“Yes, I agree that Woods memo might be a forgery.”
I see no evidence of forgery of the Wood memo at all for the following reasons:
The Wood memo written on 8/31/61 (FOIA page 34) is based entirely on CLAIMS made by serial liar BHO Sr. and is 100% consistent with what is in Sr.’s best interest to have told Wood regardless of what is true thus earning him the extension he was granted THAT DAY including:
1. saying Barry was born in Honolulu on 8/4 and is a US citizen
2. saying he is married to Stanley Ann and “they” intend to “return to Kenya” (return?... Is this a tell?)
If Barry had been born in Kenya, Senior, SADO and her parents would all realize that reporting Barry to have been born in Honolulu would gain Barry invaluable US citizenship in addition to Kenyan citizenship. BHO Sr. has ALWAYS tried to have things both ways if possible at all times (sound familiar for Barry?).
The U of Hawaii approved the extension 8/31 (page 37) probably right before the Wood interview with Sr. and INS granted approval 8/31 but only AFTER William Wood “questioned closely” BHO Sr. on that date.
The “close” questioning on 8/31 was recommended on 4/12 in a memo on FOIA page 39 after U of HI reported suspected polygamy or bigamy and Senior’s claim that he had “divorced” Kezia verbally.
INS and U of H officials had no way of knowing that the marriage to Kezia was not Muslim and was governed by UK Kenya Colony Marriage Act of 1902 which does not recognize this Muslim type of verbal divorce, as far as I can tell
THE MEMO SAYS ‘AFTER THAT TO RETURN TO KENYA’
Which refers to the kenyan student. There is no ‘THEY’ in that Memo in that context. The THEY is in the next sentence and refers to the child they supposedly have in common.
The acid test for the authenticity of lack thereof of the Wood memo would be to compare the handwriting on it to the handwriting on (ideally) at least a dozen other documents known to have been written and/or signed by Mr. Wood.