Kyron Horman's general discussion thread for 2014

[Knox]

As always Ami, you make good points.

Another point which you alluded to regarding a 'bullseye', but I wanted to expound on. Under the civil order of restraint portion of the custody agreement, B-4 states Terri cannot come within 150 feet of Skyline Elementary School.
http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/Horman-custody.pdf

I assume that means K, who is five, will/or is currently attending that school. Let's think about that for a moment. Kaine has went to extraordinary lengths to protect K, she is his only living child (sorry, but I feel Kyron is not alive). Clearly he does not feel there is any danger in sending her to the very school Kyron disappeared from. Terri and her attorney however, made no effort to prevent K from attending Skyline? If she were truly innocent, wouldn't she have made this a sticking point in the agreement? Went so far as even to say she would not sign said agreement? Nope, not even a whisper of such ...

To me, that speaks volumes in this case.

 

[Shadowboy]

Still reading and re-reading the custody agreement. Some might think otherwise (especially on other forums & blogs … ahem), but IMO the Judge held Baby K’s interests at the forefront. (Yes!)

However, I’m struck by the limits placed on parent-child contact.

Just wondering if any of our family law folks here at WS could weigh in.

Is easing into parent-child contact via “cards & letters,” then possible videoconferencing SOP?

In your (WS experts&#8217 opinions: Is this a result of Baby K’s age at the time of separation – and the length of the separation? Or is this a conservative, cautious approach any judge might use when the Reintroduced Parent might not be readily “available” for future interactions?

Guess my REAL question is: Are there aspects of this custody agreement that ring true for OTHER custody/visiting arrangements wherein the Parent seeking face time is either imprisoned or faces possible imprisonment?

There. I said it!

 

[human]

Still reading and re-reading the custody agreement. Some might think otherwise (especially on other forums & blogs … ahem), but IMO the Judge held Baby K’s interests at the forefront. (Yes!)

However, I’m struck by the limits placed on parent-child contact.

Just wondering if any of our family law folks here at WS could weigh in.

Is easing into parent-child contact via “cards & letters,” then possible videoconferencing SOP?

In your (WS experts’) opinions: Is this a result of Baby K’s age at the time of separation – and the length of the separation? Or is this a conservative, cautious approach any judge might use when the Reintroduced Parent might not be readily “available” for future interactions?

Guess my REAL question is: Are there aspects of this custody agreement that ring true for OTHER custody/visiting arrangements wherein the Parent seeking face time is either imprisoned or faces possible imprisonment?

There. I said it!

Perhaps they learned a lesson from the horrifying Josh Powell situation and are being very careful

 

[Karmady]

As always Ami, you make good points.

Another point which you alluded to regarding a 'bullseye', but I wanted to expound on. Under the civil order of restraint portion of the custody agreement, B-4 states Terri cannot come within 150 feet of Skyline Elementary School.
http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/Horman-custody.pdf

I assume that means K, who is five, will/or is currently attending that school. Let's think about that for a moment. Kaine has went to extraordinary lengths to protect K, she is his only living child (sorry, but I feel Kyron is not alive). Clearly he does not feel there is any danger in sending her to the very school Kyron disappeared from. Terri and her attorney however, made no effort to prevent K from attending Skyline? If she were truly innocent, wouldn't she have made this a sticking point in the agreement? Went so far as even to say she would not sign said agreement? Nope, not even a whisper of such ...

To me, that speaks volumes in this case.

Imo, she might have tried to make it a sticking point, but it wouldn't have mattered. Especially since Terri is so far away and has zero input in the child's day-to-day. The school hasn't been sued and the assumption is that it's not the school's fault and there's no danger there. So even if it was raised (which I do tend to doubt), it wouldn't have gone anywhere and we wouldn't have heard about it almost certainly. jmo

 

[Karmady]

Still reading and re-reading the custody agreement. Some might think otherwise (especially on other forums & blogs … ahem), but IMO the Judge held Baby K’s interests at the forefront. (Yes!)

However, I’m struck by the limits placed on parent-child contact.

Just wondering if any of our family law folks here at WS could weigh in.

Is easing into parent-child contact via “cards & letters,” then possible videoconferencing SOP?

In your (WS experts’) opinions: Is this a result of Baby K’s age at the time of separation – and the length of the separation? Or is this a conservative, cautious approach any judge might use when the Reintroduced Parent might not be readily “available” for future interactions?

