RLP 264: Alford/Johnson Project – Interview with Michelle Mickelson Part 3

Nicole (0s):
This is Research Like a Pro episode 264, the Alford Johnson Project Interview with Michelle Mickelson Part three Welcome to Research Like, a Pro a genealogy podcast about taking your research to the next level. Hosted by Nicole Dyer and Diana Elder accredited Genealogist Professional Diana and Nicole are the mother daughter team@familylocket.com and the authors of Research Like, a Pro A Genealogist Guide with Robin Wirthlin. They also co-authored the Companion Volume Research Like a Pro with D n a, Join, Diana, and Nicole as they discuss how to stay organized, make progress in their research, and solve difficult cases.

Nicole (41s):
Let’s go. Today’s episode is brought to you by find a Grave dot com, the best place to search online for burial information for your family, friends, and famous people at Find A Grave, you’ll find details about cemeteries and individual memorials for the people buried in those cemeteries. Hello everybody. Welcome to research Like a Pro.

Diana (1m 3s):
Hi. Nicole. how are you doing today?

Nicole (1m 5s):
Doing great. How about you?

Diana (1m 8s):
I am doing well. Just doing my thing. I think it’s always fun to have a little break from the busyness of fall, winter, and spring. Right. And just to enjoy summer. So still having to do work, but it’s great.

Nicole (1m 24s):
Yeah.

Diana (1m 26s):
Well, for our announcements today, we have our Research Like, a Pro Webinar series next Webinar, which will be on Tuesday, August 15th at 11:00 AM Mountain. And the title is Surprise. My great-grandmother was the Milkman, A D N A case study and our presenter will be Ruth Campbell who did one of our very first Research Like, a Pro study groups And. it was so fun to meet her and it’s wonderful to see that she is now teaching so many people herself had to research. Our next Research Like, a Pro study group is this fall and goes from August to November of 2023 and registration ends on August 10th. So that’s wrapping up quickly.

Diana (2m 7s):
If you’re interested, if you’ve been on the fence, it’s time to jump in and join us. If you’re interested in being a peer group leader, the application is on our website and then join our newsletter for coupons. We are looking forward also to another conference, which happens in October in Salt Lake City and online. And this is the Association for Professional Genealogists Conference. It’s called the P M C Professional Management Conference. So if you’ve been thinking about doing professional work or you already are working as a professional, that’s a really fun conference. So it’s quite a bit smaller and the classes are all geared towards professional work and Nicole And I will both be there in person teaching.

Diana (2m 48s):
So it’ll be really fun.

Nicole (2m 50s):
Yes, I look forward to speaking at that conference with you. It’ll be fun. Well, today we’re back for part three of our interview with Michelle Mickelson and she was the researcher for a client project that our team worked on, the Alford Johnson Project, in order to prove that there was a name change and a gun fight that caused the name change. So far we’ve kind of gone over the oral traditions and the documentary research and then today we get to introduce the D N A evidence and see if that supported the conclusion. So this should be a fun episode.

Diana (3m 25s):
Hello Michelle. Glad to have you back.

Michelle (3m 27s):
Hi there. I’m super excited to be back. This was the most fun part. It was all fun, but this was a really fun part too.

Diana (3m 35s):
Great. Well start us off with telling us what D n A did you have to work with

Michelle (3m 40s):
James William Johnson’s great grandson with the same name. He descended through James and Sarah’s son, Charles Parker Johnson. So for this podcast, I’m going to refer to James II as jj ’cause there’s a lot of James And I. Don’t wanna confuse anyone with, with all the other names of the project. So, so JJ tested at two companies. His Y D N A was tested at family tree d n a and his autosomal d n a was tested at ancestry d n a. So for Y D N A A father only shares Y D N A with his sons and Y D N A changes very little.

Michelle (4m 26s):
And this makes it useful in tracing distant relationships along the paternal line. And because of its stability, I used Y D N A to test the hypothesis that James William Johnson was born Patrick ERT for autosomal D N A A father and a mother both share half of their autosomal d n a with each child. This type of d n A is useful in determining more recent relationships along both the paternal and maternal ancestral lines. So I used J’S autosomal D n a results to support the now documented family relationships.

