Standards of Evidence

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
JeffChipman

Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 06 apr 2006 05:22:19

I thought maybe this would be a fresh slant. What we're really
debating here are our various standards of evidence. When Nat Taylor
told Joan Burdyck that her 1674 deed was not compelling evidence, he
was really saying that "you did not prove to ME that this evidence is
compelling." He didn't accept it because he said the term "sonne in
law" could have different meanings, some of which didn't indicate a
biological relationship. He feels that this is a serious obstacle to
using this kind of evidence. For him, you must confront however many
meanings are available in a given situation and deal with all of them.

I objected to his statement because he was presenting his opinion as
some kind of objective fact. I wanted to see how important these
various meanings were in the scheme of things, but have had to abandon
that because there was no evidence forthcoming. It took me awhile to
understand that Nat does not believe in the concept of weighing
evidence, and he's not alone. I am, and some of my family are, a
member of a lineage society. I am qualified to say a little about my
experience. A lineage society wants to see proof of generational
linkages, but their standards may not be as severe as Nat's. That
doesn't mean that the lines they accept are not valid, it's just that
they have their membership customs and that's what you must meet if you
want to join that organization. For Will Johnson, everything is up for
grabs. Nothing really means anything but just points to a probability.
Somebody else thinks 3 English wills are evidence in a situation
involving 17th cent VA colonists.

My point is just that there is a broad spectrum of standards in
evidence here, and we're never going to reach a consensus. Stratton
talks about two views of evidence: a preponderance of the evidence,
and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It may interest descendants of
Katherine Dale to know that I actually knew a descendant of hers who
applied to, and was accepted by, the Royal Bastards. I think Tony
Hoskins, if he's the same man who used to work at the Newberry Library
in Chicago, knows who I'm talking about. She was a big help to me when
I was just starting my Skipwith research. I don't know what the Royal
Bastards did about her line after the Ward article. My point is that,
at that time, the line was proven by the standards of that
organization. In fact, I think she and Tony were on a cable TV show
about that society. In that case, new evidence didn't surface; old
evidence was presented by Ward in such a way he thought was meaningful
to demonstrate a point. I didn't like Ward's article, but I accepted
his conclusion. Other people rejected his article. I am always going
to give the Katherine Carter descendants some credibility, because they
are pointing to some evidence. I don't think the evidence is enough to
override the notion that Skipwith wouldn't have used her maiden name
after marriage (why would she do that?), but the Carter descendants
aren't talking through their hats, either. I can understand what
evidence they are using and what it means to them, and because of that,
I'm going to listen to their argument.

By my standards of evidence, I'm going weigh what I have and come to a
conclusion about what it means. If a situation, while possible, is
really not all that significant in my view, I'm not going to throw the
baby out with the bath water. Maybe that makes it easier to prove
something to me than it does to Nat, I don't know. In this case, I am
saying that the chronological evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt
that Elizabeth Dale was the daughter of Diana Skipwith. For Will
Johnson, nothing short of being in the delivery room is going to prove
that to him. Nat might find the chronological evidence compelling, but
not enough to prove the case to him. I am not going to worry about
Nat's opinion, because he presents his standards as some kind of
objective yardstick that others have to meet. To me he would be more
credible if he said, "These are my standards, and this is why is use
them." I find Nat's standards in this case to be too strict. Why?
Because this term must have been used in a great many documents of that
period and I am not going to refuse to accept that evidence simply
because every possibility hasn't been confronted and defended. I don't
think that's fair. You may not agree, but you know what my standards
are and why I hold them.

As for MichaelAnne's statement that anytime anybody questions a
pedigree it has to be willy nilly defended, I think that's a load of
rubbish. If I felt that the person challenging the line had raised a
good point, then I might want to address it. If I feel it's (in my
view) just a neurotic quibble, then my response would be, "You have
raised a point, but I don't think it's important enough for me to
address it." That's not an insult to the challenger, it's a statement
of what my values are. If the challenger says, "If you don't respond
to my point, then I will not accept your pedigree," he's entitled to
that opinion. That doesn't mean the line is false, it just means he
has certain standards and in his view I have not met them. To the
degree I care about what he says is the degree of urgency I will feel
in responding to it.

