Tag Archive for Evidence

The Reliability of Oral Histories–The Forensic Approach to Evaluation

July 13, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

Part 2 of a three-part series.  Part 1 is here.

When last we met, we explored the issues associated with the reliability of “eyewitness testimony” in court and applied similar concepts to first-person accounts of historical and genealogical events. We discovered several issues that might make “eyewitness testimony” unreliable. Now we explore the 21st century approach to eyewitness testimony and apply a forensic approach to first-party reporting of genealogical events.

California juries are now told by judges to apply certain factors in the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. These factors focus on the ability of the witness to perceive the event; circumstances which might interfere with the witness’s ability to remember and recollect; and the empirical corroboration of the witness’s evidence. See California Criminal Jury Instruction No. 315. This jury instruction points the way to a forensic approach to evaluating the reliability of oral histories.

Taking the forensic approach to oral history, the genealogist will want to consider the following:

  • How familiar was the reporter with any of the background circumstances or parties before the event?
  • How well could the reporter see, hear, and comprehend the event?
  • What were the circumstances affecting the reporter’s ability to observe, such as lighting, weather conditions, obstructions, distance, duration of observation, and any other relevant circumstances?
  • How well could the reporter see, hear, or otherwise perceive the event?
  • Was the reporter under any type of stress when he or she made the observation?
  • What was the interval of time between the reporter’s perception of the event and his or her report thereof?
  • What was the mode of interrogation of the reporter? (open-ended questions, suggestive questions, follow-up)
  • What was the demeanor of the interrogator? (hostile, aggressive, judgmental, or not?)
  • Is the reporter’s version substantially corroborated by credible independent evidence?
  • What is the level of the reporter’s cognitive development, that is, considering the person’s age, how well is he or she able to perceive, understand, remember, and communicate?
  • Did the reporter have a relationship with someone who, inadvertently or deliberately, could have influenced the reporter’s version of events?

Not every oral history will reveal all of these factors.  But as the evaluator, one is not expecting to find “proof  beyond a reasonable doubt” as would be the case in a courtroom.

As we have said here before, nothing can be “proven.” The evaluator must judge the credibility or believability of the oral history reporter. In deciding whether the oral evidence is true and accurate, evaluators should use common sense and experience.


Coming: Part III – Second or Third Party Reporting (“Hearsay”) in Oral Histories

No comments , , , , ,

The Reliability of Oral Histories Considered

July 11, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

[Music; loud with fast, heavy beat]

[Baritone voice with emergency pace and tone]:“Eyewitness News! The [Valley's][Metroplex's][Tri-State Area's][Ark-La-Tex's][Bay Area's][Central Coast's][Middle Tennessee's] Most Reliable Newscast! With the entire Eyewitness News Team! This is Eyewitness News at Six [o'clock]!”

That voicer (or words and music to that effect) has been heard on television stations all over America at one time or another in the last fifty years. See here, here, and here, for example. Indeed, if broadcast journalism is the cinema verite B-roll of history [sorry, inside gag and obscure esoteric reference], what could be better than “Eyewitness News”?

Likely, the lead story on Eyewitness News At Six, wherever in the country it may be broadcast, is a crime story. The reporter doing the standup at the court house or police station will report eagerly (but enthusiastically) that “Channel 7 has learned that there are two eyewitnesses to the crime,” or will lament in grave tones that “Police tell Channel 4 that there were no eyewitnesses.”

The genealogical equivalent of “Eyewitness News” is the oral history. And since genealogy is history, what could be better than the oral rendition of an eyewitness?

But both broadcast journalists and genealogists should take heed of what sophomore psych majors and first-year law students learn about eyewitnesses: they are notoriously unreliable.

A demonstration that has become an hoary chestnut among law professors and their counterparts in the psych department involves a surprise intrusion into the classroom by an individual who “assaults” the prof or steals her purse and runs out in a matter of a minute, if not seconds. Students are then asked to identify the “perp” by physical description or clothing worn; or to relate the sequence of the event.

Of course, both of you who had the misfortune to see Wink Martindale’s game show Instant Recall more than once, and all of you smarter than a fifth grader (mutually exclusive categories), have guessed already that the students have wildly divergent and largely inaccurate accounts of the event.

