Audrey 'following her attorney's advice'

Thanks to Dan Riehl for pointing out this comment from moderator "Morgan" at the evidently defunct Trig Truther site, "Palin's Deceptions":

Thanks so much for all your comments. Despite the requests - and in a couple of cases, demands - for details, we are not going to speak further on the nature of these threats, or allow a lot of speculation in the comments. Please remember, this is a person's life we're talking about and as much as your curiosity may be piqued, Audrey is smart to take the methodical, thoughtful approach she's taking. It's always been her way and it's been my experience that it always yields results for her. Those of you who respect her will respect her wishes. (I would like to point out here that those demanding details aren't regulars, which tells me something.)
As I stated, Audrey has retained excellent counsel and is following her attorney's advice as she considers her options and next steps. . . .
I appreciate everyone's patience in this matter. Please don't worry that evil will win out. It never does, no matter what the source.

Heh. I'm glad that "Audrey" has evidently decided to retire from the field of online obstetric speculation, which I had suggested would be her wisest course of action. Her carelessness confronted me with a very difficult dilemma, and I hesitate to think what might have transpired had some unscrupulous, selfish, vindictive person been in my position.

This reference to "Audrey" having "retained excellent counsel" is interesting. As Dan Riehl and I discussed between ourselves, there is no reason to believe "Audrey" has been guilty of any legal wrongdoing, merely careless in her online choices.

As our research advanced, and sources provided further information, however, matters reached a point where I had to ask myself, "Do I really want to publish this?" This same research indicates that "Morgan" knows exactly what I'm talking about, and it is therefore rather shocking to see "Morgan" to use the word "evil" in apparent reference to Dan and me. Certainly, I do not consider wisdom and mercy to be "evil" qualities.

It would have been unnecessary cruelty on my part to have published without having first contacted "Audrey," which I did by means of a courteous and quite friendly e-mail message to her husband (whom she had referenced at Palin's Deceptions as a sort of in-house "expert").

Even if I had not been mindful that it was "a person's life we're talking about," to borrow a phrase from "Morgan," publication without notice would have earned me an unwelcome reputation as someone willing to engage in what Bill Clinton once famously denounced as "the politics of personal destruction."

There are certain means of attack which no political end can justify. I consider the baseless insinuations about Trig Palin's birth -- the politically motivated speculation that this infant is not actually Sarah Palin's own son -- to be such an unjustifiable means of attack.

The very last post by "Audrey" directly accused Sarah Palin of faking her fifth pregnancy, and it is on that same post that moderator "Morgan" pleads on behalf of "Audrey": "Please remember, this is a person's life we're talking about . . ." As if the lives of Sarah, Todd and Trig were nothing compared to the life of their anonymous enemy?

Hey, "Morgan": How about you grab yourself a nice hot cup of STFU, sweetheart? You're not doing "Audrey" or her family any favors with inflammatory rhetoric like that.

A wise concern for mercy ought not be taken for granted because, in case you haven't noticed, some of pir regular readers were intensely curious about the mysterious end of this investigation. And the content of certain comments (some of which I've had to reject as hinting too obviously) indicates to me that these commenters are also capable of research.

Some other research-savvy bloggers might not be as scrupulous as Dan and I have been, "Morgan." Your insulting comments could make those other bloggers angry, and who knows what might happen then?

Mmmm. The delicious flavor of fresh STFU . . .

Well, she certainly is an author

"Audrey" at PalinDeception.com:

"I am a childbirth labor coach, a published author in the childbirth field, and a lactation consultant; my husband is a physician who has, until this election, always voted Republican . . ."

OK, "Audrey," I just figured out that you remarried, and your last name has changed since you published that circumcision book in 1985.

Indeed, your husband is a physician who voted for Bush twice, and who expressed support for Ron Paul in December 2007. I know that your husband is from a neighboring state, and that you moved to your rural home (with a pond) in September 2006.

Of course, you can imagine my surprise to learn that, since the early 1990s, you've become quite a popular author -- indeed, quite an entrepreneur -- under yet another pseudonym.

Given my own libertarian tendencies, I'm quite sympathetic toward your husband, the physician. But you, ma'am, have been a very, very naughty woman.

And I think we both know what the doctor would prescribe for that, don't we?

Stick to your other business, ma'am. Discipline is the secret to success.

By the way, about six hours ago, I was prepared to stomp you like a cockroach, but when I saw that the Good Doctor was a Ron Paul man, my wrath cooled somewhat.

