Is TH Responsible in any way for the Disappearance of Kyron? **NO DISCUSSION**

[kant]

I believe that Terri was asked about how she spent the day Kyron disappeared on that same day so IMO we should all think about whether we remember what we did today.

Gotta admit that I'm fuzzy about times because I didn't check the clock too many times. I can tell you what time I left home to go to a park with the kids, and I can check my cell phone for a couple o calls I made. Then I remember the exact time I changed a diaper at the park and I know the exact time when I was on an escalator but that's about it. I've got some receipts from purchases I made and I might be on a few security cameras. There were other people who saw me and my family at the park but I have no idea how to contact them.

Hey Donj!

I agree with this too; I could say where I was today if asked today or tomorrow etc. But if I were asked about another parent or child out of many parents and children who I may see every day at school, unless I had some reason to notice something in particular, I doubt I could say who all was there and when exactly with absolute certainty (did I just say "who all?")

Even if TH's not a CSI fan or if she is (who cares) I cant fathom an adult walking around these days with two neurons to rub together not knowing about cell phone pings. To me, that's like not knowing that caller ID exists.

There are some bizarre things about TH imo and maybe even something slighty pathological, IDK. But Im not sure that all her eccentricites and peccadilloes, proclivities or whatnot are related to Kyron's being missing. Not sure they're not... just not sure.. period.

moo

.

 

[Kat010]

Snowball, you said something very important about remembering your day: "Maybe my account is initially muddled //"

So, you tell cops your story. But, being in shock and "muddled", you forget that you stopped by the shoe store, or the farmer's market, or, or ,or. Or you did things in a different order, or your "to do" list said one thing but you did another.

So, later, your cellphone pings don't match up with what you said. Or someone says "hey, I saw her at the library dropping books in the slot at 2 p.m." and you told the cops you went to the big box store at about 1 p.m. and spent 2 hours there. Whatever.

Then LE tells you that you're lying. And then they start hammering on you because "if you're lying about this" what else are you lying to us about? Why didn't you tell us when you were at the library? Because it's only a block away from where Mr. Smith, your ex-husband, was killed?"

You can say "oops, I forgot, I did run by the library on the way to the store and just drove up by the drop box" but the damage is already done. There are inconsistencies in your story and you've lied to police--in their world.

 

[lorann]

I too feel TH is responsible for Kyron's disappearance. But before I even thought that, her actions on that presser grossed me out. With the MFH plot, sexting, and all of the negative things came out - that just sealed it for me. Just driving around doesn't cut it for me personally, I had two babies with colic and one who suffered ear aches a lot. Going to the gym does not sound funky to me, I have several relatives who run the sweeper several times a day when upset. Before Kaine knew about some of her exploits, maybe he felt exerting energy at the gym would be the best thing for her, it was a big part of their life. I think Terri is mentally disturbed and after having the baby still felt she was not equal to DY in Kaine's eyes. I just haven't figured out how she managed to pull this off but I think she is responsible - in an irresponsible way. Once (if) she is charged, I predict her lawyer will have her undergo vigorous metal tests trying to prove she is too unstable to be tried.

It is hard to peg Kaine, even with all of the interviews. He is trying so hard but looks like a lost soul. Worry, guilt that he should have seen things coming to a head, fear of what if. He looks like he is just going through the motions and taking ques from LE and his lawyer.

ETA On most days, I could prove where I was at most any time. Cameras in stores, receipts, but the best way I live alone, nobody else used my computer and I am on Websleuths most of the time. LE could ask Tricia for Loran's history!

 

[kant]

I am 99.9% sure she is responsible.

The FB posts made me uncomfortable, but I ignored that.
The presser and her body language set off every hinky sensor I have.
The doctor's appointment
Driving the truck.
The MFH plot also makes me think she hates Kaine so much she wanted to hurt him.
Sauvie island (I know not confirmed, but still.)
The sexting while a child is missing.
DeDe.

There are too many weird things. I know this is all circumstantial, but I truly believe it's her.

I see your points.
I have a question about the truck. Did she ask to use the truck for some purpose and then not use it for that reason? If I were up to no good, I think I probably would not do that. It seems too obvious and fishy

Also, people do bizarre things under stress and emergencies and tragedies etc You and I wouldnt be texting sexting in that horrific scenario, but people do things to distract them. Not saying that's why she did it bc IDK why, but that's just it, IDK; and just bc *I* wouldnt do it doesnt mean that folks dont do it. I did not say that very well.

