Laura Novak
  • Welcome
  • About
  • NYTs
  • Scribd
  • Murder
  • Clarity
  • Contact

A Cautionary Tale

6/24/2011

 
Picture
A reader recently sent me the link to one of the 24,000 emails released by the State of Alaska.  This particular email struck us both as a little odd and worthy of a bit of investigation. Fortunately, or not, the writer’s electronic and street addresses were visible, as was the family’s phone number.

As is clear from the body of the email, the writer was a 14-year-old boy who expressed his enthusiasm for the governor, her policies, presidential potential, and pregnancy. The body of the email is, as follows:

MESSAGE:

I put down "Mr." as the prefix of my name, even though I'm fourteen years old. Nevermind that. This night, I heard from my parents that when you gave birth in Wasilla to your third son, you delivered on Monday, and on Tuesday you were back in the office. I recognize that as a major sign of ultimate integrity. Which makes me want to say, "YOU ROCK!" And so I think you ought to run for president. I think that you would do a great job at stopping inflation, and even reversing it, and get our American Dollar back its
value. I think that you will help get our slowing economy back on its feet and running again. SO. That's what I think.  Sincerely,

I’ve pasted the body of the email here, rather than upload the PDF for reasons that will become apparent.  But first, a bit of dissection and sleuthing.

What struck me, and my reader, as odd was the mention of three sons. Palin supposedly was pregnant with her second boy, although I was quick to note that she did have three daughters. Perhaps that was an innocent slip-up.

Second, the date. March 6th was obviously early enough to make me question who might know something about the governor’s pregnancy. Did this family know something others might not? We know from my interviews with Doc, the neonatologist, that the baby presented as Trig on April 18th was, in fact, most likely much older than a 12-hour-old newborn. So, was there a suggestion here that the baby was born before March 6th?

(Lord knows, as Gryphen recently pointed out, in this fabulously brilliant post, a lot of inexplicable things happened early in Palin’s pregnancy world.) 


But a quick Google search shows that the Anchorage Daily News printed their online report of the governor’s newly announced pregnancy at 12:01am on March 6th.  It might figure, then, that the boy’s parents discussed this news, perhaps at the dinner table. Mention might have been made that Mrs. Palin gave birth to her third daughter on a Monday and brought her to work on Tuesday, as is reported in that Daily News article. The boy then, in his laudable enthusiasm, posted his email to the governor later that night.

But before I could sort out these details, I had emailed the boy’s address, and phoned the family at home.

His mother, rightly so, replied to me, seemingly horrified that I had somehow accessed their email. She wanted to know how I “got it” and was prepared to report me to their Internet Service Provider for offensive action.

That is, until I explained what she didn’t seem to already know:  That the State of Alaska, her State of Alaska, had released her teenage son’s email to the entire world. That a series of lawyers for both Mrs. Palin, and the State, had deemed it fit, kosher, okay, and downright grizzly, to have a minor’s email address, home address and telephone number available to any well-meaning reporter, nutty nut job, or astute reader, who took the time to sift through the morass.

In my response, I assured the mother that I didn’t “get” anything on her. That this email was now in the public domain, easily searchable and available to anyone - and that her government saw fit to do that to her, her son, and her family.

Meantime, some of the boy’s comments bore further inquiry:  Was her son confused about some of the details, or was there anything she might shed light on? Was there a birth in March? Or was he referencing Piper’s birth years before? I would be happy to read another email from her if she could tell me more.

The mom had no intention of discussing the Palins with me, she said. I was told not to contact the son – which, let me be very clear, was never my intention. His email address was merely a conduit and it was a relief when the mother replied. In fact, I would have asked to speak to a parent had he written himself, even though he is now presumably 17 years old.

But the mom’s final words to me were these:  If I were truly a journalist, I would work on stories, not rumor mongering.

So, allow me, in the spirit of Sarah Palin, to have the final word.  Journalists don’t have to “monger” in order to chase rumors. They don’t wallow in mud when pursuing leads. They can be commended for trying to find clarity in a story that simply does not add up, no matter whose side you’re on, no matter which version of events you chose to believe.

If I really, really, wanted to muck about in the mud, I’d print the PDF of the email and remind the mom that Palin, Parnell, and their collective attorneys didn’t give a shit about her son’s privacy.

But in place of redacting sentences here and there, I chose instead to print the body of the boy’s message, as low tech as that might seem.

And for what it’s worth, here’s what I would have said to me, had I been this mother:  “Please don’t print my son’s personal information. He’s just a kid and doesn’t deserve it. In fact, I am horrified and saddened that my own State government has chosen to do that. I vaguely recall discussing the newspaper story with my son and, in his enthusiasm, he wrote to the governor that night, simply confusing the idea that she had three sons instead of daughters. There’s really nothing more to it than that.”

But instead, the mom told me she had no intention of discussing anything regarding an email from 2008 with me. Sarah Palin held no interest for her. The mom’s further suggestion, in fact, was that I find topics of interest “that may be of more importance than a private family matter.” To follow any leads meant I was a rumor mongerer, lower than life, badder than bad. At least that’s my take-away. In other words, shoot the messenger, but preserve the peace where Palin is concerned. At all times, at all costs.

So here’s my question:  Is there anything at all connected to Sarah Palin that is above board, mature, clear-cut, and without question. Anything? At all? Just name it, because there seems to be no action, no event, no story or announcement that is not questionably strange or oddly framed. A private family matter? I don’t think so. I’d say this is a very public debacle. What do you think?

(H/T Big Fan. Thank you!)

lilly lily
6/24/2011 06:41:01 am

I just returned from Shailey Tripps site. Interesting background on who reported her evening activity and the convoluted inter-relationships of the present owner and former owner. The man who reported her is not the owner of the building, but was in the past. He also was friendly with Brad Hanson, Sarah Palins old flame which was reported in the tabloids.

Ms. Tripp mentions she was careful never to throw her trash in the buildings dumpster, but took it home or threw it away in McDonalds.

So she knew people would be examining her trash, and was careful, though she found a used condom and underwear around.

The owner told her they would go through her premesis, and they did so often.

There are many possible leads in this convoluted saga. And so many that are buried and hidden on purpose.

It will take an army of bloggers to nail her down since so many people in that area are involved in her coverups.

