Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Early Morning Musings

Well, at approximately 10:30 PM last night - less than 8 hours before the earliest polls open on the East Coast - a 1 1/2 page letter was released from the long-silent Cathy Baldwin Johnson. (She lives. She breathes.)

First, let me digress to say that I woke up to almost 60 links to the text of the statement in my "approve" box. I rejected most of them, simply because they provided a duplicate link with no comment. Anyone who made a comment or had an insight I approved. So if you don't see your link here don't let your feelings be hurt!

If you haven't seen it yet, you can download your very own copy of the letter by clicking here.

The timing is so bizarre it's hilarious. With all hell breaking loose as people start to vote this morning (my husband already tried and could not get into the parking lot at the community center - he returned home for additional fortifying cups of coffee and will try again later when hopefully many have gone on to work) this statement will get minimal coverage today, to say the least. I've been watching CNN on and off now since about 5:45 A.M. Eastern Time and have not heard it mentioned once. (Switched to MSNBC around 9:30. Hasn't been mentioned there either in the last hour.)

This is not "medical records" by any stretch of the imagination. It is a summary of what Dr. Baldwin Johnson knows or believes to be true regarding Gov. Palin's medical history. It could have been written by any member of the practice. (And yes, I know Obama released roughly the same thing. But, as I must say to my squabbling kids on a regular basis, we're not talking about him. We're talking about you. We're not talking about Barack Obama, we're talking about Sarah Palin.)

This statement is probably based at least in part on what Gov. Palin has told the practice in a history. We've all gone to new doctors and filled out medical forms, usually containing umpteen pages of questions like "Have you ever turned blue while chewing Juicy Fruit gum?"

But seriously, how many of us have actually transferred medical "records" between doctors? I've changed doctors probably ten times in my adult life, and had at least that many insurance companies. I've never transferred a single "record." I've never once called Doctor A and instructed the office to send my "file" to Doctor B. My medical file at my current doctor contains what I told him the first day I was in his office, and anything he's added since. And that's it.

In this specific case, for example, Dr. Baldwin Johnson did not deliver any of Gov. Palin's first three children. Two were born before Gov. Palin began visiting the clinic at which Baldwin-Johnson works. Here's the exact statement:

She had four term deliveries in 1989, 1990, 1994, and 2000, and one pre-term delivery at 35 weeks gestation in 2008.

How does she know those first two births occurred? When Sarah Palin first visited the office in 1991, she told the clinic on a form that they did. Perhaps she had files transferred. But if the deliveries were low-risk and problem-free, perhaps she didn't.

I've been saying for weeks that I have been waiting for a statement from Dr. Baldwin-Johnson that Sarah is Trig's biological mother. This letter contains that. And it does contain it strongly enough that, should it ever turn out to be not true, I suspect Dr. Baldwin-Johnson's medical license would be in jeopardy.

However, I still must ask the question: Is the information about Trig's birth something that she believes to be true - based on Palin's statements to her - just like she "believes" that Palin had a delivery in 1989, or is it something she knows to be true based on first hand observation? Although this will infuriate detractors, I think this very carefully crafted statement still leaves that door open. Dr. Baldwin Johnson never states that she was actually at the birth, that the birth occurred at Mat-Su (only that it could have), or even that the birth occurred on April 18th.

Considering the number of plausible troubling questions which have surrounded this birth from day one, I for one find the lack of these precise specifics very frustrating and still suspicious. It would have been easy to say those things. Saying these things on August 30th would have precluded having to announce that Bristol was pregnant. The McCain campaign knows that those of us who have questioned this were waiting for just those exact statements. And somehow, we still did not get them.

And after reading this, I still must ask one more question: What took so long? What is there in this insipid benign generic letter that took almost two months to cough up? Why do I get the feeling that there was a whole lot of behind the scenes wrangling required to produce... this? Why? There's nothing here. I could have typed this up in my spare time while cooking dinner last night.

One thing hasn't changed. It still doesn't make sense.


Anonymous said...

As always Audrey, your speculations are right on. Didn't Sarah fly home last night? Maybe she did NEED to fill out one of those history forms (as an official document to be placed in Dr. Baldwin's records) as a CYA move for the doctor.

At any rate, thank God the election will be over tonight.

Thank you for all your sleuthing and reporting. Time will indeed tell us the truth.

Anonymous said...

The only place I heard about the release of her "medical records" was last night on Nightline. They did a teaser before the last commercial then came back and said something like "she's healthy".