Millions of trees have given their lives to printing of scientific studies that show eyewitness testimony to be unreliable. Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D, a pyschologist who is a professor in three research departments and the Law School at University of California, Irvine, has written extensively in this area. In her ground-breaking book, Eyewitness Testimony, first published in 1979, Loftus asserts that evidence from eyewitnesses has resulted in wrongful convictions and even wrongful executions in the criminal justice system. Her work and that of others had such a profound effect that, for a time, juries in many states were instructed to view eyewitness testimony “with caution.”  This was said to be necessary because of an odd paradox about eyewitness testimony: it was the most unreliable evidence in the abstract, yet at the same time, the most compelling for jurors.  Loftus demonstrated that factors such as the time between the event and the rendition by the witness, the mode of interrogation, reinforcement by other witnesses, and assimilation of another’s account, bear heavily on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

Given this scientific and legal skepticism, what implications are raised by first-person accounts of historical and genealogical events?

First of all, let’s agree that there are differences between an eyewitness who attempts to identify a criminal suspect, and a first-person reporter of an historical event. The crime witness is often questioned under unfavorable circumstances by hostile interrogators who may have their own theories of the case. There are deadlines to be met. The witness may be under the emotional stress of the event. The stakes are high and the pressure to “get it right” may lead some eyewitnesses to get it wrong. There may be a dozen times a hundred other unique factors at play concerning the reliability of eyewitness testimony in a criminal case or even a civil lawsuit.

But now let’s examine the similarities between the crime witness and the first-person historical reporter. The evidence given by both frequently relies on previously unrecorded and non-contemporaneous human memory. Some of the same factors which may affect “eyewitness” crime reporting may also affect oral history. These include the demeanor and behavior of the interrogator and the states of mind of the witness both at the time of the event and the time of reporting. The interval between event and report, stress, and overly suggestive questions may also affect both types of rendition.

Every experienced genealogist knows, and every beginning genealogist will soon know, of first-person renditions that are simply wrong. This doesn’t happen maliciously, usually; often it is the result of fading memories or time-embellished memories or of the mind supplying its own details to make sense of a complicated situation.

I’ve heard stories from people who would swear they are telling it like it was, only later to discover that the person was not even alive at the time of the reported event. I myself for years gave a first hand version of having observed a tornado that touched down in Missouri in 1955 or 1956, while my mother was hanging laundry on the clotheslines in our backyard. Oh, I was there alright and have a vivid “memory” of the event–the sky turning black and green, the winds suddenly swirling about, the frightening sounds as the funnel cloud approached. But I eventually came to question whether I had a “true” memory of that storm. Under more dispassionate analysis, I have concluded that my “recollection” of the event has been substantially influenced by my mother’s account of it, which, at some point in my childhood, I adopted as my own. [Among the factors which led me to question my own memory of this occurrence were that I cannot, of independent memory, account for the whereabouts of my younger brother; I do not recall at all how we got out of harm's way; beyond remembering--if that's what you want to call it--that I was sitting on a step at the back door, I cannot describe the house, important because we lived in two different counties in Missouri during 1955-56; and I have had a difficult time finding contemporaneous reports of the event during the time frame that I "recall" that it occurred].

How does the genealogist or historian evaluate oral history then? We can avoid the traps of the path the law first took: i.e., subjecting all eyewitness evidence to scrutiny so strict that it was more often fatal in fact. 

Next in Part II: The Forensic Approach to Evaluating Oral History

 

 

 

 

No comments , , , , , , ,

I Say Tomato, You Say Pearl Onion

September 22, 2009 Craig Family History, Genealogy

Resolving Conflicting Data

North Carolina?  Arkansas?  Alabama?   In the last post, we saw that all of these had been offered as possible birthplaces for my gg-grandfather, John Wesley Bowie.   I said I’d bet on Catahoula Parish, Louisiana.  Why?

What does one do when confronted by multiple conflicting data?  Let’s start with the fact that the researcher at first has no idea as to the veracity of any asserted fact.  But to make sense of the world and to do so in a rational manner is the reason that a research develops an hypothesis.  A hypothesis generally is based on some matter of fact from which the researcher has conjectured, speculated, deduced, or inferred the facts which  constitute the hypothesis.

