Saturday, December 6, 2008

Questions Answered

Over the last few days, questions have come up again about this photo.

Here's a news article from early September showing the photo. The Conference that Gov. Palin was attending ran from July 11-14. The Zoo apparently released this photo, but I can find no place it was actually published prior to her nomination. I've queried the zoo twice to ask if there are more photos and both times I have been told I will receive a return call, but I never do.

Sarah, Piper and Trig are obvious, but the identities of the other two young women have been questioned extensively. The problem is that numerous captions identify the middle (taller) young woman as Bristol, and the girl farthest to the left as Willow. However, the information released by the state of Alaska to the AP regarding Palin's expense reimbursement requests do not list Willow as having gone on this trip! I have looked at it carefully. My personal opinion is that the taller young woman with pony tail in the middle of the shot is Bristol. The young woman farther to the left is an unknown person who just happened to be in the shot. I may be wrong but this is my call.

The second thing I want to clarify briefly, just for accuracy's sake is the photos that have been dissected regarding Nicole Kidman. Much has been made of how small Nicole Kidman was (on her first pregnancy) thus "proving" that Gov. Palin (on her fifth) could also have been small. Further research has been done demonstrating that some of the pictures that were posted of Ms. Kidman were dated inaccurately.

Here's is a picture of Nicole Kidman taken in mid May (May 18) when she would have been around 33 weeks pregnant. In other words, nearly exactly at the same point as the "Nail in the Coffin" photo of Gov. Palin.

Nicole Kidman 33 weeks pregnant - first child - 40 years old.

Gov. Sarah Palin 33 weeks pregnant - fifth child - 44 years old.

The photos that have been referenced elsewhere, showing a very fit Kidman with a very small "baby bump" were actually taken when she was between five and six months pregnant. Here's a shot of her leaving the gym with her trainer early in March.

Here's an article from Celebrity Babies clearly dated early March. Here's an article discussing some additional fit Nicole photos.


beth said...

Thanks Audrey for posting the pic of Kidman at 33 weeks.

People seem to ready to believe that just pic of a pregnant woman will work. Nope. Verified dates are vital.

Alex said...

Thank Goodness, Audrey, Patrick, and the rest of you do all the logical, fact-checking analysis. Me, I'm much more absorbed by the behavior of this woman. What makes a person act the way she does? Let her young daughter wear high heels and care for her baby brother? Fly hither and yon, when you're supposed to be governer and have 4 or 5 children to raise. . . Trust a witch doctor to guide you to riches and fame. Accept the candidacy for U.S. vice president when you don't even know what the job is.

(A playwright or novelist could have never made up such a character.)

It struck me looking at the last series of photos, as well as the KTLA interview and Newsweek interview in March-- that March 3-4 was the first public announcement of her potential vp candidacy. I sure missed this when it happened and was surprised as hell when it was announced in August, but I can well imagine she took note of momentous March 3. Here she is on Los Angeles TV and on Newsweek video being touted as McCain's possible running mate.

What goes through your head at a time like this, while you're busy saying "No Way" to the media? If you're SP, you're running through all the possible scenarios for the future. "How can I get myself ready to be The One?".

I really wonder if she didn't come home to AK believing that Yep She Sure Had To Take Care of Some Business, Clear up the family pregnancy issue by announcing she was pregnant. Lighten her hair (she'd seen how she looked in the KTLA interview and it wasn't that great-- frumpy, blowsy, dark.) Get a new stylist. . . In other words, she needed to get herself readier to be THE pick. Do everything she could to be ready to be in the national spotlight.

And the KTLA interview was the beginning. By making the possibility public, it made it realer than real to Palin.

Anonymous said...

Love the blog.

I think the person in the back of the photo is a pregnant looking Bristol. The person in the middle is of no relation.

Just my 2 cents

Anonymous said...

I really don't think the middle girl in the photo looks much like Bristol, but is this date very relevant anyway? The girl sure doesn't look pregnant.

Palin sure does go on a lot of trips!

Anonymous said...

Take a look at this photo in flickr that is dated April 2008, but it just could not be.

Please advise!


Anonymous said...

Audrey usually I agree but in this photo I beg to differ. The girl in the middle doesn't look like bristol the one on the edge does. If you zoom in it becomes distorted but you see some of the same characteristics between this person and Bristol. The girl in the middle doesn't look familiar though.

