Did Jefferson do it? Contrary to popular culture, the results are shown by the author as inconclusive. This book is well-written, and unlike anti-Jefferson books deals with facts rather than turning the entire affair into a soap-opera.Books written thusfar have depended on DNA evidence taken from Jefferson's grandfather, so by the rules of evidence, the grandfather must be the father. Otherwise, thirty other Jefferson decendants must be taken into account. The eyewitnesses must be heard, but their testimony must also be questioned, as should all others. Since, as the author points out, we have no idea what Jefferson's brother Randolph looks like, nor any other visiting relation, it is reasonable to assume that any one of them may have resembled Jefferson and are suspect.Statements countering that the case may be made on the strength of the eyewitnesses alone are quick to discount evidence to the contrary, not the least of which is that the original accusations were made by a political enemy of Jeffersons, as well as taking into account his extreme age the fact that no one ever even heard him refer to Hemmings in any otehr way except as "Polly's maid". The two were never seen together, not even on Jefferson's deathbed as had been suggested by the prosecution..Did Jefferson own slaves? Absolutely! Did he abuse them? We have no evidence, and to say that since he owned slaves and he was white, he must have...is in itself racist.There are no other facts to support the conclusions to the contrary. The prosecution depends on the rules of negative evidence to prove their case, citing love letters never proven to exist, secret stairwells that has never been shown in any plans of Monticello, as well as other points.Also, we only have one Hemmings decendant out of six saying that Jefferson was the father, does not prove that he fathered the other five children. The prosecution's case hinges on the fact that Sally Hemmings was black, therefore she is by default virtuous and could only have been with one man. This hypothesis may be countered by watching any episode of late of the "Maury Povich" show.The author points out that his account does not exonerate Jefferson, but the case would be thrown out of any modern day court of law for lack of evidence.I should like to point out that it would not be beyond the realm of possibility to consider that arguemtns counter to this book may be made by sources with a political or personal agenda that would love to use one of the founding fathers to become noteworthy or to further that agenda.