But I do see what you're saying.

moo

 

[Littleone48]

Opinions, no, I didn't say anything about "forgetting" an (alleged) murder for hire plot.

I'm talking about memories and timelines.

I would have said, before I took that course, that I could accurately tell someone what I did throughout my day and exactly when. I learned a lot. I was wrong.

You are 100% right. I own a business that generates a-lot of cash. Years ago there was a rash of hold-ups throughout our City. LE held a class for the businesses to help them cope during and after a hold-up. We were given tips such as place a tape on the door so when the perp leaves you at least can give the height of that person. They said that 99% of the people cannot remember details after a dramatic event such as a hold-up.

Of course there were those macho people that said they wouldn't give in if they were held up but the LE giving the course said "just be happy with yourself if you don't pee your pants." Meaning that you can say you will remember or that you will not give in but when it happens it's a whole totally different story.

 

[Kat010]

Hey opinions, thanks for your kind words--and I enjoy your posts, too.

One of the reasons I started posting here after reading, reading, and so enjoy it is the level of intelligence, the fact that we aren't screaming and bashing each other (some forums are ghastly!) and we can happily offer up different perspectives, ideas and opinions. And then debate them.

Uh oh--did it seem as though I said something that would fall outside TOS? I hope not. My "dumb attack" was typing a word twice and it didn't make sense. :cow:

 

[gitana1]

To me, it's clear based on one very verifiable fact: TH failed to fight the RO request or for any custodial/visitation rights to her own baby/toddler. As a family law attorney, that caused alarm bells to go off for me. Nothing else has been verified - phone pings, not passing LDTs, her convenient story about riding rural roads with a sick baby on the day Kyron went missing, the MFH plot - none of it, although I believe those things will eventually be verified. But it is a known fact that this woman gave up custody of her child and even the right to see her baby at all.
Even bad mothers, abusive mothers do not do that. To separate a mother from her toddler is an incredible thing. For the mother not to fight such a separation, something is very, very wrong.
I would instruct my clients not to testify of make statements that could be used against them in connection with a criminal case, at a civil hearing. But you can still mount a defense in a civil DV case without the accused's testimony. And I have. You can cross examine the witness/victims, you can make evidentiary objections forcing the other side to really prove their case and bring in witnesses, instead of just hearsay, for example, and you can make an argument. If the client is guilty, you can still ask for, and will likely get, some form of visitation with the children, at least supervised. TH and her attorney didn't even do that. She did nothing to mount any defense at all to the allegations, not even one in which she remained completely silent.
I know how the law works in this context and I also know the power of the mother-child bond so this, of all things, is the one thing that tipped me cleanly off the fence and has kept me off that fence. IMO, the only thing that could keep a person from mounting a defense or asking for, at the least, some form of visitation, would be that that person knows they have done something and are desperately trying to stay out of prison.
TH is going down for this and I am super confident that she should.

 

[Snowball58]

Ok, I'll bite. Assuming today is the day my stepchild goes missing (it's only 12:30pm here now, so there would be a few more hours of activity before I'm being questioned):

Woke up at 7:15, woke up daughter to get her ready for school. We lounged around in her bed for about 20 minutes, playing with the dogs, talking about what she dreamed last night, choosing her outfit for the day. DH came into her room at about 7:35am to kiss her goodbye, then left for work. At about that time, we got our lazy butts up and she proceeded to get ready for school.

We went about our morning as usual, DD brushed her teeth and got ready for school, I went downstairs to make her breakfast, get some coffee, tend to the dogs, etc. and she came downstairs around 8am to eat and watch cartoons. I hopped onto my computer to check email and update on Kyron's case

At 8:30am I realized I was totally late and raced upstairs to get myself ready, and DD came with me because she forgot to pick out socks and wanted to kiss the kitten goodbye (kitten stays in our master bathroom until he's big enough to hold his own with the dogs). As I got dressed, DD went downstairs to get her sweater and shoes, and I realized I didn't finish making her lunch, so with curses under my breath, I stuck a headband on my head to hide the bed-head and ran down to the kitchen to pack up her lunch.

