Well that was simple enough, no? Just ask the source directly when you doubt their accuracy. Whoever DID decide to contact Nate had perfect timing. If what Nate said is true and he did JUST yesterday speak to the sheriff who then set the story straight, it's hard to tell how an earlier inquiry would have been answered.
I AM now and will continue to be amazed how so-called journalists publish so much incorrect information. In this case Nate had NO source whatsoever who provided him the information he published as "fact", so he can't even say he got it wrong. He didn't misunderstand; he didn't through inadvertence mis-speak; and he didn't mis-quote anyone. He simply had NO idea and didn't care enough to find out. That's not sloppy work, it's SHODDY work.
The only pertinent thing I heard was that they did, in fact, go there on Thursday July 9th. They have a receipt that confirmed they were at the store Friday (late morning?) when they said they were. The rest was useless info IMO. I am sure Sheriff Bowerman isn't used to so much "attention" but his body language was terrible. He never looked Nate in the eye, and he didn't sound assured and confident. Just an observation.
"I don’t believe the store has a surveillance (system), but we have a receipt that shows they purchased certain items,” Bowerman said. “The time was stamped on the receipt, so we believe that’s where they went.”
Why on earth wouldn't there be a definitive on the surveillance camera? Good grief. I mean there either is or isn't one.
If it wasn't an abduction and you're 99% sure the baby was there and the 4 people are good then what the hell happened?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk