Update Titled, "Dave's Updates 12-31-99"
by David Hedgepeth, Dallas Texas - [email protected]
Subject: Dave's Updates 12-31-99
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:00:54 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: Mailing list members
Respones to Lee Pool (12-30-99) and Linda of KCMO (12-29-99)
[email protected] 12-31-99.
Lee,
I will respond to your questions.
Q-1: "But with all that has been said you or Betty have not proven that
Jesse James was James Courtney. In fact I've never read where you or
Betty ever said you have proof."
R-1: When history is written how much proof is available when conclusions
are made. Linda seems driven to call everything Betty says as conjecture
and thus discredit her work. This is not objectivity. The photo matches
are not conjecture; they are proof. The fact that two men Bill Wilkerson
and Bud Singleton were part of the James Gang is not conjecture. The
challenge to the Starrs findings is not Betty's conjecture. Betty does
have a lot of evidences. Individually they might be laughed away as Linda
has tried to do, but together they form a preponderance of evidence which
is an indication of a collaborative truth. Like you said, "Sometimes
there is no proof, just evidence."
Q-2: "The smart thing to do would be to get people interested in this to
pitch in and find facts that would support Betty's opinion. Maybe this is
what you are trying to do. Of course doing this could make things go the
other way."
R-2: Yes Betty does need some help. That is not to say she is not getting
it. Still with all the research chores she faces, there is a lot to
cover. If you or anyone else wants to help, let me know and we'll give
you an assignment.
Q-3: "As I got to read the debate back and forth my opinions changed from
time to time. Betty's book was a little hard for me to understand at
first. After reading the regular history version for years, I understood
that one better. Somebody said that people reject what they don't
understand. I think that's why some that you talk to get so cranky. They
don't understand. I don't think you have said anything about the 24
evidences at the end of Betty's book. That mostly helped me to understand
what she was saying. I can't say I agree or disagee with what she said. I
don't know what to think. I could argue both sides which must mean I
understand something. I will need more than what I have read so far to be
a true believer.
R-3: I felt like that at first. My family history so aligned with Betty's
that I became more persuaded that she was right. I have said before, if
she were lying, then new evidences would not continue to pop up on her
behalf.
Q-4: "Right now I am just thinking about it. How much longer until
Betty's new book is ready?"
R-4: She said she hoped for summer.
Q-5: "I've been watching this debate probably more than most so I have
more questions. Some you have been asked before. Where did the pictures
come from?"
R-5: They came from the old trunk of JLC. I cannot figure why Linda is so
set on suggesting they came from elsewhere. Imagine yourself being asked,
"Are you sure the pictures that your grandfather passed down to you came
from him and not elsewhere?" How do you answer that and how do you prove
it? Like you said if she wants a notarized family testimony we could get
it.
Q-6: "And what about the missing hand question for the person you think
is Zerelda?"
R-6: I think you know my answer before I give it if you have been
following this for very long. As I have said before there was a challenge
from the opposing Courtney family that the picture of the woman
identified as Zerelda was missing the wrong arm. It was questioned if the
picture was reversed. In order for that to be resolved the original
photo needs to be examined. Anyway reversed or not, the faces do match
and that is what is important.
Q-7: "How did Jesse make the switch and still keep in contact with the
Courtney parents if he was not really James Courtney?"
R-7: I don't know when and I don't know how. I could speculate but so
could anyone so I won't.
Q-8: " What happened to the real James Courtney?"
R-8: That is not known. There is a search and a few possibilities but no
proof as of yet.
Q-9: "Why are some of Betty's relatives so against her claims?"
R-9: I don't really understand all that. It could be a combination of
shame, devotion to keep the secret, or maybe even an issue of past
distribution of assets. It is strange. Since part of the records are kept
from Betty, it makes me wonder even more.
|
While I am responding I would like to critique some of the comments
Linda and you have made. Hopefully I am not taking away what you want to
say.
Before I begin I want to add this disclaimer. Due to the nature of
Linda's last letter I will respond a bit out of my normal character.
If some of you think my tone is poor then reread Linda's recent letter to
Lee and also the one to myself. I will excuse my warped sense of comedy
by quoting Linda.
"… I hope most of you can see my humor in all of this." |
1. I agree that she Linda is savy enough to argue both sides. So why is
she so one sided and can't give an inch? I think we all can figure it out
without my saying.
2. History is not genealogy, but genealogy is history. Both history and
genealogy have a certain amount of guesswork. Not everyone's folks have
documented proof of vital statistics. Many dates are identified as ca. or
calculated. Sometimes our assumptions are right and sometimes they are
wrong. We correct as we go. If we do not reach conclusion based what we
have, we won't have anything to prove, disprove, or refine. For example
James L. Courtney has no birth or marriage certificates, but does have a
death certificate. Jesse(?) and Zee have no marriage certificate either.
