Evidence Analysis Issues

Dear Editor;

My question relates to your article, "QuickLesson 20: Research Reports for Research Success".

Correctly scoping the initial problem statement in a research report is, in my mind, absolutely crucial. If it is too specific, little is gained and likely much is missed. If it is too vague, it becomes a daunting task with less hope of reaching a clear and useful conclusion.

I decided to post this question in the “Evidence Analysis Issues” forum rather than the “Citation Issues” forum because, although I do have a citation question, I think this is, at heart, an evidence analysis query.

Hello,

I've been using the Barbour Collection to find B/M/D records from Connecticut.

I've just come to the realization that I've been drawing conclusions from it that it doesn't actually support.

For example, Dan Hill is listed in the Wallingford records as being born 14 January 1734 but is also listed in the Goshen records.

From other records I can show that it's probable that the Wallingford records are the original birth record, so I concluded that Wallingford was the birth location.  I now think that conclusion was wrong.

Jandy 1

Dear Editor,

I am trying to determine if a recently discovered YDNA match would be considered direct or indirect evidence.  I have read the QuickLesson 24 re DNA.  However, the four examples do not seem to address my situation which is as follows.

My question would be (generically) Is individual A of hometown USA a grandson of individual B of Faraway, USA?

The tester's (my sibling) YDNA information is a match to an individual who is a great great grandson to individual B, through a known son of individual B. 

Yvette has asked:

Dear editor,

One thing I've heard Tom Jones say is that one record is never enough to prove anything, even when using reliable records, since you don't know if it's in the 99% that is correct or the 1% that is incorrect. But what if one record is all you have been able to find? 

In today's blog post at http://www.legalgenealogist.com/2016/12/21/the-dog-that-did-bark/, Judy Russell corrected her response to a question posed at the end of her BCG webinar on negative evidence last night. As she writes, "The question was whether DNA results could be negative evidence, and, in my answer, the example I used of a case that could be negative evidence… isn’t," and she goes on to explain why.

Okay, here's a nice "nuance-y" question.  

It is generally accepted that a birth certificate contains primary information given by the parents at the time of the birth, and a marriage certificate contains primary information given by the bride and groom, so both documents are considered reliable.

But what if the information on the documents is actually a little fuzzier than that?  

Example (and let's assume for simplicity that both of these documents definitely refer to the correct people):

I'm looking for any advice on referencing clusters (or groups) of people when assembling units of evidence into a write-up. I need a convenient and meaningful reference system because of the large number of group references in this case.

I'm working on a huge problem to prove the identity of a single lady, but it has required me to use a cluster approach to piece together different families, and their generational relationships, from the groups described by the different sources.

Are gaps like 5-7 years in known children negative evidence or indirect evidence that there could be a missing child? Please explain. I think it fits the definition of negative evidence, but an associate of mine suggested it is indirect evidence.