Guess my REAL question is: Are there aspects of this custody agreement that ring true for OTHER custody/visiting arrangements wherein the Parent seeking face time is either imprisoned or faces possible imprisonment?

There. I said it!

imo, it's unusual, but the circumstances are extraordinary. I doubt potential future incarceration was more than a fleeting thought, if that. More like time apart and current distance. jmo

 

[Indy Anna]

As always Ami, you make good points.

Another point which you alluded to regarding a 'bullseye', but I wanted to expound on. Under the civil order of restraint portion of the custody agreement, B-4 states Terri cannot come within 150 feet of Skyline Elementary School.
http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/Horman-custody.pdf

I assume that means K, who is five, will/or is currently attending that school. Let's think about that for a moment. Kaine has went to extraordinary lengths to protect K, she is his only living child (sorry, but I feel Kyron is not alive). Clearly he does not feel there is any danger in sending her to the very school Kyron disappeared from. Terri and her attorney however, made no effort to prevent K from attending Skyline? If she were truly innocent, wouldn't she have made this a sticking point in the agreement? Went so far as even to say she would not sign said agreement? Nope, not even a whisper of such ...

To me, that speaks volumes in this case.

@ Knox, excellent point. This alone strongly suggests that whether or not TH was directly involved in Kyron's disappearance, she does know what happened to Kyron -- or have a good idea, at best. The only scenario in which I can see TH not being directly involved is if Kyron's disappearance was related to the MFH against Kaine.

At the beginning of this case (I was on another forum at the time, but this is the first case I followed), I defended TH. It was the MFH that made me jump the fence. If RS rejected the MFH offer from TH, I can imagine she didn't stop there. If someone else did accept the offer, perhaps he wanted a cash advance, or maybe TH changed her mind. If the MFH felt slighted by having the monetary offer rescinded or withheld until completion of the crime (he wanted to be out of the country by the time the body was discovered, let's say), then he may have resorted to kidnapping Kyron in retaliation/for ransom.

One problem I have with that scenario is TH's odd behavior the day of Kyron's disappearance, including the coinciding time lapses in her and DDS's schedules. Looking at other threads, there was a discussion about TH possibly leaving the school 15 minutes or more before she stated. There was also the confusion about some kids claiming they saw Kyron touring the Sci Fair without TH. If TH left the school early, allowing Kyron to tour the exhibits on his own, it would explain some of the claims about Kyron being present at the beginning of class and touring the exhibits with other students, and the comment he made to Tanner about going to see the "cool electric" exhibit. Later, the teacher was confused about the date of a doctor's appointment for Kyron.

If someone else kidnapped Kyron unbeknownst to TH after she left the school according to the above scenario, why didn't she reveal this to LE? Possibly because: 1.) She and DDS engaged in some other illegal activity that day and she doesn't want to incriminate herself. 2.) Above all, TH doesn't want to incriminate herself in the MFH if she believes Kyron's disappearance is related. If Kyron was kidnapped by someone TH tried to hire to kill Kaine, it would explain why TH called LE when RS showed up at her home demanding money and why, as DDS claimed, TH was afraid for her own life and Kiara's.

If TH left the school early to engage in other illegal activity, the purpose of showing a picture of Kyron at the Sci Fair to an acquaintance may have been to establish that she did attend the Fair. Maybe the activity was meeting with yet another potential MFH, not realizing the danger she'd already placed her entire family in. I could also imagine her faltering over such LDT questions as "Do you know what happened to Kyron?" in that scenario. If TH really does fear for her daughter's life because of this, then I could understand her being more comfortable with the supervised visits with Kiara, but then there is the question of why TH wouldn't object to Kiara attending Skyline School since that's where Kyron disappeared. Does she now think the danger has passed?

It's really hard to give TH the benefit of the doubt because so many inconsistencies. I think it's more likely that TH returned to the school a few minutes after she left the first time. She was just trying to establish an alibi for herself. I think about the stores she went to that morning. Wasn't there one she went to near the school, soon after she left? Didn't she go to a Starbucks? And she picked up medication for Kiara. I'm interested in knowing what receipts she had from that morning, whether she had items in her possession that matched what was on the receipts, and the timestamps on the receipts.

As for TH not contributing to the search for Kyron once she recognized she was a POI, many parents of missing children are closely scrutinized and even accused, and yet they do what they can to find their children. Holly Bobo's brother was viewed very harshly in the public eye and yet he actively searched for Holly. He even found her tee-shirt but didn't hesitate to report it for fear it would incriminate him. Hopefully, the truth will come out in time regarding Kyron, just as it now is with Holly.

:moo:

 

[Indy Anna]

Perhaps they learned a lesson from the horrifying Josh Powell situation and are being very careful

I keep thinking about that. As JP's boys matured, they were remembering details of the night their mother disappeared. I wonder what Kiara now remembers about the day Kyron disappeared. I still remember things that happened when I was 1-2 years old.

If Kiara witnessed something traumatic that day, she will retain it in her memory until she can verbally express it. I've long thought Kiara holds the key. I'm glad she will be seen by a psychologist before seeing her mother. Hopefully, some of her repressed memories will start opening up during those sessions.

 

[ami]

Imo, she might have tried to make it a sticking point, but it wouldn't have mattered. Especially since Terri is so far away and has zero input in the child's day-to-day. The school hasn't been sued and the assumption is that it's not the school's fault and there's no danger there. So even if it was raised (which I do tend to doubt), it wouldn't have gone anywhere and we wouldn't have heard about it almost certainly. jmo

Then it seems her attorney would have made some issue out of it in the media at least, if not the court, to remind the public that there's a child predator in the Skyline area?

 

[Tugela]

I keep thinking about that. As JP's boys matured, they were remembering details of the night their mother disappeared. I wonder what Kiara now remembers about the day Kyron disappeared. I still remember things that happened when I was 1-2 years old.

If Kiara witnessed something traumatic that day, she will retain it in her memory until she can verbally express it. I've long thought Kiara holds the key. I'm glad she will be seen by a psychologist before seeing her mother. Hopefully, some of her repressed memories will start opening up during those sessions.

No they won't. Kiara was very young at the time, she won't remember anything.

Clear memories only start when you are about 5/6 or so, if anything unusual happened before that you might remember it, but it is unlikely. Anything a child that young remembers is going to be extremely modified and unreliable at best, while flat out wrong at worst.

Remember that young children are extremely impressionable, so their recollection is very plastic and amenable to modification (it is part of the learning process that happens at young ages when your brain is developing rapidly). And once that happens, the modified or created memory becomes reality, even if it never happened.

 

[Tugela]

Imo, she might have tried to make it a sticking point, but it wouldn't have mattered. Especially since Terri is so far away and has zero input in the child's day-to-day. The school hasn't been sued and the assumption is that it's not the school's fault and there's no danger there. So even if it was raised (which I do tend to doubt), it wouldn't have gone anywhere and we wouldn't have heard about it almost certainly. jmo

The school was not sued because the responsible parent is the father, and he was taking the line that it was all Terri's fault. Suing the school would undermine that, so there was never any possibility of the school being sued for negligence.

As a practical matter, the possibility of Kyron being taken by another family member, or a complete stranger, cannot be excluded. There is no evidence that Terri did anything, if there was she would be in prison now. So the possibility of a third party definitely exists.

 

[rosesfromangels]

The school was not sued because the responsible parent is the father, and he was taking the line that it was all Terri's fault. Suing the school would undermine that, so there was never any possibility of the school being sued for negligence.

As a practical matter, the possibility of Kyron being taken by another family member, or a complete stranger, cannot be excluded. There is no evidence that Terri did anything, if there was she would be in prison now. So the possibility of a third party definitely exists.

Tugela, you are absolutely right. However, if TH *isn't* guilty, she bears the horrid misfortune of most definitely appearing so.

 

[Indy Anna]

No they won't. Kiara was very young at the time, she won't remember anything.

Clear memories only start when you are about 5/6 or so, if anything unusual happened before that you might remember it, but it is unlikely. Anything a child that young remembers is going to be extremely modified and unreliable at best, while flat out wrong at worst.

Remember that young children are extremely impressionable, so their recollection is very plastic and amenable to modification (it is part of the learning process that happens at young ages when your brain is developing rapidly). And once that happens, the modified or created memory becomes reality, even if it never happened.

