No, it's definitely the Terri-did-it scenarios that are contrived.
A and B only work in isolation, since the bioparents and the school are quite capable of talking to each other. I see no need for the F250; it might be needed for the science project, but it wouldn't be needed for Kyron.
See, now it gets contrived again. Only Kaine and Desiree are meant to believe Kyron was at the school, but the jacket and backpack were left there, so we have to come up with an excuse for them to have remained. And if she wanted the school to believe she took Kyron to an appointment, why bother avoiding a disturbance? They already know she's taking him!
Like signing him out? Which she didn't do? And which the school never bothered to confirm?
Do you actually believe an email exists? It just doesn't make the slightest amount of sense. If it did exist, Terri would have been indicted in 2010.
It's telling, I think, how words are used to paint normal actions as sinister. "Busy bee", "barely a second unaccounted for", "forcing an 18-month-old child to accompany her", "in and out of vehicles". Yet, there are plenty of parents who can testify to doing all of this on a perfectly normal day. About the worst thing you can say here is that Terri didn't procrastinate - and of course, not even that is true, since she stopped to chat with an acquaintance at one store, but then even that gets turned sinister by some.
As with the baby-soothing driving, the parking is also something that many parents, even in this forum have admitted to. Terri drove an unfamiliar car, bigger than her usual. So she parked further from the other parked cars to avoid scraping (or getting scraped by) other cars. Unless she worked as mall security, she would have no idea what the surveillance cameras saw or not. But even with the distant parking and the potential camera-shyness, it was a parking lot, and Terri left her truck alone and unattended. Being far from the store doesn't matter if other cars pass by on their way in and out of the lot, and anyone could spot a live Kyron in the truck.
Again, word choice. She "refused" to account for the time, except she actually did (as you say in your parenthesis).
Well, first, we don't know exactly what Terri told the police about her backroad driving, nor how detailed they wanted her to make it. Second, she signed in at the gym at 11:39. That the time is detailed to the minute should give that away. The only other such time is 9:12, and that was from a written receipt. Anywhere else it's 8:45, 9:30, 10:10, 11:20, etc.
It's not the only thing Desiree is wrong about. Generally, after having read the book, I don't think Desiree always understood what the police told her, or she was far to eager to interpret every shred of information from a guilt-centric perspective. This is the woman who went to the police the evening of Kyron's disappearance and told them she believed Terri was involved, based on faulty information.
Again, how could that have possibly happened if there was an email???
I'm happy you mentioned Ted Bundy's hobbies, since I very much believe that is what happened. A well-dressed adult entered the open and unmonitored school with the other guests, walking around calmly and confidently, acting as if he belonged, then asked a helpful young boy if he could help him get something from his car. Then drove far away with Kyron in his car, not caring one bit when the alarm was sounded.
And like Ted Bundy, they didn't know who he was and where he lived, and he had no reason to ever come back. Thus, there was no way of tracing his movements. Unlike Terri, he had all the time in the world to do what he wanted to, far away from any witnesses.
Would this be actual or alleged?
So, the backroad area where she said she was driving.
What would those bank transactions possibly be? And where does that information come from?
I would suggest the "area of interest" was that because she told them she was in the area and they were by then suffering from tunnel vision.
Or it's another case of Desiree fudging the truth in the Morris book.
The coffee was at the first Fred Meyer, the dry cleaners was at the second. Neither would require much in the way of driving.
But it would still be visible to anyone driving past, which they would do in the parking lot of a large store.
Which she would have had no time or place to actually do.
Going down the route of "sold" or "buyer" leaves us in the realm of fiction.
Yeah, but it should be plausible, I think. The scenarios needed for Terri to be guilty are incredibly contrived. She either has to kill Kyron in a public place, in full view of the road, the church and the entrance to the parking lot, or she has to have him alive in the truck at three public places, not to mention the road between them. She has to have made the bioparents believe Kyron was at school, but she also have to have the school believe he was with her (which doesn't make sense in itself - why would she concoct a story that explicitely puts her and Kyron together?).
I wouldn't call "in full view of a road and a church" "amazingly private".
The witnesses are attested to by Desiree alone. What I find fascinating is that she identifies those witnesses in the book, but neither her nor Morris appears to have actually talked to them.
No, it's perfectly explainable. She drove around with her daughter trying to get her to sleep in the truck. It's not something she can confirm, by the very nature of her locations, but she did explain it.
Think about it. Let's say you decide to go for a walk on a trail in a forested area, like thousands of people do daily. You take about an hour to do so, and during that time a murder occurs within walking distance of the forest. Now, you can say that you can't prove you were on the trail the whole time. That's valid. But you can't say that you "refuse to account for" it or that it is "unexplainable". People, including you and me, do things every day that can't be confirmed. It doesn't make them suspicious in and of itself.
Of course she thought that. Kyron was marked absent at 10. She left the school just before 9. It had to have happened between those times. And how was she to know when the school marked him as absent? They should have done that at 8:45. Given the sloppiness of the teacher, they may well have waited until the afternoon, so how was Terri to know how long she needed to make her alibi?
The polygraphs do not justify speculation - we might as well do a tarot reading. But law enforcement does seem to put weight on them, which just goes to show how unfit they were to handle this.
There won't be. The evidence was presented before a grand jury, and they didn't indict. When (hopefully not if) Kyron is found, she will likely join the ranks of Lindy Chamberlain, Joanne Lees, Timothy Da'Shaun Taylor, Faith Hedgepeth's roommate, Isabel Celis's father, Samantha Koenig's father, Jacob Wetterling's neighbour, Amanda Knox and many more who the public were convinced were guilty either by their behaviour or because LE said so, but were ultimately shown to be innocent.
It's telling that they haven't been able to get an indictment against her after twelve years. Getting an indictment is the easy part!
Why do we assume it was Terri's car? By the time those pictures were released, they had already asked the public to specifically look for Terri's car, not just any white car. Of course the public will think any white truck they saw that morning was Terri's. Not to mention this being before the groundskeeper came forward (and he also drove a white truck).
Or she was at the far end of the property working, like she was supposed to, from 11:30 to 13:00, not hearing the call for lunch. Also, if she was involved and had a burner phone, then moving in with Terri shortly after and getting new burner phones along with a third, innocent party would be extremely irrational.
Yeah, the reason being that they had nothing. Terri had a solid timeline with no room for an abduction that didn't involve parading Kyron through public places. Their sting operation had failed. They had no witnesses, no evidence.
Desperation is the reason.
But she did come forward. She did cooperate. She was interviewed by the police multiple times in 2010. The only thing she didn't do was take a polygraph (again, voodoo science, so good on her). She told them the truth, that she wasn't involved and didn't think Terri was. They claimed they didn't believe her. What was she supposed to do then?
She won't be charged, since they have no evidence against her. She never forced LE to do anything. She was summoned before the grand jury in 2010, but they didn't ask her anything. The police could have done that at any point until 2013, but chose not to. In 2013 she testified before the grand jury, and that was that. If you want to blame anyone, blame LE.
I doubt the FBI administered any polygraph. And in the year of 2010, the FBI certainly had no objections to female killers. But their profile in this case is more than likely a correct one.
www.kgw.com