*Ms. Lexstasy*

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I also think that the one in the background is Bristol, and the tall one in the middle is a friend maybe (Mercedes?)

GraceR said...

Audrey, if Trig were born at 35 weeks on April 18th, as indicated in the doctor's report, then wouldn't SP be more like 30-31 weeks in that photo?

What's really odd is that the picture where Nicole Kidman is leaving the gym and barely looks pregnant was taken on June 10, 2008.....the one posted on this thread was taken weeks before. How can 2 pictures of the same pregnant woman be so completely at odds with one another?

GraceR said...

Audrey, the picture previously posted of Kidman had the correct date, June 10, 2008. Here is the news report:
She was leaving a gym in Nashville with her husband, Keith Urban, on June 10th. In the picture you cite dated in March she was leaving a gym in Los Angeles by herself. Just to be accurate.

Anonymous said...

You know Audrey, Nicole Kidman did an interview with VF or Harper's Bazaar- one of those fashion glossies- when she was about 32 weeks, I believe. The interviewer asked her (I'm going to paraphrase here) "how do you feel about the fact that some people reacted to your five-months-pregnant belly by insinuating that you were not really pregnant and instead just wearing a fake baby bump under your clothes?"

Nicole Kidman said "first of all, do you see how I'm sitting? I can't even close my legs. Secondly..." at this point she draws her blouse up over her belly and takes the interviewer's hand, placing it just below her belly button and pressing down. The interviewer later said that yes, Kidman's bump might have been comparatively small in regard to OTHER pregnant women, but that her belly was "an entity unto itself, its weight and heft and countenance left no doubt: not only was she pregnant, she was really pregnant!"

When you posted the other day about 33 week bellies being entities on their own, it brought that interviewer's statement to mind. It's also why I never even bothered to look at the links people were posting of Nicole Kidman; I knew she'd been relatively tiny in her firs two trimesters but then ballooned out impressively during her third.

For the record, that is a GORGEOUS photo of Kidman- what a beautiful, statuesque little preggo she made! :)

Austin, TX

Anonymous said...

Neither Bristol or Willow are in the pic at the zoo feeding the giraffe.

I see Sarah (with a baby) and Piper. I don't know who the other 2 girls are.

Anonymous said...

Plus, regarding Nicole Kidman, can we just mention the fact that Kidman is about 6' tall and Palin is about 5'5". Not even considering the whole first-child vs fifth-child thing -- you'd expect Kidman to show a heck of a lot less (and she did barely show until the 3rd trimester.)

leu2500 said...

The other thing about the Kidman 33 weeks picture - even though she's still pretty slim (check out the collarbones) in addition to her stomach, she's much bustier than prepregnancy and she's gained weight in her upper arms. This points up what Audrey has previously commented on - that Palin may have a stomach that looks pregnant in some photos, but the rest of her body doesn't seem to have changed to match.

Audrey said...

Grace, I can't explain the discrepancies. Here's another shot of her from early March in LA with a trainer, looking very comparable to the photos with Keith Urban (maybe a bit smaller)

Anonymous, at 11:10. The date on the photo is wrong. It was taken in October at a campaign event in Florida.

Again to reiterate: We probably will not know for sure about the Philadelphia photo. AK state records show that Gov. Palin did not put in for any reimbursement for Willow. Is it possible she was there and for some reason Palin did not put in for her expenses, while she did for Piper and Bristol? I guess it is. The earliest captions on the photo (from the end of August) all list Willow as being in the picture (the farthest to the left) and Bristol in the middle. Unless the Philadelphia Zoo has more pictures and releases them, we probably won't ever know.

Anonymous said...

I have seen this photo before and did not think this was SP. I thought it was her sister Molly taking her kids and/or SP's kids to the zoo. In no photo has SP ever looked this heavy: this woman in this picture is not a runner. Look at how heavy and out of shape her legs are. Her physique does not match any picture of SP that I have ever seen...whether recent or taken over the years. And SP's sister does resemble her with the dark hair. Note there is no updo. This is a sloppily dressed woman and even when SP is at her sloppiest she did not look this unkempt. I know we have seen that photo of SP at the grocery store and she looked pretty frumpy but again she was still a lot smaller than the woman in this photo.

BG said...

No! Bristol is the one in the back, obscured by the trees. I am sure of it. I have gone into photoshop and enlarged it and compared it to several other pictures of her. I'll post this to a site and post the link. Or maybe someone more photoshop savvy than myself can do this also? Bristol IS the one in the back, I am sure of it. And she looks might post-partum to me.

