Monday, February 16, 2009

The Purloined Letter...

…is Edgar Allan Poe’s famous story of the theft of a potentially damaging letter, and the clever way in which the amateur sleuth C. Auguste Dupin recovers the letter. Perhaps we “pathetic bloggers” are modern-day incarnations of Dupin, using our wits (and the Internet!) to try to solve the mystery of Trig Palin’s birth. In this spirit, let’s turn our attention back to another letter – this one is not “purloined” but is suspicious and certainly deserves more attention than it has received in this real-life “detective story.”

The Purloined Letter, like the CBJ letter, is a wonderful play between revelation and concealment. CBJ's letter would appear to be something simple but close examination reveals that the structure and contents are actually highly suggestive (one could say convoluted) and open to many interpretations.

To review: after delaying for weeks, at 10:30 p.m. on November 3, 2008, barely hours before Election Day, the McCain-Palin Campaign released a letter regarding Sarah Palin’s medical history. The odd timing of the release of this letter ensured that it would not receive any scrutiny prior to the election, and given their election defeat the next day, it has received little scrutiny since. In fact, ask most anyone who could be considered "pro-Palin," and they will tell you, indignantly, that of course Gov. Palin released her medical "records." In fact, she never did anything of the sort.

Questions surrounding the letter were raised several months ago on the blog, but I did not have the opportunity at the time to investigate or address them in any detail, so frankly, this issue went on the back burner. Then, in early January, there was an extraordinary email exchange between Governor Palin and the editor of the Anchorage Daily News, Pat Dougherty. These emails made clear that ADN had assigned reporter Lisa Demer to report on the conspiracy story itself, to document how, what Dougherty calls "nutty nonsense" has nevertheless persisted for so many months. In conjunction with this, Demer was to try to “report the facts of Trig's birth thoroughly enough to kill the nonsense once and for all.” The amazing thing is that the emails reveal that, despite contacting Dr. Baldwin-Johnson (and others), Demer still – as recently as two months ago - did not receive the information ADN needed to “put this nonsense to rest.”

How is one to interpret this? Reading between the lines, I believe that ADN contacted Dr. Baldwin-Johnson to corroborate the birth story on several occasions – but she has not, ever, in clear, simple, unequivocal terms, been willing to do so. This is - in fact - astonishing.

Cathy Baldwin Johnson has never given a simple statement that Trig Palin was born at Mat-Su Hospital on April 18th, that Sarah Palin is his biological mother, and that she - Dr. Baldwin-Johnson - was physically present at the delivery. She would not do this at the following junctures:
1. Back in April, when Trig Palin was allegedly born. She gave ambiguous statements to the press about the circumstances of the birth (several of which contradicted explicitly statements Gov. Palin made) and then she clammed up.
2. On August 31st (when announcing it would have scotched the necessity of announcing – the next day – seventeen year old Bristol's pregnancy);
3. In the letter released before the election
4. To the ADN in December when they asked AGAIN.

The questions that this leaves are astounding. Dougherty states unequivocally that he has no personal doubts that Sarah Palin is Trig Palin's mother, yet never is willing to confront – head on – the rank inconsistency that the Governor's own physician will not corroborate her birth story.

As a result, I decided that it was time to delve further into the questions raised by the letter, and Dr. Baldwin-Johnson’s involvement in this case. I asked one of my research assistants to summarize the problems with the letter; that summary is here. We are releasing it in pdf form as it is quite long - five pages - and contains numerous legal citations.

To summarize this pdf: This letter is the only documentation that has ever been provided by anyone about the circumstances of Trig Palin's birth. Yet it was not released by the doctor; it was not actually signed by the doctor; it has never been authenticated by the doctor; it contains information which the doctor could not know first-hand; it contains erroneous information; and most notably, it does not ever say that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin. The letter's unprofessional appearance, modified electronic signature and lack of clear factual statements give rise to numerous questions about its legitimacy, and some have suggested that these may be a deliberate ploy to allow Dr. Baldwin-Johnson “deniability” – that is, grounds to claim that she is not legally responsible for the letter.

The problems with the November 3rd letter raise new questions about Dr. Baldwin-Johnson’s involvement, not only with the letter, but with the entire mystery of Trig’s birth. It is time to explore the medical, ethical and legal issues regarding this case.

To be continued…

709 comments:

1 – 200 of 709   Newer›   Newest»
penny said...

Nice to hear from you Audrey. Great idea to bring up this big 'ole elephant standing off in the corner for months now. I agree with all of your conclusions, and suspecitions, just not sure how to best move forward. Anybody have any ideas?

Thanks for all your hard work and patience!

Penny

Dangerous said...

All speculation aside, the letter is not evidence until it is either sworn and notarized, or Dr. CBJ authenticates it. Even if that happens, the factual assertions she makes are hearsay until independently confirmed. The exception would be assertions related to items where she has direct knowledge, but then Dr. CBJ should face cross-examination before anyone gives full weight to those assertions.

Courts hate invented evidence such as prepared statements like this, particularly those produced in an adversarial situation. This is particularly true when contemporaneous business and medical records are available. Imagine, for instance, that this was a malpractice or insurance fraud case. There's no way Dr. CBJ's letter would be accepted as evidence for the purpose it was produced.

SP's failure to produce convincing evidence is a strong basis to doubt her own assertions regarding Trig's parentage. As I've said before, enough to indict, not enough to convict. With no legal standing to force disclosure, only MSM pressure can force her to release real medical records, or at least school attendance records for her two daughters for the time period in question.

On this last item, I want to point out that if Willow went to school in Juneau, which seems to be her alibi for now, who did she live with and how did she get from Juneau to Palmer on April 17 when that city lost power due to a record snowstorm, in the middle of the school week, while Mom and Dad are scrambling back to Alaska. In the middle of it all, they arrange for Willow to get to Palmer, just to be there for Mom to give birth?

Either she was in Wasilla or somewhere closer, or her alibi is crumbling. Bristol already has no alibi, except Tripp if he was actually born when they say.

I'm sure someone will come up with an explanation, but it won't be based on confirmable evidence. Gov. Palin, where did your children go to school from Feb-May 2008? Can we confirm that with school attendance records?

Dangerous

Dangerous

Nostradamus said...

Have you seen this yet?

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20259357,00.html

I continue to enjoy your writing and research.

Pat in Branson said...

And extremely interesting when coupled with the info I just read on The Immoral Minority re the newly released bio...said letter contradicts what Palin is saying in the People Bio. Keep it up...she will get caught in these lies soon.

Dianne said...

Glad you're back, Audrey. Interesting book coming out about SP and some very conflicting statements surrounding her "pregnancy" announcement to her children, Trig's condition at birth (very conflicting with Dr. Baldwin-Johnson's statement) and her possibly being troubled at having as DS baby (she's the perfect mother and loves each child as a gift) but she was conflicted about whether or not she would be able to accept him. What a crock!!!! I don't think she can keep track of her lies anymore.

Lady Rose said...

With Palin's new biography out - it may also be a good idea to line up what she says in the book, with what else has been said that we know as fact, but also suspicious facts.

Rebecca said...

Trailblazer -- the new book coming out on Sarah Palin -- reports that Trig was born with a congenital heart defect. I'm a pediatrician. Pretern infants with trisomy 21 AND congenital heart disease should not be born at a community hospital.

Gryphen said...

And if you compare what she said to what is now said in the new Sarah Palin biography the mystery becomes even more convoluted.
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-sarah-palin-biography-is-out.html

(By the way I don't usually link to my own site, but the link to the People magazine article is currently being overwhelmed and I cannot get access.)

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

I call BULLSHIT on CBJ!!

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20259357,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines

Health Problems at Birth
The biography also reports that Trig's health was problematic from birth – he was born with a congenital heart defect typically found in half the babies with Down syndrome – but it cleared up on its own without surgery.

The Palin home is portrayed as running at a frenetic pace; one-on-one basketball games, take-out pizza dinners, razzing between kids and parents.

Extended family is in abundance, and while they have helped Sarah and Todd Palin raise their children – enabling her to serve as governor and pursue her political career last fall during the presidential campaign – the couple hired a Wasilla nanny to help out at home, the book reveals.

ajesquire said...

I'm not sure what legal training your research assistant possesses, but as an attorney, I'd caution you to go too far down the "fraud", "license revocation" route.

Not that this issue shouldn't be fully explored, but I simply don't see any legally actionable conduct here. Nor do I see anything that, either by the letter, and certainly not by the practicality of the way things work, would result in any professional censure.

This letter was not submitted under oath, notarized, or within the context of any legal proceeding. It does not constitute a statement to law enforcement for which a false statement might be actionable under 18 USC 1001.

With your permission, I'd like to address the questions raised in the pdf in order (I'll address process/appearance here and address substance in another comment):

1. The timing of the release of this letter is extremely curious. While I agree that the timing of its release precluded a thorough vetting, by the same token, it also probably minimized (or erased) any value the letter might've had to impact the election. Did the McCain/Palin campaign really think Trig's parentage was a make-or-break issue for a substantial number of people, and if so, that a significant number of those people could be persuaded to change their vote on the eve of the election? The utter incompetence of the McCain campaign is the only basis for such a belief, but generally I'd say no.

If there's something to explore here, it's whether the late date of the release reflected an extended, perhaps discordant, negotiation between the campaign and Dr. Baldwin-Johnson to come up with a final draft that she would feel comfortable signing. (I'm open to the idea that what the contains and leaves silent raise questions, but I'm confident that as written the letter puts the Doctor in no legal jeopardy).

I'd want to know: when Dr. Baldwin-Johnson was first solicited for this "information"; by whom; who drafted the letter; were there revisions; if so, what were they and who requested them; and how many drafts did she submit before the final was released.

2. I'm not sure the fact that the letter was released by the campaign and not directly by the doctor means anything at all. The letter was, by its own terms, solicited by Governor Palin, who held the privilege. I wouldn't have expected it's release to happen any other way. (has your assistant researched the method by which medical information on President Obama and Vice President Biden was released? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but it wouldn't surprise me if that information was released by their campaign [as opposed to their physicians] too).

3. I don't find the argument as to the appearance of the signature to be compelling. If this was an effort by the Doctor to leave herself wiggle-room to later deny her assent to the letter, or was an unauthorized addition to the letter by the McCainPalin campaign, the doctor's silence in the 3 months since the letter's publication seriously impairs her ability to make that argument.

The orientation of the text on the page would very well be the result of the document having been faxed or the way in which the paper fed out of the printer.

I must admit that I don't quite understand the "quality of the letterhead" point. Again, the Medical Center's silence on this for the last 3 months suggests that there's nothing there.

The one legitimate point that I see here is the fact that the Doctor's signature appears on page 2, while all of the information about the pregnancies appears on page 1. That leaves open the possibility that someone changed the substance of page 1 without the Doctor's consent and without the need for her to re-sign the letter. However, once again, the Doctor's silence on this for the last 3 months seriously impairs her ability to "disavow" the letter later if that is the intent.

In conclusion, I simply can't agree to the characterization of this letter as "blatantly unprofessional looking". And to the extent that that assertion is being used to call into question the substance of the letter, I think it hurts the argument rather than furthers it.

nilap said...

Just thinking out loud, but I feel this letter could be a weak link in the deception, and might be the right thing to pursue.

If Providence Health Service of Alaska receive state funding, they could be required to provide information from a foia request. I wonder if by publicly supplying the information included in the letter, it would open the door to a foia request for supporting (or not) documents regarding information in the letter.

Morgan said...

My personal thoughts? This letter, released in the ninth hour in lieu of medical records was - I believe - the work of the McCain campaign who likely knew or suspected the truth but realized they had to do something on the eve an election they (deludedly) thought they may still possibly win.

I think that may explain the convoluted lawyerly wording of the thing. No way did they want to put something definitive out there that could be definitively disproven. Murkier things are harder to figure out and this letter is as murky as a letter can get.

Just my two cents.

questionsandanswers said...

wait- i thought she was in Anchorage in the early part of the year?

"While Bristol was pregnant last year, she was living in Anchorage with her aunt and uncle, Heather and Kurt Bruce, and working at two espresso shops – while also attending West High School."

If she moved there in Dec. 2007/Jan.2008 (which are the only dates i've heard; didn't the interview with the principal(i think in wasilla?) say she transferred at christmas, but he didn't know why?), this would be too early to be pregnant with tripp. assuming she conceived in april-ish, it could be may-june (end of the school year) before she knew she was pregnant!

yet another inconsistency, maybe even a slip-up?

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

"The orientation of the text on the page would very well be the result of the document having been faxed or the way in which the paper fed out of the printer."

no it would not. a fax or print glicth SHOULD result in all of the text and graphics being skewed at the same tilt left or right.

NOT THREE DIFFERENT SKEWS.
nice try.

Kathleen said...

Reposting from the previous thread.

Blogger Kathleen said...

Extremely important new revelation from People magazine - if true this is dynamite and makes an 18th April birth date virtually impossible imo.

http://tinyurl.com/asbt6o

"The biography also reports that Trig's health was problematic from birth – he was born with a congenital heart defect typically found in half the babies with Down syndrome – but it cleared up on its own without surgery."

Kathleen PD Research Crew

February 16, 2009 6:41 AM

ajesquire said...

On the substance of the letter: As I mentioned, I'm a lawyer. I know the significance of words and the need for specificity as well as the ability of generality to conceal the truth.

However, I think the critiques in the pdf are misplaced.

First of all, the Doctor makes clear that she did not assume the Governor's care until 1997, so she's not attempted to suggest that she has personal knowledge of facts that occurred before that point. As the Governor's physician, she is responsible for knowing her patient's medical history, and unless she has some reason to doubt the medical chart, I see no reason to expect the Doctor to preface ever reference to pre-1997 with "according to the Governor's medical chart".

I don't find the use of "deliveries" versus "pregnancies to be suspicious. She's not writing for a medical journal or even for a medical chart. As a community family physician she may be accustomed to speaking more colloquially for all we know.

I also can't put too much weight in the use of personal pronouns (for example in the sentence about pre-natal testing). Those sentences all appear within paragraphs which begin with sentences that have "Governor Palin" as the subject. I believe it is an acceptable grammatical convention to use a subsequent personal pronoun as long as the reference is to the last named subject.

In summary, while I firmly believe that the FACT and the MANNER of Governor Palin's revelations (or lack thereof) about the pregnancy and birth of Trig raise serious questions about the identity of the biological mother, I find the "issues" raised in the pdf to be underwhelming.

Pipsqueak said...

Let me amend what I had previously posted on the last thread. There IS new stuff in the PEOPLE article. I totally agree with posters here about the significance of the revelation about Trig's "congenital heart defect." Thanks for weighing in, pediatricians!

I wonder how this revelation possibly ties into the CBJ letter? (How does the CBJ letter wording connect to or cover the congenital heart defect condition?)

Also, there is some TeamSarah person posting that he is upset with the "unfairness" of TRAILBLAZER on Amazon. I don't know if it's a PR ruse to make non-Palinites buy the book or not. There are far more nonTS people in the world than TSers, so a publisher hopes that non-TS people will buy it, too.

You can bet that Jindal, Romney, Huckabee and Pawlenty's people will buy it so they can do more "opposition research" on Palin. I have never understand why Palinites think "the left" is their next concern; Palin's next biggest oppositional hurdle clearly lies in the GOP and the RNC.

Truthseeker2 said...

I'm really happy to see some attention cast on CBJ and her role in this matter. The revelation that she did not confirm the birth story to ADN is another nail in the coffin, IMHO.

And just when you thought there couldn't possibly be any more blatant contradictions in SP's story, some more blatant contradictions materialize in the new People article. So Trig had a heart defect at birth -- and was born on 4/18, 5-weeks premature -- yet was released from the hospital at one day of age and paraded in public at SP's office at 3 days old -- yet was "healthy" according to CBJ except for needing treatment for jaundice... I'm getting dizzy from all the spin and lies.

CBJ should come clean. Her lawyer should issue a letter setting the record straight. She has a lot to lose by continuing to perpetuate a fraud. I hope AAFP will put some pressure on her for the misuse of their good name in the CBJ letter. Their reputation could be harmed by being cited in a letter that appears to be part of a fraud.

The other discrepancy in the People article that jumped out at me was Heather Bruce's comment about Bristol living with her while pregnant AND while going to Anchorage West HS. She did not go to school last fall (2008), right? And Levi was on the North Slope then, so it would be kind of hard to drive to Anchorage for a date. So Heather Bruce must have been referring to the period in late 2007 and early 2008. But Bristol would not have known she was pregnant with Tripp until at least late April, and she wasn't in school then, right? Hmmmm. Caught in another lie? Too many to keep track of, apparently.

sandra said...

So much information at once! Having read the arguments on Immoral Minority Blog, I have now come up with a new idea, hypothesis, theory on why there was the late "pregnancy" announcement by SP.

With all the complications that Trig had with his heart, there probably was a time after (and perhaps before) his birth that his survival was in question.

SP decided to start the deception of the pregnancy when she started wearing the scarves. When it seemed that Trig would survive, she then could announce her pregnancy.

The fact that he might not survive was probably the troubling thing from which she wanted to protect some of her family.

This would account for much of the speculation we have had about birth dates, etc. It does not really matter who the birth mother is.

sandra in oregon

Amy1 said...

I'm amazed at the legal info you have added to this subject! Yet I am not at all clear about where CBJ's legal responsibility to speak up begins and ends.

Just for comparison, here is Obama's letter -- a link in this article.

Obama's MD's letter is not that great either.

--Obama's letter is undated.

--It, too, is several-xerox-generations-removed from being original, and as such the signature is a copy.

But there's a big difference between a letter where there is no controversy and a letter where there IS controversy. And the sloppiness of the CBJ letter would not matter if there was no controversy.

