Kyron Horman's general discussion thread for 2014

[gwenabob]

A few thoughts:
1. Why didn't she drop Horman at the time the divorce was finalized? I bet there wouldn't have been any problem with that.
2. Her hair isn't orange anymore. I don't know if she quit dying it orange or instead dyed it brown as a disguise. If she really wanted to be unrecognizable, why doesn't she cut it short? I think it would look better anyway.
3. She says she wishes Kyron was home. I bet she does. I bet she had no idea how bad this was going to turn out.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

@KyleIboshi:

Kyron Horman's stepmom testified under oath in name change hearing. She vigorously declined during divorce battle

http://twitter.com/KyleIboshi/status/496391216318406656/photo/1

Jumping off this interesting Tweet ... and my :twocents:


- Terri testified under oath in her name change hearing because it was something that would benefit her ... it was so she could remove herself from anything Horman ... and unless you know about the case, then you would not necessarily associate Terri with her "missing" stepson, Kyron ...


- Terri would NOT testify in the divorce hearings because she would incriminate herself ...


All MOO !

 

[Knox]

:seeya: Just jumping off your post here:

JMO and MOO ... but I think the Judge is well aware that TH has been the number one "suspect" in Kyron's disappearance.

Of course, the Judge is NOT going to say that, IMO.

Yes, he DID ...

The judge rejected the request, saying it wouldn't be in the public interest because an investigation remains open.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Judge-denies-Terri-Hormans-request-to-change-her-name-269890351.html

 

[human]

Her volunteering at the VA is interesting.

Vulnerable men

 

[rosesfromangels]

Her volunteering at the VA is interesting.

Vulnerable men

It's part of her "P.R." campaign. No one buys it. Frankly, I would be concerned for any vulnerable soldiers. God knows what this woman is capable of. IMO

 

[gwenabob]

Her volunteering at the VA is interesting.

Vulnerable men

Exactly! Many of them aged, some of them well off. Just need one with a little cash to latch onto and convince him she is a sweet, innocent victim.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Yes, he DID ...

:seeya: Hi Knox ! Yes ... Finally, we found out what the Judge had to say.

When I made that post, there were no MSM articles available with the Judge's reasons for denying the motion, but now we have news articles !


:happydance:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Her volunteering at the VA is interesting.

Vulnerable men

I just find it hard to believe that TH is "volunteering" -- for anything ... All just part of TH "re-inventing herself" ...

But, just JMO !

:seeya:

 

[human]

I just find it hard to believe that TH is "volunteering" -- for anything ... All just part of TH "re-inventing herself" ...

But, just JMO !

:seeya:

It is a perfect situation.

Might as well go fishing where the fishing is good

 

[gitana1]

I asked you where you get the idea a prosecutor waits to file charges until he has enough to ensure a conviction. An arrest does require some evidence but the hurdle isn't that high.

The Judge denied bail to Ross Harris. He isn't going to be released prior to trial, we do already know that. Cops are still investigating and gathering evidence.

I'm pretty sure Josh Powell wasn't arrested because there was no proof his wife was dead. Her body was never found. It is not a crime for an adult to go missing on her own.

Either there is evidence or not that Terri tried to hire a hit man to kill her husband. The fact that she hasn't been arrested four years later and no hit was ever attempted on her husband is an indication there is little to no actual evidence to obtain a warrant or indictment. There was a grand jury proceeding tied to this case, iirc.

JMO

“[A prosecutor’s] main check on the police is his ability to...refuse to approve arrest warrants.”

“A request for prosecution may be rejected for a number of reasons related to questions of evidence. Not only must the prosecutor believe that the evidence will secure a conviction...” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...qvTYE1AHfYo7mhHD8bNfkWg&bvm=bv.72197243,d.cGU

Discretion to dismiss. Because prosecutors do not in fact control criminal investigations, they receive from police many cases as "cleared" although the suspect's legal guilt is doubtful or sufficient evidence for establishing his responsibility in court is lacking. It would not only be a waste of judicial resources but would also be unfair to the suspect to make him stand trial if a conviction is unlikely. The prosecutor therefore has the important task of independently assessing the legal and factual circumstances of each case as well as the available evidence. He should dismiss as early as possible cases that cannot be successfully prosecuted. Standards of evidence required for preferring charges are formulated in different ways. A representative formulation might be that of the English Code for Crown Prosecutors, which proposes that charges should be brought only if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, that is, if conviction is more likely than acquittal (Code for Crown Prosecutors, para. 5; see Ashworth, pp. 161–168).
Determining the chances of conviction implies predicting the behavior of decision-makers, that is, of the professional and/or lay judges comprising the court of first instance. Although the "prospect" test may be phrased objectively, that is, whether a "reasonable" court following the law would tend to convict, the prosecutor needs to make a prediction based on his or her personal assessment of the possible outcome of a trial—an assessment that is inevitably colored by the individual prosecutor's degree of confidence and willingness to take risks.

