Is the fact that Terri hasn't been arrested indicative of lack of evidence?

[BeanE]

Statements from LE like this from Staton in his presser last month, answer the question that is the topic of this thread clearly, and the answer that Staton is giving, is "No, we do not yet have the evidence the DA needs in order to get a conviction".

We're now focusing on what we have collected and targeting those areas to help the district attorney's office to develop a case that they can prosecute successfully.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/09/kyron_horman_case_as_costs_top.html

 

[Dee10]

Statements from LE like this from Staton in his presser last month, answer the question that is the topic of this thread clearly, and the answer that Staton is giving, is "No, we do not yet have the evidence the DA needs in order to get a conviction".

We're now focusing on what we have collected and targeting those areas to help the district attorney's office to develop a case that they can prosecute successfully.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/09/kyron_horman_case_as_costs_top.html

Right and that statement could also be used to support the view that they need more time than the 40 day(?) speedy trial requirement to prosecute successfully which could be a lengthy 1 degree murder trial on circumstantial evidence IMO. Further, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a few more months, but I am not worried.

 

[JBean]

Statements from LE like this from Staton in his presser last month, answer the question that is the topic of this thread clearly, and the answer that Staton is giving, is "No, we do not yet have the evidence the DA needs in order to get a conviction".

We're now focusing on what we have collected and targeting those areas to help the district attorney's office to develop a case that they can prosecute successfully.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/09/kyron_horman_case_as_costs_top.html

Hey beane, I think you accidentally mixed up your quotes. you quoted the part he didn't say but didn't put quotes on the part he did say. Makes it look like he said something he didn't the way it is worded. Just trying to clarify is all. I do get what you meant to say but it looks like he said your first quote!

thanks.

To be fair the article also says:

Staton declined to say whether the investigation is close to an arrest but said the lead investigator briefed him and Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schrunk on the progress last Friday.

"There was nothing that came out of that presentation that gave me or the district attorney any idea that we’re spinning our wheels or that we’re wasting time ... or allowing it to move into a cold-case scenario," he said, adding that "now we’re in a more confined type of investigation so we’re now able to predict whatever movements we’ll be taking."

 

[Dee10]

But BeanE, with all due respect, they are saying what they can say is my point and I am very pleased if what they are saying is true about the way the case is progressing. I have no reason, not to believe what they are saying and I guess I a "glass if 1/2 full" type person. I don't see that they will give us a crumb, although I wish that too. I too like getting into the nitty gritty and tedious details too, why can't this case have happened in Florida??? Note to myself, follow Florida cases. I love the Sunshine Law.nline:

 

[BeanE]

Hey beane, I think you accidentally mixed up your quotes. you quoted the part he didn't say but didn't put quotes on the part he did say. Makes it look like he said something he didn't the way it is worded. Just trying to clarify is all. I do get what you meant to say but it looks like he said your first quote!

thanks.

The structure of my sentence in which I used quote marks is, I believe, correct.

I used italics as I've always done, to be sure to distinguish what comes from the article.

 

[BeanE]

To be fair the article also says:

Staton declined to say whether the investigation is close to an arrest but said the lead investigator briefed him and Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schrunk on the progress last Friday.

"There was nothing that came out of that presentation that gave me or the district attorney any idea that we’re spinning our wheels or that we’re wasting time ... or allowing it to move into a cold-case scenario," he said, adding that "now we’re in a more confined type of investigation so we’re now able to predict whatever movements we’ll be taking."

The question I was addressing is the thread topic, whether Terri not being arrested/charged/convicted indicated a lack of evidence, and that only. What I quoted addresses that LE doesn't, at this time, have enough to convict, and answers that question.

I don't understand what you see in my post as being unfair. I didn't find the rest of what you quoted to be relevant, since the topic isn't, and we haven't been discussing, when or if sufficient evidence may become available in the future. Just whether the lack of evidence now is the reason for no arrest/charge/conviction.

 

[cj1132]

For myself, it's because I can't find any evidence (as I defined evidence in a previous post). In every case I've followed over the years, there were things I could see myself that pointed to a perp - the same perp that LE was explicity pointing to, or came to arrest and charge.

Not so in this case. I just can't find anything.

I can't use Gates' "tons of evidence" statement to give myself warm fuzzies about it, because he said that in response to a question from a reporter specifically about whether LE had Terri on video at the two Fred Meyer stores. And Gates said he would not answer that, but that he would instead say that they have tons of evidence they're going through.

And we all know that everything LE collects gets booked into evidence, whether it's inculpatory, exculpatory, or just plain trash (sometimes literally, as in Caylee's case).

So I know that Gates definitely wasn't saying "we have tons of inculpatory evidence against Terri Moulton Horman". They hadn't even gone through it all yet to sort the inculpatory from the exculpatory from the trash, so how could anyone possibly get warm fuzzies from that?

And that's just my point. LE hasn't pointed to one single shred of evidence and said "this is something inculpatory we have against Terri (or anyone else)".

