TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264183478
From: Pamela Anderson <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Legal Proof or Logical Reasoning? (was The GenealogicalProof Standard)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:04:38 -0800 (PST)
Legal reasoning has assumptions that genealogists can not accept. A husband is considered to be the father of a child born in a marriage because the marriage provides order and determines who will legally support the child. We want to know who the biological father was. I am aware of a birth record which lists the wrong father and the baptismal record lists a different father and other evidence indications that the biological father was a married man but he was not listed in actual records.
Vital records do not have trouble with hearsay because government records kept in the normal course of business are considered correct. The fact that a census taker did not copy the record in proper order or did not follow instructions are still allowed in because it would be a nightmare to require the census taker to come testify about individual census entries. My great-grandfather on one line was born in late June of 1860. The census taker recorded him and his twin brother as one month old in July of 1860. He should not have listed him but I know he is a year older than everyone else believed them to to be because of the error. There were no church records or no vital records because they were an Orange and Green Irish couple.
These are just a few examples.
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
|Re: [TGF] Legal Proof or Logical Reasoning? (was The GenealogicalProof Standard) by Pamela Anderson <>|