Darrell - That's a great e-mail. You're obviously an exceedingly bright fellow professional. I think that over the next two months I'm going to make it a writing project to develop rules of evidence and burdens of proof for genealogy (after checking with the associations to see if someone hasn't already done so); and even then reviewing whatever does exist. I enjoy reading your missives. Take care. Walter Lundstein Darrell A. Martin wrote: > At 01:46 PM 01/20/1999 -0800, Walter Lundstein (novelist@adnc.com) wrote: > >Darrell, et al: > > > >As a novice genealogist, I am discovering many interesting things. One has > been > >the "burden of proof" requisite to making an assertion of fact within the > context > >of genealogy. I have practiced law for many years and the burden of proof is > >different for many cases. > > [snip] > > Walter, and the list: > > Ah, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I am about to rush in by > using legal terminology when to do so is to risk being shown, if not a > fool, at least rash. I am a computer programmer by trade, with a degree in > Psychology. > > In genealogy, as in court, there are indeed different standards of proof > depending on the circumstances. The burden may be light or heavy, depending > on whether on is trying to convince a reputable journal publisher (such as > for TAG or NEHGR), or one's second cousin who collects dead relatives like > some people collect pennies. Descendant societies are all over the place. > The following "rules" are my opinion, based on the notion that I want the > work I do to be of some value to nearly any future researcher that might > use it. > > Rule One: There is no exclusionary rule. No tree is poison, but many bear > no fruit. It does not matter how one was prompted to look for a particular > document; if the evidence is there, use it. > > Rule Two: Hearsay may be useful, but should be identified as such. This is > the "primary source" rule. An original document bears more weight than > something which quotes it. Yes, birth certificates may be mistaken, but > they are a lot less likely to be in error than the "family story" that has > been passed through at least three generations. > > Rule Three: Find eyewitnesses if possible. This is the "contemporary > source" rule. The further from the date of the event that the record was > created, the less likely to be accurate. It is similar to, but not quite > the same as, Rule Two. > > Rule Four: A record of proceedings should be kept to allow for appeals. > This is the "cite your sources" rule. I have a pedigree in my possession, > made up by a person who had a very good reputation for careful research in > the 1970s, but which supplies no documentation of any kind. It makes > assertions which seem reasonable, and if true would be the equivalent of an > on-the-stand confession of murder from someone who wasn't even a suspect. > The writer is now deceased, and his working papers are no longer with us. > Rule One applies, and I use the pedigree as a clue; but I just don't know > where to look. . . . > > Rule Five: Circumstantial evidence is valuable but must be handled > carefully. The most common violation of this rule in genealogy is the > "name's the same" error. Ask any person on this list about how many "Thomas > Dutton's" they have come across, often in the same town. Be prepared for a > sigh, a groan, maybe even a shriek! > > Rule Six: Evaluate both materiality and relevance. If someone uses a > document to prove a main point, and in the process happens to "mention" > that the document relates to something away from that main point, do not > hold the author to more than she or he actually said. More important, do > not hold the *source* to more than it actually says! > > Rule Seven: "Stare decisis" (the decision stands) should be considered less > solid in genealogy than a feather in a tornado. The problem is that there > is so much JUNK out there, from the deliberate falsification, to the > mistranscription, to the fatuous, to the careless, that only a careful > review of the cited sources (presuming there are any) and a walk through > the author's reasoning can lend credence to the statements made. (This > predates the Internet by millenia, by the way. Kings whose fathers weren't > royalty have always been prone to, er, exaggeration of their predecessors' > worth.<grin>) After a while, one learns that certain writers can be trusted > more than others; but that does not relieve one of the burden of proof > otherwise applying. > > All this is just my opinion, but it IS my opinion! Comments requested. > Arguments welcome, but will all be refuted by my razor-sharp wit. <big grin> > > Darrell > > formerly of the Dutton District > in Springfield, Vermont > currently in exile in Addison, Illinois > darrellm@sprynet.com