ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY-L Archives
Archiver > ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY > 2002-04 > 1018811121
From:
Subject: Re: [Ethics] Re: Using circumstantial evidence
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:05:24 EDT
Learning to evaluate the evidence before you is a vital skill in genealogy. I
recall about 7 years ago challenging a fact regarding one of my own names
under study. The editor of the newsletter came back with a reply that 30
people all claimed me wrong. I explained to her that if their information
all came from the same source and it was wrong then they were wrong.
Taking just one fact about a persons life can also lead to trouble. I like
the example of Francis Spencer of Westmoreland County, Virginia. [ca 1720]
Francis' will is of record there and if that was all one used, then they
would say he died childless and left his estate to his former guardian. But
the court minutes show his will was challenged by his wife and he had a son,
William.
The point is one must gather as much information as possible on an individual
before they declare that a fact relates to the person under study. Many times
nuances are just as important as an actual records.
For example the absences of a record that should be there makes as strong a
statement as an actual record sometimes. The special Evidence issue of the
National Genealogical Society Quarterly [September 1999] gives four case
studies as examples of various kinds of genealogical evidence. It was the
absence of the appointment of John Lewis as guardian of the children of
Richard and Rose Taliaferro in the 1750s that was the strongest evidence that
proved the case.
Timelines for an individual is often helpful when sorting more than one
person with a given name. All recognized techniques for evaluating the weight
of evidence.
Margaret
This thread: