Guilbault-Soulier Family Photo Mystery
The Girl Who Vanished
A Photo Analysis Mystery: Frances Hamel (c. 1914–?)
The Discovery
Among the treasured photographs passed down through generations of our family, one image has long puzzled researchers: a sepia-toned portrait of a little girl, perhaps three years old, clutching a well-loved teddy bear while standing on wooden steps. The child wears a pleated white dress with a delicate yoke collar, white ribbon bows adorning her ringlet curls, and high-button shoes typical of the 1910s.
For years, this photograph was assumed to show Emma Hamall as a child—a reasonable assumption given the inscription "Emma Hamall" written in ink on the back. But a closer examination reveals a different story entirely, and possibly uncovers a family member who was deliberately erased from memory.
"The Teddy Bear Photo"
A child approximately 3 years old stands on wooden steps, clutching a teddy bear. The pleated Edwardian dress, white ribbon bows, and high-button shoes date this photograph to the 1910s.
The Back of the Photograph
Pencil notation "Mrs Emma 7/3/7" appears to be contemporary with the photograph. The ink notation "Emma Hamall" was added later, likely a mistaken identification.
Inscription Analysis
Written at or near the time of the photograph. The notation "Mrs Emma" suggests this photo belonged to Mrs. Emma Hepp (née Guilbault), not that the child IS Emma. The date likely reads July 3, 1917.
Added decades later, likely by a family member who assumed the child was Emma. This identification is demonstrably incorrect—Emma was born in 1883 and would have been 34 years old in 1917.
The Census Evidence
The 1930 United States Census provides the key to unlocking this mystery. At 4506 N. McVickers Avenue in Chicago, the enumerator recorded three people living together:
1930 Census Record — 4506 N. McVickers, Chicago
"Elizabeth" is Elisabeth Emma Guilbault—Emma's baptismal name. Thomas E. is confirmed as Thomas Eugene Hamall, who worked as a bank clerk and would marry five months after this census was taken. But Frances? No one in the family has ever mentioned her. The family narrative holds that Thomas Eugene was an "only child."
Dating the Photograph
If Frances was 16 years old in January 1930, she was born approximately 1913–1914. A child photographed at age 3 in 1917 would have been born in 1914—the mathematics align perfectly.
Photo Dating Evidence
Mother and Daughter: A Visual Comparison
Tintype, approximately age 2
Approximately age 3
Observed Similarities
- Same curly hair texture with white ribbon bow styling
- Rounded face shape with soft, delicate features
- Similar light coloring
- White dress presentation—Emma dressed Frances as she herself had been dressed
- Same gentle, direct gaze at the camera
- Facial structure favors Emma rather than Alvin Hepp's angular features
The Timeline
Emma divorces Thomas Henry Hamall. Five days later, she marries Alvin Hepp.
Emma and Alvin Hepp living together as married in Chicago.
Frances is born. Based on her age (16) in the 1930 census.
Emma and Alvin Hepp listed at separate addresses in the city directory. Marriage has ended.
The teddy bear photograph is taken. Frances is approximately 3 years old.
Frances is missing. Emma appears in the census living with her mother, listed as divorced. Thomas Eugene (erroneously recorded as "Thomas Hepp") is with her. No Frances anywhere—not with Emma, not with Alvin Hepp, not with any known relatives.
Frances reappears, age 16, living with Emma and Thomas Eugene at 4506 N. McVickers. Listed as "daughter" with surname "Hamel" (not Hepp).
Thomas Eugene marries—just five months after the census. Frances would have been in the household during the courtship.
Frances vanishes again. No marriage record, no death record, no further census appearances. No family member has ever spoken her name.
The Unanswered Questions
- Where was Frances between 1914 and 1930? Why does she appear nowhere in the 1920 census?
- Why is she listed as "Hamel/Hamall" rather than "Hepp" in 1930? Was Alvin Hepp not her father?
- What happened to Frances after 1930? At 16, she was old enough to marry—did she marry under a different name?
- Why did the family narrative insist Thomas Eugene was an "only child" when a daughter clearly existed?
- Why did Emma keep only ONE photograph of Frances through decades of moves and life changes?
- What caused this complete erasure from family memory?
What We Know
Documented Facts
Whatever happened to Frances, she was Emma's child. That much seems clear from these faces. Emma didn't throw that photo away. Through two divorces, remarriage, widowhood, moves from Chicago to Miami to New Jersey—she kept it.
That's not nothing."
Frances was the daughter of Elisabeth Emma Guilbault, whose story is told in Episode 7: Elisabeth Emma Guilbault of the Tranchemontagne series.
Want to Know When New Stories Are Published?
Subscribe to receive updates on new family history research—no spam, just meaningful stories when there's something worth sharing.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTEREvery Family Has a Story Worth Telling
Whether you're just beginning your research or ready to transform years of work into a narrative your family will treasure, I'd love to help.
LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR FAMILY