It's like she's been faking her way through a class all semester and this is the final term paper that she decided to phone in. She didn't complete the assignment and she failed.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmmm. That letter was dated November 3rd 2008. I cannot understand why it has taken so long to compile these facts and it must be stressed that this is not a proper medical report rather it is a letter from her doctor. I am quite sure that this would not satisfy an insurance company and it does not satisfy me either.


Anonymous said...

As a board-certified pediatrician, I am still trying to figure out how a supposed 35-weeker DS newborn was born at a community hospital and never required NICU care, yet apparently became rapidly jaundiced, requiring phototherapy in the first 48 hrs of life (per Dr. Baldwin's letter) and apparently went HOME on phototherapy as well -- yet his mother was back at work as governor 3 days after supposedly giving birth? (Cue the twilight zone music here...)

Sorry -- but Baldwin's letter is fishy to me --and should be to other members of the medical community as well. I'd like to hear from my medical brethren on their opinions on this, especially a neonatologist.

If preemies become rapidly jaundiced it IS a big deal, and they would NOT likely be released on DOL #2. They should not be released until the bilirubin levels would be trending downwards.

Also, a Down's newborn who was premature would not often be released period -- on DOL #2.

Maybe Alaska's healthcare is just very different from the lower 48....

Keep at it, Aubrey. As another reader said 'Time will indeed tell us the truth'. I wish the ADN would come clean with whatever they have on this woman. However, my hope of hopes is that GOP-infighting will eventually do it for us, with the more moderate factions exposing her lies to keep her out of the national scene in the future. I am a moderate Dem who is appalled at what the right in this country has become.

Morgan said...

Something else that sticks out like a sore thumb in that letter is this: Dr. Baldwin-Johnson refers to her direct involvement with Sarah's care and says she hasn't performed unwarranted tests on Sarah because she's a healthy woman who doesn't need them.

But where it mentions Trig's birth, Dr. Johnson doesn't say she was involved with the birth. She simply states Sarah delivered the baby and had the required pre-natal screenings, etc. But nowhere does she speak of this care as if she were involved.

It's obviously a CYA measure.

Anonymous said...

I know some visitors to this site get annoyed with wild speculation, but when we keep coming up against dozens of unanswered questions and so many tangled, vague, indirect answers, I feel like the only thing to do is posit new theories and then "test" them through discussion and factual references. Even though it still leaves Mr. Toad's Wild ride from TX to Wasilla while in labor unaddressed, could Sarah be the mother but Todd not the father? We haven't come up with a satisfying explanation for Levi's sister calling Trig her brother. Is it possible that Trig is her half brother, i.e., her father's child with Sarah Palin? I know this gets more convaluted than a Desperate Housewives episode, but really, it already is. Could that explain Sarah's long delay in announcing the pregnancy -- because she was working things out with Todd and trying to decide what to do about the out-of-wedlock baby? I know people will read this and say "that's absolutely preposterous" but really, there's no explanation that's not preposterous at this point. Bristol pregnant twice -- I believe it could be true, but it's preposterous. Sarah Palin hiding a 5th pregnancy for 7 months, I find that hard to believe, but many think it did happen. A high risk delivery in a podunk hospital? Supposedly it happened. Anyway, just a thought. This doesn't explain everything, but it could explain some of the secrecy and inconsistencies. I agree with others however that CB-J may simply be covering up, which leads us back to earlier theories.
Lower 48

Anonymous said...

First time commenter here, Audrey and all. I've been reading for several weeks now, and haven't yet felt the need to comment until now.

A couple of issues I see in the doctor's letter:

1) The only age I've ever heard quoted for Track was 20. If he was born in 1989, he'd only be 19 now. Have I missed something? Does Alaska not register births like everyone else?

2) The 'good' doctor states that SP has been in good health for 17 years, yet she herself has had SP as a patient for only 11 years. Is it ethical for the doctor to affirm the health of a patient for a period of time like that if that doctor has had no prior, personal contact during previous years?

I'm far from being a medical ethicist or medico of any kind, but this stood out a little for me and I'd love to have some clarification.

Thank you Audrey, for all the thoughts and effort here and on the website. Too many questions, and not enough hard facts about SP. Let's hope she goes home after today.

in Washington (the state, not the capital!)

Anonymous said...

Reread the doctor's letter and look at where she says "I." And where she doesn't.

