Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Re: David Hedgpeth’s Response to Kathy Reynard’s November 11, 1999 Letter
(See the Genforum (Courtney)
under “Re: J L Courtney/ J W James Exhumation # 7”)
December 7, 1999
Kathy,
Thank you for your November 11 letter. Anyone reading your message would be impressed, as I, with your examples and specific references. Although I do not agree with all that you have said, you have presented some new information and questions which are noteworthy.
Before I respond to the your letter, I want to make a few comments about myself and about fruitful written exchange. First of all I do not portray myself to be an expert. I am a facilitator working to encourage a public dialogue of the fair examination of real facts. I fully agree with your statement, “I think it is very important for anyone interested in this issue to have all the available facts so that they can make an informed decision on their own.” Eventually we will come to agree to agree, or agree to disagree, issue by issue. From that perhaps others will have better understanding.
Prior to discussing the pictures and other issues I will kindly ask you to consider a few items. Kathy, it appears to me that to have a driving need be right and win, sometimes at the expense of balanced fairness and due consideration. When used, this tactic does not lend credibility to your cause or to any real effectiveness.
You have insisted on facts so I will be explicit in explaining this and in clearing the air. Let me cite a few examples.
a. When I suggested you should have contacted Betty as part of your research, you just turned it around, refusing to accept any accountability whatsoever. During your research and before you appeared in court, you knew of Betty but she didn’t know of you. When should she have called you? Since the get-go and after your testimony you have not had a nice thing to say about her. Would she have received a welcomed response if she had called you? Can’t you admit that a fair minded and impartial researcher would have contacted her early on, but for whatever other reason you didn’t?
b. When I retracted my statement about the Courtneys refusing to do hair samples in
July, I honored your request. The comment I got back was “I thank you for your gracious correction of the misinformation in your post of June 6th…” Not only does your choice of words seem to be duplicitous, but you do not “graciously” acknowledge what I asked of you. And what did I ask? “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?” I was asking for a fact or clarification and I got nothing. In fact this is an all too common example, as I feel that you trivialize, minimize, or more so ignore what I say and then accuse me of being non-factual.
For example, you have still maintained that you were “correct” in the following statement posted on the Andruss website at http://www.andruss.net/courtney.htm:
"On September 17, 1999, in a Falls County, Texas courtroom, a judge decided not to allow the exhumation of James L. Courtney's body for DNA testing after a forensic scientist proved that the picture of Dianna Courtney-Haun in Mrs. Duke's book had been altered."
Ironically you accuse me of exactly what it seems to me you are doing. This is a clear misrepentation of the facts as I very well explained in my November 25 post. The “Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law” makes no mention of the photographs presented by Max Courtney in court, no mention of them being proven true, and no mention that this is why the Judge denied the exhumation. That is fact.
This is what the finding really did say. “Petitioner’s (Betty Duke) request for exhumation did not raise to the level of necessity or compelling reason requiring the sanctity of the grave to be disturbed.” If you want facts, then deal with those I have given to you and be as honest as you want me to be. With all these facts I ask again, please correct your web site statement. Remember, if your line of thinking is that Max Courtney’s presentation was proof, then by the same token, Betty’s presentation was also proof. There should be no double standard.
This forum is not about our verbal prowess or our expertise in winning debate. It is about finding truth and unless there is some rightful give and take, then nothing is learned, thus nothing changes. Someone said, “It’s hard to agree with someone who can never be wrong.” (The most casual reader can usually tell anyway.) Yes, it would be absolutely phenomenal if you weren’t ever mistaken. It’s O.K. for you to admit that I’m at least a little right now and then, about what you do not already believe. That would exemplify good character and it will make our time well spent.
I will number and summarize and then follow with my comment.
1.
Once again, may I remind you of what has been ignored by those agreeing with your assertion? Three different groups of facial identification experts have verified that Diannah and Zerelda are the same person. Two different experts have verified that James L. Courtney’s mother was indeed missing an arm and that the photo showing she had two arms had been tampered with. How is it that Max and you are more qualified than the experts, and are able to counter their findings? Are you still going to directly deny statements of fact issued by legitimate photo experts? (If yes, I would really like a serious justification to your answer.)
Betty’s photo is a copy of the one in the possession of Mae Courtney who is her oldest living family member. I can’t imagine anyone altering a photo and then taking it to experts for verification. According to you, your photo does not need to be examined by an expert because most anyone (excluding others I know and myself) can just look and see Betty’s photo has been tampered with. How do I know that your copy is not the one that has been altered? Experts say it is. You say you know where the original is. Well, that is what you going to need to prove your point. Otherwise I think that Betty clearly has the edge.
If you want more facts, Kathy then study this. According to Cory Hayes, a digital imagery expert of the Austin Community College, the photo that you claim is original is the one that has been tampered with. I know that I have your word to the contrary, but let’s see what the expert says.
