2010.07.26 Grand Jury begins

[Calliope]

I am guessing the "reliable source" may have been someone else who was working at the client's who tells about her time "missing" from the gardening, perhaps another gardener. It will be interseting to find out and I think that is coming very soon. Things are about to get very active this week IMO.

Problem with that is the other worker "called her in" for lunch. You don't call someone in if you saw that person leave.

 

[Calliope]

I find it very dificult to believe that a conspiracy to railroad Terri has now become a conspiracy to railroad all known associates as well. At some point a molehill does indeed become a mountain, for me it has.

carry on.

I don't think someone is necessarily rail-roading DeDe. I just don't believe "reliable source". And I would like to know who this source is, and why they'd tell this story to the media.

 

[tehcloser]

I find it very dificult to believe that a conspiracy to railroad Terri has now become a conspiracy to railroad all known associates as well. At some point a molehill does indeed become a mountain, for me it has.

carry on.

ITA it is becoming a mountain, but the problem I'm having is still "truth does not change". So, I'll just stay up here on the fence for a while longer...:blushing:

 

[tlcya]

Perhaps that is why the time of DeDe's departure is not known. They may be basing the "missing" timeline upon when she was last seen there and when they attempted to call her in for lunch. If source one sees her at 11:15 and then 15 minutes later homeowner calls everyone in to grab a bite of lunch only DeDe is not present, it can be assumed she left sometime within the 15 minute window from when last seen by source one and absence noted by source two. I could very well be wrong, but I think that is where the discrepancy lies.

 

[Calliope]

BBM: That means to me that two individuals are stating this fact. So either two people are lieing to investigators (why? they would have no reason to lie or mislead police and place themselves in a difficult situation) or the person who stated that they never left the home that morning isn't truthful? JMO

Only problem is LE hasn't said squat about any of this. I'd like to know the "reliable" source for what was told to detectives.

 

[Chili Fries]

The reporter says her lawyer says DS was gardening that morning and never left home. That's a pretty vague assertion and it's easy to think of reasons why it could be true but still leave out a big part of the story. Also, did we ever determine whether DS owns another home in a rural area closer to the Hormans?

 

[Calliope]

Perhaps that is why the time of DeDe's departure is not known. They may be basing the "missing" timeline upon when she was last seen there and when they attempted to call her in for lunch. If source one sees her at 11:15 and then 15 minutes later homeowner calls everyone in to grab a bite of lunch only DeDe is not present, it can be assumed she left sometime within the 15 minute window from when last seen by source one and absence noted by source two. I could very well be wrong, but I think that is where the discrepancy lies.

Good point. Still makes no sense to toss away a solid, if not completely total, alibi to lie and say she was at home that morning. Not only from the angle of an alibi, but certainly this can be easily determined if she was indeed working a job near the Hormans'.

 

[tlcya]

You may weel be right. Either the reasoning for tossing away a solid alibi will become clear over time with teh investigation, or it could be a matter of confusion of dates. To question folks who are not immediatefamily over a month later about a specific date could easily set the stage for misremembering exactly where one was or what they were doing that day. I think LE is questioning DeDe and her alibi is that her cel phone records and that of Terri do not support the story DeDe has told of her activities that day.

Could be simple human error, could be something more sinister, I shall wait and see. As always friend, I respect your opinion even though it now differs from mine.

 

[Calliope]

I think my frustration may lie in trying to get into the mind of (an unusual person). Maybe putting myself in their place and attempting to make sense of their actions doesn't apply here =\

 

[Kimster]

The discussion regarding DS's cousin is in the private forum---->http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110074&page=9

 

[Calliope]

You may weel be right. Either the reasoning for tossing away a solid alibi will become clear over time with teh investigation, or it could be a matter of confusion of dates. To question folks who are not immediatefamily over a month later about a specific date could easily set the stage for misremembering exactly where one was or what they were doing that day. I think LE is questioning DeDe and her alibi is that her cel phone records and that of Terri do not support the story DeDe has told of her activities that day.