Anonymous said...

Re: zoo picture. As someone else mentioned, doesn't really matter who the two girls are since the picture isn't critical to this investigation. We have other summer pictures of Bristol looking barely or not pregnant.

This is, however, the only picture I've seen of Sarah looking like she might have had a baby 3 mos. before. But I think that's just because of the white shorts, skewed sling, and camera angle. -B.

Anonymous said...

Audrey -

The blog is great - keep up the great work, but I have to disagree w/ you about the zoo photo. The girl far to the left looks like Bristol and the girl in the center w/ the pony tail does not look like a Palin child.
What is up w/ that photo in flickr that anon posted at 11:10 PM??

Jen said...

after looking at the 2 girls, neither one of the them look like willow nor bristol.

it is defnitely NOT bristol at the end... bristol is actually very tall, taller than sarah. that girl is very short.

as for the 2nd one, far away the pic does look like bristol, but zoomed in, it doesnt... i've been pouring over pics of bristol and willow so i have a really good idea of their faces.

i just do not believe that either one of these girls is bristol nor willow.

it's possible bristol was on the trip with them, but just not in this photo.

Anonymous said...

Audrey--for the sake of accuracy, which I know you strive for, I implore you to re-examine the Zoo photo. Bristol is the woman to the far left. Compare this to other photos of Bristol. The facial features match. It is important that we are accurate here because this picture serves as good evidence regarding a post-partum body. Please--re-examine this photo and I am sure you will realize that Bristol is the woman in the black shirt.

Anonymous said...

Neither the girl in the middle or the woman holding the baby look like they could possibly be breastfeeding. I believe that Bristol has a large chest (even when not pregnant/breastfeeding) so I really don't think the girl in the middle is Bristol. And if this really is Sarah, there is no chest there at all.

PolySciSuzie said...

Look at the picture from the comment @ 11:35 pm. It is Palin post partum one month wearing the same track suit she had on in earlier pics Audrey has filed away. No boobs and she is breast feeding?

Anonymous said...

I must admit I thought the girl at the end looked like Bristol. I was also shocked at the size of Sarah's thighs. Remember the pic of her in shorts with Mercede and Trig? Is it possible that it is her sister?

Anonymous said...

I don't think either girl looks like Bristol or Willow.


Anonymous said...

Re the Kidman workout clothes question, the obvious explanation is that there are two sets of photos that were taken at different times, and in the March photos she looks quite a bit smaller than in the June photos. She is wearing the same or similar workout clothes, but her hair is different and the hat is different.

The key is that in the Country Music awards photo, Nicole is 7 weeks away from delivering a 6 lb 7 oz baby; while in the March 26th Sarah photo, she is (supposedly) 3 1/2 weeks away from delivering a 6 lb 2 oz baby; yet Sarah doesn't look pregnant, and Nicole clearly does (even though by her own accounts and everyone else's, Kidman "carried small" because of her height).

Though I hate to disagree with Audrey, I do disagree that the girl in the center, in ponytail, is Bristol. There is a higher resolution photo on

In particular her nose is not like Bristol's nose (best seen in RNC profile photo). The girl on left could be Bristol, but it's hard to say for sure. She looks like she could be either pregnant or post-partum, though.

Anonymous said...

Re the height difference, Bristol is taller than Sarah -- but I don't think you can judge the heights in this photo because of the perspective. Also might be a slightly wide angle lens which would slightly distort the image making close up subjects larger proportionally than those farther away. I agree with the poster who says that the farthest girl looks like Bristol, but can't be sure.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it is sarah either. Too heavy. Arms too big.

Does anyone have any pictures of her sister? How much do they look alike?

Anonymous said...

Dear Amy @11.10

This photo was taken in November 2008 at a Palin Rally during the election. I think the April date is either a joke on the part of the photographer or a mistake.



Lori said...

I think it IS Sarah. She lost ALOT of weight on the campaign trail - was not always so thin. I am also thinking it is possible that Trig is hers (as in she gave birth), but I will never forgive the wild ride to deliver him if this is true. Nor can I ever forgive her hate-filled, mob-inciting speeches and her lack of ethics in general.

Sunshine1970 said...


that link with the images of Palin & Todd were taken during the Presidential race. Look at this one: Palin Pic it's from the same group of photos. In the front of the podium it says "Country First" which was only used during the campaign.

