Genealogical Proof Standard #4: Resolving Conflicting Evidence

AI image

Throughout this series, we’ve been exploring the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) and how it helps us build a solid answer to a research question. Its five elements are:

• Reasonably exhaustive research
• Complete and accurate source citations
• Thorough analysis and correlation
• Resolution of conflicting evidence
• A soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion

Although we are examining each element separately, in reality, they are interlocking components of the evaluation process. Research brings us to the records; citations document where our information came from. Analysis helps us evaluate each source, while correlation lets us compare the evidence for agreements, differences, and connections. Often these steps send us back to one another—new conflicts require more research. All of this supports the final written conclusion.

In the last post, we looked at analysis and correlation. Sometimes the pieces fit neatly. Sometimes they don’t. Today’s example of conflicting evidence comes from my own family tree.

The Photo That Started It All

I recently shared a photograph of the Lukas family headstone found among my mother’s belongings. It lists the birth and death dates for my great‑grandparents, Johann "Hans" Lukas and Elisabeth Bräu, my grandmother Hedwig, and three of my mother’s siblings who died young.

A cousin in Straubing told me that Elisabeth’s maiden name was Straubinger, but the headstone said Bräu. I needed to know more, so I continued researching. I looked for:

• Civil records from Straubing
• Catholic church records on Matricula Online
• Newspaper searches 
• Cemetery information 

With these records gathered, it was time to analyze. I thought I was only seeking proof of a maiden name or possibly a second marriage, but what I found was much more.

 

Analyzing the records

I evaluated each record as original, derivative, or authored works, then considered whether the different pieces of information contained within was primary, secondary, or undetermined.

Headstone Photo

• Source type: It is an original. An image that is clear and easily viewed with no signs of cropping can be treated as a representation of the original.
• Information: The headstone photo lists Elisabeth’s death date as 4 June 1937 and identifies her as Eliese Bräu, married Lukas.¹
• Information quality: It is not known who supplied the names and dates or when the inscription was added. Therefore, the information is undetermined. 

Catholic funeral book

• Source type: Original
• Information: The parish listed her as Elisabeth Bräu and her death as 1 March 1939 and burial on 3 March 1939.² 
• Information quality: Burial date is primary, because a priest officiated the funeral and it was documented near the time of the funeral. However, the death date is undetermined because the informant is not identified. We should not assume that the clergy were present at the death. It is likely that a family member supplied the information.

Catholic marriage records

• Source type: Original
• Information: The parish lists a marriage date of 18 May 1897 for Johann “Hans” Lukas and Elisabeth Straubinger³ and another marriage date of 8 August 1922 for Georg Bräu and Elisabeth Lukas.⁴
• Information quality: Both records give primary information for the marriage dates and spouses, because a parish priest officiated the weddings and documented the evidence soon after the ceremonies.

Civil marriage records

• Source type: Original
• Information: Two certificates were received. One for the marriage of Elisabeth Straubinger to Johann Lukas⁵ (18 May 1897) and a second for Elisabeth Lukas to Georg Bräu⁶ (8 August 1922).
• Information quality: The marriage date is considered primary, recorded at or near the time of the event, with two witnesses testifying for each document.

Civil death record

• Source type: Original
• Information: Reports Elisabeth’s death on 1 March 1939 at 6:30 a.m. Identifies her son, Johann Lukas, as the informant with personal knowledge.⁷
• Information quality: Death information is primary.

Newspapers

• Information: Newspapers.com does not carry papers for the Straubing area, and OldNews.org does not carry digitized newspapers for Straubing from the years of 1900 to 1939 which would have included Elisabeth's married to Georg and her date of death. Negative evidence of a newspaper article for a wedding between Johann Lukas and Elisabeth Straubinger in 1897.⁸

Cemetery information

• Information: Negative evidence: Since many of my mother’s family members had been buried in Friedhof St. Michael, I contacted the cemetery to see what information could be found. In email correspondence, I was informed that due to cemetery rules regarding plot leasing, the headstone would have been removed many years ago. They could not confirm nor deny that the headstone had ever been in that cemetery, because older funeral records were not digitized when the system changed and were no longer accessible.⁹

With the analysis for each record complete, the next step was to compare the records information to one another.

Correlating the evidence
Placed side by side, it was clear that Elisabeth’s name on the headstone was a married name as corroborated by both civil and Catholic marriage records and her first marriage clearly identified her as Elisabeth Straubinger. The bigger issue was her date of death.

• Headstone: Eliese Bräu, died 4 June 1937
• Catholic funeral book: Elisabeth Bräu, died 1 March 1939; burial 3 March 1939
• Civil death record: Elisabeth Bräu, died 1 March 1939 at 6:30 a.m.

The church and civil records agree. The headstone stands alone with a date nearly two years earlier.

