Kyron Horman's general discussion thread for 2014

[Tugela]

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.

But in this case it wasn't her child, it was her husband's child. So, not only was LE gunning for her, but so was he as well. She had no support at all, and certainly none of that which Klaas and Walsh had. Even with them, if they were being set up to take the fall by LE, and they were aware of it, they would have been incredibly stupid to help LE do that. I suspect that they were not suspects at all, even though LE might have interviewed them frequently, and they knew that. Under those circumstances, when it becomes clear that LE are focussing on YOU, you pretty much have to lawyer up, unless the prospect of doing life or visiting the electric chair appeals to you.

You are a lawyer, would you really advise your clients to continue talking to LE under those circumstances, when they have already told them everything they know?

 

[rosesfromangels]

A parent would risk the electric chair if it meant bringing home their child.

 

[Tugela]

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

CLEAR memories. You might have fragments, you equally well could have made up memories that become real in your mind, and you can have memories based on what people have told you.

ALL of it is completely unreliable as a record, and all of it (especially for incidents that happen at very young ages) will become contaminated and altered as you get older based on later experiences and influences people exert over you. Memory is not a tape recorder, it is fluid and changes.

Adult memories are unreliable as it is, but it is orders of magnitude worse with very young children, who do not have a clear distinction between fantasy, fact and reality. They will usually accept as fact most things they are told without unduly questioning it. This is related to learning, the monkey see monkey do phenomena, and is a critical part of learning in young children. This is how people come to be programed into cultural and religious beliefs, as well as negative things such as racism and such. Most of that is acquired at a very young age through the conversations and behaviours of adults around them, and is simply accepted as the normal order of things without question. Questioning comes in much later, around puberty, when your brains development starts winding down.

 

[Tugela]

A parent would risk the electric chair if it meant bringing home their child.

Even if it was obvious that LE had no plans to bring their child home because LE were trying to convict them instead?

It reminds me of a case from a while back that I recall seeing on TV. It involved a parent whose child had died accidently (SIDS or something like that), who almost immediately became the focus of police attempting to get enough evidence to charge them. They had to refuse interviews with LE within a few days because they had to defend themselves from all of this. Eventually they were exonerated years later, but in the TV interview what they remarked that they were never able to mourn their child, because they almost immediately were forced to go into self-survival mode.

 

[Tugela]

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. "

I remember a few things from when I was 3 or 4 as well, but, as I have pointed out, they are vague scraps. They are not really memories of the events themselves, but really just a bulletpoint or two.

I also remember a few things that could be considered as traumatic, and for a long while I was sure about them and it was all clear. But then when I was about 13 I started questioning everything, social order, religion, politics etc. One of the things I thought about were these pivotal events that I thought I remembered clearly, but when I did that I realized that what I remembered didn't really make sense, nor was it clear why I would have remembered those specific things. Then it dawned on me - what I really remembered were the accounts of those events told by my parents, and told by me, but the events themselves, specifically what happened, that I did not remember. The details that I thought were real had been backfilled in my mind with imaginary information.

Your early recollections are bulletpoints at best, with very little actual detail. It is like reading War and Peace, but only remembering a few words here and there, with most of your "memory" actually coming from the Wikipedia summary of the book. It becomes an impression that you remember, with few or no precise, accurate and specific information.

 

[MissJ]

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.

ITA. It should frighten all of us that the courts (family) have treated TMH as if guilty by limiting her contact with her child.:moo:

 

[human]

ITA. It should frighten all of us that the courts (family) have treated TMH as if guilty by limiting her contact with her child.:moo:

What if the court had taken the best interests of the Powell children in the determination of visitation?

I hope that nightmare has impacted the courts.

After all, TH didn't mind for years. TMH came first.

Now it is going to be taken slow and easy with Kiara. Smart move.

 

[ami]

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.

Whoa, seriously? Terri's attorneys have just been fighting for partial custody of K, and you're saying they wouldn't want to remind the public that a child predator is on the loose near Terri's daughter's school because "so many years" have gone by since the predator struck?

Terri had lawyers that were trying to show her to be a caring and concerned parent, and those lawyers had no interest in reminding the court that Kaine's plan to send little K to school might be putting her in danger?

Was Kyron's kidnap and potential murder really just "criminal case drama" or was it a predator snatching a kid out of a school and getting away with it, remaining free?

