Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:45:06 PM
I don't see a reason to hide her son`s info if he is her son, nor if he is Bristol`s son. I also don`t see a reason to bring it up at the RNC, if he is her son.
If he were adopted, she would have used the "I`m a saint because I adopted a DS child" angle.
The photos show a person that is too small to be a normal pregnancy. Her aids and other interviewed witnesses indicate the photos are real and the `too small` perspective is accurate.
I personally see only one reason to hide anything: The professor is f*cking wrong in his conclusion. Her younger daughter is more likely the mother of the child.
If not invited in, a credible journalist is likely to toss that in the basket because he then must ask the next logical question: "Who is the kid`s father?" He then becomes a story rather than delivering a story. To me, becoming the story seems counter to the psychology of a person driven to reporting.
Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:35:18 AM
Ok, I see lots of evidence about Sarah not being pregnant, but who says it's Bristols? That appears to be a big jump. If she adopted it`d make sense - phone call about birth of adopted baby comes when she`s in Texas and she travels home to hospital where baby is born. Not to mention that Sarah has another daughter who was 14 at the time and well able to produce babies.