She says "I" am Palin's doctor,"I" have these credentials, "I" did NOT perform certain tests on her. And that's all.

Everything else in the letter is described in the grammatical third person. There's no "I" performed the amnio, there's no "I" delivered baby Trig.

Given how long they spent crafting this little letter, stalling for time, delaying its release, and then finally timing the release to bury it, I think the language choice should be taken as very calculated -- and suspicious.


Anonymous said...

In addition to the questions about Sarah Palin's dare-devil flight after her water broke and the lack of record of Trig's birth on the hospital website, we now have the third mystery: why it took so long to produce this one page letter. She could have produced this in less than a week after her selection.

Here is my speculation about why this has come out now:

In addition to describing Sarah's health, the doctor also provides the reason why she (the doctor) moved out of Mat-Su to Anchorage. This is odd. She seems to be setting the record straight not only about her patient but also about herself.

Sarah and the doctor know that McCain has lost this election, and that Sarah is coming back to Alaska. Had there been a chance of Sarah becoming the VP, most likely, Trig and Sarah would have had new doctors, plus there would be a lot more ongoing scrutiny about Trig's birth in the national media. Too risky.

Now that it is certain that McCain is going to lose, the story reverts to becoming a small Alaska story. By putting out this last minute report, the reputation of both the doctor and patient is now restored. Plus the governor is there to protect the doctor's back.

-- sunman

jul said...

Last week the campaign claimed that they needed time to gather Palin's records. Now they produce a lame letter. It makes no sense. And if there was nothing to hide, this letter would have been released much earlier,(and how odd is it that the second Troopergate report came in yesterday as well?).
Does this have something to do with her returning to the state and people are beginning to fear her wrath?

Anonymous said...

This letter is ridiculous, and could have been produced 2 months ago, if this was the case. Also, when reading comments from one of your earlier posts, a comment was left by a reader stating that she/he worked at Mat-Su, and Bristol gave birth, not Governor Palin. She/he also stated that the hospital was under control of Palin's church, and it was a cover up...any follow up with htis person?


BradS said...

Wow - Palin and Baldwin-Johnson have doubled-down on their bet they can get away with this. The big question is: Why wait till the absolute last minute before the election to release the statement? I am guessing so that there will be no time for followup questions from the press to the doctor before voting starts -- and given the certainty of defeat of the McCain ticket, the doctor and Palin can deflect questions afterwards by saying the subject is moot.

So note that that Dr. BJ hints that the delivery was to take place at Mat-Su but never actually says that's what happened -- my money is still on Anchorage Regional as the birth hospital -- that's where Trig's picture seemingly got posted because someone (Levi?) wasn't sufficiently secrecy obsessed.

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin knew she was carrying a Downs baby early in the pregnancy. That could not have been an easy thing to have to face. I believe she may have just ignored the pregnancy right up to the end. Her foolish trip to the Governors' meeting and back to Wasila to deliver is an example of someone who is set in her plans and determined to follow them regardless of the situation. She did not want attention on the baby except when beneficial which is not untypical of politicians. I think Trig is hers, and she was just a careful mom in her decisions when she entered labor.

As for Bristol, it's just a tough scene with a recalcitrant teenager. She was pulled out of Wasilla, probably was very unhappy in Juneau, probably a lot of problems with parents which resulted in a transfer to Anchorage to stay with aunt and away from boyfriend. A bout of mono probably resulted in on line classes, that may or may not have been completed. She was able to sneak around (or maybe the aunt permitted her) to see Levi, and got pregnant in April, right around the time that Trig was born. Maybe while visiting Wasila when Trig was born. The timing is right.

Anonymous said...

I think the most compelling statement in favor of Sarah being Trig’s mom is: “She had four term deliveries in 1989, 1990, 1994, and 2000, and one pre-term delivery at 35 weeks gestation in 2008.” Also, another statement: “She followed the normal and recommended schedule for prenatal care, including follow-up perinatology evaluations to ensure there was no significant congenital heart disease ....”

But I still have some questions (some of which have been covered already, but I wrote this out before reading all the other comments):

Regarding, “At the time of her most recent medical evaluation, she continued to be in good health and was recovering well from the birth of her last child, Trig.” -- It doesn’t say when her most recent medical evaluation was. As far as I understand the way a woman’s body works, if she were examined by any doctor after about the end of May, and said she had a baby in mid-April, the doctor could say, based on Sarah’s own testimony, that she was recovering well from the birth of her baby. Her uterus would already be back to normal size by that time anyway, so any particular doctor could just take Sarah’s word for it that she had a baby recently, and say she's recovering well.