Like a crazed lunatic, I rush us out the door at 8:46am and we drove to school. Arrived at school a few minutes past 9am, kissed DD goodbye and walked her to the doorway of her classroom and watched her go in. I signed her in at 9:05am.

I then got into my car, lit a secret cigarette (shhhhhh), and headed to the bank which is near the school. Got to the bank at about 9:10am, checked my safe deposit box, chatted with the manager, got back into my car and headed to one of my PO Boxes (UPS store) because I was expecting a package.

Reached the UPS store at about 9:30am, nodded hello to the kid behind the counter, checked the box and it was empty. Hopped back into my car to head to the post office near my house to check my other PO Box.

Arrived at my local post office at about 9:50am, checked the box, sorted through my mail and tossed the junk mail into the garbage bin inside the post office, got back into my car and drove home. Arrived home at about 10am, maybe 10:05am.

As I walked in the door I heard the phone ringing but just missed the call from my husband, so I called him right back and we chatted about our morning, his work schedule, etc. We talked for about 10 minutes.

I spent the rest of the next 2-2.5 hours on the computer working (I have my own business), checking email and stalking websleuths I also spent part of this time tidying up the house because the housecleaners are coming this afternoon and I like to have everything picked up for them. As we speak I'm eating leftovers in front of my computer.

Today is just an ordinary run of the mill Wednesday for me. Assuming the same for Terri (except it was not an ordinary day, it was science fair day, so even more reason for the day's events to stick even better than usual), and assuming she was questioned about her timeline the same day or even the next day, I can't understand why there would be any gaps or changes of story or evidence contradicting her account of the day (I know this is not confirmed, that these things are just rumors).

If you question me for the first time a month from now, about today, I'm certain I couldn't recount what I did at all. But the same day or next day? I just don't get how anyone would be iffy on how they spent the day. What am I missing?

 

[WhyaDuck?]

Hey opinions, thanks for your kind words--and I enjoy your posts, too.

One of the reasons I started posting here after reading, reading, and so enjoy it is the level of intelligence, the fact that we aren't screaming and bashing each other (some forums are ghastly!) and we can happily offer up different perspectives, ideas and opinions. And then debate them.

Uh oh--did it seem as though I said something that would fall outside TOS? I hope not. My "dumb attack" was typing a word twice and it didn't make sense. :cow:

BBM

I think maybe what you meant was "an attack of the dumbs" then, possibly? (I get those very often, and they seem to be increasing at a frightening rate.)

 

[kant]

Snowball, you said something very important about remembering your day: "Maybe my account is initially muddled //"

So, you tell cops your story. But, being in shock and "muddled", you forget that you stopped by the shoe store, or the farmer's market, or, or ,or. Or you did things in a different order, or your "to do" list said one thing but you did another.

So, later, your cellphone pings don't match up with what you said. Or someone says "hey, I saw her at the library dropping books in the slot at 2 p.m." and you told the cops you went to the big box store at about 1 p.m. and spent 2 hours there. Whatever.

Then LE tells you that you're lying. And then they start hammering on you because "if you're lying about this" what else are you lying to us about? Why didn't you tell us when you were at the library? Because it's only a block away from where Mr. Smith, your ex-husband, was killed?"

You can say "oops, I forgot, I did run by the library on the way to the store and just drove up by the drop box" but the damage is already done. There are inconsistencies in your story and you've lied to police--in their world.

Kat, yeah, this.

I could probably relay my whole day yesterday primarily bc it was not tragic (uneventful in a sense) and I am not freaked out at the moment. But if I were freaked out I could very possibly, (what's our new word?) mis-remember? Or not tell it in the correct order or timing or something. And there are times when Im not with anyone who could vouch for my whereabouts. Luckily Im not up to no good, but you get my drift.

Also, Lorann made me snicker with the bit about her friend and the running-the-sweeper-when-upset thing.

