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