I've remembered quite a few things, most of them mundane, from when I was between one and two years old. Forty to fifty years later, my mother didn't know what/who I was talking about when discussing the memories until I described details of people and things to her. She was then able to explain to me who the people were/the circumstances. I know other people who have similar recollections from when they were younger than 2 years old and someone older was able to identify the occasion and supply more specific details after they described what they remembered.

I am no expert, but I have taken classes in Child Development, Child Psychology, and Memory and Attention. What I and others have experienced do coincide with what is known about child development and memory retention. While children's memories of an event, person or place are not complete because their perspective is limited by their understanding of their environment and language, they are capable of remembering certain details very clearly. Some details become more defined as children develop language and spatial skills that help them interpret what they remember. Even details that they cannot interpret but remain vivid in their memories can be useful when the details of a remembered person/place/event are currently unknown to the child but can be positively identified by someone else (e.g., LE) based upon the child's description.

 

[Karmady]

Then it seems her attorney would have made some issue out of it in the media at least, if not the court, to remind the public that there's a child predator in the Skyline area?

I think the parties involved on that side of the issue are done with the criminal case drama. I don't think they're going to do anything at all to call attention to it so many years after the fact when their client hasn't been arrested, much less found guilty. Every day that goes by with no attention or progress in the criminal case is a victory for Terri. Low profile with a non-aggressive reunification plan seems like a totally predictable result under the circumstances. But that's jmo.

 

[Karmady]

The school was not sued because the responsible parent is the father, and he was taking the line that it was all Terri's fault. Suing the school would undermine that, so there was never any possibility of the school being sued for negligence.

As a practical matter, the possibility of Kyron being taken by another family member, or a complete stranger, cannot be excluded. There is no evidence that Terri did anything, if there was she would be in prison now. So the possibility of a third party definitely exists.

Well, yes. But the fact remains that, to the court, there is no hint of danger being presented by the 100% custodial parent. The court is not going to conjure up pedophile abductors employed by the school on Terri's behalf in order to defeat his preferred custody arrangement. jmo

 

[Tugela]

I've remembered quite a few things, most of them mundane, from when I was between one and two years old. Forty to fifty years later, my mother didn't know what/who I was talking about when discussing the memories until I described details of people and things to her. She was then able to explain to me who the people were/the circumstances. I know other people who have similar recollections from when they were younger than 2 years old and someone older was able to identify the occasion and supply more specific details after they described what they remembered.

I am no expert, but I have taken classes in Child Development, Child Psychology, and Memory and Attention. What I and others have experienced do coincide with what is known about child development and memory retention. While children's memories of an event, person or place are not complete because their perspective is limited by their understanding of their environment and language, they are capable of remembering certain details very clearly. Some details become more defined as children develop language and spatial skills that help them interpret what they remember. Even details that they cannot interpret but remain vivid in their memories can be useful when the details of a remembered person/place/event are currently unknown to the child but can be positively identified by someone else (e.g., LE) based upon the child's description.

You THINK you remember, but you don't. What you remember are stories you heard growing up, not the actual event. Yours is an example of a created false memory.

 

[gitana1]

I imagine the reason she stopped cooperating was because it had become obvious that LE were busy painting a bulls eye on her back. Under those circumstances anyone who continued talking to them would basically be tying their own noose, you would have to be pretty stupid to do that.

And yes, if you were in that situation you would stop talking as well. Being innocent is not enough, once LE have decided that you are "it" you are in serious trouble, your innocence will not protect you.

Tell that to Marc Klaas and John Walsh. Both were suspects. Both were questioned extensively. Neither stopped talking. Both advise to cooperate fully.

Not fear of prison nor anything else except not finding their kids would stop a real parent from doing whatever it takes to find their child. Real parents would gladly die if it would help find their child.

I don't know one parent who would agree that it's stupid to talk to LE in such a case or that they wouldn't talk if LE zeroed in on them. The white hot agony of a missing, beloved child renders anything else utterly meaningless.
Meaningless.

 

[Tugela]

Well, yes. But the fact remains that, to the court, there is no hint of danger being presented by the 100% custodial parent. The court is not going to conjure up pedophile abductors employed by the school on Terri's behalf in order to defeat his preferred custody arrangement. jmo

What does that have to do with it?

 

[MyBelle]

No they won't. Kiara was very young at the time, she won't remember anything.

