Apparently the memories of some reporters are a tricky thing. Especially when it comes to Sarah Palin's last "pregnancy."

I have to assume that all of you are just about as dizzy as I am from all of this new information being offered up by reporters suddenly coming out of the woodwork that they "knew" all along that Palin was pregnant.

First we had ADN reporter Julia O'Malley suddenly coming out with the information that. "Palin also ran all the time at the gym in Juneau. People I know saw her on the treadmill sweating in workout clothes. She had a belly. I repeat: she had a real pregnant belly. Are you going to tell me she was wearing a prosthetic abdomen on the treadmill?"  I am not calling anybody a liar, but I had NEVER heard a report of that kind of observation since I first started asking questions back in the fall of 2008. 

Since that rather interesting revelation Justin Elliot has shaken loose a few other reporters who had pregnancy confirming stories of their own, such as Steven Quinn, Erika Bolstad, and Wesley Loy. (There are other reporters named, but Elliott simply used old articles they wrote back in 2008.  Nothing new to address there.)

Now I have already addressed what I think of Steve Quinn's believability, and some of the other reporters named, but I want to return to Wesley Loy for a moment.

Wesley Loy, as many of you know, originally reported the response of Alaskans to the news the governor was pregnant as follows:

That the pregnancy is so advanced astonished all who heard the news. The governor, a runner who's always been trim, simply doesn't look pregnant.

Even close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting.

Obviously it was reports like that one, as well as Michael Carey's casual reference to the "rumor" that Palin faked her pregnancy (And of course the troubling "pregnancy" pictures), that first piqued the interest of those of us who started to question the official birth story.

Now suddenly yesterday Wesley Loy comes out with the revelation, also published in Salon, that he eventually became convinced that Palin WAS pregnant.

The first question to ask is WHY did he wait so long to say anything.  The second is how did Salon get him to go on the record with this previously unreported information when others have failed to do so? (Myself included.) And the third question is did what he reported really take place the way he reported it, and if it did was it actually enough to convince him she that was telling the truth?

Now I am loathe to call anybody a liar. I do not know Mr. Loy, and up until last night had no reason to question his assertion that the story he told about Palin showing him her "(covered) baby bump" really DID assure him that she was pregnant.

But then I had a telephone conversation with Professor Scharlott.

I called him essentially to see how he was  faring with the fact that he now found himself in the eye of a media hurricane. (He is faring well, just so you know.) But then the conversation turned to Wesley Loy.

The Professor said that he had tried in vain to contact Mr. Loy for his research paper, after being directed to do so by reporter Gregg Erickson who was writing for the Alaska Budget Report down in Juneau. The Professor failed to receive a response from Mr. Loy, however he kindly agreed to let me share his conversation with Mr. Erickson here with you.

This is the e-mail that Professor Scharlott sent way back in September of 2008.

Hi,

Is it true the Anchorage Daily News "debunked" the idea that Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby, as I read in a blog? I am mystified why Palin did not produce documentary evidence (e.g. birth certificate) to show her maternity instead of responding to rumors by revealing Bristol's (second?) pregnancy, which in itself does not prove anything if you simply stipulate that she may be less than five months pregnant. Also, I can find no confirmatory statements from attending medical personnel such as her doctor or anyone at the hospital that Sarah is the mother.

I am a journalism professor (so I am highly skeptical by training) and the whole thing sounds fishy. It's almost as if there is an agreement among our colleagues in journalism to let the Palins spread a false version of who Trig's mother is out of a desire to help protect the reputation of Bristol -- which arguably would have been a good thing to do before Palin outed her daughter's current pregnancy and started making political hay out of her "choice" to have a Down syndrome baby.

I am not trying, by the way, to break a news story here -- I stopped writing for newspapers a long time ago. But I am planning to investigate how reporters have reacted to the Palin phenomenon and probably report my findings at an academic conference down the road.

If I am on the wrong track here re Trig's maternity, just let me know. If there is more going on than meets the eye, maybe it would be possible for me to call you for (if need be) an off-the-record chat.

Thanks,
Brad Scharlott
Associate Professor
Northern Kentucky University

Here is Mr. Erickson's response:

Dear Brad:

Anchorage Daily News reporter Wesley Loy investigated the idea that Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby. I've worked with (and against Loy) for years. He's an astute, indefatigable and ruthless reporter.

During this summer's special legislative session Loy, I, and my wife occupied three adjoining offices near the Capitol. We frequently discussed stories we were reporting for Judy's newsletter, my columns, and the stories he was was working. We especially enjoyed Wesley's accounts of his pursuit the "Grandma Governor fakes birth" story.

As far as I know nothing was ever published on "Grandma," but he might have posted something on ADN's "Alaska Politics" blog or elsewhere that I didn't see.

I suggest you address your questions to him a wloy@adn.com.

Good luck,
Gregg Erickson

Now here is my question.

If Wesley Loy had been convinced that Palin WAS in fact Trig's birth mother after his observation of her cloth covered "baby bump," in the spring, why did he not simply tell Erickson about what he had seen, and that in his mind the question had been resolved to his satisfaction? 

And if he HAD told Erickson this, why would Erickson refer to the story as the "Grandma Governor fakes birth" story? 

Not to mention the fact that it sounds like these reporters were discussing stories they were CURRENTLY working on that summer of 2008, NOT stories they had covered in the past.  So why would Loy bring them up unless this was still an ongoing investigation?

I am sorry, but rather than putting this story to rest, Loy's miraculously reconstructed memory actually raises many more questions.  Questions that I personally find very troubling. Very troubling indeed.