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. Criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil is generally a "preponderance of the evidence." Then there is a burden of proof referred to as "clear and convincing" evidence. From my studies, it appears to me that some writers of genealogy make quick use of surmised or assumed facts to then make a statement. Others seem to qualify such assumptions with reference to a need for further proof. Others do not use assumptions to make assertions of fact and rather, allude to the possibility of a fact being a possibility but one that is unsubstantiated or unproven. I am trained not to make assumptions because they lead to legal disaster. In that vein, will and trust contests are resolved with a preponderance and/or a clear and convincing standard. A preponderance is evidence that allows one to argue that there is a greater probablity than not (often referred to as 51% or more) that a fact is true. Clear and convincing, on the other hand, is self-defining in most states. Since such legal burdens are sufficient for courts to decide testate and succession, I wonder if these standards of proof might be acceptable for genealogy. Of course, we have no court to decide a case in genealogy. However, the jury instructions written to allow a jury to weigh evidence and decide whether or not the burden of proof was met, is very informative. If anyone is interested in reviewing this possibility, please let me know and I'll upload the jury instructions from several states and we can discuss it further. Walter Lundstein - novelist@adnc.com Darrell A. Martin wrote: > At 11:53 AM 01/19/1999 -0600, you wrote: > > [snip] > > > I have made the personal decision to include data using the "Preponderance > >of Evidence" principal and doing my best to indicate my lack of confidence > >where appropriate, either in the notes or otherwise (such as above where I am > >aware that the surname (PALMER?) is unproved. I guess what I am saying is > that I > >will use unproved data (so annotated where appropriate) that is generally > >accepted by either the majority of "experts" or a person in a position to > know, > >or until it is definitely disproved. > > Agree, and approve, on the "preponderance" issue. But I would love to know > where the identification of Susannah as a Palmer began . . . is it only > that London will? I don't think there is enough in the will to establish > even that the Susannah Dutten in question was in New England. All the > references to Thomas Dutton's wife as being Susannah Palmer that *I* have > seen are either from folks like you, who state it as an unproved fact that > they have encountered "somewhere," or from simple declarations of her name > with no evidence given whatsoever. The London will I discovered simply by > going through all references to "Dutton" or variations in the index to NEHGR. > > > For example: Darrell - I have your maternal > >grandfather as Derrick Allen DUTTON b. 5 Jan 1905, Springfield, VT, d. 5 May > >1965, Springfield, VT, occupation: farmer. I don't personally have the > >documentation to prove any of that but I would be willing to bet a sizable > sum > >that you do and I accept that data as fact. > > See, here we get into a very interesting situation, that proves the need > for primary (or credible, contemporary, secondary) sources. Although I have > a registered copy of Derrick Allen Dutton's birth certificate and your data > is exactly correct on that, I do not have primary evidence for his death > date (relatives in Springfield corresponded with me, and I got two > different dates--5 or 6 May--from them). Pending my next trip back East, I > record his death as 6 May 1985, in Springfield, Vermont. Your "1965" is a > simple typo, I am sure. *Caveat lector*, as I prove in my own case in the > very next paragraph! > > >Now for the one minor flaw (picky, picky, picky) I noted in your > assessment (see > >below) of the John DUTTON/Mary NEELD problem. It makes it even more negative > >than your message. Where you mention that John DUTTON appeared in Winthrup's > >list of passengers, I believe the actual situation was that a "Mr. DUTTON" > (no > >given name mentioned) appeared in the margin of one of Winthrup's logs - not > >even in a list. The given name John was subsequently found in the Court > records > >of one of the early MA towns - possiblyWoburn, but I have forgotten. > > You are absolutely right. I should have said, "The John Dutton who is > presumed to be the 'Mr. Dutton' on Winthrop's list of passengers in the > fleet of 1630." Charles Edward Banks' "The Winthrop Fleet of 1630", Boston: > Houghton Mifflin, 1930, on an unnumbered page, lists "Male Passengers on > Flyleaf of Winthrop's Journal (Provisional List)" including "Mr. Dutton". > This list is not included in the 1972 reprint by the Genealogical > Publishing Co. of Baltimore in the same form, but the list is discussed on > page 48: "Fortunately, for our purposes, there exists a list of seventy > names of those who came with the fleet, a rough list prepared by Winthrop, > and to be found entered on a flyleaf in the original Winthrop Journal > disconnected with the main text." Then on page 68, in the Appendix (which > is an alphabetical list of passengers), appears "Dutton, ----- In > Winthrop's list, but no further record." > > We all benefit from the work of others, myself more than most! Yet the old > axiom stands true, "trust--but verify." > > Darrell > > formerly of the Dutton District > in Springfield, Vermont > currently in exile in Addison, Illinois > darrellm@sprynet.com