What we really have here is a case of some people adhering to what they
think are very strict standards. They are inclined to feel that if
others do not hold the same views as they do, they're not serious
genealogists (I've had people tell me that). It's really subjective,
and if we're going to derive much pleasure from this pursuit, we're
going to have to work with our materials in a way that we feel is
meaningful and fair. Others may not approve of us, but isn't that
really their problem?

JTC

Renia

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 06:43:00

Who are you to constantly insult people who are trying to help you?

JeffChipman wrote:

I thought maybe this would be a fresh slant. What we're really
debating here are our various standards of evidence. When Nat Taylor
told Joan Burdyck that her 1674 deed was not compelling evidence, he
was really saying that "you did not prove to ME that this evidence is
compelling." He didn't accept it because he said the term "sonne in
law" could have different meanings, some of which didn't indicate a
biological relationship. He feels that this is a serious obstacle to
using this kind of evidence. For him, you must confront however many
meanings are available in a given situation and deal with all of them.

I objected to his statement because he was presenting his opinion as
some kind of objective fact. I wanted to see how important these
various meanings were in the scheme of things, but have had to abandon
that because there was no evidence forthcoming. It took me awhile to
understand that Nat does not believe in the concept of weighing
evidence, and he's not alone. I am, and some of my family are, a
member of a lineage society. I am qualified to say a little about my
experience. A lineage society wants to see proof of generational
linkages, but their standards may not be as severe as Nat's. That
doesn't mean that the lines they accept are not valid, it's just that
they have their membership customs and that's what you must meet if you
want to join that organization. For Will Johnson, everything is up for
grabs. Nothing really means anything but just points to a probability.
Somebody else thinks 3 English wills are evidence in a situation
involving 17th cent VA colonists.

My point is just that there is a broad spectrum of standards in
evidence here, and we're never going to reach a consensus. Stratton
talks about two views of evidence: a preponderance of the evidence,
and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It may interest descendants of
Katherine Dale to know that I actually knew a descendant of hers who
applied to, and was accepted by, the Royal Bastards. I think Tony
Hoskins, if he's the same man who used to work at the Newberry Library
in Chicago, knows who I'm talking about. She was a big help to me when
I was just starting my Skipwith research. I don't know what the Royal
Bastards did about her line after the Ward article. My point is that,
at that time, the line was proven by the standards of that
organization. In fact, I think she and Tony were on a cable TV show
about that society. In that case, new evidence didn't surface; old
evidence was presented by Ward in such a way he thought was meaningful
to demonstrate a point. I didn't like Ward's article, but I accepted
his conclusion. Other people rejected his article. I am always going
to give the Katherine Carter descendants some credibility, because they
are pointing to some evidence. I don't think the evidence is enough to
override the notion that Skipwith wouldn't have used her maiden name
after marriage (why would she do that?), but the Carter descendants
aren't talking through their hats, either. I can understand what
evidence they are using and what it means to them, and because of that,
I'm going to listen to their argument.

By my standards of evidence, I'm going weigh what I have and come to a
conclusion about what it means. If a situation, while possible, is
really not all that significant in my view, I'm not going to throw the
baby out with the bath water. Maybe that makes it easier to prove
something to me than it does to Nat, I don't know. In this case, I am
saying that the chronological evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt
that Elizabeth Dale was the daughter of Diana Skipwith. For Will
Johnson, nothing short of being in the delivery room is going to prove
that to him. Nat might find the chronological evidence compelling, but
not enough to prove the case to him. I am not going to worry about
Nat's opinion, because he presents his standards as some kind of
objective yardstick that others have to meet. To me he would be more
credible if he said, "These are my standards, and this is why is use
them." I find Nat's standards in this case to be too strict. Why?
Because this term must have been used in a great many documents of that
period and I am not going to refuse to accept that evidence simply
because every possibility hasn't been confronted and defended. I don't
think that's fair. You may not agree, but you know what my standards
are and why I hold them.

