Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Reply to Linda Snider on the James Family Genforum
Re: Emmett Hoctor 8-25-00
http://genforum.genealogy.com/james/messages/6396.html
8-26-00
Linda,
When I read your slant on things I think of that old ‘60s tune, “Let’s Twist Again.”
WHAT EMMETT HOCTOR TOLD ME TODAY!! (Untwisting what you said.)
I talked with Emmett Hoctor this morning and this is what he said.
“Linda Snider did not tell me that she was going to quote me. I thought I was having an off the top of my head conversation with her. If I had known I would be quoted (or misquoted as he told Betty) I would have thought through my answers and given a full perspective of what I believe.
Remember I was the one who initiated the 1995 exhumation in the first place. I understand there is a side of the debate who believe these exhumation findings are not settled. In my NOLA articles and in other conversations I have stated my concerns about Starrs’ work. At this point I would say I am 51% convinced that Jesse is buried in the Kearney grave site and 49% convinced that he is not. I believe that everyone who believes to the contrary (of traditional historians) should have a right to study and present their findings. I believe that the descendants of Susan James Palmer should provide DNA samples to all parties, who have a direct claim to Jesse James lineage, including the Courtneys, the Daltons, and the Gerlts, so that comparisons can be made. This seems to me to be the best way to establish proof.” (By the way I read what I wrote back to him so what I have quoted is accurate and up front. In my opinion, an apology to Mr. Hoctor from you would be in order.)
Sharon has said it well about my posting by Emmett Hoctor.
See: http://genforum.genealogy.com/james/messages/2772.html
It seems left to your interpretation you would have people thinking that I twisted Emmett’s intent. Perhaps you also tried to convince him of that too. Luckily it has been recorded and clarified. What is the point? It is this. If the 1995 exhumation was flawed then who is buried in Jesse’s tomb? If he is not Jesse then where is he, humm? Do you publicly state that you believe that Mr. Starrs gave a full and accurate report on his work and that Starrs’ conclusion are the final proof the Jesse was in the grave? How about you CeCe? How about anyone from the James Farm? How about anybody? I assure you that Emmett suspects what I think will come to light in the near future. There is something wrong somewhere with the conclusion of the 1995 exhumation.
Emmett does believe along with many traditional historians that there is considerable information of Jesse’s murder in 1882. We have newspaper accounts of statements and by whom? The supposed murders went free and Frank went free also. Did they have connections or what? Later Zerelda is selling pebble off Jesse’s grave then going to the creek to replenish the supply. Yes that can be explained can’t it? Here we have an over possessive mother whose beloved son is slain and she has no more regard for him than to desecrate his grave for a few cents a rock? Of course if someone else was buried there she could make each transaction with a smile, couldn’t she? : ) Is it coincidence that Wood Hite’s body was on the corner’s table on the week of April 3, 1882? And guess what, no on know where Wood was buried, even though he had a modestly wealthy father. Try posting the 1882 death picture of the man reported to be Jesse. Let the readers study that for a while. Of course maybe Jesse was not smart enough to stage his own death. In any case most Missourians do not believe that Jesse died in 1882. Wonder why?
I have said before and I say it again, it seems you seem more focused on winning than on than on getting to the whole truth. Why is it that you take what I say or Visionics says or probably anyone else that disagrees with you and turn it to support your point of view? In politics this is called the “spin” and you seem, along with CeCe to be quite skilled in the art. It really makes me wonder about the truth of anything you say. I know that others too are catching on to this tactic.
Now for Colleen’s twist on Visionics. Here is the statement she is quoting.
"Dear Colleen, On behalf of Dr. Atick, I would like to inform you that Visionics is no longer involved with Betty Dorsett Duke and her Jesse Woodson James claim. There are no press releases regarding our involvement in the case; however, we are referred to in Betty's book and did submit an official statement on our findings. I appreciate your persistence, but am unable to make any more contributions. We did this research for Mrs. Duke free of charge and made it very clear to her that we did not want to be contacted or participate in anymore Jesse James studies. In closing, Dr. Joseph Atick and myself enjoyed working with Betty and found the subject matter to be exciting but we are no longer involved. Thank you for your cooperation and patience, Best regards, Megan Tormey, Visionics Corporation." http://genforum.genealogy.com/james/messages/6388.html
Well I guess “persistence” (hounding?) finally paid off. I don’t blame anyone who is doing a free service to recoil from a fruitless hassle. Do you? (Remember the book, Winning through Intimidation? Of course you do.)
Being no longer involved is just that. They did not recant their statement and any insinuation to the contrary is wrong.
And what did Visionics say? I have it here. “Dr. Joseph J. Atick and Megan G. Tormey from Visionics Corporation examined the photographs through computerized matching, analytical as well as visual inspection techniques. They concluded with reasonable confidence that the faces in question MATCHED each other and belonged to the same individual." (Quoted from Betty Duke book, xiii.)
Linda, you said, “Since it has never been proven "which" photos Visionics made their statement regarding, for all we know the photos were "BOTH" of Jesse Woodson James.” http://genforum.genealogy.com/james/messages/6392.html
Now you insinuate that Betty may have purposely misled the public and presented two pictures of the real Jesse. Well two pictures of Jesse were submitted. One was the historically accepted picture and the other one was his alias as James L. Courtney. It is all in Betty’s book.
Part of spin is creating doubt. In politics it has even won races and saved political careers. Spin has a downside though as it will spin one away from truth and not toward it.
The pictures are an interesting subject. It amazes me that according to you, H. C. Shelton is the supposed expert on James L. Courtney and that somehow he is the retainer of the only bonified photos that Betty got from him. That is far from the truth. The fact is that H.C.’s mother Nettie, the daughter of JLC, had a rift with her father and she and her family moved to Oklahoma when H. C. was young. They had little or no contact with JLC or his daughter Ida, Betty’s grandmother It was Ida who was in fact close to JLC. It is laughable for Mr. Shelton to insinuate that the picture Betty shows as unidentified but close in looks to Zee Mimms is really Ida. It is not close to the many other pictures Betty has of her grandmother. Remember Betty’s family had their own pictures from Ida and far better information than H.C. who was estranged from JLC. In fact H.C. got his pictures mostly from Ida’s family and not the other way around.
Who is right about the pictures? In the worst case there was enough similarity for four different experts to find likeness. As additional information will eventually be added to the mix, I think there will be further clarification and support of Betty’s position. Until then I guess everyone will have to wonder why there are so many coincidences of amazing similarities.
In a previous post you agreed to answer my questions.
On August 22, 2000 I posted 15 points brought out in Betty’s article published in the Wild West magazine. See http://genforum.genealogy.com/james/messages/6334.html
Do you still want to claim that the Texas JLC was a Union soldier and with no affiliation with Jesse and the gang? Kathy? Anybody? Reasons?
As always, to those who wish to make an issue of what I say, my statements about others statements or opinions are my editorial opinion and should be considered as such, unless otherwise indicated. That ought to cover it. : )
Dave
Note to readers: You may review all the past and present correspondence on the Jesse James/James L. Courtney Debate at
<http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~ivyplace/index.html> or
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ivyplace/hedgpethg.html>
Also you may contact Dave at mldv@juno.com to be added to (or deleted from) the e-mail list ("Dave's Updates") or for direct comments/questions.
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/james/messages/6410.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|