Nicole (5m 13s):
It’s nice that you had both Y D N A and autosomal. That’s great. So tell us, how did you analyze the Y D N A?

Michelle (5m 21s):
Y D N A can link different surnames together and helps sort out family relationships. And since Y D N A can only pass from a father to his son, tracing the direct mail line provides biological evidence to compare with the documentary evidence. So in America today, we’re more familiar with surnames that are passed down from a father who got that surname from his father and so on. And so what happens if, as in this case, a father decides to change his surname, So I reasoned that a father could decide to change the documentation, but the D N A should remain the same.

Michelle (6m 5s):
So in the case of James William Johnson, the Y D N A carried by his descendants agreed with this logic. And so when I analyzed the surnames in J’S results, I noticed that no Y D N A match carried the Johnson surname. This was a big clue that validated a break in the paper trail. This lack of evidence also disproved the possibility that Patrick’s mother Sie married or had a misattributed paternal event with a Johnson male. In contrast, I observed many Y D N A matches carrying the Alfred’s surname, providing biological evidence to prove reliability in D N a So.

Michelle (6m 57s):
I then examined JJs Y D N A matches and closely related Y D N A matches are part of the same haplo group. A haplo group is just a name given to a large branch of the genetic human tree. So JJs haplo group R M 2 6 9 is very common, but it does point to an Alford connection. And the ideal Y D N A match compares the same number of markers within a relatively close timeframe to track down a common ancestor. So using 67 markers and a genetic distance within three steps can locate an ancestor within four to eight generations, which is pretty remarkable ’cause Y D N A is, it just goes on forever.

Michelle (7m 49s):
And so to be able to narrow it down to that genealogical timeframe is, is really useful for D N A research. So this fit within the genealogical timeframe to test this hypothesis of a biological relationship with the contemporary Johnsons and the distant Al Alford. So it kind of brought the two together. So in J’S results a 67 marker comparison test revealed that 27 Y D N A matches shared the Alfred’s surname. 22 of those men were within a genetic distance of one to three steps, which is really fantastic.

Michelle (8m 34s):
And 18 were in the same haplo group. The R M 2 69 and zero matches had the Johnson surname. This was a big, big indicator. So I selected four matches who stood out. And one of the ways that Genealogists can share case studies like this is by protecting the privacy of other D N A testers in their matches. So So I renamed them very original names, anonymous A, anonymous B, anonymous C, and anonymous D. Anonymous A had a genetic distance of two steps and his earliest known Ancestors showed Charles Alford, who was born 1790 and died 1858.

Michelle (9m 27s):
So this timeframe fell within range of that four to eight generations from from the tester JJ and lines up also with the documentary evidence. So I made a diagram to illustrate the documented paternal lines of JJ and anonymous A to this Charles Alford. And that can be seen in the blog, but basically I just went by generation and at the fifth generation is where that connection was made to Robert Alford with this anonymous match. So that checked out within that predicted range of four to eight generations.

Michelle (10m 15s):
So with the other three D N A matches, I noticed other similarities. So this was with anonymous B, C, and D. They shared also the Alford surname. They were in the same haplo group and they had the same genetic distance of only one step. So this was a really good sign. family tree D n a has a great tool called the Y D N A TIP report. It showed me a roughly 90% chance that JJ and these three matches shared a common ancestor within four generations, which is a right about the Patrick Alford James Johnson timeframe.

Michelle (11m 4s):
And that percentage rose to nearly 99% within eight generations. So this was very strong evidence for anal Alford connection. And of course I had to put all of these fantastic details in a table that that you’ll be able to see in the blog. And I just matched the names on the left compared the surnames with the Happle group, the genetic distance, and then the probability at four generations and eight And. it just makes it really nice to be able to, to see all those numbers and and compare them in a small space.