As for MichaelAnne's statement that anytime anybody questions a
pedigree it has to be willy nilly defended, I think that's a load of
rubbish. If I felt that the person challenging the line had raised a
good point, then I might want to address it. If I feel it's (in my
view) just a neurotic quibble, then my response would be, "You have
raised a point, but I don't think it's important enough for me to
address it." That's not an insult to the challenger, it's a statement
of what my values are. If the challenger says, "If you don't respond
to my point, then I will not accept your pedigree," he's entitled to
that opinion. That doesn't mean the line is false, it just means he
has certain standards and in his view I have not met them. To the
degree I care about what he says is the degree of urgency I will feel
in responding to it.

What we really have here is a case of some people adhering to what they
think are very strict standards. They are inclined to feel that if
others do not hold the same views as they do, they're not serious
genealogists (I've had people tell me that). It's really subjective,
and if we're going to derive much pleasure from this pursuit, we're
going to have to work with our materials in a way that we feel is
meaningful and fair. Others may not approve of us, but isn't that
really their problem?

JTC

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 09:37:12

JeffChipman wrote:
I thought maybe this would be a fresh slant. What we're really
debating here are our various standards of evidence. When Nat Taylor
told Joan Burdyck that her 1674 deed was not compelling evidence, he
was really saying that "you did not prove to ME that this evidence is
compelling." He didn't accept it because he said the term "sonne in
law" could have different meanings, some of which didn't indicate a
biological relationship. He feels that this is a serious obstacle to
using this kind of evidence. For him, you must confront however many
meanings are available in a given situation and deal with all of them.

I objected to his statement because he was presenting his opinion as
some kind of objective fact. I wanted to see how important these
various meanings were in the scheme of things, but have had to abandon
that because there was no evidence forthcoming.

No, you have chosen to "abandon" this because the evidence that has
been presented doesn't fit the increasingly restrictive criteria that
you have dictated, and you are either too lazy or unable to undertake
any reasonable research yourself.

JeffChipman

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 06 apr 2006 18:15:00

Here's what I'm saying:

I don't agree with Nat's standards as I understand them. To this
point, nobody has produced any 17th century VA evidence. When Nat told
Joan that her evidence was not compelling, he really was saying that
her evidence did not meet HIS standards. I'm not slammng Nat; I'm
saying he needs to be careful when he's dealing with somebody else's
research and be clear about what he's saying. He gave the impression
that Joan's evidence wasn't good enough to support her contention, when
in reality he should have said it didn't meet HIS standards and then
give an idea of what those standards are. I criticized him for not
stating what information he used to create those standards.

As for whoever wrote the preceding post, you're making my point: those
are YOUR standards. Where the hell do you get off demanding that I use
them? You are entitled to use those standards or any others in your
research. If that makes your research meaningful to you, that's fine.
Just make sure that anybody reading your research understands what your
standards are. Then they can judge your work for themselves and see if
they agree.

I'n not abandoning anything. I'm clarifying my position and if you
don't like my position, you don't have to. How seriously I take
whatever your position is is a matter for me to judge by my criteria.
If somebody challenges one of my positions, I'm going to make a value
judgement as to how much merit the challenge has. If I think it's
significant, then I'll asemble my evidence and present it to justify my
conclusion. If I don't think it's something to be concerned about,
I'll say so. Just because somebody says, "You haven't proved your case
to my satisfaction" doesn't mean I'm going to jump through hoops.

I use two standards to weigh a genealogical case: "preponderance of
the evidence," and "proved beyond a reasonable doubt." To give an idea
of how I use those standards in actual practice, I think Charles Martin
Ward refuted the claim of royal ancestry for Katherine (Dale) Carter by
a "preponderance of the evidence." The evidence of Diana Skipwith
using her maiden name in 1655 is pretty tough to get around; after 1655
she never used it again. I feel Ward did not refute it "beyond a
reasonable doubt," because he ingnored evidence that supported the
Carter claim, namely the Edward Dale epitaph. What you don't know is
that when Ward's article came out in 2000, I wrote David Greene about
it and took Ward to task for not mentioning this evidence. Ward opened
the door for that critique by using the same prayer book to prove his
case, and it was not fair that he neglected to mention that this
evidence also contained material that could challenge his conclusions.