Here, my hypothesis is that John Wesley Bowie was born in Catahoula Parish, Louisiana, and not any of those other places.   Examine the facts which support this hypothesis.  First, most of the rest of his family are said by record evidence to have been born in Catahoula Parish. But consider: in my immediate family, my mother was born in Missouri; my parents were married while attending college in Missouri; after college, my father was stationed in the Army in Missouri; my parents’ first three children were born in Missouri; all four of their children were born within 50 months of each other. If the 1960 census turns up missing in 2032,  where would you (assuming you’re around then) surmise that my youngest brother was born?  You’d probably be wrong!].

In any event, there is no evidence that John Wesley Bowie’s parents, Rufus and Sophronia Bowie were ever in any of the other places suggested by the records.   Then  there is the matter of timing. The earliest record, the 1860 census, was taken when John was five years old.  It’s likely that informants could remember his birth just that few years earlier.  On the other hand, we don’t know who gave the enumerator the information; it may well be that someone surmised that since the young,man was present in Catahoula, he was born there–a logical fallacy for which I’m sure there’s an appropriate Latin phrase!

Notice that the most unlikely assertion of a birth place (North Carolina) comes up in the last census in John Wesley Bowie’s lifetime, the 1920 census, taken when he was in his 70s.  And on that census, nobody apparently knew in which state John Wesley’s father had been born.  By 1952, at least one of his sons had no idea where John Wesley Bowie was born.

Given these circumstances, and assuming we’ve looked at all evidence presently available,  I would say that it is reasonable to surmise that John Wesley Bowie was born in Catahoula Parish, Louisiana.   I’m not saying it’s true; I’m saying that it’s logically accurate.

And that’s how we make sense of our world, because there are some (maybe most) “truths” we will never know for certain.

[BTW, my youngest brother was born outside the United States].

One comment , , ,

A Commentary on the Quality of Sources

April 1, 2009 Craig Uncategorized

Read this.

Then for the spot-on rejoinders, read Chris Dunham and Tim Agazio.

No comments , , , ,

There’s No Such Thing as Proof

March 24, 2009 Craig Genealogy

If, as a genealogist, you believe that you can “prove” something, well, you need to be re-educated. . . .

In genealogy, we talk about evidence and data sources, and the Genealogical Proof Standard.  We don’t talk enough about what is meant by “proof” or how “proof” is distinct from evidence,or about the multifaceted nature of proof (which means our inability to “prove” anything).

Let’s take an example.  Suppose that we are trying to establish the paternity of Archimedes Jones.  We have two documents: first, a birth certificate that lists Plato Jones as the father of Archimedes Jones; and second, a death certificate for Archimedes Jones that lists Plato Jones as  Archimedes’ father. Do we have proof that Plato is Archimedes’ father?

The best we can say is that we have two bits of evidence that suggest the proposition at issue.

Suppose further that we have census records from two different census years that place Archimedes in Plato’s house as a son. If we couple those with the birth and death certificates, do we now have proof that Plato is Archimedes’ father?

The best we can say in this instance is that we now have four bits of evidence that Plato is Archimedes’ father.

Now imagine we have a will in which the testator, Plato, leaves a substantial sum of money “to my son, Archimedes, with love and affection.” If we add that to the prior documents, do we have proof that Plato is Archimedes’ father?

Or suppose we have a an affidavit sworn to and subscrfibed before a notary public in which a woman declares that she was married to Plato Jones at the time Archimedes was conceived and that Plato is his father.  Do we at last have proof that Plato is Archimedes’ father?

Suppose all we had was the last mentioned document–the affidavit.  Would that constitute “proof” that Plato Jones is the father of Archimedes Jones?

The answers to our questions rest upon the nature of proof.  In fact, there is no such thing as “proof” in a
universally objective manner.  I will go so far as to say that proof is a figment of one’s imagination.  A disturbing statement from a lawyer and genealogist, yes?

Well, I can’t prove that statement, but I can probably get you to believe it.

Let us begin by considering some well-regarded definitions of “proof” taken from leading dictionaries:

1.    The establishment of the truth of anything.

2.    The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

.3.    That evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

4.    The effect of evidence in convincing the mind [of the truth of a proposition].

5.    The evidence that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true

6.    The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

7.     That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief.

Which of these correctly describes the nature of proof?

I say that 1 and 2 are plainly incorrect and 3 is somewhat confused.  First, the establishment of the truth of anything is obviously impossible in the realm of human affairs. Second, facts either are or are not; facts cannot be  established or denied by anything other that which creates the universe.

The third definition hedges the bet–that “evidence can establish a thing as true,” but if not, then evidence can produce a belief in the truth of something.

The fourth through seventh definitions are correct; the differences being in single degrees.  Proof is a process that occurs in the human mind.

Take for instance an example from my research.  Here is the evidence and sources:

1.  Mary C. Manson was born in about 1847 in Georgia. 1850 US Census, Talbot County, Georgia. 15th District, p.311; dwelling 1261; household 1261

2.  Mary C. Manson’s race in 1850 was described as “mulatto.” 1850 US Census, Talbot County, Georgia.

3.  Mary C. Manson was apparently the daughter of Jane Manson, born about 1826. 1850 US Census, Talbot
County, Georgia.

4.  Mary C. Manson received a gift of real property from one Nathaniel Brown in 1853 by a deed that reads as
follows:

Nathaniel Brown to Mary C. Manson, daughter of Jane Manson

Love and affection  1/2 acre Pine land where Jane Manson now lives.
Southwest corner of lot of land conveyed to me by J.C. McCants, A. McCants, & J.T. Gray three acres
Wit: W.W. Wiggins, Isaac Mulkey, JJC
Recorded: 14 Nov 1853

Land Records of Taylor County, Georgia, Deed Book A

5.  Nathaniel Brown was a white man. 1850 US Census, Talbot County, Georgia, 24th District, p. 312.

Now that we understand that proof is a mental process, what comes to mind? Are you “convinced in your mind” of the proposition imagined? Is your mind compelled to accept the proposition as true?  Have you been “persuaded” by consideration of the evidence?  Has the evidence produced a belief in your mind?

I will suggest that many will say that the implied proposition on the evidence stated likely fails as “convincing” or “persuasive” under the Genealogical Proof Standard.

A proposition is proven when an arbiter believes it is established by the evidence presented.  The arbiter’s belief that the proposition is established may coincide with such a belief on the part of another, or many others; or it may not.  The arbiter’s belief actually may coincide with objective truth (although we will never know), or not. But as to the believing arbiter, the matter is proven.

Think about that for a minute.  Something which is true may not necessarily be proven, and that which is not true might be proven.  So it is in life; so it is in genealogy.

6 comments , ,

Will the Real Julia McDavid Please Stand Up?

January 8, 2008 Craig Uncategorized

Some Issues Concerning the Evaluation and Analysis of Evidence

We’ve been playing a genealogical version of To Tell The Truth in which Julia McDavid, born in the nineteenth century and with a daughter named Helen, has challenged us to find her on the 1880 and 1900 censuses. The problem is that there are several persons with the name “Julia McDavid” enumerated in these surveys. And a confounding array of shifting information has made the task very difficult. How do we proceed?

First, we need to accept that we may never know from census records alone, or for that matter, from any record, who the “real” Julia McDavid was. ["Real" meaning the one who was born in the nineteenth century and who had a daughter named Helen.] There might be more than one person who fits our criteria or there may be no such person. But given this knowledge, we can move forward if we develop a hypothesis that there was such a person.

My hypothesis is that the Julias of 1920 Louisiana, 1910 Arkansas, 1900 Arkansas, and 1880 South Carolina are all the same person. So how do we “prove” a hypothesis? We need to know something about evidence, sources, standards of proof, and evaluation or analysis.

Genealogical texts and courses spend a fair amount of time on “primary” and “secondary” sources. This is important, no doubt. The problem is that some researchers confuse “sources” with evidence. This is like confusing the bottle with the wine.

