Little Boys Blue

7/12/2011

There has been a fair amount of discussion on these photos in the comments of my posts. So, I asked Doc to weigh in on the boys in blue. Here is what he had to say about the pictures:

"In this picture with Willow, the baby in the airplane with a blue sweater shows no signs of Downs syndrome and looks to be 2-3 months old.

I’m saying this based on level of alertness, and hands still clenched at rest for a baby that age.

If Trig truly has Down syndrome, as I believe he does based on our previous post and analysis, then this just cannot be him.

The second picture, its hard to tell, but the baby probably does have Ds. The baby looks a bit older than 1 month in this photo, maybe 1-2 months.

I do see the nasal cannula. Certainly looks like a nasal cannula, but also could be a feeding tube. It’s hard to tell if it goes across the whole face or just over the left cheek. I can't do any measurements as his head is looking off to the side.

Since it’s an outside shot, with everyone wearing shorts and light jackets, it’s definitely not early spring in Alaska. What, and no hat on the baby?

Bristol looks very young in that picture, much younger than she looked during the campaign. Why is she always holding her "mother's" baby?

Does Sarah ever hold the kid except in PR photos?

This baby in blue? 6-7 weeks old is a good estimate. Weeks, not months."

On Allie RN’s post:

"I didn't know about a possible tubal ligation or hysterectomy. If I understand Sarah’s religious beliefs, I can't imagine she would have a voluntary sterilization procedure. If that came out (and someone, somewhere must know), it would totally invalidate the whole pregnancy scam. There's got to be someone out there willing to talk.

As a Neonatologist, I don't know enough about hysterectomies to comment on the need for a perfusionist, but it could make sense, especially if she has a bleeding tendency. There are several reasons a "healthy" woman in her 30s would need one that come to mind: malignancy, severe fibroids, chronic pelvic pain, menorrhagia or complications from delivery.

If Sarah Palin had a tubal ligation, it would make it very difficult for her to be Trig's birth mother.

If Sarah Palin had a hysterectomy, it would make it impossible for her to be Trig's birth mother."

Thank you, Doc, for taking the time to give us your responses to this material.

109 Comments

NSG

7/12/2011 08:01:55

Laura, someone has posted this link of another boy in blue here & at IM (I think). It's labeled as Palin with Trig, campaigning in Pittsburgh in Oct 2008.

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/ZKRaOBBv-55/Palin+Campaigns+Pittsburgh+Area/w92w1KRutJR

It would be interesting to get feedback from Doc & others as to whether this is the same as any of the above boys, and if this child shows sign of DS, etc.

Thanks!

lilly lily

7/12/2011 08:04:13

The first baby with Willow looks like he has blue eyes.

Doesn't look anything like Trig.

alexis

7/12/2011 08:19:27

Sheesh!! How many kids do they have up there on the compound?? I can't keep up!!

Making my head spin!!

So these are the pictures that were released from sarah's email when it was hacked. Bristol testified in court that she was upset pictures of HER BABY were leaked from the email.

Bristol testified in April or May, 2009,( can't remember exact date) while Sarah's email was hacked in SEPT,
2008...

Who is the baby in blue?? Ruffles??

viola-alex

7/12/2011 08:25:53

sources for photos, please, and dates if known.

Ivyfree

7/12/2011 08:28:12

Don't know how to enlarge the picture, but I'd like to get a closeup of that baby with the oxygen cannula- that's what it looks like to me. It looks like it's on both sides of his nose.

Bristol may look younger in that picture, but who REALLY looks younger is Willow. Maybe 12-13?

alexis

7/12/2011 08:31:08

@NSG

Thats not TriG, its someone in the audience's son. There are other pictures there of willow holding TriG.

I think they labelled wrong

lilly lily

7/12/2011 08:42:21

Bristols book is 21 on the NY Times Best Sellers list. Not the top 10.

Oh, and the ghost writer says Sarah Palin "Seems" like a good mother. Now that is some qualifying statement.

And lol, she ate moose hotdogs. Everyone has to have moose hotdogs along with a hefty dose of Palin lies.

Scout

7/12/2011 08:43:30

That zimbio picture of $P holding a downs baby in Oct 08 is obviously mislabeled. There is no way that child is an infant - the kid she's holding looks to be 2 or 3 years old.

DebinOH

7/12/2011 09:37:52

I swear that the top picture of the baby with Willow is definitely not a Palin. I believe someone said that this was someone's baby who was traveling with them at the time.

Rationalist

7/12/2011 09:41:19

You know, I would have sworn the blue sweatered baby with Willow was not Trig, but if Palin's email was hacked in September 2008, that photo could have been taken around the time of the RNC. Here's Trig at the RNC, and honestly, it does look like it could be the same baby.

http://tinyurl.com/6bddk28

However, why did Bristol say there were pictures of her son in the hacked emails? Is it because she got confused about her talking points? Or confused about which baby is her designated son at the moment?

NSG

7/12/2011 09:44:48

Alexis & Scout, thanks. I went back thru and saw the other pic where Willow's holding the baby that looks to be Trig, wearing a dark navy or black shirt.

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/ZKRaOBBv-55/Palin+Campaigns+Pittsburgh+Area/fR3Pw7ZfSM8

Never mind!

Rationalist

7/12/2011 09:50:47

Ivyfree - you've got me thinking. That's supposed to be Trig in the group photo with the kids, and he looks about a month or two old.

So how do explain Willow in that picture and then here at the convention 3-4 months later?

http://tinyurl.com/6cal4h3

DebinOH

7/12/2011 10:20:16

I thought someone went back & looked at the court stuff and Bristol did NOT say her baby she said her brother. Is this wrong?

Joie Vouet

7/12/2011 10:52:05

Who is "Doc?"
Can you provide any biographical information? Education? Experience?
Is "Doc" an M.D.?

7/12/2011 10:58:58

http://www.box.net/shared/4ehka8vp11#/shared/4ehka8vp11/1/31987008/775932912/1

interesting....

SP travel logs and expenses...

rf

comeonpeople

7/12/2011 11:30:46

This photo of the kids on the lawn is a better quality than some I have seen before. In this version, which perhaps is untouched and others may have been photoshopped??, I see a piece of duoderm on the babies right cheek (left when looking at picture) that is used to secure a tube to the baby's face. The duoderm protects the face from stronger tape placed on top to secure a tube. This makes me think NG tube rather than oxygen cannula as I don't appreciate duoderm on the other cheek. I also don't see an ng tube, but you can keep the duoderm on cheek and drop the tube overnight and take out in the mroning..or perhaps he was starting to feed and they just supplemented with a tube and kept duoderm on for anchoring as needed. Duoderm can stay on for many days.
Also, this baby looks more than two months old to me,,,three,, nearly four, but if it was a premie might even be older.
Also, looks to me that scalp may have new growth hair, perhaps it had been shaved in the past for scalp vein IV access? There is a nice tuft of longer hair in the middle, sides look shaved to me. Finally, the left ear appears ruffled to me.

comeonpeople

7/12/2011 11:38:44

Add:
blowing it up more, there may be an oxygen cannula but it has slipped above nares. So this baby may have oxygen and ng tube..which is consistent with a DS premie who spent time in a nicu.
Where were they that they felt comfortable being in public like this and why does no one in Alaska ask the obvious question of which.who's kid is this?? Anyone know the location? Are they out of state and incognito and comfy taking pictures that are hard to explain? I forget the venue supposedly associated with this pic.

Laura Novak link

7/12/2011 12:17:36

I see the tape on the right side (baby's) and I see a cannula across both cheeks. Me thinks it's oxygen.

Joyous Vow: If this were your first time here and if this were your first time asking this very same question, I wouldn't mind. But it's not. So permit me to restate the obvious: I am not revealing this doctor's information to you or to anyone else naive enough to ask. I know his bona fides. And I stand by him as a source. Period.

rubbernecking

7/12/2011 12:23:31

Most of us know what Gawker published about Palin's hacked yahoo emails from this story: http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-emails. However, this is NOT the same evidence that was used in the Palin hacking trial in TN.

The trial showed that Kernell took his screenshots of Palin's yahoo account and posted them on an internet msg board. One of Kernell's screenshot included an email and picture from Bristol showing Trig eating solid food.
See page 8 in the Kernell sentencing doc (http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/sentmemogovt.pdf). This photo is NOT shown in the gawker capture.

Gawker took their own screenshots of Palin's yahoo account before it was shutdown. Their screen-shots do NOT include the picture of Trig eating food.
Gawker grabbed the kids on the lawn picture and the Willow/baby picture.

The kids on the lawn photo is likely from the message "Fwd: Kids 3378.jpg" sent from "K Perry Yahoo" on 8/31/2008. We can find this same subject in the Crivella dump. Todd sends the "Kids 3378.jpg" file to Palin's staff because the press is requesting a current picture with all the kids. This seems to be the only photo the Palins have of all five children. (http://www.crivellawest.net/palinAll/pdf/1545.pdf.)

As for Willow with the baby in Blue Sweater baby, none of the gawker screenshots show us a possible subject line for it. Might it be Meg Stapleton's daughter?

In short, the Palins intended to release the Kids on the Lawn photo to the press. We can assume this baby is likely Trig.

There's no evidence that the Palins were presenting the baby in Blue Sweater as Trig. Without an Email Subject line or message text, we don't know who this child is.

Ron

7/12/2011 12:25:50

We keep talking about Bristol saying (during the "hacker" trial) that pictures of her son were leaked. Where is the primary source for this statement? Is there a trial transcript available to the public? I've never read anyone point to the source of that very important piece of info.

alexis

7/12/2011 12:49:01

@RON

FOXNews.com
Courts

Palin E-Mail Hacker Convicted on 2 of 4 Charges

Published April 30, 2010

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/palin-e-mail-hacker-convicted-charges/#ixzz1RxA1pyTD

A Tennessee jury on Friday convicted the man who hacked Sarah Palin's e-mail account on two of four charges -- computer fraud and obstruction of justice. The panel did not find David Kernall guilty guilty of wire fraud. It deadlocked on an identity theft charge.