I don't feel that Nat's "evidence" met the burden of "beyond a
reasonable doubt." I did not say that "sonne in law" didn't have
different meanings, I said I didn't think the situation was serious
enough to invalidate the use of the term to show a genealogical
connection. If I see indications that a less common meaning of the
term was intended, then I am going to review the evidence and see if
there is other material that would clarify the issue. Before I send
everybody in the reading room in Richmond back to the microfilm
machines, I want to see something more important than a relic of bygone
years.

Those are my standards. If you don't like them, that's up to you, but
don't say somebody hasn't "proved" a case when what you're really
saying is that it was "proved" to YOU.

The use of these two standards in evaluating a genealogical case are
the same as used by Stratton in "Applied Genealogy." I mention that to
show the reader where he can find a discussion of those standards in
detail. If I was the registrar of a society, I think I'd be easier
than Nat. That doesn't mean that the papers I accept aren't as valid
than the ones Nat accepted; I'm just using different criteria
evidently.

Since to my knowledge nobody has actually produced a 17th century
document to support Nat's position, I just don't see how I can give it
much weight. If others want to based upon his reputation, they're
entitled to.

For women of my mother's generation, genealogical research was largely
conducted as part of the process of joining a lineage society like DAR
or Colonial Dames, etc. The pedigrees accepted by those societies are
"proved" according to them. Some of these organizations have pamphlets
explaining what they consider "evidence." You may or may not agree
with those standards, but at least you know what they are.

Ultimately it's subjective. That doesn't mean you can't "prove"
anything; it just means that we should take some pains and explain what
our standards are. If we don't, how is the reader supposed to
understand our work?

JTC

Renia

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 19:19:45

JeffChipman wrote:
Here's what I'm saying:

I don't agree with Nat's standards as I understand them. To this
point, nobody has produced any 17th century VA evidence.

Right, for the third time, I'm repeating the following, posted by Clark:


Storm wrote:

Jeff and others,

I have lurked on this list for many years and the current flare up is the
funniest of them all, which is saying something if you remember the
entertaining exchanges between Mr. Hines and anyone who would respond.
Hopefully, those interested in the Dale discussion will find the
following
information helpful. Each reference was found within twenty minutes of
searching google. I heartily recommend the search engine to Mr.
Chipman and
suggest that he do his own research in the future, instead of
demanding that
it be provided from a group concerned with Medieval genealogy. By the
way,
if you did not know, 17th century Virginia is somewhat later than the
Medieval period.

I have no idea how accurate any of these are, but I would suggest
they are a
good starting point for *your* further research.

Regards,

Clark

Elizabeth _____ who survived him [John Clay] to marry (2) John Wall
and (3)
John Tate. … In the Virginia Records is a "Deed of Gift", dated 3 October
1660, whereby John Wall conveyed 2 ewes to his "sonne in Law" (step-son)
CHARLES CLAY; and at Westover Court, 1663, "Elizabeth Clay Wall",
widow and
Joseph Wall, son of John Wall, Dec’d., were authorized by Court to choose
three or four persons from Martin’s Brandon to settle the estate of John
Wall, according tot he provisions of his will. (Ref: Virginia County
Records, Vol. II, pp 78 and 245, Congressional Library, Washington,
D. C.).

On October 3, 1660 a deed of gift for 2 ewes was made by John Wall
"unto his
son-in-law CHARLES CLAY" in Charles City County (Fleet, Virginia Colonial
Abstracts, Vol. 11, Charles City County Court Orders, 1658-61, page 78)

---------

There was also a ninth, perhaps posthumous, child named Aliffe,
apparently
named after Thomas Ivey’s mother. His widow, Alice Ivey, remarried to
William Cornick, whose father Simon Cornick had received a patent in
Norfolk
County in 1653 for importation of 13 persons, among them his son William
Cornick. On 9 January 1691/2, William Cornick made deeds of gift to
his wife
Alice’s children Lemuel Ivy and Aliffe Ivy and his sons-in-law (meaning
stepsons) Ludford Ivy and Anthony Ivy. (Princess Anne Deed Book 1, p15.
(Also see William and Mary Quarterly, Series I, Vol. 24, p 284.)

