Well for what it is worth... I thought I would weigh in here, and man can I weigh in after my son's wedding dinner tonight!
Okey dokey...
Thanks PufNStuf, great explanation of why this appointment issue could be important. I believe it certainly "could be" -- I agree with those who think so -- although, maybe not necessarily. Confusion about an appt. could get a kid marked absent, certainly -- it could open a window of opportunity -- but sheesh who knows at this point.
The good news is, there is alot that can be verified about who said/did what and when. I'm guessing LE has this one figured out (i.e. its all okay, or ... )
>>
Horman told Finster, "I just don't know what's going on. This is what I did that day."
Finster said Horman had told Kyron's teacher the day before that she was taking the boy to the doctor on Friday, June 11, and gave the teacher paperwork to fill out related to the appointment.
Finster said that when Kyron didn't show up at the bus the afternoon of June 4, Horman talked to the teacher who said she thought that Horman had taken Kyron to the doctor that day. Horman told Finster that the child's teacher was new, in her first year of teaching, and was hard of hearing in one ear. "She doesn't know if she understood her," Finster said.<<
Just as a few points of interest to me, because I'm scratching the noggin after reading the above.
Finster indicates:
1. TH told her what she did that day -- and TH is confused about what's going on (i.e. why the questioning, why the second Poly? -- in the context of the article)
2. TH told her that the teacher thought TH had taken Kyron to the doctor that day.
3. TH doesn't know if she understood her.
Then... It's kinda like Finster is indicating that Terri is making excuses, covering for the teacher -- i.e. "This is probably why the teacher was confused ... she is new to teaching (in her first year) and is hard of hearing in one ear -- she must not have understood that I clearly informed her that Kyron's appointment was for June 11th."
Now my brain gets a little scrambled by these explanations...:
1. If you are "new" to teaching, you don't understand communications?
2. If you are hard of hearing in one ear, you might not hear correctly?
A. We've learned this teacher isn't in her first year of teaching, but she hasn't been doing it 30 years. Either way, this teacher managed to understand communications well enough to make her way through a lot of years of school, through the job hiring process, while working a job etc. She certainly is not new to understanding communications about times, dates, etc.
B. People who are hard of hearing are probably fairly well aware of it (especially if they have communicated this to someone else) and they probably compensate. I turn my "good ear" to people when they are speaking to me. If I do not understand something they say, I ask them to repeat it. If I am really struggling, I ask them to write it down for me. Oh, you can bet I "hear" things... Ah, and I learn how to lip read a bit when I am hard of hearing and face those speaking to me.
C. IF I know that I am dealing with someone who is hard of hearing, I go out of my way to make sure that hearing isn't an issue in communicating, I make sure they are either looking at my mouth when I speak, or that I am speaking into their good ear, or I will stick post-it notes on something (like on the top of paperwork, "I need this before X date, my son has his doctor's appointment on X date.")
So...why would Finster even bring the whole appointment thing up? If there were no appointment issue, why is the appt. even addressed in the above quoted article? Why would she give TH's explanation of the appointment thing if this were not a part of some confusion going on? And...I find it interesting that it is like TH is granting an excuse to the teacher -- but the excuse doesn't make sense to me.
Again...through it all, I do NOT want TH to end up being anything but the loving attentive step mom. I am only looking closely at this because that is what we do when looking at the case of a missing child...if we want answers, we must discuss, we must think, we must look...and you can bet LE and the FBI are. They may have already put this ember out...but something feels like it isn't out yet (for whatever reason ... potential wrong doing on someone's part, teacher, TH, school ... pressure to make sure that this is well covered.)
To all WS'rs who were first looking at this case and PufNStuf:
In the first messages and threads, we were drawn to a comment from someone commenting after an online newspaper article (it could have been on "oregonlive.com") One of the WS'rs brought it to our attention and I would REALLY like to reread it again. This was WAY early in the situation (maybe the 5th or 6th), and so early that I have to think that this commenter knew something "more" just based upon the content of what they wrote. I think they identified themselves something like D***, their post referenced approx. 3 points that they were trying to clarify (one having to do with the appointment), it was almost like they were indicating they knew some details and wanted to get them out there... Our WS'r wrote something like "read the comment at 11:46, D***" -- that is not exact, a few of us had a hard time finding that comment. Does anyone remember this? If so, could you provide a link to that comment. I want to read it again and think about it.