Regarding, “I was on active staff at Mat-Su Regional Medical Center from 1985 to June 1, 2008. I changed status in order to devote more time to my work in the area of child abuse evaluation and prevention.” -- Maybe I don’t understand what all is involved, but the only time I can see it saving would be the drive time required to go to that particular hospital for the particular patients who wanted to go there, and possibly any meetings which she would be required (by that hospital) to attend. So I think if Dr. Baldwin-Johnson wanted to devote more time to other areas, she would cut down on her patient load, and resign from any particular committees associated specifically with Mat-Su, but would not have to go off active staff at Mat-Su. So I would still ask -- Why did she leave active staff there on June 1, ’08, after being there for 22-23 years?

Why the contrast between these two parts (no “I” vs. “I): “Routine prenatal testing early in the second trimester showed evidence of Trisomy 21, which was confirmed by perinatology consultation and amniocentesis.” ... “It is not routine to perform screening tests such as electrocardiograms or liver enzyme panels on young healthy women with no risk factors--and as such I have not performed those tests on Governor Palin.”

Although Dr. Baldwin-Johnson uses the word “I” ten times in this letter, she never uses the word “I” in reference to anything regarding Trig. Maybe I’m being too picky. I don’t know.

mother of 4

Anonymous said...

Now couldn't you have a "delivery" without giving birth? Just like a doctor has a "delivery" when she delivers the child. Lots of relatives (especially female ones) assist in births. Is this unwarranted paranoia?

Or maybe Sarah Palin really is the mom, and she just has terrible judgment and won't stop lying about the little things.

Open Minded

Perry said...

IF SP didn't give birth to Trig, has Dr. BJ done anything illegal? She would have lied (or at least intentionally misled), but that isn't against the law, if she didn't lie under oath. If she knowingly lied in a medical record, that would be illegal, but we don't have any reason to believe that she did that. I'd be interested in what someone knowledgeable about medical ethics would have to say about a physician lying to protect a patient.

sarah.hoax said...

I have been on this case since the DailyKos post, but the letter strikes me as well-written and credible, even though it is about six weeks late. She clearly states Sarah is the mother of Trig. Dr. Johnson has placed her license on the line with this letter and she would face VERY severe reprimands by the Alaska Medical Board, would very likely loose her license for at least a period of time, if it was proven that Sarah did not birth Trig.

I am as surprised as most of you to see this letter less than 24 hrs before the election. But, why would the Doctor take such a chance at this very, very late date, when in fact this letter will make no different in the election outcome.

Here is what likely happened. Sarah flew 35 weeks pregnant to Dallas to attend a conference to further her political ambitions, she knew she was in the running for VP at that time! In fact the Governors were all asked who would like to "bow out" of VP consideration, sit down. She likely discussed it with her Doctor, and was given a reluctant "go ahead".

So the worst happened. The long flight and traveling stirred things up in her womb, her water broke from the stress at 4am. No matter, Sarah wanted to get up in front of the other Governors and in that Alaskan spirit, gave her speech at noon. It was likely the contractions were "spaced" and she was VERY embarrassed because she was caught. Instead of fessing up, like some many that are caught in trouble, one wrong leads to another, and she decided to take another chance sneaking back to Alaskan. No Way she was going to explain to her state why she her legs were spread delivering a baby in Texas thousands of miles from home, when she have been home!

She took the gamble and she won. AND she got away with it. A short interview in the ADN and it was all over. Until she was chosen as VP. Also, Bristol being pregnant actually immensely gave credibility to this Hoax theory, because at the RNC she "looked" like a mother, and we knew she was sexually active just earlier that year. Personally, I would never accuse a 17 yr old girl of such, but her pregnancy exposed it, why not just back it up from March to September? Not unlikely.

Of course it still does not seem right in my mind, and the Doctors post above is just another strike against her. But now there is nothing to do but wait for Mid-December. I assume Bristol could have gotten pregnant soon after May 1st. January 1st is 35 weeks, if pregnant early May the baby would not be due until early February. It's been fun and I personally had at least two dozen sleepless night after this first came out.

The GOP probably figured the fact she went to and from Texas pregnant and leaking only means she "passed the test" of placing her personal political ambitions above everything else and was willing to take any chance to achieve her political goals. Good Choice John!

Mary G. said...

