POLL ADDED Connect The Dots-Working theories thread #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

What is your theory in Kyron's disappearance?

  • Terri alone is responsible for Kyron's disappearance and it was unplanned, an accident.

    Votes: 3 1.1%
  • Terri alone is responsible for Kyron's disappearance and it was planned.

    Votes: 43 15.8%
  • Terri is responsible for Kyron's disappearance, it was unplanned and DeDe was called for help

    Votes: 38 13.9%
  • Terri is responsible for Kyron's disappearance, it was planned and DeDe helped plan it.

    Votes: 108 39.6%
  • A stranger abducted Kyron. (Stranger being ANYONE except Terri, DeDe or accomplice.)

    Votes: 20 7.3%
  • Kyron is still at the school or somewhere around the school grounds

    Votes: 2 0.7%
  • A stranger abducted Kyron or Kyron is still at the school or somewhere around school grounds.

    Votes: 12 4.4%
  • No idea

    Votes: 47 17.2%

  • Total voters
    273
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn't the friend who saw Terri at the 2nd FMs say that she knew the baby was sick from the day before? So, was Terri at the gym the day before? She must have been since this person said that she and Terri knew each other only from the gym.

I guess Terri took the sick baby to the gym two days in a row. You would think the day care would not accept a sick baby. The baby must have been sick when dropped off at the gym day care the day before if the friend knew the baby was sick. How else would the friend have known the baby was sick from the day before?
 
I found the video and
she said that the Terri said the baby hadn't been feeling well the day before and she knew that.
 
No, she didn't say "Terri said". I transcribed it upthread.

Andrea said
that "she" (meaning Terri) was talking about her daughter not feeling well because she was not feeling well from the day before and I knew that.

You are right, Terri didn't say that her daughter was not feeling well from the day before, Andrea said that she knew Terri's daughter was not feeling from the day before. So, how did Andrea know Terri's daughter was not feeling well from the day before?
 
Andrea said
that "she" (meaning Terri) was talking about her daughter not feeling well because she was not feeling well from the day before and I knew that.

You are right, Terri didn't say that her daughter was not feeling well from the day before, Andrea said that she knew Terri's daughter was not feeling from the day before. So, how did Andrea know Terri's daughter was not feeling well from the day before?

You'd have to ask her. :) Observation maybe? She's a mom of several kids herself.
 
You'd have to ask her. :) Observation maybe? She's a mom of several kids herself.

What I mean is that it sounds like Andrea either saw Terri with the baby the day before and noticed she was sick or Terri and Andrea spoke on the phone the day before and Terri mentioned the baby was sick. There had to be some form of communication between the two for Andrea to know from the day before that the baby was sick.
 
You'd have to ask her. :) Observation maybe? She's a mom of several kids herself.

so either from observation or from TH, or both, when she dropped her sick baby off at the gym daycare on 6/3 since the witness doesn't know her from outside of the gym and, apparently, didn't bump into her randomly at FM on 6/3. Then TH drops baby off, sick, again, at the gym on 6/4, when the gym folks already know baby isn't feeling well. Or did she? I wonder if the witness was working at the gym when TH was there on 6/4 and wondered why she was putting a sick baby in gym daycare AGAIN. Or did she?

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to put my sick baby in gym childcare two days in a row. Especially after I'd just bumped into the witness at FM trying to buy meds for her. And no one's ever accused me of being mother of the year lol
 
so either from observation or from TH, or both, when she dropped her sick baby off at the gym daycare on 6/3 since the witness doesn't know her from outside of the gym and, apparently, didn't bump into her randomly at FM on 6/3. Then TH drops baby off, sick, again, at the gym on 6/4, when the gym folks already know baby isn't feeling well. Or did she? I wonder if the witness was working at the gym when TH was there on 6/4 and wondered why she was putting a sick baby in gym daycare AGAIN. Or did she?

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to put my sick baby in gym childcare two days in a row. Especially after I'd just bumped into the witness at FM trying to buy meds for her. And no one's ever accused me of being mother of the year lol

Of the daycare my grandson attends, the ones connected to my place of employment, AND the ones at the 2 different gyms I've belonged to over the years --- none accept sick children. If baby was more than simply teething, if she was truly sick and the gym didn't have a separate care area for sick kids, they wouldn't have accepted her. It's a liability and public health issue.
 