Nicole (11m 44s):
Yes, wonderful table. I love that amazing number of matches that appeared when the test taker took his Y 67 test. I mean 27 matches with the Alford surname. I think everyone out there who has taken or has had someone take a Y D N A test is wishing their results would be that awesome and conclusive, right? Amazing.

Diana (12m 6s):
It really is. I remember when I was first talking to JJ and his son James And I said, have you done the D N A testing? And I said, well, we thought about it, we weren’t sure what to take. And. I said, well we definitely need to do that Y D N A because that’s going to show that paternal line. And then autosomal of course is very valuable because then you find all your cousins. And so the two of those work together so well in providing proof. So they also did the ancestry autosomal D N A because there are so many people in the database there. And so what did you Discover when you analyze the autosomal D N A?

Michelle (12m 47s):
Well, if Y D N A was like finding a birth certificate, naming the parents at family tree d n a, then autosomal D n a was like finding the death certificate, naming the same parents on ancestry. So JJ had a lot of autosomal D N A matches on ancestry that descended from multiple Alford generations. So it just added, you know, another layer of evidence to this case. A little bit of D n a background. Everybody inherits exactly 50% of each parent’s autosomal D N a and beyond that it goes half at each generation.

Michelle (13m 28s):
So 25% from grandparents, about 12% from their great grandparents, and 6% from great greats, 3% from third grades. So the difference with D n A, it’s the inheritance is a random process. So everybody inherits little bit of different amounts from different Ancestors, for example, second cousins will always share D N A, but the amounts will vary. The third and fourth cousins will not always share D N A even though they are genetically related. So this can be a little bit confusing sometimes to grasp at first, but a genetic relationship is measured in units called S Morgans.

Michelle (14m 12s):
And a testing company basically applies probability to the total number of shared s Morgans to predict how the test taker is related to A D N A match. So their relatedness correlates with average and range. So in practice, when we look at the number of Cent Morgans A D N A match shares, we expect that number to fall within a predetermined range based on the known or the theoretical relationship. And so the D N A painter charts and there’s so many wonderful tools and research structures that have provided numbers and charts that we can compare this information to.

Michelle (15m 2s):
When the number of center Morgans falls within that expected range, this is a good sign that the D N A match is relevant and then we can safely perceive with our research. So I chose the most relevant autosomal matches for this case and and moved forward with them. There were so, you know, there were a lot to choose from. This is a big family with lots of siblings, right? Children. So And

Diana (15m 27s):
I think this is such a good illustration about how you prove an ancestor. Whether you’re trying to prove, you know, someone that changed our identity or just simply proving a great-grandfather or SE first, you know, second great-grandfather, whatever relationship you wanna prove that you really do take it step by step. And I, think that was a really key word that she used. Relevant autosomal matches. you know, you didn’t need to use everybody. Let’s get the ones that are the best and really can help us.

Nicole (15m 56s):
A word from our sponsors. Find a Grave. Find a Grave. Makes it easy to find the graves of Ancestors. Create virtual memorials and add photos or virtual flowers to a loved one’s memorial. You can search by name, location, cemetery, date, and more. Find a Grave members. Add more information each day. So if you’ve searched the site before without finding what you’re looking for, come back and check again. Looking for a way to give back to your community. Download the free find a Grave app, visit your local cemetery and add missing Grave information to the site. It’s an easy and fun way to spend some time outside and help other people who are searching for their family and friends. Find a Grave is completely free to use.

Nicole (16m 37s):
So start your search today at find a Grave dot com.

Diana (16m 41s):
Well, Michelle, we’ve gotta talk about how you organize this autosomal D N A data because you were going to be putting us into a report that would be shared with family members. And, you couldn’t just say, well the autosomal D N A showed a bunch of alfords. So they’re definitely connected, you know, as much as we wish we could just say something like that, we have to get it down in a way people can digest it. But that also really shows the proof. So what did you use?

Michelle (17m 9s):
Two words, tables and diagrams. D n A is just a bunch of numbers. Dense information about relationships that can really be a challenge to explain to any client or average human for that matter with limited background and understanding of D n A. So to simplify this complex information for the Johnson case, I organized 19 matches in a table and color grouped them by most recent common ancestor or M R C A. There were five couples represented in this study.

