Therein lies the trap IMO. The assumption that a birth record of dubious Kenyan origin must somehow automatically suggest that Stanley Ann gave birth in that country...leading to research into airline schedules...when all that may be indicated is a document was produced for a purpose, probably in 1964.
What purpose? To obtain custody. Divorce was applied for in January 1964. The ‘kenyan bc’ is dated 17th February 1964.
The connection between ‘The Articled Law Clerks Society of Victoria’ - E F Lavender - Melbourne University Law Review and Harvard Law Review...
What might that suggest to you?
What does it suggest? IIRC the Melbourne organization patterned their review after that of Harvard’s Law Review. BO was head of the Harvard Law Review many years later. E.F. Lavender was the clerk who signed the Kenyan BC. He is affiliated with the Melbourne Review? I can’t figure it out. What with 9000 plus posts, I could have, probably did miss something, but maybe not. At any rate, would appreciate an explanation.
Out on a really strange limb here:
Just a hypothetical — suppose Stanley Ann needs a certified BC to gain full custody from Hawaii courts in 1964. She doesn’t have one and there was no official one filed wherever the kid was born. So she — or her parents — get in touch with someone who can help.
We need to be looking at connections between the Dunhams and their friends/family working in Australian vital records in 1964.
The B.C. Orly has may well have been manufactured in Australia in 1964.
What might that suggest to you?
I will have to do further research on that aspect. In the meantime I tried to identify the original E.F. Lavender. I used Ancestry.com . Now it is pretty much hit and miss without a first name. On Genes Reunited, another subscription based site, I see somebody searching an Elijah Lavender of Victoria, Australia, born 1885. Now when E.F. Lavender offered his services for the "War Census" as a law clerk,(Australian newspaper 1915), he would have been born well before the turn of the last century. In 1961, he could just about have been still active in employment. Unlikely though.
I would presume the G.F. Lavender on the Bomford birth certificate, would be another Lavender. Certainly in the line of bureaucratic employment. Then there is the question of the usual and known mistakes in transcribing things, which I well know. It is a minefield, but to use an old country saying:
Press on regardless. (chuckle).