I think the rationale in trying to sort out who history was/is really talking about is precisely for that reason--trying to avoid pinning the "conviction" on every person in the family named John (or Johannes/Hans/Johanes). You make it sound like those interested in it are on a "witch hunt" and that's just not the case. Only one of the many similarly named persons was the one involved. And although he was convicted, he was later "reprieved". Once identified, we move on to another unknown, that's what genealogy is all about.

Warren, I don't think anyone meant to call it a witch-hunt. I guess some just aren't as interested as others in solving mysteries. My interest comes, in part, from being royally insulted before a roomful of people by a prominent author and publisher of SC records. I've mentioned this before .... in cautioning about surnames with varied spellings, he had mentioned GEIGER/GIGGER/etc. When he called for questions - I prefaced my question by saying GEIGER was one of my lines. He reared back and said something like, "Ah, the infamous GEIGERS! Well, I guess there might be one or two good ones among them!" Everyone in the room was in shock at his rudeness! I should have challenged him then and there! Anne C. ----- Original Message ----- From: Warren Smith <[email protected]> > I think the rationale in trying to sort out who history was/is really > talking about is precisely for that reason--trying to avoid pinning the > "conviction" on every person in the family named John (or > Johannes/Hans/Johanes). You make it sound like those interested in it > are on a "witch hunt" and that's just not the case. Only one of the many > similarly named persons was the one involved. And although he was > convicted, he was later "reprieved". Once identified, we move on to > another unknown, that's what genealogy is all about. >