Amelia Earhart's Survival and Repatriation: Myth or Reality?

Preface

The mystery of Amelia Earhart has fascinated and persisted since the morning of July 2, 1937, when the world’s most famous aviatrix and her navigator, Fred Noonan, disappeared without a trace near Howland Island, in the central Pacific. Various and complex theories about this mystery have been proposed, from serious and reasonable scenarios to the most bizarre flights of fancy. More than once, the grand affirmation, “The mystery is solved!” has been heard, only to fade into silence in the wake of competing ideas and evidence. To this day, no definitive “smoking gun” evidence has been uncovered or released, thus no universal agreement exists as to the true fate of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan.

One of the most controversial hypotheses about Earhart’s disappearance is the so-called “survival theory.” This theory posits that Earhart survived World War II in Japanese custody, and was then somehow “repatriated” back to the United States in 1945. Speculation circulating during the postwar years led some researchers to lend some credence to this idea. Was it really so? How credible were these stories and speculations?

The goal of this paper is to explore and analyze this intriguing theory, and to propose some conclusions based on facts, logic and common sense. The “Japanese capture” theory is a popular one in the Amelia Earhart Society (AES) – the small, disparate collection of dedicated enthusiasts who have worked for several decades studying this and other proposed solutions to this historical problem.

This paper was developed as a result of collaboration and cooperation with several dedicated Earhart researchers. I am especially grateful to Ron Bright and Patrick Gaston, longtime Earhart researchers, whose kind cooperation and consultations were truly priceless. I am also grateful to Louise Foudray, the caretaker of the Amelia Earhart Birthplace Museum in Atchison, Kansas, as well as Earhart author Donald Wilson and former AES president Bill Prymak. I’d also like to extend special thanks to Mike Campbell, longtime Earhart researcher and author, who generously offered his time and hands-on support to make this project possible. Finally, I want to extend a very special note of gratitude to Ms. Michele Cervone, a longtime Earhart historian and enthusiast, who generously arranged an extensive “research trip” for both of us in 2004, during which I was lucky to collect significant new information that sheds light on the Amelia Earhart-as- Irene Bolam hypothesis. Without the cooperation and generous help of my American friends and colleagues, this work would not have been possible.

The Japanese Capture Theory

The idea that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were captured by the Japanese shortly after they went missing in their Lockheed Electra 10E on July 2, 1937 was first introduced, albeit briefly, to the public in 1960 when the book, Daughter of the Sky, by Paul Briand Jr., was published. CBS newsman Fred Goerner, whose interest was ignited by the eyewitness account of Mrs. Josephine Blanco Akiyama in Briand’s book, traveled to Saipan four times, interviewed more than a dozen native eyewitnesses, challenged the U.S. government’s official version of events and wrote The Search for Amelia Earhart, a best seller published in 1966. Goerner’s book remains the seminal work of the Earhart genre, a classic that is still highly regarded by Earhart researchers.

According to the theory, after being unable to locate Howland Island, Earhart made a forced landing somewhere in or near the Marshall Islands, in the central Pacific, which were controlled by the Japanese. The “rescued” American aviators soon became the captured ones, since the Japanese kept the pair in top-secret confinement. Due to a variety of military and political motivations, not least of which was their massive military buildup of these islands in the years prior to the war, the Japanese were loathe to admit – and remain so – to the United States that they had Earhart and Noonan in custody, much less release them.

Considerable evidence indicates that Earhart and Noonan were held as Japanese prisoners on Saipan, in the northern Marianas, can be found in Amelia Earhart: Lost Legend by Donald M. Wilson (1993); and With Our Own Eyes: Eyewitnesses to the Final Days of Amelia Earhart by Mike Campbell with Thomas E. Devine (2002); as well as several earlier works, The Search For Amelia Earhart (1966) by Fred Goerner foremost among them. According to claims of the witnesses, Earhart and Noonan died in Japanese hands, probably executed, and their bodies were secretly buried before the U.S. assault there in 1944. Such possible actions by the Japanese military on prewar Saipan are logical and understandable, when considered from their point of view.

Whether Earhart and Noonan had actually been embarked on a covert reconnaissance mission at the behest of the U.S. government – thus enlisted as spies – as many have speculated, the Japanese had little choice but to have considered the two as such. And after their repeated denials of any discovery or involvement with Earhart during and after the international search for the aviators following their disappearance, it would be unthinkable for the Japanese to reverse their position and lose “face” in a world they were seeking to subjugate by use of military force soon thereafter. However, some still believe that Earhart did indeed survive and returned to the United States. The focal point of researchers who support and promote this survival theory was a New Jersey housewife named Irene Craigmile Bolam, who died in 1982.

