Two Sides To Every Story

To the Editor:

In reference to John Voket’s recent article on the ethics hearing, there are several clarifications that need to be made. Ms Aurelia’s son has resided with us for several years. During that time, we alone helped my adult stepson recover from an illness which enabled his relationship and wedding to actually take place. A day that otherwise may not have happened.

The legal remedy sought to prevent Ms Aurelia from coming to visit her son, wife and daughter Mr Voket mentioned in his article was actually a police report from 11/17/07, which was a result of a disturbance Ms Aurelia created at our residence along with a plethora of phone calls the evening prior. We blocked Ms Aurelia’s calls after her son obtained a cellphone to which Ms. Aurelia could contact him directly in addition to always being able to contact him through his fiancé. At the time of the police report, only her son was residing with us. Our actions do sometimes affect us later in life.

In regards to the statement Mr Voket wrote regarding the wedding arrangements, the conflict and stress over the past 15 years with Ms. Aurelia has greatly affected the health and well-being of my husband and myself. Due to health concerns, the conflict with Ms Aurelia, and conflict between the groom and the bride’s parents, difficult decisions had to be made regarding attendance. We suggested the wedding be in a private place outside Newtown so their wedding would be stress free, after which both families could celebrate with their own separate reception for them. Surprisingly to us, the couple decided to have the wedding at our residence knowing full well the concerns that would bring. It was their decision alone. The only guests at the wedding were the groom’s brother, bride’s sister and uncle. No parent was present on either side. We put aside our own desires to attend the wedding to honor our word and therefore the bride and groom could focus on the wedding vows and the commitment to each other without stress or tension. We also honored our commitment of a very small celebration after the ceremony... Ms Aurelia did not.

It is disappointing that a writer with the caliber such as John Voket would do an article that was not completely investigated. Although Ms Aurelia had her attorney prompt me, I chose not to reveal the supporting personal information in the hearing as it was not relevant to the proceeding. The reason why Ms Aurelia chose to act inappropriately was not in question. I chose to keep my calm demeanor in all situations. When Mr Voket chose to bring the very limited information from the hearing into an article without contacting me for accurate and complete information, I felt it necessary to clarify the details with the correct information. There are two sides to every story. The Danbury News-Times article on the hearing was a good example of what unbias journalism should be.

Diane Guilfoil

3 Pomperaug Road, Sandy Hook                              January 26, 2010