If they’re at the movies, EP wouldn’t have to explain why they didn’t get ill after the lunch. Explaining why her immediate family didn’t get poisoned at a lunch where everyone else did would be very difficult. So, she’s claiming her kids weren’t there.
However, LE could easily ask the kids, or, better still, find out from EP who chaperoned at the movies, ‘cos young kids would have had to have a chaperone. No chaperone, no movies. EP wouldn’t be able to lie on this point, because LE can easily verify. She’s not going to be able to disentangle from this one if it’s a lie.
I think it would be pretty easy to prove or disprove that the children were at the movies on the day in question.
Tickets would have been purchased, there would have been some sort of CCTV
at or
on the way to the cinema, and Ian - the surviving relative, if in a “stable” condition, would (presumably) be able to string a sentence together to say that the children were either
at the lunch or
not at the lunch.
In addition to that, presumably at least one or both of the children would have had a cell phone on them, if even for safety and essential communications with mum/dad, which could be analysed with relation to cell towers to help determine location.
The children are old enough to be interviewed, albeit with an adult present, and perhaps the police could even ask them which movie they saw, and ask the children to re-tell the events of the day and the storyline of the supposed movie.
And
@RickshawFan , afaik the children are old enough NOT to require a chaperone in a “safe” small town Cinema.
I recall going with friends to the movies once or twice at that age, in a busy metropolitan area. We caught the train in and back, and it was the done thing to do. Going to the movies with your parent when you’re a teenager is most certainly not the “cool” thing to do.
All
jmo