KYMCCREA-L Archives

From:
Subject: One more thing about "evidence"
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:22:51 EST

Hi, all;

In re-reading the message, I realized there was one more thing I needed to
mention.

There was a question about copying things from Internet sources.

In approving a pioneer certification or other such situations, the online
references are usually accepted IF THEY ARE (PRINTED OUT) COPIES OF DIGITIZED
INFORMATION (land grants, actual marriage, baptism, census, etc.)

Where most people fall down on the documentation is that an indexed entry
which SAYS when and where people were married, for instance, is not considered
primary evidence because it is NOT the actual record, just something that
someone may have misread before entering it on the website.

I have several instances where the actual document does not say what the
transcriber thought it said.

In the same light, many areas publish typewritten indexes for their historic
records, giving names, dates, places, etc. A copy of that index page is
not usually acceptable as primary evidence unless there is some kind of caveat
that goes with it saying specifically that the original records have been lost
and the indexes are all there is to go on.

Another tough situation.

Best wishes,

Ann

This thread:

• One more thing about "evidence" by