2010.06.28 - Kyron's Dad files for divorce and restraining order

[GrainneDhu]

Maybe she's watched or read enough crime cases to know those things get taped. ie; her own paranoia because she knew she was attempting a murder-for-hire. To me her cutting off the convo speaks as much to self-guilt as anything else.

Would have been no reason for her to stop the meeting if she were guilt-free in my opinion.

I disagree.

If I were TMH and knew that I were factually innocent, knew that I had never engaged in a MFH plot, then this guy shows up trying to get $10K from me to stay quiet, I think I would have been terrified.

Not because I was guilty but because here's someone whose behaviour shows him not to be law abiding. In fact, here's two someones whose behaviour proves they are not law abiding. I'd feel terrified because if I agreed, I'm smart enough to know that would implicate me. But if I turn them down flat, now they have reason to want to shut me up. If they are willing to blackmail me, might they be willing to shoot me?

Do I know if they are armed? Not unless they showed up for the meeting in Speedos!

I'd make some excuse to get to a phone in private and I'd call 911.

Huh.

Funny. From the available evidence, that is exactly what TMH did.

 

[GrainneDhu]

If the landscaper cut to the chase and said I want $10K to keep quiet about the plot, I would stop the conversation and call the police too. So it really depends on how this all went down. But whatever she did/said, it was not enough to show guilt.

As far as the RO goes, I'm guessing whatever other stuff may be in there besides the murder-for-hire worries, it is the kind of stuff in most family RO's; so if it gets out, it gets out. I just wonder what could keep her from being able to see any of her children. I hope Kaine was not encouraged to add to the RO in any way, with allegations that could do this, if untrue.

BBM

One hopes not.

In my state, he would be very ill-advised to do so. Anyone can get a TRO out based on the allegations they make in the application process. The bar is pretty low because no one wants to bar a victim from whatever relief a RO would bring.

But anything alleged in the TRO application must be backed up with real evidence during the hearing. The target of a TRO does get their day in court, they do have a right to confront their accuser, they can present evidence for their side of the story.

Judges in my state really, really don't like it when petitioners make false allegations on TRO petitions. The consequences can include being assessed all court fees, being found in contempt of the court and jail time.

Even though there are powerful disincentives to lie on an application for a TRO, a few people do it.

That's how I know that judges don't like it.

 

[believe09]

What makes anyone think that the landscaper was NOT wired? Did it say that somewhere? Because this looks like a sting gone wrong to me.... JMO.

This is the RO thread and we are of the opinion perhaps that the Landcaper's MFH claims figured into the divorce petition and RO, correct? I cant wait for it to be released....

 

[GrainneDhu]

On the other hand...maybe they class the guy as credible whereas we know that Terri has reportedly had polygraphs that show her as being deceptive. Because shes now denying it..that doesnt mean the detectives necessarily find her credible and more to the point..what was said before she denied it...ie did the guy speak to her on the phone arrange to meet her...but then turn up with the cop? Also..ie were there any emails ever between the pair? Its a fact that the cops still believed this guy enough after " the sting" to tell Kaine to get him and his daughter out there.

MOO

Link to the two polygraphs showing deception?

I ask because the only link I'm aware of is:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/landscaper_wore_wire_asked_ter.html

That article says:

Terri Horman has taken two polygraph tests, after authorities said a key answer on the first exam found her deceptive.

If it really is one answer (out of how many?) on two polygraphs, that's not exactly overwhelming evidence of anything.

 

[captivagrl]

Good point--we haven't heard any objections from TH over the daughter being taken from her.

An innocent mother would speak out or at the very least file a motion to be heard regarding custody/visitation. Even parents that are accused of abuse/neglect are usually afforded at least 3 hours supervised visits with their children each week. It's in the best interest for the children in most cases. Unless the state feels that the children are in immediate danger or the parents are convicted of a very serious crime, the parents visit with their children. There are always exceptions, but that's my experience in Florida.

 

[GrainneDhu]

It is interesting that on the divorce petition and the restraining order petition, there is no attorney named. Where the attorney name should be is Terri Horman, as defendent and attorney.

It just means that at the time the petitions was filed, the petitioner did not have TMH's lawyer's name. That could mean that TMH had no lawyer or it could mean that the petitioner didn't know the name.

 

[Aedrys]

Or maybe she got mad and called 911. I've known people that if you dare try to accuse them or betray them, they will do things like call the police to make the point that it's a bad idea to accuse them of anything or betray them in any way. Yes, some people call 911 when they are scared, and some people know how to use the system to get back at someone as well.

IMO, she called 911 to make it look like she was a scared, innocent woman. For all we know because we don't know all the details, she was just po'd and wanted on record what was happening around her. Or she freaked out because she did know this landscaper and figured calling 911 was good way to make her not look guilty.

I'm just saying that calling 911 doesn't mean a person is scared for their life. I've followed plenty of cases where calling 911 was a setup for an alibi or the person showed fake emotion to make themselves look innocent.

Some people call 911 because they are truly afraid. Some people call 911 to be deceptive and make themselves look innocent. And some people call 911 because Subway didn't give them the sandwich they wanted. A lot of calling 911 these days is not about a real emergency.