Really, though, you need to be more careful, both in your choice of enemies and in your use of online aliases. It really wasn't that difficult.

UPDATE 2 a.m.: In the comments, Angie in AK asks:

"Are you going to cut this loon some slack because her husband is a Ron Paul man?"

Yeah. Yeah, I am. Look, earlier Tuesday afternoon, I was reading something Dr. Zero wrote at the Green Room, where he said something favorable about the Bush administration, and it got under my skin:

[O]ne can easily argue that George W. Bush was a very bad president and that one of the worst aspects of his presidency was that Bush confused people about the meaning of "conservatism" in a way that damaged the Republican Party and made possible Obama's election. . . .
It must be recognized the extent to which the Bush administration was a failure, or we risk further damage from future repetitions.

A lot of people got away from their "A-game," politically, during the Bush era. This misguided "Audrey" seems to have been among those who focused on Palin as a sort of scapegoat for their frustrations. There is no reason, however, that "Audrey's" husband and children should be made to suffer -- and trust me, if I published everything I've got, it would be tres embarrassment -- for her irrationality.

I'm guessing that the past 36 hours haven't been pleasant for her. However, unlike Jesse Griffin, "Audrey" has made no threats or boasts and, indeed, she hasn't posted anything else at all on her blog.

If she's willing to cease her absurd attacks on the Palin family -- and I wrote an e-mail to her husband to this effect -- I'm willing to stop here. My research is filed away, if further provocation should require me to reconsider whether mercy has been misinterpreted as weakness.

There is no need to be sadistic. Having taken her to the woodshed, I hope this will suffice.

Trig Truther research guy 'Patrick' researches . . . hot WebCam action?

What wonderful characters these crusaders for Truth -- note the capital "T" -- inevitably prove to be!

Back in the spring, when "Audrey" at Palin's Deceptions was doing a land-office business posting photographic "evidence" pulled from the Internet (perhaps significantly including MySpace pages), she was assisted by "Patrick (PD research)," who since has begun Twittering as "Palin Deceives." Here is one typical posting by Patrick:

the confirmation that Bristol worked as a Barista at Nordstrom in Anchorage in June/July 2007 can be found in SP's financial disclosure form for 2007 - download:
http://www.box.net/shared/7u1bxqm3ba
We have also a confirmation of this fact by another source which we cannot disclose.
We also know for sure that Bristol worked at PacSun in Anchorage in June 2007, and it is interesting to note that this job is not mentioned in the financial disclosure form. It is actually possible that the engagement at PacSun was cut short...
Patrick (PD research)

Oh, and here's another sweet one from Patrick:

I am not a journalist. If I were, I would pick up this story with no hesitation, because a simple research of the facts which are already known to the public shows without any doubt that Sarah’s birth story has to be wrong. . . .
In my opinion, it’s certain that Sarah Palin has not given birth to Trig. And Sarah is truly vicious, because she now uses Trig more and more aggressively for her political purposes . . .

Well, as Patrick says, he is not a journalist. I am, and "a simple research of the facts" shows that "Patrick (PD research)" used a Yahoo e-mail account: patrick12344[AT]yahoo.com. That link is to a Google search, and a bit more specific search shows that "Patrick (PD research)" likes him some "Free Web Cam" action. (NTTAWWT.)

Ah, but under his Yahoo account, Patrick was telling the Web Cam hotties: "hi baby my msn are curvers_23[at]hotmail.com," and if you search for that e-mail address . . . well, NTTAWWT.

UPDATE: As I was researching this, I came across this "Audrey" posting from Aug. 1 about "breaking news . . . too hot to ignore" :

About four hours ago, on Alaska blog Immoral Minority, the news comes: Sarah and Todd Palin plan to split. The Alaska Report follows suit.
I too have sources in Alaska. Over the last week, I have also heard rumors of things not being quite right at the Palin abode.

Right, "Audrey" -- you've got "sources in Alaska," and your sources are as full of crap as Jesse Griffin and Dennis Zaki. You idiots never know when to stop trying to milk those 15 minutes of anti-Palin fame, do you?

UPDATE II: Breaking new legal ground, in the comments below, "Patrick" accuses me of defaming his Internet pseudonym. Think about that.

The case of "Patrick12344" v. McCain could establish an important precedent for the landmark Supreme Court decision in Doe v. "HotBiChrlder19."

