That is based on the U of W academic record and subsequent events. I have long been a proponent of the argument that the U of W record is credible and accurate. I have intimate familiarity with the UW transcript and academic record system, particularly for the 61-62 academic period. The security system is extensive and sound--it is difficult for me to conceive of how the records might have been penetrated.
Nonetheless, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that my original view may be in error.
In the first place, the computer generated report is not the original document--I believe those documents were generated long after the fact from the original entry documents. WND posts a copy of the actual original entry document here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106018
When a student entered the regular University, a document like this one was generated. The original is on two hole punched paper and it is inserted in a pin ledger binder. The system is designed so that the original is never removed.
The academic record is to be hand inserted (written) on the face of the original document from quarter to quarter. When a certified transcript or a copy transcript such as the one depicted by WND is required, a copy system is in place to photocopy the entry area on the original and a certificate is stamped on the face of the copy.
I do not know whether a similar document is generated for the Night and Extension College--I believe not.
So what is the problem with this document?
I have never seen a transcript with a typewritten academic record--I have seen many of these documents for the period in question and I do not recall ever having seen a single one that was typewritten as this one is. I have seen the history section (night school grades; transferred trades from other schools; etc.) typewritten but I have never seen the U of W record typed. Which I believe was a requirement of the system.
Because they didn't want to take the security risk of removing the transcript to enter current data.
Further, the original problem I had with Mr. Corsi--Stanley's entry date. The computer generated entry shows she registered for night school on August (8) 19, 1961. That was not possible.
August 19, 1961 was a Saturday. On Friday, August 18, Summer quarter finals week ended; the school locked down at the close of business on Friday August 18 for summer break for the employees and staff. It did not reopen until after Labor Day.
Not only did Stanley not register or start class on August 19, September 19 was a reasonable date to have expected her to have registered for Night School for Summer quarter.
I assumed the error was simply a typo by the person who made the entry in to the computer record system who misread the September month number (9) as an 8 for August. In fact, the number is on the fold and on the line in the form and so could have well been misread to have seen the bottom loop of the 9 closed to be an 8.
"Not so" said the University in a subsequent letter to Corsi--"the 8 is correct". The clerk who wrote the letter did not look at the calendar.
However looking at the original entry transcript, even at the Corsi WND copy, it now seems likely that the 8 was on the original. So that requires you to believe that when this document was prepared in March of 1962, the clerk who typed it, having been on a school shutdown vacation on Saturday (a day when registration and Administration were not open) August 19, nonetheless typed a registration as having occurred on that date.
Maybe a typo? Possibly. In the context of the other issues, maybe not.
The Capital Hill address is typed on the transcript.
Stanley never used the name "Anna". [As reflected by the Polk Directory.]
In 1961, the U of W temporary housing students lived in the University District and in the area North and West of the district in Laurlehurst. Access from Capital Hill was inconvenient. And the University had child care for students in class.
On the other hand, the area on Capital Hill where Anna lived was intensely occupied by students--at Seattle University on the side of the Hill.
Based on other facts which have come to our attention, we do not believe Stanley was living on Capital Hill in the 61-62 academic year.
We believe Mary Toutonghi is probably a conspirator. We do not believe she was telling the truth.
We further think that the Anna who did live on the Hill in the Toutonghi apartment was either born a Toutonghi or had been married to a Toutonghi.
Thus the address on the transcript requires you to believe either that Stanley and Anna lived together on Capital Hill which, although there is no evidence that happened is possible, or to conclude that Stanley was not living on the Hill.
If you pick the second alternative, you need to view the original transcript as having been modified for some reason.
At this point, I don't think Stanley was on Capital Hill; I think it is also unlikely that she attended the University of Washington in the 61 Academic year although I have no explanation for the inconsistencies in her subsequent record (the University of Hawaii) that would result from this conclusion.
“At this point, I don’t think Stanley was on Capital Hill; I think it is also unlikely that she attended the University of Washington in the 61 Academic year although I have no explanation for the inconsistencies in her subsequent record (the University of Hawaii) that would result from this conclusion.”
The U of Hawaii transcript is actually consistent with the U of Washington transcript and the Polk directory. It is your theory which creates inconsistency when none is justified by any documentation of an alternate Anna or an alternate mom for Barry that I have seen. If folks are withholding such documentation, why is that and what are they waiting for while Barry destroys the country?
How do you (and the mysterious “we” you refer to) personally know what names a girl named “Stanley Ann” might have experimented with at age 18-19??
I know lots of folks who used multiple names at that age and older, some for very short, unpredictable periods of time. This fact of human behavior refutes the “she never used Anna” declarations which attempt to claim that the Polk directory couldn’t have referred to SADO because SADO “never” used “Anna.”