In her 1901 divorce petition a relative indicated that she “heard” her estranged husband was living in Salt Lake City.
It matters to me, in analyzing that piece of evidence, that she indicated she “heard” about his residence there. It means she probably did not have first hand knowledge of that information (firsthand knowledge would have included visiting him in Salt Lake). She also stated her date and place of marriage. That she had firsthand knowledge of because she was there when that happened as a participant. But when analyzing that bit of residential information for her estranged husband, I need to keep in mind how she acquired that bit of information.
Her knowledge of his residence in Salt Lake City was secondary. Her knowledge of her date and place of marriage was primary. One document, in this case her divorce petition, can have information that is primary (firsthand knowledge usually through direct experience though not always) and information that is secondary (anything other than primary). It’s always worth remembering that.
It’s also worth remember that differentiating information as primary or secondary is only part of our determination of whether we give credence to that piece of information.
You heard it here.
No responses yet