Michelle (17m 50s):
So for the blog, I anonymized the D N A match names according to the sibling lines of each M R C A couple. Having these details available in a table helps to just quickly verify that each match shared amounts of D N A within that predicted range we talked about. So using the information in the table, I then created diagrams showing how each match was related to the tester. Jj, this helped me visualize the relationship. So I could accurately check and compare amounts of D N A when we’re learning our own families and especially as A Genealogist when we’re learning other families, it helps so much to just get them all in front of us on a diagram and we can count generations to make sure that they’re in the right place and sharing the right amount of D n a so through lines is my favorite tool to get me started with diagrams.

Michelle (18m 56s):
That’s really helpful to use as a starting point. So it’s important to remember that ancestry through lines uses self-reported tree information to identify the M R C. A couple, I always do a quick check. The Johnsons had a robust tree. They had good sources attached and a lot of information filled in So I felt like it was a reliable way to begin So. I went ahead and used the tool to gather D N A matches that descended through each couple represented in the study. So my process went something like this. I selected one match from each sibling line who shared the highest amount of D N A with with my client and tester jj.

Michelle (19m 46s):
I recorded their details in my table. I included the Match’s name or ID their relationship the most recent common ancestral couple. They descended through the sibling, they descended from the center, Morgans shared averages Morgans for that relationship. And then the Center Morgan range for that relationship. And this is shown in the blog. It’s lots of numbers so don’t be too scared to kind of help break up this table of 19 matches. I colored each M R C A group.

Michelle (20m 26s):
So for the Johnson Andersons I just left in white. Then the Johnson Clarks I shaded in gray. That Alford Evans were in blue. The Alford tipton’s were in green and the Evans parks were in, I believe on the blog post it shows pink and for some reason it showed up yellow on here. But so if I go back and forth between the two, that’s why I created diagrams And I like to use Lucidchart as my preferred tool for drawing diagrams. But any any tool works, pencil and paper, just anything to get it to get a visual. Then in my report narrative, I cross referenced each diagram with the corresponding color in the table.

Michelle (21m 13s):
So it’s a lot of back and forth, but it is tricky to try and coordinate that information in a way that that can be understood. Yeah,

Diana (21m 24s):
It is. I think we’re always struggling with how to get D D N A into these tables and diagrams in the best way possible. So I really like what you said about how you use through lines And, you verified it and then you were trying to get the best match from each one of the sibling lines. That’s so key to make sure you’re getting all the different independent lines coming down from each most recent common ancestral couple. So good job doing that. That just gives you such a nice scope of the D N A that’s being examined.

Michelle (21m 58s):
Yeah, there were a lot of that. That was just so neat to see all those lines, you know, that width of autosomal coverage,

Diana (22m 6s):
Right?

Nicole (22m 7s):
And how great to use color in your table. I think that worked really well. So tell us, what did you learn about the Johnson Anderson family connections?

Michelle (22m 17s):
So four matches descended from James William Johnson and his first wife, Sarah Jane Anderson. All of the matches shared an amount of D N A within the predicted range of second cousins. So I named each one after, you know, ’cause they were a descendant of James and just like a 1, 2, 3 and four. So James one shared 135 s Morgans James two shared 177 s Morgans and James three shared 169 s Morgans and James four also shared 169 s Morgans.

Michelle (22m 59s):
So although each match was below the average of 229, they all fell within that range. So then in my report narrative, I cross-referenced this diagram with the white group that was in the table. So everything checked out for, for the Johnson Anderson family.

Diana (23m 18s):
Well I love the way you drew your diagram with the common ancestral couple at the top and then you know, with the boxes coming down for each descendancy line finally until you get to your test takers and then all of his matches there at the bottom. So great diagram, really easy to understand, really easy to comprehend. So then you also had the Johnson Clark family, which is James William Johnson and his second wife. And so that makes relationships a little bit different because they’re going to be half relationships to JJ your tester.