Anonymous said...

Audrey said: "We probably will not know for sure about the Philadelphia photo. AK state records show that Gov. Palin did not put in for any reimbursement for Willow."

Well, on that score, Gov. Palin didn't file a complete disclosure report on some gifts/benefits received back in 2007, either.

So Willow's name not appearing on a reimbursement form could very well be another one of those "administrative errors"... :)



P.S. It's my own belief that the teenage girls in the photo are indeed Bristol and Willow, and that the girl in the background is NOT wearing glasses. What looks like part of a glasses frame on the left of her face is a lock of hair.

P.P.S. Did Sarah Palin have ANY highlights in her hair in July 2008, or was her hair completely dark? This woman has completely dark hair.

And if it IS Sarah Palin, remember how her face has waxed and waned thin in some pictures, chubby in others? Don't forget that if she was pretend-"eating for two" a few months before, it wouldn't just show up in her face, it'd show up all over.

Which would be why she was so diet conscious in September and October, with the diet Dr. Pepper and the Slim-Fast meals (as reported).


Sunshine1970 said...

Willow & Bristol have been mixed up on the campaign trail, they look so much alike.

I noticed that when searching for the image in google then checking the sites where it was posted, they have Bristol's age wrong. She's listed ad 16, not 17 this past July. One thing I see is the woman farthest to the left seems to have lighter hair than either one of the Palin girls. Unless one of them lightened their hair during this time, I really don't think the person in the back is related to the Palins. It almost looks like they're wearing glasses, too.

The girl in the middle does look like Bristol to my eyes. It's the smile and the nose. She's also taller than Willow. This person would seem to be taller than the person in the back, if indeed that is Willow back there.

Sarah does look odd, however, as if she did put on some weight before this trip. Looking at pics from May even she's tiny. Did she put some weight on between May & this trip? Are there other images of her around this time? I'd like to see how they compare to this one. It could also be the type of lens the camera was using which is distorting the bodies (always a possibility..) It does surprise me that since Sarah seems to be quite conscious of how she looks in public she would allow herself to be photographed for this. The shirt is untucked and askew, hair undone, and huge sunglasses.

It would be nice to get a high res pic, or a high quality print of it to get a better idea of what the person in the back looks like..

Here's the huffpo site that has a whole bunch of Willow & Bristol pics for reference:

Willow Pics

Bristol pics

Anonymous said...

As far as the thighs, there are are no current pics of SP in shorts other than the zoo pic that I can find. Since embarking on the campaign trail Sarah has lost weight and it is from the waist down (the majority of it). If you look at her pencil skirt photo's her legs/hips appear heftier early on in the campaign and they slim as time goes on. That's what diet Dr.Pepper and diet shakes will do for you.

Anonymous said...

The most recent photo you have unearthed should aging peek the interest of the msm and encourge them to look for the truth. I am out of the country, but saw an excerpt of Inside Edition, where they were visiting the professor's office that the Palin family had used while waiting for the vice presidential debate. There, they found a small dirty diaper left on the desk, along with two diet Dr pepper cans (no doubt Ms Palin's.) After viewing this, I emailed them to say, " Anybody think to pick up the garbage left?" Never heard anything about it... Oh well!
I also am a little miffed by this photo at the zoo. The caption "identifying" the people in the photo seems wrong. Piper is the only one who is truely identifyable. Perhaps the far girl is Bristol, but the center girl, does not like anyone in the family, and Ms. Palin looks different and heavier than we've seen, although she probably fluctuates like the rest of us. I tried to look up photos of Molly McCann Wooten and can't find one, maybe she came along too? Who knows, either way I liked the post saying she decided to put in some hightlights and spuce up her look, and do some family "housekeeping" for the mentioned potential of her candacy.
I am sure the Palinites can't beleive we are still here, and our floored at our tenacity. I feel like we are getting closer to the point of her having to "kop" to the truth. Great work Audrey and all!

Penny in Paradise

Anonymous said...

The woman in the middle does not look like anyone we've seen. The one on the far left could be Bristol or Willow. I was surprised at the picture of SP more because of her arms than thighs. The only other pictures I can recall of her in short sleeves was when she was reviewing troops in a t-shirt. Maybe she has heavy arms and disguises them well.

