The Story of Peter the Aleut sounds less like a lie than a mere confusion of facts parlayed by Russians more familiar with California's seas than with her settlements.

Does anyone else wonder whether "San Pedro" refers to "POINT San Pedro" at the south end of Pacifica's Linda Mar cove (the name S. Pedro, at that time, likely covering what is now the entire Linda Mar area) rather than the city/point/harbor near L.A? If I'm not mistaken, Mission Dolores maintained some sort of Asistencia in the San Pedro/Linda Mar area (mis-identified by confused Russians & Aleuts as 'Mission San Pedro"?). It just seems like too long and expensive a trek, to drag criminals from L.A. to San Francisco which, in 1815, was not the center of anything.

The possibility of confusion over San Pedro's identity invites another possibility of confusion between Mission Dolores and the Spanish Presidio. The torture sounds more military than missionary to me; could the presence of a Franciscan chaplain have caused the confusion? Could that explain why Bancroft found no mission records to confirm the incident?

Should we be surprised by the convoluted nature of a story that transpires between Russians and Aleuts already struggling with one another's languages, and Spaniards and American Indians caught in the same struggle? Is it even possible that the Aleuts thought they were being questioned about faith when, in fact, they were really being questioned/tortured for invading Spanish territorial waters?

I'm inclined to let the inconsistancies in the story lead me toward alternate explanations than toward accusations of lying.

Thanks for listening. Any feedback?