Update Dated December 7, 1999 Titled, "Most Important Letter Written to Date on the James L. Courtney/James James Debate "
by David Hedgepeth, Dallas Texas - [email protected]
Subject: Dave's Update - Courtney/James Debate: To Kathy
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:45:25 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: Mailing list members
Dear All,
This is most important letter written to date on the James L.
Courtney/James James Debate. Please read thoroughly.
David
Re: David Hedgpeth's Response to Kathy Reynard's November 11, 1999 Letter
(See the Genforum [Courtney] < http:/Genforum.familytreemaker.com/ > under "Re: J L Courtney/ J W James Exhumation # 7")
December 7, 1999
Kathy,
Thank you for your November 11 letter. Anyone reading your message would
be impressed, as I, with your examples and specific references. Although
I do not agree with all that you have said, you have presented some new
information and questions which are noteworthy.
Before I respond to the your letter, I want to make a few comments about
myself and about fruitful written exchange. First of all I do not portray
myself to be an expert. I am a facilitator working to encourage a public
dialogue of the fair examination of real facts. I fully agree with your
statement, "I think it is very important for anyone interested in this
issue to have all the available facts so that they can make an informed
decision on their own." Eventually we will come to agree to agree, or
agree to disagree, issue by issue. From that perhaps others will have
better understanding.
Prior to discussing the pictures and other issues I will kindly ask you
to consider a few items. Kathy, it appears to me that to have a driving
need be right and win, sometimes at the expense of balanced fairness and
due consideration. When used, this tactic does not lend credibility to
your cause or to any real effectiveness.
You have insisted on facts so I will be explicit in explaining this and
in clearing the air. Let me cite a few examples.
a. When I suggested you should have contacted Betty as part of your
research, you just turned it around, refusing to accept any
accountability whatsoever. During your research and before you appeared
in court, you knew of Betty but she didn't know of you. When should she
have called you? Since the get-go and after your testimony you have not
had a nice thing to say about her. Would she have received a welcomed
response if she had called you? Can't you admit that a fair minded and
impartial researcher would have contacted her early on, but for whatever
other reason you didn't?
b. When I retracted my statement about the Courtneys refusing to do hair
samples in
July, I honored your request. The comment I got back was "I thank you for
your gracious correction of the misinformation in your post of June 6th…"
Not only does your choice of words seem to be duplicitous, but you do not
"graciously" acknowledge what I asked of you. And what did I ask? "In
May, didn't the Courtneys see hair sampling as unreliable evidence? If
not, then why hadn't they just gone ahead and done it anyway, if it was a
good and acceptable idea?" I was asking for a fact or clarification and I
got nothing. In fact this is an all too common example, as I feel that
you trivialize, minimize, or more so ignore what I say and then accuse me
of being non-factual.
For example, you have still maintained that you were "correct" in the
following statement posted on the Andruss website at
http://www.andruss.net/courtney.htm:
"On September 17, 1999, in a Falls County, Texas courtroom, a judge
decided not to allow the exhumation of James L. Courtney's body for DNA
testing after a forensic scientist proved that the picture of Dianna
Courtney-Haun in Mrs. Duke's book had been altered."
Ironically you accuse me of exactly what it seems to me you are doing.
This is a clear misrepentation of the facts as I very well explained in
my November 25 post. The "Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law" makes
no mention of the photographs presented by Max Courtney in court, no
mention of them being proven true, and no mention that this is why the
Judge denied the exhumation. That is fact.
This is what the finding really did say. "Petitioner's (Betty Duke)
request for exhumation did not raise to the level of necessity or
compelling reason requiring the sanctity of the grave to be disturbed."
If you want facts, then deal with those I have given to you and be as
honest as you want me to be. With all these facts I ask again, please
correct your web site statement. Remember, if your line of thinking is
that Max Courtney's presentation was proof, then by the same token,
Betty's presentation was also proof. There should be no double standard.
This forum is not about our verbal prowess or our expertise in winning
debate. It is about finding truth and unless there is some rightful give
and take, then nothing is learned, thus nothing changes. Someone said,
"It's hard to agree with someone who can never be wrong." (The most
casual reader can usually tell anyway.) Yes, it would be absolutely
phenomenal if you weren't ever mistaken. It's O.K. for you to admit that
I'm at least a little right now and then, about what you do not already
believe. That would exemplify good character and it will make our time
well spent.