The former University of Tennessee student faced as much as 50 years for breaking into Palin's e-mail while the former Alaska governor was the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008.

The two charges for which Kendall was convicted -- unlawful computer access and obstruction of justice -- carried a combined maximum penalty of 25 years in prison and $500,000 in fines. It also calls for as much as eight years of supervised release, but it will be up to the judge to decide the sentence.

Prosecutors reserve the right to hold a new trial on the one charge for which they deadlocked.

Palin and her daughter Bristol testified during the trial, which lasted just a few days. Bristol Palin said she was distressed to find pictures of her newborn son in the public eye after her mother's e-mail was hacked. Defense attorneys argued Kernall, the son of a Democratic state lawmaker, was just committing a college prank.

The jury deliberated for four days.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/palin-e-mail-hacker-convicted-charges/#ixzz1Rx9qR4oK

Rationalist

7/12/2011 12:54:06

Ron: here's the Fox source for Bristol's quote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/palin-e-mail-hacker-convicted-charges/

There's been discussion about whether the trial transcript would jibe with that.

Does anyone have a link to the transcript? Can't easily find it myself.

curiouser

7/12/2011 12:59:39

I wonder if Doc also looked closely at the faces of the other children and if he enlarged the photo as BIG as possible.

I believe that what appears to be a nasal cannula or other tube are highlights on the photo. Similar highlights are visible on the other children but are most noticeable on Bristol and Willow, running from one cheek to the other across the nose with another line above the upper lip. The highlight line on the baby runs from cheek to cheek going above his upper lip with another small line across his nose. I can't see anything extending into his nostrils.

If you want to enlarge the photo more than is possible by enlarging the webpage (command +), I know of two ways to do this on a Mac and guess Microsoft would be similar. Don't know if I can explain it but I'll try.

1) copy the photo: command-shift-4 turns the cursor into a 'scope'. Highlight/outline the photo [hold down clicker (name ?) while moving the 'scope to outline the photo. When you release the 'clicker', a copy is saved.] Open the saved copy and click the + sign to enlarge.

2) Drag the photo to a pages document. With the cursor at a corner or on one of the squares on the perimeter of the highlighted area, expand the area as large as needed.

Hope that made sense.

comeonpeople

7/12/2011 13:00:59

In short, the Palins intended to release the Kids on the Lawn photo to the press. We can assume this baby is likely Trig.
@rubbernecker:
This baby doesn't look like the robust Tri-G the Heath grsndparents were holding in the hospital.
I wish someone could explain the disconnect of a robust baby going home and to work wtth "mom" three days later with a baby needing oxygen and ng feeds in august.

Brickian

7/12/2011 13:02:43

Hey guys,

(Good faith) question about the analysis of the first picture: could we be seeing an illusion of a "clenched fist", made possible by the fact that what we're viewing is a momentary action that happened to be caught in the 1/24th of a second it took to capture this photograph? Or is it that, even controlling for the fact that this is a snapshot, it still would not be possible for a DS child to muster this pose? Same goes for what appears to be alertness on the baby's face. Perhaps it was just a passing moment that happened to be captured on camera?

What raises this question for me is the expression on Willow's face. Obviously, that expression tells us nothing about how she looks all the time. :-) (The difference, of course, is that she did it voluntarily.) In this way, her expression serves as a helpful analogue. It definitely made me think twice about the doc's analysis. But I'm no physiologist...so I'm curious about whether the "moment in time" element changes things or not.

curiouser

7/12/2011 13:12:05

If anyone does enlarge the photo and checks out the highlights on Bristol's and Willow's faces and still sees a nasal cannula on the baby, PLEASE let me know.

Rationalist - I think the difference in Willow's appearance is the difference in photo quality, hairstyle, and she's not wearing make-up in the outdoor shot. A key to dating the photo as 2008 is Piper's short hair.

litbrit link

7/12/2011 14:00:09

Hi everyone. I posted about these two photos last July ('10); I had found them on the Gawker article, who themselves had obtained them from a site that had--among other goodies--a screengrab of the original Yahoo In box with all the subject lines of the emails themselves.

The subject line of the Sept. 15 2008 email containing the Willow and baby photo was: Look at Trig!!!!!

Also, I recall we had discussed this at Bree's blog; she remarked how much more hair Convention Trig had. Bear in mind two things: (1) the photo was definitely taken on McCain's campaign plane--I, as well as others, have compared the interiors (two- per-row brown leather seats in particular) to shots that were obviously taken inside the campaign jet, i.e. one with Cindy MCain walkling up the aisle that was in the WaPo, and (2) The Palin kids would not have been on that plane before the very end of August 2008 (would they?). So while the email was dated Sept. 15, and the photo could have been taken earlier, it wouldn't have been *that* much earlier--two weeks, tops.

I am unable to paste the link to my blog post here for some reason, so let me see if I can type it the old-fashioned way:

http://litbrit.blogspot.com/2010/07/down-rabbit-hole-where-things-continue.html

Here's the post:

alexis

7/12/2011 14:01:11

Looks like sarah' answers all our picture question in her David Kernell Hearing Testimony;
----------------------------------
1) Baby in Blue Picture

Q. Let me show you what has been marked and
admitted as Government Exhibit number 5. It should
appear on your screen there. Do you recognize this
exhibit which has the caption there "family2"?
(Exhibit No. G-5 in evidence was
referenced.)

A. I do recognize that. That is my daughter
Willow holding my son Trig, a picture that I took and
stored on my cell phone.

Q. Did you see that picture on the news media?
A. I don't remember if that was one that I had
seen flash across the screen or not.

Q. Do you know when this picture was taken?

A. Trig looks just a few weeks old. That would
have been probably springtime of '08.

Q. Do you know who took that picture?

A. I took that picture on an airplane.

2) Family Picture

Government Exhibit 6.

Q. Do you recognize that picture?
(Exhibit No. G-6 in evidence was

A. I do. The significance with that picture in recognizing it was it was the first time that all five
of my children had been together at the same time. We had gone up to Fairbanks to visit my son before his
deployment. The five of the kids were together. A friend of mine took that on a soccer field in Fairbanks.

--------------------------------------

All the testimonies can be found here starting on page 48

http://www.box.net/shared/n2s3c2okyr

7/12/2011 14:09:20

The picture will all five kids looks to me like it was taken shortly before the RNC. Track's hair is shaved in a crew cut, Bristol and Piper look about the same age. I agree that Willow looks much younger in this picture, but that is because she was dressed in a style significantly older than her 14 years at the convention - form-fitting sheath, with cap sleeves and a string of pearls. Her hair and makeup also were styled to make her look much older as well. She looked like she could have been 18-20 years old at the convention. In this group picture, she has her hair pulled back and is dressed appropriately for her age.

Here is a photo of Willow at the RNC. http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/Eu2IuTaaZ-d/2008+Republican+National+Convention+Day+3/BnTvKZvUJDb/Willow+Palin

curiouser

7/12/2011 14:10:59

@rubbernecking - Wow! It looks like you may have read all the emails. Many, many thanks for providing the links and background info here and on the last post!

Venefica

7/12/2011 14:29:00

"Palin and her daughter Bristol testified during the trial, which lasted just a few days. Bristol Palin said she was distressed to find pictures of her newborn son in the public eye after her mother's e-mail was hacked."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/palin-e-mail-hacker-convicted-charges/

When that article was published (by FOX!), there was a flurry of interest in the "newborn son" statement. The story has never been corrected.

Phyllis

7/12/2011 14:36:31

rubbernecking that's not Meg Stapleton's baby.
Meg's little girl is 10 1/2 months older than Trig. DOB 7/1/07

From : gov.sarah@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 1:11 PM
To: Spencer; Kari L (GOV); Todd Pain
Subject : Re: Good-bye!
We love you Kari!!!
We want this to be an invigorating and exciting time for you - not too exciting so you can have peace
and fun in the position - but new open doors bringing new, good things.
We just unrolled our $237,000,000 in budget cuts. Ughhhhh! Brutal!!! Karen Rehfeld is a master, a
brilliant mind, and wonderful person and I am amazed at what she and Joan accomplished with this
budget. I had them so wrapped around the axle on line items and I know I drove them crazy with so
many questions - they were amazing in putting this all together for our press conference today. I'm
wiped out - the rest of administration probably is too.
I told Meg we released the budget - now she can go have her baby. (They're inducing on Sunday!).
She's worried about missing Monday's AGIA RFA roll-out.
Anyway, crazy two weeks - I hope and pray you will love your position. From the bottom of my heart I
thank you for your awesome attitude and the example you're setting through this chapter in our
administration's life and through changes in your own life. Thank you Kari.

curiouser

7/12/2011 15:04:20

Ron - The mix-up started with a fox news report on Bristol's testimony that said she referred to her 'newborn son'. It was NOT quoting Bristol. I was shocked at the time that Palin didn't insist they make a correction.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/palin-e-mail-hacker-convicted-charges/

The official court transcripts quote Bristol as saying 'brother'. Palingates included the transcript in a post via flickr. Sadly, the flickr account was shut down so the transcript is gone. Here's the part of the post that relates to the photo:

"Bristol didn't know how old Trig was at the time?

Well, it's her "brother", and she was at the hospital on April 18, 2008, when Trig was officially born! How could she not know how old Trig was?

Was she trying to avoid to go on the record with a specific birth date for Trig?"

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2010/09/bristol-palins-testimony-in-david.html

Cracklin' Charlie

7/12/2011 15:11:29

I think the baby in the first picture is a girl. The Palin boys don't usually dress in fluffy little crocheted sweaters, they usually have monster trucks, or camo, or something more masculine. Something about the color of the sweater looks a little off, as well. It looks like it is sort of unnaturally blue.
I find the lawn photo very interesting. I don't think that that baby is all that small, he reaches from Bristol's shoulder to her knee. And the kids almost look (to me anyway) to be around the same age they were at the RNC. Something about Piper, and even Track's hair, maybe. Someone gave a date for this photo as Aug 31, 2008. Could this photo have been taken during or just after the RNC?
And I just can't help it, but I have to disagree with Doc. The baby in the last two photos does not look 6 or 7 weeks old to me. Can I ask a question about this: how old would he think that baby was IF it was known that that child had been born prematurely at around 4 pounds?

mxm

7/12/2011 15:12:05

The statement attributed to Bristol that the hacker released a photo of her 'son' was reported in error after Bristol testified at the trial. I don't recall who originally reported this sensational (yet incorrect) testimony. That this was erroneously reported can be confirmed by reading the trial transcripts. Many efforts were made by bloggers to correct this error, yet it lives on. Trial transcripts were released by Patrick on Palingates. Just search for the posts and you should find links to the transcripts.

Bristol did not say the hacker released photos of her son, she said the hacker released photos of her baby brother.

rubbernecking

7/12/2011 15:14:07

Some other thoughts on dating the kids-on-the-lawn photo:

- June 2008 - People Magazine did a photo shoot in AK for a story that ran in Sept. Pictures here: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20230644,00.html
Scheduling email: http://www.crivellawest.net/palin2011/pdf/15346.pdf

- Aug 2008 State Fair - Palin, daughters, and Trig were photographed at the Fair. Picture is on wayback machine and on Audrey's site: http://www.palindeception.com/subpages/subpage11.html

Using Piper's hair as a guide, I think the kids-on-the-lawn photo was taken around the time of the People Magazine shoot in June. By the time of the August state fair, Piper's hair has grown longer and Trig is much bigger.

Palin drove up to Fairbanks for a bill signing on June 12 (day after the people shoot). She was scheduled to tour the base where Track was stationed and a sign a bill. Maybe the entire family went to visit Track this weekend in June and this is when the lawn photo was taken? (http://www.crivellawest.net/palin2011/pdf/16102.pdf and http://www.crivellawest.net/palin2011/pdf/15962.pdf)

Also:
June 2008 Trig at People Shoot closeup -http://storage.people.com/jpgs/20080915/20080915-750-0.jpg
vs
Aug 22 2008 Trig at State Fair closeup -
http://wayback.archive-it.org/1200/20090726180912/http://gov.state.ak.us/large_photo.php?id=193

rubbernecking

7/12/2011 15:39:18

@Ron, curiouser addressed your point on another thread (Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:18:42):

"Palingates had the [official] transcript from Bristol's testimony in the Kernell trial. It was a bit of a let-down that it showed Bristol referred to the baby in the photo as her 'brother'. The links to the transcript are gone but the body of the post does mention the 'brother':

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2010/09/bristol-palins-testimony-in-david.html "

***
The most interesting thing revealed in the transcript was that Bristol avoided giving Trig's exact age while under oath.

K.M.R

7/12/2011 19:25:59

@ Ron
I've never seen an actual trial transcript with Bristol stating that pictures of her son were leaked.
In a Fox News article, saved by Politicalgates-Patrick, I believe, a quote of Bristol's states that she was distressed to find pictures of HER newborn son in the public eye after her mother's email was hacked.
http://tinyurl.com/648jqaw

Kernell got into Sarah's account on Sept. 15, 2008. Tripp's birth has been said to be on Dec. 27, 2008. So unless Fox News made a mistake in the article that was left on their site for months without a correction, then the question is; what son was Bristol referring?

@ rubbernecking
Thank you. I always thought the offending pictures were the above photos that Laura has used above.
The Gawker article leads a reader to believe they WERE the hacked photos. It's good to have that important point clarified.

Do we have a shot of the photo then?

Lidia17

7/12/2011 22:02:24

@Deb, @Ron: The original reporting by FOX News used the phrase "newborn son":

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/palin-e-mail-hacker-convicted-charges/

If the transcript is accurate (what are the chances that it could have been 'adjusted'?), then that is a very strange error for Fox to have made.

7/12/2011 23:04:05

I just keep looking at all the various photographs, most especially the ones that were not meant for public consumption.... Mercede's triggybear photos, as well as these two photos. My feeling is that Ruffles from Mercede's pictures is the same baby in this Palin kids family photo -- AND the same toddler in the latest Tripp/Trig photo. That Trig, to me, looks smaller and finer boned than the Trig(s) that have been on display since the RNC.

Ron

7/13/2011 00:48:32

Thanks everyone...I appreciate the link to the transcripts, alexis!

SLQ

7/13/2011 01:08:56

I do think it is a nasal canula. My father has been on oxygen for several years, so I recognize not only the tubing, but some other equipment in the photo. Note the oxygen tubing on the baby's face and the tubing running down the front of the blanket, toward the oxygen tank.

Here is the portable oxygen tank my dad uses. Note the handle is pretty much identical to the one seen in the pic, right below where Willow's and Piper's knees meet.

http://www.heliosoxygen.com/

Here is the fannypack-like carrier for the tank, which is very similar to the black backpack-looking item on the ground right next to the tank handle (see the fanny-type pack on the models, carrying the tank).

http://www.heliosoxygen.com/_pdfs/HeliosTrifold.pdf

Also, here is a pic of baby Josie Duggar with an identical nasal canula, and the stickers on the cheeks they use for babies (for adults, they hook around the ears.)

http://www.etonline.com/tv/103846_Happy_Birthday_Baby_Josie_Duggar/index.html

Laura Novak link

7/13/2011 01:15:40

I also think it's a nasal cannula for oxygen. I see it on both sides. Tanks are easily portable.

What astounds me is Palin's testimony that the baby was a "few weeks old." What, was she kidding? A weeks-old baby holding its head up, upright, wide eyed and alert like that?

Does she lie about every single thing on the planet? Was she, as the mother of four, THAT clueless about the development of an infant?

Or, was she avoiding saying how many MONTHS old this baby was.

Does anyone ever question her about anything she says?

Thanks for providing that testimony!

Allie

7/13/2011 01:17:00

Thanks for those great links, rubbernecking (love your pseudonym). Sarah testified the shot of the 5 kids was in Fairbanks and that trip was June 12. Frosty, is it bright & sunny in June? Looks like a lot of reflection coming from the kids' left side. I question whether that shadow on Trig's face is a cannula or a feeding tube. It is very close to his right eye and I can't see it up to or over his left ear. Bristol's hand is open. I thought at first she was holding Trig's hand, but now I think it is just her hand. It looks like there is something in her hand reflecting up on Trig's face, or reflecting off of the photographer like his camera on to his face.

According to the SP Fantasy Line, that picture was taken about 8 weeks after the Wild Ride. Ask yourself if Trig looks like an 8-week old baby.

rubbernecking

7/13/2011 01:35:46

One other suggestion for assigning a timeframe to a picture: look at Willow's teeth.

Willow is wearing braces in both official family photos, and in the Dec 2006 Inauguration photos, and in the Aug 2007 Alaksa State Fair photos. http://mishlerphotos.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Sarah-Palin/G0000nWyENGqHByg/I0000Jg0zqcbC0QY

At some point between Aug 2007 and the Jun 2008 People Shoot, her braces are removed.

Allie

7/13/2011 01:39:54

Laura and SLQ, your comments weren't yet posted when I posted mine. Yes, it COULD be an oxygen cannula, but I enlarged it to 340% and it looks like a shadow to me. It is very difficult to tell.

rubbernecking

7/13/2011 01:53:58

@alexis, thanks for the link to the trial transcripts and the corrections on the Blue Sweater baby. I was not aware that anyone in the Palin family had identified this child as Trig.

@comeonpeople, I realize that several people believe the Palins presented different babies as Trig. We are also aware of scenarios where reporters assume any infant with Downs Syndrome in a one-mile radius of a Palin is Trig. I was analyzing both pictures to determine if the Palins had identified the child in the photo as Trig. Based on @alexis's research, the answer is clearly "yes."

I've been very skeptical of the two-baby theory. (But 100% convinced there was no birth on 4/18/2008.) Laura's dogged pursuit is forcing me to keep an open mind on the two baby theory. The doctor's analysis and the authentication of the photo with trial testimony is compelling.

marieke02

7/13/2011 02:09:12

Laura,
In reviewing some old HuffPo pictures (yes, I know), I found one of McCain leaning over Trig and his ear is very odd and sure looks like some sort of prosthesis.

It's the fourth picture at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/21/trig-palin-photos-see-how_n_136582.html

Conscious at last!

7/13/2011 03:14:34

@ curiouser

Your "ability to express yourself" seems to have vastly improved today. You apparently enjoy "rubbernecking" too!!

Laura Novak link

7/13/2011 03:53:02

Marieke thank you for that. I'd never seen that particular angle or shot. Very interesting and very thick top of ear, if it't not, in fact a prosthesis.

Rubbernecking, I echo everyone in thanking you for all your research and links. Great work. Great work everyone! Thank you all.

curiouser

7/13/2011 04:00:00

Laura and SLQ, Thanks for the feedback. SLQ, thanks for the links re the Helio pack and the Duggar photo. I do see what looks like tubing going across the blanket, the handle, and the black pack. For the moment, I'm still stuck on the quality of line on the baby's cheeks looking the same as the line over Bristol's lips and the cannula doesn't seem to fit like it does on the Duggar baby. I'm looking at the photo enlarged so the baby's face is a bit over 2 inches from chin to crown. Time for me to see the optometrist.

Laura - "Does anyone ever question her about anything she says?"

It would be interesting to take one of her interviews and insert the follow-up questions that should have asked. If she decides to run for the GOP nomination, perhaps someone will put together a guide for interviewers on how to deal with her lies and diversionary tactics.

rubbernecking

7/13/2011 04:23:05

Heads up, @curiouser. The Babygate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has a file on you. Don't blow your future fraternizing with any suspected Trollkyists. ;-)

curiouser

7/13/2011 04:25:45

And a belated thanks to Doc! I especially appreciate the age approximations for the babies.

FrostyAK

7/13/2011 05:52:28

June in AK:

Some years it is bright and sunny and warm; others it is rainy and dreary and cold.

In Wasilla, the sun is very high in the sky in June. In Fairbanks it is necessarily lower (but not that much lower) as Fairbanks is about 350 miles north of Wasilla. In winter Fairbanks is COLD (think -30 to -50): In summer it has been known to reach 90 degrees. Check the weather on that date for Fairbanks to find out the conditions during that SUPPOSED time frame.

Leona

7/13/2011 07:01:41

Re: the baby in the "five kids" picture:
The head is much larger than one might expect on an infant just 6 weeks post due date (that is, mid-May, 2008), and if in fact the baby was born prematurely, and with Down Syndrome, one could reasonably expect the baby's head not to be so large. If this photo was taken right before the RNC, maybe it would fit the baby's development. Kids with DS generally have heads that are small.

mumimor

7/13/2011 07:25:04

I've been googling. June 12th in Fairbanks, there was a heavy rain during the day, and then it cleared up to "shorts weather". So it is not unlikely that a late afternoon-evening picture would be sunny with long shadows.

A "normal" two month baby can be propped up for a picture like that - but it that as true for a downs syndrome preemie? I have no idea.

curiouser

7/13/2011 07:25:54

I appreciate the heads up, @rubbernecking, but it's apparently too late. (scratching my head)

lilly lily

7/13/2011 07:49:23

There have been so many babies, and frankly one does not look like the other and so on down the line of photos.

Babies do not change that much in appearance. Games were played and we know it.

I saw an old globe article of Sarah bewailing why people have doubts about her being Trig s mom. A love child? Whose, not yours obviously.

Very simple Sarah.

Get her doctor out in front of a camera,( there has to be a doctor somewhere involved )to verify that you Sarah Palin birthed Trig and are actually the biological mother of a child born on whatever day Trig was actually born.

So her doctor needs Palins O.K. to tell us all what is what. HIPAA and all that jazz.

Sarah isn't going to get away with this farce much longer.

Murdoch is going to crash, and will be investigated in the U.S.. Faux News door (God?) will be shut in her face. The easy money is going to dry up. And no way Jose, is she going to the White House as POTUS, even if she puffs out her chest and wears her ridiculous fake rack bra in every photo op from here on in.

Palin knows it. Which is why she gives her Hubby a hard time for buying some beef jerkey for less than 3 bucks.

Sarah is a miser with her own money. A spendthrift with any one elses cash.

DebinOH

7/13/2011 08:44:04

Why would Trig need oxygen so long after his delivery? He didn't have it three days later when she went back to work. It didn't look like he had it in the Frank Bailey picture where he is laying on SP's shoulder.

Why, oh why is EVERYTHING about this family so bizarre? All I can say is if the Triggy bear photo is really Trig then I would love to know what in the heck they were feeding him because the growth is astounding between then and the end of August.

comeonpeople

7/13/2011 08:50:01

@marieke
Good find with the picture. The ear does look like a prosthetic, poorly matched skin tone also too.It looks like it is overlaying the deformed ear and you can peak in and almost make out the real ear. It looks like the hole in front of the ear was somehow healed over, with or without intervention, who knows.. So, is ruffles Tri-G but was deemed too "unsuitable" for prime time and the bigger robust healthy Tri-G was shown at the convention?
This is so utterly utterly ridiculous.

Melly

7/13/2011 09:22:01

Marieke02--

In that series of pics, this one is the most interesting to me. It's a Trig with very dark and thick hair on the side of his head, whereas all other shots in the series show a Trig nearly bald on the sides with lt brown hair. Also looks like a different ear.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/21/trig-palin-photos-see-how_n_136582.html

I don't think there's any sign of a prosthetic ear in any of these Trig pix.

7/13/2011 09:56:24

Lilly Lily, you can say that again. I was encouraged by Brad's comment that he had a pretty good sense of what happened, because I've been following all of this since fall '08 and still can't figure out all of these babies. Blue-sweater airplane baby is a total monkey wrench for me. Ruffles can be traced from the shower photos through to two photos in Bailey's book, dated May/June. I personally can't tell if the shower baby is DS, but the baby in Bailey's photos clearly is DS, and he clearly is Ruffles. Ergo, a DS baby with ruffled ears was born, to someone who was not Sarah Palin, and probably but not certainly was Bristol, probably prematurely in early (Feb-ish) 2008. What happened to this baby remains a mystery. Could Palin have somehow gotten the ear "fixed"? Seems much more likely to me that a different, bigger/older/round-eared, Trig was on display by the time of the RNC, which leaves one wondering if Ruffles might have died. Maybe in August? There is Bailey's account of Palin calling him in mid-August, too distraught to speak, supposedly because Bristol was pregnant. But that timing doesn't square with any number of things. So then one wonders, was she distraught for another reason? Could Ruffles have died around this time? Possibly under questionable circumstances? No shortage of questions in all of this.
But, all of that aside, who the heck is airplane baby?! As Doc confirms he is not DS -- he is also clearly a more alert, wider-eyed critter than the earlier or the later Trigs we have seen. He so clearly doesn't fit the Trig progression that I figured the photo was simply mis-labeled, but posts in this thread seem to confirm that Palin identified him as Trig.
Color me confused.

comeonpeople

7/13/2011 10:49:16

@munmimor
Heavy rain during the day? How fast do things dry out up there. Could you sit on the grass a few hours later and not get muddy and wet? Interesting.

comeonpeople

7/13/2011 10:56:49

@JK

There realy is no way to get that ear deformity fixed by any reputable surgeon before age 4 at the very very earliest. It won't work, it will turn out poorly and interfere with later attempts at correction .Sometimes rib cartilage is used from the child's own body but not until they are older. If we polled pediatric ENTs and plastics specialists across the US of A they will tell us the same thing.
Then again, maybe the good doctor CBJ did it as she is apparently unafraid 0f risky medicine (not unreasonable to fly, inducing in a podunk hospital.)

marieke02

7/13/2011 10:57:59

Melly, which one in the series are you referring to? The fourth one, a shot of his head from above and behind, shows a very thick, plastic-y looking top of the ear with sort of a straight edge/corner where it meets the head rather than rolled-looking like real ears are. I am guessing, if it is a prosthesis, it's some sort of molded "edge" to cover the ruffle and even out the shape. And I have noticed in other pictures that the rolled-edge-part of Trig's ear sometimes sort of goes past the top and down further in front than most people's ears seem to.

Another thing that makes me wonder is not ears at all: it's mouths. Sometimes Trig seems to have fairly thin, well-shaped lips, and sometimes (including in Bailey's book but also some photos) his lips look thicker and all scrunched up almost like he's got a cleft palate. Not sure whether DS kids just have more loose skin/soft musculature in the mouth area but it's really a puzzlement.

rubbernecking

7/13/2011 12:08:56

Maybe I've looked at too many photos in one day but this looks exactly like Blue Sweater baby to me:

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/456/slide_456_10984_large.jpg

I also think I might see some fist clenching (http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/456/slide_456_10976_large.jpgl) and fist grabbing (http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/456/slide_456_10976_large.jpg).

***If*** this were the same baby the Heaths presented on 4/18 (age 1 month), he'd now be about 5 months old.

At what age does Doc think a child with Downs Syndrome might be fist clenching or grabbing his sister's hair?

comeonpeople

7/13/2011 12:09:55

@marieke
DS kids will have lower set ears. This is a good point of reference in comparing the Tri-Gs, just how low set they go and is there variation.

Anony

7/13/2011 12:29:32

Melly and Marieke02

In looking at the HuffPo Trig pictures, Melly brought up this one as being different:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/21/trig-palin-photos-see-how_n_136582.html

The child in this picture looks like the same one as in this picture Joe McGinnis put up on his blog last month:
http://www.joemcginniss.net/trig-new-evidence-from-sarah-palin-emails/Joe%20McGinniss
Does anyone know when the pic on the Joe McGinnis blog was taken? Trig looks older than in the Huffpo pic above. Is it maybe from the Hawaii trip?

Strangely, I stumbled across the Joe McGinnis blog page while I was searching for a copy of the Trig birth announcement photo (you know - the one with the halo over his head and the letters VP above him?). Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember a discussion about nasal cannula being "erased" from the picture on that announcement. Does anyone remember that discussion?

7/13/2011 13:07:44

rubbernecking, I was just looking at that very same picture and thinking the same thing. Flipping through the HuffPo images it almost seems like we see two babies: a more alert baby with finer features and a more narrow face, a more sluggish, possibly somewhat bigger baby with a wider face, flatter forehead. Could this be one baby, at times alert, at times doped up?
And back to ears. Setting aside the question of whether or not an infant's ears could be surgically repaired, or somehow fitted with a prosthesis, should we ask WHY a parent would want to do this? Maybe there's some medical reason to repair a hole, but why stress out over a ruffled upper ear? Doesn't make a lot of sense, on its face. But if there was more than one baby cast in the role of Trig, a distinguishing feature would be problematic.