To Sarah.hoax: it is true that the letter of Baldwin-Johnson appears to confirm Palin's story, but I have to stress, as Audrey and others have stressed repeatedly, one cannot start and stop labor at will! It's like saying, when you get into an accident, that you stopped internal bleeding until you got to that special hospital 10 hours away... there is an inexorable quality to labor--even if it is a gradual one. And furthermore, no matter how well a woman bears labor, it really is ludicrous to think of giving speeches through contractions! The "leaking amniotic fluid", too, is a red herring, as NO doctor and NO woman in an advanced state of pregnancy (or earlier) is going to gamble on losing her baby or her life through infection or some other unknown complication that Sarah Palin would be incapable of diagnosing. I prefer to think that a team of legal experts has toiled for 6 weeks on this "document" rather than for a minute consider ANY of Palin's story as believable. Mary G.

Anonymous said...

Obviously the doctor's letter was done at the last minute so it would get little media attention. Everyone is focused on the election itself and the last-minute campaigning.

If the doctor lied in this letter, is it medical malpractice? Would it be considered falsifying medical records? A simply statement isn't exactly medical records, in my opinion, more like a press release. So maybe it's OK.

I think we will never know the truth about Trig's biological mom, because the few who know aren't deviating from the official story.

GraceR said...

hmmmm, sarah.hoax. That's something I hadn't thought of before. She probably already knew she was in the running for consideration as VP earlier in the year (like during the primaries), which may have been the reason for her to hide the pregnancy and not let the people considering her to write her off the list because she was pregnant. Also, if she knew she was having a baby with DS, it probably was a shock (and another complication to her political agenda), and I could see it taking some time to get used to the idea and not wanting to spread it around to people. How do you tell people..."I'm expecting..and btw, the baby has DS." Buzz-killer.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12.44pm
QUOTE “she was just a careful mom in her decisions when she entered labor”

Er I think not, two plane trips don’t justify a careful mam in her decisions….

Anon 1.35pm (mother of 4)
Quote - Why the contrast between these two parts (no “I” vs. “I): “Routine prenatal testing early in the second trimester showed evidence of Trisomy 21, which was confirmed by perinatology consultation and amniocentesis.” ... “It is not routine to perform screening tests such as electrocardiograms or liver enzyme panels on young healthy women with no risk factors--and as such I have not performed those tests on Governor Palin.”

I know it’s from CBJ letter but I thought SP was classed as an “old” mother, not a “young healthy woman, maybe CBJ did not perform these tests because it wasn’t SP?

Anon 2.01pm (open minded)
Quote - Now couldn't you have a "delivery" without giving birth? Just like a doctor has a "delivery" when she delivers the child. Lots of relatives (especially female ones) assist in births. Is this unwarranted paranoia?

I totally agree; I got a delivery in the post last week lol. But yes I agree it could mean delivery as in she helped.


Anonymous said...

How frequently did CBJ deliver babies before April 2008 and has she delivered any since then? Is it possible that she left Mat-Su to concentrate on her practice with abused children because her malpractice insurer will no longer cover her for obstetrics?
Perhaps CBJ tried, at first, to avoid saying that she "gave permission" for SP to take the ten hour flight with her carefully worded statements about the flight not presenting any danger. Yet, if she declined to contradict the more direct statements SP later made about getting CBJ's permission to fly without even being checked at a Texas hospital, her insurer may have terminated her coverage for obstetrical malpractice.

In such a scenario, CBJ would have had to choose between telling her malpractice insurer that SP was in no danger because she was not pregnant, or staying silent and ending the obstetrical part of her practice. Is there any way to check changes in a doctor's malpractice insurance? Is this public?

Anonymous said...

The readers who picked up on the use of "I" in some sections of the letter vs. its absence in other sections are really onto something, I believe. Lawyers were no doubt involved in formulating this document and it is VERY carefully worded on purpose, to mislead/evade without actually lying.

What about this idea (my apologies if it has already been discussed here): could Trig have been adopted at birth by Sarah, using some prearranged contract? If so, then you could say that, technically, that he was "delivered" (to Sarah by Bristol) on April 18, and he immediately became her 5th child!

In any case, I still find it so implausible that a premature Down syndrome infant with jaundice was released from the hospital at 2 days of age (among the MANY other events in this sad tale that strain believability).

Something continues to be very wrong with this whole picture, and I thank you for your careful analysis and extensive research in an attempt to solve the mysteries associated with the birth of Trig Palin...