I will number and summarize [your point or topic] and then follow with my
comment.
1. [You assert, along with Max Courtney that the pictures of Dianah
Courtney/Haun do not match the photos of Zerelda James Samuel.]
Once again, may I remind you of what has been ignored by those agreeing
with your assertion? Three different groups of facial identification
experts have verified that Diannah and Zerelda are the same person. Two
different experts have verified that James L. Courtney's mother was
indeed missing an arm and that the photo showing she had two arms had
been tampered with. How is it that Max and you are more qualified than
the experts, and are able to counter their findings? Are you still going
to directly deny statements of fact issued by legitimate photo experts?
(If yes, I would really like a serious justification to your answer.)
Betty's photo is a copy of the one in the possession of Mae Courtney who
is her oldest living family member. I can't imagine anyone altering a
photo and then taking it to experts for verification. According to you,
your photo does not need to be examined by an expert because most anyone
(excluding others I know and myself) can just look and see Betty's photo
has been tampered with. How do I know that your copy is not the one that
has been altered? Experts say it is. You say you know where the original
is. Well, that is what you going to need to prove your point. Otherwise I
think that Betty clearly has the edge.
If you want more facts, Kathy then study this. According to Cory Hayes, a
digital imagery expert of the Austin Community College, the photo that
you claim is original is the one that has been tampered with. I know that
I have your word to the contrary, but let's see what the expert says.
"It (Max's photo) has been output digitally so at some point an original
photo had to be scanned. The only other photo (Betty's photo) that I have
been shown, there is an obvious crease that has been removed from the
dress on the upper arm. This is also too much detail in her dress pattern
in (A) H. C. Shelton's copy, than is available in (B) Betty Duke's copy.
Unless an original photographic copy can be physically produced for
inspection that is both missing the crease and has greater pattern detail
than that which is present on Photo B, then I believe that photo (B) is
the more historically accurate document."
Remember Kathy, according to the experts, the faces in question (Diannah
and Zerelda) do in fact match. Which is of greater importance, the faces
or the hands? Focus on the faces and since they match, as the experts
claim, then what else is there to say?.
While we are on pictures then let's deal with Travis Barron. He died in
1891 so no one today knows what he looked like. I understand that Mr.
Shelton supplied you with a photo of a person that he identified as
Travis Barron. Remember that Jesse W. Dorsett (Betty's father) was also a
grandson of James L. Courtney and he had a like copy of the photo in
question. He said the photo was of James L Couurtney. In fact Mr. Shelton
gave a copy of this photo to Betty and did not identify the person as
Travis Barron. The confusion seems to be that under the photo was the
inscription, "Mr. Barron." Betty believes that JLC sent a photo of
himself to Thomas Hudson Barron, his father-in-law. The facial
identification experts that examined the photo do say that that it
matches other known photos of JLC. This photo is not of Travis Barron but
of James L Courtney.
Remember Kathy, also in this case according to the experts, the faces in
question do in fact match.
2. [Your sudden surprise appearance and unbriefed evidence presented in
the September 17 court was not part of a calculated ambush toward Betty
Duke, but a circumstantial last minute decision.]
Even if your appearance and testimony at the last minute was not a
calculated ambush, it had the same effect. I think that others who
encouraged your testimony well know it. Again I make the point that your
decision not to contact Betty personally before the hearing does not ring
true in support of a person seeking sound research and full fact finding.
Betty's book had been out well over a year before you began your
research. Didn't it occur to you that by then she might have found her
own errors or uncovered new evidences since the book publication that may
have shed a new light on things? Didn't you want to ask her particular
questions about her book that was/seemed contrary to your findings? Right
or wrong, it appears that you used the circumstances as more of an
apology, and less of a valid reason for all your actions.
3. [Betty Duke stated the Courtneys seemed to vanish from public record
between 1865-1870. You found records in Maimai Co. in 1867 and Morris
Co., KS through 1869 that showed the family in those counties.]
This was a great finding on your part and it is both important and
helpful. Even though you found this to be "too bad" on Betty's part, I do
not think that information alters anything. When you look at all Betty
has presented; a few oversights, including this one, is no big problem.
Also it would be absurd for anyone to insinuate that Betty is not an
adequate researcher or that one should dismiss all she says because of
this omission. It is far easier to critique than to produce. As I will
show in # 6, even you miss a few things now and then.
4. [Betty has not adequately answered certain questions such as the
following:
How did Jesse make a connection with the Courtney family?