7/13/2011 21:42:45

@litbrit & @alexis:

If I am reading litbrit correctly, she says the Willow and "trig" pic were taken on John McCains campaign plane.

Hmmmm...

Well if that's true, it can't be trig, because in Sarah's own words he would have been just a few weeks old, the pic was taken in early spring according to her, in the transcript alexis provided from the email hearing.

It doesn't look like trig or any DS baby to me, which makes me think that it was tripp, and perhaps Bristol was indeed upset that photos of her newborn were splashed out there on the internet, and then lied on the stand about the baby being her brother.

At any rate, the age of Trig, given SP's testimony is waaaaay off, as she wasn't on the campaign trail until August, which would have put trig at app 4 months old, not a few weeks old in early spring. No one in AK would consider August early spring would they?

get more and more curious.

7/13/2011 22:06:08

Wow, I just went to look at Bree's blogspot page... all gone... what a bummer, I thought she was going to leave it all up.

Wonder if she took it down, or if someone else did.

And oh BTW, I notice that Laura and Sarah Jones are friends, Sarah Jones was the one, I believe, who wrote the article stating that Bristol was upset about her newborn sons pics being released.

Perhaps Sarah Jones could enlighten us??? Please?

Allie

7/14/2011 02:46:26

Regarding Sarah's testimony about blue sweater baby, I don't think it is accurate. That kid doesn't have Down's. His or her eyes are intently focused on someone, not something Trig would be doing at the age. I don't think the nose bridge looks flat enough for Down's. Who in that courtroom would ever check the veracity of the photos and her testimony? No one. She could say whatever she wanted and I think she lied like a rug. Try to contain your shock that she lied....

7/14/2011 05:00:41

rf, that's a good point. Doc's assessment of 2-3 months for blue-sweater baby does square with an April full-term birth or an earlier preemie birth, and a photo take in August, which as you say is the right time frame for a photo on a campaign plane. What doesn't fit is Palin's testimony. But why on earth would she lie about the dates (setting aside the question of who the baby is)? Why not just say, Trig looks 2-3 months old, so the photo would've been taken in August? Could she have been so preoccupied with keeping her story/dates straight that she inadvertently tripped herself up? Even decades after my own kids' infancies, I would never mistake a photo at 2-3 months for one at 2-3 weeks.

litbrit link

7/14/2011 11:33:21

Hi again. A couple of thoughts on blue sweater baby.

That's definitely in the McCain plane. Not only does those seats look exactly like seats in the plane identified as McCain's campaign jet, the interior of which there are photos all over the web (here's one: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/trick-or-treat-aboard-mccains.html ) BUT it is also clearly a private jet, not the empty first-class cabin of some random commercial jet (because when are planes ever anything but overbooked and jam-packed?)

That said, it occurred to me that the Palin children, or some of them, may well have flown on McCain's private jet weeks or even monts before their mother was officially announced as VP. Think about it--we are all pretty convinced Palin knew she was on his very short list, if not his actual pick, when she suddenly announced she was 7 months pregnant in early March, the day after McCain secured the Republican nomination. So by that logic, if she knew then--and for the sake of argument, let's say she did know that she was The One--it's conceivable that her family might have flown on his plane between then (March) and when McCain made the official announcement in late August.

I truly believe that baby is the same one who was at the Republican convention, but he appears older at the convention--a couple of months older to this mother's eyes.

Again: the subject line of that e-mail said: Look at Trig!!!!

And this kind of strikes me as funny, because if memory serves, the email was *to* Sarah Palin, not from, and she then forwarded it to Ivy. I need to see if I can find that pic of the In box again--I remembered that when I wrote that post last summer, Gawker had linked to Wikileaks, which is where it was all posted. I'm not sure if it's still available.

Anyway, here's a wild thought, just tossing this out there: perhaps Willow and Bristol (who took the photo) flew on McCain's jet to pick Trig up from his birth mother and/or adoption agency and bring him back to Sarah and Todd in April. She had the big speech in Dallas, and would meet them back in Alaska that night.

In which case, that would be something the girls might write to accompany a photo they were sending to Sarah: Look at Trig!!! (As in, "This is the baby who corresponds with the name you picked out!")

It also explains the hand-knitted blue wool baby jacket that little sweetheart is wearing, something we'd never see Trig or any other Palin wear again: something from a hand-knitted baby layette. My babies wore them, because my Mum knits. So do the ladies who often volunteer at hospitals, social service agencies, and so on: they knit little hats for the newborns, and they knit hats and jackets and blankies for babies from underprivileged families.

In addition to Paxson's possible connection to all this, remember, Cindy McCain adopted a child (Bridget) and may well have been dialed-in to an agency or church who had a baby with Down Syndrome they needed to place.

The group shot in the park (or similar) may not have been taken in Alaska. What if the whole family was elsewhere, say Arizona, hence the shorts? The whole family minus Sarah, of course--she was back in Alaska pretending to be pregnant. McCain flew them down to pick up the baby, who still needed the nasal cannula and wasn't quite ready to fly home? Are they sitting on the lawn at a hospital, perhaps?

Who knows for sure (rabbit holes are simpler to navigate!) but the more I think about this, the more certain I am that Look at Trig!!! photo was taken in April 2008, not August.

7/14/2011 11:36:53

Compare the first photo of Trig in the blue sweater and Willow making a funny face with this picture: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/21/trig-palin-photos-see-how_n_136582.html of Trig at RNC. It looks like the same facial expression and the same baby.

rubbernecking

7/15/2011 03:12:22

Many people have commented about Palin’s odd lies, some so far-fetched, they surprise even jaded political junkies like me. Some have suggested there’s something pathological about her lying but I stay out of these threads because it’s not a subject area I’ve studied.

Question: How do mental health experts evaluate lies related to a narcissistic disorder versus a cognitive decline like early-stage dementia? Consider this scenario:

At 11:15 AM you show a patient a family photo and she tells you it is from a very significant moment in her life. She is able to tell you many details about the photo: who took it, where, why, and when. Any average person would understand why the photo is so important to her.

A few minutes later, you and the patient speak about her email getting hacked in September. She knows the date, where she was, and who was with her when her account was hacked.

At 11:30 AM, ON THE VERY SAME DAY, a stranger tries to review the exact same information with her.

The stranger shows her the same very significant family photo discussed only 15 minutes ago, quotes her description of the photo she gave at 11:15 AM, and says "Do you recall that?"

Patient: "I think that is many months later. I don't know. You will have to show me."
Stranger: [Shows her the pix and email.]

Stranger: It appears to be the original e-mail and then the forward on August the 30th.
Patient: Right. This was a couple of weeks after my e-mail got hacked. That picture was already out there. The media was hounding us for a picture of all the kids together. I basically said you guys already got it. You got it from the incident.

Stranger: Do you see the date on here as being August 30th, 2008?
Patient: I do. Yeah.

Stranger: That was, of course, before the incident?
Patient: Yes. That is the one that we sent out afterwards too.
***********
When Palin is questioned by the prosecutor (rehearsed), she recognizes a family picture and knows timelines of major events in her life. When she is questioned by Kernell’s attorney (unrehearsed), she acts like another person. She is unsure if he is showing her the same picture she just discussed with the prosecutor. And remember, we’re talking about the one and only picture taken of her five children before her son deployed to a war zone. She gets tripped up on the sequence of the months August and September. When Kernell’s attorney points out her error about the order of months, she doesn’t acknowledge how weird her error was, but starts scrambling about “afterwords”.

Trial testimony is here: http://www.box.net/shared/n2s3c2okyr. See page 42 for the start of the prosecution’s questions and the “knowledgeable” Palin. See page 62 for the start of the cross examination of the confused Palin.

litbrit link

7/15/2011 04:52:08

Rubbernecking says: "@litbrit, have you had a chance to review the trial quotes and link that @alexis posted in her "Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:01:11" comment on the last thread?"

Rubbernecking, yes! (Or else, You betcha. *sorry*). Specifically, Palin said:

"Trig looks just a few weeks old. That would
have been probably springtime of '08."

Q. Do you know who took that picture?

"I took that picture on an airplane."

Only two photographs--the ones Laura shows above--were "hacked" by Kernell from Palin's Yahoo account and posted online: he admits as much in his initial announcement to the Anonymous boards, where he says, essentially, that he was hoping there would be something politically substantial that would help bring her down amid all the accusations of her having used private e-mail accounts for government business, but no--just administrative stuff and a couple of family photos (little did he know how potentially politically substantial those photos might one day be).

I found the relevant Gawker posts, and God bless them, they have left everything up. Palin was absolutely referring to that blue-sweater baby photo--it is one of the the only two photos in question (that were posted online and that "shocked" Bristol etc.) The other one is not "on an airplane".

You have to admire the sneaky, politician-y way Palin testified as to the origins of that photo. "...on an airplane". AN airplane. Not, "when we were flying to such-and-such with Trig", which would be a normal response if someone pointed to a photo of your baby on an airplane, wouldn't it? As in, "Yes, that's a photo of my son and daughter, and I remember it well because it was Trig's first time flying when we were headed to Montana for a retreat" (or whatever). I remember the first time *each* of my boys flew with me somewhere. I think most mothers do--it's kind of a big deal, both emotionally and logistically. Figuring out what stroller is safe but light enough to carry; hauling the car seat on board; deciding what drinks, snacks, and small toys to bring; wondering how you'll change a diaper without the benefit of your well-equipped changing table. But to Palin, this was simply a relatively newly-born baby--"just a few weeks old...on AN airplane". Weird.

Or perhaps not so weird. She couldn't lie about his age--he *is* just a few weeks old in this pic (I would say 6-8 weeks). She couldn't lie about what airplane and when, so she was deliberately general ("AN airplane").

I don't think SHE took the photo, though. And here's why: the email subject line Look at Trig!!! , landing in Palin's In Box at 12:36 am on September 15, 2008, was sent TO Palin FROM a phone number. The phone number belongs to Bristol. Gawker staff called the number, when all this first broke, and got Bristol's voice mail, which they even posted in a sound file.

So, then: the baby is Trig. The sender of the photo, from a cell phone, is Bristol. She had the photo on her phone since spring, when the baby was "a few weeks old". On "AN airplane".

Why did Bristol send it to her mother in September? At that point, SP had been on the road for a few weeks--this was post-convention, remember--and her kids were back in Alaska. Maybe she truly wanted/needed some kid photos, private ones that weren't already all over the media, to show off; hence Todd sending her the other photo, the group shot, subject line "Family". Perhaps someone had asked if she had any newborn pics, who knows? Everyone loves babies; everyone loves to show off baby photos. It would be yet another way for SP to "connect" with people and establish her good Mama cred.

I feel pretty strongly that the plane is McCain's private campaign jet, too--it is simply not possible that a commercial jet, like Alaska Airlines, would be completely empty in first class. For the sake of argument, let's say the plane was a commercial one, and the girls and baby had boarded long before everyone else, where are the logos, motion-sickness bags, in-flight magazines, emergency information cards for passengers, and other various clutter-like things that comprise the visual landscape of a commercial plane's interior? There are none, because this is a PRIVATE jet.

Viola-Alex says: "@litbrit: I like how you think. (The sweet blue sweater being an anomoly.) 3 questions. Could that be someone else's private jet, someone else behind the adoption, not McCain?"

You know, there is a chance that it *could* be someone else's private jet, sure. Brown leather seats are not uncommon, ha! But when I thought about this, I kept coming up against this: who else's would it be? Paxson's? Graham's? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought their personal jets were smaller, like the one Palin tried to quietly use during the Going Rogue "road" tour (heh)--this is a big old Boeing (it looks like), one that's got plenty of seating for the press who routinely travel along with campaigns. Lots of wealthy businessmen have their own jets. But

litbrit link

7/15/2011 05:15:39

Oh dear...the end of my overly-comment didn't post. So I'll paste it so as to properly reply to Viola-Alex (I'm in the habit of saving a copy of any longer comments with links that I make, as we often lose our Internet connection out here in the sticks):

Viola-Alex says: "@litbrit: I like how you think. (The sweet blue sweater being an anomoly.) 3 questions. Could that be someone else's private jet, someone else behind the adoption, not McCain?"

You know, there is a chance that it *could* be someone else's private jet, sure. Brown leather seats are not uncommon, ha! But when I thought about this, I kept coming up against this: who else's would it be? Paxson's? Graham's? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought their personal jets were smaller, like the one Palin tried to quietly use during the Going Rogue "road" tour (heh)--this is a big old Boeing (it looks like), one that's got plenty of seating for the press who routinely travel along with campaigns. Lots of wealthy businessmen have their own jets. But this is an exceptionally big private jet: a Boeing 737-400. The fuel costs would be insane if you were just flying yourself and a handful of business people around. This is a campaign-sized private jet, and the girls and baby are sitting in what would be first class (two seats, an aisle, and two seats) in the commercial version of this same plane. A Gulfstream or Lear would not accommodate the dozens of members of the press, who would sit in the "economy" class.

According to the Washington Post (link here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/06/straight-talk-express-gets-an.html) the McCain campaign officially rolled out the "new" campaign jet (the 737) at the end of June '08--they had previously been using a smaller plane. But that date was the "official" rollout, and the article would obviously not mention any unofficial uses in the months prior, so we cannot go by that late-June date when trying to date the photograph, methinks.

Incidentally, the charter company who ran McCain's jet and crew are/were Arizona-based Swift Air. They have been in trouble for some FAA violations (see Wikipedia for more) and voluntarily suspended some of their operations last month pending FAA investigations. (I wonder if McCain's payments to Swift Air are part of any public record? For the purpose of dating his use of that jet.)

"And two, could that have been a flight to AZ for the family on McCain's jet prior to the Aug announcement?"

Again, I think the baby's age--let's say 6-8 weeks, with little balled fists, smaller and with far less hair than we saw him sporting at the convention--would argue for LONG before the August announcement. The announcement was at the very end of August; the convention was just a few DAYS later. That baby didn't grow THAT much in length and weight--nor did he sprout that much hair--*that* quickly!

"Does the email say who it was sent from to Sarah?"

Yes. It came from Bristol's cell phone.

Here are the relevant Gawker links. First, the one with the In boxes:
http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-emails

And this one has the audio file of B's voicemail, proving it was her phone (she has obviously since closed that cell account and changed her number):
http://gawker.com/5051249/bristol-palins-voicemailhttp://gawker.com/5051249/bristol-palins-voicemail

FrostyAK

7/15/2011 05:38:27

About the plane.

Has anyone found pictures of the interior of Franklin Graham's plane(s)for comparison? I'd expect his involvement long before McCain's.

They are both Dominionists, and see AK as their retreat (and command center?) just before (or after) the 'rapture'. Graham maintains a compound in Port Alsworth.

rubbernecking

7/15/2011 05:41:22

@litbrit, I think we need to reference page #s and line #s because some photos are discussed multiple times.

The prosecution ask about the Willow/Trig/Plane photo p 48, lines 6-22.

They ask about the "LOOK AT TRIG!!" email on p52, lines 8-14. Palin says it's from Bristol about Trig. They ask about this message again on p 57, lines 7-25. They confirm it's the "LOOK AT TRIG!!" email and Palin explains it's a photo of Trig eating solid food for the first time.

What makes things confusing is that the prosecutor shows emails and images that were never released publicly. They show emails and pictures recovered from an archive file created by Frank Bailey on 9/15/2008 and given to Palin's personal lawyer. Kernell's lawyer keeps objecting to this evidence. It was never turned over to him.

Kernell's lawyer only asks about photos that were shown publicly by Kernell on 4-chan. Gawker didn't capture this picture (only the subject line).

rubbernecking

7/15/2011 05:48:18

@litbrit, have we seen photos of the interior of the Alaska King air jet? Palin took her children on the state-owned plane a few times.

The State had 2 jets when she entered office. She made a big show of selling one on E-Bay before realizing it complicated her ability to get around the state.

K.M.R

7/15/2011 06:19:31

I really do hesitate to add more pictures to what is already being analyzed but I've just found one I've never seen before. Happened upon pictures just might help our efforts.

The date is Sept., 12, 2008. The discussion is from the Balitmore Sun, about bringing babies to work. That isn't why I'm suggesting a look-see. It's just that I find it rather interesting that Sarah is holding a blanket tight over the child's ear in this photo. She appears to be on a tarmac and I'm sure it's windy but wouldn't it be held over the baby's entire head and not just the ear?

Could well be one of those strange coincidences that seem to follow her everywhere. It could also be my over active wishful thinking again.

litbrit link

7/15/2011 06:31:52

@rubbernecking, I remember seeing that somewhere; I am almost ceetain it--the Alaska King plane--was not a big commercial-sized passenger jet like this 737. Anyone else know?

K.M.R

7/15/2011 07:21:04

just noticed I didn't even give the link. Sorry 'bout that.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/baltimoremomblog/2008/09/sarah_palin_and_bringing_your.html#comments

Yellowgirl

7/15/2011 07:48:13

Having seen the insides of way too many airplanes recently, I'm not convinced that is first class of a large plane. I've flown in planes with only one or two seats on a side that were small prop-type planes, which this could be, couldn't it? Point being just because there are only two seats on each side doesn't mean diddle.

Also, I don't think you'd necessarily see the in-flight magazine, logos, etc from this picture. As I said, I've flown several different airliners recently and none had the logo on the tray tables or seat backs, such that this *could* be commercial still.

The one thing that is a little troubling to me is that you can't see overhead bins in this photo. Now, sometimes overhead bins (and associated lights, fans, call buttons, etc) are located quite a ways up, but that tends to be on the larger planes. The smaller planes (which this is if it isn't first class) tend to have lower ceilings. But I still say this very well could have been a very empty commercial flight. They do have such things.... my flight out of Orlando earlier this week was only half full.

Just food for additional thought.

Yellowgirl

7/15/2011 08:07:04

Me again. Okay, after looking at some online images of plane interiors, I think I can say that this is likely a large plane, coach class. It's not first class-- look at the typical lack of leg room in the row of seats in the background.... with the tray down, there is none!

As I generally only see first class while being shuttled thru to the cattle car section, I forgot just how much leg room they have. Plus, there doesn't appear to be any arm-rest table thing that usually exists between even "adjoining" seats in first class.

I'm even more convinced that this is NOT a private plane. Go look at some of those images and tell me if ANY of them remotely look like this... nope!

So, this is either McCain's empty, commercial-sized plane fit to allow reporters, or it is an empty commercial flight. My 2 cents, fwiw.

Yellowgirl

7/15/2011 08:10:38

Okay, one more comment. I think it might be Alaska Airlines.... look at this picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelingotter/4859061656/in/photostream/

If so, it might be a two seat/three seat combination, such that there are three seats on the side Willow is on.

rubbernecking

7/15/2011 08:55:40

@litbrit, I realize the King Air Jet is smaller than the plane photographed here.

Does it look like Willow is seated in a bulk-head row? Like there's more space between her and the next row in comparison to the seats on the left side of the plane?

Is it really possible that the person taking the photo is sitting right next to Willow? Or is it more likely there is a middle seat between them? Could they be flying in something like an MD-88 where the configuration is 2-seats on one side and 3-seats on the other side?

Maybe this is a commercial flight. Look at the row in front of Willow on the left. Isn't that an open tray table with a blackberry or iphone on it?