Like Bailey they know a great deal, but keep up the facade.

lilly lily
6/24/2011 06:51:04 am

In essense, since Sarah Palin is not forthcoming in any way, we bloggers are going through her trash, just as the people who reported Shailey Tripp and complained seemed to have gone through her business offices and through her trash.

Sarah Palin is a proven liar and as shady as a politician can be.

In the matter of Trig, she has had every opportunity to clear the air.

She hasn't, and apparently, never will.

Ennealogic link
6/24/2011 06:55:31 am

Giving birth one day and going back to work the next is a "major sign of ultimate integrity..."

Out of the mouth of a 14 yr-old boy no less. His parents must have been supporters - I wonder how they really feel now?

Hope you gave them your blog address, Laura. Maybe they will appreciate the way you protected their privacy and spend some time ruminating on why the State of AK didn't.

K.M.R
6/24/2011 06:58:34 am

Laura, You asked what we thought of this mess that begins and ends with Sarah Palin.
Some of my thoughts, for there are too many to mention all at once, are that SHE made a family matter into a public one by throwing a lie upon another lie, upon another lie, ETC., ETC., ETC., ETC., ETC., ETC., until the story became so convoluted that even her children have been severely harmed.

I bet she can't keep it straight.

I'd also like to say that the state of Alaska should be held accountable for releasing the boys name and email address. In fact they should be held accountable for the lies of Sarah Palin. They are accomplices.

I could say more but I'm worn out from all things Palin - for at least awhile.

Oh, and one more thing. I also think you should be congratulated for trying to find the truth in this sordid state of affairs.

Ted Powell
6/24/2011 07:01:33 am

"...he is now presumably 17-years-old."
Please note: Someone who is 17 years old (no hyphens) is a 17-year-old (no "s").

jeff
6/24/2011 07:05:26 am


Laura, we're just a bunch of Rumor Mongrels, Mongerers, or whatever. Don't be askin no question, now.

Yeah, that was strange about what the state considered to be protected private information and what could be released to the public.

Like when Todd sent the Chuck's phone number to Sharon Leighow as a source for baby pics on the date of "Trig's birth" in e-mail #1124 (copy below).

Maybe Chuck has one of the former half-term gov there just "popping Trig out". I guess we coulda ended this mystery long ago.

Of course, Todd omitted the 907 area code, so that would've been impossible to figure out.

----------------------------------------

Unknown
From: fek9wnr@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 5:51 PM
To: Leighow; Sharon W (GOV)
Subject: Re: pictures
Chuck 376-5790 may have a copuple

------Original Message------
From: Sharon Leieighow
To: Todd Palin
Sent: Apr 18, 2008 5:47 PM
Subject: pictures
Todd-
The Daily News wants to know if the family would share any baby pictures. I said I doubt it but I
would ask. Thanks
i ROSTON 02028
Released to msnbc.com by the state of Alaska and presented by Crivella West

Viola
6/24/2011 07:11:45 am

You ask what I think of this Palin mess? Well today it reminds me of Whitey Bulger, the murderer from South Boston who was just captured in Santa Monica. From interviews, it seems Irish South Boston is another world. The more people talked about it, the more it reminded me of SP's Alaska. Everyone knew Whitey. Everyone feared him. He had been an FBI informant, and yet killed people. Many believed the FBI let him get away. Bulger's brother was a major MA politician and refused always to answer any questions about his brother.

Ignorance, poverty, isolationism, religion, and power-mad thugs. Maybe even crime and mafia connections. Innocent people dragged under the bus daily. That's the Sarah Palin story, and it's the hornets' nest McCain unleashed on the rest of us.

Ennealogic link
6/24/2011 07:22:01 am

@Shamrock123

I guess I can only speak for myself, but I don't have hatred for any politician.

Maybe you can tell us the common sense in Sarah P -not- putting the fake pregnancy story to rest, long before now. I know I would have. Is clearing the air something a "mental case" would do or not?

:)

Jk
6/24/2011 07:39:58 am

That moms damned LUCKY you were the journalist who called her. You treated her with respect. Furthermore, she should be angry, not at you, but at Parnell's henchman who blacked out thousand's of bits of information (including contact info of numerous people) but thought it was fine to not blackout the info of minor. Typical. I'm sure they let it slide becaus the kid was a fan.

Rationalist
6/24/2011 07:51:09 am

This is going to be Exhibit CLVXXXVII in the Evidence Against Evil Liberals. How dare you harass a young Palin fan in this manner? Just watch - it's going to go viral.

Laura Novak link
6/24/2011 07:59:28 am

Ted, thanks for catching that. The brain knows, but doesn't always self-correct.

Jk, thanks for that. In fact, I was surprised that I was the first to contact them.

Jeff, I like that: Mongrels. Does that make us Mongrelers?

And Shamrock, if you know more, tell us more. I have always, always been open to hearing someone say: This is exactly what happened and this is how I know. And this is why the ADN started to work on a story but stopped because they couldn't prove it, but will only publicly say they "know", but won't and can't prove how they know. If that's not enough to induce madness, or at least strong skepticism, then I don't know what is.

But I don't hear about brawls from that neck of the woods. And I don't ever, EVER, hear that Sarah gave birth to Trig. I just can't print much of what I do hear. At least not yet.

If you can disabuse us, and provide proof, PLEASE do so. Thanks for joining us.

too shy,shy
6/24/2011 07:59:53 am

i also saw an email dated around the 6th of march from someone to mr halfgov congratulating him on the new baby in the family. i just did a search for 'baby' on the c west site. i thought it was odd because she didn't mention an impending arrival...i'll see if i can find it again...here is the link: http://www.crivellawest.net/palinAll/pdf/920.pdf

Rationalist
6/24/2011 08:09:43 am

By the way, Laura, this is an excellent post. I appreciate you taking us behind the scenes as you try to report this story.

curiouser
6/24/2011 08:54:32 am

Laura - At least one of the local tv channels reported on the pregnancy announcement in their March 5 nightly news broadcast (starting at 3:48 in the video). The stock video of Sarah that they chose to run during the report is quite interesting and, unfortunately, hasn't been dated. Check out the shot at 4:13.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UAfBo1gNj8

Bobcat Logic
6/24/2011 09:31:06 am

March 6th is the dateline for most of the news stories on the Palin "pregnancy" announcement -- first made on March 5th (the day after it became apparent that McCain had won the nomination).

I can see how a 14-year-old kid might have heard the story wrong, but a young boy writing such an email is a bit weird in the first place.

How did he know the baby was a boy? (But then he got it wrong about the 3rd boy.) Or about Sarah "working" the next day?

He may just have been very confused or perhaps saw a news clip showing her at work in her office after the pregnancy announcement and assumed she had just given birth.

Ivyfree
6/24/2011 09:47:24 am

And the answer is No. There is NOTHING in her life that is clear, straightforward and aboveboard. Nothing.

At first it was odd... she'd say something and a blogger would say Hey! That conflicts with THIS! And it kept happening over and over and now, when she says something, we start out looking for the lie. It's kind of funny, in a pathological sort of way.

I wouldn't believe Sarah Palin if she said the sun rises in the east- I'd haul ass outside and check. I sure don't believe anything she says about pregnancy, birth, Bristol, Trig and Tripp and Tralala.

These are some real sick cookies they've got up in Alaska.

Rationalist
6/24/2011 10:01:02 am

Shamrock - thank you so much for staying and braving all us pseudonymed hotheads to attempt to clarify the story. You remind us all that that there are real people attached to a story that for many of us has become, among many other things, a long-running soap opera.

Have you read this post?

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2010/01/track-palin-and-curtis-menard-jr-new.html

I'm so sorry the Menards have been dragged into this story, but frankly it's Sarah Palin who they should be angry at. No one with that many skeletons in her closet should seek public office. FYI, my interest in whether or not Curtis Menard and Sarah Palin conceived Track Palin is limited solely to what it says about her truthfulness.

As Laura has pointed out in this post, Sarah clearly is not concerned with the privacy of anyone but her.

Leona
6/24/2011 10:27:05 am

I was looking at the photos of Levi with a very small baby, over on IM, and I noticed some things about his left hand.
In the photo of him with a newborn, at the hospital, he has obvious scrapes on the back of his left hand. He is also wearing a gold ring on the left hand. See this photo:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hFhf8Psm1Q8/TgPkN5cGrcI/AAAAAAAABNc/Uh4A74sbnVU/s1600/img076.jpg
In the photo of him with Trig, taken in the Palin kitchen, the scrapes on the back of his left hand are healing, but you can still see some redness, and you can see that he must have sustained an injury to his left thumb that caused blackness (hematoma) under the nail. He is also wearing a gold ring on his left hand.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Tp5AByQ8Xvw/TgSfCKH2anI/AAAAAAAABNw/d3KOQbh2Cxg/s1600/img019.jpg
So, I deduce from this that the first photo and the second photo were taken maybe a week or two apart. Both of the babies are Ruffles, and are NOT the robust baby carried by Sally Heath in a different picture. Did Bristol give birth to Ruffles? What happened to that fragile-looking baby?
The Trig we see in pictures from August 2008 to the present are NOT Ruffles. No baby with malformations of the pinna of the ears would ever receive surgical correction during infancy.

Laura Novak link
6/24/2011 10:28:53 am

And since no one I know and no one I see post a comment uses the R word or has suggested that Palin should have had the A word for Trig, I'd ask everyone to leave those out of the equation.

Her statements are part of her mythology. But they are not part of our discussion. And I don't want it on this site. It's not germane to the conversation and it's too easy to twist it around. So don't go there again. Thanks.

_wink__
6/24/2011 10:29:36 am

On the state of Alaska governor's page there is a link to email the governor. There are no privacy statements or disclosures on that page. On the privacy policy page there is this disclosure:

Most of your communications with the State of Alaska are considered part of the public record and may be subject to disclosure under AS 40.25.110 - 40.25.120. Personal information obtained through the State of Alaska web site is governed by AS 40.25.300 - 40.25.350. Notice is required when collecting personal information that may become part of the public record.

As awful as it may seem to release this child's email address, the state does give notice that this may happen. However, most governing bodies give that notice right by the contact box for the email so someone sending email will be sure to see it. Additionally, this information could have easily been redacted.

All in all, a very strange letter from a 14 year old boy. I wonder if he knew any of her children?

Melly
6/24/2011 10:32:47 am

Boy Laura, you've got nerve! The best kind! I'm so amazed my your reportorial instincts and tenacity. Wow. Thanks and please keep up.

And Shamrock, you really don't deserve the gracious invitation Laura extended. You give yourself away with the people-say-Sarah-should-have-aborted-Trig trope. No one I've ever encountered on this or any other Palin-focused blogs has ever said that, yet trolls always say it. I suppose they get it from God the Heavenly Creator letter, ie, from Sarah's warped little mind. You surely can come up with something more solid.

curiousagain
6/24/2011 10:47:37 am

Whoever had ruffles brought a beautiful child into the world and it would break my heart to read anything negative about the little tyke. He's maybe the only innocent in this whole mess.

As for the 14 y.o. getting his name, number and email out there courtesy of Parnell and his mob should be and might be illegal. Of course they spent so long redacting that almost anyone who would have written would be over the age of worry, but the mom's response is over the top and I wonder if they were paid to write as Sara has shown the ability and action to create her own emails, sign them off with other names and get people to write for her, Could this kid have been a classmate of Willow?

Laura Novak link
6/24/2011 10:55:20 am

Thanks, Melly. Years of experience!

And to my earlier point: Any propaganda about liberals promoting the A-word as an answer to the R-word, will be/has been deleted. I don't want that garbage on my site, like I said.

And good point, Curiouser. I hadn't thought of that!!!

jeff
6/24/2011 11:54:46 am

Laura...
Good call on A-& R-words.

I've read and heard way too many "refudiations" of things which were never really said in the context that they were supposedly repeated and then deconstructed by the Quitter Queen and her loyal, low-info defenders. In fact, that is her M.O. when she gets on the hot-seat.

She thrives on playing the "victim-card", especially when she is under scrutiny and wants to take the spotlight off her own behavior or poor decisions.