Michelle (23m 55s):
Yeah, so there were three matches that came from William Johnson and Dempsey Clark and predicted half relationships will share smaller amounts of D N A than predicted full relationships because the shared D N A comes from one ancestor in instead of two. So all three matches shared in an amount of D N A within the predicted range of a half relationship. So in this case we had two half second cousins and one half second cousin once removed. And So I kept the name James ’cause they descended from he and Dempsey.

Michelle (24m 38s):
So James five shared a hundred thirteens Morgans James six shared only 66 cent Morgans and then James seven, the second cousin once removed, shared 117 cent Morgans. So this was an excellent example of random inheritance and just how we just get different amounts from different Ancestors So I diagrammed very similar to the last one with James and Dempsey at the top and then their matches coming down through their children. I then cross-referenced this diagram to the great group in the table.

Michelle (25m 18s):
So everything checked out with, with the Johnson Clark family matches as well.

Diana (25m 24s):
This is such a good reminder to check the half relationships that we may forget about or not think about

Michelle (25m 30s):
Well and they’re so common. I mean how many spouses didn’t make it And? I’ve seen this in my own family. And it. They’re so useful to separate out the, you know, the different lines.

Nicole (25m 41s):
Well I love that you were separating the diagrams into smaller diagrams so that they can be legible on the report page. I think so often we will make a huge diagram that’s really wide and difficult to use in a report. So this is just such a good example of how to break that up into different ancestral couples and then make it so that you can talk about the D n a evidence in pieces and show just parts of the, the diagram as you go along.

Michelle (26m 13s):
Yeah, it does make it definitely a little bit easier to to digest little, little bits at a time.

Nicole (26m 19s):
Well moving back in time, tell us more about the Alford Evans family connections.

Michelle (26m 25s):
So for the Alford Evans then were James’ Hypothesized parents, they were proved in the, through the documentary evidence, but to go a generation back and compare with his siblings, three matches were found who descended from Robert f Alford and his wife Sie Evans So I named the matches according to the sibling line that they descended from. And all of them shared an amount of D n A within the predicted range of third cousins. So the match through Rebecca was a third cousin once removed, she shared 35 cent Morgans another match through Evelyn’s line.

Michelle (27m 9s):
A third cousin shared 43 cent Morgans and Robert’s line also produced a match. A third cousin who shared 69 cent Morgans and just like with the group before two or closer to the average one a little farther but but all within that predicted range. So this diagram was cross-referenced to the blue group in the table. So everything here checked out as well. And so it’s just, you know, taking each cousin group and and testing them for the shared amounts is a way to cover a lot of relatives.

Nicole (27m 51s):
Yes, And, I love how this generation is really the one that gives us that first Alford con connection there.

Michelle (28m 1s):
Yeah, this was really fun. This was fun to see.

Diana (28m 4s):
Yeah, you combined your chart then

Michelle (28m 7s):
I combined them, So I took all the little ones and put ’em all together into one ’cause sometimes it’s nice to see how these parts fit into the whole picture. This showed how the autosomal D N A supported the hypothesis relationship between James Johnson and, and the Alford parents. So you know, again just using color to differentiate the the six matches who descended from James and the three matches who descended from the Alford siblings. I played with that one that, you know, color can be useful but too much can get confusing.

Michelle (28m 48s):
So there’s a right balance. So just, just play with it and that’s what’s so great about lucid chart charts. You can try a few different things and and see what you like. Something that helped me was just to kind of bracket the second cousin matches and the third cousin matches. It just helps me know what amount of D N A I should be expecting. And, it just kind of helps with the, the whole tracking and keeping track of the information.

Diana (29m 18s):
What did you do with shared matches?

Michelle (29m 21s):
So shared matches is one of my favorite and most used D N A tools. I use it to create genetic networks. It also works well for splitting the networks. Like we talked about the half relationships you can kind of tease out other relationships strategically and one of the ways that shared matches works. An example of that is JJ and his second cousin, who I named James five, both have J’s third cousin Robert in their list of matches. So this makes Robert a shared match.