And honestly, she wasn't in any real danger. They left. They didn't physically assault her or give her any reason to be afraid. She was the one who shut down the conversation. There is nothing to suggest that anything got out of control. Yes, it was startling what they did, but I wouldn't rise that to a level of an emergency unless she knew the guy and didn't want to get into trouble. Not one of the three times was she in any real danger. If she called 911, IMO, she did it to cover herself

But, I will admit I could be wrong. Once we finally hear those tapes, we'll know for sure.

 

[Calliope]

Or maybe she got mad and called 911. I've known people that if you dare try to accuse them or betray them, they will do things like call the police to make the point that it's a bad idea to accuse them of anything or betray them in any way. Yes, some people call 911 when they are scared, and some people know how to use the system to get back at someone as well.

IMO, she called 911 to make it look like she was a scared, innocent woman. For all we know because we don't know all the details, she was just po'd and wanted on record what was happening around her. Or she freaked out because she did know this landscaper and figured calling 911 was good way to make her not look guilty.

I'm just saying that calling 911 doesn't mean a person is scared for their life. I've followed plenty of cases where calling 911 was a setup for an alibi or the person showed fake emotion to make themselves look innocent.

Some people call 911 because they are truly afraid. Some people call 911 to be deceptive and make themselves look innocent. And some people call 911 because Subway didn't give them the sandwich they wanted. A lot of calling 911 these days is not about a real emergency.

And honestly, she wasn't in any real danger. They left. They didn't physically assault her or give her any reason to be afraid. She was the one who shut down the conversation. There is nothing to suggest that anything got out of control. Yes, it was startling what they did, but I wouldn't rise that to a level of an emergency unless she knew the guy and didn't want to get into trouble. Not one of the three times was she in any real danger. If she called 911, IMO, she did it to cover herself

But, I will admit I could be wrong. Once we finally hear those tapes, we'll know for sure.

bbm

How do you know? Or, how do you know she didn't feel she was in danger?

 

[Aedrys]

bbm

How do you know? Or, how do you know she didn't feel she was in danger?

That's the problem, and I admit, I don't know. I just know from my own experience and following criminal cases for a long time that not everyone who calls 911 thinks they are in immediate danger. Plus, there was nothing about anyone holding a gun to her or immediately threatening her life as far as I know. Doesn't mean she couldn't be scared, but IMO, she was not an in any immediate bodily harm and neither was Baby K that would have made it necessary to call 911. But again, I don't know for sure. None of us will know until we actually get to hear those calls.

 

[Wrinkles]

Growl... I just wrote up something an managed to blow it away... One more time...

From OregonLive.com
>>A summary of the order filed in court shows the judge allowed no parenting time for Terri Moulton Horman. The restraining order also restricts her from possessing firearms, a routine step in these proceedings.<<

"no parenting time" ... Maybe Terri had no choice on asking for this according to the RO.

Looking at this document identified as "INSTRUCTIONS &#8211; OBTAINING A FAPA RESTRAINING ORDER":

>>Will A Hearing Be Scheduled?

In a few cases, the judge may wait to make a custody order and will set a hearing to get more information about the children from you and the respondent. You must go to that hearing or the order will probably be dismissed (dropped).

Otherwise, the respondent has 30 days from the date of service to request a hearing. If the respondent does not request a hearing, the restraining order will stay in effect.

If the respondent does request a hearing, it will be held very quickly.<<

Seems to me that a) judge scheduled the hearing -- but wouldn't sooner rather than later be reasonable?? OR b) Terri could request a hearing. IF the judge scheduled one, this may be hidden in the RO. IF he did not, it seems that media might be camped out and watching for Terri to go to the court to ask for a hearing.

I'd say that we could watch for a hearing on this...

NOW THEN for the "firearms" thing. It has been reported:
>>A summary of the order filed in court shows the judge allowed no parenting time for Terri Moulton Horman. The restraining order also restricts her from possessing firearms, a routine step in these proceedings.<<

and

>>The restraining order was sealed by Multnomah County Circuit Judge Keith Meisenheimer, who handles family law. However, the abuse prevent petition showed that Terri was not granted any time with their daughter and restricted from accessing firearms. The no firearms clause was routine in such cases, a court clerk said.<<

I'm kinda blown away that IF someone takes out a restraining order on me that I would have to get rid of my possession of all firearms. IF I live on a property such as the Horman's have, I would want to have a firearm. I may be perfectly okay with being restrained from someone else under a certain set of circumstances, but if someone breaches my "No Trespassing" sign OR if an animal arrives on my property that I feel endangers me, I want a firearm. SO, is this really "routine" to deny the possession of firearms due to an RO?

Finally...it takes me to the original point I wanted to attack. Do we know that on the day of the sting, Terri didn't meet those on her property with a double barreled shotgun in her hands? (and with someone at the front door holding another one?) If she showed up with nothing, just "lalala, yes, what did you want to see me for?" and got a surprise asking for 10K or I will go to the police, perhaps she was terrified. On the other hand, what if she didn't? Could this be why the firearms thing was put in the RO? Or did Kaine have an idea of what might be expected about firearms due to past conversations with Terri?