Evidence and Sources

Direct and Indirect (or Circumstantial) Evidence. Direct evidence tends to prove a fact directly, such as the statement of someone who saw a bear in the wilderness. Indirect or circumstantial evidence tends to prove a fact indirectly, such as the statement of a knowledgeable person who saw only the fresh bear tracks. Either way, there is evidence that a bear was recently in the area. In terms of evaluation or analysis, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. The evaluator may choose to believe or disbelieve either kind. Whether direct or indirect, the evaluator should give every piece of evidence whatever weight he or she think it deserves. The evaluator can accept more persuasive indirect evidence even though contradicted by direct evidence. And the weight to be assigned any bit of evidence may depend on the nature of the source of that evidence.

Census records are sources which may or may not contain evidence. For the most part, census records contain direct evidence. Now some of this direct evidence is hearsay, but direct nonetheless. [Example: Census taker asks householder how many children he has. Householder, with personal knowledge of his procreative activities, says he has ten children. Direct evidence! Example: Census taker asks householder how long she’s been married. Householder with personal knowledge of her personal affairs, says 17 years. Direct evidence! Example: Enumerator asks householder when she was born. Householder says “June 1872.” Direct evidence! Also hearsay! Householder is merely repeating what she’s been told by others (presumably her parents). Example: Enumerator asks householder when her parents immigrated to America. Householder says, “They were here the year of the big snow, but they weren't here the year of the drought.” Census taker knows that “big snow” followed drought by two years. Indirect evidence!). It's important to remember that the information in census records is only as accurate as those who give it. With respect to age, for example, some people may not have known when they were born. I know some genealogists resolve discrepancies by taking as accurate the date on the earliest census. In the matter of places of birth, enumerators may have assumed that if one parent was born in a certain place, so was the other one!

"Proof"

There has been developed in genealogy the so-called Genealogical Proof Standard which consists of the following:

Was the underlying research reasonably exhaustive?

Are there clear and accurate source citations?

Has there been a skillful analysis and correlation of evidence?

How well have conflicts in the evidence been resolved?

Is there a clear conclusion?

These elements are extremely important. However, it seems to me that some genealogical texts and courses leave out some other important elements, such what is the analytical process involved in the evaluation of evidence? And to what level of confidence do we want or need to "prove" the hypothesis.

Proof is always subjective, even when it seems that there is but one answer. One must realize that “proof” is something that happens in the minds of the analyst and those who read his or her work.If one is convinced of a fact to one degree or another, it has been more or less “proven” in that person’s view. There is the question of what degree of confidence must the issue be proven. In my view, this is entirely up to the evaluator. However, if his or her work is to have any credibility with others, the evaluator must inform the reader of the degree of confidence assigned to each fact.I find it helpful to use the following descriptions:

Reasonably Certain: A reasonable person evaluating the evidence would come to the same conclusion; any other conclusion would be unreasonable.

Likely: A reasonable person evaluating the the same evidence would find the conclusion more likely true than not not true.

Probable or Probably: A reasonable person evaluating the same evidence would find such a degree of probable truth in the conclusion that a reasonable person would rely on the conclusion as if it concerned his or her own affairs.

Possibly: A reasonable person evaluating the same evidence would find that the evidence strongly suggests the conclusion. These are high standards. Even when the evaluator is “reasonably certain,” the true facts could be otherwise.

Now back to the Julias.

Let’s start with the 1910 Arkansas Julia. I'm reasonably certain that she was born in the nineteenth century. Her age is given as 37; nobody could mistake a nearly middled-aged woman for a child of ten or less. There is indirect evidence that she has a daughter named Helen. Living in her dwelling with a number of other adults are just three children--one being an eight year old girl named Helen who shares the McDavid surname. I am comfortable concluding that this is likely Julia's daughter.