UPDATE III: More fun with moonbats: "Patrick12344" (who insists he most certainly would never look at a Free Web Cam) presumes to lecture us on "facts" and what constitutes an acceptable level of online proof. He then proceeds to claim that photos of Bristol Palin looking a little chubby in fall 2007 constitute definitive proof that Bristol is Trig's real mother -- because no teenage girl has ever gained weight unless she was pregnant -- and then, to top it all off, tells me that I owe him a retraction!

Patrick, you need to get a dictionary and look up the word "effrontery," which I believe you'll find a few pages past "douchebag."

PREVIOUSLY:

• 'Just Asking Questions' (Uncut Version)
• 'The Facts Are Well Known'
• Who is 'AnnieB393'?
• A Trig-Truther's Anonymity

Who Is Trig Truther 'Audrey'?'The Facts Are Well Known . . .'

Because Dan Riehl and I are currently in Trig-Truther "just asking questions" mode here, of course we cannot claim to know that "AnnieB393" is the same person as "Audrey" of the Palin's Deceptions blog.

We can, however, point out the evidence that they share the same obsession, such as this comment by "AnnieB393" on a YouTube video showing Sarah Palin at the 2008 IronDog race:

When you watch this video remember this woman is supposed to be nearly seven months pregnant with her fifth child.

Or this comment by "AnnieB393" at HuffPo:

Let's be accurate here. The blog picture you refer to identifies Sarah Palin as "mommy in law," not grandmother. It seems fairly obvious from the photographs that Mercede Johnston (Levi Johnston's younger sister) views herself as having some relationship with baby Trig that seems to go well beyond "good friend's little brother" or "future brother in law of my brother," but what exactly it is is not clear. These photos are discussed here: http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2008/11/at-long-last.html
It is also interesting to note, however, that allegations that Sarah was Trig's grandmother were published in comments on Anchorage Daily News in response to Trig's birth announcement with four hours of the announcement being posted, on April 18th . While Gov. Palin would like people to believe that this whole story is something concocted to hurt her after her V.P. pick, this is categorically false.

Well, that certainly is interesting! "AnnieB393" cites "Audrey" as her source for information on photos of the Palin/Johnston families!

OK, so now -- "Just asking questions," remember -- let us ask, who does "Audrey" say she is?

The facts are well-known: I am Audrey, a mother of six, childbirth educator and author, lactation consultant married to a physician.

So, if "Audrey" is a "childbirth educator and author," what about "AnnieB393"?

Personal Info
Audrey (Not tellin')
Lives in charlottesville, USA 22901
Homepage
http://www.palindeception.com
Interests
midwifery
Who am I
I am a childbirth educator and midwife's assistant

Of course, we're just asking questions, right? So while I already know the identity of "AnnieB393" -- and I know what book she has authored -- my question now is: Are all these apparently connections between "Audrey" and "AnnieB393" just random and coincidental? Is it possible that someone is engaged in deception to make us think there is a connection that is more than random and coincidental?

Because this could all be merely another one of those "Palin's Deceptions," I suppose.

It looks like Dan Riehl has some more questions.

UPDATE 8/25: While I hesitated about whether to go further, the 2+2 formula was added up by Aaron Gardener, which sort of rendered moot my own post on the "foreskin friend" and Palin-hater.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Who is 'AnnieB393'?
• A Trig-Truther's anonymity

Trig-Trutherism and Audrey's Deceptions: Who Is 'AnnieB393'?

On April 22, 2008, the Daily News-Miner of Fairbanks, Alaska, carried a story by Rebecca George about the birth of Trig Palin headlined, "Palin says she felt safe flying to Alaska to have baby."

On Sept. 13, 2008, "AnnieB393" added a comment on that story, reprinted here in its entirety:

I am a midwife, and am happy to comment on some of the information here. First, with all due respect to thehardway, there is no different to a medical professional between a women whose aminiotic sac is leaking and one where it is "broken." It might be more dramatic in movies but that's it. I have no idea what happened with your mother fifty years ago, but now any woman who had a similar circumstance would be hospitalized. In my midwifery career I have seen one mother on her fifth delivery give birth after two hours of "leaking" aminiotic fluid and ONE contraction. There is NO WAY an experienced mother who has had four previous deliveries leaking amniotic fluid would get on an airplane and no physician who would permit it. Period.
Second, IF Bristol Palin is the mother and did not breastfeed, it would have been theoretically possible for her to conceive again within six weeks of the birth. She easily could be pregnant again.. just not five months.
Third, it is clearly established on the Internet that the rumors that Bristol and NOT Sarah was pregnant began in Alaska BEFORE the birth, not after. No one can know if the Palins were aware of them, but they are well-connected and savvy, so it is certainly reasonable to assume they did. What did they do? Did they set up a photo-op of Governor Palin baby clothes shopping with her three daughters? Did they invited camera crews into the governor's mansion to show the family painting the nursery? One (ONE!) photo of a pregnant Governor with her non pregnant daughter would have shut all of the down, then and now. They didn't do it. It's valid to wonder why. (Emphasis added.)