One thing that struck me as I was comparing the two letters long ago, was that the Obama letter might have served as a sort of template for the Palin letter: I mean, if I am thinking forgery, then I am seeing that both letters are messy, both are copies of copies, both have non-original signatures. What I mean is that I would have expected each MD's letter to have its unique approach, quirks, format -- just as the McCain approach of letting reporters wade through 1400 pages of records but only for a short time, vs the concise Obama letter.

My experience is that each MD
I've ever worked with has a distinctly different style for these letters, and I was struck by the similarity between Obama's and Palin's.

Also, I think there's some strong language is your pdf that is not really substantiated: the sloppy prep of the letter (while certainly suspicious and leading one to doubt its authenticity) could be a big nothing if CBJ says she or her authorized staff person did it (and if that is in fact true).

I think in the end the big issues are:

Assuming the letter is a fake: If CBJ did not write this letter, what is her legal obligation to step forward and say so, when she is not under oath. And when? This issue is complicated by the widespread publicity of this issue, so it would be hard for CBJ to claim ignorance of a fake letter attributed to her. It is also complicated by the national importance of this huge LIE, if it is a lie.

Assuming the letter was indeed written by CBJ: How and when does accountability for an MD letter stating a lie come into play? Who has to sue whom to make things happen? Where is Rex Butler when we need him?

Assuming the letter was written by CBJ and altered by SP: Again, what legal event has to happen to make accountability happen?

Conflict of interest stuff: We are all sure there is some yet undisclosed reason this all took place, a reason that it might well be CBJ's professional ethical responsibility to conceal. By speaking out on the forgery/alteration, she would surely compromise that confidentiality. Just as we in this blog cannot limit ourselves to "SP: preg or not?", neither will anyone else limit the expose (when it happens) to SP. So CBJ might see it as her ethical MD responsibility to protect that confidentiality, even if it gets her into hot legal water.

I have to agree with the points ajesquire makes -- I fully believe the preg is hoax, but I have come to believe the letter won't help us without CBJ disavowing it.

(And what about a congenital heart defect that "heals itself" -- is this a common thing? Was Trig supposed to be suffering from this when he was photographed and trotted around the office in the couple of days following Apr 18?)

Amy1 said...

Morgan, just a comment on your "an election they (deludedly) thought they may still possibly win."

In spite of the numbers and the facts right before the election, knwing that Obama was poised to win, I too was deludedly sure that McCain would somehow win. Crookedly, to be sure, but a win nevertheless. So the day after, I was in shock -- just walking around amazed that we the people got it right this one time.

I have the feeling that the huge outpouring of feeling among African-Americans about the win might have had an element of this concern, too, just because it was such a strong (albeit illogical) feeling on my part.

And then the cheerful interviews afterwards on SP's part made everything seem unreal. At least McCain had the decency to say, when asked if he'd run again with SP "Let's let my corpse get cold first, okay?"

Dangerous said...

I want to urge EVERYONE to be very careful about giving too much credence to what is said in the Palin biography Trail Blazer.

It is an unauthorized biography and People is just quoting passages, which are not attributed to SP, at least in the article. For example:

"Not discussing the pregnancy with her daughters, she felt, would shorten the process and spare them from unwanted attention," according to the book, which was not authorized by Palin.


According to the book. This deserves no more validity in our discussions and investigation than a random post on this blog. S&H published it to make money. It does not need to be accurate or truthful. So long as the author doesn't inaccurately quote subjects, she can say whatever she wants, as an analysis of a public figure.

My mother, who thinks we are all nuts, sent me the link before I saw it here. Any of us could write an unauthorized biography on SP which would challenge her story and her credibility. Lorenzo Benet chose to seek a market of Palin admirers, as the title implies. Naturally, he would defend her assertions because he has no choice. Otherwise, the title would have to be 'Liar'.

Dangerous

Amy1 said...

Be sure to read KaJo at the end of the previous chapter of this blog ("Once and for All," February 16, 2009 10:08 AM) re my question about congenital defects that heal themselves (if only it was all so easy!), and the vulnerability of such a baby. Thanks, KaJo.

Tully said...

Excellent objective analysis of the CBJ letter! All along, I have thought the vagueness of its wording left Dr. Johnson a lot of wiggle room if she were challenged on it. Most of it could be technically true, albeit misleading, because of the lack of specific names and dates. For example, "He was able to go home at two days of age with his mother," could refer to Sarah as adoptive mother or to another woman. The only specific information that can't be easily explained is the sentence containing the claim of "one pre-term delivery at 35 weeks gestation in 2008." Interestingly, that same sentence contains the factually incorrect information regarding Piper's birth year. Curiously, the case of that sentence is inconsitent with the case of the other sentences in the paragraph. The first four sentences use past perfect tense, yet the last sentence uses past tense. Could it be that CBJ didn't want to go that far and that sentence was inserted by someone else?

Subjectively, I am bothered by the lack of "voice" in the letter. It reads like something written by a committee. Anyone out there who has been on a few committees know what I'm talking about?

Thank you Audrey for educating us on the legal and ethical issues. I'm not sure where this will all lead, but I sure hope someone will hold CBJ's feet to the fire.

JJ said...

CBJ letter says:
No evidence of congenital heart disease
Sarah's book:
he was born with a congenital heart defect

Well, which is it?

And if Sarah's book is accurate, how could they possibly release Trig from the hospital at 2 days old?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LisanTX said...

I see there is a link to Gryphen's website about SP's new book; here is the tiny url in case the long one doesn't work:
http://tinyurl.com/7ss7u4

There is a conflict between what the book says (Trig had a heart defect but went home from Mat-Su in 3 days) and the medical protocol for babies with heart problems. This seems to be another huge gap in credibility.

Btw, I highly recommend Gryphen's website (Immoral Minority) if you want to keep up with SP's activities.

Pipsqueak said...

@11:08, Dangerous wrote: "I want to urge EVERYONE to be very careful about giving too much credence to what is said in the Palin biography Trail Blazer.

It is an unauthorized biography and People is just quoting passages, which are not attributed to SP, at least in the article."

If Benet cites the article or interview in which Palin's words were published, or from which Benet paraphrases, it is still absolutely attributable to Sarah Palin.

Authorized or no, if the article was published in a newspaper, or if information was said in an interview to Benet by Palin for a PEOPLE article, it is still attributable to Palin.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

great timing on this thread and the release of the book! it proves that SOMEONE ISNT TELLING THE TRUTH....AGAIN!

More Cowbell said...

Another lawyer here. I too hope that we don't spend too much time on the "fraud" issue-- the only tenuous kind of action I can see the letter inducing is to make people who would not vote for SP if she didn't have this baby, vote for SP. The electronic signature stuff doesn't mean much to me, either-- the relevant statutes and regs are talking about requirements for electronic signatures when a signature is required for a legal reason. I don't think this letter applies.

Having said that, I've always thought this letter was fishy. I can't buy that the letter skews in opposite directions because of fax issues-- if the letter was being produced contemporaneously it would be written, the perhaps printed onto hospital letterhead-- either way it wouldn't skew in opposite directions. If it had to be faxed to someone who had access to hospital letterhead than that just adds to the general fishiness for me.

The most interesting part, to me, is that there's no date given for Trig's birth, when that was one of the big questions that was floating around out there. As has always been the case, I have to wonder why SP and her doctor didn't take the easy way out and just say straight out "The doctor was present on this date when SP gave birth to Trig."

I hope the analysis is fixed to correct the incorrect date (November 3, 2003) at the beginning.

sandra said...

There's a picture of Bristol with Tripp on Gretawire.

Leadfoot said...

Sheppard Smith just said that Greta's interview with Bristol tonight will "feature baby pictures."

They showed a clip from the interview and Bristol is only seen from the shoulders up. (Making it hard to determine how postpartum she is!)

Kathleen said...

JJ -

Once again the CBJ letter uses an ambiguous statement to imply one thing whilst meaning something entirely different. This from the medical letter -

"She followed the normal recommended schedule for prenatal care,including follow-up perinatology evaluations to ensure there was no significant congenital heart disease or other condition of the baby that would preclude delivery at her home community hospital."

Most people reading this would naturally assume that Trig had no congenital heart disease and that is why he was born in SP's local hospital. However, the key word here is "significant" and if you read it taking this into account you realise that CBJ is saying that tests did show that Trig had a heart condition but that it was thought to be insignificant.

Of course that insignificance can be called into question when an expectant mother goes into early labor as Sarah has claimed.

Kathleen PD Research crew

Littl' Me said...

Dangerous February 16, 2009 9:34 AM said:
"With no legal standing to force disclosure, only MSM pressure can force her to release real medical records,..."

...and therein lies the rub: The MSM just got the release of the People articles about her book, as well as a People Mag. article from Jan 12, and in those two articles, they simply repeat the 'fact' that SP is Trig's mom, and Bristol is Tripps mom... 'Rumors' repeated as 'fact' often enough, become facts.

Someone else said:
“Trig had a heart defect at birth -- and was born on 4/18, 5-weeks premature -- yet was released from the hospital at one day of age and paraded in public at SP's office at 3 days old -- yet was "healthy" according to CBJ except for needing treatment for jaundice... “

EXACTLY! Either Trig was healthy, or he was born with the heart defect… (maybe that was why SP hid him from sight for so long – it was touch and-go for a while, and by April 18, he was healthy enough to be produced to the world…

“The other discrepancy in the People article that jumped out at me was Heather Bruce's comment about Bristol living with her while pregnant AND while going to Anchorage West HS. She did not go to school last fall (2008), right? And Levi was on the North Slope then, so it would be kind of hard to drive to Anchorage for a date. So Heather Bruce must have been referring to the period in late 2007 and early 2008.”

I totally agree! Somehow, this all sounds like they are mixing up the years. I had read an earlier statement somewhere about SP and Bristol, and it was the same issue – was it 2007 or was it 2008? Many people, in the beginning of a year, say "...last year...", when they actually mean "...the year BEFORE last year..."! I have caught my self in doing so, and I have seen many of my friends and coworkers do the same. Sometimes you catch it yourself, and sometimes you need to be prodded to make sure which year was meant...
(I guess someone could check out the school records of that Anchorage West HS and see if she was in attendance, and from when to when…)

Lady Rose said...

I know very little (only what I could research online) about Down's Syndrome and heart problems - but it just seems bizarre that Trig could have been born with heart problems that healed themselves and he was released in a day or two from the hospital.

From what I've read - IF there are heart problems at birth, there is always some form of treatment and followup. And if there are no heart problems at birth, there needs to be tests done by 6 months to rule out heart problems that may not have appeared at birth.

The whole birth story just gets whackier and whackier - it could be whatever is in the book is just made up by the author since it wasn't an authorized biography.

tt said...

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2009/02/16/tonight-on-the-record-at-10pm-meet-bristol-palin-and-her-infant-son/

Finally a pic of Tripp!

KaJo said...

Oh, c'mon, ajesquire! (your post @ 10:35 AM)

You don't find the use of "deliveries" vs. "pregnancies" suspicious? Or at least, odd imprecise terminology for such a document, by a highly educated physician?

I'm sorry, but your supposition is laughable that the two terms, with completely different meanings, is Dr. CB-J "speaking colloquially" (like a Wasilla hillbilly?).

Dr. CB-J may not have assumed Palin's care until 1997, but she certainly had ACCESS to her records before then, so to my mind (I have 25+ years experience in medical record keeping/management) there is no excuse for inaccuracy in preparing a document that's to be read into permanent governmental records (campaign documents).

In other words, I disagree with you and think it's entirely proper to be prefacing some statements with "...according to Sarah Palin's medical record" (besides, nobody calls a medical record a "chart"; a chart refers to a record of a single current medical event -- more imprecise terminology).

And your last point, about using personal pronouns throughout the bulk of a paragraph with Palin's proper name mentioned once at the beginning is PRECISELY the problem, for such a document -- vague, and subject to interpretation. Sure, write that way in an e-mail to your best friend forever, but NOT in a campaign document.

Sunshine1970 said...

..."congenital heart defect..." And it clears up on its own..?

How is that even possible? I thought this type of thing doesn't clear up. That one would need surgery to clear up?

KaJo said...

Kathleen, you may be technically correct in describing Dr. CB-J's use of the term "significant" regarding prenatal exams of Trig's congenital heart disease as a reason why Trig was supposedly born at the 30-bed community hospital instead of at a hospital with a NICU.

However, "no significant CHD" prenatally is not the same as "insignificant" (my sister had undiagnosed CHD, a atrial-septal defect and vessel malposition, finally fixed surgically in her 40s-- it wasn't "insignificant" but it was something she lived with for all those years).

I have to wonder what qualified, ethical family physician or perinatologist would rely on prenatal evaluations alone on a DS fetus for determining that the child could safely be born without intensive care being immediately available? Especially, as you point out, after the "wild ride"!

The ineptitude and possible malpractice of that decision-making in these modern times just boggles the mind.

Dangerous said...

In an 'unauthorized biography', the subject typically has not been interview by the biographer. He or she may take already published quotes and repeat them, and they may interview others who claim to quote the subject.

The point is there will probably be little documented evidence of anything, and I would be suspicious of quotes of quotes of quotes. People quoted the book; they don't have to check the accuracy of the any assertions or quotes made in the book.

In casual parlance, 'unauthorized biography' is equivalent to fiction based on a real person, especially one of a living subject that gushes -- as the title suggests. Even the publisher doesn't need to verify facts, since it represents the author's conjecture. They would probably just try to be sure that there is nothing libelous. Simply getting something wrong is not sufficient for liability.

I'm not wasting $25 on it, that's for sure.

On another subject, in the email exchange with ADN's editor, SP says 'half-joking' that she'll submit to a DNA test if ADN (same letters, different order!) will pay for it. Funny, but it only costs about $200 for that.

Sarah -- I'll pay for it, provided you will make the principals available for sample collection and chain of custody of evidence can be firmly established. Or was that offer 100% disingenuous and you will only make it to ADN, knowing they won't take you up on it.

That's what I thought.

Dangerous

ajesquire said...

As has always been the case, I have to wonder why SP and her doctor didn't take the easy way out and just say straight out "The doctor was present on this date when SP gave birth to Trig.

This has always been the biggest red flag for me.

The only "honest" explanation I can come up with is that Sarah Palin, fundamentally and constitutionally, is an a**hole.

She stubborn and spiteful, and won't do anything unless there's a clear benefit to her.

And the fact that people are urging her to do something is practically guaranteed to ensure that she WON'T.

Right now, and even to a great extent during the campaign, there's not much benefit in it for her personally for this controversy to be resolved. She benefits much more from the perception of being victimized by the media and those crazy bloggers.

In fact, from her persepctive, having this issue stay alive until the next time she runs (either in '10 or '12) is to her advantage.

She'll be able to argue that "we already went over this", and accuse questioners of being REALLY on the lunatic fringe (akin to moon landing deniers) for trying to hold onto the issue. [see: George Bush's TANG record].

Anyway, that's the only explanation (other than a cover-up)I can come up to explain why she wouldn't just release a moderately redacted copy of her pre-natal chart, or even just allow certain reputable reports access to an unredacted version.

Littl' Me said...

Anyone think that the way Bristol is holding her new baby (Tripp?) that the baby looks to be younger than six weeks old?

The Dame said...

The letter also raises serious issues about the transparency and honesty of both the canidates Sarah Palin and John McCain and their campaign.

Laura said...

I am a mom whose son had a lot of surgery as a newborn and having spent many months in a NICU, I am aware of some of these terms and lingo etc. My first thought was that maybe Trig had a PDA or patent ductus arteriosis, something that can close on its own. I didn't think that this was one of the heart defects typically associated with DS, but of course I could be wrong. I also didn't know that PDA can close within a day or two, enough time for said baby to go to the office! I'm also not sure if PDA can be seen on a fetal ultrasound - echocardiogram, perhaps. But I will contact a pediatric surgeon I know well and see if he'll weigh in for me. I am curiouser and curiouser! L.A. in S.F.

luna1580 said...

sandra-

about thinking that trig's "heart defect" whatever it may have been, would make his survival "uncertain."

if SP is the birth mother of this baby (doubtful) and she had chosen to see specialists regularly before the birth and to deliver the baby at a hospital with a top-notch neonatal ICU (and a team of specialists if needed), the baby is unlikely to have been in any real danger.

they can do amazing things these days, including surgeries at -or even before- birth. DS heart defects are really, really common, so it would be easy to have specialists on hand for the birth who have much experience in fixing them -if the mother is at a large hospital.

i commented about this months ago, the problem with all of this is SP CHOOSE to bypass hospitals with neonatal units and a large staff where a specialist could be found in texas, then in seattle, and finally in anchorage, to birth the baby in a hospital with NO neonatal ICU, no specialists on hand to do surgery on an infant, no ability to help trig if he needed it.

from this, it is safe to say that if SP is trig's birthmother and she delivered him at mat-su regional as she claims, any danger of him "not surviving" would be 100% attributable to sarah and the choices she made. she had every opportunity to deliver this baby at a world class facility with an attendant team of specialists, BUT SHE DIDN'T.

Catherine said...

Just saw a picture of Bristol with Tripp, and a preview of Bristol's interview that will be aired tonight. Not much of peek at the baby. Bristol looks gorgeous.

Patrick said...

I would like to draw everyones attention again to the already "infamous" press conference that Sarah Palin gave 3 days after Trig's birth - the audio was originally published here on the ADN webpage:

http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html

In order to make the audiofile more accessible, the MP3 file can now be downloaded here:

http://www.box.net/shared/zbok63zyah

The downloaded file is of course much better to use, because now you can listen to the audio for example on Windows Media Player and you are able to skip back and forth, which is not possible with the streamed audio on the ADN webpage.

Although this recording is "old", it's still the only time that Sarah talked about the birth details, and especially now when new details emerge, it's well worth comparing them to SP's own account which she gave on 21 April 2008.

Patrick (PD research)

Truthseeker2 said...

In comparing the CBJ letter with the letter regarding Obama's health from his physician, the very first and most important difference is that -- according to the reports at the time -- the Obama letter was released by his physician; but the CBJ letter was not released by CBJ, nor has she ever publicly acknowledged its authenticity or even its existence. That's an important distinction.

It is interesting and helpful to read the comments from several lawyers, and their views should be valued. I can't help but notice, though, that even lawyers disagree with each other about some of these points. I guess that's to be expected. I think the analysis suggests a range of potential legal and ethical issues, but it does not say what is actionable and what is not, or by whom. I don't think that's the purpose here, but I would imagine that if this is indeed a hoax, then CBJ may be vulnerable to sanctions and possibly legal action in addition to the obvious damage to her reputation.

ProChoiceGrandma said...

Here is the link to the People article this morning on the biography of Sarah Palin:
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20259357,00.html

The article from People this morning states: “The biography also reports that Trig’s health was problematic from birth - he was born with a congenital heart defect typically found in half the babies with Down syndrome – but it cleared up on its own without surgery.” If that were the case, why did Sarah Palin take Trig to her office when he was only three days old? Excuse me, only three days old according to Sarah’s alleged birth of Trig on 4-18-08. If it were my infant with a congenital heart defect, I would want to ensure that my baby was in a hospital under close observation by medical personnel. I have no medical knowledge so I am asking the question - does a congenital heart defect clear up in two days so Sarah can drag Trig to the office on the third day? I still believe that Trig was at least 2 or 3 weeks old when she announced that she gave birth to Trig on 4-18-08. Hence, the congenital heart defect had already cleared up by the time she took him to the office on 4-21-08.

Additionally, if they are such a close knit family, why was Bristol living with her aunt and uncle in Anchorage. Did Sarah and/or Tod kick their daughter out for getting pregnant (again)? And how was it that Bristol was working at two espresso shops and attending West High School, when supposedly she was taking correspondence courses? Why no pictures of Bristol from those two espresso shops or West High School? It almost appears as if the family members who contributed information to the author of this biography have confused circumstances about which pregnancy that Bristol had, Trig or Tripp.

This is such a bizarre family. Let me rephrase that – Sarah and Tod Palin are bizarre. I feel sorry for their children.

kygirl915 said...

OK is it just me. I just saw the baby on the Gretawire blog. Does that look like a real baby. Babies at six weeks lay into their mom or whoever holds them, the babies head is straight up not leaning on Bristol. The picture just looks weird to me.

Amy1 said...

So: the MD letter has many elements pointing to its fishyness, for all of us.

However, neither the letter nor the elements of its fishyness are legally a problem for anyone -- not SP, not CBJ. That's what I hear the lawyers tell us.

There's nothing illegal about having a conflicting story.

So we are back to "was she or wasn't she pregnant?", which is the main bone of contention anyway. I guess we need one more thing, besides the obvious photos, to "prove" it.

And actually, faking a preg is not illegal, either, is it? It's just not ethical, and it's not transparent, two planks of SP's platform. I guess Bill Clinton's misadventures with ML were not illegal, either, until he lied under oath. That that was the one and only problem.

So, lawyers: you did so well in explaining the letter stuff: where would YOU go with this?

Windy City Woman said...

I'm puzzled about Trig's heart condition. I understand that this is very common in babies with DS, but what kind of heart condition "clears up on its own"? Can any readers who are medical personnel clarify this?

Could these heart problems be seen before birth, via ultrasound or other techniques?

And of course, after the birth of a DS baby, the medical staff would immediately check the heart for problems, since this is a likely scenario. And, upon discovery of this problem, they released Trig from the hospital immediately and said it was OK for Sarah to lug him to work? Oh, I guess they knew in advance that the problem would fix itself!

Let's say Sarah was pregnant and her story about the kids finding her ultrasound (mentioned in the People article) is true. Then we can assume that Sarah was also getting other prenatal tests, and indeed it would have been known that Trig would have DS. (I can't imagine that a doctor would not recommend testing for DS in the fetus of a 44-year-old pregnant woman.) This makes the wild ride story even more ridiculous, as Sarah should have known (been told by her doctors, or been informed by literature) that such things as heart trouble were likely and thus she should get to a medical facility immediately after leaking fluid....unless, of course, she wanted Trig to die at birth.

So, I keep concluding the same thing...either Sarah is a liar, or she wanted Trig to die.

penny said...

As long a she kept a low profile, simply waddling in and out of a large high school, and discreetly working WAY BEHIND the counter of two coffee shops, no one would recognize her…makes sense

Yep, had to be her first pregnancy, and it wouldn’t be fibbing then!

Perhaps nothing is actionable with the letter, yet Audrey's timing couldn't be better to refocus our attention on the letter and other evidence we have that will surely be contradicted by the latest tome.

We don't get Faux news, so I want all the details tomorrow!

Thanks, Penny

sandra said...

luna1580:

I agree that it does not seem that appropriate care was obtained if Trig was born April 18. My idea is that he was born earlier and was well enough to be presented to the public in April.

The reason for not disclosing information earlier than March may have been that she wasn't sure he would survive. If this was the pregnancy of another person, she may have waited to carry out this elaborate "deception" until she knew he would survive.

sandra

Diana said...

Here is a link to the photo of Bristol with Tripp from Greta's interview.

http://tinyurl.com/c8wsqq

More Cowbell said...

"So, lawyers: you did so well in explaining the letter stuff: where would YOU go with this?"

Personally, I don't think there's anywhere TO go with this right now. What I'll be waiting for is to see the PFD application (which is a public record)for Tripp. Bristol would have to provide, or authorize the release of, proof that he was born in 2008.

And just because I don't think a crime has been commited in regard to the medical letter (unless the doctor claims she didn't write it), that doesn't mean that I think it shouldn't be thoroughly scrutinized. If nothing else, we need to keep SP from lying that she released her medical records. And as someone else said, she's certainly not been transparent about what happened.

The issue whether the biography is "unauthorized" is BS. SP's parents and sister would never have talked to the author without SP's permission. I think she's trying to get around the law that doesn't allow her to profit from a book while she's governor.

Diana said...

By the way a little off post. However, there is a great special on HBO by filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi. Yes...Nancy Pelosi's daughter. It is called"

Right America: Feelng Wronged: Some Voices from the campaign trail.

If you want to see how wronged the right feels... this is important to see. It will show you why we need to stay on this story until the end! Amazing!

KaJo said...

Laura, there's additional information about "patent ductus arteriosus" at that first link I gave in my post @ 10:08 AM in the "Once and For All..." topic preceding this one.

I.e., go here for information specific to Down Syndrome and congenital heart disease, and here for information about patent ductus arteriosus in premature and term infants.

There are many other references available; this site is the first I found, and I used it because it's pretty comprehensive.

Truthseeker2 said...

I'm still wrestling with the CBJ letter in light of the new revelations that Trig had a heart defect. CBJ's letter is all the more strange, then, because if they knew he had a heart defect, even if they thought it was not significant enough to preclude delivery at the local hospital, that would be under the assumption that he would be full term, not born 5 weeks early after amniotic fluid had been leaking for 24 hours. And how could she indicate that he was in good health except for jaundice, if he had a heart defect? It makes no sense. This revelation adds another bizarre factor to an already long list of problems with the birth story that makes it even more implausible than before.

Amy1 said...

A while ago, a bunch of clever bloggers here -- sorry I can't recall who -- said SP is good at giving us "shiny objects" from time to time, to distract us off the main subject.

And here it is again, in spades.

Trig's care is none of our beezwax. neither is his heart defect -- if he even had one. I bet he didn't. I don't care about SP's bio. I don't care who Trig's bioparents are -- All I want is clarity over the HOAX and to move on.

I think the idea that she likes this controversy -- it keeps her in the news -- is true.

B said...

Re: Trig's heart problem

My friend had a baby born with a hole in its heart that completely closed on its own within a year, as was expected.

The baby left the hospital on time and was passed around among friends and family immediately -- no special handling was called for by the doctor. The baby's first year was completely normal.

I don't know what types of heart defects accompany DS but perhaps some are like this hole in the heart, just something to watch.

B said...

Greta Wire says: "We needed to get to Fairbanks, Alaska by early Saturday morning to interview Bristol Palin."

Did Bristol travel with her very young (6 weeks, or 2 weeks) baby to Fairbanks just to stay in the hotel at the end of the Iron Dog?

B said...

Littl' Me said...Anyone think that the way Bristol is holding her new baby (Tripp?) that the baby looks to be younger than six weeks old?

Yes. I'm thinking two weeks. I hope Audrey or other pregnancy/newborn expert will weigh in.

B said...

Dangerous, I believe Willow attended a Wasilla school in the 2007-2008 school year.

Don't have time to research it tonight, but I thought the family moved to Juneau in January 2007 and the girls attended school there. (Track was in Michigan.) Then Todd decided he wanted to return to work rather than continue as Mr. Mom, so the family moved home, and Heaths and a nanny watched the kids when both parents were away. Thus the chef was no longer needed at the Governor's Mansion. Sarah went to Juneau only when she felt it necessary, spawning "Where's Sarah?" buttons.

Willow had a boyfriend in April of 2008 who was telling everyone in Wasilla that Bristol was pregnant. I think they were all in Wasilla by then.

If Sarah had stayed in Juneau and kept the kids with her, Bristol would be a graduate by now, maybe with a basketball scholarship to college. Just my opinion.

Diana said...

Great comment from another site! Thought I would post it here:

Thanks you Chuck and Sally for revealing the real family tradition.

"In the summer of 1961, Chuck and Sally applied for a marriage license and wed at St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church in Sandpoint. Sally gave birth to a quick succession of children -- Chuck Jr. arrived on February 7, 1962."

Do the math! Sally had to be pregnant by May if her first born arrived on February 7, 1962 (if pregnant in June or July, the baby would have born significantly prematurely, would have been in an ICU, etc.).

We know what the Catholic Church thought about this at the time. Major sin!!

Palin's own myth about "eloping" to spare her parents the cost of a wedding was thoroughly debunked by the NY Times and other media after Palin announced in Dayton that August 29 was her 20th anniversary. Doing the math with available records proved that she was 6 weeks pregnant when she got married- as she had already said her first pregnancy went to full term.

And- due to Palin herself- we know Bristol's history.

Premarital sex and pregnancy without benefit of marriage is a 3 generation family tradition for the Heath/Palins. It's the rest of us who are supposed to adhere to a different standard.
----------------------------------

Wouldn't you think by now they would understand that birth control might be a good option for teenagers engaging in premartial sex?!

Jen said...

I am watching SP completely take over Bristol's interview with Greta!! I was really enjoying hearing Bristol talk about her experience and in comes Sarah! What a bleeping bleep!

Jennifer

questionsandanswers said...

i was just watching one of the 'teasers' for tonight's 'on the record' (missed it... darn), and i have to say that tripp is a cutie. one thing that DID strike me as odd, though- the way bristol looks at him is pretty much the same way she looked at trig during the campaign. i understand a girl will adore baby siblings, and she may be having motherly moments, as she was expecting one of her own, but come on... even i know (having no children of my own) that there would be a special bond between a mother and child, one that would FAR surpass that of a sibling.

trish in SW FL said...

Amy1 said: "I think the idea that she likes this controversy -- it keeps her in the news -- is true."
-----------------
I couldn't agree more. She craves the attention, and it doesn't matter if it's negative attention, just so she stays in the news and on the blogs.

midnightcajun said...

I think Sister Heather definitely let the cat out of the bag. She says that Bristol was living with her and going to school and working at two coffee shops while pregnant, which means she has to be talking about the school year of 2007-2008. If Bristol became pregnant for the first time in April of 2008, she wouldn't even know about it until school was essentially out.

And during the fall of 2008, Bristol was traveling with the campaign--she and her unmarried pregnant belly weren't on stage with the rest of the gang after the Convention, but she's there in the behind the scenes photos, taking care of Trig. A first pregnancy with Trig "last year" as in "last school year" is the only thing that fits.

I also love the bit about Sarah "explaining away" the truth when one of her daughters supposedly found an ultrasound photo (probably an ultrasound of her sister's baby). If I were one of her daughters and found out my mom had told me such a big whopper, I'd never trust her again. But I suppose Sarah's family are used to her "explaining away" little inconveniences like reality.

Diana said...

Here's a link to video when Sarah brings Tripp into the room.

http://tinyurl.com/ammuj5

Can't wait to see the stills. I didn't see any Christmas decorations in any photos with the family.

Also, I found Bristol, sweet, natural and real. It made me angry when her mom came in and tried to take over the interview. I did think if Greta had asked about Trig it would have been easy to see if she was Trigs mom. She didn't ask it and it seemed like the elephant in the room. I don't think she would have lied. It was probably a question that was off limits.

She is taking care of two babies...both her own!

Leadfoot said...

Bristol looked so mad in the Greta interview when Sarah came in and wouldn't leave. She looked at her like "Motherrrr....this is MY moment! Why do you always have to make things about YOU?!" I felt so sorry for her.

Also...did anyone else notice she kept looking up and to the side instead of at Greta/the camera? Isn't that a classic sign of lying?

trish in SW FL said...

Diana said...
By the way a little off post. However, there is a great special on HBO by filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi. Yes...Nancy Pelosi's daughter. It is called"

Right America: Feelng Wronged: Some Voices from the campaign trail.
---------------------
Thanks Diana, for the heads up---I missed it tonite, but will try watching tomorrow.

funny thing: my 'word verification' is "excult"

Mom of One, Esq. said...

Truthseeker2- you've hit the nail on the head.

Dangerous said...

I've just view GVS's interview with Bristol and SP. It is clear from the photos that Tripp is about two months old, and we've seen all the photos from right after birth to the present. Tripp's growth is obvious, and his level of alertness matches a 2-month old child.

If Bristol was lying about being a first time mother, she hid it better than she could have. In some of her answers, she was clearly trying to remember what to say, and she lost eye contact when the subject of school came up. She said that she told her parents in the summer, which was technically true, but we know she wasn't in school for several months before then. Why?

GVS didn't pursue anything controversial, nor should she with Bristol. Besides, for anything uncomfortable for her, Bristol looked away. When she was evasive, she looked down. Evaluation: she's not good at hiding her feelings.

In order to have Trig at the end of December, she had to conceive at the beginning of April. She would need at least six weeks (and probably more) of post-natal adjustment to have had Trig and Tripp. That makes the latest Trig delivery date with Bristol being the mother of both in early Feb, 2008.

The bottom line is the facts don't line up for Bristol to be the mother of both babies. Any speculation of a very early birth for Trig has to explain how they could hide him for two plus months.

I will point out again that Willow is still a candidate, and Tripp changes nothing regarding the holes in SP's story, and the photos where she doesn't look pregnant when she should.

The only remaining issue is an alibi for Willow, and perhaps determining Bristol's whereabouts as well. If we establish those, then we might have to conclude that SP is Trig's mother, and all of it just a bizarre set of coincidences -- and SP's judgment is terribly flawed.

Dangerous

Vaughn said...

More Cowbell:
You are going to be waiting a long time for any information on a PFD application. Tripp will have to be a full time resident for 1 year then reside in Alaska from Jan.1 thru Dec.31 of the next year to qualify.

Punkinbugg said...

A couple of people have already brought this up, but Audrey & Co. you gotta look at this:

"While Bristol was pregnant last year, she was living in Anchorage with her aunt and uncle, Heather and Kurt Bruce, and working at two espresso shops – while also attending West High School."

Again they say: WHILE she was pregnant, she ATTENDED SCHOOL.

If Tripp's b'day is correct, she would have discovered she was pregnant in late May --- just as school was letting out for the SUMMER.

DID SHE "ATTEND SCHOOL" AFTER SHE WAS INTRODUCED TO THE WORLD AT THE RNC (SEP 2008)?

I don't think so.

I think she "attended West HS" WHILE PREGNANT from December 2007 until April 2008.

If only we could find some observant espresso-drinking people from early 2008, who might have noticed a very pregnant barista... named Bristol.

dipsydoodlenoodle said...

Littl' Me said...
Anyone think that the way Bristol is holding her new baby (Tripp?) that the baby looks to be younger than six weeks old?


I had thought that but then I am certainly no expert on babies.

Doberman said...

As a lawyer, including one professionally familiar with physician discipline, I found the legal analysis beyond stupid and not advancing the cause of this blog one iota. Just makes you look "out to lunch," even though I do not believe for one second that Sarah birthed Trig. Unless one uncovers insurance fraud, the doctor is not going to be disciplined for anything.

On to another topic, the Greta interview with Sarah and Bristol made my blood boil. Here is what I took away from Sarah's portion of the interview -- we don't need no stinkin' sex education in the schools because if your daughter forgets her abstinence education like mine did and gets knocked up, the family can just step up and pitch in. The family, you hear that, not the stinkin' government, Sarah said. (And I guess the nanny that Sarah has hired, according to her new People bio). If the stinkin' government is so bad, wonder why Sarah saw fit to charge the Alaska government for her kids to travel with her? Shouldn't that be the "family's" responsibility? Wonder if little Tripp will now be traveling with the Palins at government expense?

And don't get me started about children are off limits. Except when the deeply vacuous Bristol (like mother, like daughter) chooses (allegedly without getting Mommy's approval) to go on national tv.

And Greta VS is a Botoxed joke (maybe she and Sarah bonded over Botox). I have never heard such banalties as came out of her mouth while she was allegedly conducting an "interview." I felt like I was overhearing a conversation at the nail salon.

I just want all these people to go away. They represent everything that is wrong with America. How can America ever compete internationally and recover its economic footing if we are raising children like Bristol and Levi while other countries are producing scientists and scholars? God help us all.

Kathleen said...

hmmmm Amy1 @ 6.11pm

We obviously have 2 Amy1's on the board as you have only a few profile views (half of which were made by myself BTW) whilst the other Amy1 has many.

This is very confusing - could you please change your name to Amy2?

Kathleen PD Research crew

Morgan said...

**From the moderator***

Good catch, Kathleen.
To the new Amy1, would you please create an account with a new handle. We already have one Amy1 and to avoid confusion I'm going to have to delete your comments until you come up with a new name. It's not fair to our existing Amy1, who is a long-standing member.
If you have any questions you're welcome to email me at thetokenhippie@gmail.com

wayofpeace said...

just watched the BRISTOL segment of the GVS interview (cannot stomach SP speaking).

here are some comments on it at HUFF.POST:

was that spectacle necessary when Sarah came in with the kid?

...

Palin exploiting her offspring to stay in the spotlight. Nothing new.

....

That media-hog had to just show up and take over her daughter's interview. How rude and annoying of her.... Not that Bristol had anything to say, but still...

wayofpeace said...

Oil's Plunge Trouble for Palin

(AP) – Sarah Palin's first two years as Alaska's governor were a time of milk, honey, and crude, with sky-high oil prices pumping wealth into the state.

The second half of her term isn't looking so rosy. The rapid decline of oil prices has left the state with a looming budget shortfall of up to $1.5 billion.

That could have political repercussions for the former Republican vice presidential hopeful, who must stay visible in the Lower 48 if she's to have a hope in a 2012 presidential bid.

"Given these bad times, she's going to have a much more difficult time traveling outside Alaska," said one politics professor. "When times are good, people will let their governor roam. In bad times, citizens expect their governor to stay home and work."

Palin bills herself as a fiscal conservative, and has called for reducing state spending by $268 million, but lawmakers say her proposal won't actually cut spending or reduce the deficit at all. Source: Associated Press

ajesquire said...

I've thought some more about the CBJ letter.

The peculiarity in the timing of the release of the letter is not that it was released too late to be examined and verified, it's that it was released too late to be of any help to the campaign.

The actual medical data contained in that letter could have been gleaned from her chart (and Trig's L&D chart)in an afternoon. Presumably, both charts were readily accessible to CBJ.

CBJ's medical opinion (such as it is) is also something that she could have formulated without the need for any research whatsoever.

Sarah Palin had been her patient for the last 11 years, a patient of her clinic for the last 17 years. That's nearly half of her life, and practically her entire adult life. She had no hospitalizations beyond those for childbirth. {indeed, even with this paucity of medical data, as others have noted CBJ makes a fairly significant factual error in the dating of one of the deliveries}

CBJ probably could've rendered the "opinion" contained in the last paragraph of that letter off the top of her head based upon her personal knowledge of Sarah Palin.

{contrast this with Vice-President Biden, who had a history of brain surgery, or Senator McCain with his history of cancer. For those candidates I would expect a doctor to need to take time in formulating an opinion. Not so with Sarah Palin.}

It should also be noted that Sarah Palin's physical ability to serve as Vice President was never in question and was plainly not the motivation for this letter, so CBJ's medical "opinion" was not all that relevant anyway.

So, if the substance of the letter is something that could've been gathered in a matter of hours, what can account for the delay of two months (from late August when the Trig issue was raised nationally until 11/3) in the letter's release?

Did the campaign want CBJ to state things she was uncomfortable stating, either because she had inadequate personal information or because she knew them to be false? Was there an extended negotiation and drafting process to come up with wording that CBJ felt comfortable signing off on?

These are the questions that need to be asked, not why the typeface looks crooked, the letterhead looks "unprofessional" or the signature is a different color.

***to respond to the question of us lawyers as to where to go now:

As of now there is no way to legally compel either Sarah Palin, her kids, the campaign, or CBJ to answer these questions. Barring the institution of some legal action whose scope of discovery would encompass this issue, there will never be.

I also personally do not believe there is a compelling political reason for SP to resolve this issue. She benefits much more from the perception of being the victim of a media and mean-blogger witch-hunt.

The answer may come out eventually, but I'm afraid it won't be from anything we do.

penny said...

I enjoy visiting this blog, but must admit, it is now the third blog I visit each day. This ongoing saga is frustrating, because I want to make sense of the absurd. I want to understand the actions of woman, who evidently has no compassion or concern for anyone else, even her own children. The problem with anyone really understanding any of this, is that there has been little, or no truths told by this woman, or her representatives...EVER!

I guess this is what irks me about the confidence of bloggers stating "the truth" about any portion of this convoluted tale. Even though we are lawyers, mothers, physicians, and the like, we can only speculate.
What makes a blog great is a balance of speculation, IMHOs, and HUMOR!!!!!!!

If I may share a comment by Trish in SW FL on the Mudflats blog:

"“Sarah concerned about Fairness Doctrine. Urges listening to Hannity, O’Reilly and Beck about it. (Just the people I turn to for truth.)”

I just threw up a little in my mouth, I feel dirty and icky after watching that!"

...and this from

pvazwindy (19:35:02) :

"Jan (SW Washington– Good post, saved me some typing. SP admonished Greta for asking such tough questions, yikes. Yes, I watched and I’m sorry for doing so. Spoiled my day. My wife slapped me upside my head for watching FOX. That network is taboo in our household. Especially hurt because I had earphones on."

My point is, this woman is unreal (putting it nicely) and as we watch her ongoing demise, no one can definitively say what has transpired, or what will, that's what makes it so hard to look away!

I know we all want the truth to come out, it will, and seeing that this woman is ushered out of public office is important to Alaskans, Americans, and Moms in particular, but she is the one putting on the show, no one is doing it to her, so feeling sorry for her or her children over the age of 18 is ridiculous, so let's all agree to lighten a bit!

just my two cents,
Penny

NakedTruth said...

Wow, we finally saw who we think just might be Tripp.

Bristol definitely was not acting like a first time Mom in that interview IMO. Also, I agree she was not very good with eye contact. Something was just not right with her. Greta did a good job of leading her as well and not allowing her to form her own thoughts.

Bristol claimed that she was prepared for Tripp because of her previous babysitting. No, she was prepared for Tripp because she had already had experience with Trig.

I said it once and I will say it again, I believe that Bristol gave birth to Trig in Feb. or March 2008and immediately afterwards got pregnant with Tripp.

Bristol is the loving mother of two. SP claimed Trig as her own because he has DS. Now her reason for claiming Trig could have been to pretect Bristol or it could have been for her own political gain or probably a little of both.

I am really hoping that Bristol is on some form of birth control. If not, my thought is that she will be pregnant again soon. She appears to me to be a young woman that wants a lot of kids. Bristol really doesn't strike me as the career type. She wants to be kept. My opinion.

Tully said...

Dangerous,
The baby brought out by Sarah (they were expecting the other grandma? -- I guess they meant a great grandma, not SJ) was clearly not a newborn. How do we know it was Tripp? I think Sarah is savvy enough not to trot out a two week old and pass him off as a two month old. We still don't have enough confirmed facts to say if they add up to Bristol being Trig's birth mother or not. I don't recall Bristol saying anything in the interview about being a first time mom. She talked about being an unmarried teen mom -- true if she has one or two babies.

I thought she stuck to her talking points pretty well. Wait ten years, this is not glamorous, get an education. I am so blessed to have this wonderful family to help out, yada, yada, yada. Gosh, with all those sisters, cousins, and aunts (all five generations of 'em)helping out and grabbing diapers and making bottles,and stuff, I guess Bristol doesn't have to do much at all. She might even have time to, say -- plan a wedding. If she was actually serious about her education, she would have a HS diploma by now. Trust me, they are not that hard to get. If she wasn't pregnant last spring, why didn't she finish? Bristol is eighteen now, legally an adult for most purposes, and in my opinion, no longer off limits. She should be held accountable for her actions, or in this case more appropriately her inactions.

And Greta, how about some follow-up questions? E.g., "And what kind of career are you pursuing? Todd and Sarah insisted the kids make a game plan when they first shared the news. Makes one wonder what would be happening if there wasn't a game plan.

B said...

Tully, Yours is a question I wished Greta would have asked: Bristol, why didn't you finish high school last spring when you were a senior?

After all, by her timeline, she wouldn't have known she was pregnant with Tripp until the end of the school year.

But Trig explains dropping out.

B said...

I think the timing of the CBJ letter was in part to keep it unexamined and also to keep Palin from being a blatant liar, just in case some voter cared.

After intensive questioning a few weeks prior, Palin said she was going to release her medical records. (And McCain appeared surprised when she said that.)

B said...

Don't you think that now that Tripp has been on national TV, the Johnstons have been allowed to see him?

B said...

Before embracing the idea that Tripp was born 12/27, I need an explanation why we're seeing him only now.

All those arguments for privacy seemed to go out the window last night. Pictures of the newborn with Levi and Palins. Lots of pictures of Tripp's face. Even questions about contraception.

Is it just coincidence that Tripp is rolled out mid-February, just as we predicted? I think not.

Kathleen said...

Kajo -

I am sorry for your sister's suffering and trust that she recovered well from her operation.

However, I was not in my previous post and am not trying to give an opinion upon the severity of Trig's CHD. The medical facts of CHD are wide and varied and it does seem that many babies are born with very mild CHD which does clear up quickly of its own accord. What I was/am looking at is the language used in the letter and it's purpose.

My initial understanding when I read the letter was that Trig DID NOT suffer a condition that precluded him being born in a local hospital without facilities.

However, I now believe that CBJ (or someone else!), through clever language positing, was implying that although prenatal investigations had uncovered CHD issues that these were NOT SIGNIFICANT ie INSIGNIFICANT and would not have precluded his being born in a community hospital.

Therefore my concern is not so much with Trig's condition as with an analysis of the language used in the letter which I believe was constructed in order to conceal the true facts of Trig's CHD and the results of the investigations. My analysis is designed to point the reader to another area in this letter with both reveals and conceals at the same time....convuluted indeed imo.

I would also like to raise the point that those investigations and their conclusions would have taken into account the fact that SP's pregnancy would have proceeded as normal to full-term. I am unaware whether or not Trig's CHD condition would have been severly affected by early labor or not. I assume that it would have been. Can anyone else wade in here?

B said...

Entertaining review of Traiblazer from Amazon.com:

Thorough and insightful, February 12, 2009
By H. Breuer "H Breuer" (Los Angeles, CA)

It was helpful to learn more about the Forrest Gump of the 2008 election. Despite eight years of Bushageddon, the leadership of the GOP was eager to allow the same sort of inept-picking-the-inept leader-picking style that brought us the FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina and other fine selections. Who are these people, and how can someone so mediocre become so aggressively embraced by so many Americans? If you read one book on the subject, read Trail Blazer for everything Palin - from how she frosts her hair to how she snows her constituents. Great job, Mr. Benet.

LisanTX said...

One other point from the Greta interview that hasn't been brought up yet:

Sarah was SO much more engaged with Tripp while holding him than she ever was with her "son" Trig.

She seemed to be a doting grandma with Tripp. But I've never seen her give Trig the same attention or have the same attachment to him.

Seems kinda weird to me.

Morgan said...

B asks:
"Don't you think that now that Tripp has been on national TV, the Johnstons have been allowed to see him?"

Oh, I'm sure the Johnstons can see him any time they like now, provided they have TiVo!

My verification word is diperbol?

Laura said...

Okay, this is what my pediatric surgeon friend wrote to me (pasted here):

Possible to be a PDA but not likely unless also a premie. More likely an ASD, atrial septal defect, which like the PDA can be open at birth and close spontaneously. Could also be a VSD, ventricular septal defect, some of which also close given time. More typical of Downs is AV canal that does require repair but is relatively simple.

So, did the local hospital have the technology to decide "it" had closed right away? Maybe, who knows. What I want to know is what "explained it away" meant! Did she say, "oh that's my friend's ultrasound picture?" Or, "oh, I'm taking a new art class and this is my first project?" I mean, WTF?
L.A. in S.F.

More Cowbell said...

"More Cowbell:
You are going to be waiting a long time for any information on a PFD application. Tripp will have to be a full time resident for 1 year then reside in Alaska from Jan.1 thru Dec.31 of the next year to qualify."

That's not true. A child who is born or adopted during the qualifyihg year (2008) is eligible for a 2009 dividend. http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/faqs/index.aspx#ed

NJESQ said...

Did I miss something? n the Greta piece last night, I did not hear anyone refer to Tripp by name -- instead, everyone referred to him as "the baby," him," or "the boy."

If so, how telling!

KaJo said...

Dangerous (@ 10:01 PM 2/16/09), why are you so determined to corroborate what Sarah Palin wants the world to see, and what she's told us?

The Dec. 27th date for Tripp (you mistakenly called him Trig) isn't set in stone, you know.

A suggested timeline:
March 25 Trig's birthday
April 29 possible conception date for Tripp
Jan 27th birthdate puts Tripp at 1 month age today; entirely conceivable (pardon the pun) from his general appearance swaddled up as he was.

Six weeks+ of post-natal adjustment? That's not set in stone, either. We don't know if Bristol was attempting to "dry up" and bottle feed Trig from birth, although it's somewhat likely due to the difficulties of feeding a DS baby. But if she was, she could have conceived as soon as a month after his birth.

The pictures of Tripp with Levi -- undated, and unknown as to chronological order; the child in Bristol's arms -- age unknown -- and if you look at various week-by-week photos of babies on the 'Net, you can see he could be anywhere from 2 weeks to 7 weeks -- swaddled like that, and face not visible for more than a few seconds before being hidden by a bottle -- how can you tell?

As a matter of fact, how can you REALLY tell that's Trig Palin in Sally Heath's arms in the video screen captures last year? That could be a several-days-old Inuit baby, complete with oriental eye folds, borrowed for the news taping.

Yeah, I know, this type of speculation borders on the ridiculous; but hey, the entire Sarah Palin Saga this past 12 months has been nothing but!

Dangerous said...

Moderator alert -- If this is a double post, please remove. When I clicked 'Publish' I got an error.

'B' responded to me:

Dangerous, I believe Willow attended a Wasilla school in the 2007-2008 school year.

Don't have time to research it tonight, but I thought the family moved to Juneau in January 2007 and the girls attended school there.


What we need is evidence of where she actually went to school, not hearsay. A couple months back, Audrey posted that Willow was listed on Honor roll for a Juneau middle school in the newspaper Juneau Empire for their 'winter term'. That set off discussion about how one could be on Honor Roll without actually attending. So there is still much confusion on that.

Later evidence makes it unlikely Willow attended school in Juneau from Feb-May, since the Palins weren't living there. Anything anyone can add to this item would be appreciated, but confirmation of where Willow went to school would not be 'private'.

Continuing to assert Bristol is the mother of both Trig and Tripp has become a square peg in a round hole. You have no evidence and have to strain credibility on the various scenarios. For example, the baby SP brought before the cameras isn't Tripp? I can't believe GVS would let that go. And they have pictures of the baby just born, and he's larger now. I can't believe they would try to pull off such a scam.

Some commenters here will continue to pound away against all evidence and assert that Bristol is Trig's mother. Of that I have no doubt and nothing I say or evidence I that comes out will convince them otherwise. That's what makes the entire blog seem whacky: refusal to accept evidence contrary to one's pet theory.

I'm not going to be that way. If anyone can alibi Willow with independent confirmation, I am going to have to conclude that SP is Trig's birth mother, despite the craziness of the circumstances and the horrible judgment she showed in hiding her pregnancy, taking the wild ride, and subjecting her infant to the VP campaign trail.

Dangerous

Dangerous said...

Kajo asked me:

Dangerous (@ 10:01 PM 2/16/09), why are you so determined to corroborate what Sarah Palin wants the world to see, and what she's told us?

The Dec. 27th date for Tripp (you mistakenly called him Trig) isn't set in stone, you know.

A suggested timeline:
March 25 Trig's birthday
April 29 possible conception date for Tripp
Jan 27th birthdate puts Tripp at 1 month age today; entirely conceivable (pardon the pun) from his general appearance swaddled up as he was.

Yeah, I know, this type of speculation borders on the ridiculous ...


Kajo, I think you answered your own question. I'm not corroborating anything as I have no direct knowledge of any of the events. I'm looking at the evidence without passion or prejudice. Can you say the same?

In that vein, why are people so adamant about not examining Willow? Personally, I hope she's not the mother and SP lied about the wild ride circumstances, and didn't happen to show with the pregnancy. But I can't ignore the evidence and hence I conclude SP is not Trig mother until proven wrong by additional evidence.

There's no evidence that eliminates Willow so I think we must pursue that line of investigation with all the vigor that others put into speculating on how Bristol could still be Trig's mother, despite the direct evidence to the contrary -- Tripp.

Getting indignant with me isn't going to change the facts, and neither is questioning my motives or intentions. If the evidence proves any theory of mine wrong, I will admit it freely.

Dangerous

Diana said...

Kajo, I agree with you. I think with all the new information given to us in just two days....the book, People and the Greta interview we have just been given more information to pour over. The truth is coming out lie by lie. If we keep catching the inaccuracies and inconsistancies they will lead us to the truth.

That is the problem with such a public lie. Many details will eventually become contradicted.

Just hang in their everyone. I guarantee this is not over. Just between Bristol and Sherry alone this can blow open.

Wait an see... by July this will be completely out! Just my prediction!

Punkinbugg said...

Bristol's birthday is 10/18/1990.

That means that THIS school year would have been her senior year -- IOW, she should be graduating this May with the Class of 2009.

(My daughter is exactly 51 weeks younger than Bristol, and this is my daughter's junior year. She is in the class of 2010.)

Of course, this is assuming Bristol started school at six, and never skipped a grade or got held back.

UGGGGH that interview is all over the local news today.

jeanie said...

Audrey - Thanks for the great summary and analysis of that letter. It has long been fishy-sounding and fishy-looking. (I'll hold off on any fish-picking jokes :) )

Nostradamus' link gives us an article about the intimate biography os Sarah Palin. One of the things SP states is that (referring to Trig) "he was born with a congenital heart defect typically found in half the babies with Down syndrome"

This does NOT sound consistent with a newborn you would bring to work within a couple of days of delivery!

midnightcajun said...

I finally sucked it up and watched the Greta interview of Bristol. Bristol did a good job of sticking to her talking points, but the video could be used as an illustration for "how to tell when someone is lying." All that looking down and to the side! I also found it interesting that Bristol made it a point of saying "he was born 27 December." Most mothers will say, "He's X weeks old."

How revealing that we are only now, in mid-February (just when so many predicted!) being shown all these snapshots of Tripp. I hauled out the photos of my own babies (rather small girls) and the truth is that baby Sarah and Bristol were passing around could have been as young as two weeks. The only exception is the snapshot of the smiling babe (occurs at 4-6 weeks), but how do we know that was really Tripp? The rest of the snapshots were of a very young babe.

One other point: Bristol is obviously genuinely proud of her mom for being chosen as a VP candidate; she is not going to do anything to mess up Sarah's future career. She also thinks those sticking their noses into her (very public) reproductive history are "evil". I don't think this apple fell very far from its tree. And how fakey was Grandma Sarah when she came on? Made my skin crawl. It was as if she was back at the podium.

Amber said...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29233902/

Pictures of Tripp and Bristol's interview

Professor Publius said...

A response to ajsquire's analysis of the doctor's letter:

I agree with ajsquire that the letter alone, without anything more, is not a sufficient basis to pursue legal claims of fraud against the doctor.

However, just because the letter does not amount to "sufficient evidence" to pursue a legal claim of fraud doesn't mean that the letter itself isn't actually fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive.

Based on my review of the letter, I'd argue that it was written in a deliberately vague and evasive manner. It was unclear when it should have been and could easily have been crystal clear. To me, that's the big red flag. It would have been so easy simply to state the date, time, and place of Trig's birth, especially since that the was the main issue that needed to be addressed and resolved in the letter. Yet, the letter failed to do so, instead obscuring the crucial facts in generalities and ambiguities.

The crucial paragraph to me is paragraph #4. I hope to write another comment and provide a detailed analysis of paragraph #4 soon.

I've also compared Baldwin-Johnson's letter to the letter written by Obama's doctor. Very similar letters, but there are a few differences that are worth mentioning and analyzing. Those differences raise further doubts about the content of Baldwin-Johnson's letter.

Tully said...

I remember that Sarah said something during the campaign about hoping that Bristol would adopt an "advocate" role regarding teen mothers. Interesting that Bristol used that same word in the Fox interview, especially since the word doesn't really fit. SP has written the script and continues to direct as well as star in the production.

One other comment, the Dec. 27 B-day works out so nicely, doesn't it? Fits the RNC timeline for the pregancy and also just in time for the Permanent Fund Dividend and a Federal tax exemption for 2008. Probably my imagination, but Bristol's voice sounded different to me when she answered Greta's question directly, "December 27!" I don't know, I guess I would have been more convinced if she had said " Two days after Christmas, or December 27 at such and such a time, or something like that. Just didn't sound natural. Probably my imagination.

Tully said...

Punkinbugg -- Different states have different cut-off dates for starting school. In my state, Michigan, it is Dec. 1. so Bristol's birthdate would put her on track to graduate in 2008. My youngest child born 11-19-85 graduated in spring of 2003 and didn't turn 18 until a freshman in college. No grades skipped. Anyone know the cut-off date for Alaska?

B said...

Punkinbugg,

I went back to articles about Bristol switching schools and you are right, the question should be, "Did you finish your junior year and, if not, why not?"

The Alaska cutoff for 1st grade back in 1996 could have been 6 years old by December. But seems Bristol was two years behind Track in school.

I also thought she was taking correspondence courses now, but didn't she mention to Greta that the family was helping so that she could attend school? Why didn't anyone see her going to class?

NakedTruth said...

Dangerous said:

If anyone can alibi Willow with independent confirmation, I am going to have to conclude that SP is Trig's birth mother, despite the craziness of the circumstances and the horrible judgment she showed in hiding her pregnancy, taking the wild ride, and subjecting her infant to the VP campaign trail.

Dangerous, I guess for me I am just trying to understand why you are willing to rule out Bristol but not Willow. Willow was actually seen on video and in pictures at the Iron Dog Race in February 2008. Now Bristol on the other hand was assumed to be there but was not on camera and was not in any pictures. Willow was at the Christmas Party at the Governor's Mansion in 2007 but Bristol was still nowhere in sight. And let’s not forget Willow did not look pregnant in any of these scenes.

We continue to hear about supposed sightings of Bristol from Dec. 07 -April 08 but we have not identified one video or photo with Bristol in it during this time period. Bristol was supposedly staying with the Bruce’s in Anchorage, enrolled in school and working two jobs but no sightings. And let’s not forget it was rumored during this period that Bristol was the one pregnant not Willow.

I am fine with your opinion that Willow could be the mother but I am going to stick to my opinion that Bristol is the mother of two, Trig and Tripp.

jeanie said...

Littl' me said... "Anyone think that the way Bristol is holding her new baby (Tripp?) that the baby looks to be younger than six weeks old?"

He's a cutie - and I'm not sure how old he looks, but I did notice that he displayed the moro reflex. (When an infant throws his arms out like he's trying to hug/grab someone if he's startled.) That should be fading by 8 weeks - which is neither here nor there at this point. If we see another vid in a month, maybe, but I'm not sure how definitive that is. Audrey?

LondonBridges said...

I haven't read every report about Tripp, so please correct me if I am wrong (gently)! My observation is that I have never read about Tripp's vital statistics: Weight & length at birth. This is pretty much newborn protocol, We did get Trig's weight, didn't we?

The Palin's learned their lesson when Trig's weight was constructively used to question his parentage and date of birth. Thus, a conscious decision was made to black out Tripp's vital stats to prevent speculation about Tripp's actual date of birth based on growth spurts in the second, or public phase, of his life.
Any other possible reason? Normally, even strangers know a newborn's vital stats.

BG said...

Okay, so based on the interview with Greta, we can conclude one of two things:

1) Bristol is not the birth mother of Trig

or

2) Trig was not born when they say

Also, Bristol's mention of Piper "making bottles" seems to indicate that Tripp is formula-fed. If this is the case, any and all speculation about Bristol looking like a nursing mother at the RNC should cease. No way would SP ever have another family member--even Bristol--nurse "her" baby. I would also wager a guess that Bristol was not pumping for Trig if she's not pumping for Tripp.

And, with all due respect, anyone who even suggests that this was a Tripp stand-in, sounds like a whack-job. Dangerous said it best:

That's what makes the entire blog seem whacky: refusal to accept evidence contrary to one's pet theory

jeanie said...

FWIW the last day of school of West High in 2008 was May 22nd. The last day of finals, that is, not just of classes. That would put Bristol at at MOST 9 weeks along (assuming 12/27 was the real birthdate and assuming that Tripp was full-term on that date). She must have only JUST discovered her pregnancy very recently at that point. And that's the last day of school!

How long was she supposedly attending West High? It's hard to believe she would switch schools with only a few weeks to go in the semester - and if she had more than a few weeks to go, then it's hard to believe she really knew she was pregnant (with Tripp) at that point!!

Either way, it's all making my head hurt!

Kathleen said...

Dangerous

According to official travel expense records Willow travelled frequently between Anchorage and Juneau in the months of March and April 2008. I think that if she had been pregnant it would have been quite obvious by that stage to any casual observer.

Kathleen PD Research

jeanie said...

Is Lorenzo even a Palin fan? Of all the pictures I've seen of her, the one on the cover of his book is the least flattering!

Craig said...

midnightcajun:

The question Bristol was asked was "When was he born". So why is it strange that she would answer with his birth date?

jeanie said...

Sorry Morgan - I'm probably reaching my limit on posts!

Dangerous said...

"The bottom line is the facts don't line up for Bristol to be the mother of both babies. Any speculation of a very early birth for Trig has to explain how they could hide him for two plus months."

Since we don't know the birthdate of Trig definitively, and with the added complication of possible heart defects, here's a theory:

Trig was born April 4th or thereabouts. This gives her a three and a half week window to get pregnant again. Unlikely, but I have a friend with kids that are 10 months apart. Tripp could then have been born - even on December 27th - at 35 weeks.

Now, even pushing the Trig date up two weeks (to the official 4/18) this would give Bristol 3 weeks, then Tripp arriving on 12/27 would be at 32 weeks. Definitely early, and higher risk - which would perhaps be why there HAVE been no photos to date. An obviously pre-mature Tripp in an incubator picture would be more damning than none at all!

Ha - I finally have a good word verification - toterm

Craig said...

Dangerous, I'm with you about following wherever the information tends to lead. Even if that may be a result that you may not like.

It's funny how some people are almost questioning "whose side you're on" when you admit that evidence of Tripp's birth and his apparent age may give Sarah's narrative some credence. That's why I smile when some people (and I emphasize the word SOME) claim that they are truthseekers but seem intent on believing their truth.

Willow seems to be the invisible child, in terms of public knowledge. But I have to believe that if rumours could fly around Wasilla about Bristol last spring/summer, surely a pregnant 12 year-old in the winter of 07-08 wouldn't have escaped the wagging tongues either.

As I've said before, Sarah is a lot of things, both good and bad, but I just don't see much hard evidence that she is a wacked-out baby switch conspirator. But if someone comes out and gives credible reason to doubt her story, I am fully open to calling her a liar and a kook.

jeanie said...

One last comment and then I'll quit!

That photo of Tripp and Trig side-by-side is presumably at or very close to the Superbowl (Trig's wearing a Steeler's sweatshirt). Tripp looks VERY young in that shot - not the four or five weeks he should have been by then. Indicating a possible preterm birth on 12/27 or else a later than 12/27 birthdate?

ComfyJeans said...

When discussing CBJ's letter, I think it's important to remember Sarah and CBJ are close friends -- not just doctor/patient. CBJ attended Sarah's baby shower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/us/politics/08baby.html

wantstoknow said...

To Doberman: I just want to say one thing in response to your post...AMEN. :)

Littl' Me said...

midnightcajun said at 10:53 AM... "The only exception is the snapshot of the smiling babe (occurs at 4-6 weeks), but how do we know that was really Tripp? The rest of the snapshots were of a very young babe."

Yes, but many (most/all?) babies have the 'gas'smiles wayyy before, and this could have been one of those moments.
I also agree with the snapshots being of a very young infant. But we did not 'really' see his face now - at least I didn't...

WhiteDog said...

I am starting to believe that SP is actually the biological mother of Trig. I also think she wanted that baby to die. I think anything less than perfect is bad in her eyes. I think she is embarrassed of him, thats why she didn't tell her family. And I think she took that wild ride with him, hoping against hope that he wouldn't make it. I think she knew she probably couldn't hide getting an abortion, so she tried to do it the old fashion way.

I think Bristol knows her mother well enough to know that Trig is not getting what he needs from his own mother, so she makes up for it, because she actually has motherly instincts. Thats why you see so much affection for Trig from her.

SP, in the interview, gave Bristols son more attention and affection than I've ever seen her show towards Trig, because in SP mind Tripp is perfect, and Trig is not.

She is disgusting

AKPetMom said...

It's taken nearly two months for us to be introduced to Tripp, thus he was successfully "hidden" for that time. Why couldn't Trig have been born in Feb or March of 2008 and "hidden" for the same amount of time?

my veri word is "strangr"

B said...

BG said...

"Okay, so based on the interview with Greta, we can conclude one of two things:
1) Bristol is not the birth mother of Trig or
2) Trig was not born when they say"

OR 3) TRIPP was not born when they said he was.

I do agree with you that the Palins didn't obtain a baby for show or to adopt. But why do you think we didn't see something of Tripp or Bristol in December or soon thereafter? Could be he wasn't born and she was still pregnant.

"Also, Bristol's mention of Piper "making bottles" seems to indicate that Tripp is formula-fed."

Bristol could be pumping, especially if she is now going to school as she said. Piper could be heating milk rather than formula. I don't think we can conclude Bristol isn't nursing now or ever before.

"And, with all due respect," as you say, it's too early to say which of us is or isn't a "whack job." I'm open to evidence contrary to my working theory, but I'm not ready yet based on last night to say Tripp was born 12/27.
I hope Audrey will comment on this.

Ennealogic said...

I have to go back to our original discoveries. There is no way Sarah was pregnant, based on photographic evidence, leading up to April 18.

Sorry. No way. Every picture of her, taken in the February through April 2008 time frame (excepting the surprise Gusty photos and one day during the Elan Frank filming) shows a not-pregnant woman. You can't be pregnant one day and not-pregnant the day before or the day after.

Whether or not Bristol birthed Trig is still a question. Whether or not Sarah birthed him is not.

Thank you to the researchers who carefully examined the CBJ letter. The things the letter does NOT say are far more curious and damning than the things it does say.

Dangerous said...

Addressing Willow evidence:

1) Iron Dog video -- only a couple of seconds on camera, not 100% positive the girl is Willow due to lack of fidelity, and wearing a big winter coat that could easily disguise a six-month pregnancy.

2) Gov's Xmas party in late 2007 -- I'm not aware of any photos from that event or any with Willow. That would be just 4-months on the offical Trig arrival schedule. A sweater could disguise a pregnancy, and I doubt anyone would be looking for one from a 13-year-old then.

3) No Willow-is-pregnant rumors -- Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. For a hide-and-fake scenario to work, you have to hide the preggo real well. Otherwise the gig is up.

Rumors regarding Bristol probably centered around her changing schools mid-year and her known relationship with Levi. These could just as false as the 'mono' rumors proved to be.

I'd like to point out one other item. If Bristol gave birth to Trig in Feb or March, the infant was VERY premature and they would have to alias him and avoid detection in the hospital for long periods, or Levi is not his dad. They didn't start as a couple until after school started in September.

I find it implausible that Levi would father a child with Bristol if she had already had a child with another man weeks earlier! And if Trig was very premature, no reasonable person could expect to successfully complete a faked pregnancy without detection. Too many people could see a Palin heading into a NICU.

To sum up:
Direct evidence re Willow is inconclusive, but could be developed. Circumstantial evidence aligns with Willow, but could be superceded by direct evidence.

Direct evidence re Bristol is nearly conclusive. Circumstantial evidence aligns against Bristol (due to calendar problems), and can only be overcome with conclusive direct evidence she is Trig's mother.

Direct evidence re Sarah is inconclusive, although it shouldn't be if she were Trig mother. Circumstantial evidence aligns against Sarah, and can only be overcome with conclusive direct evidence she is Trig's mother.

Dangerous

NJESQ said...

I believe that the baby shown in the Greta interview is not Tripp, and that Tripp does not exist.

Consider this: several weeks ago, Sarah palin gave an interview to John Ziegler in her home, with Bristol purportedly at one period of time in the othe room with Tripp. However, Ziegler never saw the baby. That itself was absurd.

Now, we are to believe that Bristol traveled with young baby Tripp to Anchorage and that she and Sarah allowed him to be seen and aired in a hotel room(!).

It seems quite likely to me that the palins identified a borrowed baby in the Anchorage area to use for this purpose, either a child of a Palin loyalist or a child of someone paid to permit the brief deception.

It is important to remember that, if we are correct in assuming the original deception, which is so outrageous, the subsequent cover-ups are not at all surprising.

northwestgal said...

Another point on Heather's comment about her working in the two coffee shops and going to school: How likely would that have been given that virtually everyone in the US with a TV set would recognize Bristol after her RNC and campaign exposure?? Bristol would have been recognized by everyone and would have to face encounter after encounter about her less than desirable circumstance of unmarried motherhood. She would likely feel humiliated. I don't think this would have looked good for SP either. So yet another reason that the "school year" was 2007-2008.

Jen said...

BG, Breast-feeding moms use bottles, too, for pumped milk. That way the mom can go to work (or school) or can get some sleep.

Jennifer

WhiteDog said...

Too add...
I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that SP banded her stomach(the reason she didn't look pregnant in a lot of photos) because she didn't want anyone to know she ever was pregnant at all. But her plans where foiled when the baby just wouldn't miscarry.

ajesquire said...

Prof. Publius,

"However, just because the letter does not amount to "sufficient evidence" to pursue a legal claim of fraud doesn't mean that the letter itself isn't actually fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive."

I agree that the letter may very well be misleading, and probably intentionally so. My point was simply in response to the suggestion in the pdf assessment of the letter which suggested that a crime or professional misconduct occurred.

The more I think about it, the way to get to the bottom of this may be a claim against Governor Palin for misappropriation of State resources to the extent the State is subsizing Trig in any way as an immediate family member of the Governor.

Perhaps a suit could seek proof that Trig does, indeed, enjoy that legal status, either by birth or by adoption.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any Democrats who have the stomach for that kind of fight.

So ultimately, if we want the truth, we have to hope for a Republican primary challenger to Sarah Palin in some election. Those folks know how to go to the mattresses.

Henry B. said...

I am in the same camp as WhiteDog. After seeing Trip and Trig and the interview with Bristol, I think SP was ashamed of the DS child she was carrying and basically "belted" herself up until the very end of the pregnancy. At that point, she let it all hang out so to speak and she appeared to go from nothing to pregnant overnight -- as seen in the Gusty interview.

So, what I think I'm seeing in the various pictures of SP is her attempt to conceal the pregnancy via scarfs and belts, not due her shame and worry with Bristol but rather due to her own sense of shame and disgust about her own DS child.

The wild ride was basically a callous maneuver with no regard to the child. I am guessing she just didn't really care about the kid and to this day seems to use him as a prop instead of treating him like her loving child.

Finally, the McCain Campaign did use a particularly bizarre way to dispel the SP rumors by announcing Bristol's pregnancy. I am thinking it was a case of trying to kill two birds with one stone and it came off as ham-handed.

omo said...

WhiteDog -- the problem with 'banding your stomach' is, if there really IS a baby in there, it has to go some-where. Which would mean down into the pelvis. The absolute lack of any discernable low abdomen bulge in the 'smoking gun' photo (among others) to me discounts this idea. When women are pregnant, the belly really starts about where a skinny bikini line lies.

Try mentally drawing a 'skinny bikini' line on Miss Sarah's tummy and see if you can make out ANY sort of baby belly growing from that point up. I sure can't.

I only showed a little bit with my pregnancies (long torso, which Sarah does not have). But the roundness low in the abdomen was definitely there.

Doberman said...

Just had to quote this gem of a comment I found on Huffington Post:

"Sarah Palin needs to STOP using her children for publicity.

Abstinence hasn't worked for three generations in that family -

The Grandmother - Summer of 1961, Chuck and Sally applied for a marriage license and wed at St. Joseph"s Roman Catholic Church in Sandpoint. Sally gave birth to a quick succession of children " "Chuck Jr. arrived on February 7, 1962." Sally had to be pregnant by May if her first born arrived on February 7, 1962 (if pregnant in June or July, the baby would have born prematurely).

Sarah Palin announced in Dayton that August 29 was her 20th anniversary. Doing the math with available records proved that she was 6 weeks pregnant when she got married- previously she had said her first pregnancy (Track) went to full term."

I add this,

Sarah says "we grow good people in our small towns" (unlike those evil people grown in big cities).

But the evidence I see is that at least in the small town of Wasilla, we grow deeply vacuous teenagers who have an unduly difficult time completing their high school educations.

Why can't Greta Von Kiss-A-SS do something productive, like say, interview a teenager who won a science fair? Ya know, something to give us hope for our future.

midnightcajun said...

Craig said, "The question Bristol was asked was "When was he born?" So why is it strange that she would answer with his birth date?"

You're right. The question was such an obvious set up by Greta, and Bristol's answer was such a blatant, badly-told lie, it stuck in my head as a red flag. The natural question would have been, "How old is he now?" That's what people talking about/looking at a baby invariably want to know; why make everyone do the math except to confirm a questionable birth date?

And while I know doubting everything makes us sound like we're straying into tinfoil territory, the truth is that any 44-yr-old woman who would stuff a pillow under her shirt and tell everyone "I'm pregnant!" is certainly capable of sneaking a couple of photos of, say, a smiling baby Piper into the mix to show the Fox crowd. I've had two babies of my own, and I can honestly say that baby Bristol was holding could easily have been just a few weeks old. Actually, my babies were more alert at a couple of weeks.

This is what we always said would happen: come late February, they'd roll out Bristol and baby, and no one would be able to say with any degree of certitude how old the infant really was.

B said...

London Bridges, I don't recall a length for Tripp. Weights were given, somehow 7 lbs 7 oz was the final one, but you are right that it was not announced officially.

lokstrafus' daughter said...

Let's synchronize what we know to be true, or at least best guesses based on certain known facts.

If Bristol gave birth on December 27, 2008 (and if Tripp was full term and on time, which we believe to be true because Chuck Heath spilled the due date, I think), she conceived on or around the end of the first week of April, 2008. The date of her last menstrual period would have been March 21-22, 2008.

That means that around April 22, 2008, she would have been expecting to get her period. By the end of the first week in May, 2008, she would have been about 2 weeks late and taking home pregnancy tests.

That time frame obviously doesn't work for her also being Trig's birth mother, IF Trig was born on April 18, 2008. But there's certainly reason not to believe that he was born then.

If Trig was born to Bristol in early February, 2008, as has been speculated, she could have been able to resume sexual relations in as short as a couple of weeks. Every woman is different, but a young, healthy and fit teenager at the peak of her reproductive life, overflowing with hormones that make her feel blissfully dopey, might get right back on that horse sooner than others. The time between this presumed Trig birthdate (2/7/08) and Tripp's conception (4/8/08) is 2 months.

Allison said...

To those who think Trig was born earlier than April:

I have gone back and forth about this myself. Sometimes it seems to fit, but ultimately it just doesn't seem plausible. We look back now and know that an earlier birth for Trig would allow Bristol to be the mother of both babies, BUT...what was the motivation AT THE TIME for lying about his date of birth? No one knew Bristol would get pregnant when she did and that they would need those dates (Trig's birth and Tripp's conception) to overlap to rule out Bristol as the mother. I just can't come up with any reason why SP would lie about Trig's due date and date of birth back then.

As far as sneaking in and out of hospitals without being seen, maybe he was born at home? That would mean total privacy, and would also explain why Dr. CBJ has never publicly stated that she attended the birth at MatSu--she DIDN'T. Trig could have been admitted to the hospital after it was discovered that he had DS and/or jaundice, and that is why we have the picture of him at Mat-Su on 4/18. Where was Bristol living at that time? If she was in Wasilla, it would make sense that if the baby needed medical attention, they would take him to the nearest hospital to be checked out.

I am still not ruling out Bristol as the mother of both babies. True that I only have experience with my one child, but when my son was 6-8 weeks old he was lifting his head, looking around, following objects and people with his eyes, smiling, reaching for things. In the GVS interview Tripp not only looked quite small, but just kind of lay there flailing his arms and looking up at Bristol. Until I see proof to the contrary, I am going to guess that Tripp is not as old as they say he is. He looks to be no more than a month old to me.

KaJo said...

I'm trying to keep an open mind about how Sarah Palin came to be a Saga. From everything I've read about her in the past 6 months, anything's possible. Her resources seem to be phenomenal.

In other words, I have NO pet theory, I'm willing to consider almost anything logical. Willow being the mother of Trig isn't logical. Sarah Palin being the mother of Trig is logical, but photographic evidence pretty much rules that out (and her behavior was "whack-job" irresponsible). Bristol being the mother of Trig is not only logical, but easily possible, but not without a great deal of help and support from her extended family.

Hmmmm, that phrase sounds familiar....

I believe the only way for the Saga to be un-whacky is to just not think about it -- sorta like the Palinistas do (which is why they're so incensed about www.palindeception).

-----------

Speaking of whacky, WhiteDog suggested Sarah Palin banded her stomach ("the reason she didn't look pregnant").

I don't think so. Girdles used to mold obese stomachs into something resembling a figure of days-gone-by. Girdles, or banding, won't re-shape a pregnant abdomen, just support it, like a sling. Where's the baby going to go, up between the mother's lungs and heart? Can you imagine the extreme shortness of breath that'd cause the mother -- like, when she hiked up to the Capitol building from the Gov. Mansion a year ago in that video?

Punkinbugg said...

Good point, B and Tully! (I have a Nov. 1985 daughter too - she graduated in 2004.)

However... Alaska is like my home state:


From the Anchorage Public Schools website FAQ:

How old does my child have to be to enter kindergarten?

A child needs to be 5 by September 1 to be enrolled in an ASD school that fall. If the family is moving into the district and the child is not yet 5, but was enrolled in a public school where they came from, then the child can be enrolled at an ASD school. If the child was enrolled in any other kind of school (private, parochial, etc.) that does not qualify them to be enrolled here and they need to meet the age criteria.

From the Mat-Su Borough (Wasilla) Public School website:

Q: How old does my child have to be to attend public school?


A: A child who turns five years of age on or before September 1, 2008, is eligible to attend Kindergarten in Mat-Su Schools.


We can assume that unless she skipped or was held back, this should have been Bristol's senior year - class of 2009.


What a sad way to end your high school days.

luna1580 said...

dangerous, it's unclear exactly how long levi and bristol have been a couple, see this 9.11.08 NYT article for an example, i've excerpted the relevant part and am pasting this from an older comment of mine:

http://tinyurl.com/d7qznl

-the NYT article also has more details about how the palin & johnston families knew each other through hockey (not well) -and it has a VERY interesting note about how well SP knew her daughter's life, around the time she could've been getting pregnant!

"Although people here say the Palins and Johnstons were not particularly close, the families became connected in part by hockey.

Adele Morgan, a longtime friend of Ms. Palin’s, said that she would ask her what was going on between Mr. Johnston and Ms. Palin’s eldest daughter, Bristol, and that Ms. Palin would say they were just friends. But people at the hockey rink said they had been dating for well over a year."


-it's possible super-evangelical-sarah didn't give 16 (15?) year old bristol permission to date at all, and the whole nature of the relationship was hidden from the parents until the pregnancy (of which baby?) made it undeniable that they were more than "just friends."

another thought about the GVS thing, bristol (and SP) should really work out a better line about wanting to be an "advocate." she needs to clarify it as "birth control advocate" or "abstinence advocate."

the way it came out in the interview sounds like it means an "advocate" for what she is now, an unwed young mother of an unplanned baby who has yet to finish high school -this is probably not something that anyone should advocate for young girls!

Half Sigma said...

It doesn't matter whether CBJ wrote the letter herself, or if someone on the Palin campaign wrote it. CBJ assents to it. All this analysis of the letter is pointless.

rmclement2001 said...

Like NJESQ, I was struck by the fact that neither Bristol nor SP referred to the baby as "Tripp." He was always "the baby." I actually thought Bristol looked frightened when SP came in with the baby, and, to me, she didn't hold him with the care & love she showed when holding Trig at the RNC. She didn't display any spontenaity when talking about him, just parroted talking points. Watching the Palins in action is like seeing the world through a heat shimmer.

wayofpeace said...

MIDNIGHTCAJUN said,

"The natural question would have been, "How old is he now?" That's what people talking about/looking at a baby invariably want to know; why make everyone do the math except to confirm a questionable birth date?"

PRECISELY. great catch.

totally scripted Q & A.

lokstrafus' daughter said...

Is Lorenzo even a Palin fan? Of all the pictures I've seen of her, the one on the cover of his book is the least flattering!

While I haven't seen the book, I'm going to take an educated guess that he had nothing to do with selecting the photographs.

This book comes out of Mary Matalin's shop, and I would wager everything I have left after being Bushwhacked that she edited it and chose every photograph herself.

Diana said...

Here is a link to the written interview with Greta and Bristol for those who want to go over the details:

http://tinyurl.com/bvvzhw:

Several photos of Bristol with Tripp:

http://tinyurl.com/9zsze9

Diana said...

BTW....there is a second interview tonight with Bristol on Greta's show tonight.

Littl' Me said...

I just thought of something:

Remember, in the interview with GVS, after SP barged in, there was mention of them *ALL* being VERY surprised about Bristols (second?) pregnancy?
Well, SP is all for *abstinence only*, but since she is that, it comes to conclude, that she might also believe that 'right after giving birth, and while nursing, you cannot become preggo again' - *THUS* the surprise by all...

(BTW: One of my former neighbors was in just that kind of predicament - she was BIG TIME into nursing all of her kids for a couple of years (she has 5), and EACH TIME she got pregnant WHILE NURSING - the last time just one month after delivering her fourth baby...)

sg said...

ajesquire:

Good post regarding the timing of the release of the CBJ letter. I've been wondering about that too. The McCain campaign releasing the letter the day before the election is evidence of bad faith or incompetence, or both. It probably did nothing to help move voters.

This 11/04/2008 NY Times article covering the release of the letter also gives some good background on the issue of the release of SP's medical info:

http://tinyurl.com/dx6ugb

Here are the key facts:

- Prior to Oct. 22, SP and the McCain campaign had stonewalled giving any medical info.

- In her interview with NBC's Brian Williams on Oct. 22, SP stated for the first time (in her quirky syntax) that she'd release the info: "If that will allow some curiosity seekers, perhaps, to have one more thing that they can either check the box off, that they can find something to criticize, perhaps, or to rest them assured over, fine." Was that an impulsive statement by SP, or a deliberate about-face by the campaign? Who knows?

- The campaign said the info would be made available within a week of Oct. 22; obviously, they missed their own deadline by another week.

So here's my speculative take:

- It seems that the McCain campaign had no intention at all of releasing SP's medical history, until late in October. How they thought they could get away with this, for this long, is beyond belief. Unless they had something to hide.

- The time for back and forth between the campaign and CBJ could have been as short as two weeks (Oct. 22 to Nov. 3); the major delay (Sept 1 to Oct 22) seems to have been driven by a strategic, top-down campaign decision.

- Still, the bottom line is that the delay in releasing the letter and its brevity gives the clear impression that the campaign was trying to hide something.

lokstrafus' daughter said...

Wasn't the reason for hiding Tripp that Bristol had sold the first photo rights to PEOPLE for $300K?

Their appearance on GVS last night shoots that deal to hell.

So what will they say was the reason (If any journalist worth his or her salt bothers to ask) for not releasing a photograph of Tripp, as Palin had done right after Trig was (allegedly) born?

Diana said...

Whooppee...My Daughter is in labor right now and should have her little girl by tomorrow morning.

At home....2 weeks early. Just like her last child. 2 weeks early...at home! Needless to say I am excited and have followed her "size" carefully.

I think we still have plenty of reasons to believe that Bristol is the mom of both Trig and Tripp.

Sarah did not have Trig. Bristol is still the only one who really fits and it is just putting any information into the correct order to understand the when and how!

sg said...

Doberman:

You said:

"Why can't Greta Von Kiss-A-SS do something productive, like say, interview a teenager who won a science fair? Ya know, something to give us hope for our future."

Answer: Ratings. GVS got huge ratings (best in a year or something, IIRC) when she first interviewed SP after the election.

(I say this regretfully: being a scientist myself, an interview of a science fair winner would be pretty cool IMHO.)

Truthseeker2 said...

In the spirit of brainstorming about the legal and ethical issues, and not having all the answers (as none of us does), I want to air a few thoughts. I am eager to hear other people's views (hopefully minus know-it-all attitudes that some seem to have -- I daresay none of us knows it all).

It is my understanding that CBJ has no legal obligation to speak publicly about the birth or the letter, and as I have posted several times before, I am sure that her lawyer is advising her to remain silent. That said, the fact that she would not confirm the birth story to ADN is a remarkable new clue that tells us a great deal, IMHO.

Regardless of the strictly legal situation, I think the issue may be a little more complicated in regard to medical ethics, and in thinking about this, there may be some potential vulnerability for CBJ.

One avenue of potential vulnerability may be that there would likely have been a violation of rules or ethics regarding the hospital itself, if indeed there was a hoax. Whether this would be discoverable, I don't know; but if there is any federal funding tied to the hospital, it may be possible. (I find myself wondering about the timing of the change in CBJ's status and whether she may have been sanctioned, but of course I don't know the answer.)

Another potential avenue is that (I believe) any certified physician in Alaska would have standing to bring a complaint before the state medical review board against CBJ, alleging that she breached medical ethics. Arguably any physician who had knowledge of such a fraud would actually be obligated to do so, or they themselves would be in violation of the medical ethics code. While this board is admittedly under SP's control as governor's appointees, my understanding is that it would still be obliged to carry out an investigation. If such an investigation required CBJ's sworn testimony or affidavit, that would place the issue into the realm of legal jeopardy if such testimony were false.

A third potential vulnerability would be for a member of AAFP to file a complaint against CBJ and request an investigation. Especially given the fact that CBJ's letter cites AAFP twice to establish her credentials, AAFP and/or its members may have a claim of harm to their reputation in this matter, especially if their Physician of the Year proves to be participating in a fraud. Or perhaps they would consider internal disciplinary action.

I am not suggesting this is per se in the category where criminal charges could be brought. However, if testimony or affidavits were required, that could move things into the legal arena. (I suspect that CBJ and SP would avoid lawsuits like the plague, as of course then they woudl be exposed to discovery.)

Aside from the legal and ethical questions, it certainly seems that there is a big problem here for CBJ either way. That is, apparently either she advised SP by phone that it was not necessary to be examined after leaking amniotic fluid and that she felt there was no problem with continuing SP's plans for the day, despite knowing that SP was pregnant with a DS fetus known to have a cardiac anomaly and known to be 5-weeks early -- or she was complicit in a fraud. Of course her reputation could be seriously damaged in either case, and in fact it is hard to see how it could escape being damaged.

wayofpeace said...

i just watched a clip of GVS on COUNTDOWN: did you notice the closeup 'LOOK' that BRISTOL had for SP? she did not look pleased.

jeanie said...

Henry B said...

"I think SP was ashamed of the DS child she was carrying and basically "belted" herself up until the very end of the pregnancy."

No offense, and maybe it is just me, but you can't really 'belt yourself up' while pregnant! It's a giant, hard, fluid-filled entity - and as I just explained to my Chemistry class, liquids and solids simply don't compress very much. Not to mention the discomfort of any sort of pressure (I lived in big sundresses when I was pregnant - but then, I wasn't in Alaska...)

Do any other mothers feel differently? Because I'm definitely basing this entirely on my own experience!

penny said...

What is it with these children and their hard-to-pin-down birthdates?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29233902/

This link has a picture of Tripp with a caption that says he was born on December 28.

I'm sure it's nothing, but when it happens over and over again, I mean...

jeanie said...

B quoted Bg saying...

"Okay, so based on the interview with Greta, we can conclude one of two things:
1) Bristol is not the birth mother of Trig or
2) Trig was not born when they say"

OR 3) TRIPP was not born when they said he was. "

Sorry to be redundant, but I'd add

4) OR Tripp was a few to several weeks premature

BG said...

to Jen--
Yeah, I know breastfed babies take bottles. I'm currently nursing my 11 month old who gets bottles at daycare. However, I would NEVER trust a 7-year old to make the bottle. Does Piper know not to shake breast milk? Does she know not to microwave it? Please. The only way a 7-year old would be able to make bottles is if it were formula, IMO.

onething said...

Well, well, I do not know what to make of this. Perhaps this is a very stupid comment - but that baby looks nothing like I would expect Bristol and Levi to produce and looks nothing like them. I know, I know, babies are funny looking and change a lot. Maybe Levi isn't the dad.

Plus, I had long ago written off that Levi really had much to do with Bristol, or had any desire to get married to her, and yet he is in some of these photos.

Would someone please tell me the point of posting the word verification?

B said...

Allison said... "We look back now and know that an earlier birth for Trig would allow Bristol to be the mother of both babies, BUT...what was the motivation AT THE TIME for lying about his date of birth?"

When Sarah decided to "be pregnant," if she had given a due date a month and a half away, she would have needed to go from no belly to "any day now" in a month. So she decided to give a due date a month later than Bristol's (or whoever's) real due date, so she would be starting the pregnancy flat-bellied at 6.5 months along rather than 7.5. Trig was then born full-term "a month early" on 4/18.

Or, if Trig was born earlier than 4/18, and premature, Sarah's motive was to wait for the end of the legislative session on 4/13 and her important speech in Texas on 4/17, and then return to Wasilla to formally end her "pregnancy" at a low-key time for state government.

So Trig's stated birth date could have been intentionally later than his actual birth date or his due date, 1)to allow Sarah time to become convincingly pregnant, or 2)to give her time to finish important state business and personal travel before going public, or 3)because Trig was born with health problems and Sarah would have seemed to be a bad mother if she was in Juneau and Texas rather than close to Trig.

So providing an alibi for Bristol was not the only reason for Sarah to announce a later birth date for Trig than his real birth day.

B said...

Diana, your news is wonderful!

LondonBridges said...

A significant thing Bristol said during yesterday's interview was if she had been able to wait 10 years, she'd have her own house. I thing she repeated this, too. I interpreted this as meaning she would have to be forcibly living with Sarah.

AKPetMom said...

Remember the old commercial with the owl?

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop...a one, a two, a three...then "crunch"

The crunch might not come for some time. We might all be witnessing "history in the making". An historical perspective might end up shedding light on the truth of Sarah Palin and all of her lies many years from now, but I personally feel that because of what is going on in our state now, with her as governor and oil prices being so low and our budget being in the toilet, that MSM, at least AK MSM is focusing on more important matters rather than the maternity of the two young Palin boys.

There are so many other "gates" that threaten to take SP down that this one probably won't be the one to do it.

I see her fading into obscurity after a failed 2010 run for either AK Gov or Lisa Murkowski's Senate seat. She does not have the support to achieve even a Repub nomination for Pres in 2012, or even in 2016.

Rest assured everyone that this woman has done herself in based on a combination of stupidity and a tangled web of lies regarding all sorts of things and not just whether she is Trig's mom or not. She exposes her own skewed truth each time she opens her mouth and only the very stupid few are on her side now. Let her go and rest in obscurity at Fox News or perhaps ESPN.

God speed Sarah Palin. I'm sick of you!

B said...

Jeanie, I'm with you. You can't use bands, belts, or girdles to look like Sarah did March 1 and deliver a 6+ pound baby mid-April.

I've heard those stories of high school students hiding pregnancies with girdles and then giving birth early or often stillborn. I haven't heard any such story about a 44 year old woman on her fifth pregnancy being able to hide for 7 months under girdles or such.

And, I don't think Sarah Palin would do that. I think she is sincerely "pro-life." Having to come to terms with a DS baby is not the same as wishing him dead. One of the reasons I believe she didn't give birth to Trig is because I don't believe she would have risked the Wild Ride if she were really pregnant with Trig.

onething said...

Dangerous,

I have to reiterate what NakedTruth said. I have never been averse to Willow being the mother. Just a couple of months ago, a 13-year-old gave birth downstairs (I work in a hospital). It does happen.

But there is little supporting evidence for her being the mother, and quite a lot for Bristol. And then too, I take certain more intuitive things into consideration rather than just relying on bare facts.

The pictorial evidence is that Bristol has a strong and effectionate bond with Trig and is his main caretaker, while Willow is largely indifferent. As I once mentioned, this could be normal if a very young mother had a child and did not really want it, and also his DS could make her more rejecting.
Neither does Willow does appear uncomfortable around Trig. She does her duty with him from time to time. I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't see any "charge" (emotional charge) coming from her in regards to Trig.

Ivyfree said...

"(I find myself wondering about the timing of the change in CBJ's status and whether she may have been sanctioned, but of course I don't know the answer.)"

Isn't something like that recorded with the county medical society? Would that be a line of pursuit?

luna1580 said...

so i just watched "part two" of "greta loves palins, the series."

maybe 8 new minutes, half of which is SP talking. the only interesting thing we learn is bristol says she will graduate high school this coming may -with her class.

and they show sleeping tripp's face a lot.

so any one with genuine knowledge of what babies look like and can do at 1 month vs. 2 months, have at it! (i know pretty much nothing about this topic.)

Ann Hedonia said...

I just watched part 2 of the interview and my jaw is still on the floor. SP calls Trig a 9 month old uncle...then she leaves the room. Greta asks Bristol how Trig, who's '6 or 7 months older" than Tripp interacts with him...Bristol then says Trig is 8 months older.

It sounds like SP just spilled the beans. If the first kid was born in mid-April he would be a bit more than 9 months older, assuming the second kid was born 12/27 (which I do not believe - unless he was premature).

Greta was going out of her way to "help" them with the ruse. Sickening. It was odd that Greta never showed any interest in holding either child, as most women do when they see a new baby. Greta seemed not too happy to be there -- just doing it for the ratings.

And that preying mantis pose by SP during the first interview....creepy.

LIARS! HYPOCRITES!!

B said...

Tripp's birth weight: 7' 3.5"
(So noone was told the right wt.?)

Current weight: 11'

Bristol will graduate with her class in May 2009

midnightcajun said...

Allison said: "We look back now and know that an earlier birth for Trig would allow Bristol to be the mother of both babies, BUT.... I just can't come up with any reason why SP would lie about Trig's due date and date of birth back then."

Allison, there are several reasonable scenarios. For instance: Trig is born several months premature in late February/early March. Sarah, who didn't even know her daughter was pregnant, is horrified at the political embarrassment and decides to fake her own pregnancy and quietly adopt the child as her own. She announces she is due in mid-May, with every intention of having the baby come a month "early" to coincide with the anticipated release of the baby from the hospital in April, at the end of the legislative session and after her important appearance in Texas.

For anyone who doubts a young girl could hide a pregnancy for seven months, a girl here in New Orleans just threw her full-term infant in the lake because she didn't want her mother to find out she'd been pregnant.

And for those who doubt Trig could have been hidden for two months, look how successfully Tripp (either his existence or lack thereof) has been hidden. And there is far more attention focused on the Palins now than there was a year ago.

Dinky P. said...

The fact that the letter arrived on the eve of the election says it all. Words on paper that have no value or truth. NO medical records just paper with the letter head of a MD! Part of the Farce. No value.

Tripp was probably born a couple of weeks ago. Old enough so people would not be able to question his real birth date.

The whole Palin family is a FARCE. A bunch of scammers. A family of no values. It is disgusting that Greta portrays this family as a role model to America. What a joke.
I don't respect Bristol and I don't think teen pregnancy should be protrayed as being realistic.

After Sarah slaming the media and bloggers for coverage of her kids this is BS. I am so tired of people being rewarded for what our country should not put value on. Teen preggo's! 2 kids at the age of 18, no high school degree, not married and living with her mom the Gov of Alaska who does not want to teach sex ed in school.

And her mom The Gov of Alaska wants to be President of this great country NO THANK YOU SARAH! We do not need your VALUES family or Ethics!!!! No WAY No HOW!!!

ajesquire said...

SG:
"- The time for back and forth between the campaign and CBJ could have been as short as two weeks (Oct. 22 to Nov. 3); the major delay (Sept 1 to Oct 22) seems to have been driven by a strategic, top-down campaign decision.

- Still, the bottom line is that the delay in releasing the letter and its brevity gives the clear impression that the campaign was trying to hide something."

I'm not sure I'd characterize the 9/1 to 10/22 delay as a top-down, strategic campaign decision, only because the campaign didn't entirely stonewall on the issue of Trig's biological mother.

I'd agree with you, if the campaign had taken a strictly "we're not going to justify those rumors with a response" position, and then were forced to scurry to do so after the Brian Williams interview.

Instead, back on 9/2 they chose to throw Bristol under the bus by announcing her teen, out-of-wedlock pregnancy to the entire world.

According to the CNN article at the time "The aide said the Palins and the McCain campaign decided to reveal the information now because of Internet rumors that Sarah Palin's 4-month-old baby, who has Down syndrome, was actually Bristol's."

So the announcement wasn't another example of Sarah "go'in mavrick".

Having decided to address the issue, I can't understand the McCain campaign's decision to go the "embarass the innocent teenager" route over the "get a letter from your OB/GYN" route. And until either the campaign, the governor, or CBJ clarify the timing, I'm not convinced that they didn't attempt to obtain a letter starting in late August.

B said...

Ann Hedonia, based on the Palin dates, Trig turns 10 months old tomorrow, 2/18, so he was still 9 months old last weekend. Tripp turns 2 months old 2/27, so he is still 1 month old. If Bristol subtracted Tripp's age from Trig's age you get 8 mos. difference.

Not as accurate as using weeks or rounding off, but still consistent with the "official" birth dates.

Postergirl said...

I feel a little sick after having watch some of the Greta interview with Bristol. As a matter of fact, I can't even watch the whole thing. Bristol I have no problem with though I don't believe for one second that her mom wasn't involved in planning the interview or had any say in it. That's a bunch of bull++++.

And that Greta wasn't expecting her? Well, it DOES appear that she was expecing the "other" grandma", as she said, but that Sarah wouldn't show up? Puleeeaase! And it was SO obvious that Sarah usurped the 'enter stage' moment for herself in order to be the one to bring Tripp in and be the first one to show him to the world.

But here is what bugs me the most, and what people like the Palins who believe in abstinence-only and preach it as if it's the only choice (yes, a choice)... and as people have mentioned here: They have the resources. They have an extended family. Bristol has relatives to support her financially, emotionally and logistially. And they keep saying how 'lucky' they are, which is entirely true. But I don't think they have ANY concept of what life is like for some young women who don't have a close-knit or at least somewhat supportive family. They just give it a moment's lip service but nothing else. There was a moment during the interview where Greta was even mentioning this (amazingly enough) to Sarah P.... about not everyone having a supportive family, resources, etc. and Sarah glosses right over that and goes on about Bristol and how great of a mom she is, how she's handling it better than probably some of her friends would. Now, I know the interview is about Bristol, but wasn't part of the point to talk about how teen pregnancy is NOT ideal? And SP just does.not.go.into.it. You know why none of the anti-choice people do? They can't. They can't put themselves into other people's shoes. Or specifically, she can't. She has no notion of anything or anyone outside of herself. So instead of actually daring to touch on the subject that not every teen who announces a pregnancy to their parents is supported, she just goes on about Bristol and how proud she is of her. Well, I bet that some naive teen girls watching that will think 'oh, well if she can have a baby, why not me? not a big deal'. SP would never dare talk about specific realities of teens who are beaten or shunned when they tell their parents they're pregnant; those whose boyfriends have left them; or how about those that have been raped? and maybe raped by a relative? She'll talk about teen pregnancy ONLY as it relates to Bristol or some other perfectly ideal situation, but I don't believe she has the empathy or intellect to conceptualize what it really, truly might be like for other teens. So, this interview, was really about SP trying to prove that she HAS to be Trig's mom since Tripp is almost 2 months and Bristol can't be Trig's mom then, and not about sending the message that teen pregnancy is wrong. I mean, when you watch that whole thing, do you really come away with the idea that teen pregnanch is wrong? No, quite the opposite.

Silou

Ginger said...

To: Njesq...I agree with you, totally, 100%!

To: Audrey...This last post is incredible. IMO your best ever!

Why hasn't anyone asked where Tripp was born? It had to be in a hospital/home or somewhere. Also, who delivered him? Did he just pop out of nowhere? The name, please, of a doctor/midwife would be nice.

Lastly, if SP's office ever releases the e-mails and calendars the press has been requesting since last Sept., maybe we'll get some answers. I've never seen such stonewalling! BTW, it's called the "Freedom of Information Act."

Remember how surprised her staff was last March when she announced her pregnancy? Well, if she had been going to the doctor every two weeks like she should of with a DS baby, they wouldn't have been so surprised.

Where are the calendars?

Craig said...

Ann Hedonia;

I'm not sure what the jaw-dropper is here. April 18th to December 27th is 8 months and 9 days. And Trig would be Tripp's uncle (from a non-conspiracy angle).

And I'm not sure how odd it is that the interviewer didn't want to hold the baby at some point during the filming (because most women want to do that??).

The Editor said...

I am fascinated by this whole web of deceit, but I live in a small town and someone always knows the truth. How come no one has verified any of these inconsistencies? Where are all the town gossips?

Shelby said...

The more I hear about the problems Trig had at birth the more convinced I am that he was born earlier than 4/18. Two things about Palin's story that never ever sounded true to me were (of course) the ridiculous wild ride with ‘leaking’ fluids, but also the fact that a premature DS baby would be accompanying Mom to work a mere 3 days after birth – a baby we find out later had a congenital heart defect and suffered from jaundice. Complete and total BS.

Trig was at work with Mom for the same reason Bristol was on TV with Tripp.

I mean what the heck was Bristol doing on national TV anyway? This girl has been invisible for the last year (except for the official 'throw her to wolves' ceremony at the RNC) and now she is giving an interview to creepy GVS to extol the joys of unwed teen motherhood?

IMO, Bristol Palin was on TV for one reason only and that was to give credence to the continuing fraud that Sarah Palin is Trig's birth mother. If there is anything apparent in this whole sad sick mess it is that Sarah Palin loves to prostitute her children to benefit her own sick ambition.

That is one truth I don't think anyone can argue with.

But the real truth is, I'm really not caring much anymore who is whose mother. The best thing would be that Sarah Palin isn’t anyone’s mother! This is one of the most dysfunctional, pathetic families I've seen in a long time. They make the Spears look like the poster family for healthy family values.

I don’t think I would despise Sarah Palin if she were the star of a reality TV show although I would still think she was a really lousy mother. But seeing her in any position of power or authority just makes me ill and quite honestly embarrasses me as an American. The fact that she could have even been considered a viable VP candidate is a horrible, sick joke. I just wish she would go away and take all her lies and deceptions with her.

sg said...

Re "Trailblazer:"

Anchorage Daily News, 2/17/2009:

"Palin staffer quick to criticize unauthorized biography"

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/693568.html

Diana said...

My daughter gave birth tonight to a 7lb 4oz little girl.

She had three hours of active labor, her water broke and 10 minutes later I am a new Grandma!

Everyone is happy, healthy and grateful! :)

sg said...

Brutal takedown of GVS-Bristol interview in Salon:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/02/18/bristol_palin/

Choice snippet:

"Bristol, sitting down with the Palin-friendly Van Susteren, did not come across as any more eloquent or incisive on matters of sex, pregnancy and new motherhood than anyone would expect of an utterly average teenager, but she did offer up an inarticulate, bumbling and nakedly honest interview about how her life has changed since the birth of her son, Tripp, two months ago."

Also:

"Fox instead couched much of the story as a cutesy-poo introduction to Tripp (who seems temporarily to have replaced Trig, Sarah Palin's night-owl infant, as the family football), whom Bristol described as both "awesome" and "very, very, very cute.""

More:

"But the whole awkward purity of Bristol's interview got wrecked once Mama Palin purportedly "surprised" the pair by entering the room holding Tripp, offering him to her daughter and asking, "You want this joy?"

"Gov. Palin opened by claiming to be "proud of [Bristol] wanting to take on an advocacy role and just let other girls know that it's not the most ideal situation but certainly you make the most of it." It was like the elder Palin had put her daughter's words through a meat grinder: What Bristol had said was that she wanted to let other girls know that they should wait 10 years, that their lives would shift beneath their feet."

As they say, read the whole thing.

lokstrafus' daughter said...

"We look back now and know that an earlier birth for Trig would allow Bristol to be the mother of both babies, BUT.... I just can't come up with any reason why SP would lie about Trig's due date and date of birth back then."

If certain facts that have been discussed here and elsewhere are, indeed, facts, I can give you a few scenarios which might make sense for why SP would lie at the time (irrespective of some future pregnancy of Bristol's).

Question about this fact: Was Bristol taken out of school winter2007/spring2008 for mononucleosis?

What's the origin of that information?

I seem to recall (but I can't remember where I learned it) that she left her high school in Wasilla, and true to SP-style, no reason was offered at the time. Only later, when tongues began wagging about Trig being Bristol's child did SP say that Bristol had transferred to a high school in Anchorage (which would seem to contradict the mono story). But that was news to the school administration in Wasilla. And I think it then it came out that she never attended the Anchorage high school.

So what's fact, and how do we know it?

NakedTruth said...

Diana,

Congratulations on your new granddaughter! Glad to hear everyone is doing great. Thanks for sharing.

O.K. saw the Bristol - GSV interview last night as well and I am more convinced than ever that Bristol has no life goals or ambitions other than just wanting to be a mom.

With that said, I can really see Bristol being emotionally distraught and devastated to find out that her baby had DS. Did you notice how she kept describing Tripp as 'perfect', 'healthy', 'a joy'. She just put too much emphasis on his health if you ask me.

I think that Bristol really feels that SP did her a huge favor by taking Trig as her own. Bristol was not emotionally stable enough to handle a special needs child so SP took over. In SP's mind she was doing what was right for Bristol and her grandbaby, Trig and nobody can ever tell her anything differently.

Remember CBJ specialized in child psychology/abuse or something like that. My belief is that Bristol was a patient. This is why CBJ participated in the deception. There is sadness about Bristol.

Like I say, I hope Bristol is now on some form of birth control. If not, she will be pregnant again soon. Bristol wants to be a mom of many. Trig and Tripp are just the beginning.

wayofpeace said...

the ENTHRALLMENT is wearing off:

Back Home in Alaska, Palin Finds Cold Comfort Scrutiny Has Been Intense Since Election / Michael Leahy / The Washington Post

JUNEAU, Alaska -- A couple of weeks before the Alaska legislature began this year's session, a bipartisan group of state senators on a retreat a few hours from here invited Gov. Sarah Palin to join them. Accompanied by a retinue of advisers, she took a seat at one end of a conference table and listened passively as Gary Stevens, the president of the Alaska Senate, a former college history professor and a low-key Republican with a reputation for congeniality, expressed delight at her presence.

Would the governor, a smiling Stevens asked, like to share some of her plans and proposals for the coming legislative session?

Palin looked around the room and paused, according to several senators present. "I feel like you guys are always trying to put me on the spot," she said finally, as the room became silent.

Gone was the self-assurance that Alaska had come to know in its young Republican governor, well before her life and career were transformed by Sen. John McCain's selection of her as his vice presidential running mate. "She looked ill at ease, more defensive than we've been accustomed to seeing her," said one legislator who was there and spoke on the condition of anonymity because he said he might need to work with Palin.

A number of factors seem to have contributed to the bumpy homecoming: a residual anger among Democrats for the attack-dog role Palin assumed in the McCain campaign, lingering resentment from Republicans for the part she may have played in McCain's defeat, and a suspicion crossing party lines that the concerns of Alaska, at a time of economic crisis, will now be secondary to her future in national politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/17/AR2009021703437.html?hpid=topnews

NewIdea said...

Here is a new premise.

SP is biological mother of Trigg. He was born early. She didn't tell anyone about birth because she wanted to give her speech at the Repub Convention in Texas, her shot at getting national attention.

Trigg was left at hospital because he was preemie, had jaundice and possibly a heart defect. SP couldn't tell anyone because to leave the baby while she traveled would ruin her image.

Bristol either found about the birth or was the one who took care of Trigg while he was in the hospital.

When SP arrived back in AK, Trigg was released from hospital care, and she announced her wild ride birth story.

This explains weird padding in last month of pregnancy, Bristol's closeness to Trigg, and why birth cert won't be released showing date of birth.

May also explain Bristol's pregnancy with Tripp. Confused, angry teen taking care of DS baby brother while Mom advances career turns to boyfriend, gets pregnant, maybe to have a baby of her own to love.

B said...

Postergirl,

Thank you for your very coherent summary of the gaps in Palin's particular anti-choice stance.

Will she take in unrelated unwed teenage pregnant girls so they can benefit from the Palin extended family? So quick to say it's not the government's job, but what about the child? To her credit, Greta tried to followup a little on this. Unsuccessfully.

I really agree with your conclusion: this was not about advocating against teen pregnancy. It was about Tripp: "He exists, he could be almost 2 months old, Bristol's says he's her first child, and Trig was born to me."
She still doth protest too much.

Since we predicted the timing of this Tripp rollout back at the end of December, I again say:

Either she wants us to believe that Bristol gave birth to Trig, or she doesn't have the facts to prove otherwise.

B said...

Diana, Enjoy your granddaughter!

B said...

Naked Truth says, "There is sadness about Bristol."

And there always has been. This, in addition to no evidence to the contrary, continues to convince me that even if Bristol is not Trig's mom, sunny Willow certainly isn't.

Ivyfree said...

"I am fascinated by this whole web of deceit, but I live in a small town and someone always knows the truth. How come no one has verified any of these inconsistencies? Where are all the town gossips?"

I believe Audrey has posted that a journalist she knows has snooped around in Wasilla, but he reported that everyone there is seriously afraid of Sarah. Not to dis all churches, but some of these fundamentalist churches really do produce wackos. And there's a lot of forest up there, yanno? There's a lot of places to dump a body. And I am not being extreme. The kind of belief system that produce clinic bombers is the kind that creates killers.

Ivyfree said...

"- Still, the bottom line is that the delay in releasing the letter and its brevity gives the clear impression that the campaign was trying to hide something."

Well, they had to do something coequal to McCain's medical history dump. He had a thousand scrambled pages (lab work mixed up with reports mixed up with other tests, etc) dumped on a table amongst reporters for a limited period of time- I think I read that somebody could have had six seconds with each page- and no copying was allowed. Anyone who's worked with medical records in any form would realize that assembling that data into any kind of order, or sense, would have been impossible in that limited period of time. I never considered voting for McCain, because I didn't think he was the best person for the job, but that convinced me that he was concealing a lot (we don't even know if the records were complete). So if they had actually released Sarah's full medical history, it would have been contrasted against McCain's own failure to be open. As well as, I believe, revealing something that she undoubtedly doesn't want revealed.

Morgan said...

NewIdea, I think that sounds very plausible. Very, very plausible.

And I agree with Dangerous that we should not be afraid to explore new ideas, or become so married to any one suspicion that we rule out any others.

And I would again urge people here to be civil and hear out others who offer differing viewpoints. I rejected a comment this morning from a reader who accused someone of being a "Palinite" simply because they advanced a theory they themselves didn't subscribe to.

Please avoid this type of commentary. It's unnecessary. I've said it before and I'll say it again. At this moment none of us know the truth, so what's the harm in exploring more than one theory?

midnightcajun said...

I sucked it up again and watched the last half of Greta Von Creepy's interview with Bristol. The queaziest part is where Greta leads Bristol on the difference in age between the two babies; Bristol ducks her head and mumbles that Trig is "eight months old." It was the most telling moment in the entire show (and a "show" it was, not really an interview!)

This little exchange was obviously a pre-arranged cue for the nanny (what? You mean to say all unmarried teenaged girls don't have nannies?) to bring on Trig. The contrast between the healthy Tripp in Bristol's arms (she kept saying that, that he was so healthy and so perfect) and his poor relative actually tugged at my heart, especially when Bristol reached out to caress his cheek in a way that struck me as apologetic. As in, "I'm sorry I can't claim you as my own, I'm sorry I had to lie about your age, I'm sorry you're not perfect and healthy, too..."

But in the end, I just got mad. Here is this family once again pulling off this huge orchestrated lie, which hundreds of millions of Americans are ignorantly swallowing. And there is Grandma Sarah going on about how proud she is because they're not expecting the government to take care of them. I guess swindling the taxpayers of Alaska out of illegal per diem payments doesn't count.

Oh, and according to Sarah, Bristol has FIVE generations helping her? Does this mean her great-great-grandmother is babysitting? Or just her great-grandmother, with baby Trig helping by sucking on Tripp's toes? No, wait; he's supposed to be the fourth generation. I'm confused...

B said...

way of peace -- good find: A legislative leader cordially asking his Governor what *some* of her plans and proposals are for the upcoming legislative session is -- putting her on the spot???

Just like an interviewer asking a US VP candidate what newspapers she reads regularly is "gotcha journalism."

On the other hand, that candidate releasing a two page health summary doesn't necessarily seem out of line. The point should be to document that there are no known health problems that could interferre with the VP duties in the next 4 years.

But CBJ just barely says that, and then focuses on Trig's birth and health. Perhaps she wanted to show that Trig's health should not be a distraction to Palin if VP. But she never said that.

Instead, the letter seems to be aimed merely at answering the Trig pregnancy rumors, without really doing so, just as the Bristol interview was, and just as Palin's frequent references to bloggers in PJs are. Whatever CBJ started out with, the final letter has Palin's fingerprints all over it.

B said...

Newidea, while I find plausible that Trig was a premie and Sarah wanted him hidden till her travel was over, I don't find plausible that she was the one who gave birth.

Did she start faking the pregnancy after she gave birth until she could claim him? I doubt he would have survived being born at less than 6 mos., and a 43-44 year old pregnant with her 5th child would have shown by then. If she was going to claim him anyway, why go to extremes to hide it?

Ennealogic said...

So happy for you, Diana! Enjoy the baby early and often... you know how fast they grow. :)

Molly said...

Bristol says the baby looks just like Levi....and I agree, he does. And, he is very cute. Maybe he was even born on 12/27 just like they said.

Maybe Trig is even SP's son. Except for those troublesome flat-tummy photos and the "keeping the pregnancy secret from my own family" thing.

I certainly can't argue that this baby Tripp is any younger than 7 weeks old--I just can't tell; perhaps he is, perhaps the Tripp announcement was all true. She does say he was 7 lbs 3.5 ounces at birth and now weighs 11 lbs, which sounds about right for a 7 weeker. I don't think we can tell by looking whether he is 11 lbs or 9 lbs, or whether he is 7 weeks or 5 weeks. We could just say it's all true, but we can still argue that Trig's bday was a lie and still be able to argue that BP is his mother, too.

The comment I found the most interesting was when BP and SP were talking about her telling her parents about the pregnancy, and Bristol emphasizing (IMO) that they were "all" surprised. Now, why, if you're a teenager having sex, would you be so surprised that you got pregnant? Was it birth control failure? Did the condom break? BP will not discuss the circumstances, so, she is not much help for other teenagers in helping to prevent pregnancy. If they used condoms and got pregnant anyway, wouldn't that be something to warn others about? What if she were on birth control pills and she was the 0.1% that it failed for? Wouldn't that be a good reason to really really be an advocate for abstinence since you just cannot trust contraceptives 100% of the time? Or, did they just not use anything, thinking maybe they were somehow immune from getting pregnant? Wouldn't that be a great argument for sex education?

Here's another interpretation, if BP is Trig's mother: everyone was "so surprised" that she got pregnant again SO SOON after Trig, because the old wive's tale states that you can't get pregnant while you're breastfeeding, or even if not, that it takes awhile for your body to get back into regular cycles again after birth. Could SOMEONE have told her that? I just....I just have trouble with the whole "we were ALL so surprised" business if it's just a routine teenage unplanned pregnancy event. What's the big surprise? Again, if it's contraceptive failure, then the best thing the girl could do as an "advocate" would be to get the word out that birth control is not 100% effective. She doesn't want to discuss it because it's truly embarrassing? Yeah, I suppose talking about what you did or did not do and wound up pregnant would be embarrassing, but it might be incredibly more embarrassing to say that she didn't think she could get pregnant again so soon..and of course that would blow the whole deception wide open.

Or, BP is not Trig's mom, but, at 17, was totally unaware that unplanned pregnancies occur. I can't believe if her mother just gave birth in April (March, whatever)to an assumably unplanned baby, that the teenage daughter would not have sometime during her mother's pregnancy wondered how it was that her mother managed to accidently get pregnant, or that her mother wouldn't have used her own unplanned pregancy as a "teaching moment" for her older daughters: see--if you're not careful this could happen to you too, so if you and Levi are doing anything you shouldn't be you better be darn careful.

I can't believe SP kept the Trig pregnancy from her own teenage children. I just do not buy that. I think the alternate explanation makes more sense; that the baby was Bristol's, and she was sent away to live with her aunt and uncle after it was found out. Typical way to deal with a teenage pregnancy "back in the day". I also don't buy that BP was working in any coffee shops or attending any high school while visibly pregnant, especially if the aunt was talking about the 2007-2008 school year.

So, what, again, was the point of this interview? BP is not any help to any other teenagers if she is not willing to say what it was that happened that caused everyone to be so surprised that she got pregnant.

So, I must assume that the interview was, once again, for Sarah's benefit.

Oh, and one more point; when GVA asked BP what it was that the media got wrong, or what upset her, there was the opportunity for her to say something like "It really hurts me and my family that the media reported that Trig was not my brother, but my son. That is NOT TRUE. Trig is NOT my son. I was at the hospital after my mom gave birth, and it is just EVIL that people keep questioning that. It's not true." Instead, she says that what really upset her is that people were saying that her mother was making her have the baby, but it was "MY choice" to have the baby, and her views don't matter, it was "MY decision" to have this baby......

So, the "Bristol is Trig's mother" story wasn't the thing that most upset you? Very interesting. Maybe she means that she's upset that her mother took credit for the choice of having a Down's syndrome baby when really it was Bristol's decision?

My brain hurts.

penny said...

Sometimes it is like a thunk on the head...I am clueless manuevering around the web! I'm trying to find and compare the photo of "Bible Spice," (moniker courtesy of AlasaDisasta commenting on Mudflats)backstage at the RNC coming up to the table where Willow and Bristol with Trig in her arms were sitting. "Bible" comes up with wipes, etc, and looks to be asking Bristol to hand over her content baby, cause it's time for her photo op. I think of her expression often, and it's kind of a FO look. I can not track down a still of the Bristol-GVS interview either, but there is a moment when Bristol is giving "Bible" the same FO look.
If anyone could compare the two for us,that would be swell!

I began hearing that sound...the sound of fun being sucked out of this blog, but now I'm able to get a chuckle out of some of our resident comentors. While I agree with you Morgan, that we should remain open to all opinions, Many of us have been here long enough to view the avalanche of evidence against SP being pregnant with Trig. So, for any of us to now adamently believe otherwise is incredible, albeit believable, because that's what happens with "Bible's" presentation of ever-more-shiny objects. Remember in the movie Bug's Life, when the bugs are warned to stay away from the bright light of the bug zapper? They drunkenly kept heading for it, "It's so beautiful!!!!!!ZAP!"

Read any of the popular, rational blogs concerning Alaskan politics, this gal is a trainwreck on so many levels! She is doing a seriosly lousy job of governing her state, yet there are still people who think she's just super-dee-duper, although most of them don't live in Alaska!

So bring it friends! This saga never ceases to entertain.

Thanks,
Penny

pearlygirl said...

(First, congrats Diane!)

I haven't seen the whole interview yet, but I do agree that it is pretty much impossible to say for sure how old Tripp is at this moment. Sarah is probably smiling at how well she muddied the waters on this one, but the truth will come out. I have no doubt and I'll wait as long as it takes. Probably it will only be until she runs for office again when her opponents will be looking for dirt.

However, don't you find it interesting that she spent the last few months loudly protesting to everyone the media not giving her family privacy and that kids especially were "off limits" Yet now here she is trotting out Bristol in a national interview. She's only did it to try to throw people off. It's all about her. Bristol is only in the spotlight because Sarah put her there. Does anyone think that Bristol came up with being an advocate on her own because she has so much free time with a new baby (babies?)Even if by some stretch she did, why should any media outlet care about someone who has actually done virtually nothing with her life? There are plenty of teen mothers who could speak out just as well or better. Saying that abstinence is desirable but kind of unrealistic was the most truthful thing that she said.

Also this whole not knowing for sure that she could embrace a DS child, is a load of BS coming from such and extreme pro-lifer. Funny how she never mentioned any doubts before the election. It was always "I chose life" despite knowing about the DS.

Something that I really hate is how much she stresses what a special blessing he is and how he has taught her more than she could teach him. That whole "special" kind of love that only comes from a special needs child. I used to work in Social Services and as much as parents often (but not always) learn to adjust to a child with special needs and sometimes do grow emotionally and spiritually from the challenge, every one of them would give up all this "Special blessing" in a heartbeat if their child could be cured or not have had it at all.
Just a pet peeve with all do apologies to my fellow blogers on this website who do have special needs children. It is not easy--nor is it all "rosy"--as Sarah would like us to believe.

Dee said...

I don't know who Trig's birth mother is, but I can say for certain it isn't Sara Palin. There is ample photograpic evidence that both shows she clearly was not pregnant or appeared more pregnant one day and less the next. She also never moved with the physiology of a pregnant women. It is surprising, in fact, that a women who had experienced four full term pregnancy's would be so bad at faking being pregnant. It's been 15 years since I was pregnant and I can still easily snap into the physicality of what it felt like. I was in great shape, walking 3 miles a day, but I walked with my weight well back in my heals to balance on my big belly and by the 7th month waddled a bit because of my loosened hips even though I could still go at a good clip. When I sat, I slowly carefully eased myself into a chair, leaning backward with my legs spread because with my huge belly there was no other way to sit. Getting up, required effort and I used my right arm to lever myself out, and in fact I had a sore wrist for my last two months of pregnancy. Sara never walked like a thin women who was suddenly carring a lot more weight out in front of her. The only women who may not walk differently are those who are already so large that the pregnancy gain is a fairly small percentage of their weight. But even my cousin who is 5 foot 3 and weighed 250 before getting pregnant was walking like a preganant women by the end and honestly you couldn't tell that she was preganant otherwise because she was already a big girl.

I think the danger of insisting that Bristol is the only possible mother of Trig is that many people are going to believe that Tripp proves she can't be and that means Sara must be the mother of Trig. After watching the interview, I have no idea if Tripp is 2 weeks old closer to 8 weeks. Baby's vary alot in size and awareness levels at that age. I did note that he was as a normal fussy baby, rather than the abnormally ever-placid Trig. I also though that Sara really liked him and showed a great deal of affection to him in clear contrast to her behavior with Trig. I also thought it odd that when Bristol was asked about her baby rearing skills she sited babysitting jobs rather then just saying the obviouse, she had a lot of practice helping to care for her new baby brother. It was also odd how she kept fixuating on waiting 10 years to have a baby, when it is very common for women to get married and have kids when they are just a few years older then her - especially among the Christian Conservatives groups who honor being a wife and mother rather then pursuing a career. I also noted that both Bristol and Sara referred to this as something that had "happened" to Bristol rather than the predictable consequence of choosing to engage in unprotected sex. Bristol seems like a prime candidate to engage in unprotected sex two or three weeks after delievery, and be under the mistaken assumption that she couldn't possible get pregnant again so soon. In fact a women can ovulate two weeks after giving birth and conceive again without even getting her first period.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 709   Newer› Newest»