----------

Thomas Southworth, brother of Constant Southworth, was probably born at
Leiden ca 1616-1620. He came to Plymouth sometime after 1627, most likely
living with his mother, Alice, and her husband, Gov. William Bradford. He
married 1 September 1641 Elizabeth Reyner, daughter of Rev. John
Reyner, and
they had one child, Elizabeth, who married Joseph Howland. On 28 October
1641 William Bradford gave a house and land "unto my sone-in-law
[stepson]
Thomas Southworth". He died 8 December 1669. His will dated 18 November
1669, proved 1 March 1669/70, named his wife and his daughter Elizabeth
Howland, and her husband Joseph, and left gifts to Thomas Southworth.
(Plymouth Colony Wills, vol. III, p. 1.) *Not in Virigina*

----------

According to Alvahn Holmes' "The Farrar's Island Family," Cecily
(Reynolds?)
Baley (Bailey) Jordan Farrar, after the death in 1637 of her third
husband,
William Farrar (age 43), may have married (according to some researchers)
Peter Montague, whose wife Cecily was executrix of his will in 1659.
If so,
Cecily would have been his second wife. Lancaster Co., VA records show
executors were "Cecily Montague, widow of Mr. Peter Montague, dec'd, and
Peter Montague her sonne-in-law" (stepson or son-by-law).

-----------

Note on Morris Fitzgerald: One of the daughters was apparently the
wife of a
Fitzgerald, and the mother of the grandchild Morris Fitzgerald
mentioned in
Alice Ivey’s 1708 will. A Morris “Fegarrell" had patented 200 acres
in Lower
Norfolk on 26 April 1670 in right of his wife Katherine the relict of
Roger
Howard. The will of "Morris Fitsgarrall" was proved 16 January 1678/9,
leaving his property to his wife Katherine. "Katheren Fitsgarrall" on the
same date left her plantation and dwelling to her "sonne in law Henry
Fitsgarrall" apparently meaning her stepson, Morris Fitzgerald’s son by a
prior wife. (Norfolk County Will Book 4, p. 42.)

----------

John Austin, the step-father of John Smoot, died in St. Mary's
County, his
will being proved on July 16, 1733. He bequeathed his "godson" Austin
Sanford Smoot the dwelling-plantation, but in the event of his death
during
minority then to his "sons-in-law" John Smoot and William Harrison.
His wife
Eleanor, however, was to enjoy the use of the dwelling until his godson
attained majority. The two sons-in-law were devised 1,000 acres of
land on
Aquia Creek in Stafford County, Virginia. His widow and John Smoot
administered on the estate. (Newman, Harry Wright. The Smoots of Maryland
and Virginia, p. 136) *a bit late for the ironclad period under
discussion.*




<snipped rabbitting>

Renia

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 19:21:13

JeffChipman wrote:

I use two standards to weigh a genealogical case: "preponderance of
the evidence," and "proved beyond a reasonable doubt."


That's exactly what you are not doing. If there is the slimmest chance
that "son-in-law" meant anything other than "husband of my daughter" in
this case, then that is reasonable doubt.

Which is what we have been trying to tell you.

Renia

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 19:23:09

JeffChipman wrote:

Before I send
everybody in the reading room in Richmond back to the microfilm
machines, I want to see something more important than a relic of bygone
years.

What are the lives our ancestors, but relics of bygone years? What are
the documents that name them, but relics of bygone years?

You are dealing with history, not the present, and you must learn to
diffrentiate between the two.

Renia

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Renia » 06 apr 2006 19:24:28

JeffChipman wrote:


Since to my knowledge nobody has actually produced a 17th century
document to support Nat's position, I just don't see how I can give it
much weight.

You have managed to miss such material twice, so I have posted it again
for you, within this thread. I hope you find it.

But I doubt it, because it suits you not to.

R. Battle

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av R. Battle » 06 apr 2006 21:35:26

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, JeffChipman wrote:

<snip>
As for whoever wrote the preceding post, you're making my point: those
are YOUR standards. Where the hell do you get off demanding that I use
them? You are entitled to use those standards or any others in your
research. If that makes your research meaningful to you, that's fine.
Just make sure that anybody reading your research understands what your
standards are. Then they can judge your work for themselves and see if
they agree.
snip


And I thought that postmodernism had not yet invaded genealogy... :-)
Seriously, though, your "standards" should be apparent in your work by
what evidence you cite for each assertion and by your discussion of that
evidence. You shouldn't need an introductory explanation.

<snip>
I use two standards to weigh a genealogical case: "preponderance of
the evidence," and "proved beyond a reasonable doubt." To give an idea
of how I use those standards in actual practice, I think Charles Martin
Ward refuted the claim of royal ancestry for Katherine (Dale) Carter by
a "preponderance of the evidence." The evidence of Diana Skipwith
using her maiden name in 1655 is pretty tough to get around; after 1655
she never used it again. I feel Ward did not refute it "beyond a
reasonable doubt," because he ingnored evidence that supported the
Carter claim, namely the Edward Dale epitaph.
snip


After seeing that epitaph (posted by Doug), I fail to see how it
supports the Carter claim. It is evidence for the Dale-Skipwith marriage
(which nobody disputes), but it says nothing about the maternity of each
of Dale's children.

<snip>
I don't feel that Nat's "evidence" met the burden of "beyond a
reasonable doubt." I did not say that "sonne in law" didn't have
different meanings, I said I didn't think the situation was serious
enough to invalidate the use of the term to show a genealogical
connection.
snip


Nat wasn't trying to prove or disprove a connection; he was just showing
you that by the facts that you yourself accept you cannot reach a "beyond
a reasonable doubt" conclusion regarding the maternity of Dale's
daughters (no new evidence, just logic applied to that evidence).

<snip>
Those are my standards. If you don't like them, that's up to you, but
don't say somebody hasn't "proved" a case when what you're really
saying is that it was "proved" to YOU.
snip


There is a general standard of evidence and proof that many if not most of
us have. If you are trying to convince us of your case, then it would be
best to use those standards as well, however unreasonable you find them.
If you are not trying to convince us, that brings into question your
motive for starting the discussion in the first place. I think that
pretty much all of us (who read the threads involved) would readily admit
the possibility and perhaps even probability of Mary and Elizabeth being
daughters of Diana Skipwith. What we do not agree with is that we can
*certainly* know, based on available evidence, which of Dale's wives was
the mother of each daughter.

What you are trying to assert is that Diana would call the husband of her
biological daughter a son-in-law (which no one argues with) but that she
would never refer to the husband of her stepdaughter as such. In other
words, you are suggesting that there is a necessary element of
blood-kinship involved in this particular "in-law" relationship, or at
least that the "in-law" relationship in general admits of one and only one
non-biological (or "by law") remove. Such an "iron-clad" determination
seems unwarranted even in modern times, and much less so in the time
period in question.

-Robert Battle

kenneth jacob

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av kenneth jacob » 07 apr 2006 11:14:51

JeffChipman wrote:
I thought maybe this would be a fresh slant. What we're really
debating here are our various standards of evidence. When Nat Taylor
told Joan Burdyck that her 1674 deed was not compelling evidence, he
was really saying that "you did not prove to ME that this evidence is
compelling." He didn't accept it because he said the term "sonne in
law" could have different meanings, some of which didn't indicate a
biological relationship. He feels that this is a serious obstacle to
using this kind of evidence. For him, you must confront however many
meanings are available in a given situation and deal with all of them.