Dont ask me what I do. [snerkity-snerk]

moo

 

[mydailyopinions]

To me, it's clear based on one very verifiable fact: TH failed to fight the RO request or for any custodial/visitation rights to her own baby/toddler. As a family law attorney, that caused alarm bells to go off for me. Nothing else has been verified - phone pings, not passing LDTs, her convenient story about riding rural roads with a sick baby on the day Kyron went missing, the MFH plot - none of it, although I believe those things will eventually be verified. But it is a known fact that this woman gave up custody of her child and even the right to see her baby at all.
Even bad mothers, abusive mothers do not do that. To separate a mother from her toddler is an incredible thing. For the mother not to fight such a separation, something is very, very wrong.
I would instruct my clients not to testify of make statements that could be used against them in connection with a criminal case, at a civil hearing. But you can still mount a defense in a civil DV case without the accused's testimony. And I have. You can cross examine the witness/victims, you can make evidentiary objections forcing the other side to really prove their case and bring in witnesses, instead of just hearsay, for example, and you can make an argument. If the client is guilty, you can still ask for, and will likely get, some form of visitation with the children, at least supervised. TH and her attorney didn't even do that. She did nothing to mount any defense at all to the allegations, not even one in which she remained completely silent.
I know how the law works in this context and I also know the power of the mother-child bond so this, of all things, is the one thing that tipped me cleanly off the fence and has kept me off that fence. IMO, the only thing that could keep a person from mounting a defense or asking for, at the least, some form of visitation, would be that that person knows they have done something and are desperately trying to stay out of prison.
TH is going down for this and I am super confident that she should.

This has stood out to me as well. Many will say that it is due to safety, and I can clearly understand the need for safety of a child...however, we all know that LE would move mountains to protect that baby even if they had to put a patrol car outside the house 24 hours a day. As a mother, I would think that before I gave up custody of my child (if I were innocent) that I would lean on LE to help keep my child safe. If this didn't work and I still didn't feel safe, maybe I would place my child with someone who could at least bring them to see me in a setting where I know nothing could happen.

If I were guilty on the other hand, I would more than likely do what Terri has done in regards to the baby.

 

[Kat010]

Duck, LOL! Oh yes, "attacks of the dumbs" seem to multiplying some days as fast the dust elephants under the furniture.......... :angel::biggrin:

 

[gitana1]

Snowball, you said something very important about remembering your day: "Maybe my account is initially muddled //"

So, you tell cops your story. But, being in shock and "muddled", you forget that you stopped by the shoe store, or the farmer's market, or, or ,or. Or you did things in a different order, or your "to do" list said one thing but you did another.

So, later, your cellphone pings don't match up with what you said. Or someone says "hey, I saw her at the library dropping books in the slot at 2 p.m." and you told the cops you went to the big box store at about 1 p.m. and spent 2 hours there. Whatever.

Then LE tells you that you're lying. And then they start hammering on you because "if you're lying about this" what else are you lying to us about? Why didn't you tell us when you were at the library? Because it's only a block away from where Mr. Smith, your ex-husband, was killed?"

You can say "oops, I forgot, I did run by the library on the way to the store and just drove up by the drop box" but the damage is already done. There are inconsistencies in your story and you've lied to police--in their world.

Investigators know that sometimes mistakes happen. Like in the Caylee Anthony case - the parents initially said they last saw Caylee on the 9th but then they were confronted with video of her showing they saw her on the 15th. Once LE did that, the anthonys realized their mistake and the matter was cleared it up. I don't think it remained an issue after that.

I seriously believe that the damage done to TH's credibility is due to much more than one, minor inconsistency.

 

[joshiesmom]

I can tell you right now, without a doubt, that if my child or stepchild disappeared from school, I would be able to tell LE (same day, maybe the next day, even weeks later) very precisely how I spent every moment of that day, down to when I used the bathroom. Maybe my account is initially muddled due to shock, and maybe every part of my day doesn't include witnesses, but I'm confident that I could recount my day with accuracy, and it wouldn't change and whatever evidence LE comes up with (phone pings, surveillance video, etc) would match because I would tell the truth and I would remember every moment of that day - presumably the worst day of my life.

See, I know I couldn't do that. I mean, I could say what I did, but I'd probably forget to add a couple mundane things, and I know I couldn't tell the times for everything.

A person doesn't realize at 8am that something terrible is going to happen at 4pm and therefore they catalog every moment in that day. I personally don't look at the clock every time I visit the bathroom or change a diaper or even make lunch. I could give generalities ~ ie; in the morning, I got a phone call, checked my email & watched a movie, but I know I could not give exact timeframes for when I was doing each activity.

 

[Snowball58]

Snowball, you said something very important about remembering your day: "Maybe my account is initially muddled //"

So, you tell cops your story. But, being in shock and "muddled", you forget that you stopped by the shoe store, or the farmer's market, or, or ,or. Or you did things in a different order, or your "to do" list said one thing but you did another.

So, later, your cellphone pings don't match up with what you said. Or someone says "hey, I saw her at the library dropping books in the slot at 2 p.m." and you told the cops you went to the big box store at about 1 p.m. and spent 2 hours there. Whatever.

Then LE tells you that you're lying. And then they start hammering on you because "if you're lying about this" what else are you lying to us about? Why didn't you tell us when you were at the library? Because it's only a block away from where Mr. Smith, your ex-husband, was killed?"

You can say "oops, I forgot, I did run by the library on the way to the store and just drove up by the drop box" but the damage is already done. There are inconsistencies in your story and you've lied to police--in their world.

I understand your point about traumatic events, and agree that while in shock, one's account may be off. But I also think that this fight or flight response only lasts so long. And honestly, Terri's day consisted of taking Kyron to school, photographing him, then driving around on rural roads for a long time, then going to the gym then home. It just doesn't seem that there's a ton of activity there to mess up on, or that should take weeks to clear up.

Of course, we have no idea what Terri's account was on the day she was interviewed, what the polygraph and pings showed, etc. Did she give the grocery stores in the wrong order? Did she fudge the times by a few minutes here and there? Did she leave out the part about driving Baby K around for 90 minutes? Did she claim she was on one side of town all morning, but her phone pinged on Sauvie and she had no explanation for that until the guy said he saw her near Logie Trail that morning and she changed her story to include driving around rural roads to soothe the baby?

We just don't know. I could be forgiving of a few minor discrepancies in a person's recollection of a traumatic day, but we have no idea if this is the case or if her discrepancies are much more significant than that. If the latter, there's no excuse IMO, and is very suspicious.

 

[kant]

To me, it's clear based on one very verifiable fact: TH failed to fight the RO request or for any custodial/visitation rights to her own baby/toddler. As a family law attorney, that caused alarm bells to go off for me. Nothing else has been verified - phone pings, not passing LDTs, her convenient story about riding rural roads with a sick baby on the day Kyron went missing, the MFH plot - none of it, although I believe those things will eventually be verified. But it is a known fact that this woman gave up custody of her child and even the right to see her baby at all.
Even bad mothers, abusive mothers do not do that. To separate a mother from her toddler is an incredible thing. For the mother not to fight such a separation, something is very, very wrong.
I would instruct my clients not to testify of make statements that could be used against them in connection with a criminal case, at a civil hearing. But you can still mount a defense in a civil DV case without the accused's testimony. And I have. You can cross examine the witness/victims, you can make evidentiary objections forcing the other side to really prove their case and bring in witnesses, instead of just hearsay, for example, and you can make an argument. If the client is guilty, you can still ask for, and will likely get, some form of visitation with the children, at least supervised. TH and her attorney didn't even do that. She did nothing to mount any defense at all to the allegations, not even one in which she remained completely silent.
I know how the law works in this context and I also know the power of the mother-child bond so this, of all things, is the one thing that tipped me cleanly off the fence and has kept me off that fence. IMO, the only thing that could keep a person from mounting a defense or asking for, at the least, some form of visitation, would be that that person knows they have done something and are desperately trying to stay out of prison.
TH is going down for this and I am super confident that she should.

I see what you're saying; But imo it wouldnt be so weird or a red flag for her not to fight it if she is emotionally or mentally disturbed and/or not attached to her child. Bizarre and unthinkable to us, but it happens. Im not saying that she is one thing or another; but if she were, then - in that instance - it wouldnt strike me as odd, unusual etc

 

[Susan10]

I don't think she had the heart to do it. She would have been too upset the rest of the day had she actually killed him or seen it done. In the end, she chickened out & called in her wing-man to do the dirty deed.

That is how a relatively normal person would feel. Any person who could plan and murder a child and then dispose of his body would not be upset about it later. Any apprehension experienced would be in the form of "I hope I covered my tracks and don't get caught." It is possible she paid someone else to do it, tho.

As a real life example of that type of person, Ted Bundy ate a hamburger moments after he murdered one of his victims. The mother of his child (who cooperated fully with LE) said that she noticed nothing out of the ordinary about his demeaner that day.

 

[Donjeta]

Snowball, you said something very important about remembering your day: "Maybe my account is initially muddled //"

So, you tell cops your story. But, being in shock and "muddled", you forget that you stopped by the shoe store, or the farmer's market, or, or ,or. Or you did things in a different order, or your "to do" list said one thing but you did another.

So, later, your cellphone pings don't match up with what you said. Or someone says "hey, I saw her at the library dropping books in the slot at 2 p.m." and you told the cops you went to the big box store at about 1 p.m. and spent 2 hours there. Whatever.

Then LE tells you that you're lying. And then they start hammering on you because "if you're lying about this" what else are you lying to us about? Why didn't you tell us when you were at the library? Because it's only a block away from where Mr. Smith, your ex-husband, was killed?"

You can say "oops, I forgot, I did run by the library on the way to the store and just drove up by the drop box" but the damage is already done. There are inconsistencies in your story and you've lied to police--in their world.

I'm not so sure about that, I think that the police are, for the most part, familiar with the phenomenon of forgetting and it wouldn't be the first time they've ever come across a witness intending to be truthful who doesn't get everything completely right. Truthful people may and often do add detail to their statement when questioned another time, and it is sometimes even thought a mark of a liar if your statement is too fixed and unamendable.

Sure, they might confront you with the inconsistencies and try to pressure you about it to see if you crumble but IMO they wouldn't necessarily think you're the perp simply because you forgot you went to the library because you wouldn't be the first witness who forgets something.

 

[KopDog]

To me, it's clear based on one very verifiable fact: TH failed to fight the RO request or for any custodial/visitation rights to her own baby/toddler. As a family law attorney, that caused alarm bells to go off for me. Nothing else has been verified - phone pings, not passing LDTs, her convenient story about riding rural roads with a sick baby on the day Kyron went missing, the MFH plot - none of it, although I believe those things will eventually be verified. But it is a known fact that this woman gave up custody of her child and even the right to see her baby at all.
Even bad mothers, abusive mothers do not do that. To separate a mother from her toddler is an incredible thing. For the mother not to fight such a separation, something is very, very wrong.
I would instruct my clients not to testify of make statements that could be used against them in connection with a criminal case, at a civil hearing. But you can still mount a defense in a civil DV case without the accused's testimony. And I have. You can cross examine the witness/victims, you can make evidentiary objections forcing the other side to really prove their case and bring in witnesses, instead of just hearsay, for example, and you can make an argument. If the client is guilty, you can still ask for, and will likely get, some form of visitation with the children, at least supervised. TH and her attorney didn't even do that. She did nothing to mount any defense at all to the allegations, not even one in which she remained completely silent.
I know how the law works in this context and I also know the power of the mother-child bond so this, of all things, is the one thing that tipped me cleanly off the fence and has kept me off that fence. IMO, the only thing that could keep a person from mounting a defense or asking for, at the least, some form of visitation, would be that that person knows they have done something and are desperately trying to stay out of prison.
TH is going down for this and I am super confident that she should.

I posted earlier about my thoughts and indicated that this is the only thing that is giving me a pause as well. And while I am not an attorney (my husband is and I ask him tons of questions, but that doesn't count), I have to imagine that there could possibly be a very good reason that her big time defense attorney does not want to battle out the murder for hire stuff in family court while there is such an intense criminal investigation going on. Do family courts have a different burden of proof? Would the family court judge finding in favor of KH have an impact on the criminal case down the road? Anyway, I agree it is weird and doesn't make sense, but I still don't believe that it means she was responsible for K's disappearance/death. She is obviously a suspect in this and could someday face a murder charge, if only based on circumstantial evidence. She obviously knows this and so all of mother-bond instincts might be on the back burner while her life is spinning out of control.

 

[WhyaDuck?]

Not saying that she did it, but any person who could plan and murder a child and then dispose of his body would not be upset about it later. Any apprehension experienced would be in the form of "I hope I covered my tracks and don't get caught."

As a real life example of that type of person, Ted Bundy ate a hamburger moments after he murdered one of his victims. The mother of his child (who cooperated fully with LE) said that she noticed nothing out of the ordinary about his demeaner.

I think that would depend on whether it was premeditated or in a fit of rage or something. I could see someone being extremely agitated after committing such a crime on the spur of the moment (even after cleaning up out of adrenalin out of fear for their survival afterwards), which is different than being a "hunter" like Bundy.