Am I on the right thinking here.

[Essnell]

Hi Everyone.  I have looked into those two sites and name links and there was some very interesting information there.
 It was Francis Frederick Murray again and the person he married  Diana [Dinah] Margaret Arden, with a marriage date of 1926.  This was in Portland Victoria Australia. 
One was not as useful as the other and that also had their daughter named with DOB etc plus her husband. 

That rang some more bells as his last name is in S-i-l's DNA.  I now have to retrace my path and find just where this name occurs in those lists. That might give me confirmation via the DNA as well as this other in a paper-trail. 

This is sooo good.  Essnell

[Essnell]

Hi everyone.  I have another question re DNA matches on this trail.

in this 7x7 cluster I have three people with the same last name.     A      B    and  C.   

A shares 239 cM  across9 segs     longest seg 83 cM   Unweighted DNA  239 cm

Grandfather : Edward M.   married Imelda  S.   Don't know Father.
suggested relationship  1C2R  or 1/2 1C1R


B shares 165 cM  across 7 segs Longest 60cM
Unweighted DNA 165 cM      matches to A above :  1C 2R or 1/2 1C1R   
However he is ? A's brother  2,736 cM across 50 cM   the longest is 181 cM. 

H is not showing up in A's listings as her brother 

 The third one  C  is to my S-i-l  as 2C1R  and to B 2C at 297cM     

Now edward has a brother John. could A and B  not have the same father  If theri fathers are brothers could that make them look like siblings. 

i don't know if I have explained this well enough, I hope i have.

I am just trying to get better DNA connections than i have back to Murray's

Essnell

[Biggles50]

@ 2736 cM they are full siblings, 100%.

To help, this is the DNA share results with my half Sister, 26% shared DNA: 1,817 cM across 33 segments

I have seen similar sibling and half sibling results when using Pro Tools and looking at Shared Matches.  The lack of trees and apparent activity suggest that they may not even be aware of each other, especially if all they were interested in is their ethnicity.

Conversely if one of them is aware of Shared DNA amounts that then may have answered their search for a missing sibling and that could result in them not including them in their online info.

DNA shares in the 200-400 range do have a lot of relationship possibilities and can be difficult to map into a feasible tree and the clue here is the unweighted figures which do indicate closer MRCA.  If you have an idea of any generational distances between these matches then that too may help narrow down the possibilities.

Hopefully the 2736 cM siblings have enough information to incorporate them into a tree together which in turn could show family breakdown or indeed potentially a baby being passed on for adoption and if this is the case a paper trail will show totally different families.  In these situations we trust the DNA rather than records.

[Essnell]

Hi Biggles 50.  Okay another win... I have now found the tree for the third party from the trio from the 7x7 cluster. 
Bit of a fluke finding it but it matches to what I already had. That was a generation out.  Still in the same family line. 
Ancestry has changed the relationship for A and B.  Now both siblings.  It was the sister that was missing the correct relationship. 
 I have been looking into more on Frederick and I now have a line from his daughters family. Plus I think I have one more possible link . It's a sideways step then back.  That's for checking once it gets daylight.   Nearly 12midnight here. 

Cheers. Essnell.