Resolving the conflict

When resolving conflicting evidence, we consider:

• Records created closest to the event
• Primary vs. secondary or undetermined information
• Original vs. derivative sources

The civil death record carries the strongest weight for her actual date of death: it was created at the time of the event, gives an exact date and time, and names an informant with firsthand knowledge.

The Catholic funeral book supports the same date and provides primary evidence of the burial.

The headstone offers a conflicting date with an unknown informant and unknown timing of inscription.  

After analyzing and correlating the records, the conflict could be resolved: the evidence supports 1 March 1939 as Elisabeth’s best-supported date of death.

With the conflict resolved, it was finally time to write a clear conclusion to support Elisabeth’s date of death—and that’s where we’ll pick up in GPS #5.

=========================================================

¹ Lukas family photo in private photo collection was held by Elisabeth "Kathy" Lukas Hall and passed down to her daughter Lisa Petersen upon her death in January 2021 [address for private use]. The far left-side of the headstone is inscribed with the name Eliese Bräu Lukas and the date of death as 4 June 1937, photographer unknown, likely Friedhof St. Michael. 

² St. Jakob parish, (Straubing, Bavaria), "Sterbe-Register [Death Register], 1910-1940," p. 461, entry 37, Elisabeth Bräu geb. Straubinger, died 1 March 1939, buried 3 March 1939; digital images, Matricula Online (https://data.matricula-online.eu/ : accessed 1 October 2025) > search terms: Straubing > St. Jakob > Beerdigungen, Register Beerdigungen, 1911-1939 > St. Jakob 047 > image 466; citing Roman Catholic Diocese of Regensburg. 

³ St. Peter parish, (Straubing, Bavaria), "Trauungen Bd. IX [Weddings, Vol. 9] 1888-1922," p. 70 entry 16, John. Bapt. Lukas and Elisabeth Straubinger, married 18 May 1897; digital images, Matricula Online (https://data.matricula-online.eu/ : accessed 17 March 2026) > search terms: Straubing > St. Peter > Trauungen, 1888-1922 > St. Peter 028 > image 73; citing Roman Catholic Diocese of Regensburg.

⁴ St. Jakob parish, (Straubing, Bavaria), “Trauungsmatrikel [Weddings], 1908-1928," p. 193 entry 79. Georg Bräu and Elisabeth Lukas (widow) married 8 August 1922; digital images, Matricula Online (https://data.matricula-online.eu/ : accessed 6 Oct 2025) > search terms: Straubing > St. Jakob > Trauungen, 1908-1922 > St.Jakob 041 > image 0196; citing Roman Catholic Diocese of Regensburg.

⁵ Germany, Standesamt Straubing, "Heiratsbuch [Marriage Register] 1897," no. 51, Johann Baptist Lukas and Elisabeth Straubinger, married 18 May1897; certified copy received 10 September 2025, held by Renita Collier [address for private use]; original records maintained at Stadtarchiv im Salzstadel, Rentamtsberg 1, Straubing.

⁶ Germany, Standesamt Straubing, "Heiratsbuch [Marriage Register] 1922," no. 118, Georg Bräu and Elisabeth Lukas, geb. Straubinger, married 8 August 1922; certified copy received 10 September 2025, held by Renita Collier [address for private use]; original records maintained at Stadtarchiv im Salzstadel, Rentamtsberg 1, Straubing.  

⁷ Germany, Standesamt Straubing, "Sterbebuch [Death Register] 1939," no. 114, Elisabeth Bräu, geb. Straubinger, died 1 March 1939; certified copy received 10 September 2025, held by Renita Collier [address for private use]; Stadtarchiv im Salzstadel, Rentamtsberg 1, Straubing.      

⁸ OldNews, database and digital images, (https://www.oldnews.com/en/newspapers/germany/bavaria/straubing : accessed 1 October 2026), search for "Straubing, Bavaria Newspapers"; the search returned a landing directory listing four digitized titles (Straubinger Tagblatt, Straubinger Zeitung, Straubinger Wochenblatt, and Niederbayerische Allgemeine Zeitung), with collective coverage ending no later than 1876; no holdings were available for the post-1876 years relevant to Elisabeth Straubinger’s life.  Also. Newspapers.com, database and digital images, (https://www.newspapers.com : accessed 1 October 2026), search for "Straubing, Bavaria" or "Straubing Bayern"; the search returned zero results for digitized historical newspapers published in this location.

⁹ Catholic Cemetery Administration St. Michael [Katholisch Friedhofsverwaltung St. Michael], (Straubing, Bavaria, Germany), computerized card file, entry for Franz Lukas, grave A4-008-2261-2262, burial 23 April 1969, lot 1/2; digital image copy sent by Manuela Fisch [clerical officer] to Renita Collier, email, 10 March 2022, “Lukas family Monument”; privately held by Renita Collier [address for private use].

