A funny thing happened in Majuro. OK, maybe not funny. Out of control maybe? Absurd? Hopeless? Because almost immediately upon Scotty’s arrival came talk of Rodger Cotting’s “desire” to adopt the boy. One can’t imagine him doing this on his own. Which is interesting because… Neil Mackay had, in past incarnations, been adamantly opposed to any talk of adoption. In fact, he went to court — in Anchorage — as soon as he had the slightest inkling that Robert Pfeil was filing a petition to adopt Scotty. The mere mention that a Pfeil — any Pfeil — could adopt Scotty? Them was fighting words.
But now, when the shoe was on the other foot… Neil Mackay was apparently dancing another tune. One wondered — why? What was the point? Did finally having Scotty — even if he had to “steal him” — drive him to places he’d never before considered? Was he that desperate?
SUBJECT: Neil Scott (Scotty) Mackay, Incident
DATE: April 12, 1978
TO: Lee Hoskins, Chief, MBI (Micronesia Bureau of Investigation)
FROM: Jim Winn, Dist. Atty., Marshalls
"Lee, I am taking the typewriter in my own hands....so don't say anything about the errors .... because I don't want my secretary to know the contents."
Jim Winn, Marshall Islands D.A.
“I first became ‘involved’ in this matter on March 4th, when Rodger Cotting and Neil Mackay, Scotty’s father, came to my home to ask about procedures for adoption. I told them I am not permitted to handle adoptions and referred them to MLSC (Majuro Legal Services Corporation) or George Allen. They did not at that time disclose that it was the intention of the Cotting’s to adopt Scotty. In fact, they disclosed nothing of any substance at that time.”
Marshall Islands
“A few days later, however, my wife saw Scotty and Marie Cotting on the street. It then became apparent that he was the subject of their inquiry and that the Cottings were the prospective adopting parents. In the following two weeks many people saw Scotty, Neil and the Cottings around the island. I never saw Scotty.” [1]
D.A. Winn was not the first person to confront this question, however. Neil S. Mackay had already been worrying the dilemma from another angle: What if someone completely unacceptable wanted to take Scotty from him? What if it’s… Yeah. We’re back to Robert Pfeil. Or, in Mackay’s words at the time of his (apparently) highest concern: “ROBERT P. PFEIL, who is the uncle of Scotty and who now has the wrongful and unlawful custody and control of Scotty ever since the death of his mother?” What do you do then? Does the law have any remedies?
Flash Back: Controlling Cases Missing
At least one Anchorage judge — Superior Court Judge Allen T. Compton — had taken on these questions and, distressingly, found that “there do not appear any Alaska cases directly controlling the situation confronting this court.” Namely, a situation where the ex-partner — who’d been legally awarded child custody — was not only dead but murdered. I mean, shouldn’t custody go to a trusted relative in that circumstance? Or someone — anyone — other than the suspected killer? That ugly fly in the ointment didn’t stop Compton. So much so that Neil Mackay really started to like the guy. Which was saying a lot.
That’s because Compton kept digging. Found something in Washington State case law that fit the bill.
"Upon the death of the mother the father's right of custody as a natural parent revived automatically without any court action. In In re Hudson (126 P. 2d 765) we said: "... a parent cannot be deprived even temporarily of his or her natural and legal right to custody and control of his or her minor child until it is established that the parent is not a proper person to have custody and control of the child... "
Until it is established is doing a lot of work in that paragraph. But otherwise… Bingo. Neil S. Mackay is innocent, right? He’s the proper person to have custody and control of Scotty. Right? Right? Okay, riddle me this: If that’s the case, why go through all the gyrations of getting two people you barely know to adopt your precious son? Two people who live, moreover, two thousand miles away from your Hawaiian residence? Explain it, Neil. Please. Explain.
Are We Done Yet?
There were, moreover, a couple of other “big reveals.” Times when Rodger Cotting confided in Jim Winn. Told him that they had seen George Allen about adopting Scotty. But then, according to Winn, Rodger hastily added that they had changed their minds — for the time being. Yeah, that pregnant phrase lingered like bad breath. “For the time being.”
With that said, we return to Steve Goodenow and his trenchant take on the shifting explanations of the “Scotty episode.” And you know what? He was on to something.
"If it was Cotting's agreement to babysit Scotty until the problems in Alaska were resolved, which certainly must cover a several month period, why then did he attempt to adopt him? If Cotting did pay [George] Allen the sum of $5,000, was he or was he not promised remuneration? [Cotting] also states emphatically that he was only baby-sitting Scotty Mackay in the first part of his affidavit, yet he attempts to adopt Scotty. This just doesn't make any sense, other than the adoption was just a ruse to keep me from picking up Scotty and taking him back to Alaska."
[1] The notion that “locals” would see Marie Cotting and Scotty together was not farfetched. Majuro is small, Uliga Island — the main population center — even smaller. AND the Cotting home was across the street from the Marshall Islands courthouse. On Uliga. Small world, that one. Too small even.
[2] Photo credits: Allen T. Compton: Anchorage Daily Times; Steven Goodenow: Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct 28, 1988
The Book: Kill Brother, Kill Sister
My latest book is available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other fine bookstores (paperback and ebook).
Copyright Leland E. Hale (2026)