Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:True.
All sad but so odd seeming.
The $ piece seems very hinky. Would people so young really have another kid with minimal and uncertain income from "sponsors" or was something else in play?
They had more than $1 million in donations one year - for many NGO's, that's success.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:True.
All sad but so odd seeming.
The $ piece seems very hinky. Would people so young really have another kid with minimal and uncertain income from "sponsors" or was something else in play?
They had more than $1 million in donations one year - for many NGO's, that's success.
Anonymous wrote:True.
All sad but so odd seeming.
The $ piece seems very hinky. Would people so young really have another kid with minimal and uncertain income from "sponsors" or was something else in play?
Anonymous wrote:True.
All sad but so odd seeming.
The $ piece seems very hinky. Would people so young really have another kid with minimal and uncertain income from "sponsors" or was something else in play?
Anonymous wrote:It was maybe someone from a rival charity like I said.
Anonymous wrote:No inside source, but I don't believe it was the wife. It statistically isn't...yes it is usually the male partner, it is not usually the female partner.