That was kinda my point, earlier, we don't know what she called him in everyday conversation. Did she introduce him that way on to other moms at playgrounds, to teachers at school, etc...
In the interview with the neighbor, he said "she asked me if I'd seen her son".
I don't think a child has to use the term 'mom' for a stepmom to say 'my son'.
I see this as one of the least interesting parts of the interview, really. But if LE can get hold of the full thing, questions and answers, and look at as much body language is visible, then maybe they can use it to help them get clues as to things to focus on. Like the pull up...she's made it sound so significant, but without the question it's unclear why she felt the need to explain so much about it in that way.
It's like if I told you I went to the shop and I wore shoes to go to the shop, because the shop's a mile away and I wouldn't want to cut my feet on stones on the path, so I wear shoes when I go to the shop. It's too much information! It's not natural speech. So it's either come from the question that was asked, or she's trying to convince the listener of the logic that she's presenting of the reason for the pull up in the middle of the afternoon.
I did watch the movie/documentary that was suggested the other day (I've already forgotten the name of it, the one about Nicholas Barclay). It was very interesting to hear so much about Boursin's con. I keep going back to that and his interview where he said he was abducted by men and flown to Spain, his hand and foot were broken, his eyes were injected with stuff to change their color, and the abductors were obsessed with doing things to change the identity of the children they'd stolen. And Nicholas' sister said that Boursin did have a broken hand and leg (broken earlier), his eyes were a different color from Nicholas' eyes, and Boursin himself was obsessed with changing identity. So these parts of his story had reasons for being included in the fable that he was developing. He used it to explain things that people might be questioning like the different eye color and the physical damage that he really did have, then he embellished the story with something that was personal to his experience (the changing identities). The whole thing sounded so utterly nonsensical that I couldn't believe the woman from the missing children organization fell for it...but she probably fell for it because she was so desperate for answers to where so many missing children might be, and in the 90s there would have been stories of satanic cults and things going around, maybe Boursin's story sounded more reasonable back then?
I feel that EG has spent half her life lying and is probably naturally good at it just as Boursin was (he was a great conman and I can admire his skills. Someone who's into fighting with men the way we've heard that she fought with JH has to be good at making up afterwards, and part of that could include denial of full culpability, presenting oneself as a victim of something else in order to explain the current behavior and elicit sympathy as well as forgiveness. So I wouldn't be surprised if she uses some similar tricks, and I had a feeling similar to that from Boursin when she talked about the pull up. It's just something I'm flagging for myself that it needs further explanation, and it could have come from a leading question, or maybe LE were asking a lot about that when they were questioning her?
The quotes from the interview seem like there are things missing. For instance in one part EG talks about the mysterious strangers and says she sent a snap of them to "their dad". Er what? There's something that's been snipped out because those words have no context and it sounds like she means the dad of the strangers, but she is actually referring to JH. So we need to be careful when trying to analyze this interview that the typed version is missing a lot of her sentences as well as the precise questions that were put to her.