Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Hi Kathy,
I'm Confused about your posting - you wrote "you only state facts" and therefore can't change a statement that has been challenged - but you don't have the Court recorded transcript and you insinuate that whoever would use the transcript as a basis of fact is wrong?
Then whose facts are you stating, a memory of someone (your memory or an unnamed person ) who may be biased or unbiased vs an actual court recorded transcript that you don't consider factual enough to check to make sure it was not taken out of context? It does not seem logical to me that you would let an opportunity to show a discrepancy from an actual court document slip by without comment - sorry, but that is my personal observation, I am not attacking you as you have accuse
David of doing, I am trying to understand your statement about facts.
I, personally would trust the integrity of a statement more from a person who can and does quote the actual transcripts or courthouse documents, knowing that anyone including myself can check out the statement dependently, rather than a statement from a person who quotes or states from a vague memory or hearsay of some thing some one else may have said or not in a courtroom and can not substantiate it with court records, sworn statements or transcripts. Guess that is why they don't allow hearsay testimony in courtrooms.
Even your posting uses wording like "indicated" instead "absolutely shows" Indicated could mean the evidence did not show conclusively any alteration and you claim it does not take a scientist to see (you used the word "anyone") If a scientist can not show conclusive evidence, then how can a layman determine if it was altered.
I wasn't at the hearing, so I have to rely on the way the information is presented.
Fact two and three are obvious, you will stand by your genealogy research as others do theirs (it is a matter of interpretation in
lots of cases) and obviously the Judge did not allow the exhumation or we would know the truth and there would not be anymore discussion.
While I am supportive of the DNA tests and believe that Betty Duke should have the opportunity to find out one way or the
other. I was also for the Granbury exhumation, and I have to admit it seems that there was a lot going on behind the exhumation that only a few people knew about. It definately made an impression on me when the ones who seem to know the answers before the question was asked or the ones who were intimated by an unknown source not to tell anyone posted their msgs, but maybe not the impression they were looking for.
I am just an interested person who helps with the web site because I think Betty has valid questions.
I will tell you that I believe Jesse Woodson James is NOT buried in MO or that he died when they said in 1882. There are two many inconsistencies in the stories and the way the DNA tests were handled that have been presented to believe that without a doubt.
However I don't have an idea whose identity was used or even how long he may lived afterwards and will wait until science actually proves it definitely and I think science will someday.
Still reading and waiting
Sharon
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/james/messages/5468.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|