- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Messages
- 2,453
- Reaction score
- 196
The truth is probably closer to George "The Animal" Steele.Annasmom said:Naw, George Cloony's better.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/drdoogief/detail?.dir=/aac9&.dnm=899ascd.jpg&.src=ph
The truth is probably closer to George "The Animal" Steele.Annasmom said:Naw, George Cloony's better.
You two better be careful with your pix! Otherwise people will think Anna ran away in fear after catching a glimpse of the two of you! (Just kidding!).It's gonna be a helluva picture: a professional wrestler standing next to a member of ZZ Top.
Omigosh, am I ready for this?HeartofTexas said:You two better be careful with your pix! Otherwise people will think Anna ran away in fear after catching a glimpse of the two of you! (Just kidding!).
Big congratulations, Doogie, for the 30-minute interview... and good luck to both of you on the remaining interview. Any chance someone could scan a copy of the article when it comes out, for those of us not on the West Coast? Or maybe it will be on their website?
You'll be great Annasmom!Annasmom said:Omigosh, am I ready for this?
Wish me luck, my friends. I hate having my picture taken, and I get all tongue-tied when people ask me questions. The Half Moon Bay Review, by the way, does have a web site, and the paper comes out on Wednesday. If they carry the article that day, you should all be able to read it on line.
I just got a PM from reportertype this morning regarding counties she covers. It may be too late to make this connection, but if not, would you write her directly and see if it can happen?SherlockJr said:OK, an active member of the search team is going to Florida for a week to look for Anna. Will this work reportertype?
Yes, it is still there. It is obscured by the now-large tree in the center of the picture, but was visible from the high vantage point in 1973.GraceBlue said:Did you two get to go by the old house if it is still there?
Annasmom and I were having this exact discussion as we were looking through the Box from Hell on Saturday. We found the insurance policy that seems to have been the focus of the "Plan" note, but interestingly, it was dated late 1970 (which means that the "plan" seems to have been in effect for over two years before the Jan. 1973 date on the note). The "Plan" note clearly mentions that Anna was the beneficiary, meaning that the policy was taken out on someone else (probably George Waters) and was to be paid to Anna upon the insuree's death. However, it is not clear who the insured was on some of the paperwork for policies that we found that listed Brody as the beneficiary (it is possible that Anna was the insured on these). Since it seems that Waters purged his files of many items prior to his suicide, our hope is that he may have missed some incriminating piece of evidence before he died. We are going to re-examine the insurance records closely for any hints at a financial motivation for Anna's disappearance.GraceBlue said:I have been thinking a lot about the two Georges and the comment "I am glad the tot is dead" Could they have taken a life insurance policy out on her?
I didn't go when they added the "Eifee", but I have a birth certificate issued before that change and one issued after the change. I didn't have to sign anything or give a SS number. I know any "official" paper can be forged, but I don't know about giving someone a totally different name. I think you have to go to court.GraceBlue said:Annasmom, when they changed Anna's name to add the 'Eifee' did you go along with them to file out the papers? Did you ever see the formal papers with her name 'Anna Christian Eifee Waters' stamped on it, or something like that when they added Eifee? Did you have to give them your ss# in order for them to do that? A signature of approval? The reason I ask is, could it be possible that they gave her a totally different name and took a life insurance policy out for her in a different name? Just a thought I had on top of my head.
Does the amended birth record have a date that it was filed? The reason for this question is to see if it's possible to call vital records office to search for any birth records (not necessarily Anna's because you just recently got a copy of her amended birth record) to see which ones born in 67-68 were amended in Jan 1973. They may have them indexed a way to search for amended records at the time Anna went missing.Annasmom said:I didn't go when they added the "Eifee", but I have a birth certificate issued before that change and one issued after the change. I didn't have to sign anything or give a SS number. I know any "official" paper can be forged, but I don't know about giving someone a totally different name. I think you have to go to court.
The amended birth certificate has a bottom line which says "date on which name added by supplemental name report", and the date is Oct. 3, 1967. The "original informant" has my signature and then the obstetrician's signature, but is not dated. I don't believe I could have made the trek to Public Records only a week after Anna was born, and I don't remember any such trek, so I am pretty sure GW did this, though his signature doesn't appear on the birth certificate. Also, the original "date signed by informant" (me, at the hospital, I believe) is left blank. Remember that I got an official copy of this this past May when we were looking to see if anyone had closed the file because of an adoption.SherlockJr said:Does the amended birth record have a date that it was filed? The reason for this question is to see if it's possible to call vital records office to search for any birth records (not necessarily Anna's because you just recently got a copy of her amended birth record) to see which ones born in 67-68 were amended in Jan 1973. They may have them indexed a way to search for amended records at the time Anna went missing.
Wow, I had not realized they added this name to the record so quickly after she was born (8 days?) Were they always this spontaneous?Annasmom said:The amended birth certificate has a bottom line which says "date on which name added by supplemental name report", and the date is Oct. 3, 1967. The "original informant" has my signature and then the obstetrician's signature, but is not dated. I don't believe I could have made the trek to Public Records only a week after Anna was born, and I don't remember any such trek, so I am pretty sure GW did this, though his signature doesn't appear on the birth certificate. Also, the original "date signed by informant" (me, at the hospital, I believe) is left blank. Remember that I got an official copy of this this past May when we were looking to see if anyone had closed the file because of an adoption.
I would say they were always obsessed and often impulsive.SherlockJr said:Wow, I had not realized they added this name to the record so quickly after she was born (8 days?) Were they always this spontaneous?