 

[gitana1]

But in this case it wasn't her child, it was her husband's child. So, not only was LE gunning for her, but so was he as well. She had no support at all, and certainly none of that which Klaas and Walsh had. Even with them, if they were being set up to take the fall by LE, and they were aware of it, they would have been incredibly stupid to help LE do that. I suspect that they were not suspects at all, even though LE might have interviewed them frequently, and they knew that. Under those circumstances, when it becomes clear that LE are focussing on YOU, you pretty much have to lawyer up, unless the prospect of doing life or visiting the electric chair appeals to you.

You are a lawyer, would you really advise your clients to continue talking to LE under those circumstances, when they have already told them everything they know?

Then why did she refer to Kyron as her son? And state she loves him? And why does her own mother still refer to Kyron as her grandson and TH's son? TH raised the child since he was an infant.

And I would advise my clients of the ramifications and advise them not to speak to LE unless I was present, and/or have them send the questions in written form.

If I thought my client was guilty, I would advise her, however, never to speak with LE.

Finally, at no time would my advice to a parent not to talk if they believed talking would help their child, be followed. Never.

 

[ami]

But in this case it wasn't her child, it was her husband's child. So, not only was LE gunning for her, but so was he as well. She had no support at all, and certainly none of that which Klaas and Walsh had. Even with them, if they were being set up to take the fall by LE, and they were aware of it, they would have been incredibly stupid to help LE do that. I suspect that they were not suspects at all, even though LE might have interviewed them frequently, and they knew that. Under those circumstances, when it becomes clear that LE are focussing on YOU, you pretty much have to lawyer up, unless the prospect of doing life or visiting the electric chair appeals to you.

You are a lawyer, would you really advise your clients to continue talking to LE under those circumstances, when they have already told them everything they know?

Go read up on the Walsh case. He was a suspect, his wife, his wife's lover as well, he got NO support - I mean John Walsh was one of the parents who built parts of the missing child support systems from scratch *because* he had zero support from LE and no programs in place to help him or his family. In contrast, Terri had tons of support.

I'm still kind of boggled that people contend that a parent would have to be "incredibly stupid" to help find a missing child. I have never heard anyone say that - usually people are more "pro living child".

Also some of you seem very confident that Terri told LE all she knows. How do you know that? Why do you keep repeating it as fact?

And as to your comment that she shouldn't have helped the investigation because Kyron wasn't her biological son - (though she helped raise him from birth and was known to say at length that she was his primary parent)... does that mean if someone's adopted child goes missing they should be less likely to help find them? It's only genetic children that parents should cooperate with LE for?

Well, if Terri was so cold that she felt her stepson's body and/or abductor wasn't worth looking for, then that seems to make her an even more likely suspect. On the other hand little K is her biological child and she hasn't been too fussed about getting her back, either.

 

[gitana1]

I remember a few things from when I was 3 or 4 as well, but, as I have pointed out, they are vague scraps. They are not really memories of the events themselves, but really just a bulletpoint or two.

I also remember a few things that could be considered as traumatic, and for a long while I was sure about them and it was all clear. But then when I was about 13 I started questioning everything, social order, religion, politics etc. One of the things I thought about were these pivotal events that I thought I remembered clearly, but when I did that I realized that what I remembered didn't really make sense, nor was it clear why I would have remembered those specific things. Then it dawned on me - what I really remembered were the accounts of those events told by my parents, and told by me, but the events themselves, specifically what happened, that I did not remember. The details that I thought were real had been backfilled in my mind with imaginary information.

Your early recollections are bulletpoints at best, with very little actual detail. It is like reading War and Peace, but only remembering a few words here and there, with most of your "memory" actually coming from the Wikipedia summary of the book. It becomes an impression that you remember, with few or no precise, accurate and specific information.

They may be bullet points, but my bullet points are full memories, even if just of snippets of time.

However I do totally doubt that baby K could remember something that could help the case, from her pre-verbal days.

 

[gitana1]

Doubtful any LDT would last ten hours,let alone three.

It can:

Upon information and belief, an expert polygraph examination generally takes a minimum of several hours to complete. However, examinations conducted utilizing the relevant-irrelevant test typically are much shorter in duration. http://www.jamesmadisonproject.org/documents.php?document_id=7

(That's for a job with the FBI).

