Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Kathy,
The reason Betty Duke does not personally speak at the moment is the same reason that Max Courtney and the other Courtneys have not directly spoken on this forum. They are all probably still recovering from the stressful months of court debate. For now people like you and I will need to examine, debate, learn and hopefully come to some mutual conclusions that will be helpful to all concerned.
Kathy, from my own experiences and observing others doing research, I have found that the truly objective researcher wants to interview all parties. Books create unique questions for each reader. That’s why personal elaboration from the author as a primary source is invaluable to a researcher. I think most people would agree with this point. You may have your reasons for not contacting Betty but that is not what most researchers would have done if given the opportunity.
As I have studied your research I have found it is both challenging and very well written. Yet I found something missing. It is all so one sided, even to the point that you gave Betty no credit for any of her work and/or findings. I really think you are savvy enough to effectively see and argue both sides. Why could you not at least agree with Betty on something or acknowledge that she has made some good point for which you have no answer? In a week or so I will further illustrate what I mean when I comment on the points of your November 11 Genforum entry.
Thank you for bringing the June 4 statement to my attention. Here is my posted response.
“Recently I was asked about a statement of mine (that I had forgotten I had made) from the June 4 James Genforum. The last two sentences in the first paragraph said: "Two members of the Courtney family opposing the exhumation have refused to provide hair samples for DNA testing and comparison. It is not understood why they have taken this position."
I am not entirely sure now why I said this. In May, didn’t the Courtneys see hair sampling as unreliable evidence? If not, then why hadn’t they just gone ahead and done it anyway, if it was a good and acceptable idea? Since I can’t recall the details, in all fairness to the Courtneys and by their urging I hereby retract the above June 4 statement.
At the September 17 hearing, it was the Courtneys who offered to do hair samples and it was Betty Duke who refused. Due to what she felt was a questionable kinship issue, Ms. Duke proposed that the only sure way to prove that James L. Courtney was or was not a son of Zerelda James, was to do a DNA match of his remains to her maternal direct line DNA.”
All must stand to be corrected now and then, as we all go forward in a search for greater truth.
David
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/courtney/messages/519.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|