Michelle (30m 1s):
So I took all of JJs shared second cousin matches and put them in a table. I listed the second cousins on the the far left column and shaded those blue. Then I listed third cousins in the top row and shaded those gray. I started with the second cousin at the top and went left to right across each row. I placed an X in the space under each third cousin who appeared in both JJs list of matches and in his second cousin’s list of matches.

Michelle (30m 42s):
So rinse and repeat going down the left column until all shared matches are marked with an X. So all the Xs in the table form a genetic network or cluster. This is the manual way to do it. There are lots of other tools that can do it, but with such a group, a small group, it was, it was easy to do And it, it helps solidify my understanding of of what a a genetic network is. Paul Woodbury explains the significance of genetic clusters in a family tree. Webinar titled Connecting the Dots Introduction to Auto Clusters.

Michelle (31m 24s):
At my heritage D n A, he stated if several members of a genetic network group all descend from a known ancestor or ancestral couple, then it can be assumed that the other members of that group are also likely related through the same ancestral line. So for the Johnson’s case, JJs shared matches provide provided strong evidence of a biological relationship between the Johnsons and the Alfreds as members of his genetic cluster who all likely descended from Robert Alford and now Evans.

Michelle (32m 8s):
So again, it all came together with autosomal d n A as well. I might mention to satisfied genealogical proof standard. Each parent child link needs to be verified with documentary research. And this was done previously by the client. I didn’t do this in the report but they had done extensive research and in their book all these lines are documented. It was fun to get to combine all the work that they had done over time.

Diana (32m 40s):
Yes, it’s always nice to be able to bring it all together and your table shows so nicely how all these different matches also shared with one another. It’s great to have that genetic network.

Nicole (32m 51s):
Well I love that you were able to go back even another generation and find matches to the Alford Tipton couple. Tell us more about that.

Michelle (33m 1s):
Right, so the Alford Tipton matches represented that next generation back in time. So these were fourth cousin matches on the paternal Alford line who descended from J’s third great grandparents Charles Alford and his wife Elizabeth Tipton. So Charles and Mary had seven children who provided excellent autosomal d n a coverage for this project. These matches came through six different sibling lines than JJs. So one from each Alfred’s sibling is represented in the that colored tables green group.

Michelle (33m 48s):
And a diagram shows the total number of matches through each sibling. I didn’t do the the full line down, but just how many matches came from from each one just for simplicity that you can see there. There was some, some sharing there and all matches shared an amount of d n A with within that predicted range of fourth cousins. And this just added that strong evidence of biological relationship between the Johnsons and the Alfreds at the next generation. So the G p S standard applies here as well and, and all that research has been done. So this is typically as far back as you wanna go with autosomal d n a, although you can go back farther, the amounts get smaller and more difficult to trace because of so many relationship possibilities.

Michelle (34m 41s):
And I know you’ve done a lot of that Nicole and Diana too. But in general I would say for those starting out, you know, cap it off here and staying within there will will help with in the learning process. And then as you get to understand then you can can go further back. And of course having those documented lines helps

Nicole (35m 2s):
Love the table just showing how many matches come from each child of Charles Alford and Elizabeth Tipton. But it’s so nice to have just a visual that there are a bunch of matches coming from this couple but not have to have such an enormous diagram showing it.

Diana (35m 18s):
Yeah, sometimes simple is just better. I love that. So then you also did the same process on the maternal Alford line who came through the Evans and the parks couple?

Michelle (35m 31s):
Right, so the Evans Parks matches, they were on the same generational level. These were fourth cousins that matched on the maternal Alford line. So they descended from another set of third great grandparents who were Patrick Henry Evans and Rebecca Parks. These were Sie Alfred’s parents. Patrick and Rebecca had three children to compare autosomal d n a. So fewer matches came from this line but still provided extra coverage and they had two sibling lines that were represented. So I, quite certain they had more children but, but these were the lines who had tested and that we were able to use for this project.