Given her propensity to use the name and signature of others in distributing her propaganda, in this case to have opprobrious name-calling go out under someone else's handle, I have no doubt that this incredibly conniving woman would plant her minions onto "opponent" blogs posing as "liberals" or "libtards" or, in extreme cases, (heaven forbid!)"progressives", in an attempt to defame those who oppose her.

The great majority of the instances where I've witnessed someone being so tasteless and reprehensible, they were blog-crasher-bots trying to ruin the reputation of a very responsible blog operator and its regular commenters.

Thanks for being pro-active in circumventing this offensive behavior.

You run a good show here with a lot of excellent, informed opinions.

Regards,
Jeff

Anon55
6/24/2011 12:17:45 pm

Very interesting.

First, I went to Sarah's Inbox http://sarahsinbox.com/ (Thanks Sunlight Foundation!) did a word search and found the pertinent unredacted email in about 5 seconds.

Second, I went to www.peoplefinders.com and found the parents, ages 55 and 57, with address, phone number and email, in another 5 seconds. Son also listed. Then I repeated it on www.zabasearch.com and pulled up a picture of their house. So, even if the address, email and phone number had been redacted on what the State of Alaska released, I could have found the info anyway in 5 seconds. (Get over it, people. You have no privacy. Your background info has been sold and made a commodity. Talk to Congress if you don't like it).

The email seems off to me. Very stilted unnatural language. "Nevermind that." What 14-year-old writes like that.

Something seems a bit off. Wonder if there is a relationship between the family and the Palins. That's what I would be looking for if I were an investigative reporter. Based on Frank Bailey's book, wouldn't shock me if Sarah Lou herself dictated the email and then slipped it to the parents, who wrote it in the name of their 14-year-old son (just like Sarah Lou writes in the name of God).

Ottoline
6/24/2011 01:41:53 pm

Laura -- Even though you did not get info from the ADN contacts, their consistent unwillingness to talk to you is worth documenting and adds to the "she was not pregnant" side of the equation == the "we are scared to say a word" side of the issue.

If I may suggest some additions to your list of possible things for future research:
(1) Was the Gusty interview really aired? If not, Gusty lied and that puts a new slant on the Gusty photos.
(2) Is it possible to learn the chain of origin of the Palin/CBJ medical letter? Who in the RNC actually issued it; who did they get it from? My guess is that it came via Palin, not CBJ, which is consistent with Palin altering or forging it;
(3) evaluation of the Mar 14 photo by 3 OB/GYNs -- just an email comment would be fine, explaining if there is any weird way a woman with such a flat profile could have delivered Trig as stated. It could even be anonymous MDs -- we would trust you to verify that they are legit. Or even an answer to the question: "In a court of law, would a flat-profile photo like this constitute proof of non-pregnancy?"
(4) Your interviewing a forensic fire detective re the Dar Miller fire, using the descriptive data that was released in AK papers, which sounded so suspicious (smoking blamed, but Dar was a nonsmoker and AK has "no burn" cigarettes; dogs dead upon arrival of help but not Dar; dogs at Dar's feet rather than having sounded an alarm; picture frames melted, but fire was only smoldering; lack of follow-up reports from fire dept.
(5) A call to Dar's partner, who has never been quoted publicly, and might not want to be now. But she surely has an opinion about Dar's death, and I wish it would be on record with someone trustworthy even if we bloggers never learn about what it is.

Your in-confidence discussions with other writers might well have already reveal that these items have already been researched. If so, great!

FrostyAK
6/24/2011 02:43:43 pm

Laura asks "Is there anything at all connected to Sarah Palin that is above board, mature, clear-cut, and without question. Anything? At all?"

Answer - NO! And I don't think we have even cleared the surface of the rot that is $palin. (remember never to type her name as soon the the trademark has been finalized)

V
6/24/2011 03:23:14 pm

Although most people here certainly know that I believe that Palin faked the pregnancy, may I say that in this case I am with the parents of this boy? I loathe it when telemarketers call - which they do despite my being on "do not call" lists - and I would be even more incensed at receiving a phone call of this type, where I felt my privacy was extremely violated.

And, given how garbled the boy's message was with respect to any facts or even pretend facts, it's quite possible that the parents are only aware of the "rumor mongering" aspect of the babygate.

So I can completely understand the reaction of the parents, and I don't think it signals any complicity on their part. I also recognize that in order to pursue this story, you have to grow a thick skin and ask uncomfortable questions.

Punkinbugg
6/24/2011 04:53:50 pm

I call BS. No 14-year-old uses the word "its" correctly! And how would a little 8th grader be able to rattle off Governor Palin's talking points so efficiently? No. Way.

It's too bad innocent people didn't deserve the redaction of their home addresses and phone numbers, but others did. I thought that's what the redaction was all about, wasn't it?

nenagh
6/24/2011 11:29:16 pm

When I first read Newt Gingrich's "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" and saw that years later, many of those phrases had conveniently become incorporated into the belief system of a significant number of people .. I felt rather ill.

Of course, for the 'control' to be most successful, Fox & to a lesser extent the MSM, needed a person who could deliver the messaging with maximum believability.

Sarah Palin must have topped the charts on that test..

Surely she was chosen because her "Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show" + MILF + Mama Grizzly credentials were such a mesmerizing combo to many who watched her on their own TV screens in homes across America.

With a bit more brain power she would have combined the razzle-dazzle with good commentary which with the backing of the MSM would have been an unbeatable combination.

I thank you Laura, for taking the time to study and unravel the truth about the woman.. because her cascades of lying are just too much for one person's ability to untangle.

















lilly lily
6/25/2011 12:42:16 am

What 14 year old boy would ever discuss a woman giving birth?

Maybe, maybe these are not his thoughts but his parents words that he is parroting.

How would Sarah Palin bring back the value of the American dollar?

Odd choice of reasons to suggest that she run for the office of POTUS.

About the only thing teenlike is saying that SHE ROCKS.

As others have said, I hang up on cold calls from strangers or tele-marketing. A few words and I click my cell phone, severing the connection after saying "Thank you, but I am not interested."

Have to give you a lot of credit for tenacity.

Rationalist
6/25/2011 12:57:45 am

lilly lilly - agree about Laura's tenacity. She seems to know what so many have forgotten - that it's not her job to be liked by her subjects. It's her job to ferret out information in an ethical manner. Journalism!

LTA
6/25/2011 01:06:37 am

Wow. Another total shutdown. What in the hell does Sarah Palin "have" on ALL these people?

Or are they scared to end up like one of Sarah's many associates who have seemed to meet very untimely ends? Yes, on second thought...that must be part of it at least.


I just had a thought. If someone tried to buy an ad in the ADN, like a 1/4 page space which read in block letters "REWARD for proof showing Sarah Palin DID or DID NOT give birth on April 18, 2008"...do you think they'd print it?

I was thinking about the possible efficacy of putting little classified ads up in the smaller papers, local Craigs List, etc. Maybe the person with the missing piece of info just doesn't realize what they have yet.

I'm just thinking out loud here...

Original Lee
6/25/2011 01:16:17 am

Those new photos of Levi make me wonder. Could the green shirt ones be from the fall of 2007 and the stunned look come from holding a brother rather than a son? Sibs can visit but don't get wristbands. Just trying to think of circumstances where he's much younger, allowed to hold the baby, and has no wristband or tattoo.

This whole story is gonna make "The DaVinci Code" look like fanfic when the truth comes out. Truth can be stranger than fiction!

Viola
6/25/2011 01:55:11 am

I have a question that I've been asking since Audrey's days. Why would SPalin risk the pregnancy hoax? One pregnant teenage daughter doesn't seem enough to warrant such a big risk, especially in cultures (AK, fundamentalist churches) where the "right to life" is at the top of the list. Bristol and 1 pregnancy could have been spun any number of ways, and even garnered sympathy!

It always seemed to me that there had to be other circumstances that warranted such a risk. Over at IM, reading through the 500 comments re: the new Levi photos, there are some interesting theories. 2 babies, 3 babies, a teenage marriage.

Do YOU believe that covering for Bristol OR using a random DS baby for a political prop would have been enough motive for a hoax?

alexis
6/25/2011 02:37:29 am

@original Lee

I believe your correct about the t-shirt. I fired off an email to abercrombie costumer services yesterday with an attachment of levi. And the friendly tyler emailed me back with the approx date of men's summer 2007 collection. Apparently i wasn't the only one to do so..

@viola

I believe the most embarrasing aspect of babygate is who the father is. I am still not convinced that levi is the father. However that doesn't mean little trig doesn't have some johnston DNA...

viola
6/25/2011 03:18:45 am

The Shamrock troll who posted above is on Palingates spreading more concocted characters and bullshit.

From Palingates: "Sarah actually went to middle school with Bitney. He did not attend WHS according to the school's social butterfly."

That "WHS social butterfly" sure is a busy bee.

Conscious at last
6/25/2011 03:34:08 am

I agree with those who suspect that the e-mail from the 14 year old was actually solicited from and dictated by SP's folks.
I know very few 14 year olds who are worried about inflation. (chuckle)

Re: the new photos of Levi at IM--

I may be in the minority here, but I still see the Triggybear kitchen photos showing a younger Levi than these new ones.

I just want to re-state my feeling that we have to IGNORE any information given to us by Palins or Johnstons regarding birth dates of Trig or Tripp.
The actual schedules could be COMPLETELY different. For example, Trig could have been born in 2007 and been in an NICU for a long time. Tripp could have been born much earlier in 2008.
Please remember how large Tripp was at his on-camera debut w/GVS in early 2008.

...and this does not deal, at all, with the issues of parentage.

We are trying to put a rational, ordered frame over a series of in-explicable photos and events. Most of us are somewhat logical thinkers.
But that ain't Sarah's world-- she is impulsive and reacts to her warped view of immediate events.

So the only thing that I am rock-sure of so far is that Sarah Palin did not give birth to any child on April 18, 2008.

Floyd M. Orr link
6/25/2011 03:45:39 am

Laura and Brad, this is off topic, but related to the multiple babies being discussed here in the comments. A lot more happened on 5/3/08 than the famous kitchen photos. If you have read Paradigm Shift, you may remember that Ruffles, or some other Trig, traveled to two events in Anchorage before returning home to have his picture taken. Bree and I discussed the events of that Saturday repeatedly and could never quite confirm if Ruffles was the traveling baby. I covered the details of this story in various parts of the book as best I could ascertain the facts from several sources, but questions remain. Ruffles, or some other Trig, had a surprisingly big day for a newborn! Maybe you and Brad can dig up more details? There were many witnesses, but so far only one has come forward with any information.

lilly lily
6/25/2011 04:06:23 am

You ask if anything about the Palins aboveboard.

Absolutly not.

I have scrapped Sarah Palins timelines about everything.

Sarah can't agree on where the child Trig was born, Anchorage or Mat Su. She fudges her childrens birthdates. She lies and alters what is known and verifyable constantly.

In Sarahs alternate universe anything and everything is whatever she wants it to be. And her enablers allow her to get away with it.

Time?

Whatever is convenient for her.

Facts. Whatever she wants them to be.

Bristol has taken that to heart in her novel. She follows the script. VICTIM.

The maiden has had one lover. And was a virgin who was liquored up and ravished while unconcious by a no good school drop out.

No man has acessed the sacred vagina of the Candies spokesperson since she dumped Levi..

LOL.

It's hypocrasy at its most flagrant.

Queen Victoria has been dead a long time.

Victoria was a realist. It was Prince Albert who was something of a prude as he came from a family of rakes.

For Sarah if it sounds good, and it suits her agenda, facts don't matter.


Laura Novak link
6/25/2011 04:23:40 am

Ottoline, thanks for the great ideas. I have been working on the OB angle but so far am not ready to print.

And thanks, Rationalist, and you all. It's a very slow process. But Sullivan's right: I am dogged, if not anything else.

Yes, and long live the Prince Escort. And might I add: Mr. Brown?!

1Doubter
6/25/2011 05:24:21 am

I saw that email in the original pdf, and I thought WTF, but then decided to just move on. It is a REAL weird one, especially from a 14 y/o boy.
The mother's response is baffling, also, too.

Rationalist
6/25/2011 06:02:22 am

Honestly, I'm buying that this could have been written by a (perhaps a little Asberger's-y) 14-year-old boy with starburts. But it's equally believable that it was "commissioned" by Palin.

Rationalist
6/25/2011 06:02:47 am

Ack: "starbursts."