Now to the 1900 Arkansas Julia: Her age is given as 27 years old; ten years younger than 1910 Julia. Her birth place is the same as 1910 Julia's, although her parents' places of birth are different. There are differences in her race and marital status. And there is the apparent absence of her two children, Sterling and Clayton (Helen wasn't born until 1902). But none of those items as reported in 1900 are surprising given she was apparently working as a prostitute. I'm comfortable saying that probably the 1900 Julia is the same person as the 1910 Julia.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle is correlating the 1880 South Carolina Julia with the other two. The 1880 Julia would be 3 or 4 years older than 1900/1910 Julia. It's hard in 2008 to make an eyeball mistake of 3-4 years as to a child of 11 years old; but it may not have been so in 1880. But then, this is why some genealogists give more credit the earliest reported age for a child. At an early point with parents available, it's easier to tell whether a child was born in 1869 or 1872, than it is to tell whether that same person as an adult woman is 37 or 40 in 1910. The other evidence connecting the Julias is the South Carolina birth place of the 1900 father and the 1880 father. This is admittedly somewhat thin. I can say that 1880 South Carolina Julia is possibly the same person as 1900/1910 Julia.

Why not connect the 1880 Missouri Julia to the 1900/1910 Julia? Consider that Missouri Julia is essentially the same age as South Carolina Julia and, perhaps more importantly, her race is the same as 1900 Julia and her mother's birthplace is the same. So isn't it more likely that that Missouri Julia is the same person as 1900/1910 Julia? Maybe. But just like a juror hearing the SODDI ["some other dude did it"] defense, this does not quite ring true to me. An evaluator of evidence is not required to set aside his or her experience in the world, judgment, or intuition. Indeed, these things often are imperative to the evaluation of evidence. Nonetheless, the analyst must be able to point to evidence substantial enough to support a determination and must be able to articulate clearly the reasons for that determination. In this case, I would say that the 1900/1910 Julia and the 1880 South Carolina Julia are probably the same person. We should understand t hat we would not use only census records in the “real” world to make these conclusions.

Finally, we have to understand that, to tell the truth genealogically speaking, the real Julia McDavid isn’t going to stand up from the grave or even from the all the evidence we might collect. It’s up to us to construct “the real Julia McDavid” from what we are now able to know.

One comment , , ,

Evidence, Hypotheses, Analyses

May 22, 2007 Craig Uncategorized

This week we resolved the question of whether I’d been researching “wrong Longs” as the parents of my great-grandfather, James William Long. I said that in an upcoming post we’d show how we did that.

Out here in the hinterlands, the NGS NewsMagazine arrived a couple of days ago. As usual, it’s got a number of excellent articles. One that I found particularly interesting is What is the standard of proof in genealogy? by Thomas W. Jones, Ph.D., CG, CGL. Dr. Jones goes through a case study showing how the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) applies.

Our problem is not much different from the case presented by Dr. Jones. His study is to find the parents of on Jonathan Tucker. We apply the GPS to the question of whether I’ve been researching the “right” Long family as the parents and siblings of James William Long.

We know that James William Long was married to Mary Elizabeth Liza Jane Johnson. We know that because (1) we have living witnesses who affirm the truthfulness of that and (2) we have a copy of their marriage certificate.

The first test of the GPS is Was the underlying research reasonably exhaustive? To establish the family of origin of James William Long we have:

  1. Living witnesses who attest to the fact of his marriage and the names of his children (this will become important later).
  2. His marriage license.
  3. His death certificate.
  4. The 1870 Federal census of Kansas City, Missouri
  5. The 1870 Federal census of Shawnee, Johnson County, Kansas
  6. The 1900 Federal census of Kansas City, Missouri
  7. The 1910 Federal census of Kansas City, Missouri
  8. Census records, marriage licences, and death certificates of his children
  9. The death certificate of his wife.

[See citations below]

We haven’t found any other records or papers that pertain to James William Long in public records or in family records. Is this a reasonably exhaustive search?

Clear and accurate source citations

We take care to cite the sources carefully and accurately so that others can assess the research and evidence supporting the conclusions. Other researchers should be able to replicate the work.