Amanuensis Monday: Two Ford-Lynch Marriages

This weekly blog post was inspired by Amanuensis Monday, created by John Newmark of the Transylvanian Dutch blog. The word amanuensis means "A person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another."  

Why transcribe? Genealogists transcribe letters, postcards, and documents to focus on slowing down and noticing those hidden details, to create a readable backup for fragile records, and to share the evidence with others. A transcription also makes a record more accessible to readers who find older handwriting difficult to decipher.

======================================================    

These are the marriage records for my 2nd great-grandparents Greenberry Ford and Nancy Lynch, alongside the record for Jesse Lynch and Lavina Ford. The clerk recorded both licenses on 15 June 1839. The marriage returns are recorded on the right-hand side of the page. Although there is a marriage date for Jesse and Lavina, the actual day was omitted for Greenberry and Nancy. The service was performed by the same person, although it is hard to make out the name. It is probable the two couples were wed on the same day.

Greenberry and Jesse would become brothers-in-law twice over: Greenberry married Jesse’s sister Nancy, while Jesse married Greenberry’s sister Lavina. 

"Tennessee, U.S., Marriage Records, 1780-2002," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1169/records/1342912 : accessed 20 April 2023), p. 10, marriage license no. 113, Green B W Ford and Nancy Lynch, 15 June 1839 and marriage license no. 114, Jesse Lynch and Lavina Ford, 15 June 1839, Claiborne County, Tennessee; citing Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville. Microfilm.

Here is the transcription for the marriage record above:

113 Marriage License Is^d 15^th June 1839 to Green B.W. Ford for his        inter marriage with Nancy Lynch on This 15^th June 1839- W^m Neil Clk [right-hand side] Executed and returned June 1839 C. [?]

114 Marriage License Is^d to Jesse Lynch for his inter marriage with Lavina Ford on This 15^th of June 1839 W^m Neil Clk [right-hand side] Executed and returned June 18^th 1839 C. [?]

Census Sunday - 1950 Census - Ethel Ford and Sons

1950 U.S. census, Nueces County, Texas, population schedule, Corpus Christi, enumeration district (ED) 258-81, sheet 20, dwelling 181, Ethel A Ford; digital images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 9 April 2022).

The 1950 U.S. Census gives us a quick snapshot of my grandmother, Ethel A. Ford, and her two sons, William E. Ford and Clay F. Ford.

One detail that caught my attention is the small box beside William's name that says “Sample Line 29.” This means William was selected for additional questions on the 1950 census. Those questions provide a little more information about his work, education, earnings, and military service.

The family was living at 442 Virginia Street, Apartment #7. Ethel was listed as head of household, 47 years old, widowed, and born in Arkansas. She was not working.

William, age 27, was unmarried and working as a truck driver for a private trucking company. He had completed the fifth grade and had worked every week during the previous year, earning $3,850 in 1949. The census also tells us that he had served in World War II.

Clay, age 15, was unmarried and still living at home. He was born in Texas.

Looking at this census record, I can see a little of what everyday life looked like for my family in 1950. But one record doesn't tell us everything about a person's life. It gives us a snapshot—and sometimes a few clues worth following.

Tombstone Tuesday - Lukas Family Headstone, Straubing, Germany

     

Lukas family headstone photograph

Growing up, I knew very little about my mother’s family. My mom was from Straubing, Germany. When she came to the United States at fourteen, she left behind her family, her language, and her country. She rarely talked about her childhood, and years later, during an interview, she was not able to recall the names of her grandparents and great-grandparents.

After she passed away, my sister found a photograph tucked among her possessions. That single image sparked my curiosity about the family Mom had left behind.

The photograph shows the Lukas family headstone. It names my mother’s paternal grandparents, Hans Lukas and Elisabeth “Eliese” Straubinger. The inscription identifies Elisabeth as Eliese Bräu; she had remarried after Hans’s death. My mother’s mother, Hedwig Lukas, née Walter, and three of Mom’s young siblings are also named on the stone.

The headstone is no longer at Friedhof St. Michael in Straubing, so this photograph is the only image of it I have. Grave plots in Germany are generally held through time-limited rights of use, with the terms governed by the cemetery’s rules. ¹ Those rights may be renewed, but when a plot is eventually cleared, its headstone may disappear. That makes this photograph especially precious to me: it preserves a trace of my mother’s family that I can no longer visit

¹ Straubing Stadtverwaltung, Ämter und Dienststellen, Stadt Straubing, (https://www.straubing.de/rathaus-verwaltung/verwaltung/aemter-und-dienststellen/index.html?catID=1168&detID=14813&utm : accessed 21 September 2026).