People keep referring to her lack of style in the supermarket picture with her in the pink outfit. One picture in early summer shows her at a blanket toss with a native group. She is wearing a folk outfit of this group. This was the source of the pink outfit. (Her participation is commendable, but I don't think a nursing mother would enjoy a blanket toss very much.)

I think we've seen enough confusion on dates. Many digital cameras have the wrong dates set on them. We should not accept those dates without confirmation.

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

Nursing & intense dieting don't exactly go together, do they?

If the goal is producing high quality milk for your baby & not depleting your bones of calcium in the process it would seem that Sarah's reported diet soda, SlimFast diet would not result in good health for either her or a nursing infant ... were she in fact nursing Trig, something that does not, in fact, seem likely, given that the earliest pictures--May baby shower, quite prominently featured bottle feeding.

Anonymous said...

I caution everyone not to judge comparative heights by this picture. The distorted perspective is caused by the camera and angle (remember "vanishing points" in high school art class?). See how the fence "shrinks" as it gets farther away, and how much bigger Sarah is than the others? This gives a sense of the perspective. The girl who is farthest away could well be the tallest, but it cannot be easily ascertained from this photo.

Anonymous said...

Molly Heath McCann Wooten McCann Hackett: she has dark hair and resembles her sister Sarah. She is younger by two years (b 1964). She has nine kids by at least two different men, the first being Jack McCann and the second being Mike Wooten (of Troopergate). He himself has been married five times. Word on the street is that Molly is not such a great mom either and that her kids are a wild bunch who live with their grandparents much of the time as the parents are not around much due to remote site jobs. Sound familiar? Mike Wooten spent a lot of time looking after the Palin kids when SP and Todd were busy. His son asked him to taser him to impress Bristol, who was standing there watching in the backyard. He said he wanted to show her that he was not a baby. If you dig deep enough into the Heath/Palin families, you'll find that SP was not much more than a fisherman's wife who lucked into a mayoral position by befriending the mayor at the time at a step aerobics class and then turning on him and all the other folks who supported her in the mayoral election as soon as she took office (if you can describe the Wasilla mayoral role as taking office). There's supposedly a lot of interaction some not so above the law between Sarah's kids and Molly's kids. Not a lot of parental supervision.

Anonymous said...

"Molly Heath McCann Wooten McCann Hackett ..."

Wow! What an eye-opener!

And do you have anything more?


Anonymous said...

Sorry--before I get jumped on, let me correct Molly's bdate to 1966.

Anonymous said...

Audrey, who is the anonymous posting last here on this blog today - December 7 - the information about the Palin family (sister, kids, etc.) is too personal and detailed to be made up. Who are you anonymous, what else do you know?

luna1580 said...

i'm not sure how much this pic matters, as even the slightly higher res version linked in another comment isn't very clear.

but, for the record, i do think the girl farthest from the camera (to the left) looks like bristol in the face and looks like she also has a significant tummy and is quite busty.

i don't know why people think that same girl must be shorter than the woman in the front behind piper, like everyone else who said it "there's this little thing called visual perspective....."

as for that woman: it must be sarah, but looking the plumpest in arm and leg of any shot i've seen of her. and looking small in the chest where the baby's head is resting. much too small to be nursing............

Windy City Woman said...

Regarding the zoo picture, wouldn't you think a news website would correctly identify the people in the picture? They do have all the girls' ages wrong, even accounting for the fact that the picture was taken last summer.

Why would the woman in the white shorts be Sarah's sister? Why would she be in Philadelphia with (at least) Trig and Piper? OK, so Sarah takes her kids to her cross-country trips, but why would she bring her sister, too?

Anonymous said...

The thought I keep coming back to after looking at all the photos, and especially the one supposedly taken on April 13 in the hallway where she clearly looks very pregnant - is: you can't look that pregnant and then claim as she did that the stewardesses on the flights to/from Texas did not notice she was pregnant as "she did not show much."

KaJo said...

Sandra in Oregon (12:16 pm Dec 7th), you said, "I was surprised at the picture of SP more because of her arms than thighs. The only other pictures I can recall of her in short sleeves was when she was reviewing troops in a t-shirt." -- also Anon @ 11:18 am Dec 7th...

Remember this, from only a couple of weeks ago?

She's wearing EXACTLY the same type of sunglasses. My guess is that it IS Sarah Palin in BOTH pictures, and the contrast between the two pix shows the efficacy of diet Dr. Pepper and Slim-fast over 4 months.

(I should look into that myself :)

Anonymous said...