Bobcat Logic
6/25/2011 06:40:18 am

In Frank Bailey's book Blind Allegiance read Chapter 9 ("Nobody Noticed") which details Sarah's prolific use of fake "letters" to editors.

Palin is quoted as writing, "We need to find folks to sign and submit [these letters]...[and also use the names of] their peeps ....or family members." p. 67

"let's remember to tell people that when they offer to help but don't know what to do. They can loan us the names for a letter..." p. 68

Bailey then writes "If it sounds as if Sarah was asking the borrowed names to lie when editors asked if they authored a letter, its because we...were doing exactly that." p. 68

An advisor warned Bailey "My only concern was if [Sarah] and the campaign got caught proofing these letters...Explosive. One email could kill you."

Bailey then writes: "Editing? Ha! we were actually writing the darn things." p.68

Laura Novak link
6/25/2011 07:06:03 am

Rationalist: I actually wondered the same thing. And yet, Bobcat, you provide us with an equally compelling possibility. The email doesn't add up any more than the story as a whole!

Smiling
6/25/2011 09:34:34 am

The tone of this e-mail does not reflect the mindset of a 14 year old boy at all. A woman who has given birth and therefore knows how SHE felt the next day may marvel at another woman returning to work shortly after childbirth. A boy really does not know or realize and would just be creeped out by the whole topic.

Laura Novak link
6/25/2011 10:17:07 am

Perceptive comment, Smiling. Nice to see you here and hope you'll come back. Same for you 1Doubter!

Ottoline
6/25/2011 02:53:27 pm

Viola -- I agree that there is more to the motivation for the hoax. If it's a question of paternity -- an unacceptable bioDad -- that could explain the too-early amnio, which can harvest the baby's DNA and thus make a paternity test work. But we have only Palin's word about the amnio, so maybe it never happened.

I'm interested in the motive, the whole story, but the main A#1 issue is to prove she did not give birth. We might never know the motive, but that should not stop us from finding a way to prove Palin hoaxed us, others enabled this, and the MSM looked the other way.

molly malone
6/25/2011 03:36:52 pm

Okay, here's my theory of how it all went down with regard to Palin's fake pregnancy. (And I owe much of this to Rationalist, who put a lot of this together in Laura's previous post.)

Some things to keep in mind: at the time of the Trig Hoax, Palin's approval rating among Alaskans was at an incredible high of 80%; she had the support of the Dominionsts, the AIP, Dobson, Graham and the Family Values crowd; and she KNEW (one way or another)even greater things than the governorship are in store for her.

Then Bristol gets pregnant.

Palin's reaction to this is to hide her daughter's condition, lest others find out and she lose her chance to grab the golden ring. (How she managed to do this is still cloudy. Yes, Bristol is said to have transferred to a school in Anchorage, but there's such a mishmash of reports and rumors, I have no idea where the truth lies.)

Bristol gives birth to a full-term baby at Mat-Su Regional Hospital. To protect Sarah, CBJ, who delivers Trig, ensures that Bristol is admitted under a different name (Tripp, perhaps?) No members of the Palin family can afford to attend the birth, lest they be recognized and confirm the rumors that have been flying. But Levi, the father, is there, as evidenced by the recent photos on IM showing a sleepy young father (sans the JOHNSTON tattoo) meeting his son.

Then the hammer falls and Trig is diagnosed with Down Syndrome.

Upon his release from the hospital, Trig is placed with Sarah's Church adoption/foster services or privately cared for by an experienced nurse, such as Dar Miller, because the Palins are neither ready nor able to deal with a special needs baby.

And something else is happening, too. If John McCain cinches the Republican nomination for the presidency, Palin stands a good chance of becoming his choice for V.P. She has the far-right Evangelical creds that McCain lacks. It would embellish those creds even further if she were to adopt a D.S. baby, but this would throw suspicion back on Bristol. On the other hand, if SHE were to give birth to a D.S. child . . .

And thus the hoax was born.

As for the mystery of the two babies--Trig and Ruffles--I believe the Palins and Heaths realized that full-term Trig could not easily be passed off as a newborn preemie; consequently, they arranged (probably with the help of CBJ), to temporarily "borrow" a newborn who was scheduled for adoption--"The puppy is ready for delivery."

At this point, everything is tightly choreographed: Palin will "give birth" during Mat-su's shift change; the "borrowed" smaller, obviously newborn baby will be presented as proof of birth; and Sarah will return to work on Monday to avoid the potential legal problems of applying for maternity leave. Except, for some reason, the baby, Ruffles, fails to arrive on schedule.

Another hammer blow.

The Palins and Heaths wing it for the photo op with the only baby available to them--Trig. When Ruffles finally arrives a day or two later, he is passed off at public and private appearances as Trig. Then, when he is no longer necessary, he is retired to wherever.

I'd happily be proven wrong on all of this. Because if I'm right it potentially leads into murky waters--Dar Millers death, the Church fire, water in a plane's fuel tank--all too chilling for comfort.

Cracklin' Charlie
6/25/2011 03:36:55 pm

Viola,
For a long time the need for the hoax, and the wild ride had me flummoxed, too. Teens get pregnant and have to get married all the time, even Christian teens.
But what if by the time of the RNC, Bristol already had two children? She was 17. Two children at 17 sounds like a big problem to me, even if she was married.

ps...Viola was the name of one of my favorite little southern belle aunts.

viola
6/25/2011 11:31:13 pm

Ottoline, I agree wholeheartedly that what matters is outing the hoax. However, from all my years of detective fiction reading, I keep thinking, if I know the motive, I'll understand the hoax. Why was the hoax so important to Sarah?

So, great thanks, CCharlie and MollyM! Because, I believe somewhere in the merging of your two theories is the truth. Reading the two of them together is a bullseye for me. I can't help thinking of that early (green?) sweater photo of Bristol (in the family group) that Audrey declared couldn't possibly be of her pregnant, and now if seems very plausible.

PS Viola is the first name of one of my all-time favorite characters in a novel. But I'm struck by how many "V's" and V-names post on Laura's blog.

Laura Novak link
6/26/2011 01:20:51 am

Floyd, I know, those details around those dates are strange. Perhaps we can learn more.