Genealogical Proof Standard #3 - Thorough Analysis and Correlation

Even when we search broadly, locate original records, and carefully cite every source—those records do not automatically give us an answer.

In Mastering Genealogical Proof, Thomas W. Jones explains "Analysis and correlation test genealogical evidence."

Analysis helps us evaluate the reliability of each source and each detail contained within it. Correlation compares those details across multiple records to identify agreements, conflicts, and patterns. Together, they help prevent us from reaching conclusions simply because they match our expectations. 

When we find a record, it can be tempting to focus on the one piece of information we were looking for.

• A death certificate that gives us that elusive birth date.
• A census gives us a birthplace.
• A marriage record gives us the name of a spouse.

But genealogical analysis requires us to look more closely and ask:

• Who created this record?
• When and why was it created?
• Who provided the information?
• Would that person have known the answer firsthand?
• Was the information recorded near the time of the event?
• Is the record an original record or a later copy or transcription?

Analyzing Records

Most importantly, we need to remember that a record is not the same thing as a fact. A record contains information and the information becomes evidence after we evaluate its reliability.

Start by Analyzing the Source

Sources fall into three categories: 

Original records are the first recorded form. A good quality digital copy or photocopy may be considered an original record, unless it has been altered (cropped) or unreadable.

Derivative records are transcriptions, abstracts, indexes, or other reproductions. For example, an original handwritten marriage register kept by a county clerk is different from a published transcription of that register. The transcription may be perfectly accurate, but each copy introduces the possibility of error. 

Authored works are different. They are compiled interpretations or summaries created from multiple sources, such as family histories or genealogies. 

Derivative records and authored works can be extremely useful. Sometimes they may even be the only surviving source available. But when an original record exists, we should try to examine it ourselves.

Not All Information in the Same Record Is Equally Reliable

Within any record, information varies in reliability. Information falls into three categories: 
Primary information comes from someone with firsthand knowledge of the event. For example, a mother providing information about the birth of her child is reporting something she personally experienced.

Secondary information comes from someone who learned about the event from another person or source. A son reporting his mother's birthplace on her death certificate many decades later may know the answer—but he was not present at her birth.

Undetermined information is provided by an unknown informant, meaning we cannot assess its reliability. When a record does not identify who provided the details, we cannot determine whether the informant had firsthand knowledge, secondhand knowledge, or no knowledge at all. 

Census records are a common example. Most U.S. censuses do not indicate who spoke to the enumerator. For example, it could have been an older child, a second wife, a neighbor. There is no way to determine the reliability of the information given. The only exception is the 1940 U.S. census, where enumerators marked the informant with an X, allowing us to assess whether the information likely came from someone knowledgeable. 

A single record may contain both primary and secondary information. A common example would be a death certificate. An attending physician may have had firsthand knowledge of the death or its circumstances. The information concerning the death is therefore likely to be primary information.

The deceased person's birth date, birthplace, or parents' names may have been supplied by a grieving spouse, child, neighbor, or other informant decades after the person's birth. For those events, the informant was probably relying on secondary information.

It is important to evaluate each piece of information separately. It is also important to remember that primary does not automatically mean the record is correct, and secondary does not automatically mean it's wrong. Someone with firsthand knowledge can make a mistake, while information passed down through the family may turn out to be completely accurate.

Then Comes Correlation

While analysis looks at individual pieces of evidence, correlation looks across them and brings the evidence together. It asks:

• Where does the evidence agree?
• Where does it disagree?
• What patterns emerge when records are compared?

Suppose several records give birth years of 1882, 1884, 1885, and 1887. Which one is correct? We cannot simply choose the date that appears most often. We need to consider whether the information is primary or secondary, who provided it, when it was recorded, and how it compares with the other evidence. 

• Perhaps the 1882 date appears on a death certificate created 70 years after the birth.
• The 1884 estimate comes from a census.
• The 1885 date appears in a Bible entry that seems to have been written years later.
• But the 1887 church baptismal record was recorded shortly after the child's birth.

Correlation requires examining all evidence—both supporting and conflicting. Only then are we able to evaluate the information and begin forming a hypothesis.

Create a Working Hypothesis

Genealogical conclusions should be based on the best available evidence—but remain open to revision if a new record appears. As evidence accumulates, we form a working hypothesis and test it by asking:

• Does the age fit?

• Does the location fit?

• Do the family relationships fit?

• Does the chronology work?

• Do the names make sense?

• Do the records contradict one another?

• What evidence would we expect to find if our hypothesis were correct?

• What evidence would prove us wrong?

Thorough analysis and correlation help us understand what our evidence is—and what it is not. When conflicts remain after this step, the next task is not to ignore them or force agreement, but to resolve them. That process is the focus of the fourth component of the Genealogical Proof Standard.