On Sept. 15, 2008, in her first post at the Palin's Deception blog, "Audrey" posted this:

But the very first day - when I heard the brief news blurb about how Gov. Palin had traveled twelve plus hours supposedly with ruptured membranes with her fifth child, I could not believe it. My first thought was that it probably was not true . . . because, after all, no one really would do that. Then when the story persisted, my opinion changed to: was she effing nuts? Something is really wrong with this picture.
In my labor coaching and childbirth experience, I have personally seen one (fifth) baby born after two hours or so of "leaking" amniotic fluid followed by ONE contraction. And while this is admittedly an extreme example, I've seen MANY third, fourth, fifth or more (I worked for awhile among the Amish community) babies deliver after just an hour or two of "active labor." It's NOT uncommon. And the moment that amniotic sac ruptures (whether it's a "leak" or something more dramatic) believe me the clock starts clicking. The whole story just "bugged" me on some level... and this was long before I'd seen any references to the "baby swap." Then, when THAT hit the Internet, I had an "aha!" moment. (Emphasis added.)

Just to be sure you didn't miss that, here is "AnnieB393" at the News-Miner on Sept. 13:

In my midwifery career I have seen one mother on her fifth delivery give birth after two hours of "leaking" aminiotic fluid and ONE contraction.

And here is "Audrey" at Palin's Deceptions Sept. 15:

In my labor coaching and childbirth experience, I have personally seen one (fifth) baby born after two hours or so of "leaking" amniotic fluid followed by ONE contraction.

If there were no other evidence available online, a reasonable person might ask merely on the basis of these two posts whether "AnnieB393" and "Audrey" were one and the same.

Oh, but I did not say this was the only evidence available online, did I? Remember the post a couple of hours ago, in which I noted this claim from "Audrey":

As has been stated so many other places, it is incomprehensible that a doctor would not have told Gov. Palin to go to a hospital immediately and get checked out. . . . (Or, as my physician husband has quipped: "I must have missed that day in medical school.") (Emphasis added.)

So "Audrey" says she's married to a doctor. If "Audrey" is "AnnieB393" -- who is known to be a real flesh-and-blood person, but whom I won't name now -- then this is most curious, as research indicates no evidence that "AnnieB393" is married to a doctor.

Dan Riehl may have more soon. Remember, however, that in the grand tradition of Trig Trutherism, we're "just asking questions." Stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE 4:45 p.m.: "The Facts Are Well Known"

'Palin's Deceptions' and aTrig-Truther's Anonymity

The anti-Palin blog "Palin's Deceptions" proudly proclaims itself "The Web site that started it all" -- a link to the original site, "Sarah Palin's Lies," of which the blog is part -- and "all" in this case is that notorious fever swamp of obstetric speculation known as Trig Trutherism.

Palin's Deceptions blogger "Audrey," in her first post dated Sept. 15, 2008, began a discussion of the bizarre Trig-Truther theory this way:

"In my labor coaching and childbirth experience . . ."

So, from Day One, "Audrey" offered her professional expertise in support of this speculation that Trig was not actually Sarah Palin's child. And it was not merely her own expertise that she cited:

As has been stated so many other places, it is incomprehensible that a doctor would not have told Gov. Palin to go to a hospital immediately and get checked out. . . . (Or, as my physician husband has quipped: "I must have missed that day in medical school.") (Emphasis added.)

Now, I wish to raise a question in blog ethics: When an anonymous blogger claims a special expertise in a field, so as to support a particular line of personal attack on a public figure, has that blogger thereby made her own real-life identity a matter relevant to the discussion?

This is not strictly a hypothetical question. IYKWIMAITYD.

Given that there is an actual answer involved -- that "Audrey" is in fact a flesh-and-blood human being whose identity can be discovered -- what I'm wondering is how best to share that answer.

Would readers prefer that I adopt the favorite mode of Trig-Truthers? "Just asking questions," as they say.

Please feel free to comment. I've got 28 browser windows open, and must start compiling the next post before I crash my laptop. Guess who else may be interested?

UPDATE 4 p.m.: "Who is 'AnnieB393'?" Remember, "Just asking questions."