And I just can't find anything on my own.

Certainly, I could go on blind faith, and whereas, as my long posting history on here on WS clearly shows, I am a very strong supporter and advocate of LE, in this one case, I don't have the confidence I have always had in LE. It's very difficult for me. I don't like feeling this way.

I wish LE would give me a crumb, or that I could find one on my own. It is certainly not for lack of trying. I've studied this case inside out and backwards every single day from the very beginning. Believe me, it astounds me that I can find nothing, because I like getting into the nitty gritty tedious details, and I'm not half bad at finding things, connecting the dots if you will. But in this case, I just haven't been able to, and it's upsetting. I don't have a clue what happened to this child, except that he disappeared.

I feel exactly the same as you.

 

[Billylee]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/search-kyron-horman-terri-horman-boys-disappearance/story?id=11195628

The father of missing Oregon boy Kyron Horman said he now believes there was someone else aiding his estranged wife with his son's disappearance.
Missing Kyron's dad Kaine Horman can move back into the family home.

Kaine Horman, who was able to move back into the family's Portland home with the help of a judge's order, declined to say exactly why he believes a third party involved, but told The Oregonian in a statement that his opinion was "based upon briefings."

I can think of only two reasons that LE would be looking for another person (accomplice) in this case at this time, and that is, they know TH couldn't have done it by herself based on where and when they DO know she was. The second would be if a witness actually saw TH with another person that day, but by all accounts (fliers still questioning anyone seeing her or Dede) I get the feeling no one saw TH with anyone that day other than with baby K.
Just noodling.

 

[OneLove]

Bear in mind that there are sometimes reasons OTHER THAN lack of evidence for delaying an indictment. I have known of a prosecuting attorney's pregnancy delaying the actual indictment when every shred of evidence was already documented. (small town) There are other reasons also, usually dockets, schedules, manpower, deadlines, consulting, etc., that play into the decision on when to pursue an indictment. Evidence is only one factor among many.

 

[Dee10]

Bear in mind that there are sometimes reasons OTHER THAN lack of evidence for delaying an indictment. I have known of a prosecuting attorney's pregnancy delaying the actual indictment when every shred of evidence was already documented. (small town) There are other reasons also, usually dockets, schedules, manpower, deadlines, consulting, etc., that play into the decision on when to pursue an indictment. Evidence is only one factor among many.

Great points! Which reminded me, didn't the D.A.'s office request (Aug. or maybe early Sept.) they asked for more money to hire additional person for preparation for a lengthy trial(?), I believe it this case was mentioned. If anyone remembers or could find that article I know would really appreciate it.

 

[mauirain]

They could be holding out to find Kyron. Scott Peterson was much the same. Months we waited for the arrest, From Dec 24 to April IIRC. They had evidence, they were just waiting for the help of Laci and Conner.During that time we learned a lot about him including an extramarital affair,dishonest and inconsistent behavior, as well as conflicting stories and timelines..
Don't know if that is the case here,but just answering the question"what other reason could their be".

I agree, I think that they have evidence that her story isn't true and her behavior backs that up. I think they are building a case against her but have no idea what exactly happened. If there is never a confession, never a witness, and Kyron is never found...I have to wonder if this will ever make it to court. If Kyron is found, I am sure most or all of the questions will be answered then and Terri Horman will surely be arrested on the spot.

 

[JBean]

Statements from LE like this from Staton in his presser last month, answer the question that is the topic of this thread clearly, and the answer that Staton is giving, is "No, we do not yet have the evidence the DA needs in order to get a conviction".

We're now focusing on what we have collected and targeting those areas to help the district attorney's office to develop a case that they can prosecute successfully.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/09/kyron_horman_case_as_costs_top.html

The structure of my sentence in which I used quote marks is, I believe, correct.

I used italics as I've always done, to be sure to distinguish what comes from the article.

Totally understand Beane. I was referring to the bolded sentence that is in quotation marks. It looked like Stanton said it because of the quotation marks, but he didn't.Just trying to gain clarity. Thanks for all the energy you put into this case.

 

[OneLove]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/search-kyron-horman-terri-horman-boys-disappearance/story?id=11195628

The father of missing Oregon boy Kyron Horman said he now believes there was someone else aiding his estranged wife with his son's disappearance.
Missing Kyron's dad Kaine Horman can move back into the family home.

Kaine Horman, who was able to move back into the family's Portland home with the help of a judge's order, declined to say exactly why he believes a third party involved, but told The Oregonian in a statement that his opinion was "based upon briefings."

I can think of only two reasons that LE would be looking for another person (accomplice) in this case at this time, and that is, they know TH couldn't have done it by herself based on where and when they DO know she was. The second would be if a witness actually saw TH with another person that day, but by all accounts (fliers still questioning anyone seeing her or Dede) I get the feeling no one saw TH with anyone that day other than with baby K.
Just noodling.

OR... maybe they simply already know and have evidence that there actually WAS an accomplice. Sometimes its very simple.

 

[sarah7855]

That's good to know. I don't understand why direct quotes from the people in charge of the investigation are being written off? I heard it numerous times "I wish LE would give us an update or not be so tight-lipped" but when LE tells you they have a ton of evidence, the case is further along than people realize, that they are taking this case to court, etc. yet some people don't believe them. :snooty:

Thank you!! ITA!! :clap:

The question that is the topic of the thread is about evidence. I thought the dots were evidence. I don't see a single piece of evidence in the 'dots' in your post, just assertions that, in essence, "yep, we have a lotta stuff, and we're workin' on it". :waitasec:

It looks like the same old "I don't see that LE has anything, I just believe they do" theme.

With all due respect BeanE (because I do respect you very much! ), my post is on topic. No, LE hasn't shown us any evidence, but they are telling us they have it, and that once the case they are building is ready to go to trial, we can then see that evidence. I trust that LE is doing what they are trained and paid to do. A lot of what I am reading lately looks like the same old "they aren't telling us every detail so it must not exist". Do you trust that LE is doing their jobs?

IMO, I think that many of us might be spoiled from Caylee's case and the Sunshine Law. We had so much info available to us that it was almost scary.

 

[BeanE]

Thank you!! ITA!! :clap:

With all due respect BeanE (because I do respect you very much! ), my post is on topic. No, LE hasn't shown us any evidence, but they are telling us they have it, and that once the case they are building is ready to go to trial, we can then see that evidence. I trust that LE is doing what they are trained and paid to do. A lot of what I am reading lately looks like the same old "they aren't telling us every detail so it must not exist". Do you trust that LE is doing their jobs?

IMO, I think that many of us might be spoiled from Caylee's case and the Sunshine Law. We had so much info available to us that it was almost scary.

I wasn't saying your post was off-topic, but that it looks to me like the post I was responding to was mixing apples and oranges - or apples and dots maybe.

LE hasn't shown us any evidence. We each look at what info is available, we decide which info to consider (from reliable, credible sources, from rumor mills etc.), and we each decide our own criteria for which info we'll consider and not, and which info we'll give greater and lesser credibility to, and how we each will do that 'ranking' process of how great or poorly credible each source and piece of info is.

Then we each either scratch our heads (how I spend most of my time in this case!), or we come to conclusions.

Applying all that to LE not having shown us any evidence, and looking at the info we can scrounge up on our own, with so many of us here, each of us individuals, there are bound to be many different conclusions.

Some people have concluded that LE has lots of evidence. That's fine. I've concluded they don't. That's fine too. I never ask that anyone agree with me, or like what I think, or even read what I post.

All we can work with in these cases is the info available at any given time. Maybe MCSO will hold a presser today, and I'll drastically change my mind based on the info they offer therein.

Regarding your question of whether I trust LE is doing their job, as I've posted, I've always been a very strong supporter of and advocate for LE, and my long posting history here on WS clearly reflects that. I've never felt as I do right now. It's disturbing and upsetting.

No, I can not say I don't trust that LE in this case is not doing their job. That's not what I think, not what I feel.

What I can say is that I don't know what's going on here, but I'm a person who needs facts. Partly because of how I'm wired, and partly because of habit from a long career in which facts were critical.

Whatever it comes from, it's just the way I am, and until I see it, 'it' in this instance being evidence as I define evidence for myself, I'm going to continue wondering, thinking, scratching my head, researching, studying, analyzing, beating dead horses, questioning, and sleuthing.

 

[Billylee]

OR... maybe they simply already know and have evidence that there actually WAS an accomplice. Sometimes its very simple.

If they absolutely knew of an accomplice, why wouldn't that accomplice have been arrested already though? And why would they still be asking people with information to come forward so they can break the case and bring Kyron home?

IMHO, they still looking for an accomplice. And it's got to be one of two reasons, A. they know TH could not have done this by herself or B. someone saw TH with someone who they think may be an accomplice. JMHO

 

[cluciano63]

Whatever they think and whatever they know, it is clearly not enough. No sign of Kyron and no arrests. That is what I see right now.

 

[Jo in Calif]

Whatever they think and whatever they know, it is clearly not enough. No sign of Kyron and no arrests. That is what I see right now.

Like Kaine said, "be patient."

 

[JBean]

I think it was this thread where there were questions as to whether the mfh plot really came from the police. The motion filed today regarding visitation spells it out pretty clearly that LE was the source of the mfh plot.

Read the Motion for visitation here But don't forget there is a thread for discussion of the motion itself.

 

[goatman]

What does everyone think about this quote (from the amend motion) "based on hearsay statements from the police that there was probable cause to believe Respondent allegedly tried to hire someone to murder petitioner,and that the respondent was involved in the disappearance of Kyron"

I find the bolded statement particularly odd, here is a wikipedia link to the word hearsay ([ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law[/ame]).