Jack
when I was actively working genealogy, Audrey and I corresponded daily. I am very fond of her....
We decided that the Adam Pool was a false lead.
Audrey believed from long ago, that her John Pool line was an Elizabeth City County Poole line. About 3 years ago I became convinced that she was right ---families of George Pool and Roy Pool (among others) showed an almost complete line back to the ECC group.
I spent about 2 years on the ECC group of Poole / Pool. I reviewed all the (inconsistent) work done that I could find, and worked to accumulate as much documentation as I could find. Since that time, I have spent a great deal of time trying to prove or disprove the line, and I think I have proved the line. (I do want to go through everything for one final time to see if any additional documentation can be found and to try to double check my conclusions)
For my on line I now have complete documentation -- there is one link (Alexander Pool) where there was no Will (he died intestate) where there is risk of confusion ; but I examined all of the ECC Alexander Pool men that were even approximately the right age, and was able to eliminate all but one
Assuming that my work is valid -- I should have your John Pool line except for the las 1, 2, or 3 links.... with DNA as identical as the John Pool line and mine ( James Pool line) we should have a common grandfather, not much earlier than John and James Pool. I think we all share the same line at least from the first ECC generations which were:
David Poole (1600-1667), John Pool ( c 1630 - 1660), Thomas Poole
out of respect for Audrey, I do not plan to publish anything on her John Pool line. As far as I'm concerned, she's the best Pool genealogist I know, and if she is not convinced about John's father, then I accept it as an unknown.
I have accumulated a lot of documentation on these records. I have been trying to get them re-check for publication - my goal is to have something to "publish" to my family by year end ...I'll be happy to share the first generations of this work -- that is the part where I think the line is common-- that will leave you with only one or two links to complete your tree. write me at wtpool@ charter.net and I'll send you my David Poole line work (or at least the first 3 to 5 generations which I believe we have in common)
Audrey does not think William Pool was the father of John. I agree that DNA evidence says that William the joiner was not our line of Pool. However, there are a couple of other William Pool men I have in my work that I think should be evaluated as possible father to your John Pool --in any case, I'd suggest you look for additional documents to prove OR disprove this.
If you do want a copy of my working doccments, I would ask that a) you limit distribution since my completed work is due out within a year and b) you let me know if you find any additons or corrections to either my data or conclusions (that will help me in my efforts at a final fact check).
Bill