We know about the sting to "some" extent. We don't know all about it. We don't know the content of the 9-1-1 call, we don't know if she said, "I don't know who just came through my gates, but I have No Trespassing signs up -- please get over here, I think this could be a threat."

 

[Donjeta]

Well, I'm pretty sure she wasn't in any immediate bodily danger from an undercover LE officer and a wired individual who were present.

What she may have thought I can't say. If she thought she was being set up I'm sure she was scared but not of being subjected to violence. If she didn't know they were trying to set her up, she may have thought they had come to demand money like they said, and that sort of thing is usually accompanied with a slight undertone or "or else" which might scare her.

It's not just bodily harm that people may be scared of.

 

[Calliope]

That's the problem, and I admit, I don't know. I just know from my own experience and following criminal cases for a long time that not everyone who calls 911 thinks they are in immediate danger. But again, I don't know for sure. None of us will know until we actually get to hear those calls.

From what I understand, the first call was about a threat from someone in a truck (?). The way it's reported, it doesn't seem to be connected to the other 2 calls. I have no idea what the threat was, but given the way she's been crucified online and in the press, and how her address and photos of her home (including aerial shots) have been put out there, I can only imagine. I'm surprised she's still in that house, especially with it being so secluded and set back from the road.

As far as call #2, GrainneDhu's post above makes a lot of sense; I know I'd feel I was in danger regardless of my guilt or innocence involving Kyron.

Call #3? If she thought her child had been taken illegally by Kaine, I can see her calling 911. I'd like to know what happened prior to the call that made her believe he wasn't returning with baby K.

 

[Donjeta]

Wait, where did the third call come from? I thought there were two.

 

[Calliope]

Wait, where did the third call come from? I thought there were two.

It's being reported now there were 3. One about someone threatening her. The second being the 'sting'. And a third later that evening regarding the custody issue (Kaine taking baby).

ETA Ruby's post on the 911 thread:

One source said the first call made by Terri came in as a Priority Three call at 5:18 p.m. and was about someone in a truck threatening her.

Moments later Terri made the second call and said a man wanted $10,000. But there was no explanation given for why he wanted it

The third call came in at 11:39 p.m. and was about a child custody issue. A source said Terri reported that Kaine packed up and took their 19-month-old daughter at 1:30 in the afternoon.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/97989739.html

 

[Mylou]

I keep asking myself what would I do, if I were guilty of trying to hire someone, and then they show up at my door asking for hush money. I really don't know if I would call 911 or not, Id be afraid to call I think. I find this part rather intriguing because I really don't know what I'd do. If I were innocent, Id probably call 911 especially if I had no idea what the heck he was talking about. If I had felt threatened from this person in the past Id definately call 911.

 

[PDXMom]

This is really weird. If I were innocent, the first thing I would do if someone pulled up & demanded money is call 911. If I were guilty.....and dissociated the entire nasty business of wanting my husband dead, I would call 911. If I were guilty and not at the top of my game...well, I guess I'd hesitate to call in case I were somehow associated with the LS. I wonder if the LS or the UC noted any acknowledgement of recognition on Terri's part when the LS showed up. Circumstantial, yes, but motivation to keep pursuing that lead.

 

[helpfulcharlie]

I'm kinda blown away that IF someone takes out a restraining order on me that I would have to get rid of my possession of all firearms. IF I live on a property such as the Horman's have, I would want to have a firearm. I may be perfectly okay with being restrained from someone else under a certain set of circumstances, but if someone breaches my "No Trespassing" sign OR if an animal arrives on my property that I feel endangers me, I want a firearm. SO, is this really "routine" to deny the possession of firearms due to an RO?

There's a dang good reason for that practice, and it's kind of standard. Because too many times, a battered woman has taken out a restraining order on the batterer, and he retaliates by putting bullets into her.

The law says better safe than sorry.

 

[cluciano63]

If I was Terri, i think I would I call 911 anytime someone approached my house these days, she has a legitimate right to fear for her life. I've seen what some of the whackos are saying about her on other boards. I'd have 911 on speed dial and feel free to use it, as I might feel that the police put me in this spot, of being afraid for my life.

 

[PDXMom]

If I was Terri, i think I would I call 911 anytime someone approached my house these days, she has a legitimate right to fear for her life. I've seen what some of the whackos are saying about her on other boards. I'd have 911 on speed dial and feel free to use it, as I might feel that the police put me in this spot, of being afraid for my life.

That's a very good point, Cluciano. She's not a popular lady in this town lately. So maybe she was ready to call 911 on anyone who trespassed at that point.

 

[manybooks]

I know they do it different in the movies & in TV shows, where the guy wears a wire & the suspect talks & it gets recorded, and the suspect gets convicted on the basis of a recorded conversation. But that's not how it's done in reality.

I'm sure they made the decision for some reason, but I must respectfully disagree. I was on a jury and convicted a meth dealer with a wire taped conversation as one of the biggest pieces of evidence.