ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY-L Archives

Archiver > ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY > 2002-04 > 1018827717


From: Valorie Zimmerman <>
Subject: Re: [Ethics] Re: Using circumstantial evidence
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:42:02 -0700
References: <145.cd7c6cd.29e9edef@aol.com> <3CB91962.7EAB60A3@zimres.net> <002101c1e3a8$c3f4dd60$5986570c@amburgey>


Well -- I would say that if there is NO conflicting evidence, then you
need to spread your net wider. As you can note down the various sources
of evidence you have examined in each possible place, the stronger your
case becomes. You have seen in a couple of the answers where there is an
adversarial position taken by someone else, just as there is in court.
This is the BEST way to ferret out all the evidence, if both adversaries
are good researchers. Many *localities* will be searched, as well as
many record types. The siblings of the person in question will be
researched, as well as cousins, neighbors, and anyone else with a
similar name (because they could be confused). A timeline, as mentioned,
is useful to see if the evidence makes sense. While men may at times be
fathering children at age 60, women *never* are. Children often died
young, and had their names given to later children. All these things
must be taken into consideration.

Joan discussed the *weight* of evidence. When I used the phrase
'preponderance of evidence', I didn't mean to imply that piling it up
for your case will PROVE your case. Think of making a case in front of a
jury, and you'll see that not only do you need to consider all the
evidence possible, but you must reason it out to the jury of your peers.
Reading journals like the NGS will show you what I mean.

And as new evidence emerges -- and we always hope that it will -- the
case can come back before the court for re-examination. Perfect proof
isn't always possible. That's why new history books continue to be
written. :-)

Valorie


"Barbara I. Amburgey" wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Valorie Zimmerman" <>
> Subject: [Ethics] Re: Using circumstantial evidence
>
> > Also, the more information you have, circumstantial evidence, as it
> > were, the better you can 'build your case.' If you look at it like a
> > court case, you state your case, give the conflicting evidence, and then
> > prove that it is actually NOT conflicting. Once all the evidence is
> > examined, does the 'preponderance of evidence' support your case?
> >
> Valorie,
> What if you have "evidence" to support your theory of relationship, but no
> conflicting evidence?
> I have found probate, land, death and marriage records, and censuses for
> several individuals I believe
> to be the same family, but in some cases, I'm missing that last conclusive
> piece of evidence that will connect them. Can I use the preponderance of
> evidence rule in those cases?
> Barb

This thread: