Cassandria Carlson avoided watching episodes of "I Love Lucy" up until a few years ago, when she fell asleep on the couch and woke up to a rerun.

What happened next still haunts her.

"I woke up and I could have sworn I heard my mother laughing," Carlson said.

With help from Stamford private detective Vito Colucci Jr. and Greenwich lawyer Cynthia Hartwell, Carlson is out to prove that her late mother Madeline Jane Dee was the secret first child of Ball and Cuban band leader Desi Arnaz, who eloped at the Byram River Beagle Club in Greenwich in 1940.

Carlson, 38, a married mother of three from Schaumburg, Ill., claims that her mother was put up for adoption shortly after she was born in 1947 because her very existence would have interfered with Ball's career, which took off with the 1951 debut of "I Love Lucy."

Now, she is asking the famous couple's family members, two of whom live in the area, to submit to a DNA test. "As far as I'm concerned, with every fiber of my being, I know Lucille Ball is my grandmother," Carlson said.

Colucci, known for his work on a number of high-profile cases such as the George A. Smith IV cruise ship disappearance to the chimpanzee attack that left a Stamford woman disfigured, said there is a preponderance of clues linking Carlson to the America's original power couple.

They include newspaper clippings from December 1946 describing Ball as pregnant, childhood memories of being taken to the playground in Laguna Beach, Calif. by a red-headed woman named "Mrs. Morton" -- Ball's second marriage was to standup comedian Gary Morton. There was also an admission of her lineage by the late nurse who adopted Carlson's mother.

"We've found everything's matched up," Colucci said after meeting Carlson for the first time in person Thursday at a Stamford hotel lobby. "We wouldn't have wasted our time and energy in this if we didn't believe her completely."

Hartwell said she was further convinced after seeing Carlson. "The lips, the teeth" Hartwell said. "Her smile."

A breakthrough in Carlson's quest appeared to have been reached last year, when she said Julia Arnaz, the out-of-wedlock daughter of Desi Arnaz Jr., agreed to provide a DNA sample. Arnaz was raised in Stamford and lives in Milford.

That offer was later rescinded, however, raising Carlson's suspicions. "At the time, her father was not in her life," Carlson said of Julia Arnaz. Arnaz said she backed out of the offer under her own volition.

"Nobody told me not to give her DNA," Arnaz said. "I just didn't feel like it was my place. I would love to, but where would that put me with my father? I yearned for a relationship with my father. I can't go against my father."

A message seeking comment from Desi Arnaz Jr., who was born in January 1953, was left on his wife Amy's voice mail, as well as at the office of the Boulder Theatre, which the couple owns in Boulder City, Nev. A message was also left for older sister Lucie Arnaz at her entertainment company. Lucie Arnaz was born in July 1951 and lives in Georgetown. Julia Arnaz said she needs to see more proof before she would agree to a DNA test.

"I'm not sold." Arnaz said. "It's a little farfetched."

Arnaz said it doesn't make much sense that her late grandparents would give up a child in light of their well-chronicled struggles to conceive.

On the flip side, Arnaz said she couldn't rule out the possibility that Carlson is her cousin.

"Would it surprise me? No, because look at what I went through," Arnaz said of her struggle to reunite with her estranged father.

A swab of saliva or lock of hair is all that it would take to get a DNA sample, according to Colucci and Hartwell, who suggested that Desi Arnaz might not have even known he fathered an earlier child with Ball, who died in 1989, three years after he did.

"If Desi died not knowing that he had a daughter and a granddaughter, what would he want?" Hartwell said. "I think as a parent, I'd want to know."

Carlson said her primary motivation for pursuing her identity is her mother, who struggled with alcohol and drug addiction before she was struck and killed by a bus in California in 2003.

"I'd really like my mother's life to have meant something," Carlson said.

Asked whether she would try to stake a financial claim to the estates of Ball and Arnaz, Carlson said, "With respect to whatever (my mother is) entitled to, that's open for discussion."

Julia Arnaz said she wouldn't have a problem with such a claim, in light of her own experience.

"Hey listen, if she is who she says she is, why not?" Arnaz said.


http://www.greenwichtime.com/ci_12823151?source=most_viewed

Why is this Greenwich Times publishing this trash as if it's something new? This story came out a year ago and the woman making these claims seems to have disappeared into the woodwork.

Cassandria Carlson avoided watching episodes of "I Love Lucy" up until a few years ago, when she fell asleep on the couch and woke up to a rerun.

What happened next still haunts her.

"I woke up and I could have sworn I heard my mother laughing," Carlson said.

With help from Stamford private detective Vito Colucci Jr. and Greenwich lawyer Cynthia Hartwell, Carlson is out to prove that her late mother Madeline Jane Dee was the secret first child of Ball and Cuban band leader Desi Arnaz, who eloped at the Byram River Beagle Club in Greenwich in 1940.

Carlson, 38, a married mother of three from Schaumburg, Ill., claims that her mother was put up for adoption shortly after she was born in 1947 because her very existence would have interfered with Ball's career, which took off with the 1951 debut of "I Love Lucy."

Now, she is asking the famous couple's family members, two of whom live in the area, to submit to a DNA test. "As far as I'm concerned, with every fiber of my being, I know Lucille Ball is my grandmother," Carlson said.

Colucci, known for his work on a number of high-profile cases such as the George A. Smith IV cruise ship disappearance to the chimpanzee attack that left a Stamford woman disfigured, said there is a preponderance of clues linking Carlson to the America's original power couple.

They include newspaper clippings from December 1946 describing Ball as pregnant, childhood memories of being taken to the playground in Laguna Beach, Calif. by a red-headed woman named "Mrs. Morton" -- Ball's second marriage was to standup comedian Gary Morton. There was also an admission of her lineage by the late nurse who adopted Carlson's mother.

"We've found everything's matched up," Colucci said after meeting Carlson for the first time in person Thursday at a Stamford hotel lobby. "We wouldn't have wasted our time and energy in this if we didn't believe her completely."

Hartwell said she was further convinced after seeing Carlson. "The lips, the teeth" Hartwell said. "Her smile."

A breakthrough in Carlson's quest appeared to have been reached last year, when she said Julia Arnaz, the out-of-wedlock daughter of Desi Arnaz Jr., agreed to provide a DNA sample. Arnaz was raised in Stamford and lives in Milford.

That offer was later rescinded, however, raising Carlson's suspicions. "At the time, her father was not in her life," Carlson said of Julia Arnaz. Arnaz said she backed out of the offer under her own volition.

"Nobody told me not to give her DNA," Arnaz said. "I just didn't feel like it was my place. I would love to, but where would that put me with my father? I yearned for a relationship with my father. I can't go against my father."

A message seeking comment from Desi Arnaz Jr., who was born in January 1953, was left on his wife Amy's voice mail, as well as at the office of the Boulder Theatre, which the couple owns in Boulder City, Nev. A message was also left for older sister Lucie Arnaz at her entertainment company. Lucie Arnaz was born in July 1951 and lives in Georgetown. Julia Arnaz said she needs to see more proof before she would agree to a DNA test.

"I'm not sold." Arnaz said. "It's a little farfetched."

Arnaz said it doesn't make much sense that her late grandparents would give up a child in light of their well-chronicled struggles to conceive.

On the flip side, Arnaz said she couldn't rule out the possibility that Carlson is her cousin.

"Would it surprise me? No, because look at what I went through," Arnaz said of her struggle to reunite with her estranged father.

A swab of saliva or lock of hair is all that it would take to get a DNA sample, according to Colucci and Hartwell, who suggested that Desi Arnaz might not have even known he fathered an earlier child with Ball, who died in 1989, three years after he did.

"If Desi died not knowing that he had a daughter and a granddaughter, what would he want?" Hartwell said. "I think as a parent, I'd want to know."

Carlson said her primary motivation for pursuing her identity is her mother, who struggled with alcohol and drug addiction before she was struck and killed by a bus in California in 2003.

"I'd really like my mother's life to have meant something," Carlson said.

Asked whether she would try to stake a financial claim to the estates of Ball and Arnaz, Carlson said, "With respect to whatever (my mother is) entitled to, that's open for discussion."

Julia Arnaz said she wouldn't have a problem with such a claim, in light of her own experience.

"Hey listen, if she is who she says she is, why not?" Arnaz said.


http://www.greenwichtime.com/ci_12823151?source=most_viewed

I had no idea that this wasn't something new, I did a search on this board before posting and couldn't find any threads where it had already been discussed.

I had no idea that this wasn't something new, I did a search on this board before posting and couldn't find any threads where it had already been discussed.

It was discussed here in the "desi jr's secret child" in April. But my issue with with this Greenwich Time site. Why are they publishing this story now? It reads like as if this is news, when in fact this broke nearly a year ago. Those quotes from Julia Arnaz are old. And the stuff about Desi Jr. having no relationship with her are false. To my knowledge, the woman making these claims has been silent for months. This story is dead as far as I can tell. What is Greenwich Time anyway? Do they have nothing better to do than post old tabloid stories, pretending they're new?

Incidentally, in the "desi jr's secret child" thread, here is what Julia Arnaz had to say about this woman's claims:

Hi to all I really want to make something clear, My grandmother never gave birth to a child in 1947. This women somehow managed to get her story out to the press, and in the mean time tryed to tarnish my grandmother and grandfather Desi sr good name, shame on her. I got proof that this women lied about alot of thing's I got this information from her sister, the one she claimed was her lawyer the whole time, WELL I got a hold of this women and she couldnt believe her name was being used through out the whole story.
The things she told me about CC were not surprising, I knew this story did not make sense, besides my Father Desi jr laughed at the whole story, and told me it was just NOT TRUE. Its sad this girl obviousely has some problems acording to her foster sister and she said " she is crazier then a bed of nails"
her exact word's. so with that said I kind of feel sorry for someone who has the need to fabricate such a story, and in the mean time try and discredit ME and my family. so this story is over.. I wish I could go public to clear my poor granparents name, but lets face it, no one really cares about this story, my grandparents are long gone, so lets let them rest in peace. Truly Julia Arnaz.

And here are some points I had made in that thread:

Has anyone heard any further information since this story broke (and exploded) in September about Lucy and Desi's allegedly "lost" first daughter? The last thing I heard is that several people who were associated with this woman, who claims to be Lucy and Desi's granddaughter, have since distanced themselves from her, claiming she's a fraud. But then some anonymous person posted a comment in February that she was laying low because she's pregnant, but there would soon be a big media event with loads of evidence supporting her claims. Well, she's now had her baby, so I'm looking forward to this media event. I'm not at a point of completely dismissing what the woman is claiming (about her late mother being Lucy and Desi's first child), but I'm having trouble making sense of her story for the following reasons:

1) When the story broke in September, it was stated that the child was born in June 1947 and Lucy and Desi gave up the "love child" because Lucy was worried about her image being tarnished. Well by June 1947, Lucy and Desi had been married for six-and-a-half years (!), so she wouldn't have been a "love child." So that explanation for Lucy and Desi giving her up does not hold water.

2) If there was some other reason, like not being able to establish a career because of a baby, well that doesn't make sense, either, because by 1947, Lucy already had a career. She hadn't reached superstar status yet, but she was still considered a star and had no trouble getting movie roles, and was constantly on the radio.

3) Lucy's film "Her Husband's Affairs" was shot in February and March of 1947, and retakes were shot in early May, just weeks before the alleged birth, which means she would have been very, very pregnant at the time. I've seen that movie and she didn't look pregnant to me!