I objected to his statement because he was presenting his opinion as
some kind of objective fact. I wanted to see how important these
various meanings were in the scheme of things, but have had to abandon
that because there was no evidence forthcoming. It took me awhile to
understand that Nat does not believe in the concept of weighing
evidence, and he's not alone. I am, and some of my family are, a
member of a lineage society. I am qualified to say a little about my
experience. A lineage society wants to see proof of generational
linkages, but their standards may not be as severe as Nat's. That
doesn't mean that the lines they accept are not valid, it's just that
they have their membership customs and that's what you must meet if you
want to join that organization. For Will Johnson, everything is up for
grabs. Nothing really means anything but just points to a probability.
Somebody else thinks 3 English wills are evidence in a situation
involving 17th cent VA colonists.

My point is just that there is a broad spectrum of standards in
evidence here, and we're never going to reach a consensus. Stratton
talks about two views of evidence: a preponderance of the evidence,
and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It may interest descendants of
Katherine Dale to know that I actually knew a descendant of hers who
applied to, and was accepted by, the Royal Bastards. I think Tony
Hoskins, if he's the same man who used to work at the Newberry Library
in Chicago, knows who I'm talking about. She was a big help to me when
I was just starting my Skipwith research. I don't know what the Royal
Bastards did about her line after the Ward article. My point is that,
at that time, the line was proven by the standards of that
organization. In fact, I think she and Tony were on a cable TV show
about that society. In that case, new evidence didn't surface; old
evidence was presented by Ward in such a way he thought was meaningful
to demonstrate a point. I didn't like Ward's article, but I accepted
his conclusion. Other people rejected his article. I am always going
to give the Katherine Carter descendants some credibility, because they
are pointing to some evidence. I don't think the evidence is enough to
override the notion that Skipwith wouldn't have used her maiden name
after marriage (why would she do that?), but the Carter descendants
aren't talking through their hats, either. I can understand what
evidence they are using and what it means to them, and because of that,
I'm going to listen to their argument.

By my standards of evidence, I'm going weigh what I have and come to a
conclusion about what it means. If a situation, while possible, is
really not all that significant in my view, I'm not going to throw the
baby out with the bath water. Maybe that makes it easier to prove
something to me than it does to Nat, I don't know. In this case, I am
saying that the chronological evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt
that Elizabeth Dale was the daughter of Diana Skipwith. For Will
Johnson, nothing short of being in the delivery room is going to prove
that to him. Nat might find the chronological evidence compelling, but
not enough to prove the case to him. I am not going to worry about
Nat's opinion, because he presents his standards as some kind of
objective yardstick that others have to meet. To me he would be more
credible if he said, "These are my standards, and this is why is use
them." I find Nat's standards in this case to be too strict. Why?
Because this term must have been used in a great many documents of that
period and I am not going to refuse to accept that evidence simply
because every possibility hasn't been confronted and defended. I don't
think that's fair. You may not agree, but you know what my standards
are and why I hold them.

As for MichaelAnne's statement that anytime anybody questions a
pedigree it has to be willy nilly defended, I think that's a load of
rubbish. If I felt that the person challenging the line had raised a
good point, then I might want to address it. If I feel it's (in my
view) just a neurotic quibble, then my response would be, "You have
raised a point, but I don't think it's important enough for me to
address it." That's not an insult to the challenger, it's a statement
of what my values are. If the challenger says, "If you don't respond
to my point, then I will not accept your pedigree," he's entitled to
that opinion. That doesn't mean the line is false, it just means he
has certain standards and in his view I have not met them. To the
degree I care about what he says is the degree of urgency I will feel
in responding to it.

What we really have here is a case of some people adhering to what they
think are very strict standards. They are inclined to feel that if
others do not hold the same views as they do, they're not serious
genealogists (I've had people tell me that). It's really subjective,
and if we're going to derive much pleasure from this pursuit, we're
going to have to work with our materials in a way that we feel is
meaningful and fair. Others may not approve of us, but isn't that
really their problem?

JTC

kenneth jacob

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av kenneth jacob » 07 apr 2006 11:15:46

Nice to read such erudite comments.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»