Read more: Prosecution: Comparative Aspects - The Decision To Prosecute - Prosecutor, Court, Victim, and Charges - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/1855/Pro...Aspects-decision-prosecute.html#ixzz39UMJPwgs

And, see below:

When you arrest someone, you can only hold them so long, and then only have a certain amount of time to proceed with trial after filing charges.

So while you don't need much to arrest, all it really does it put them on the defensive unless there's some reason they could be held without bail, which would be unlikely on little info. If you don't act on those charges, they will be dropped. Or if you can't show probable cause to move forward, they will be dropped. Then, even if somehow you later revive them, it looks bad publicly - gives the defendant an argument you railroaded them or are incompetent. It makes much more sense to let them live and watch them, waiting for more info. If they haven't been officially in trouble yet, they are probably much more willing to let things slip or try and cast suspicion off of them, instead of directing their focus to their attorney. They are out in society talking to people. If they are guilty, usually the information will eventually come forward. Then you are confident you can go to trial and win, or at least plea bargain.

I would agree, though, based on my understanding of the case, that the evidence of the plot against her husband was probably not that strong. Maybe they still want to use it as a bargaining chip, but I think if it had been a slam dunk, they would have gone for it and hoped she talked to someone in jail. Maybe, however, they were afraid that if she went to jail, she would know she didn't ever want to go back, and the chance of her saying anything would be slim to none. This is all assuming she knows what happened to Kyron, which obviously still has not been established. I know she is highly suspicious, but I will say I'm shocked nothing has surfaced by now if she was involved. I will feel terrible if it turns out she actually wasn't.

Good post.

You and everyone else in the world is entitled to an opinion. But something about when people grumble about lawyering up always gets my back up. Every American is entitled to legal advice, innocent or guilty. And to be honest, especially when they're innocent. I simply cannot stand the "innocent people don't need lawyers argument." It's a moot point.

And personally, I would be shocked, completely and utterly shocked, if Desiree Young, her husband, and Kaine Horman hadn't individually consulted criminal attorneys along with their civil representatives. Quite frankly, they would be stupid not to since everyone has been a suspect in this case at one time or another. It just wasn't advertised to the public because it's none of our business.


I'm like this. I lose some interest in my kids when they get older. I still love them to pieces of course, but I'm a baby person.

I wouldn't be shocked. I would be shocked if they had consulted criminal attorneys. Yes, yes, everyone is entitled in America to legal represnetation. But what interests me is typical human behavior. And typical human behavior (or at least that of typical, concerned parents), is not to jump to hire an attorney when their kid goes missing or suddenly dies. It is not to think of oneself at all. It is to scream for help, to demand assistance, to give one's limbs to find their baby or get justice for their child. It certainly is not a normal instinct of average, loving parents, to seek to protect their rear ends.

And it certainly isn't the behavior of an innocent person to give up custody of their infant in exchange for preserving their right against self incrimination. It just isn't.

 

[freefallzzzz]

@KyleIboshi: AUDIO: Judge denies name change for Kyron Horman's stepmom. Listen to hearing, including testimony from Terri Horman http://youtu.be/Mj-DyZWzmFY

Wow! This is 50min long!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

@KyleIboshi: AUDIO: Judge denies name change for Kyron Horman's stepmom. Listen to hearing, including testimony from Terri Horman http://youtu.be/Mj-DyZWzmFY

Wow! This is 50min long!

:tyou: for posting this ! Cannot wait to listen !

:seeya: And Morning Y'all !!!

 

[CarolinaMoon]

http://www.kgw.com/news/Judge-denies-Terri-Horman-name-change-request-269868061.html

If you scroll all the way to the bottom, the entire 50 minute hearing is there.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

WOW !

Listening to some of yesterday's hearing ... and is a MUST listen to, IMO !


:fireworks:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Whoa ... so TH has been posting flyers in Roseberg ? WTH ?

I am listening to yesterday's hearing ...

Anyone have one of the flyers ?

TIA !

 

[keeponsearching]

http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/Kyron-Horman-flyer-refers-to-mysterious-man-257249831.html

Looks like a story with the flier.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:laughcry: :laughcry:


Wow ... The witness who testified said to the Judge that she would not want TH to watch her dog !

Audio starts at appx. 21:46

http://www.kgw.com/news/Judge-denies-Terri-Horman-name-change-request-269868061.html

 

[dog.gone.cute]

http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/Kyron-Horman-flyer-refers-to-mysterious-man-257249831.html

Looks like a story with the flier.

:tyou: :tyou: for posting this !

I must have missed this story !

And WOW !

:seeya:

 

[Donjeta]

Ha, now she testifies.

 

[Donjeta]

The judge ultimately denied Horman's request for a name change because of the ongoing investigation about Kyron's disappearance. Terri Horman has not been charged in that case, but police have indicated that she is their prime suspect.

i'm not sure I understand this decision...? what does her name have to do with the investigation? Surely the police will be able to track her down if needed even if her name is something else?