Elainera
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 12,276
- Reaction score
- 20,716
:gaah: Ok, here's another article I just read, and they say a few up hundred more acres were added today, also that some of the search equipment is going to have to be moved due to the impending storm. Also, there's a bit about the leads.
And ummm... They claim to have looked up the registered sex offenders within a 5 mile radius, contacted them, and at least 1 claims to not have been searched or questioned by police. Someone tell me this is impossible, unimportant, not as frightening as it sounds to me. I worked in journalism, so you'd think I'd be jaded about journalists, but instead I have a tendency to think they all have integrity because I did. Someone tell me they know this source is a poor one, please.
http://wreg.com/2016/01/20/authorities-update-public-on-search-for-noah-chamberlin/
Thank you! From the article:
"When asked about the leads, officials confirmed they have some which led them to believe the boy was still in the woods."
Mmh. What could they be then? :thinking:
Is the wording strange? "the boy was still in the woods" . "Still"? As opposed to what, wandering out of the woods? Or maybe it's just the reporter putting his own spin on it.