Elizabeth - I found your comment very helpful as it "struck home" with a discussion I am having with myself on a challenge I'm facing. I am writing up a section of my family history where direct evidence is few and far between. The audience is family and so I am not looking for a formal thesis - though the detail will be in a separate document. By using the terms you suggest I should be able to bridge the gap between "wishy-washy" - "what on earth do you mean" - and the "dry as dirt" / boring. Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of eshown via Sent: 06 February 2015 22:51 To: 'TGF List' Subject: Re: [TGF] Proof Report > I am working on a proof report that will likely end up being all circumstantial evidence. I've just read the messages in this thread, which have given Kathy good advice. There's one point, however, that hasn't been mentioned. In genealogical language, "circumstantial evidence" has no meaning. Evidence is direct, indirect, or negative. Each of those speak to a specific quality. When we apply one of those terms to a piece of evidence, others can understand the nature of the evidence and how it will have to be used to build a reliable case. The loosey-goosey terms of yesteryear may still prevail in courts of law, but genealogists need a more-precise vocabulary. Elizabeth ---------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG BCG trustee & past president www.HistoricPathways.com www.IsleofCanes.com www.EvidenceExplained.com & for everyday tips on records and record usage: www.Facebook.com/ForgottenPeopleCaneRiverCreoles www.Facebook.com/EvidenceExplained I have a situation where a will that may or > may not have ever existed is believed by the family to have left a > fortune to the 5th generation. The belief is that the father being > mad at the daughter left it to the 5th generation after her. My > reason to address this is to look at the people with a belief that they meet the criteria. > That they were all descended from her being a priority. > > One of the sons of the woman mentioned in the first will, in turns > leaves a will that leaves out the son I am trying to prove was his. > Here is the question. There are at least three county histories and > at least eight newspaper reports on this supposed fortune that mention > some heirs. In order to exhaust all sources, would I have to address > each of these sources separately and analyze all of them? > > ?Thanks for any input. All the sources have slight variances but > mainly say the same things. However not all mention exactly the same would be heirs. > > * > Kathie Fortner* > * <[email protected]>* > > *www.fortner.50megs.com <http://www.fortner.50megs.com>* > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message