4) In late May 1947, photographs were taken of her in a bathing suit. She and Desi were seen in Phoenix in April. And in early June, the month she was supposed to be going into labor, she arrived in Princeton, NJ to start rehearsals for "Dream Girl," which went on tour later that month. How is it possible that she got photographed in a bathing suit, gave birth to a child, had time to get up on her feet, learn and rehearse the entire show, then head out on tour to perform it, all in the same month? And nobody ever saw a belly? Her gestation period must have been shorter than a cat's.

5) Lucy and Desi had their church wedding in 1948 at the insistence of Desi's mother, who was convinced they were unable to bear a child because their 1940 marriage was not in a church. So if Lucy had actually had a child in 1947, she would have to have hid the entire pregnancy from Mrs. Arnaz. Desi was very close to his mother and I'm sure she was around a lot (as is typical in latino cultures). It doesn't seem plausible that Delores Arnaz would never have noticed Lucy being pregnant.

6) Then there's the obvious: Lucy wanted desperately to hold her marriage together and have a family with Desi. It's kind of hard to do that if you give the child away. And if she really didn't want a kid, why did she allow herself to get pregnant again in 1950 and, after she miscarried in that pregnancy, get pregnant immediately afterwards with Lucie? And then yet again with Desi Jr? It seems to me they really wanted to have a baby.

7) Lucy and Desi were both so family oriented. Desi struggled to establish a career after his family lost everything in Cuba, and always took care of his mother. When Lucy came to Hollywood in 1933, as soon as she was able, she bought a house and moved her entire family (mother, brother, cousin, grandparents, etc.) from New York to California to live with her. And she always found jobs for her family members, either on her shows, or with her company. If family meant so much to them, how is it possible for them to have given up their own flesh and blood, their first-born child?

So can somebody please 'splain?

I woke up and swore I heard my mother laughing. Because everyone's mind is completely clear when they are first waking up. Like those times when I've fallen asleep with the TV or radio on and my brain interprets the sound weirdly and it ends up in a dream I wake up thinking was real.

And we all know no two people laugh alike.

I woke up and swore I heard my mother laughing. Because everyone's mind is completely clear when they are first waking up. Like those times when I've fallen asleep with the TV or radio on and my brain interprets the sound weirdly and it ends up in a dream I wake up thinking was real.

And we all know no two people laugh alike.

Seriously! I was thinking about that statement earlier today. Back around February, someone associated with this woman said that, after she had her baby, there would be a big media event and she would present proof she was Lucy and Desi's daughter. Well it's been about three or four months since she had her baby, and the only "new" revelation I've heard is this statement that her mother laughed like Lucy Ricardo. So is that the big "proof" we've been waiting for? Ai-yai-yai-yai-yai!

I'm returning to this thread for just one reason: the people representing this woman (who claims her mother was Lucy and Desi's secret daughter) came out with a new press statement this week where they inadvertently botched their own argument. Apparently they failed to do any fact checking and concocted an explanation that is contradicted by fact. Read on:

The inconsistencies in Ms. Carlson's story are disturbing. When this story first broke in 2008, the claim was being made that her mother was a "love child" between Lucy and Desi that would have caused a scandal. Seemingly, Ms. Carlson was not aware that Lucy and Desi had been married more than six years at that point, so there would have been no cause for scandal. More recently the story has changed to, Lucy and Desi were estranged at the time, and she wanted to conceal the pregnancy from him. Ms. Carlson's PR people just days ago put out a press release claiming that during the six months leading up to the June 1947 birth in California of Carlson's mother, Lucille Ball was vacationing. This couldn't be further from the truth. From late October to mid December 1946, she was filming LURED. And then retakes were filmed in late January 1947. From mid February to late March 1947, she was filming HER HUSBAND'S AFFAIRS, and retakes were filmed in May. Besides her film work, she was also working regularly in live radio broadcasts during these months: THE EDDIE CANTOR SHOW (Oct 10, 1946); THE BOB HOPE SHOW (Nov 12, 1946); SCREEN GUILD THEATER (Apr 21, 1947); THE SMITHS OF HOLLYWOOD (Apr 25, 1947); THE RADIO READER'S DIGEST (May 22, 1947); and THE BOB HOPE SHOW (May 27, 1947). Bob Hope's show was done in front of a live studio audience. By the time of that broadcast, she would have been nearly nine months pregnant according to Carlson's story. She couldn't have hidden that fact from 300 studio audience members unless she were wearing a cardboard box. In early June, she arrived in Princeton, NJ for an interview and to begin rehearsals and staging for the play DREAM GIRL, which started June 23 and went on tour for the next six months. So every single month during the prior six-month period that Carlson claims Ball was vacationing, she was actually working. And some sources indicate she was also seen in Phoenix in April 1947 with Desi Arnaz, and posed for a photographer in a bathing suit in May 1947. The frequently-changing "facts" of Ms. Carlson's case simply do not compute.