“It (Max’s photo) has been output digitally so at some point an original photo had to be scanned. The only other photo (Betty’s photo) that I have been shown, there is an obvious crease that has been removed from the dress on the upper arm. This is also too much detail in her dress pattern in (A) H. C. Shelton’s copy, than is available in (B) Betty Duke’s copy.
Unless an original photographic copy can be physically produced for inspection that is both missing the crease and has greater pattern detail than that which is present on Photo B, then I believe that photo (B) is the more historically accurate document.”
Remember Kathy, according to the experts, the faces in question (Diannah and Zerelda) do in fact match. Which is of greater importance, the faces or the hands? Focus on the faces and since they match, as the experts claim, then what else is there to say?.
While we are on pictures then let’s deal with Travis Barron. He died in 1891 so no one today knows what he looked like. I understand that Mr. Shelton supplied you with a photo of a person that he identified as Travis Barron. Remember that Jesse W. Dorsett (Betty’s father) was also a grandson of James L. Courtney and he had a like copy of the photo in question. He said the photo was of James L Couurtney. In fact Mr. Shelton gave a copy of this photo to Betty and did not identify the person as Travis Barron. The confusion seems to be that under the photo was the inscription, “Mr. Barron.” Betty believes that JLC sent a photo of himself to Thomas Hudson Barron, his father-in-law. The facial identification experts that examined the photo do say that that it matches other known photos of JLC. This photo is not of Travis Barron but of James L Courtney.
Remember Kathy, also in this case according to the experts, the faces in question do in fact match.
2.
Even if your appearance and testimony at the last minute was not a calculated ambush, it had the same effect. I think that others who encouraged your testimony well know it. Again I make the point that your decision not to contact Betty personally before the hearing does not ring true in support of a person seeking sound research and full fact finding. Betty’s book had been out well over a year before you began your research. Didn’t it occur to you that by then she might have found her own errors or uncovered new evidences since the book publication that may have shed a new light on things? Didn’t you want to ask her particular questions about her book that was/seemed contrary to your findings? Right or wrong, it appears that you used the circumstances as more of an apology, and less of a valid reason for all your actions.
3.
This was a great finding on your part and it is both important and helpful. Even though you found this to be “too bad” on Betty’s part, I do not think that information alters anything. When you look at all Betty has presented; a few oversights, including this one, is no big problem. Also it would be absurd for anyone to insinuate that Betty is not an adequate researcher or that one should dismiss all she says because of this omission. It is far easier to critique than to produce. As I will show in # 6, even you miss a few things now and then.
4.
It is true that these questions are hard to answer. Hopefully they will be fully answered eventually but can not at the moment.
I want to comment that Civil War soldiers commonly took papers from fallen enemies, in case they needed a safe identity. I do agree with you that it would be a highly unlikely scenario for Jesse to take papers from a dead Union soldier and assume his identity, and then maintain a Courtney-Haun family relationship. Betty was theorizing on what may have been a possibility and she also agrees that this is not likely.
In all due respects Kathy, the fact is that you don’t have all the answers either. And Betty should get the same fair consideration and latitude when attempting to answer difficult questions as you expect to get. Here are my examples for you. Remember as you read each one, what is fair consideration for one side should be fair consideration for the other.
a. Why was James L. Courtney not included in the 1850 census with his family?
We can guess or we can table it until another time. The question still remains.
b. Why was the Courtney family surname changed to the to Haun except for James L?
Does that make you wrong or inadequate because you cannot conclusively explain it? No, and the same can be said for Betty.
c. Why did James L Courtney address Theodore N Haun as “Cosin Theodore” and not “Brother Theodore?”
Why did JLC not address Dianah Haun as “Mother?”
What do you do here? Is this a case of reasonable doubt or should it be dismissed as insignificant? Can’t the reason you justify the “Paw, uncle, brother and sister question, also be used for these instances?
d. Do you have copies of legal papers that show Stephen Courtney and his wife Dianah changed their names to Haun?
Is it possible that Stephen died and then Dianah remarried to Andrew Jackson Haun and then he adopted and renamed the kids?
Do you really know what all is true without some guess, if you can’t positively prove it? (By the way, I can only assume that Stephen and Andrew was the same person. Without proof, so can you.)
e. Can you prove that the mailing address to Uncle Erastus Lafayette Andruss in JLC’s dairy was to protect the identity of his parents?
Why did they need protecting?
How do you know that this was not to protect JLC or maybe for some reason to protect them all?
We all can guess but do you know?
f. Can you explain why Dianah Haun in the probate records referred to James L. Haun instead of James L. Courtney as a legal heir?
I’m sure there is a reasonable explanation, right? But are you sure?
Do you get my drift? If you are going to give yourself tolerance to fill in the undiscovered with sorted facts on hand until more is known, then shouldn’t you give the same consideration to Betty’s side. One thing is for sure, whatever side of this issue you take; it can be hard to defend without knowing all the connecting facts. And at this point no one has all those facts.
5.