Phyllis

7/15/2011 09:49:09

According to Sarah's travel and expense report the only places that she would fly into on a smaller plane that was shown in the picture are Homer and Kenai.
Alaska Airlines books smaller planes through a airline called ERA Aviation for Homer and Kenai because their airports won't take the bigger planes that Alaska Airlines flys.

She was in Kenai on 6/18/08 and Homer on 6/26/08.

FrostyAK

7/15/2011 10:40:30

The AK government still has the King Air. It was supposedly too small for it purpose (Frank wanted a bigger plane) and it has no onboard rest facilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_King_Air

Realize that Franklin Graham has access to many planes. The one he flew out to the villages here is certainly not what they flew to Haiti in.

Again, do we have any pictures of Samaritan's Purse or other Graham personal or organization planes?

Cracklin' Charlie

7/15/2011 10:45:51

Sorry, folks,

I have been away, so I have missed some stuff. I have a few questions.

Does Tripp have blue eyes?

Does anyone know what the travel arrangements were for the Palins to get to the RNC? Like who went when, or did they all travel together, etc. Willow and the baby seem warmly dressed, and I remember when I first saw the Palins on television, I thought that they seemed dressed for weather much colder than their destination. Is it cool in Alaska in late August?

And that item about the photo saying LOOK AT TRIG! is weird. Almost like they are saying this is Trig, now go away and don't ask questions. Kinda makes me think the fixers thought it would seem strange to scrub all the photos, they would need a few to make this situation seem "normal". Nobody has zero pictures of their children. They had to make some photos seem to be of Trig, and they needed to somehow track his development for authenticity.

I think "airplane" baby is Tripp, in August, 2008 born in April, 2008 playing the part of Trig.

7/15/2011 13:03:23

There are so many Trig theories that make some sense -- it's the Grand Unified Trig Theory that remains elusive.
I looked back at an old blog post that makes an interesting case:
http://www.palinpeytonplace.com/2-babies-yes-heres-proof.html
Pretty good evidence that Ruffles emerged as repaired-ear Trig seen on August 29, a different baby from the round-ear Trig we saw on Sept 5.
To amuse myself this weekend I put together a Trig montage, every infant photo I could find through the RNC. What I conclude is that every baby we see through August 29 (repaired-ear Trig) is definitely or at least could be Ruffles. This baby never looks alert or even terribly awake. Looking at the close-ups of the repaired ear, one wonders if he was deaf. By August 29 he is a good-sized kid. Starting with the round-ear Trig who appears at the RNC, we start to see a more alert, wide-eyed baby, who appears to be an older version of airplane Trig. Laura, as you say, ears don't lie: the Palin Peyton Place blog shows how Ruffles' ear could have been repaired, probably unethically, but surely this crafted ear cannot have been magically made normal in the span of 6 days. I asked the question earlier, WHY would a parent repair a ruffled outer ear? Because one is playing a baby-swapping game? Next question: why the baby swapping? Was Ruffles the stand-in until the real Trig was ready? If so, where did he come from, and where did he go? I've wondered before if he might have died, but if that is him in the Aug. 29 photo, he can't have died and been replaced 6 days later. The airplane photo also shows that round-ear Trig was around before August. But then if he was around earlier, why do we see Ruffles as late as August 29?
Laura, any chance Doc could take a look at the Palin Peyton Place blog & give his expert opinion?

litbrit link

7/15/2011 20:50:49

@Rubbernecking, upon looking at this photo on a computer where I could enlarge and zoom in, I do indeed see the tray-table with phone/Blackberry, and I also see what could be an Alaska Airlines in-flight magazine in the pocket of the seat next to that. Or else someone's personal magazine--it's hard to tell.

Willow does appear to be in a bulkhead aisle seat at the back of first class; these seats are configured 2 and 2, and they correspond to photos online of other interiors of Boeing 737-400's, including ones flown by Alaska Airlines as well as Swift Aviation (McCain's charter). The seats are identical to those shown in both Alaska Airlines interiors and in the numerous interior photographs of McCain's campaign jet. You don't see the overhead bins because they begin just where the top of the photo ends. It's still seems weird to me that if this is indeed a commercial flight, the cabin is so empty--no-one is sitting in any of the other seats; there's just that one turned-down table. Perhaps Alaska Airlines often flies empty and near-empty planes, who knows? They would be an anomaly in the industry: every plane in which I've flown in the past decade, as I've said, was completely full, first and economy class, and oftentimes overbooked.

I believe Trig in the blue sweater has Down S. Babies faces change dramatically, almost on a weekly basis--and this is true of all babies, not just those with Down--on top of which, as I mentioned before, the physical signs don't always present immediately, and some babies will look more "typical", especially in the early months, than others. Check out this blog, photographed and written by a youth pastor who's baby son was born with Down (his writings and videos underscore the kind of time commitment and devotion required of parents of kids with special needs--the physical, occupational, and speech therapy regimens are daunting but incredibly rewarding): http://noahsdad.com/friday-night-fun/down-syndrome-baby-boy-grover-cookie-monster-1/

Airplane/blue sweater Trig has the kind of deep-blue eyes one often sees in a weeks-old baby, even one possessed of DNA that will eventually turn them hazel or brown. This happened with all three of my sons: I have blue-green eyes; my husband, who's Italian, has dark brown eyes. Our babies' eyes were deep blue--almost navy--for the first few months of life, then they began to change colors.

(BTW, Tripp has pale blue eyes, still, and he's a toddler now.)

If the airplane in question was a commercial flight, I imagine the children's travel records would show if Trig flew anywhere while he was 6-8 weeks, yes? The Palins routinely made the state pay for their kids' travel, to the point of being relentless about it, asking aides to find reasons/events they could cite as justification ("I just need one...."). This could be useful in dating the photo. If, on the other hand, this was a private 737, there wouldn't be any official record of the children's travel and they wouldn't be wanting reimbursements.

marieke02

7/16/2011 02:04:16

jk, I've been doing the same thing and come to pretty much the same conclusions re: Ruffles and getting his ear fixed. But I'm thinking that round-eared Trig was subbed in for the campaign and book tour -- and am hoping against hope it was because Bristol put her foot down and refused to let him be schlepped around like, well, as Andrea Goodman said, a loaf of French bread. I also think a) he's mildly DS/potentially higher functioning than most; and b) just looking at eyes, eyebrows, *mouth shape*, and expressivity, that Ruffles is not only "airplane baby" but also the Trig in that really, truly darling picture with Tripp they just posted. Those boys are close (I think their expressions are genuine), and making allowance for the DS, they have similar facial structure, Chuck/Sarah/Bristol ears and similar mouths. In fact, Trig in that picture looks enough like Sarah to make me wonder whether she might not be a DS mosaic (possessing the DS chromosome picture in some areas but not all).

7/16/2011 08:54:30

Re: the age of airplane baby, is there a hand holding up his head that we don't see in the photo? It looks to me like the baby is holding its own head up. Even if the head is supported, the muscle tone this baby has seems quite good -- in contrast to every photo that is clearly Ruffles, which shows a baby that looks severely hypotonic. Marieke, I'm not sure I follow your Trig progression/swap theory: I have come 'round to thinking that airplane baby looks a lot like blue/black jumper Trig at the RNC, and this is the high-functioning autism baby that could have grown into the recent photo of Trig. Could it have been the other way, i.e., could Bristol have put her foot down about having a very young, fragile, possibly nursing Trig schlepped around in early infancy, toted off to work with Sarah & such? And then taken round-eared Trig out from under wraps when he was bigger, and Bristol would be traveling with him?

7/16/2011 09:06:02

PS. Could Bristol be the DS mosaic in the family? She is the one with the weak chin, and the one who talked about how gosh darned smart her mother is. Also too, isn't there an association between low IQ and a deficit of social inhibitions? The kind of deficit that might lead to, say, double-dating all night long in a tent, or moaning so loudly during "clandestine" sex that one awakens others in the household, or being voted most likely to give any boy a blow job, anywhere?
And didn't Sherry Johnston make a comment about how relieved they were, that Tripp was okay?

marieke02

7/16/2011 11:45:11

jk,

I just think Bristol is seriously stupid -- and tended (tends?) to drink, drug and party way too much. Being drunk and/or high could account for her disinhibition without even throwing in the emotional consequences of being "raised" by Sarah. I'd never read about Sherry's comment but given Bristol's apparently non-stop partying and the likelihood of FAS or FAE, I'd say all sane people would be greatly relieved!

jk, I agree with you about blue/black jumper Trig and airplane baby, and tend to agree about the early stuff also (there has been some consideration that at times Sarah used one of those (seriously creepy) dolls). But as I remember it, round-eared Trig looked more stereotypically DS and also had darker hair, while bat-wing ear Trig was more expressive and also his ears are remarkably like Chuck's, Sarah's and Bristol's. So maybe they borrowed him on occasion?

I do think both Trig and Tripp were born significantly earlier than their claimed dates of birth. Sally/Chuck Hospital Trig I now think was the same Trig a stunned Levi held shortly after birth, but he spent a LOOONG time in the NICU before Sarah pretended to have given birth. And Tripp has always been just too darned big for his age -- especially given that none of these people are hyper-large, to say the least.

7/16/2011 13:05:38

One of the Trigs is related to Sarah Palin, as demonstrated by the unusual double bridge ears they both have.

I don't believe that Ruffles' ear malformation could be corrected at a young age and look so flawless as to be undetectable. A child in my family had plastic surgery at one year. Surgery was done by a leading surgeon at a children's hospital which is ranked as one of the best in the nation. Despite access to phenomenal resources, my little friend still has noticeable scarring and other markers from surgery. This only involved skin. I imagine it would be harder to get perfect-lookin gresults with cartiledge.