I'm returning to this thread for just one reason: the people representing this woman (who claims her mother was Lucy and Desi's secret daughter) came out with a new press statement this week where they inadvertently botched their own argument. Apparently they failed to do any fact checking and concocted an explanation that is contradicted by fact. Read on:

The inconsistencies in Ms. Carlson's story are disturbing. When this story first broke in 2008, the claim was being made that her mother was a "love child" between Lucy and Desi that would have caused a scandal. Seemingly, Ms. Carlson was not aware that Lucy and Desi had been married more than six years at that point, so there would have been no cause for scandal. More recently the story has changed to, Lucy and Desi were estranged at the time, and she wanted to conceal the pregnancy from him. Ms. Carlson's PR people just days ago put out a press release claiming that during the six months leading up to the June 1947 birth in California of Carlson's mother, Lucille Ball was vacationing. This couldn't be further from the truth. From late October to mid December 1946, she was filming LURED. And then retakes were filmed in late January 1947. From mid February to late March 1947, she was filming HER HUSBAND'S AFFAIRS, and retakes were filmed in May. Besides her film work, she was also working regularly in live radio broadcasts during these months: THE EDDIE CANTOR SHOW (Oct 10, 1946); THE BOB HOPE SHOW (Nov 12, 1946); SCREEN GUILD THEATER (Apr 21, 1947); THE SMITHS OF HOLLYWOOD (Apr 25, 1947); THE RADIO READER'S DIGEST (May 22, 1947); and THE BOB HOPE SHOW (May 27, 1947). Bob Hope's show was done in front of a live studio audience. By the time of that broadcast, she would have been nearly nine months pregnant according to Carlson's story. She couldn't have hidden that fact from 300 studio audience members unless she were wearing a cardboard box. In early June, she arrived in Princeton, NJ for an interview and to begin rehearsals and staging for the play DREAM GIRL, which started June 23 and went on tour for the next six months. So every single month during the prior six-month period that Carlson claims Ball was vacationing, she was actually working. And some sources indicate she was also seen in Phoenix in April 1947 with Desi Arnaz, and posed for a photographer in a bathing suit in May 1947. The frequently-changing "facts" of Ms. Carlson's case simply do not compute.
lol...OWNED.

Yeah...real scandalous...Woman is pregnant with Husband's baby!! Film at 11.



That Smith's of Hollywood show is pretty funny really.

Wow, that's quite a story.

If anyone is interested, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell...

;)

lol...OWNED.

Yeah...real scandalous...Woman is pregnant with Husband's baby!! Film at 11.



That Smith's of Hollywood show is pretty funny really.

Funny thing is, it appears Ms. Carlson has made no attempt to track down the woman who is actually identified in her mother's birth records. Wouldn't you think that would be the place to start? Carlson has been quoted as saying she wants her mother's life to have "meant something." It's pretty sad when you don't think you mother's life mattered unless you can connect her to Lucille Ball. She's got a better chance of matching her DNA to John Mark Carr (remember him?) than to a woman (Lucille Ball) who was not showing any signs of pregnancy at the end of May 1947, yet (according to Carlson's allegation) somehow managed to give birth a week or two later.

Funny thing is, it appears Ms. Carlson has made no attempt to track down the woman who is actually identified in her mother's birth records. Wouldn't you think that would be the place to start? Carlson has been quoted as saying she wants her mother's life to have "meant something." It's pretty sad when you don't think you mother's life mattered unless you can connect her to Lucille Ball. She's got a better chance of matching her DNA to John Mark Carr (remember him?) than to a woman (Lucille Ball) who was not showing any signs of pregnancy at the end of May 1947, yet (according to Carlson's allegation) somehow managed to give birth a week or two later.
Hmm...she must not have thought much of her mother.

Hmm...she must not have thought much of her mother.

Well, she says her mother was a prostitute and drug addict, so she probably did have issues in that department. She says her mother once hinted to her that Lucille Ball might be her mother. If so, I have to wonder, was her mother high on drugs when she said that?

Well, she says her mother was a prostitute and drug addict, so she probably did have issues in that department. She says her mother once hinted to her that Lucille Ball might be her mother. If so, I have to wonder, was her mother high on drugs when she said that?
Dang...yeah, I wonder if she was.

Well, she says her mother was a prostitute and drug addict, so she probably did have issues in that department. She says her mother once hinted to her that Lucille Ball might be her mother. If so, I have to wonder, was her mother high on drugs when she said that?

Ricky

I have to tell you. Whoever you are. Your little posts on MY family did not help my family's position on this at all. I think I know who you are and before I call you directly about this. This has to stop!

You provided Ms. Carlson with some half cocked ammo that she refuted and got to the lawyer the day after you posted this on other sites. Her dates are under review and you are aiding her in discrediting my company as you are providing information that others have written books about-which we have spoken highly about. We are finding that we did not review all details initially presented and we should have done that. That's been a lot to chew the last couple of weeks and I was on vacation during one of these weeks.

We don't need "wannabees" out here. We can handle this on our own. While your intention is to help, it's not helping at all. I can only take so much. Please stop these posts. She's contacting people who are very old to discuss this and your findings.

Thanks.

There comes a time when you know that some people out there just take it too far.

I think it's best that we stop this discussion now before things get too out of hand and someone is forced to lock this topic. The issue here is a complex situation that requires determination and persistance. How about we do this in private and keep it at that, shall we?

Dear Readers,
I wanted to state my findings on this topic since I was close to the sources invloved and worked on the case extensively. I spent countless amounts of hours in conversation, researching and placing facts against fiction.

What were my findings? I found that although Mrs. Carlson is indeed searching for the truth about her mother and the events that surrounded her birth, there are little or no factual basis connected to her claims.

I read countless amounts of books, periodicals and spent hours upon hours scouring historical records online in addition to conducting interviews with individuals who are close to the sources and I could not link my findings with real life truth. I was very disappointed in the end since I feel for those who are disjointed form their lineage and I wanted to help this woman and her family. My advice would be that Mrs. Carlson and family come to terms with the reality that her mom was not the daughter of the legendary Lucille Ball and that there is a real family out there connected to her mother biologically that might be looking for her as well.

I am glad this is over and happy to move on. I hope I helped in solving some people's curiosity on this story.

Dear Readers,
I wanted to state my findings on this topic since I was close to the sources invloved and worked on the case extensively. I spent countless amounts of hours in conversation, researching and placing facts against fiction.

What were my findings? I found that although Mrs. Carlson is indeed searching for the truth about her mother and the events that surrounded her birth, there are little or no factual basis connected to her claims.

I read countless amounts of books, periodicals and spent hours upon hours scouring historical records online in addition to conducting interviews with individuals who are close to the sources and I could not link my findings with real life truth. I was very disappointed in the end since I feel for those who are disjointed form their lineage and I wanted to help this woman and her family. My advice would be that Mrs. Carlson and family come to terms with the reality that her mom was not the daughter of the legendary Lucille Ball and that there is a real family out there connected to her mother biologically that might be looking for her as well.

I am glad this is over and happy to move on. I hope I helped in solving some people's curiosity on this story.

The original link the OP posted doesn't work anymore. Can you please post a picture of Mrs. Carlson?

I was hoping this thread would go away, though I'm glad you decided to set the record straight, Johnna. I hope you are who you say you are. But seeing this thread again is bringing back the same angst I felt last year when I first saw the message above from "LittleLulu," who I assume is Ms. Arnaz, though I'm not sure. The grammar is pretty bad and I've seen things written by Ms. Arnaz that seemed better written, so I don't know that this is really her. But if it is, I will say this: I cannot imagine what it's like to have to deal with the kind of crap a famous family has to put up with. I'm sure this whole matter has been very upsetting and a major distraction. Nevertheless, I think the response above was way over the top and it crossed a line with me, primarily with that "wannabee" comment. For the record, while I appreciate Lucy and Desi's tremendous contribution to entertainment, and the laughs they have provided me for my entire life, I have never, ever wanted to be part of any family other than the one I've got. My family is the best and I wouldn't trade them for anything in the world. To suggest I am an Arnaz family wannabe is an insult to my own family and I don't appreciate it. But (again assuming she wrote that) I will give Ms. Arnaz the benefit of the doubt because she apparently confused me with someone else; the clue being her statements "before I call you directly" and "we have spoken highly." I have met Ms. Arnaz only once in my life, about 12 years ago, along with about 50 other people. Our conversation that evening went something like this: "Hello" and "Hello." We have never spoken "highly" about anything. And she doesn't have my phone number that I'm aware of, so she wouldn't be calling me directly.

I have no doubt she has encountered some wannabes out there, but I'm certainly not one of them. I did write "LittleLulu" privately last year to apologize about any unintentional trouble my posts might have caused, and to give full disclosure about who I am and refer her to people who know me. But my message was not acknowledged by her, and nothing was retracted here, so the angst still remains.

As for the reference to my information being "half cocked ammo," I'm not clear what LittleLulu was trying to say. It sounded like there was information in some authorized biographies that was not accurate. But I did not personally consult with any of those biographies. The only thing I wrote that might have originated from such a source (and I was getting it second or third hand) is where I indicated an appearance in Phoenix in April, and posing in a bathing suit in May (neither of which I can verify, which is why I said "some sources indicate"). But everything else I wrote came from reliable sources like, well, actual newspaper accounts from back in the day, and movie studio production records. There's nothing "half cocked" about that. If things have been written in books that didn't match up with actual facts, that's not my fault.

As for the comment about "Your little posts on MY family," my "little posts" were made on public blogs where Ms. Arnaz and another family member had also made their own public comments about this issue -- nothing extensive, mind you, but still public comments. That pretty much opened the door for others to respond. If this had been kept a private family matter I certainly wouldn't have involved myself, but it was being discussed publicly.

All that being said, I'm still not sure LittleLulu is Ms. Arnaz (and I have an idea of someone else it might be), but the bottom line is this: 1) I have a great family and I do not want to be a part any family other than the one I've got; 2) I have accomplished many of my own personal goals (which have NOTHING to do with show business), so all I wannabe is me; and 3) I'm hoping Johnna is who he/she claims to be and that this issue has truly been put to rest.


Dear Readers,
I wanted to state my findings on this topic since I was close to the sources invloved and worked on the case extensively. I spent countless amounts of hours in conversation, researching and placing facts against fiction.

What were my findings? I found that although Mrs. Carlson is indeed searching for the truth about her mother and the events that surrounded her birth, there are little or no factual basis connected to her claims.

I read countless amounts of books, periodicals and spent hours upon hours scouring historical records online in addition to conducting interviews with individuals who are close to the sources and I could not link my findings with real life truth. I was very disappointed in the end since I feel for those who are disjointed form their lineage and I wanted to help this woman and her family. My advice would be that Mrs. Carlson and family come to terms with the reality that her mom was not the daughter of the legendary Lucille Ball and that there is a real family out there connected to her mother biologically that might be looking for her as well.

I am glad this is over and happy to move on. I hope I helped in solving some people's curiosity on this story.