The girl on the left is Bristol, wearing glasses. The girl in the middle is a red herring! She's not Bristol or Willow.

I found it interesting that Nicole Kidman specificially mentioned not being able to close her legs while sitting during that interview...

Kind of puts Palin's leaned-over, legs-crossed stance during the Newsweek interview into perspective.

Anonymous said...

Audrey - that is most definitely Bristol in the black shirt behind the tree to the far left. It is her facial features. She looks approx 7 mos preg, but that doesn't make sense w/ any of these timelines if this photo is from Jul 2008. Are you 100% sure it is from July 08? The woman w/ the ponytail is a non-Palin person - possibly a zoo employee?

Audrey said...

I am as sure as I can ever be that it is from July. It was released by the Philadelphia Zoo after Palin's nomination was announced. We know from the reimbursements that Bristol and Piper went to Philadelphia with Sarah, and Willow did not.

Here's what may have happened. They were at the National Governors' Conference. Somehow the Zoo knew they were there. Perhaps it was even an organized trip through the Conference and many governors with their families were in the Zoo. Given that there are "celebrities" at the Zoo, the Zoo photographer walks around and snaps a few shots.

Weeks later, Palin is announced as McCain's running mate. Someone at the Zoo says, "Hey, we got pictures of Palin in July." The Zoo releases the pictures to AP or Getty or Reuters and says, "Here's Sarah Palin at OUR Zoo in July with her kids." So then, someone at the news service tries to match up kids in the photo with other names and faces and ages and comes up with the incorrect caption we've seen elsewhere.

But it doesn't matter, really. The only reason I even mentioned this photo again is that it came up ... again ... in a thread a couple of days ago and people started dating it to September, which it is NOT.

And, we have another photo of Bristol taken on 7/19 which is absolutely categorically her and in which she absolutely categorically shows no signs of pregnancy, so the Zoo photo is really a bit moot.

Anonymous said...

I think "Sarah" on the photo looks quite large, compared to every other photo I have seen of her. When I first saw the photo months ago I thought "Sarah" looked way different. The girl in the middle is in my opinion not Bristol. The girl at the back "hidden" by the branch is Bristol. The branch is strategically placed as to to the Bristol's belly. I have said a similar thing when the photo was originally shown on this site. If the photo is sometime over the summer; it would tie in with the Bristol is pregnant now story. She's also the one carrying the backpack with what I'd imagine, baby things in it!

I also thought Sarah's hair looked way different in this photo, but maybe it's just my imagination.


Anonymous said...

@anon 3:32 -- Thanks you so much for your Wasilla information.

If you search this blog for "Molly" you will see that some of us have wondered if she might be Trig's mom. Troopergate proved her family tries to cover for her. A pregnancy could have interfered with her custody battle with Wooten, and her child would not have lifetime Native American care available.

Was she seen in public in Feb.-May 2008? Are some of her nine children actually step-children? Does she have teenage biological children?

So Officer Wooten got to take care of the Palin kids, only to be attacked as unfit by the Palins when fighting Molly's fight? No good deed goes unpunished. -B.

sue said...

Thanks Audrey for your excellent research. This issue is a matter of national security and public trust.

In my opinion, that is Bristol in the back (conveniently obscured by leaves) pregnant or post-pregnancy.

This matter needs to be resolved by revealing to the American public the birth certificate along with statements of attending physicians. I do not see how that would be a violation of privacy-- unless SP is lying.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I've looked at that zoo pic many times. I've blown it up and decided that the woman credited with being Sarah Palin, simply, is NOT. She has never been that heavy. Look at the legs in particular. Sure, a great post partum pic of a nursing mother, but not Sarah. The face is not hers, the kids there are not hers. Call me crazy, but that's the way I see it.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the poster who said she thought the girl in the center looks like Mercedes; but it could be someone else. I am sure it's not Bristol, and don't think it is Willow. Not that it helps much in this photo, but Willow is shorter than Bristol and has a more pronounced widow's peak, and more arched, fuller eyebrows. But they are sometimes hard to tell apart.

BTW, what are the "todercan" photos that some folks referred to? I couldn't see what that was about.

The Editor said...

I suggested this earlier: look at the baby's ears. They are like fingerprints; each child's is different. Notice that in early picture of Tripp, there is a cap covering his ears. Maybe a close-up of the ears and comparison of the different pictures might be interesting. Verification word: stingnat.