Why would her attorney assume that Terri would go to jail if she's innocent and there's no evidence against her? Why would it be so important for an innocent person to stop working with LE to find a missing child? Since LE doesn't have enough evidence to convict her, what would her attorney think Terri would say that would convince them she could be convicted in a trial? It really doesn't make sense. Or, more precisely, it only makes sense if she's guilty. It makes no sense if she's innocent. If her attorney thinks that her keeping silent is the only thing keeping her out of prison, that speaks volumes.
I get that as a defense attorney, their job would not be to find a missing child or keep a family intact or make moral or humane decisions. But Terri is (was) a mother. Someone told her to, essentially: keep your mouth shut, forget about your child, don't look for Kyron, don't help the search for Kyron to move forward, don't give any evidence that might help identify the kidnapper/murderer even though you were the last known person to see him - yes, you'll betray and abandon your daughter and stepson, but you'll do it to save yourself from the slight potential that you might be put on trial. Sounds like the worst moral advice ever, even if it's perfectly legal. And even if the attorney didn't use those words, that was clearly the understood meaning as that's the natural progression (and exactly what as happened) from the choice to put herself above her children. Terri had the choice to follow the advice and lose her family, or do the right thing and risk herself to be a mother and find Kyron and/or his kidnapper/killer.
Also, she's had less of a relationship with her daughter than she would have in prison. In prison she would have had visiting hours with her child. How many visiting hours has she had with her child in the last 4 years? Zero. And she CHOSE that route and her daughter will know it. Her mother chose to stop mothering her. Her mother refused to help police find her older brother. If her mother was "wrongfully convicted" but still did all in her power to find Kyron and be a mother to her daughter in the process, she'd have a chance to have the trust and maybe even love of her daughter. Now - it's gone. With good reason.
First off, a defense attorney doesn't really pick a side in the whole guilty vs. innocent debate. Clients relate their version of events; sometimes they lie. Most times, unless they've confessed to you, you have a gut feeling about the case, but you never can truly know for sure if they say they didn't do it what the truth really is. The thing is, even if a client is innocent, there's a reason that LE has focused on them. Often, there is circumstantial evidence, or perhaps even actual evidence, which may link them to the crime.
As for cooperating with investigations, there's a delicate balance. You want to help solve a crime to move the focus off your client, and to help LE close their case. But you also don't want to give LE any information that can be used against you down the road if they decide to charge your client. LE might not have enough evidence to convict, but those statements made in interviews can be shaped and slanted in all sorts of ways that may tip the balance for the prosecutor, who could then decide to bring charges. Right now, we say LE doesn't have enough evidence and that is why the case hasn't been brought. But if TH had cooperated further, and they had more hours of interview footage to pick apart for inconsistencies and circumstantial evidence, it's unknown if that would still be the case. She cooperated some and presumably gave them all the info she could. If she were innocent, that's all you can do. As I said previously on the thread, it's very similar to a case that we're dealing with - we had a lawyer sit in with the client during some interviewing, and then invoked the right to remain silent. We feel the client is innocent, but there's too much danger and risk in taking a polygraph or being interviewed over and over, when LE are looking at the client as a potential suspect. If you allow that as a defense attorney, all you're doing is opening up your client to liability. You're not there to find Kyron, you're there to protect TH - and that means remaining silent. With little to no physical evidence, and limited circumstantial evidence, you want to limit what LE can compile against her. This is a fairly standard practice, whether the client has admitted to you that s/he is guilty, or is maintaining their innocence. Silence is not indicative of guilty. There's tons and tons of case law on this. You cannot infer from invoking a right to silence that someone is guilty.
Again, TH's defense attorney did not tell her to abandon her child. TH's attorney told her - the more she communicated with LE, the more information they could build against her. It's easy to shade statements and poke holes in inconsistent statements. Further communication with LE does nothing but paint a target on your back. If she has told LE all she can, further communication isn't going to help find Kyron if they've focused on her as a suspect.
And again, hypothetically, although TH may have had visiting hours in prison (and that's if Kaine doesn't challenge her parental rights), just because she had those hours doesn't mean that anyone is bringing baby K to see her. Do you really think Kaine would bring the baby to visit her in prison if she were convicted of killing or kidnapping Kyron? Having visiting hours is not the same as having willing relatives bring your small children for visitation. If TH goes to prison, she's not seeing baby K at all. And again, hypothetically if she were innocent, how does cooperating with LE, being charged and possibly convicted, and then going to prison help her see her child more? Do you really think Kaine wouldn't do everything he could to limit visitation? It's unrealistic to think that if she were convicted and imprisoned, somehow that would be better for her relationship with her child.
It's easy to see things in black and white and to say what you would do if you were a target of an investigation. As a law-abiding person, it's easy to think that you can just cooperate with LE, and your problems are solved. It's not that simple, and being open like you want TH to be can easily drag out into a costly, time consuming, stressful trial and possible imprisonment. From a criminal defense perspective, maintaining her silence is exactly what she should do.
To be clear, I don't know if she's guilty or innocent. But her actions in invoking her right to remain silent can't point me in either direction, because she's doing exactly what she should. That's all I have been saying in this thread. Remaining silent is the best thing for her to do, particularly if she is innocent. There's too much at stake otherwise.