As someone said to me offline, there is a solid narrative forming here with all your comments. I'm wondering how to approach it as a whole, or formulate it into a cohesive story. Can we Wiki this?

Rationalist
6/26/2011 01:45:57 am

Wiki it? Hmm.

Would that grant legitimacy to the idea that this is just another conspiracy theory? Or would it validate it as a real issue? I guess it depends how it's written.

Cracklin' Charlie
6/26/2011 03:00:41 am

Nice post, Molly, I believe your theory is very close, but since you posted yours, I will also post mine. I am also just looking for help with debunking my theory, I am asking you to prove me wrong. I am going to attempt to leave out any extraneous information to avoid confusion.

Here goes:
Bristol and Levi conceive a child in late 2006 or early 2007, and the child, now known as Trig, is born in August or September 2007. The child has DS.

Bristol becomes pregnant right away in September or October of 2007.
Sarah has been being courted by Republican operatives about the VP offer should McCain become nominated. Sarah knows that it will be a insurmountable problem for Bristol, at 17, to have 2 children by the time of the convention. When McCain wins the nomination in March, Sarah's plan is put into action.

She will fake a pregnancy, and adopt the baby known as Trig. Bristol is due to deliver in June or July, 2008. However, the baby, now known as Tripp, was delivered prematurely in April, 2008. The "wild ride" was born. Sarah used Tripp (Ruffles) as a stand-in for the few events that she needed a newborn, but then at the RNC, Trig played himself at or near one year old.

So my theory is that there were two babies born to Bristol prior to the RNC in August 2008. The boys are brothers.

Okay, that is where I am concerning Trig and Tripp. Please, I welcome any comment, or suggestions, even if it totally blows my theory out of Lake Lucille.

Just looking for the truth.


Ottoline
6/26/2011 03:34:14 am

The danger of working on a whole scenario is that it's too many variables. Too few items are bedrock facts. Items we thought were bedrock facts turn out not to be. Distractions, distractions.

I say work on the one thing we know: that Palin was not pregnant. The photos offer proof. Those who deny that the photos are proof never give an explanation of the Mar 14 photo: how it is possible if Palin WAS pregnant? There's no grey area there: either she was or she wasn't.

We've been unsuccessful in getting buy-in to the most obvious: like the Mar 14 photo (and the other key photos). We will be even less successful with anything else that has a shred of doubt or opinion about it.

I say one step at a time. Sure we can think about the various scenarios -- but really that has been done to death already. And we know the general outlines.

The motive for the hoax? It's like asking the motive for Weiner's sexting, esp if we asked that before proof positive that he did it. He's unwell, and the specifics of that not only don't interest me, but are probably unknowable as fact. Ditto re Palin. As a first cut, I mean. After it's all out and we can tell fact from lie re all the supporting data -- sure, a unified theory of Why will be interesting.

But "interesting" is not our goal. This is a hoax that affects our national dialogue. The first goal is to establish the fact of the hoax (the act of deception, the lie) without doubt. The one fact: she did not give birth to Trig.

All else will follow, but this is the big hurdle. That no one has succeeded with yet, in terms of MSM. You look at the data, and it seems so obvious. But no MSM on it: WHY?

lilly lily
6/26/2011 03:38:28 am

That doesn't account for the strange ruffled ear and ear hole vanishing. But it would account for that mantra Tripp was Trig before he was Tripp. Or was it Trig was Tripp before he was Trig.

For some reason that still resonates as someone knowing something and being cute and sly. Sarah thinks she is clever in her lies. She likes word play, probably as a result of her word salad and inability to speak extemporanisly without screwing it up. When telling the truth the barracuda would have a phrase she used to let her buddies know that she was telling the truth for a change. Pie sky?? Anyone remember?

She was sly and a liar as a teen, and is sly now.

lilly lily
6/26/2011 03:41:17 am

And above all she remains a liar.

THAT will never change in her makeup.

viola
6/26/2011 04:08:36 am

ummm, Wiki. I've posted about ten Wiki entries, and only had one removed. (I put it back a year later successfully with a new primary source.) Seems to me one could easily write a --Pregnancy Hoax-- article with three examples: 1. The use of it as plot device in Desperate Housewives 2. the student who hoaxed her high school as a social experiment 3. And as possible political intrigue as in the rumors surrounding Trig's birth. Photos of an empathy belly could also add to the entry as could examples in history, if those exist.

Very doable. Is this what you had in mind?

molly malone
6/26/2011 04:18:04 am

@ Cracklin' Charley.

Good theory and I'm sure I'll be mulling it over for most of the day.

Now, what if Bristol is not Tripp's birth mother? She was ridiculously padded when she and Levi made their public appearance together; her dress had clearly been chosen to emphasize that she was well along in her pregnancy, ergo, she could not have given birth to Trig.

And--whiz-bang snap!--this and the Gusty photo "proved" that Sarah had not faked her own pregnancy.

When was Tripp born? Where was he born?
Why keep this a secret when it clearly would have been to Sarah's and Bristol's advantage (first interviews, photo ops, mucho publicity, $$$) to do exactly the opposite?

FrostyAK
6/26/2011 04:21:47 am

IMO, Laura stay completely away from Wiki. Remember the bots tried to change history re Paul Revere. Anyone, even the mentally deranged and imbeciles ($arah worshipers) can make changes to Wiki.

I also think that ALL angles should be looked at, as it gives a better picture of the whole. Maybe each angle separately, but eventually merging them into one integrated theory.

WE know that the Wicked Witch of Wasilla did not give birth on April 18 at Mat Su Hospital to any baby. Because of HIPAA we are going to have a hard time proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt in the doubter's minds. Maybe the peripheral circumstances when combined make a scenario so compelling that only a fool would doubt?

molly malone
6/26/2011 04:24:05 am

@ ottoline.

I see what you're saying, Sometimes, though, theorizing leads to discovery.

lilly lily
6/26/2011 04:49:27 am

I can understand the frustration seeing that our theorizing can go very far off the track. So it is understandable that some people would prefer to narrow it down. Concentrating on one aspect. Namely the fake pregnancy.

But it is not only the crazy pregnancy hoax. The Palin hoax is more than Trig. It is a giant picture jigsaw puzzle. We all have a vaugue idea of what is what, but so many pieces are missing that we can't be certain of the details, due to HIPAA, and also out of fear.