School sub Inspector Netrananda Dandasena, the prime accused in the Tikiri lady teacher Itishree Pradhan murder case, underwent a polygraph test at the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) located at Rasulgarh here today.
Dandasena had to undergo the lie-detection test in two segments for almost six hours. The test started at around 10 am and continued till 4 pm, crime branch (CB) officials said adding the test was examined by Srujan Prakash Das, assistant director of SFSL.http://odishasuntimes.com/12854/dandasena-undergoes-6-hr-long-polygraph-test/

One woman said she underwent a five-hour polygraph examination about Kyron’s disappearance Thursday. She said investigators told her they already have probable cause to arrest Terri Horman on the alleged murder-for-hire plot and for Kyron’s disappearance. But they didn’t say why an arrest hasn’t happened yet. http://www.katu.com/news/local/99146044.html

And if mere friends of Terri are undergoing 5 hour polygraphs, Terri's must have been much, much longer.

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!

I don;t think it has to do with possible incarceration. I think it has to do with the separation since infancy, her refusal to participate in a psych eval and thus, the potential danger TH poses to the child.

Even if it was obvious that LE had no plans to bring their child home because LE were trying to convict them instead?

It reminds me of a case from a while back that I recall seeing on TV. It involved a parent whose child had died accidently (SIDS or something like that), who almost immediately became the focus of police attempting to get enough evidence to charge them. They had to refuse interviews with LE within a few days because they had to defend themselves from all of this. Eventually they were exonerated years later, but in the TV interview what they remarked that they were never able to mourn their child, because they almost immediately were forced to go into self-survival mode.

Not at all the same. In that one, the child was already dead. In this one, none of the parents supposedly know where he is or if he's alive.

ITA. It should frighten all of us that the courts (family) have treated TMH as if guilty by limiting her contact with her child.:moo:

No, it shouldn't. The court has little choice but to treat Kaine's allegations as true since TH has never attempted to refute them in any meaningful way and still won't participate in any kind of child custody evaluation regarding K.

The court must consider the safety, health and welfare of the minor, first, not the fears of a parent that they may incriminate themselves. The court cannot order a parent to incriminate themselves but when the parent refuses to participate fully in the child custody litigation and thus, would rather give up custody instead of risking possible incrimination, the court must take steps to ensure the safety of the child.

TH has refused to participate by answering any questions. So, here we are.

The disappearance of Kyron and TH's possible role in it are pivotal to her ability to safely parent or visit a child. She has chosen. That is not the court;s fault nor is it a failing of our system. It is a choice and she chose.

 

[Knox]

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

Respectfully ... whether or not the school has been sued is irrelevant for this purpose. IF Terri is innocent, Skyline School is front and center in Kyron's disappearance. The lax supervision would be to blame, and he was taken on their watch, they destroyed Terri's life.

Would an innocent person really let all that slide? Wouldn't she be horrified that K would attend the same school where this whole nightmare began?

 

[helpful]

Oh, Kyron. Portland made the national news again today for a tragic reason, and of course I thought of you. I can't fathom that it's been four years, buddy. When you disappeared, I didn't even live in Oregon, and now I pass your photo on my way to work every day. I'm thinking of you, and I really feel in my heart that THIS is your year to come home.

 

[Karmady]

I remember a few things from when I was 3 or 4 as well, but, as I have pointed out, they are vague scraps. They are not really memories of the events themselves, but really just a bulletpoint or two.

I also remember a few things that could be considered as traumatic, and for a long while I was sure about them and it was all clear. But then when I was about 13 I started questioning everything, social order, religion, politics etc. One of the things I thought about were these pivotal events that I thought I remembered clearly, but when I did that I realized that what I remembered didn't really make sense, nor was it clear why I would have remembered those specific things. Then it dawned on me - what I really remembered were the accounts of those events told by my parents, and told by me, but the events themselves, specifically what happened, that I did not remember. The details that I thought were real had been backfilled in my mind with imaginary information.

Your early recollections are bulletpoints at best, with very little actual detail. It is like reading War and Peace, but only remembering a few words here and there, with most of your "memory" actually coming from the Wikipedia summary of the book. It becomes an impression that you remember, with few or no precise, accurate and specific information.

Agree. Idk if there's anything to it, but I was a very early reader, have always tested sky high for verbal skills and have a near photographic short term memory. I think Gitana's post mentioned some or all of these characteristics as common to people with very early memories. That's certainly true in my case. I can remember several things that happened when I was just a toddler -- as in barely walking, if that. Too short to reach a doorknob, for example. But, as you say, they are snapshots with maybe a tiny bit of context. One interesting thing is that, in some cases, I knew when I was experiencing it that I would remember. And I'm not even talking about traumatic or particularly memorable things. There was just something about the way I was processing things in that moment that I knew it would be etched there. Very interesting.

