What happens when the indirect evidence of a death occurring and a probate record don’t agree? The research begins in earnest! That’s what happened in the case of the death of Antoine/Anthony Lallament of Mobile, Alabama. Who is Antoine and what relationship is he to me? When did he actually die? Which record is correct? What would other available records reveal? How is the explosion of the Steamer Kate involved? We have more questions than answers. This case study provides the research methodology involved in solving this problem.

We sit at our computer searching for information about our ancestors and … click … we find something new and intriguing. But wait: it contradicts something else we’ve found. Clearly, both pieces of information can’t be true. So which is true and which isn’t? Or are both untrue? HELP! Until recently, most researchers developed their evidence-analysis skills by a process of trial-and-error. Unfortunately, many researchers have erred more than tried and seem to be the ones most prolific in publishing the results of their “research” on the internet. Yet these errors can prove disastrous, gobbling up our precious time and money as we search in the wrong place – or worse, as we pursue the wrong ancestral line. So how do we ensure that our conclusions are accurate? This seminar will show you how to evaluate our ancestral information – that is, how to weight each piece of information to determine its accuracy – using a clear, logical, easy-to-follow system. After learning these skills you’ll easily be able to determine which information is reliable and which is like a virus that can destroy all your hard work.

Sooner or later, every family researcher comes across information that conflicts with what was found earlier – a date, a name, a place. How can the conflict be resolved, and if it cannot, what to do?

The records we use are filled with “trivia,” bits and pieces of information that seem to have no “genealogical” value—at least not until we become more innovative in our research and analysis. Each piece of trivia in every document is an opportunity waiting to be connected to something else. Our ability to resolve problems depends upon our ability to make those connections. This class explores eighteen types of records and the kind of hidden clues each offers to help us resolve problems of identity, kinship, and origin. *** This class requires an active webinar membership to attend. ***

While genetic evidence can aid in the resolution of research obstacles, at the end of the day, genetic genealogy is just genealogy and must be considered within the context of documentary evidence. Even so, the aims of documentary research to make sense of anomalies in genetic evidence often center around finding the right person in the right place at the right time to be an ancestor of a research subject. Learn how to creatively use documentary evidence to recognize and detect intersections of DNA and document evidence.

We all have lost Elizabeths in our tree. This lecture will discuss how the understanding and application of indirect evidence is such a valuable instrument in your methodology tool-kit. This case study will examine methods and sources that contributed to finding the parents of Elizabeth Wingate (1795-1860) of Baltimore, Maryland.

Don’t let this happen to you. Join Geoff Rasmussen for a quick look at how he overcame this genealogy emergency.

When is not finding a record nothing, and when does it signify something? Information that is not where you expect it to be may yield important evidence for your research question. Understanding the purpose of a source — who and what it records, and why — will help you determine if the missing person or event is negative evidence or merely a negative search. A series of examples demonstrate methodologies used to create something out of nothing.

Hints in online trees can provide genealogical treasures, but if you’re not careful they can lead to genealogical regret. In this quick video, Geoff Rasmussen shows why hints should be explored, scrutinized and evaluated.

This Connecticut-based, indirect evidence case study will highlight techniques for researching a woman whose maiden name is known, but her parents are unknown due to deficiencies in the vital records. Techniques will be demonstrated that rely on forming hypotheses and gathering evidence to test those hypotheses. Thorough research of neighbors and associates (the FAN principle) will yield enough evidence to tie this woman back into her family. Records used include pre-1850 census records, deeds, probate, church, and court. Death records of family members provide the final clues that tie them all together.

Genealogical scholars make conflicting claims about the number of wives, and the number and mothers of the children, of Joseph Brownell, a Mayflower descendant of Dartmouth, Massachusetts, born at Little Compton, Rhode Island, 16 February 1699, to Thomas Brownell and Esther Taber. These conflicting claims raise significant questions about the makeup of Joseph Brownell’s family. Did he have one, two or five wives? Did he have one, three or eight children? To which wife, or wives, were they born? The presenter will lead participants through reasonably exhaustive research and standards-based evaluation of indirect and negative evidence found in Quaker meeting records, and vital, land and probate records to demonstrate how proof can be constructed to answer these questions. Correlation of this evidence with the timespan of each marriage will then enable his children to be assigned to their correct mothers.

This webinar was presented live during the 2022 Surname Society annual conference. The sources we rely on for our family histories provide information, but the analysis of that information and formulation into proof requires a structured method. Currently there is little guidance on this for beginning and intermediate family historians, especially in the UK. This talk will discuss methodologies, what they are and why they are useful. It will introduce a research methodology and show how it can be used to successfully solve complex cases.