The other three steps are:

Analysis and correlation of evidence
Resolution of Conflicts
A Clear conclusion

In this case, the question is who are the parents and siblings of James William Long. We know that he lived in Kansas City, Missouri. Therefore, we start our research there. We find the following:

  • The oral histories of the living witnesses do not yield the names of the subject’s parents or siblings, except that one states that his mother’s name may have been “Paulina, or something like that.”
  • The 1870 census of Kansas City, Missouri, shows a James Long, age 7, living with adults James, age 39, and Nancy, 35. There are other children in the household as follows: Charlie, 14; Fred, 9, Hannah, 5; Rebecca, 3. The 1870 census did not show relationships, so it cannot conclusively be said from those census records alone that any adult living with any child is in a parent-child relationship. Likewise, any children living together may or may not be siblings.
  • A marriage license in the files of the county clerk of Jackson County, Missouri, shows that James W. Long and Mary E. Johnson were married on May 30, 1888. The application states that James was 22 years old and that Mary was 17. Her father gave his consent.
  • The 1900 census of Kansas City, Missouri, shows James Long and Mary E. Long residing with six children. James’s birthdate is given as October 1866; Mary’s as August 1870.
  • The 1910 census of Kansas City, Missouri, shows James W. Long and Mary Long residing with nine children. James is indicated to be 42 years old; Mary is said to be 39 years old.
  • All of the census entries, except the 1870 Kansas City census, indicate that James was born in Missouri and that his father was born in Kentucky, his mother in Virginia. The 1870 Kansas City census shows that James was born in Missouri, as was his mother, but that his father was born in Mississippi.
  • A death certificate on file with the State of Missouri Archives shows that James William Long was born on October 15, 1866 in Shawnee, Johnson County, Kansas, and died on September 23, 1945, in the State Mental Hospital at Fulton, Callaway County, Missouri.
  • The informant on the death certificate is Christina Neal, known to the living witnesses as one of his daughters. The censuses show Christina as one of his daughters. A marriage license on file with the county clerk of Jackson County, Missouri, shows that Christina Long married Earl Neal on December 31, 1916.
  • The death certificate states James’ father’s name as Richard and his mother’s name as “unknown.”
  • The 1870 census of Shawnee, Johnson County, Kansas, shows a Richard Long residing with “Palinay” Long, and children Joseph, age 16, John, age 7, James, age 4, Rozetta, age 2, and Eliza Jane, age 4 months. However, it shows James having been born in Missouri. It shows his father born in Kentucky and his mother in Virgina. His father’s age is given as 37; his mother’s age as 30.
  • Records in the Missouri State Archives show that a Paulina Long died in 1888 at age 48 in Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Records in the Missouri State Archives show that an Eliza Jane Long died in 1885 at age 15.

Analysis and Correlation of Evidence

The death certificate of James William Long correlates with the 1870 Shawnee, Kansas, census in terms of his age and also correlates in terms of his birthdate with the 1900 Kansas City, Missouri, census. The Kansas City censuses are consistent with the Shawnee census with respect to the birth places of James and his parents.

The death certificate is not consistent with the census records with respect to his place of birth.
Information about his birth place on the census records was given by his parents and himself; on the death certificate, this information was given by his daughter who was in less of a position to know.

The death certificate is consistent with the Shawnee census record concerning his father’s name.

With respect to his mother’s name, it would appear that the Shawnee census record may contain a misspelling of “Paulina.” If so, that would be consistent with the oral history. The census record is consistent with the death record of Paulina Long.

Stated Conclusion

The parents of James William Long were Richard and Paulina Long, who resided for some period of time in Shawnee, Kansas.

Citations

2. James Long & Mary E. Johnson, Marriage License, County Clerk, Jackson County, Missouri, License No. 1888K0000315.

3. James W. Long, Death Certificate, Missouri Secretary of State, State Archives,
Callaway County, State File no. 33339.

4. James Long household, 1870 United States Federal Census, Kansas City Ward 2, Jackson County, Missouri; National Archives microfilm M593 roll 782; Page 572.

5. Richard Long household, 1870 United States Federal Census, Shawnee Twp., Johnson County, Kansas, National Archives microfilm M593, roll 435, page 646.

6. James Long household, 1900 United States Federal Census, Kansas City Ward 5, Jackson County, Missouri, National Archives microfilm T623, roll 861; page 12B.

7. James Long household, 1910 United States Federal Census, Kansas City Ward 3, Jackson County, Missouri, National Archives microfilm T624, roll 785; Page: 7B.

9. Mary E. Long, Death Certificate, Missouri Secretary of State, State Archives,
Jackson County, State File no. 5725.

2 comments , , , , , ,