Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
To: Sandy Courtney Culverhouse
From: David Hedgpeth
Re: November 7, 1999 Response in the Courtney Genforum
Date: November 9, 1999
Please refer to my response to Kathy Reynard in the October 3, 1999 section of the Courtney Genforum. That will answer much of what I have to say about your rebuttal to my questions on the September 17 exhumation hearing.
Otherwise I will address your rebuttal in this letter.
You are correct in that I should address Betty’s attorney for why he did not object to new evidence. I think we both know a lot of good that would do. I have my private theories about his motive of which I choose not to print. Ms. Duke’s attorney did not invent the strategy to have new evidence at a no new evidence hearing. This could have and should have been done before. I think we all know why the cards were artfully played when and how they were.
As far as I know there was no credentials presented showing that Max Courtney was a photographic expert. On the other hand Betty Duke had two non-biased, non-family professional experts to support her claim that there was a match of Jesse James and James L. Courtney pictures. That is neither a farce nor conjecture nor supposition nor a half-truth nor manufacture. It is not what you want to hear, nor is it what you want to accept, nor is it what you want to believe. Say what you want but the more unbiased and more qualified testimony is on Betty’s side. I think the most casual observer would realize that. More will come from her at a later time.
I do believe that the dead do deserve proper respect and reverence. No grave should be tampered with without a very good reason. Emotions can be and are apparently strong even after 56 years and should be properly considered. I think that the Judge was trying to honor that properness. In all due respects, and I mean that sincerely, I’m concerned that this can become more of an excuse than anything else for some to keep the truth buried, so to speak.
So how is this my business and concern? I feel there is a high probability that others and I are related to James L. Courtney. Many genealogies may remain confused if Betty’s work is stifled. Betty has explained the DNA issue in her book. Male DNA testing in itself is not the problem. The questionable male line is the problem, thus the tests would not provide the substantial proof. Thus there is a high need and a justified one for exhumation. She will soon explain it all again at a new web site: http://www.studiosr.com/courtney/.
The fact is that you have a strong opinion, and you think Betty has been proven wrong. This is quite the contrary. In reality there is not much of a position at all for you to declare yourself right. As I see it you have far less evidence to support your position than Betty has for hers. In fact whether you want to see it or not, Betty Duke has confirmations which continue to grow weekly and which she will eventually share in the near future. That is not the way that lies operate. That is the way of truth. The fact is that there has been a lot of name-calling, ill feeling, and cynicism directed toward defeating Betty, rather than a fair and calm examination of the evidence that she has been presented. That is a sad loss for everyone. I do believe I know what I am talking about on this.
I wish that the petty family jealousies and bickering would cease. Others join me in saying, please, just get over it and settle the issue for the family and for the world. I really think certain family members must surely thrive on the dispute to fill in their boredom. To put the issue to rest would end all the excitement, wouldn’t it? No, you say? OK, if you really want to prove Betty wrong (or right) once and for all, go forward with the exhumation. I’ll bet for family peace, even James L. Courtney would vote for it.
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/courtney/messages/484.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|