Replies

What did she do next? My own hypothesis is that she proceeded within a day or so to Honolulu because she, and/or her mother, intended to make a birth filing in Hawaii. And we find a filing on August 8 If her mother did the filing, she and Barry did not need to be there. The necessary information, like the sex of the baby, could have been phoned from anywhere, or telegraphed, that being somewhat more common for international communications in the pre geosyncrhonous communications satellite days. Heck that was only a year after the first Echo was launched and a year before Telstar 1. That's not to say there weren't telephone cables to Hawaii, there were, but some other places had a bit more "rough" communications arrangements in '61.

That's all true. But I don't think that is what they did.

The urgency of her effort to get back to Hawaii, in my view, suggests that she had a mission with respect to the child. Had I been a lawyer attempting to set up a record of US birth here, I would have done it. But doing so would have required the presence of the kid in Hawaii because a fake "true birth" filing would have required the footprint.

My guess is that Stanley Ann or her mother or maybe someone else was setting that up.

It could have been the other way--one reason I don't think so is that if they were prepared to do only an information filing, they would have done that on August 4. Fact that they waited until the 8th, after other births that were filed earlier suggests to me that they were waiting to be able to set up the facts for a proper filing.

And the story about the woman who was the Hawaii Health Department employee who first heard about the issue when he was running for the Senate in Illinois and who then looked at the file suggests that is what they were really up to--and they muffed it. The filing actually makes it clear he was born in Mombasa.

The urgency of her effort to get back to Hawaii, in my view, suggests that she had a mission with respect to the child.

That's called assuming your conclusion.

Hawaii because a fake "true birth" filing would have required the footprint.

Source? Hospitals often record footprints for ID within the hospital, but nothing that goes to the state has a footprint on it. It probably should, for a more positive ID in later years, but AFAIK, it doesn't.

It could have been the other way--one reason I don't think so is that if they were prepared to do only an information filing, they would have done that on August 4.

August 4th was a Saturday. There'd have been no one to "accept" the filing that day. The 6th, Monday would have been the earliest it could be submitted. and it might have been submitted then and processed differently, taking longer, than one that had already been checked by a local/hospital registar, or it just took a couple of days. The Nordke twins BCs show the same day for both Local registrar and Registrar General, but a '63 one from the Army Tripler hospital shows a 4 day difference. (Although that could reflect on the Army not necessarily the Registrar general)