Is the fact that Terri hasn't been arrested indicative of lack of evidence?
While I am new here and by no means a super sleuth of any kind, I think I can add to this discussion a teeny bit. Keep in mind that the laws of each state are different, so my experience may differ from what can, may and might happen in a criminal proceeding in Oregon.
I had the opportunity to attend a trial recently, and observe the presentation of evidence by the district attorney. It was a murder trial confirmation.
The evidence presented by far outweighed the little known bits of evidence that had been reported in the msm here. I was truly impressed and surprised at the amount of evidence presented from the investigation, that had never been released to the media. There was evidence from places I had never even considered.
In this particular case, a plea of guilty had been entered (finally) by the defendant. Our state laws require that when a guilty plea is entered, the evidence must be presented to a jury to confirm the guilty plea. Therefore, all we got was the short version. I can only imagine what the full fledged trial would have been like and what additional evidence there would have been.
So the question in my mind, at least, is answered by a resounding no. We will not know what evidence exists until there is a trial proceeding. And even then there may be evidence that we will not be privy to, as it could possibly not be allowed under the rules of law in Oregon, but which may have been used to gather additional pieces of the story that began on June 4, when Kyron, the little guy that stole my heart and brought me here, vanished.
Just my two cents worth of an opinion.
Terri, where is Kyron?