Of the daycare my grandson attends, the ones connected to my place of employment, AND the ones at the 2 different gyms I've belonged to over the years --- none accept sick children. If baby was more than simply teething, if she was truly sick and the gym didn't have a separate care area for sick kids, they wouldn't have accepted her. It's a liability and public health issue.

Exactly. Teething and sick are not the same, IMHO. K was teething, IMHO. If daycares refused all toddlers who didn't feel well as a result of teething, then there wouldn't be daycares. There would only be kindergarten.

;)
 
Of the daycare my grandson attends, the ones connected to my place of employment, AND the ones at the 2 different gyms I've belonged to over the years --- none accept sick children. If baby was more than simply teething, if she was truly sick and the gym didn't have a separate care area for sick kids, they wouldn't have accepted her. It's a liability and public health issue.

Exacty..so either baby wasn't there or she wasn't sick
 
Exactly. Teething and sick are not the same, IMHO. K was teething, IMHO. If daycares refused all toddlers who didn't feel well as a result of teething, then there wouldn't be daycares. There would only be kindergarten.

;)

Baby wasn't in daycare. How many sahm's do you know that drop off miserable toddlers at gym day care?
 
Baby wasn't in daycare. How many sahm's do you know that drop off miserable toddlers at gym day care?
LOL back in the day the moms dropped them off at daycare to get a break. They would suction their noses real good to make them look clear and then run in and run out. So bad.


Anyway,Ok you guys we need to tie this discussion into your working theories somehow.
 
Exacty..so either baby wasn't there or she wasn't sick

I was responding to this:

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to put my sick baby in gym childcare two days in a row. Especially after I'd just bumped into the witness at FM trying to buy meds for her. And no one's ever accused me of being mother of the year lol

A child can feel and act sick and crappy while teething, but not be infectious (unless they're rabid, I guess). And with a little meds to help with the pain and low grade temp, they generally are able to continue with their usual activities. I'm in healthcare; when I hear "sick baby" I (for the most part) think of one who can infect others. "Civilians" ;) tend to use the term more loosely defined.
 
Baby wasn't in daycare. How many sahm's do you know that drop off miserable toddlers at gym day care?

It's no doubt licensed by the same agencies that oversee daycare operations (that's how it's done in my state, anyway; these places ARE considered in the same category if they care for over a certain number of children, then they must follow the same regulations). I don't know any SAHMs. But I do know that while a child is teething they run the gamut from miserable to active to everything in between. If they have a little tylenol or motrin to help with the pain and temp, they're good to go. Or gnawing on a table leg seems to help, too.
 
LOL back in the day the moms dropped them off at daycare to get a break. They would suction their noses real good to make them look clear and then run in and run out. So bad.


Anyway,Ok you guys we need to tie this discussion into your working theories somehow.

ok ... but I just have to add this about the bolded above. A few days back MSN homepage had a list of the worst kids' stuff ever. There was a battery operated snot-sucker (what ARE those things called LOL --- I've been up far too long). OMG. Poooooor kids. The rubber ones are bad enough.

ETA: ack... I thought I was in the timeline thread LOL
 
So assuming for a moment that the teacher "knew" Kyron was going to the doctor's on that day, where is the paperwork?

Did she give it to Terri that morning to take to the doc's ?

Ahhh. And this is the very point that leads me to believe "the appointment" was not manufactured as confusion. If trying to cause deliberate confusion, I think the paperwork was not only unnecessary, it’s illogical and problematic. Here’s why I think this:

What happened to that paperwork? There are only 2 scenarios:
1) Porter gave it back to TH on June 4 prior to Kyron going missing.
2) Porter did not give it back to TH and Porter still had/has the paperwork.

If TH wanted to cause deliberate confusion, she'd want that paperwork back. I mean if the whole idea is to plant a thought in Porter's mind that Kyron's appointment is June 4 and manipulate Porter into not worrying if Kyron's not in class, then leaving the paperwork in Porter's possession is completely counter to that.

If Porter has the paperwork AND sees that Kyron is missing, wouldn't TH assume that Porter would think, "Hey, if his appointment was today, why didn't TH get the paperwork from me? This doesn't add up. Something’s wrong here. I better look for Kyron."

The only way I can see this supposed ruse working is for TH to get the paperwork back on June 4th because Porter having the paperwork + Kyron missing = unlikelihood that Porter would assume Kyron’s appointment was June 4th.

To create true confusion, imo, TH needs to get the paperwork back AND somehow get Porter to believe the appointment was June 4th. This is where it really falls apart for me.

TH gave the paperwork to Porter on June 3rd, and that's not enough time for a teacher in the midst of preparing a science fair to actually complete the paperwork. If TH was planning this whole thing for days, weeks?, months?then why wait until June 3rd to give the paperwork to Porter, knowing she'd need to get it back on June 4th to create the whole June 4th appointment ruse?

And isn't getting the paperwork back on June 4th a very risky thing to do? It would mean engaging in a conversation with Porter in which Porter might very well say, "To be clear, Terri, is Kyron's appointment today or next Friday?"

In a nutshell, if confusion was the goal, not getting the paperwork from Porter on June 4th makes no sense to me because it encourages Porter to believe the appointment is not on June 4th. And, retrieving the paperwork from Porter on June 4th makes no sense to me because there's too much opportunity during the paperwork exchange for Porter to pin TH down on the date/time of the appointment and eliminate the confusion TH was allegedly trying to cause. I just can't make it work.

Why is the paperwork even necessary for causing confusion? To me, it isn’t. It seems to me that the paperwork is actually problematic and counter to getting Porter to believe that Kyron's appointment was June 4th. IMO, anyone trying to create confusion about the appointment would not have brought paperwork into the mix.

I think Porter used the appointment to rationalize Kyron’s absence after the fact. If a different child had gone missing, especially a child whose parent had been present at the expo, I think Porter would have just assumed the child left with the parent. That's my opinion. I think this is more about Porter’s thought process than any deliberate plan to create confusion.

I think there was a legitimate doctor appointment on June 11th for a legitimate reason and Terri had every intention of taking Kyron to that appointment. jmho. Kyron didn't make it to that appointment, and that is not insignificant to me when considering various theories.
 
It's no doubt licensed by the same agencies that oversee daycare operations (that's how it's done in my state, anyway; these places ARE considered in the same category if they care for over a certain number of children, then they must follow the same regulations). I don't know any SAHMs. But I do know that while a child is teething they run the gamut from miserable to active to everything in between. If they have a little tylenol or motrin to help with the pain and temp, they're good to go. Or gnawing on a table leg seems to help, too.

The post I was responding to said no daycares would be in business if they didn't accept teething toddlers. Which is a whole 'nother issue than a sahm dropping off a miserable teething toddler at optional gym day care two days in a row. That's a choice made out of selfishness, not neccesity of going to work to provide a roof over said toddler's head. If baby was miserable enough for Andrea to know it, for TH to make a trip to two stores to get meds and drive around trying to get baby to sleep with no success, she was too miserable to be taken to the gym child care for the second time. Personally, I think baby was fine considering TH left her playing in her room when she got home. And by the way, what mother lets her toddler play alone in her room when she's in the living room on her laptop? As I said, I'm no model parent, but unless they were sleeping, my babies were in my sight when they were toddlers. Whether they were feeling well or not.
 
Ahhh. And this is the very point that leads me to believe "the appointment" was not manufactured as confusion... Kyron didn't make it to that appointment, and that is not insignificant to me when considering various theories.

I think TH said to Ms. Porter, "We have a doctor's appointment today," so that she could say it was for the baby, for Kyron, or for herself, depending on how her plan played out. If she got 'discovered' early on with Kyron, she could say 'gosh, I swear I thought that appt was on the 11th!' or 'Kyron wanted to come with me to the doctor with Baby K." She was covering her bases as she's probably done before in different situations of her life that involve lying.

I'm not sure if you believe TH is innocent (and certainly appreciate a different point of view as I'm open to new information), but if so, there are sure alot of very bizarre coincidences that played out that day, and much we've learned since then, that make TH look guilty. And what a lucky perp that would be to have this crazy sexting red-head who tried to murder her husband turn out to be the step-mother of this child he just kidnapped, taking all the attention off him and onto her. :waitasec:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
119
Guests online
2,001
Total visitors
2,120

Forum statistics

Threads
601,868
Messages
18,130,992
Members
231,164
Latest member
mel18
Back
Top