I was wondering if the "bank" photos where it looks like she has the puffed out bulge (some have posted that they think it's stolen sweatpants) could also be a checkbook that maybe was pixelated/smudged for security purposes (ie the bank requested that the checkbook be made unreadable for financial security purposes).
So i put the picture into a website i saw the other day that is meant to show the likelihood that a photo has been photoshopped, and if so, where it was changed. There are some other sites and programs that do the same meta-analysis, they may be better but this one is convenient in that it allows you to just paste the link and it shows warm and hot spots.. I don't know if this tool has been used here at WS before, but I don't remember seeing it mentioned, so I wanted to share since i think it could be very useful.. Anyway, in the particular photo i tested, it doesn't look like that area was modified more than the rest, so it probably is inherent photo capture or a bulge.. Here's the photo analysis:
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/595975a/
ETA: On the errorlevelanalysis site, brighter areas (esp in comparison to areas next to it in a photo) are areas where photoshopping is likelier to have occurred. The home page on that site has an example to illustrate what to look for. With this bank photo, it does look like there's a bright section where the checkbook and her hand is, below the belly bulge?