report which possibly very few
readers have access to, we find with reference as to who contributed to the
report, "..........and Advisory Committee on African-American Interpretation
,........" I personally stood in Dr. Dan Jordan's Monticello office and
cautioned that all sides of this study should be on the table for research and
asked if he had passed on the volumunous research material I had sent him and
that I desired to be interviewed by the group. Never did he invite me and I
have no proof that anything I had sent was reviewed. I also sent a long video
outlining my participation in the study and asked if had been reviewed by the
study group.......his reply, "it's here in my file cabinet" and this was
shortly prior to the "wind up" of the study.. No indication that it was shown
to the study group either. Dr. Wallenborn never saw it and he was the author
of the Minority Report that was originally "swept under the carpet" by
President Jordan.

Let me cite another case of possible "mixups" and handling of the raw DNA
collection and one which all DNA participants must be well aware of. The
Monticello Report cites statements made by well known and respected genetist,
Dr. David Page, Associate Director, Whitehead Institute M.I.T, "if he had any
concerns about the study, they would be have to do with "bookkeping" and the
interpretation of results. Basically, "bookkeping" is worrying about a
mistake, such as mixing up the test tubes, that could have led to the
significant match. He would feel better if blood was redrawn from the Eston
Hemings descendant and retyped."  "He would also ask, to what degree has the
potential that it was somebody else's gene being sampled."  I can visualize
how a drop of collected blood find it's way into another vile or just the
using of a vial that had another blood staib remaining.  I too share the
"concern" of Dr. Page and also insist that William Hemings DNA (Madison's
son), be tested, thus giving two sources of DNA. Let us see if Madison's DNA
and Eston's DNA match. What are they afraid of, arenm't we researchers?

This same Monticello Report reports that three sons of Randolph Jefferson
(brother of Thomas) were in a time frame visiting at Monticello to be subjects
for concern BUT were "too young." at the time of conception report this
in-house Monticello paid group of researchers. I am sure our professional and
nonprofessional genealogists would not agree because they ranged in age from
14 1/2 to age 21. DNA can help us BUT we also need honest and correct family
genealogy to benefit.

It was said that the mulattos around Monticello resembled Jefferson , just as
some of the readers here state that their ancestors "looked" like certain
preconceived groups of people. No wonder......Thomas inherited a mulatto named
SANDY from his father. Let us suppose that possibly a male descendant of Sandy
(a name noted for a reddish, brownish hair (like the Jefferson DNA) were to be
fathering Sally's children then we have the same conclusion to
draw...........some Jefferson prior to Thomas Jefferson's inheritance fathered
a mulatto, thus the mulatto Jefferson looks and DNA around Monticello.
Numerous conclusions but NO PROOF that Thomas Jefferson fathered a slave
child. .


More later.

Herb Barger
Jefferson Family Historian.



-----Original Message-----
From: Research and writing about Virginia genealogy and family history.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Brent Tarter
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 8:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] DNA, etc.


All researchers in family history and other kinds of history and in the
humanities generally constantly contend with the problem of interpreting
and drawing conclusions from incomplete evidence or evidence that can be
interpreted more than one way.

Herb Barger is correct that the DNA evidence respecting Thomas Jefferson
and Sally Hemings does not prove Jefferson's paternity. There are many
other factors to consider, such as who else shared with Jefferson the
supposedly critical DNA markers; who else had access to the Heming's
dwelling; who among the possible fathers can be shown to have been in
the correct vicinity eight or nine months before the known or presumed
births of her children.

No one bit of scientific or circumstantial evidence is conclusive. To
some students, some of the scientific evidence combined with some of the
circumstantial evidence is completely persuasive. To some other
students, it is not.

Va-Roots is a good place to discuss how to interpret evidence.

Brent Tarter
The Library of Virginia
[log in to unmask]

Visit the Library of Virginia's web site at http://www.lva.lib.va.us

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/296 - Release Date: 3/29/06

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/298 - Release Date: 3/30/06

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