Outstanding, Ken.
This resolves a nagging issue in the post-loss signals analysis.
Our primary source for the report in question was a message from the Coast Guard division commander in San Francisco, informing the Coast Guard cutter Itasca of a telephone report from a Charles McGill, W6CHI, about an Earhart signal he claimed to have heard.
The Oakland Tribune ran a story about the event, identifying the caller as Charles Miguel, and quoted Miguel as saying he had held W6CHI until it expired in December 1936, but had applied for a new license and expected to have it soon.
We suspected -- and you have confirmed -- that "McGill" actually was "Miguel". Apparently, whoever took the phone call at the Coast Guard office garbled the spelling. It's plausible that Miguel told the Coast Guard that he had previously held W6CHI, by way of establishing his credibility, and the call-taker missed the past-tense.
Seemingly small details like this are crucial in developing the chain of evidence for assessing a reported signal. As it turned out, a follow-up Coast Guard investigation of Miguel found that he had a dubious reputation and was not to be trusted. But we still needed to verify that Miguel was W6CHI.
Many thanks.
Bob