interesting article-- must be a local paper? lots of detail unheard ...
the article says WS story had inconsistencies, so instead of obtain a warrant to check his phone log history, they search his office & home??
am i missing something!?
interesting article-- must be a local paper? lots of detail unheard ...
Photo posted on 23 July 2012 of a few generations including a baby named William. Father would be IS, grandfather BS. This baby has that same surname in this photo. From what I can see there is no further mention of this child or IS. The date stamp of the photo is 09-10-2??? WT was born in June 2011.
https://www.facebook.com/bill.spedding.9#!/bill.spedding.9
OK question.
At this point, with a little boy missing for so long, is there really any benefit in hiding his background? Or keeping his guardians from talking to the media?
Could it help at all to open up?
Or would it just bring unnecessary and distracting attention?
Photo posted on 23 July 2012 of a few generations including a baby named William. Father would be IS, grandfather BS. This baby has that same surname in this photo. From what I can see there is no further mention of this child or IS. The date stamp of the photo is 09-10-2??? WT was born in June 2011.
https://www.facebook.com/bill.spedding.9#!/bill.spedding.9
the article says WS story had inconsistencies, so instead of obtain a warrant to check his phone log history, they search his office & home??
am i missing something!?
If you look closer, it's not 09 10 2 - it's 95 10 2 = 2nd Oct 1995.
the article says WS story had inconsistencies, so instead of obtain a warrant to check his phone log history, they search his office & home??
am i missing something!?