In the former case there are pictures of the spouses together. In the
latter case it seems odd that as picture crazy as Jesse was, there are no
pictures (that I have found) of Jesse and Zee together. Go figure why.
3. Did you notice that Linda did not give me an "atta boy" for my
statement about JLC's associates, Bill Wilkerson and Bud Singleton being
combo gang members? Gosh and I was so proud of that. For someone who
wants the facts, Linda sure seems to avoid them when they do not support
her point. Just forget circumstantial evidence. No credit for me today
because there's not enough proof. Boo hoo! Besides, credit might make me
look smart or something. We can't have that. (You know how hard that is
for a person with a Doctors degree?) Stephen Covey says, the enlightened
person will seek first to understand and not fear, resent, or diminish
someone else's win.
4. Did you also notice that Linda avoided answering your question about
Mr. Hoctor and James Starrs? This is a sensitive subject and
understandably so. Like you said on one hand Betty's proof is scoffed at
and on the other hand Starrs proof?? is condoned and/or ignored. Talk
about a double standard.
I asked in my last letter to Linda, "I do hope you eventually comment on
Mr. Horctor's letter."
This was her answer. Read it carefully because it so illustrates my
point. "I know Emmet Hoctor, as we have corresponded many times, and met
at the exhumation in 1995. I am sure he is seeking these claims that
Jesse lived on after 1882 to be stopped and in his own manner he is doing
so."
If I understand correctly, Linda is saying that Emmet Hoctor is trying to
stop Betty Duke and others from claiming that Jesse did not die in 1882.
Wow, what a spin of the real truth! The letter was a factual statement
that Starrs work was a botch, is unreliable, and needs to be redone by an
unbaised party. I would think that the fact-seeking bloodhounds would
have really jumped on that. Nope. Remember, denial is not a river in
Egypt.
-By the way I contacted Emmet Hoctor and asked him about Linda's
statement. Yes I have it right. He is after correcting the work of James
Starrs, and not challenging Betty.
5. Boy did you screw up Lee. Just the mention of Betty's 24 points gave
Linda that many laughs. Hope you are not the sensitive type. Guess
everybody's entitled to their opinions, even silly ones. Some people will
make light of almost anything. I once knew a fellow that laughed at God.
It did not make him right but he really enjoyed himself, for the moment
anyway.
6. Apparently Linda just does not get my point about Wood Hite. I do not
believe that a decomposed body of four months is the body in the coffin.
Dugh. Either the decomposed body was never there or it was some poor
unfortunate who had been previously shot. I believe that the decomposed
body was not that of Wood Hite because Wood Hite, or someone, had been
freshly killed in April 1882 and was the pictured corpse in the coffin.
Conveniently both bodes were reported to be examined by the coroner
during the same time period. It is impossible to find the true
documentation on this event since the accounts vary so much. Before
anyone laughs this one off, compare the corpse to photos of Jesse James.
Better than that, get a professional to make the comparison. They just
aren't the same. Trust me.
7. Yeah, Lee, I am still wondering like you what it would take for Linda
to be convinced that the Courtney pictures are genuinely theirs. From
what you have read Lee, do you think she really wants to know?
8. There was no answer on the question, "If you think James Courtney was
with the Quantrill's Raiders, then please help to find the answer." From
what you have read Lee, do you think she really wants to help?
9. Linda said, "This is my last post on JLC unless I see some REAL proof
that JLC was JWJ, of which I have seen nothing." Nothing she says? Go
figure. There is an old Chines proverb. " Person with eyes shut cannot
see."
10. Linda said, "David has not answered any of the pertinent questions I
posed. Did I touch a nerve or get too close to knocking Ms Duke's story
down?"
Let's see it's been a day or so and I took a break.
As far as knocking down Betty's story, I read her comments. Sorry I made
it a rule not to accept wild speculations. You know I'm picky like that. |
Well, Lee, I've gone this far so I'll answer Linda's other questions that
I have not already covered. Then I am going on break again. OK where were
we.
L-1. "I found that even the slightest indignity was covered up. It was a
matter of pride in ones family not to *show ones laundry.* Also, this
does not ideicate that the Courtney cover-up, as you call it, was that
JLC was JWJ. It may be that they were ashamed of his desertion in the
civil war. It may have been the man himself, reading the diary shows what
a character he was."
D-1: That sounds reasonable if JLC was not JWJ. If he was there would be
the same behavior.
L-2: "I am wondering what Bettys father, mother and grandparents said
before they passed on."