Eventually someone mulling this over will stumble on the "Eureka" moment.

Or someone, perhaps even Levi who is tangled up in the Palin web of lies will let us know what he DOES know.

lilly lily
6/26/2011 04:56:50 am

I also like Molly Malones commenting on the secrecy involved.

We know they grab at every possible way to pad their bank accounts.

Why didn't they take their pictures, and sell the story for a 6 figure deal. They never have been shy before or after. It is only the photo trail that are hush, hush.

Look at the tens of thousands of photos from her book tours. Her own private photographer.

They are proven media whores. Sarah Palin never saw a camera she didn't like and pose for.

Suddenly they are discretion itself?

Cracklin' Charlie
6/26/2011 05:25:05 am

Ottoline,
I understand your aversion to having too many theories out there, but just remember that the hypothesis, or theory, is the basis of scientific experimentation. Most discoveries begin with a hypothesis.
My reason for presenting my theory was an attempt to let others read it and show me where I was wrong. I welcome that. I really don't want to believe that a woman, any woman, could be so calculating, manipulative, and unaware of the effects of her actions on others, including her family, to do something like this.
@Molly,
The reason I came to this conclusion is that, in my mind, the only need for Sarah to take one of Bristol's children, is that Bristol had too many. A christian teen can get pregnant, happens all the time. But two pregnancies? In my mind, even if Bristol and Levi were married, that is at least one child too many, at her age. So Sarah adopted one.
I think Tripp was born in April 2008, just before the "wild ride", at the MatSu (or whatever) hospital. That is why the wild ride ended there.
Please mull my theory, I welcome all opinions about this.

viola
6/26/2011 05:55:11 am

@FrostyAK: RE Wiki. The fact that the Wiki editors were all over the Revere changes are proof to me that they are hard at work keeping the site as clean as they can. I have great respect for the process on Wiki and for the editors who work for the public good. My entries have always been vetted carefully by anonymous editors.

That's why I proposed a **term** that is becoming part of our culture (Pregnancy Hoax) with a sideline reference to the Trig hoax. It's all how you write it. There are many, many primary source references to the Trig hoax-- for example Michael Carey's NPR interview just to name one.

It's totally legit, imo. However it would take a writer of Laura's or Brad's caliber to create a succinct explanation (just a paragraph) of the Trig hoax.

That said, the danger, is the p-bots constantly removing it-- but if you engage an editor's help and the entry is written accurately with sources, they'll lock the entry.

After all, Wiki is devoted to accurate, available information with universal access. Hoorah!

viola
6/26/2011 06:12:34 am

@CracklinCharlie. RE: your Bristol 2-Baby- Prior-to-RNC theory. That's the first time a theory rings true for me as far as motive for SP's hoax. It certainly matches RAM's tweets about B being a real problem. I'm not sure it works with all the logistics involved (hiding Tripp until his fake birth is revealed 8 mo later etc)

BUT that's the kind of thing SPalin had to make go away or they never would have chosen her.

lilly lily
6/26/2011 06:27:42 am

Robin Roberts of Good Morning America is interviewing Bristol Palin tomorrow morning, and she has asked the public to suggest questions she should put to Bristol.

Any ideas?

Laura Novak link
6/26/2011 08:25:30 am

That's a good point, Frosty. And Viola, thanks for that. It's just at thought, but I'm mulling over how I might do this.

At any rate, thanks for a great discussion. I've combed through some more emails that don't make sense, or make too much sense. More on those later.

New Brad Scharlott post going up. Thanks all!

suzer
6/27/2011 07:50:47 pm

You are one intrepid reporter. My hat's off to you!


Comments are closed.

    Laura Novak

    Reporter, Author, Blogger, and Mother...

    Picture

    RSS Feed


    My novel is now on Amazon Kindle!!
    Picture


    Blogs I Read

    Getty Iris
    Cloisters Garden
    Daily Dish
    AlterNet
    Immoral Minority
    Hullabaloo
    Phantomimic
    Jotting Down a Life
    Lynnrockets
    Oakland Local
    Passive Voice
    LitBrit
    Onward
    Joe McGinniss
    Barbara Alfaro
    Suzanne Rosenwasser


    Categories

    All
    Brushes With Greatness
    Dance Number
    Education
    Friday Feature
    Girls On The Bus
    Good Men Project
    Just Sayin
    My Favorite Movie
    Neonatologist
    Private Parts
    Quick Take Tuesday
    Sarah Palin
    Scharlott Stuff
    Scribd
    Shrink Wrap Supreme
    Tao Te Wednesday
    True Confessions
    Vox Populi
    Writing/Publishing

    Picture
    View my profile on LinkedIn
    Picture

    Archives

    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010

Proudly powered by Weebly
Photos used under Creative Commons from acidpix, sicamp, Clearly Ambiguous, breahn, hoill, William Arthur Fine Stationery, southerntabitha, *Vintage Fairytale*, NeoGaboX, Dana Moos, ButterflyOrb, ruurmo, MCS@flickr, h.koppdelaney, Andrew 94, MarkWallace, fdecomite, Wonderlane, christophercarfi, dreamsjung, the superash, euphro, melloveschallah, Rhett Sutphin, I Don't Know, Maybe., Harold Laudeus, h.koppdelaney, jennaddenda, Harrissa Sunshine, Wesley Fryer, fidalgo_dennis, bark, [cipher], fdecomite, Marcos Kontze, legends2k, optick, pjohnkeane, Kabacchi, Pink Sherbet Photography, h.koppdelaney, alexbrn, Elsie esq., Rafael Acorsi, naitokz, tiffa130, otisarchives4, Sheloya Mystical and Agrimas Gothic, allygirl520, tnarik, Daquella manera, peyri, Patrick Hoesly, Anderson Mancini, Abode of Chaos, joewcampbell, keepitsurreal, Jonas N, David Boyle, Gideon Burton, evmaiden, Mike Willis, ankakay, LadyDragonflyCC -Busy Wedding Week for BF Amy!, Cast a Line, aeneastudio, Lord Jim, hisperati, dbzoomer, Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com, thegardenbuzz, kamshots, AleBonvini, smadden, CarbonNYC