7/16/2011 14:12:05

@Up, I've read other comments expressing skepticism about surgery, but the close up view of Aug-29 Trig shows a VERY strange looking ear. There's no discernible ear canal. Could surgery have been needed if there were problems with the inner ear as well? And then Palin pushed to have some cosmetic work done at the same time?
@marieke, my montage ended at the RNC, so I haven't tried to sort out round-ear Trig and bat-wing Trig. As for birthdates, it gets confusing if baby swaps were going on: which kid is which? And which was born when? It does seem clear that chubby-cheeked hospital Trig was NOT a 6-lb preemie born on 4/18. Also clear that any baby born to Bristol in 2008 was born earlier than April. As for Tripp, I haven't looked at him as much but I agree, it's a puzzle as well. The photos that purported to show him as an infant could have been off by a month or two, but, unless there was baby swapping here also, they were not off by 6 months, let alone a year. OTOH I agree, he does look too big for his stated age in recent photos. Not sure waht to think here.

7/17/2011 00:55:08

Minor note re: airplane baby photo...it could have been a commercial plane, I think, the photo taken during pre-boarding, since the family was traveling with an infant.

marieke02

7/17/2011 06:44:15

jk, it is a puzzlement. There was a lot of consideration of round-eared Trig and batwing Trig maybe a year ago, I am thinking, though perhaps it may have been longer. And it is very clear that two separate babies were used. The idea of a prosthesis never occurred to me until I saw that one picture of McCain leaning over him during the convention and the baby's right ear not only was a different color than the rest of him, but it had almost a sharp edge. Oops!

As far as Tripp is concerned, he looked quite large to me in that February interview but in the May one, I swear he was larger than either of my girls at a year. Totally out of it, probably Benadryl, and probably because otherwise he would have been crawling, saying a couple of words and/or walking. None of us can do more than guess when these babies were really born, but I'm getting pretty convinced they're both Bristol's and born a lot earlier than stated. It seems quite likely that Trig (aka Ruffles) truly was premature, and more than likely that he spent some quality time in a NICU. Given these people, it is also unfortunately quite possible his post-NICU care was not the greatest. In any case, even without the DS, he is unfortunately probably quite a bit older than his apparent age.

7/17/2011 09:41:33

Marieke, we might be talking only to ourselves at this point :) But I also believe that "Real Trig" and Tripp are both Bristol's, and RT was born well before 4/18. But after playing with a 2nd photo montage my scenario is a little different from yours:

Early Feb: Real Trig (RT) is born
March: RT out of NICU, photo taken with young-looking Levi. (I think there's a very small baby under the swaddling.)
May/June: airplane photo taken
June 12: family photo
Sept 5: RNC photos, blue/black jumper

In this scenario, RT is Bristol's, the same child we saw with Tripp in the recent photo, a fairly high functioning DS child. Ruffles, then, is the stand-in. I can imagine Bristol put her foot down in that way: okay, you can adopt him, but you are not dragging my tiny fragile baby all over Alaska for photo ops. Maybe they even agreed to a time frame. So then the scheme was to find a DS baby to adopt, working through CBJ or church channels. This baby, the "lab puppy," aka Ruffles, was born or became available on 4/18. He was more medically fragile than RT, hypotonic and low-functioning. Maybe even not expected to survive. This is the Aug 19 (repaired-ear) Trig; also the baby in they 2 photos in Bailey's book, whose face to my eye looks swollen, as opposed to simply chubby. Ruffles current whereabouts remain a mystery. One shudders to think that the Palins could have considered him expendable -- so who needs to repair that heart defect, anyway?

Some of the RT baby photos look somewhat like Tripp because the boys are brothers, or, if Keith Johnston is the father of RT, 3/4 brothers.
Maybe off base, but I think this is consistent with the photos, at least the ones I have seen.

7/17/2011 11:05:57

JK, I don't think that is an ear prosthesis in the photo w/ McCain. ("Greeting John McCain, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/21/trig-palin-photos-see-how_n_136582.html )

I believe the difference in skin color is due to lighting. If you look closely, his right ear is shown. There are two other photos in this album from the RNC which also show the right ear: "Getting a Kiss" and "Sleeping with Cindy McCain." In both photos the ear looks totally natural. If the photo was transposed, it might be his left ear but there are several photos of his left ear which also look totally natural. This is the Trig with the same double-bridge ear as Sarah.

I do agree that the photo from this album entitled "Group Wave" does feature a Trig with the same expression and appearance as the blue sweater Trig.

Based on my limited knowledge of plastic surgery on very young children, I would guess reconstruction of an ear would require several surgeries over a period of months.

Cracklin' Charlie

7/17/2011 15:10:20

jk,

Could you explain to me the significance of your "lab puppy" remark? I have heard this a few times, but I don't really understand the reference.

I think you are right that the boys look alike, but I think it is because they are biological full brothers. Why else would we have seen pictures of Levi Johnston cuddling TWO different newborn babies at two different stages of Levi's life? There is only one reason for that phenomenon, and it is that Levi has, or thinks he has, TWO children. The photos, (IMO) suggest that both of Levi's children were born before Levi's birthday in May, 2008. The green shirt picture of Levi was never supposed to be seen, and somehow escaped the fixers, so I feel that that photo is a very important clue.

The picture of the baby from the Tripp interview with Greta has always creeped me out. He looks a lot older than 6-7 weeks. He is dressed to look like a newborn, but he is way too big. I think he looks 9 or 10 months old. He has been drugged to appear more like a newborn i.e. sleepy, no cooing, no voluntary movements, mouth closed to hide teeth. Sick to drug a baby, I know, but these would not be the first people to give a baby benadryl.

But I do have a question concerning your timeline. If, as you suggest, Trig was born in February, 2008, Sarah would not be dragging around a newborn, as Sarah was not "due to deliver" for months, by which time Trig would be months older, too.

And I don't know about you guys, but I really have trouble with the stand in baby idea, because I just don't think that Sarah is the kind of person to voluntarily take care of or provide for children that she is not required to by the state. And most especially not a fragile, newborn baby that has been born with disabilities or special needs.

And with Bristol conceiving her second child so quickly after the birth of Trig, she really didn't need any more children, she pretty much had her hands full with the ones she had, and she was without doubt failing those kids.

Tripp played the part of newborn Trig, who was already 9 months old, until they could present Trig as somewhat older. Once they didn't need him to stand in for his brother, Tripp was free to disappear for months, as he would not be "born" until December. It was probably during this time that his "ruffled" ears were repaired. I saw a photo of Tripp at one of Bristol's recent book signings; he was asleep in a stroller, with a binky (another way of taking a year off his age). There was a really good shot of his right ear. Now I am a complete idiot when it comes to blowing up photos and such, and I do not know how to include a link, but I could swear that there were vertical white lines of scar tissue near his right ear. Maybe some one more computer savvy than me could take a look.

rubbernecking

7/18/2011 03:26:25

Laura's medical expert says the baby in the Greta interview is 6-7 weeks old. And Doc emphasized WEEKS, NOT MONTHS. Doc had several minutes of video to examine, not a single photo.

I believe Tripp was very likely born on 12/27/08 because this date is in the custody docs. I also believe in late 2008 many people believed Palin still had a serious political future ahead of her. Her political advisers did not want Palin creating more publicity about her out-of-wedlock grandchild. Her lawyers also wanted to avoid any more attention or comparison on the April birth story.

I think Palin was told by political and legal advisers post-election to downplay attention on Bristol's motherhood. However, it drove Palin crazy when bloggers said Bristol hadn't delivered a baby. So how do you prove bloggers are wrong without angering the advisers who won't let you talk about it? Voila: she asks friend Greta to pretend that Bristol has arranged a "secret" interview that Palin can crash.

The Greta video was not edited in a normal way. There was no sensible reason to show the film crew in the video--except to emphasize that Palin interrupted them. Via Greta, Palin could show Tripp on national TV while pretending she wasn't involved in scheduling the interview/publicity.

Blade

7/18/2011 05:49:27

@rubbernecking - The court records having the 12/27/08 birthdate doesn't prove anything. We must remember the power Sarah had and still has with people in power in Alaska. I did a post on this recently on my blog http://shesnohockeymom.blogspot.com/
Someone who works for a lawyer in Texas who handles a lot of child custody cases posted that they didn't view the childrens' b/c's and the court doesn't require them. I expect Alaska would be the same. I don't think b/c's would be required unless one of the parties involved in the suit asked for them.

rubbernecking

7/18/2011 09:56:53

@Blade, I did not say the birth date was *proved* by the custody docs. I said *I believed* the birth date was *very likely* because it was used in custody docs, which were prepared by a lawyer and initially sealed for privacy. We now have Doc's analysis that the baby in this mid-Feb 2009 video is likely 6-7 weeks old, which is also consistent with a 12/27/08 birth date.

I respect your decision to believe in the power-of-sarah theory. But I personally do not find this catch-all theory convincing. If Palin had this type of power, I believe Wooten would have lost his job and Trig's fake birth certificate would have been published on the front page of the ADN.

Blade

7/19/2011 10:19:59

@rubbernecking - I respect your decision to take Tripp's birthdate at face value but I have doubts as to it being true.

I think that Sarah's advisors have told her by now that showing Trig's fake b/c wouldn't shut anyone up. I'm not sure she even has one since she and Todd may not have even adopted Trig legally.

lee

10/10/2011 04:30:11

I seem to remember reading that someone from the McCain campaign arrived at the Johnston house and, without warning, deleted files from their computer, including MANY FAMILY PHOTOS. I remember Mercede being particularly upset that she had no other copies of most of the photos and they were therefore destroyed permanently.

I wonder if they were covering their backs by eliminating any possibility of photos that might conflict with the story they were putting out.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Little Boys Blue

Leave a Reply.

Laura Novak

Blogs I Read

Categories

Archives