More's the pity, neither did anyone else.
The biggest weakness in your theory is the, ‘This can only mean one thing,’ fallacy. For example, you point to Stanley Ann’s senior photo and claim, because no other faces are fully visible/recognizable, that it cannot be her actual photo from the Mercer Island HS yearbook. This is invalid reasoning at best.
Here is a possible explanation for that image. The students whose photos bordered SA’s were contacted and asked if they minded having their pictures posted online. *At least* one person objected, and the image was cropped accordingly.
Here is an even likelier scenario. Whoever wanted to post SA’s senior yearbook photo didn’t want to bother contacting anyone. They also didn’t want to deal with anyone who might object to having their picture posted online. So they cropped the photo accordingly.
You don’t have to have to agree to either of these scenarios. [The second seems blindingly obvious to me, but I know you’ll reject it out of hand.] However, the mere fact that either could be true invalidates your explanation.
Iow, you can’t prove that your theory of the photo is the only possible explanation. As long as there are other reasonable—if not overwhelmingly likely—explanations, yours proves nothing.
Same with Toutonghi. The most likely explanation is a flaky memory. Given the time lapse, that’s the overwhelmingly odds on favorite reason her memory is imprecise.
Making such a huge deal out of Toutonghi’s inconsistencies goes back to the, ‘This can only mean one thing,’ pitfall. As long as another perfectly reasonable explanation exists, your theory is simply inconclusive.
A further thought on Dreams. If a book is cover-to-cover lies, you can’t just pluck one item from it and pontificate, ‘This ‘fact,’ is true, because it plays into my theory.’
When a book contains as many lies as Dreams, you need independent confirmation if you want to state absolutely that some part of it is true. There is zero evidence that Stanley Ann temporarily lived in Chicago or ever worked as an au pair. Zero. The book didn’t even get the year of the film right—because it was nothing more than another in an endless string of lies.
What probably happened was that Bill Ayers saw Black Orpheus and wanted to work a mention of it into the book. Since it’s almost impossible to prove a negative (i.e: that Stanley Ann wasn’t in Chicago) he saw no reason not to indulge himself. It’s the kind of movie he would like.
The overwhelming pattern of Dreams is lies. If you want to build a theory on a ‘fact,’ contained in that fictional account, you need outside proof. There’s not the slightest trace of evidence that Stanley Ann went separate ways from her parents prior to very early in ‘61. To say, ‘I know it’s true because Dreams says so,’ is more like a punchline than a proof.