End of July Update.

July, for the most part (in genealogy) has remained somewhat quiet. I'm trying to solve a couple of other puzzles... but there isn't really enough information on one. The other looks like a connection to a Michael Gallagher and a lady with name of White as the possible connection. I'm trying to reach our subject, here, but haven't been able to do so.

Another really needs to test at Ancestry... that's her best bet to determine beyond who her father really is. It's still a question.

Just waiting on tests. Although I'm sure this is likely now solved, it's just that little bit of proof that the final connection is correct.

One test, each side. and then we start to construct an accurate tree. That may be tough, because of the records... but we will do our best.

Possible mistaken Identity

I don't have the correct word...disheartening, maybe? discouraging? I really don't know.

I recently learned that who we suspect as mom -- who was in the US in the early 50s -- returned to the US for a while, to search for a child. I'm told it was in the early 90s -- that could be 90-91-92-93. I'm going to assume 91-92.

One day, out of the blue, Charles answered a call -- a male voice on the other end said, "I have information about your daughter."

Charles had no biological children, and still does not. He said, "I have no daughter," and hung up. Scam, right?

He knew of Trisha's daughter, but didn't make any connection. But the daughter would not have been of an age at which anyone could make contact. She could try, of course... but I've never heard if she did or not.

Fast Forward to this year. It's learned that mom, or maybe mom, had been back in the US. Could Catholic Charities have tried to call and somehow believed that Trish and Charles were father and daughter?

We'll never know for sure. But if Mom had come, where did she look? Did she look in Florida? Or elsewhere? We had been married in late 1990. If this call was in 1991(I don't remember for sure), could they have been Catholic Charities, actually looking for the adoptee?

Or was it truly looking for Trish, as mother? Or was it just a scam?

It is sad to think that the call may have actually been mom looking for daughter, and getting cut off by a misunderstood message.

I hope she looks down from the clouds today, and smiles... I'm praying our answers are right.

Progress

Saturday morning (After 2 PM in Great Britain), we got our call.  We worked together.  We're convinced, but I lack the "proof"... DNA evidence.

It has brought me new members to the family.  Sweeney, for one.  Mulloy.  Hodge.

It has narrowed a search for another, person, Rita.  Were both connected to a Riley line.  And that line, I have discovered, connects to a Rowland.  Rowland connects to Mulloy.
It may be solving a Hegeman mystery, too.  It's connection to a Gallagher.  And that's been found at about a 3rd cousin level... which definitely points just one generation back to a line that may connect Anthony Gallagher to our lines.

Hoping for tests!  Praying for results.

Of course, this still has other mysteries to solve.  Trying to convince someone to test at Ancestry, which may provide a clue to her father.. and a crime.  But that aside, there's still plenty to do!

So many have had a hand in this.  Hulbert (Although he doesn't acknowledge). Coleman, Kristin Wood, Dawn F, two branches of a McNulty tree, plus several others that connect with McNulty.  And Corrigan.
Joe B.  And any one and Everyone who has tested so far!  :)

Results, pending.  Answers, I hope, soon.  :)

Reaching out.

I have reached out to 2 others. One, I have learned (Perhaps incorrectly) has passed on, so there is no hope of contact. The other DID get back to me. And I anxiously await a phone call from the other side of the Atlantic. A 5 hour difference may cause some difficulty. Hopefully, it's not too much! My biggest hope is that I can get my contact, or one of the known siblings, to do a test. It will give us the information needed to check our equation. The wildcard, which I call "E", is a variable that won't change A and X but will change R. That equation is probably less likely to be (A+X) *E = R, which is the way I have it written, but more complex, involving an Absolute and probably some form of Calculus! X is going to be between 0 and 196. But if it equals 0, that's going to be a problem. "A" needs to be in range of 1400-1800. E, our wildcard is between 1 and -1, but cannot be 0. Fingers crossed. Pray for our best results. Somebody's tree is going to be shaken up if A and X are in range. But if they are, our search... 64 years running... will be over. But that will give rise to the "real" work... constructing an accurate tree!