Genesis of the Earhart-as-Bolam Theory

The idea that Amelia Earhart survived and returned secretly to the United States after World War II was launched four decades ago. In August 1965, former Air Force Major Joe Gervais, an avid and respected Earhart researcher, met Irene Bolam during a meeting of the Long Island (N.Y.) Early Fliers Club at the Sea Spray Inn, East Hampton, Long Island. Former aviatrix Viola Gentry, herself a well-known charter member of the original women’s aviators group, the Ninety-Nines (as was Earhart herself), introduced Gervais to Mrs. Irene Craigmile Bolam, who was attending the meeting with her husband, Guy Bolam. During her introduction, Gentry told Gervais, “Doesn’t she look like Amelia?” but later she obviously regretted this casual remark and always emphatically denied any connection existed between Earhart and Bolam. “I only did it as a joke!” she said more than once.

As Gervais would later explain to friends and associates, from the first moment he saw Irene Bolam, he was stricken by the idea that Mrs. Bolam greatly resembled Amelia Earhart, or, at least, the way he believed Earhart would appear after having gone missing for almost 30 years, and who would have been sixty-eight years old in 1965. Even more significant to Gervais than the (apparent to him) physical similarities between Mrs. Bolam and Earhart, however, were the (alleged) Distinguished Flying Cross ribbon and miniature major’s oak leaf that Mrs. Bolam wore that day. According to Gervais, these awards had been presented to Amelia Earhart during her career. From that day forward, Gervais focused his research efforts on establishing the links that would prove his contention – that Irene Bolam and Amelia Earhart were one and the same person.

As a result of his encounter with Irene Bolam, Gervais believed that Earhart had not been held by the Japanese on Saipan until her death there, but had been moved to some secret holding place in Japan or China. Although details vary and no unanimous agreement exists among the theory’s various proponents, Gervais (who died in 2005) and others believe Earhart was held by the Japanese in their civilian internment camp in Weishien, China – exhausted and sick – until the liberation of the camp by Allied forces in 1945.

The origin of this bizarre idea was the 1987 discovery of an unsigned 1945 telegram, or “speed letter,” among prisoner-of-war files held by the U.S. State Department, which was sent from Weishien to George P. Putnam, Earhart’s husband. The telegram reads, “Camp liberated – all well – volumes to tell – love to mother.” This mysterious missive immediately caused a sensation among some Earhart researchers, but since then it has been conclusively established that the “Weishien Telegram” did not originate from Amelia Earhart, but was sent to Putnam by Ahmad Kamal, a writer and international traveler, whose aging mother Putnam had been looking after during his internment at Weishien.

Undeterred, Gervais continued to believe that Earhart was “discovered” at Weishien and secretly returned by our government to the United States. Soon after her clandestine arrival, she allegedly assumed a new identity in a manner similar to those enrolled in the “witness protection” program, and became Irene Craigmile, later Irene Craigmile Bolam. Why Amelia Earhart would want to assume another identity and begin a new life completely detached from her beloved mother, sister, family and many friends is, of course, one of many obvious questions this theory has elicited from its critics. The answer to this question, as well as many others that present logical obstacles to the acceptability of the Irene Bolam hypothesis, has never been expressed in a manner coherent enough to convince any but its few proponents, whose motivations are themselves sufficiently tenuous as to arouse well-founded suspicions.

Proponents of the Irene Bolam theory have claimed, from the beginning, that the principal motivation for our government to undertake such a complex and difficult operation as the transformation of the identity of Amelia Earhart into that of Irene Bolam was embarrassment. This embarrassment had its origins in several sensitive areas of national concern. To publicly acknowledge that Earhart had been captured by Japanese military forces in 1937, taken into custody and moved to a secure place of confinement – either with or without the knowledge of President Franklin D. Roosevelt – would have enormous political implications. Had Roosevelt known and abandoned Earhart because of lack political will or military expediency, he would be forever stigmatized as the most cowardly of U.S. presidents. Alternatively, if Roosevelt’s military and intelligence organizations had not been aware of Earhart’s captivity in Japanese hands until 1945, he would most certainly bear the brand of total incompetence for time immemorial. Since one of these two scenarios likely did exist after Earhart’s disappearance and continue to this day officially unremarked upon, this argument – although not original to the Irene Bolam allegations – advanced by the theory’s proponents to justify the U.S. government’s clandestine operation to repatriate Earhart under an assumed identity, is quite reasonable in itself.

Another consideration co-opted by Bolam proponents, although far more speculative that those just discussed, is that the US government would certainly be reluctant to admit that (if) in 1937 (long before Pearl Harbor) American intelligence had been involved in some covert activity against the Japanese in the Pacific and used national icon and world celebrity Earhart in a secret operation not approved by the U.S. Congress – an operation in which Earhart had been unwittingly lost. Additionally, there would be the necessary disclosure of information about Earhart’s difficult years in Japanese hands, where she suffered mistreatment and humiliation. This would have had a highly detrimental effect on the newly established U.S.-Japanese relationship in the unstable and delicate postwar years.

An additional motivation for the Earhart-to-Bolam transformation alleged by Bolam theorists could be found in Amelia Earhart herself. According to their theory, Earhart’s own (alleged) reluctance about becoming the focus of an unprecedented publicity blitz was in itself enough to compel her complicity in the scheme to change identity. She had (allegedly) been very exhausted and sick after eight terrible years of Japanese imprisonment, her spirit broken by torments. By that time she desired only complete anonymity and a quiet private life away from any public attention, according to the theory’s proponents. These proposed reasons for such a change of identity – more or less reasonable on their face – were never confirmed by any substantiated facts, and remain to this day nothing more than pure speculation and fantasy.

This intriguing theory was publicly presented for the first time in 1970 in Amelia Earhart Lives (McGraw-Hill), by Joe Klaas and Joe Gervais. The book was a sensation, but it didn’t please its heroine, Irene Craigmile Bolam. A private person who valued her autonomy, she was irritated by this intrusion into her life and outraged by the media’s avid curiosity and numerous speculations about her. Besieged by the media, she furiously denied the book’s thesis, loudly declaiming before the cameras and microphones, “I am not a mysterious woman, I am not Amelia Earhart – this is nonsense!” Irene’s determined refutation, plus the absence of any real proof, in combination with many factual errors and logical contradictions, discredited the idea to an extent that few observers in the media put any credence in it. However, the theory had been born, and it has been nearly impossible to completely eradicate this pernicious idea, which has so fascinated and beguiled its enthusiasts and devotees.

New book resurrects Earhart-as-Bolam theory

The Earhart-as-Bolam theory was re-introduced in 2003, when Amelia Earhart Survived, by Colonel Rollin Reineck, was published by a Southern California publisher. Colonel Reineck based much of his case on the claims of Monsignor James F. Kelley, a former president of Seton Hall University and well-known Catholic priest. According to two witnesses, in 1981 Kelley told them about his role in helping “return” Amelia Earhart to the United States in the months following the Japanese surrender in 1945.

To bolster his claim, Reineck displayed amateur photo-overlays prepared by Tod Swindell, a Hollywood producer, who was also convinced that Earhart had returned to the United States after the war. According to Swindell and Reineck, these overlays of Amelia were “congruent” with Irene Bolam’s features. This “photo-overlay comparison” is the primary basis for the resurrection of this discredited theory among its enthusiasts in recent years. A review of the theory’s major claims, and the “evidence” produced to support them, seems appropriate at this time.

As informed readers probably remember, the theory was born in August 1965, when Major Joe Gervais claimed that he “recognized” Amelia Earhart in New Jersey housewife Irene Bolam during his very first meeting with her at the Sea Spray Inn, in Long Island, N.Y. But can Gervais’ claim of “instantly recognizing” Amelia Earhart in the person of someone named Irene Bolam be accepted as credible?

Generally, it seems obvious that it is possible to “recognize” – more or less immediately – a person whom one has known well. If the time passed since the last meeting with an individual was significant (let’s say, 10 to 15 years or more), the chances to “recognize” that person become less, but still exist. Even if the person’s appearance has changed, such things as mannerisms and other characteristic behavior and habits, gestures and voice, usually remain fairly constant. Major Gervais was a dedicated and enthusiastic Earhart researcher, and the claim has recently been made that he met Earhart when he was a teenager in the 1930s, and obviously he saw many photos and newsreels. However, it remains a reasonable question to ask how Gervais could so quickly recognize Earhart in Irene Bolam under such conditions.

What logic tells us

It is worth mentioning that no hard evidence exists to support an Earhart survival theory. Specifically, no evidence has been found that supports the idea that Earhart ever left Saipan – either documented or anecdotal – although much eyewitness and hearsay evidence indicates her presence there after her disappearance in July 1937. Indeed, Earhart’s presence on Saipan, although strongly supported by many sources, remains a major area of contention among leading Earhart theorists.

No credible evidence exists that indicates Earhart’s presence in Japan. A few postwar rumors – anecdotal accounts about some alleged recollections – constitute double or triple hearsay that started to circulate after the Japanese capture version became popular. These accounts are bizarre, foggy, controversial and contradictory to many firmly established historic facts. For example, there was a story about somebody who apparently saw Earhart in Tokyo during the war. There was even a legend about her living in the Japanese Emperor’s Palace in Tokyo, as Hirohito’s mistress during the wartime years – an absurd myth without credibility.

This scenario suggests that Earhart, a well-known American patriot, would willingly betray her country in an extremely vicious way. It would have been unthinkable for the Japanese to permit a captured person, especially a world-famous one, to have any contact with the outside world. This would have been especially true for Earhart, whose presence in Japan could only have been a highly guarded secret known by a very few people in the Japanese government and military establishment. This would have been particularly true about such places as the Imperial Palace, a government building populated and visited daily by hundreds of people. Many detailed descriptions of life and events there in the prewar and wartime period were written. But nothing about Earhart was ever hinted at by any Japanese sources.

Some advocates of the Earhart-as-Bolam theory went so far as to accept as serious one of the most bizarre wartime rumors of all – that Amelia Earhart was Tokyo Rose. In reality, no one by that name actually existed; the several women radio broadcasters employed to spread Japanese propaganda and harass American servicemen throughout the Pacific theater were all simply dubbed Tokyo Rose by their captive audience. After an extensive postwar investigation of the key participants in the Japanese radio propaganda project, an open trial of one unfortunate Japanese-American woman, Iva Toguri, followed, which was covered with great interest by U.S. and international media. More than 7,000 documents were produced during the investigation and trial, and no connection with Amelia Earhart was ever found.

George Putnam, Amelia’s husband, puzzled and curious about this bizarre rumor, listened to one of the Tokyo Rose broadcasts when he was serving in China while assigned to the U.S. Army Air Corps. Putnam was certain the voice was not that of his wife. Supporters of this myth were not put off or embarrassed by the fact that using Amelia’s voice anonymously would be of no value to the Japanese propaganda machine, if indeed they could have somehow forced or persuaded Amelia to play this role, which was extremely unlikely considering Earhart’s well-known patriotic character. Even the father of the Earhart-as-Bolam theory, Joe Gervais, admitted this idea – that the Japanese would use Earhart anonymously as one of their “Tokyo Roses” – was completely without merit. “The whole propaganda value would have been in who she was,” Gervais said. “There would be no point at all in Amelia Earhart broadcasting Japanese propaganda under the name of ‘Tokyo Rose.’”

The Bolam theorists claim the mysterious woman, Irene Craigmile Bolam, lived a life in the postwar decades that could be considered “semi-public.” Although she protected her privacy in various ways, Irene Bolam nevertheless attended many official and semi-official events, such as meetings of the early fliers, anniversaries and official celebrations. Mrs. Bolam was a member of well-known women’s organizations such as Zonta and the Ninety-Nines, and was also remembered by many who knew her as a friend of many publicly known persons.

All this is in obvious contradiction with the theory of a government conspiracy to “repatriate” Amelia Earhart as Irene Bolam. The “transformation” of Amelia Earhart’s identity into that of Irene Bolam would necessarily have to be an extremely secret matter. It would be highly illogical both for Earhart and the government to allow this conspiracy to be jeopardized by living such a visible lifestyle, visiting old friends who knew Earhart, attending aviation-related events, speaking publicly and traveling extensively.

Additionally, since the early ’80s (Irene Bolam died in 1982), extensive research shows that her life before 1945 was, in fact, not so mysterious. These biographical facts about her will be presented below.

Irene Bolam’s “medals”

According to Joe Gervais, among the key indicators in his “identification” of Irene Bolam as Amelia Earhart were the medals that Irene wore during their meeting at the Sea Spray Inn in August 1965. This is how Joe Klaas, Gervais’ close friend and collaborator, described the event in his book, Amelia Earhart Lives:

"Suspended on a chain around her neck was a silver medallion and pinned to her dress front near where the silver medal hung were a miniature major’s oak-leaf insignia and an enameled miniature metal replica of the red-white-and-blue ribbon which can only be officially worn by those who have been awarded the American Distinguished Flying Cross."

This situation looks somewhat illogical, as it contradicts any common-sense ideas about the change-of-identity issue that is the foundation of this theory. Why would the “former Earhart,” who supposedly “became” Irene Bolam because she wanted anonymity and a quiet private life, appear at a professional aviation meeting where the pilots, reporters and others should have known her at once as Amelia Earhart, wearing medals that would further solidify a positive identification of the famed aviatrix?

Joe Gervais’ evidence – his photo of Mrs. Bolam wearing the DFC ribbon – was presented in Amelia Earhart Lives, and it certainly raises some questions. The quality of the photo, although not very good, does clearly show the “replica of the red-white-and-blue ribbon.” At this point, it can be illustrative to turn to Earhart researcher Patrick Gaston and his analysis of the photo displayed in the Klaas-Gervais book:

"Now here is the Sea Spray Inn photo. At right is a blowup of the area where Irene’s neckline comes together. She is wearing two insignia of some type. These must be the items Gervais identified as the DFC ribbon and miniature major’s oak leaf, as she is wearing no other jewelry except for the “round medallion” also noted by Gervais. It is evident from the blowup that the ribbon worn by IB consists of three color bands of equal width – red, white, blue. The arrangement of bars and colors looks nothing like the DFC ribbon.

As for the “oak leaf,” while the details are not visible, the shape is wrong. A major’s oak leaf should show eight “points” (seven leaves plus the stem), while the medal worn by IB seems to have only five points, like a star or perhaps a pentagon enclosing a star. Whichever way you turn the photo, the “leaves” at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock are missing, along with the “stem.”

Thus Maj. Gervais was almost certainly wrong about the DFC, and probably wrong about the oak leaf – two of the three pieces of jewelry that were integral to his initial identification of IB as AE. As for the medallion hanging from IB’s neck, I can’t make out any details other than the fact that it’s round and is suspended on a plain black cloth strap, which would be consistent with some type of decoration rather than mere jewelry. However, Gervais never described what was on the face of the medallion; he noted only that it was the “same size and shape” as the one presented earlier that day to Thelma. Well, after all, most medallions are round and between 1.5 and 2.5 inches in diameter. It could be most anything.

The bigger question, never addressed by Klaas, Gervais, Reineck or (Tod) Swindell, is WHY Amelia Earhart – who is so determined to live out her days incognito – would continue to associate with her old aviation pals AND wear one-of-a kind decorations which could ONLY have been worn by Earhart. Seems a pretty sloppy way of safeguarding IB’s “secret identity,” which the government has spent millions to establish.

Another curious thing about the Sea Spray Inn photo is how Guy Bolam towers over Irene, even though he was standing behind her. Since Irene is closer to the camera, a moderate to wide-angle lens – the kind that comes standard on most cameras – will make her look taller vis-à-vis Guy than she really was. (The precise degree can’t be calculated since we would need to know the exact focal length of the lens, the subject-to-camera distance and the Irene-to-Guy distance.) Since this was a dressy occasion, it’s reasonable to speculate that Irene was wearing some sort of heels. Let’s be conservative and say 1-inch heels, which again would make her appear taller vis-à-vis Guy than she really was.

Yet despite the fact that Irene is standing in front of Guy and probably wearing heels, Guy still appears 5 to 6 inches taller in the photo. If they were standing side-by-side in their stocking feet, my guess is that he would be 7 to 8 inches taller than Irene. So if the woman in this photo is 5’8”, as Rollin [Reineck] contends, then by my estimate that would put Guy at 6’3” to 6’4”. I hasten to add this ain’t science, but an educated guess based upon my years as a newspaper photographer and editor. On the other hand, if Bolam was actually 5’5” – consistent with the height she reported all her life – that would make Guy 6’ or 6’1”. This is consistent with how the AES Bolams remember him.

And of course there is the basic difference in body types. In this photo Irene is verging on plumpness and has pendulous breasts. AE was rail-thin and flat-chested. I think it’s pretty common knowledge that people who are skinny into their 40s generally remain skinny the rest of their lives (look at AE’s mom and sister, for example). In addition, according to the National Institutes of Health, after age 70 people don’t put on body fat; they lose it. Earhart would have been 68 when this photo was taken in 1965.

Accordingly, if the woman in this photo is Amelia Earhart, then she has clearly put on 30 to 40 pounds since her flying days – contrary to her lean-and-lanky body type and, evidently, her heredity. She has grown breasts and is married to a guy well over six feet tall. If I am wrong about all this, then it’s still inconceivable (again IMHO) that AE’s church/government handlers would allow her to wear her unique decorations in public, especially at a gathering of old flyers who knew Earhart well. Hell, why not just wear a name tag reading, “Call Me Millie?” PDG"

No evidence exists in the numerous biographies or available records that Earhart ever received an honorary miniature major’s oak leaf insignia. Amelia was never an active duty U.S. Army Air Corps officer, but was an “Honorary Major.” She had been given this honorary rank, with little wings (she wore them often) and a scroll, in 1928, at Cressey Field, Calif., but not the oak-leaf insignia. The aforementioned “silver medallion” is not especially distinguishable, either. It could be just a piece of jewelry, and there is no reason to suspect that it could or should be some medallion representing something connected with her life or flying career. Thus, the “amazing coincidences” disintegrate before the discerning, informed eye: None of the “medals” worn by Mrs. Bolam were anything but costume jewelry.

The most reasonable explanation of this strange confusion was Gervais’ well-known obsession with the Earhart disappearance. Gervais knew that Earhart was awarded the DFC, and he remembered that she had been given an honorary majors rank. From that point, Gervais made a huge leap of faith, and thus a myth was born.

Mrs. Bolam denies medals story

The News Tribune of Woodbridge, N.J., ran a series of articles that examined many aspects of the Earhart-as-Bolam scenario. The following excerpts are taken from its Oct. 28, 1982, edition:

• Irene Bolam herself dashed claims that she wore medals earned by Amelia Earhart – medals some have said she was the fabled aviatrix.

• “I was never entitled to, nor do I own, the decorations,” she wrote. One of the “medals” she was wearing in a photograph snapped by the author of the book (i.e., Mr. Joe Gervais) was a “thank you” medal presented by Viola Gentry and Feliciti Burnelli to Mrs. Bolam when she was active in the Zonta Club of New Rochelle, she said. The other she described as a black enamel diamond brooch given her by her third husband, Guy Bolam. “I don’t know what is just below it. It may have been a guard. Maybe it was a piece of cake – she said in a deposition in connection with her suit against the book “Amelia Earhart Lives.” She also described a locket that she was wearing on the same occasion. “It’s got French wording on it: “I love you more today then yesterday, but less than tomorrow,” and it’s got a little diamond on it.”

• “I also did not claim to have flown with Amelia Earhart. I flew in the same period of time in which she was actively flying,” Mrs. Bolam wrote as she prepared for the litigation. She said she first meet Miss Earhart in 1931 or 1932 at a tea given in her honor by Zonta International in New York City. Mrs. Bolam said she attended as the guest of her aunt, the lawyer Irene Rutherford O’Crowley.

• She said she first encountered Miss Earhart in the receiving line at the event and later that evening socialized with her. Mrs. Bolam indicated she later again met Miss Earhart at the Bendix Air Races in Cleveland which she attended and in which Amelia competed. (A claim that was confirmed by a scrapbook with signatures of both Amelia and Irene, presented on E-bay and found by Earhart historian Michele Cervone, moderator of the Amelia Earhart Society online forum).

What does the photographic evidence tells us?

Ron Bright and Patrick Gaston filed the following report to the Amelia Earhart Society circa April 2005 on their findings regarding the alleged height similarity between Earhart and Bolam: In interviews with Adrian McBride and Marilyn Hession Munson (the daughter of Gertrude Hession, Kelley’s sister), both longtime friends of Irene Bolam, we asked if they had photos of Irene Bolam and Gertrude Hession together so that we would have a known “standard” of height. Marilyn said her mother, Gertrude, was about 5’3” to 5’4”. In addition to Marilyn’s estimate, we found Gertrude’s Delaware Drivers license, which lists her height at 5’3”.

Marilyn produced several photos of her mother Gertrude, age 67, and Irene Bolam, 72 (Amelia would have been 79 at this time), and herself taken on their 1976 trip to Europe. (Some are similar to the photo of Irene and Gertrude as seen on page 162 of “Amelia Earhart Survived.”) It was on this trip that Marilyn took many photos of the two woman side-by-side, standing on the same flat surface, shoulder-to-shoulder, same posture, same distance from the camera. A comparison of the heights of Irene Bolam and Gertrude in those photos indicates that Irene and Gertrude were similar, with Bolam possibly a quarter-inch taller, but apparently no taller than 5’4”. In one color photo, Irene Bolam and Gertrude Hession were standing side by side on a street with their legs visible from the knees down. Irene’s legs were thin, skinny right down to the ankles, and her ankles were small. When compared with Earhart’s legs and ankles, which were much thicker, the difference is easily discerned.