The first issue is the birth of a child, to an "Amber and Levi" on April 18th at a hospital about 45 minutes away from Mat-Su, Alaska Regional. Picture comparisons have been done and many people think the babies look similar. It's been suggested that this was somehow Bristol and Levi's baby, born at a different hospital, and then, I guess the thinking goes, brought over to Mat-Su.
There are two problems with this scenario. The first is that this baby is listed on the website as being born in the afternoon on April 18th. Sarah Palin's parents, the Heaths, gave an TV interview at Mat-Su during the afternoon of the 18th. I don't know the exact time, but it was filmed in time to be run on the evening news that night. As far as I know, there is no available video from that broadcast - I've looked - but the station's website does have a screen shot from the video. Unless you want to get really bizarre (stunt-double babies, et cetera) there's no plausible explanation for the fact that the second baby was not even born at the time the Heaths were probably doing the interview, with a newborn in arms. Of course, people have suggested that the info at Alaska Regional's website could have been altered in some way, but that leads us to the second problem:
Which is, that listing on the website is optional. I have no idea what percentage of babies born at Alaska Regional are on their website, but I have researched Mat-Su (it appears to be about 2/3rds) and just out of curiosity I called OB at the hospital where my husband works, and I was told by that hospital that it's about 75%. So NOT listing a child would likely raise no eyebrows; no one would think it "odd" or comment in any way. If you're trying to hide something, you'd just quietly opt out of being listed.
Don't get me wrong - I have wondered from the beginning if Trig was really born in that hospital that night, since there just seems to be SO much wrong with the story. But I doubt very much that the "Amber and Levi's" child on Alaska Regional's website is Trig Palin.
The second thing that's come up on various websites from the beginning is a blog post, from someone who from all appearances seems completely neutral in this situation, stating that she saw Sarah Palin pregnant in the airport sometime late in March 2008 (though she did not make her post until late April, after Trig was born.) I have not made much of this report, but it does exist and I have gotten enough email about it that I felt it should be addressed.
First, the picture that is on the website does not show enough of Sarah Palin for us to draw any conclusion. However, the post's author - Elizabeth Eubanks - states flatly that she turned and saw Gov. Palin "pregnant."
The problem with this is, as I have suggested all along, that the allegation against Gov. Palin is that she may have faked a pregnancy. To do that, you have to look pregnant at some point. I think it's pretty clear that from about mid-March on, Sarah Palin did appear "somewhat" pregnant, though as I have said how consistently is another matter.
So while I am certainly not discounting this report - it is a legitimate sighting of Gov. Palin by someone who has no ulterior motive for saying she looked expectant - I don't know why it's any more credible or important that the fact that Andrea Gusty, who was the reporter interviewer speaking to Gov. Palin in this photo
and saying that this is an accurate picture of how she looked that day.
Third, thank you to all who sent links today of Sarah Palin getting off the plane, followed by one of her daughters. I believe that this is Willow, not Bristol.
Here is the link if you want to see for yourself. Let me know if you disagree. The girls look very much alike, but it is clear the young woman in this video is not pregnant.