Could be simple human error, could be something more sinister, I shall wait and see. As always friend, I respect your opinion even though it now differs from mine.

As I do you too *hug*

But just give me 5 minutes and we might be on the same track again lol.

What a convoluted mess of a case...

 

[Emeralgem]

In reference to DeDe's attorney stating she never left her home that day, I thought I read that he stated "No Comment" when he was asked where she was between 11:15 am and 1:00 pm on June 4th......Am I confused about what he refused to comment on?

 

[adh74]

:waitasec:
Just my opinion.

Some people define "Morning" differently. Did we have a time frame exactly in reference to her being home "all morning" ment to her? She is an early riser from what I read in her blog. I probally missed the refrerence but did she give the time she left her residence that day/evening? (if at all)

I think you're on to something here. If she got a call fromTH and left at 11:30am, then the statement from her atty that she was "home all morning" is basically true (minus about 30 minutes). Technically, "pm" doesn't start until noon. So he's not lying, but he's not saying she didn't see TH elsewhere that day either....just not in the "am"/morning.

 

[Calliope]

The discussion regarding DS's cousin is in the private forum---->http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110074&page=9

What we need *down there* is a rubber room to scream out our frustrations.

 

[Chewy]

What if DE DE turned off her phone. Placed it in a plastic bag and buried it on the property where she was working.

Then she goes out and meets TH at a predetermined location, swaps vehicles and drives around for 90 minutes comes back and swaps the vehicles again and goes back to her job and retrieves her phone.

 

[Calliope]

In reference to DeDe's attorney stating she never left her home that day, I thought I read that he stated "No Comment" when he was asked where she was between 11:15 am and 1:00 pm on June 4th......Am I confused about what he refused to comment on?

Well, there ya go.

[looking for soft surface to bang head]

 

[Calliope]

What if DE DE turned off her phone. Placed it in a plastic bag and buried it on the property where she was working.

Then she goes out and meets TH at a predetermined location, swaps vehicles and drives around for 90 minutes comes back and swaps the vehicles again and goes back to her job and retrieves her phone.

But at the time she left (either 11:15 or 11:30, depending on the source) she would have only had 9 to 24 minutes to drive around, if you're referring to the gap in Terri's timeline.

 

[grandmaj]

BBM: That means to me that two individuals are stating this fact. So either two people are lieing to investigators (why? they would have no reason to lie or mislead police and place themselves in a difficult situation) or the person who stated that they never left the home that morning isn't truthful? JMO

And the person who might have forgotten that she left home that morning has cell phone records that might tell a different story.

I'm not believing the attorney of Dede. Two different people have said something different. They have no reason to lie. Dede has a reason to worry about her time line.

 

[momoftwo2002]

I don't think the report quoted the client, but a "reliable source" (thanks, free) who claimed to have knowledge of this.

Have there been any reports where the client is actually named and quoted?

Thanks Calliope! I am going to edit my post about the "client" because I just did a fairly extensive retracing of my steps and I could not find it. Now how it got in my head is such speculation we might have to start a thread to figure that one out. :crazy:

I did however find where Oregon Live states that detectives learned that Dede was gardening near the Horman home on the morning of question and abrubtly left. And the homeowner and a person that was working with her both tried to reach her by cell phone and were unsuccessful. It went on to say that detectives spoke to the homeowner and the person working with her. IMO it got me thinking it more credible than the mysterious credible sources. If you get a chance I am interested in your opinion about this and I have the link if it will help. I might be a newbie but I have been in WS long enough to sincerely value your insight and opinion and would love to see what you think.

 

[Calliope]

ITA it is becoming a mountain, but the problem I'm having is still "truth does not change". So, I'll just stay up here on the fence for a while longer...:blushing:

Well hand me a pillow, I'm beginning to get splinters ><

Lord have mercy.... who had the Vodka, anyway???