Every time somebody is adopted there is a new BC created by the HDOH - made to look as if it was that way from the time of the child’s birth - and anybody who looks at the paper BC in the book may be able to tell that it is a new document. There has to be a way to put papers in and out of the books in the case of adoptions, and that same way would be available for this kind of thing.
The BC’s cannot be numbered by BOTH time of birth and alphabetical order. Are you calling Okubo and Verna Lee both liars? If so, on the basis of what evidence?
The point still remains: Onaka wouldn’t verify claims that he admitted were on the BC in question. Either that BC is non-valid, or Onaka violated the law. What evidence do we have that Onaka violated the law?
(Keep in mind that we DO have evidence that somebody in the other part of the office broke the law by falsifying the 1960-64 index so that it included non-valid (and sealed, even!) records).
“Are you calling Okubo and Verna Lee both liars? If so, on the basis of what evidence?”
Both Okubo and Lee cannot be right. Or can they? Okubo was not at the DOH in the 1960’s so maybe her version is what she remembers from the time she first came to work at the DOH in 80s? 90s? As the system became more automated and computerized, did they change the way numbers were assigned?
Ms Lee was there in the 1960s but we have not heard the recorded phone call with her so we cannot say what she specifically remembers or said.
At the least the BC numbers do appear to have been collected and separated into regions (Ms. Lee according to Zullo) and then stamped with a certification number (were they also alphabetized?).
The first issue is how were numbers assigned at the beginning of the year (was the first certificate # issued in 1960 - 151 61 00001?). From there one can calculate the numbers that would have been assigned in August, 1961 (based on number of births in August).
Maybe Dr. Onaka could tells us.