Can we prove that DNA doesn't lie?

Question

Background. Previous question asked: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1277881/where-did-he-go-and-what-happened-to-him-are-there-any-cousins

Since then, DNA results have brought up cousins with no known connections. One cluster of cousins, seem to all descend from an unconnected couple, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Brokensha-8 and https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Kinsman-2306, with multiple connections through descendants Clarence (b.1894) and Alma (b.1903). Shared Matches with these cousins, appear to connect into both sides of Peter Penaluna's tree. To say that a different way, We seem to have a Shared Match in Peter's father's tree, and in Peter's mother's tree. Peter is the only surviving son from his parents, and so the DNA seems to suggest that Peter must have had at least two children with Elizabeth (Brokensha) Kinsman, during her marriage to William Henry Kinsman.

Speculation: Peter Penaluna was born in Cornwall, as was William and Elizabeth Kinsman. The Penaluna's moved to the Bendigo goldfields when Peter was about 11years old. William and Elizabeth's families moved to South Africa, where William and Elizabeth married and had their family. Perhaps Peter and Elizabeth were friends in Cornwall, perhaps even continued writing to each other through the years. The Kinsman family were apparently travelling stage performers, and may have travelled. William and Elizabeth married in 1892, and had their first child Clarence in 1894 in South Africa, with DNA suggesting that Peter in Victoria was the father. Did Peter travel across and come back? Did William and Elizabeth travel to Victoria, and then go back? After this, Peter moved to South Africa to join the Boer War effort. Alma was born around 1903, with DNA suggesting Peter once again, to be the father. Peter was in South Africa from 1898 until his death in 1921. Elizabeth and William seemed to remain married until their deaths around 1945.

From Renee's suggestion below. William could be the older brother of Peter, being the older child of his parents Peter and Catherine, born 2 years before they married, given up for adoption to the Kinsman family. Hence an explanation would not be necessary for finding a time that Peter and Elizabeth got together.

Question: Is there evidence to suggest that Peter (snr) and Catherine had a child before they married, which was given up for adoption to the Kinsman family? (Adopted by William Henry Kinsman & Emma (nee Berryman). Can you find source material, a paper trail, that demonstrates that it makes sense that Elizabeth and Peter shared a child, half a world away? Or is it just a random DNA coincidence, because both families are from Cornwall, even though the connection to cousins are fairly strong (starting at 56cm 2seg)? Can you perhaps demonstrate that Peter and Elizabeth fessibly knew each other before leaving Cornwall? Is there any evidence to show that Elizabeth or Peter made the trip between Melbourne and South Africa, one way or the other, to place them at the same location for the first child? Is there anything that suggests that they were living in close proximity in South Africa? Last long shot; is there any letters or rumours from the family that back up that these two were hooking up, and that people thought the children didn't look like their father? 

This is an fascinating development to Peter's possible story. Thank you so much, to those who start digging for clues.

Answer 1

I don't have an answer for you but I have a question. How do you know that William Kinsman wasn't actually a Penaluna?

Comments

I did partially consider that, and did find a William Henry Penaluna. But now that you mention it, I have another family, where after having what they considered to be too many children, they adopted children out. The Penaluna's weren't married when William was born, and Peter (snr) was only 17/18, and married Catherine when he was 20. She was 4 years older. Perhaps they did give their first child to a newly married couple, from a nearby family they were close with. Certainly a possibility. My only question would be, why did William's family not have a child in the first years of their marriage, or did they have a child which they lost.

Actually, I quite like that idea, because it requires less explanation. Thank you for the answer.

Answer 2

With the DNA evidence as presented, it is obvious that Peter and Elizabeth had a long-term liaison. It's not impossible that he traveled to see her at some point approximately 9 months before Clarence's birth. Peter even settled in South Africa. It would seem he had reason to.