Michelle (36m 19s):
And to point out allie’s father’s name is Patrick. And so that was another something to, to correlate naming patterns. And so that all makes sense with with his name as well. These matches were represented in the colored table as the pink or the red on the blog. These matches also shared an amount of D n A within that predicted range of fourth cousins and added an additional layer of evidence to the biological relationship between the Johnsons and the Alfreds again. And of course the G P S standard applies here as well. Across the board, after a thorough examination of the autosomal D N A I concluded that D n A matches at the second, third, and fourth cousin levels provided strong and sufficient evidence for a biological relationship between James William Johnson descendants and Robert and Sie Alford descendants.

Diana (37m 21s):
Wow, that’s great. So you were able to go back a generation past the Alfreds to both the both of the lines of the husband and the wife, so, so much great d n a evidence. It really shows that JJ is connected to all of these Alfreds.

Michelle (37m 37s):
Yeah, that that was the fun proof. So you making that recommendation to him was just exactly what he needed and how amazing to find all these cousins that he might not have known how they were related otherwise. So, so much

Nicole (37m 51s):
Evidence coming together. Tell us how you did the conclusion for the project.

Michelle (37m 56s):
So I ended with this written conclusion. This research session successfully confirmed that James William Johnson was born Patrick m Alford. The evidence contained in the paper clues of James and Patrick’s fan club together with d n a analysis proved the biological connection between the Johnsons and the Alfreds. The timeline of events in various records compared with their locations showed probability. These events viewed through the lenses of historical and societal context indicated why and the geographical consideration of rivers, farmlands and forests incorporated with available travel and communication shed light on how so everything just kind of came together using those methodologies and that information to prove this case for James and what an exciting discovery that they made and have been researching for a long time.

Michelle (39m 1s):
They did so much work And, it was a pleasure to work with them. My tips and takeaways for using fan club research is to begin with an open mind. We were not there. We need to put ourselves in the context of our Ancestors and using logic and the g p s to reason through and put together a case for your ancestor will help if you just open your mind to the possibilities. So also consider name variations and patterns. For example, a shortened version of a given name or the use of a middle name nicknames or renaming of loved ones.

Michelle (39m 41s):
Also observe who and what is missing. Use negative evidence to your advantage. In the Johnson case, there was no record for Patrick after 1880 and there was no record for James before 1880. Elsie Jane was missing from her father’s household in 1900 and the Johnson surname was missing from Y D N A results. So all of these things helped indirectly prove as well. So something is missing. Take note about that and then remember to click on my fan timeline in the blog post and start one for your research today.

Michelle (40m 22s):
Good luck,

Nicole (40m 23s):
Great conclusion. I just love this project so Thank you for sharing it with us

Diana (40m 29s):
And for our listeners, if you want to go read the actual report that Michelle wrote, that is on the blog post number three, And. you can actually see how this was all written up, which is not an easy task. Doing the research can be really fun and exciting, but we’re getting it written up is another story. So Right. Congratulations on getting it all together. Well, thanks Michelle so much for being on the podcast. It’s been so fun to hear from you and to hear your process. Hopefully all of our listeners really learned from hearing how you broke this down. Something very complicated and tricky. Oh, Thank, you. Thanks everyone for listening and we’ll talk to you next time.

Diana (41m 10s):
Bye-bye.

Michelle (41m 10s):
Have a good week.

Nicole (41m 12s):
Bye Thank you for listening. We hope that something you heard today will help you make progress in your research. If you want to learn more, purchase our books, Research Like, a Pro and Research Like a Pro at D n a on amazon.com and other booksellers. You can also register for our online courses or study groups of the same names. Learn more at FamilyLocket dot com slash services. To share your progress and ask questions, join our private Facebook group by sending us your book receipt or joining our courses to get updates in your email inbox each Monday. Subscribe to our newsletter at FamilyLocket dot com slash newsletter. Please Subscribe rate and review our podcast. We read each review and are so thankful for them. We hope you’ll start now to Research Like a Pro.