D-2: Betty's mother is still alive and repeats the stories Betty has
related. Her grandparents also knew and told of the JLC/JWJ connection.
L-3: "I have not seen this census (1870 Morris County, KS Census which
has JLC listed as James Haun). As was stated previously, you said it was
odd that in the 1850 JLC was omitted yet an unrelated person was not. You
have no way of knowing who answered the door, perhaps it was this
unrelated person who omitted JLC. Hmm.... was it in the summer? Was he
staying with a grandparent? Whoever JLC was in 1860 must have been
somewhere in 1850. I am SURE that he was not planning the cover-up at
that age. Also, they may have
listed him as Haun in the 1870 just because the family head was Haun."
D-3: Good point. You could be right, but in order to do so you would have
to speculate. That's OK with me only if, you will give Betty the same
latitude. Turn about is fair play.
L-4: "I again state, look at the ears on JLC. You stated age etc. BUT
David, ones ear lobes suddenly do not decide to disconnect from ones
head. JLC in the photos with his hat on, show descending lobes, NOT
connected to his face. It is clear in all photso you and Betty agree to
be JWJ in early days DO have lobes connecting to face. I would appreciate
you commenting on this this time...if you can."
D-4: I wish I could give you an answer to satisfy you. Whether I agree
with you or not, and I do see what you are saying, it does not matter. A
professional lab has assessed that the pictures you question do in fact
match. What am I to say about that? Unless you have similar tests run
yourself and they counter what the first group found, then there is
little more we can discuss on this picture issue. For now we each have
different opinions on that subject and that's OK.
Quote from DH. "Also JLC did have a receding hairline that shows as he
ages. Keep in mind that traditional photos of JWJ in later life may have
been another person."
L-5: JWJ had a receeding hairline at an early age, so later photos are
not of what I speak. Have you tripped on your words there David? I agree
"JWJ in later life, may have been another person," because the ones you
claim to be JWJ are indeed JLC... enough said."
D-5: I was referring to the person that I think was posing as Jesse
James. You know some men's hair loss stops or slows in receding around
age 40. It appears to me in latter years JLC had a receding hair line
hidden a bit by a comb over.
It seems at one point you agree that the pictures are of JWJ and at other
times you are trying to show they are not. I think what you are getting
at is that you agree that the pre-1883 photos in Betty's possession are
of JWJ but the post 1883 pictures are not. Again I repeat both the
pre1883 and the post 1883 do match according to three sources.
L-6: "Unless they (new pictures and supporting information to be
available in Betty's upcoming book) are posted online, I again state that
I am not wasting more $$ on her claims."
D-6: Don't worry, I will send you a free autographed copy if you promise
to study it from cover to cover. What a deal! See, debating really pays
off. Oh yes, you have to also promise not to file Betty's book with your
fiction books. It is to be filed under history. We don't want anyone to
get the wrong impression or anything about what it really is.
L-7: "JWJ would not have been using an assumed name in 1860 nor 1870. He was robbing banks and telling people who he robbed who he was."
D-7: OK. Are you saying that Jesse never used an alias name during that time? Do you know that for sure or is that speculation?
|
Linda I think I addressed everything. If I overlooked anything let me
know. Seriously, I say to you that I believe either of us could in fact
defend either side. Some may believe from your comments that this subject
is not worth the time. I think you and I know better. I can tell by what
you avoid. Whether you respond or not I will inform this forum of new
developments and I will discuss non-James L. Courtney issues such as the
questionable James Starrs report because many put their trust is as being
true.
Ideally a forum should be a mutually respectful exchange of ideas and not
put-downs. People should be able have differences of opinion and still be
agreeable. If Betty's project were a dead horse I would have been off
long ago. Betty's work will continue to make its influence. New evidence
has to be checked and that takes time, but the best is yet to come.
Thanks Lee. Sorry if I got carried away. Ya'll take care now and don't
let the Y2K bug bit you.
Your comments, information and support would be greatly appreciated.
David Hedgpeth- E-mail: [email protected]
Contact me if you want to be added or deleted from the update notices.
David Hedgpeth
Dallas, TX
Send Regular E-mail to: [email protected]
Send Attachments to: [email protected]
Note to readers: You may review all the past and present correspondence
on the Jesse James/James L. Courtney Debate at
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ivyplace/hedgpethg.html
Also you may contact David Hedgpeth at [email protected] to be added to the
e-mail list ("Dave's Updates") or for direct comments/questions.
PS: Those subscribing to "Dave's Updates"may want to subscribe to
[email protected] for some valuable discussion on history
related to the Jesse James Family and the James Gang.
Go Back to top Or use your Browser's back button to return to the page you came here from
|
|
Courtney and James GenConnect Boards by Rootweb 