Ebenezer said...

The Letter states that at her last pregnancy ... and clearly refers to the birth of Trig.
The letter could not be considered to be ambiguous.
So it is either the truth or a lie.
I don't see any loopholes to claim that it was the truth in the event that Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby and I can't believe that any physician would willingly risk their reputation in this way.

Anonymous said...

Referring to childbirth as a delivery may not be uncommon. A few years ago I tried to make an appointment with a doctor I'd seen before, but got someone else because she was "delivering her baby." That's not the way regular people talk, but maybe that's what medical professionals say. Audrey, am I on track here?

It wouldn't be medical malpractice for the doctor to OK Sarah's flight if she wasn't pregnant. Why couldn't a healthy, non-pregnant woman fly?

It wouldn't be medical malpractice for a non-OB/GYN to deliver a baby, would it? She's a physician, after all, just not of that specialty. Maybe in that rinkydink hospital no OB/Gyns were available at that time. Maybe Sarah/Bristol arranged to deliver when the only OB/gyns were off-duty, assuming the mom (Sarah or Bristol) wasn't really in labor yet.

Excuse me if I'm skipping around, but I have several theories here. One is that Bristol was the mom; the other was that Sarah was the mom but that she wasn't leaking amnio, just made up the story to appear to be super-mom.

Whoever was the mom, maybe the baby was taken early (induced labor) for some special reason which we'll never know (legit or not). Maybe mom (S or B) wasn't in labor at the time. Would there be a good medical reason to induce a month early, Down's or not? Maybe that's why the doc doesn't practice there any more--labor induction for no good reason?

Who says the baby came a month early? With so much mystery surrounding the pregnancy and childbirth, we have only Sarah's say-so about the actual due date. It could have been phony from the start.

Anonymous said...

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (this is conjecture!)

last night I dreamt the real story in the Sarah-Bristol-Trig mystery, and it makes perfect sense!

Here it is:

Bristol was pregnant and she had an abortion, either against her mother's wishes or without her knowledge. (resulted in here being tossed out, and keeping her out of school so no one would figure out she had an abortion.)

Sarah decides to fake a pregnancy and to deceive public into thinking that she pretended "Trig" was her own son to cover up Bristol's pregnancy (and abortion.) In order to do this, Sarah adopted a child born around April. Since choices of babies for adoption are limited, Sarah adopted a down syndrome child to kill two babes with one stone.

Sarah was notified that the baby was being born when she was in Texas. Hence she "hurried" home to claim the child as her own.

Thus Sarah concealed an abortion (her political death!) and became a champion of downs syndrome and right to life.

Adoption records are always sealed.

The perfect right to life crime!

Otherwise if trig was her son, she'd provide the birth cert.
This could even be true if Trig was Bristol's son.
But if Bristol had an abortion, that HAD to be permanently covered up. So how? see above.

This dream took place before Sarah's doctor released her carefully worded letter.

Anonymous said...

This is especially for sarah.hoax, but also for everyone else.

We shouldn't say that it is a "fact" that Sarah leaked amniotic fluid in TX. We have no proof of that at all, only Sarah's word, and how good is that? It is possible that she was pregnant and have birth to Trig, but that the amnio & labor story was a total fabrication.

I also wonder if the doctor was risking anything if she lied in that letter. Would the letter be considered a medical record? Maybe that's why it took so long; lawyers were trying to determine if lying on that letter would be risking the doctor's career.

Anonymous said...

how convenient that CBJ leaves Mat-Su less than 2 months after the birth of Trig.

Anonymous said...

I had not re-read the supposed "doctor's letter" in a few weeks. However, I went to someone's flickr site and came across it again along with a comment regarding something I had not noticed before, which seems quite important. Under the signature of "Dr. Johnson" there are the standard letters for the designation of a physician's credentials. However, the final two letters are not in dark print, but rather in the lighter shade of the signature. The prior poster at Flickr suggested that a forger had used a computer stylus to change the color of the signature from perhaps black to blue and that the stylus also carried the colorization into those last two letters because of the final sweep in the signature. Can anyone come up with any explanation of why these two letter would be in a different shade or color? I cannot. If there is no other explanation, then the signature must be a forgery, which would be a crucial piece of evidence to unravel Sarah Palin's story. (Audrey: If you think this is as important as I do, could you please post this in an even more conspicuous place?)

Thanks for your sleuthing--this site is terrific!