"There is no logical reason that I should have the burden of proof. This is not a criminal case where we want to bend over backwards to protect a defendant from a wrongful conviction. We are trying to determine what is true, or at least what is probably true - that is very different."
Mark, I believe there is a very logical reason you should have the burden of proof. The provenance has shifted it to you. Yes, you will argue that the provenance is not as strong as I opine. And others point out the risk associated with family members one or two generations removed from identifying ancestors. But bear in mind what we are dealing with here. This is a c. 1846 half plate daguerreotype. Half-plate-size dags from that period constituted a very small percentage of total dags, and almost always they were used when the image had particular importance to the subjects. In addition, the Cartwright family did not in the 1930s, as the HOF was coming into being, suddenly take note of its ancestorial baseball connection. AJC's importance to the origins of the game was known to his family for many years. It is the most tortured rational conceivable to say that (i) for a dag this rare, (ii) a dag that purportedly represents to the family that which their ancestor was most proud of and which gave the family great prominence, (iii) a dag likely on the family's radar for many years as they as they sought to achieve their long-standing goal of having AJC's contributions to the game appropriately recognized, would, when the HOF finally came calling, blow it by giving them an incorrect image of their ancestor. Is it theoretically possible? Yes. As a practical matter is it possible? IMO no.
As to your point in an earlier post of my failure "to produce known photos of the same early ballplayers that exhibit multiple feature differences as do Cartwright and subject C", that was not my role. That was Jerry Richard's role, which by agreement between you and I both of us were to be prohibited from continually going back to our experts. He and I discussed the issue you now raise at length and he could not have been more emphatic in saying he has seen many instances of such "mismatches" coming from the same individual, and he in particular said your experience must be very limited to not know this.
Mark, I do not question your good faith. Nor do I in any way want to come across as being disrespectful. But with respect I say that while you clearly know more than the average person, your knowledge cannot compare to an expert such as Mr. Richards. That was why I hired him. As you and I developed this newsletter supplement together over the past number of months you know darn well that I was prohibited from going back to Jerry Richards to have him answer with his own words and illustrations points you had raised in your subsequent redrafts. So I do very much take exception to your criticism now of my "failure" to provide such illustrations.
|