You may be right about this. Still if you had so much trouble making out the writing, then how are you sure of the age? Maybe, if you are correct, these Wilkersons were children of James Wilkerson the outlaw. And keep in mind that “Bill Wilkerson” (a James Gang member) was mentioned in JLCs personal dairy on page 161. JLC knew Bill Wilkerson as a grown man in 1874 and the Courtney/Hauns had a James Wilkerson in their home in 1880. Is it just coincidence that many who were associated with the James family were also associated with the Courtney/Hauns?
6.
That is correct. If you had done a little more investigative research or had even questioned Betty, you would have learned that Howard Carr lived in the Haun household, not in 1880, but in 1875. The basic point still stands and the question about the possible Carr/Dalton James Gang connection is still valid. Does that mistake or oversight on your part, mean anything significant when the whole is considered. No, and the same goes for Betty.
7.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out this possibility. First of all Wood was Jesse’s cousin, and there was probably a family resemblance. Now, do you think Jesse (or who ever substituted for him) would never think of faking his death? I assure you if you could think of a creative scheme to do so, then so could he. Do you think that a body with a crushed skull, buried under two wagons loads of rock, and decayed for four months, would be easily recognizable? I can see some poor non-family soul selected to verify the identity of the corpse. Looking upon the gory disfigured remains he would say gasping,
“Ugh, oh sure, yah, that’s ol’ Wood. (Better say yes or I may end up the same
way!) Yeap, it sure looks just like him, if you say so. Ugh, can I go now?”
Have you considered that the body was that of some unfortunate victim used in the deception? Don’t you find it odd that this discovery conveniently happened during the week Jesse was shot? I agree with Betty that most likely Wood Hite was the corpse in the 1882 picture and the other body was someone else. Or maybe Wood Hite subbing as Jesse James faked his death and the corpse in the picture was still another person. Oh, you say, family and witnesses verified that the corpse was Jesse James. Well the family would not have a reason to tell, and fear, money, or sympathy could have dealt with the others. Do you think this kind of cover-up is out of the question? When it comes to Jesse James I have perceived that cover-up and mystery is common and ordinary. Also keep in mind that Betty is not the first to question the reported death of Jesse James in 1882 or the Wood Hite connection. (By the way, do any of you doubters know where Wood Hite is buried? Humm?)
8.
I think you may have been misled. The idea that James L. Courtney might have been Jesse James is not Betty’s fantasy or frivolity. In 1997 before Betty published her book, Max Courtney wrote a most interesting letter regarding the James/Courtney connection.
“ Is anything you know about or can find out about? Is this something that could lead to a key to open “the mystery” door? The Johnson Co., MO and Miami Co., KS locals would not be terribly wrong for such a connection.
The original James home was in Kearney, MO, northeast of KC. The James boys had ridden with Quantrill and Anderson during the war. The robberies began in 1866-the first was in Liberty, just east of K. C. By then supposedly the Courtneys (Hauns?) were in Miami Co., KS, southwest of KC.
Anyway-I’d love to know if you have heard Ida’s story?”
Ida was a daughter of James L. Courtney. Yes, the Courtney family had known about this for a long time. Betty relates that her Aunt Irene wrote Herschel Shelton that there was a family secret “about Grandpa (JLC) knowing something about Jesse James.” It was reported that Herschel once had a wanted poster for Jesse James hanging over his art studio door. Also Mae Courtney was said to have destroyed over 200 letters of JLC after his death for “the goodwill of the family.” Also as I understand it, James L. Courtney wrote other diaries of which Betty has no access to the information. If this is true, then who has them and why is this information being with held?
Anybody out there care to explain all that?
Cover-ups make it so hard to know the truth and it looks to me for some reason that it continues in the Courtney family and elsewhere. It surely leaves one to wonder why.
9.
Betty has had to consider both sides in her years of research as she thought through and wrote her book. She has been open to dialog with all family members, but some including you Kathy, have refused. The “why” of all this is yet to be answered. My challenge to you still stands.
10.
Mae Courtney Thompson wrote, “ Even today over one hundred years later, members of the family refuse to talk about the name change. James Lafayette Courtney did not change his name.”
In 1997 Max Courtney stated, “ Jim Courtney couldn’t have been Jesse James, because I am! Nuff said?”
Is that a satisfactory and fulfilling way for the family to come to terms with their identity? I don’t think so and I don’t think future Courtney generations will think so either. I believe we owe to future generations to encourage those living now with firsthand knowledge to come forth share the truth now before it is too late.
Kathy, your greatest contribution would be to help obtain those answers.
In conclusion, if all this is not enough fact to chew on, then go tackle Betty’s 10 facts that support her position. I hope, rather than a doing a side-step, affirming denial, spinning away or maintaining tunnel vision, all will have the courage, the patience, and the will to examine this issue completely until there is true and full understanding.
David
You may refer to rootsweb.com ivyplace/ hedgpeth for links to other postings on the James/Courtney question.
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/courtney/messages/556.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|