Clear memories only start when you are about 5/6 or so, if anything unusual happened before that you might remember it, but it is unlikely. Anything a child that young remembers is going to be extremely modified and unreliable at best, while flat out wrong at worst.

Remember that young children are extremely impressionable, so their recollection is very plastic and amenable to modification (it is part of the learning process that happens at young ages when your brain is developing rapidly). And once that happens, the modified or created memory becomes reality, even if it never happened.

Your opinion is not based on fact. Much research has been done on the long term consequences of children being separated as infants from their primary caregiver. Suggesting a child does not remember or has not bonded with a primary caregiver before the age of five is absurd. Nothing in research supports your claim.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/11.07/01-memory.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97848

 

[MyBelle]

No they won't. Kiara was very young at the time, she won't remember anything.

Clear memories only start when you are about 5/6 or so, if anything unusual happened before that you might remember it, but it is unlikely. Anything a child that young remembers is going to be extremely modified and unreliable at best, while flat out wrong at worst.

Remember that young children are extremely impressionable, so their recollection is very plastic and amenable to modification (it is part of the learning process that happens at young ages when your brain is developing rapidly). And once that happens, the modified or created memory becomes reality, even if it never happened.

Kiara was an infant. To claim she won't instinctively remember anything is ridiculous and it is irresponsible. Infants bond with their mothers which is why the skin-to-skin contact at birth is encouraged. Abundant research supports it. No research exists to support your claims.

 

[gitana1]

You THINK you remember, but you don't. What you remember are stories you heard growing up, not the actual event. Yours is an example of a created false memory.

Nonsense. There are people who can remember that far back. I remember my babysitter, Ms. Bonnie. I remember a puzzle she gave me. I remember sitting at the coffee table, eating and she pinched my brother's chin a little for not eating his scrambled eggs. I remember how she looked, and that one day she told me to give her a little honey and sugar. And being confused. She stopped babysitting me when I was 18 months old.

No one else I know has those memories.

I remember nursery school. And a young Greek student who called me "love" one day as he walked up the walk, which freaked me out because I had a crush but when he said that I suddenly felt embarrassed and awkward. I was 4 when he stayed with our friends.

I remember telling Nancy Jones, my playmate, "you're only one but I'm two". I remember the way one of her sisters used the word "buttock" which I thought was weird. I remember her mom saying, "be back in a flash!" When she left us kids in the car for a moment, a term I'd never heard before which I was confused by. I remember drinking a tiny Dixie cup of grape juice at their Mormon church, but nothing else. They moved away before I hit kindergarten.

I remember being almost kidnapped at age 4. In vivid detail. No one was there but me, until my mom came running out if the house. But I remember sitting in my friend's porch for what seemed like forever, wanting to play, then giving up and walking down the walkway to see a car with a man who kept staring and backing up and blocking my path in each driveway as I tried to walk back home, until he help up an empty jar and asked if I wanted candy. And I felt weird and scared but didn't understand. I remember my mom shrieking my name as I stood there. Next thing I remember is her turning on the tv as I sat right in front of it which I never did, and I was alone (I've leaned she chased him in her car), and I then I remember sitting on the counter at the police station and they gave me a sucker. For years my mom said the man asked me to lift my skirt. I thought he may have and I just forgot and she must've heard that when she ran outside and saw me standing there. But I knew he tried to get me in his cat and years later she told me HE said he just asked me to lift my skirt because he'd been to jail before for this and attempted kidnapping was more serious.

I remember being stung by a bee at the high school pool during swimming lessons. I remember jumping off the high dive in my swim teachers arms and feeling thrilled. I was 3.

Some people can remember quite far back. Apparently, memory accumulates most once we have the language skills to sort what we experience. Trauma is the hardest thing to forget. Little kids almost never do.

I have strong language skills and great long term memory. I began reading at age 3 (I also remember the moment I learned. My oldest brother was reading a Dr. Suess book and pointed to the letters "Oh" and said, that means "oh", and suddenly understanding and feeling a rush.

My family is one of strong verbal skills and great long term memories. One day my grandma was showing us a photo she was sent from Holland. My mom was in it, 8 months old. She was being held by her aunt. My mom said, I remember that. You were giving me away to Tante Lies." My grandmother said, "That's impossible! I remember that day too." Tante Lies had never seen you and as she held you to say goodbye she joked about taking you with her and I joked back, "sure", and you began howling and didn't stop until they were gone. "