When and how was the identity of James L. Courtney taken by Jesse James?
Why would a die hard Confederate assume the identity of a Union soldier?
Why would James L. AKA Jesse refer to the Courtney/Haun family as "Paw",
"uncle", "brother", and "sister?"]
|
It is true that these questions are hard to answer. Hopefully they will
be fully answered eventually but can not at the moment.
I want to comment that Civil War soldiers commonly took papers from
fallen enemies, in case they needed a safe identity. I do agree with you
that it would be a highly unlikely scenario for Jesse to take papers from
a dead Union soldier and assume his identity, and then maintain a
Courtney-Haun family relationship. Betty was theorizing on what may have
been a possibility and she also agrees that this is not likely.
In all due respects Kathy, the fact is that you don't have all the
answers either. And Betty should get the same fair consideration and
latitude when attempting to answer difficult questions as you expect to
get. Here are my examples for you. Remember as you read each one, what is
fair consideration for one side should be fair consideration for the
other.
a. Why was James L. Courtney not included in the 1850 census with his
family?
We can guess or we can table it until another time. The question still
remains.
b. Why was the Courtney family surname changed to the to Haun except for
James L?
Does that make you wrong or inadequate because you cannot conclusively
explain it? No, and the same can be said for Betty.
c. Why did James L Courtney address Theodore N Haun as "Cosin Theodore"
and not "Brother Theodore?"
Why did JLC not address Dianah Haun as "Mother?"
What do you do here? Is this a case of reasonable doubt or should it be
dismissed as insignificant? Can't the reason you justify the "Paw, uncle,
brother and sister question, also be used for these instances?
d. Do you have copies of legal papers that show Stephen Courtney and his
wife Dianah changed their names to Haun?
Is it possible that Stephen died and then Dianah remarried to Andrew
Jackson Haun and then he adopted and renamed the kids?
Do you really know what all is true without some guess, if you can't
positively prove it? (By the way, I can only assume that Stephen and
Andrew was the same person. Without proof, so can you.)
e. Can you prove that the mailing address to Uncle Erastus Lafayette
Andruss in JLC's dairy was to protect the identity of his parents?
Why did they need protecting?
How do you know that this was not to protect JLC or maybe for some reason
to protect them all?
We all can guess but do you know?
f. Can you explain why Dianah Haun in the probate records referred to
James L. Haun instead of James L. Courtney as a legal heir?
I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation, right? But are you sure?
|
Do you get my drift? If you are going to give yourself tolerance to fill
in the undiscovered with sorted facts on hand until more is known, then
shouldn't you give the same consideration to Betty's side. One thing is
for sure, whatever side of this issue you take; it can be hard to defend
without knowing all the connecting facts. And at this point no one has
all those facts.
5. [ You have stated that the James Wilkerson listed on the 1880 Census
in the Haun household could not be a James Gang member as Betty has
suggested, but a child.]
You may be right about this. Still if you had so much trouble making out
the writing, then how are you sure of the age? Maybe, if you are correct,
these Wilkersons were children of James Wilkerson the outlaw. And keep in
mind that "Bill Wilkerson" (a James Gang member) was mentioned in JLCs
personal dairy on page 161. JLC knew Bill Wilkerson as a grown man in
1874 and the Courtney/Hauns had a James Wilkerson in their home in 1880.
Is it just coincidence that many who were associated with the James
family were also associated with the Courtney/Hauns?
6. [ Howard Carr was not on the 1880 census living in the Haun household
as Betty says on page 6. ]
That is correct. If you had done a little more investigative research or
had even questioned Betty, you would have learned that Howard Carr lived
in the Haun household, not in 1880, but in 1875. The basic point still
stands and the question about the possible Carr/Dalton James Gang
connection is still valid. Does that mistake or oversight on your part,
mean anything significant when the whole is considered. No, and the same
goes for Betty.
7. [ Wood Hite who was shot in December 1881, buried under rocks in the
woods, and was uncovered four months later, so Wood Hite could not have
taken Jesse's place as Betty suggested. ]
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out this possibility. First
of all Wood was Jesse's cousin, and there was probably a family
resemblance. Now, do you think Jesse (or who ever substituted for him)
would never think of faking his death? I assure you if you could think of
a creative scheme to do so, then so could he. Do you think that a body
with a crushed skull, buried under two wagons loads of rock, and decayed
for four months, would be easily recognizable? I can see some poor
non-family soul selected to verify the identity of the corpse. Looking
upon the gory disfigured remains he would say gasping,
"Ugh, oh sure, yah, that's ol' Wood. (Better say yes or I may end up the
same
way!) Yeap, it sure looks just like him, if you say so. Ugh, can I go
now?"
