Wednesday, September 24, 2008

How Sure Am I?

Well, today was a banner day for Audrey. I got my first hate mail. I guess that's a good sign, as I can see that my traffic is going up and I am starting to get some real interest in the website. I also got some very complimentary mail today, so that made me realize that people are reading and thinking, which, after all is the whole point.

But this one very negative piece of mail was a good thing, because it made me think. It's been just over one week since I launched this site, in the face of utter bafflement that the mainstream media had dropped this story that seemed to me to still have so many unanswered (REASONABLE!) questions. And before I go on to the main point of this post, I will reassure everyone that I am working this story just as hard as I can. I promised everyone a bit more information on Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, but that is taking longer than I had expected, and I am not going to make statements that I can't back up. I have some new commentary on Sarah Palin's behavior vis a vis her daughter's pregnancy rumors from Jan - Feb. 2008.

But tonight, I want to comment only on the one question that this person asked me, "How can you be so sure?" (That's not all this person said, but it's all I"ll repeat here. (Christians sure know some bad words.))

Here's the answer: I'm not sure. Not at all. I have no infallible knowledge about what happened in Wasilla and Palmer Alaksa on April 18th, 2008. And I will be the first to admit that there are many troubling inconsistencies, things I just can't wrap my head around. But here's what I DO know.

The story that Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, has told the world regarding the management of her pregnancy and birth has holes large enough to drive a dump truck through. Some of it is just "curious," and some of it is an outright lie. No 44 year old woman, pregnant for the fifth time with a special needs child would behave as she did. No responsible physician, given the same parameters, would be party to it. THAT I am sure of.

And given that starting point, THEN you start looking at the other issues. You have to. Like the "coincidence" that Gov. Palin never looked pregnant in the least until after she announced her pregnancy at seven months. The "coincidence" that there were rumors that her daughter WAS pregnant, both before Gov. Palin announced her pregnancy in early March 2008, and after that - in late March and April 2008. The "coincidence" that Gov. Palin knew about the rumors, yet never did the logical and easy thing to disprove them, which was appear with Bristol in public. The "coincidence" that Bristol was taken out of school. The "coincidence" that beyond some very noncommittal statements given to the press in April 2008, Palin's physician has never been willing to talk to the press. The "coincidence" that there exists not a single photo of the Palin family together at the time of Trig Palin's birth.

COULD all of these coincidences have some very logical, plausible, and reasonable explanation? Of course. Would any ONE of these things garner any more than brief notice and a shrug of the shoulders? No.

But everything together does not add up. And that I am sure of.


Anonymous said...

How do we know for sure the baby has Down's Syndrome? From the pictures of the child that I have seen, he looks normal.

Isn't it convenient that by ~saying~ the child has Down's Syndrome that the child is more likely to be Sarah's child then Bristol's?

Who said the child has Down's? Sarah... Can we believe her?

And you haven't even mentioned the possible insurance fraud that goes with the cover up. If the child is Bristol's, then the governor's health insurance should not be paying for the child's medical bills.

Thanks for bringing up other questions, too. Like why was Bristol in Wasilla in February (accident) if she was supposed to be in school in Anchorage?

And what about her monthly doctor's visits? When did she visit her doctor in Wasilla if she was in session in Juneau? On the weekends? But no one in Wasilla saw her.

One conclusion I came to in respect to her long plane ride from Texas to Anchorage, is that she didn't care about the health of her unborn child. Is it possible that she really did know the child had Down's and purposely put the child's health in danger (hoping to lose the child).

She would not consider abortion, but a problematic birth and a stillborn baby would rid her of a disabled child.

We can't trust anything this woman says.

Audrey said...

Thanks very much for commenting. The pictures I have seen of the baby from the RNC and on the campaign trail show pretty clearly that Trig Palin has Down's. There are some distinctive markers and I believe he has them.

And it is not more likely that the child is Sarah's than Bristol's if he has Down's. Percentage-wise more Down's babies are born to women over 35, but in terms of overall numbers 80% of the babies with Down's in the US are born to women UNDER 35, just because women under 35 have so many more babies.

However, I will say that I think the touching "tale" that Willow Palin, at her the bedside of newborn Trig, spotted the Down's unsolicited is a crock of doo-doo. (This was stated in People and elsewhere.) Down's is hard to spot at birth. There are some subtle things birth attendants look for (like a crease in the palm) but these are things that no teenager would know about.

The insurance question is one that I have not looked into, I will admit. And ironically, if the Palins had openly chosen to adopt Trig immediately after birth, he would be legally theirs just as any other adopted child is. So then there would be no insurance issues at all.

I don't know if I can agree with you that she purposefully endangered her unborn child. I think from everything I've seen that Sarah Palin cares a lot about her career, her image, and her aspirations. Giving birth on a plane to a baby that then died would be something so catastrophically embarrassing that her career would never recover from it. She'd be lucky to be elected dog catcher back in Wasilla. If she could be so utterly selfish to feel that way (i.e, not care if her baby died) she would also be way too selfish to do anything that would publicly embarrass or humiliate her.

My best guess is that she was not in labor on the plane. Because she was not pregnant on the plane.

Anonymous said...


I've been linking your blog everywhere I can to get you some traffic. I really am enjoying your thorough and fair review.

One thing I've heard (and if I'm quoting back to you part of your website, forgive me, because I've been reading on this all I can find).... the reason the airline didn't know she was that pregnant might be because she had to take off the fake baby belly to go through security. Just a thought, anyhow........

Also, are you purposefully staying anonymous, or are you willing to list your name/book/street cred, so to speak? (I perfectly understand if you are remaining anonymous, but you might want to put up an explanation as to WHY on your website).

Keep up the good work!


Anonymous said...

I am not a lawyer, but I have a couple of questions of a legal nature. If this is Bristol's baby, would the Governor be committing a fraudulent act by attempting to claim him so that his medical expenses (for a lifetime) would be covered by her insurance? I doubt that her insurance would cover her illegitimate grandson.

Secondly, what were the ages of Bristol and Levi at the time of conception if she is the Mother of Trig? Is there a question of statutory rape? I asked someone this question who replied, "But there was consent". Not among consenting ADULTS. That is the point of statutory rape.

Lastly, and this is not of a legal nature. Why would a woman who would never consider termination of the pregnancy have an amnio? There is some risk involved and the baby could be lost. Wouldn't that be a sin, if not a crime?

Silvergirl said...

I am pretty sure Trig is Bristol's baby myself. I guess my thinking is that the truth will come out eventually. The story Sarah has spun about it does not make sense at all. She is so used to spinning things now, she just doesn't know when to quit.

I do think Bristol is pregnant, just not as pregnant as Sarah had said. I expect the baby will be here in February, or maybe even January at the earliest.

I'm glad to have found your blog. All of your analysis is just reinforcing what I know is true in the first place.

colorado voter said...

I found this website only today and was pleased to see that a lot of research has been done on questions I had been asking myself for over a month. I cannot find any reason, parental or otherwise, why a vice presidential candidate would outright LIE about anything. Unless of course you live in the least populated state in the union where the rigors of the lower 48 are not present. Thank you so much for investigating this issue of ETHICS. One MD writing in talked about the gaze and apparent love Bristol has shown for this little boy and I had thought the same thing; a mother's gaze is completely identifiable. I had not seen Sarah Palin ever show the same emotion towards this baby, but then again , access to Palin is controlled. Keep going with the website.