 

[Karmady]

Respectfully ... whether or not the school has been sued is irrelevant for this purpose. IF Terri is innocent, Skyline School is front and center in Kyron's disappearance. The lax supervision would be to blame, and he was taken on their watch, they destroyed Terri's life.

Would an innocent person really let all that slide? Wouldn't she be horrified that K would attend the same school where this whole nightmare began?

I think I said that even if she did not "let it slide," her attorney would likely have explained the futility of it to her and we wouldn't know the first thing about it. There is no way in heck the Judge is going to consider Terri's position, if she has one, regarding the dangers of Skyline School -- especially four years after the fact, when she lives miles and miles away and has zero custodial responsibility. It would just never, ever happen. I think her lawyer would have asked even an innocent Terri whether she wanted to bring down another chitstorm on her head all for nothing in the long run. jmo

 

[MissJ]

It can: (That's for a job with the FBI).
And if mere friends of Terri are undergoing 5 hour polygraphs, Terri's must have been much, much longer.



I don;t think it has to do with possible incarceration. I think it has to do with the separation since infancy, her refusal to participate in a psych eval and thus, the potential danger TH poses to the child.



Not at all the same. In that one, the child was already dead. In this one, none of the parents supposedly know where he is or if he's alive.



No, it shouldn't. The court has little choice but to treat Kaine's allegations as true since TH has never attempted to refute them in any meaningful way and still won't participate in any kind of child custody evaluation regarding K.

The court must consider the safety, health and welfare of the minor, first, not the fears of a parent that they may incriminate themselves. The court cannot order a parent to incriminate themselves but when the parent refuses to participate fully in the child custody litigation and thus, would rather give up custody instead of risking possible incrimination, the court must take steps to ensure the safety of the child.

TH has refused to participate by answering any questions. So, here we are.

The disappearance of Kyron and TH's possible role in it are pivotal to her ability to safely parent or visit a child. She has chosen. That is not the court;s fault nor is it a failing of our system. It is a choice and she chose.

JMO, but I thought we are innocent til proven guilty. TMH has not been charged much less convicted. How do you know she DIDN'T tell them all she knows? It has been said that a male was the last person to be seen with KH. If that is true..what could TMH know about this? If they (LE) knew for a fact that she was the last person with him she would be in jail. Josh Powell is not a comparison as he was known to have child *advertiser censored* on his computer as did his weirdo father. Prove what TMH actually did to deserve this!:moo:Not speculation or supposition.:twocents:

 

[human]

JMO, but I thought we are innocent til proven guilty. TMH has not been charged much less convicted. How do you know she DIDN'T tell them all she knows? It has been said that a male was the last person to be seen with KH. If that is true..what could TMH know about this? If they (LE) knew for a fact that she was the last person with him she would be in jail. Josh Powell is not a comparison as he was known to have child *advertiser censored* on his computer as did his weirdo father. Prove what TMH actually did to deserve this!:moo:Not speculation or supposition.:twocents:

Huh? Josh Powell was not arrested was he? He had visitation, didn't he?

This male being seen with KH has been discussed over and over,

The person who said this is TMH. There is no one else that has said this that has been verified.

There is a fact we have. SHE chose not to see her daughter for four years. SHE made that decision

 

[Hez]

JMO, but I thought we are innocent til proven guilty. TMH has not been charged much less convicted. How do you know she DIDN'T tell them all she knows? It has been said that a male was the last person to be seen with KH. If that is true..what could TMH know about this? If they (LE) knew for a fact that she was the last person with him she would be in jail. Josh Powell is not a comparison as he was known to have child *advertiser censored* on his computer as did his weirdo father. Prove what TMH actually did to deserve this!:moo:Not speculation or supposition.:twocents:

BBM - Yeah, by Terri and her lawyer, so that's not credible at all, in fact it is a rumour at best.

 

[Hez]

Huh? Josh Powell was not arrested was he? He had visitation, didn't he?

This male being seen with KH has been discussed over and over,

The person who said this is TMH. There is no one else that has said this that has been verified.

There is a fact we have. SHE chose not to see her daughter for four years. SHE made that decision

BBM - Yet, SHE is always portrayed as a victim in this case by her supporters. :facepalm: