Oh, that Babe

A lesson from the records It’s a birth record from more than a century ago. A male child born 6 February 1895 in Baltimore, Maryland. It records a singular moment of American history — sports history, to be exact. And it offers a perfect example of what we...

The logical fallacy

In response to FTDNA The Legal Genealogist doesn’t usually write about DNA day after day. But I surely will when the issue remains hot — and there are reasons to do so. Today, there are two reasons to do so, both stemming from the disclosure late last week...

A letter from Bennett Greenspan

Read it for yourself: https://mailchi.mp/familytreedna/letter-to-customers Here’s my take: Family Tree is still allowing law enforcement use of its DNA matching services (which provides access to data on thousands of matching customers’ names, emails,...

One little change

Enable us, Family Tree DNA! The furor over the unilateral decision of the genealogical DNA testing company Family Tree DNA to change its terms of service and open its customer database to law enforcement for use in criminal investigations comes down in the final...

Visiting William

And annoying myself in the process… William Wiseman was The Legal Genealogist’s 5th great grandfather. And, according to published family histories, he was born 282 years ago today, on the second of February 1736.1 So when that popped up in my On This Day...

Opening the DNA floodgates

FTDNA database now wide open to law enforcement The Legal Genealogist has long been one of the biggest fans of the DNA testing company, Family Tree DNA (FTDNA), part of the Gene by Gene companies of Houston, Texas. A company established by genealogists for...

The thing and the rights

… copyrights, that is … Reader Mindy Jarrett just ran head-first into one of the most common — and yet most perplexing — copyright problems to plague genealogists. The problem of the difference between ownership of the thing and ownership of...

In response…

… to those terms for unmarried folks Boy, have there been a lot of responses to Monday’s post about the terms “spinster” for a never-married woman and “bachelor” for a never married man. Some of those responses taught The Legal Genealogist a thing or two...