Have you considered that the body was that of some unfortunate victim
used in the deception? Don't you find it odd that this discovery
conveniently happened during the week Jesse was shot? I agree with Betty
that most likely Wood Hite was the corpse in the 1882 picture and the
other body was someone else. Or maybe Wood Hite subbing as Jesse James
faked his death and the corpse in the picture was still another person.
Oh, you say, family and witnesses verified that the corpse was Jesse
James. Well the family would not have a reason to tell, and fear, money,
or sympathy could have dealt with the others. Do you think this kind of
cover-up is out of the question? When it comes to Jesse James I have
perceived that cover-up and mystery is common and ordinary. Also keep in
mind that Betty is not the first to question the reported death of Jesse
James in 1882 or the Wood Hite connection. (By the way, do any of you
doubters know where Wood Hite is buried? Humm?)
8. [ Betty's claim, you feel, seems to the opposing Courtney family to be
" not only false but frivolous, and is perhaps no more than an attempt to
get media attention to boost book sales." Also you said that a Courtney
family member told you that "no one in the family ever heard anything
about JLC being Jesse James except for Betty Duke's branch." ]
I think you may have been misled. The idea that James L. Courtney might
have been Jesse James is not Betty's fantasy or frivolity. In 1997 before
Betty published her book, Max Courtney wrote a most interesting letter
regarding the James/Courtney connection.
" Is anything you know about or can find out about? Is this something
that could lead to a key to open "the mystery" door? The Johnson Co., MO
and Miami Co., KS locals would not be terribly wrong for such a
connection. The original James home was in Kearney, MO, northeast of KC. The James
boys had ridden with Quantrill and Anderson during the war. The robberies
began in 1866-the first was in Liberty, just east of K. C. By then
supposedly the Courtneys (Hauns?) were in Miami Co., KS, southwest of KC.
Anyway-I'd love to know if you have heard Ida's story?"
Ida was a daughter of James L. Courtney. Yes, the Courtney family had
known about this for a long time. Betty relates that her Aunt Irene wrote
Herschel Shelton that there was a family secret "about Grandpa (JLC)
knowing something about Jesse James." It was reported that Herschel once
had a wanted poster for Jesse James hanging over his art studio door.
Also Mae Courtney was said to have destroyed over 200 letters of JLC
after his death for "the goodwill of the family." Also as I understand
it, James L. Courtney wrote other diaries of which Betty has no access to
the information. If this is true, then who has them and why is this
information being with held?
Anybody out there care to explain all that?
Cover-ups make it so hard to know the truth and it looks to me for some
reason that it continues in the Courtney family and elsewhere. It surely
leaves one to wonder why.
9. [ You suggest that Betty, and not you, needs to spend equal time
looking at the other side. ]
Betty has had to consider both sides in her years of research as she
thought through and wrote her book. She has been open to dialog with all
family members, but some including you Kathy, have refused. The "why" of
all this is yet to be answered. My challenge to you still stands.
10. [ There is not an identity crisis among the Courtney family. ]
Mae Courtney Thompson wrote, " Even today over one hundred years later,
members of the family refuse to talk about the name change. James
Lafayette Courtney did not change his name."
In 1997 Max Courtney stated, " Jim Courtney couldn't have been Jesse
James, because I am! Nuff said?"
Is that a satisfactory and fulfilling way for the family to come to terms
with their identity? I don't think so and I don't think future Courtney
generations will think so either. I believe we owe to future generations
to encourage those living now with firsthand knowledge to come forth
share the truth now before it is too late.
Kathy, your greatest contribution would be to help obtain those answers.
In conclusion, if all this is not enough fact to chew on, then go tackle
Betty's 10 facts that support her position. I hope, rather than a doing a
side-step, affirming denial, spinning away or maintaining tunnel vision,
all will have the courage, the patience, and the will to examine this
issue completely until there is true and full understanding.
David
You may refer to http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ivyplace/hedgpethg.html for
links to other postings on the James/Courtney question.
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]
|
|
Courtney and James GenConnect Boards by Rootweb 
