gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,412
- Reaction score
- 230,357
Majority of the stuff you have listed is hearsay - it obviously won't stand in the court since it is all hearsay to date.
If you mean these facts won't be admissible in court, that's untrue.
I listed all those facts to explain why people think TH is guilty and to show it's not just because of one solitary letter to the court. The issue wasn't whether these facts would be admissible evidence. But I'll explain why they would be admissible:
Hearsay can be confusing. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Eg.: "Bobby said his mother broke his arm," offered to prove that Bobby's mother broke his arm, is hearsay.
But what's not hearsay? Any statement made by TH, when offered at trial in which she is the defendant, is not hearsay:
That means that if someone who knew Bobby's mom testified, in her child abuse trial, "Bobby's mom told me she broke his arm." That's NOT hearsay.§ 40.450¹
Rule 801. Definitions for ORS 40.450 to 40.475As used in ORS 40.450 (Rule 801. Definitions for ORS 40.450 to 40.475) to 40.475 (Rule 806. Attacking and supporting credibility of declarant), unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) A statement is:
(a) An oral or written assertion; or
(b) Nonverbal conduct of a person, if intended as an assertion.
(2) A declarant is a person who makes a statement.
(3) Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
(4) A statement is not hearsay if:
(a) The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is: (A) Inconsistent with the testimony of the witness and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing or other proceeding, or in a deposition;
(B) Consistent with the testimony of the witness and is offered to rebut an inconsistent statement or an express or implied charge against the witness of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or
(C) One of identification of a person made after perceiving the person.
(b) The statement is offered against a party and is:
(A) That partys own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity;
(B) A statement of which the party has manifested the partys adoption or belief in its truth;
(C) A statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;
(D) A statement by the partys agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship; or
(E) A statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.450
That also means that the following facts, if offered at trial, would not be hearsay at all:
1. That TH was the last parent to see Kyron. (The statement as to when she last saw him would not be hearsay and his other parents would testify as to when they saw him last, proving this fact).
2. That TH was the last person at all, who has come forward, to say they saw Kyron. (Statements by TH as to when she last saw him and the LACK of statements by any other person subsequent to the time TH stated she last saw Kryon, would prove this fact).
3. Her long, rambling ride through heavily forested areas, with a baby who was sick with an earache, according to both parents, on the day Kyron went missing, and then taking that same baby to a gym daycare to be cared for while TH worked out. (Stated by TH in a letter).
4. TH telling Kyron's teacher, in advance, that he had a doctor's appointment on the day he went missing, according to sources. (Which would cause the teacher to not be alarmed that he didn't show up for class. Note, a classmate of Kyron's stated to the media that Kyron told him he was leaving for an appointment that day, on the same day). Then, after the investigation began, stating the teacher was wrong and that he had an appointment the following Friday, because: "The past 2 weeks he's been acting really weird. Staring off into space. Can't remember anything. Walks into the room and then back out, stopping to stare and then move on. The doc thinks that he is having mini seizures and I made an appt on Thursday for next Friday to have him checked out.” However, neither parent has ever verified either appointment and Kaine has stated there was nothing wrong with Kyron. Desiree was unaware of such an appointment or that Kyron had been acting oddly. If such was true and Kyron was due to go to his mother that Friday, one would think TH would have alerted her in case he had anymore "mini-seizures" while with his mom that weekend. That's a pretty significant health issue she never brought up to Desiree. (Statements by TH in a letter, and to his teacher, and statements by Desiree, Kaine and the child's doctor as to what they knew). The only hearsay here would be Kyron's statement to his classmate. But for that, see below).
5. TH being the only parent of the four to complain about the investigation and the polygraphs. (Statements by TH).
6. TH telling Desiree, on the day she failed a polygraph: "I want you to know, I loved your son." (Statements by TH).
7. TH storming out of a second polygraph and suddenly refusing to cooperate further with the investigation. (Actions and statements by TH).
8. TH sending e-mails, prior to Kyron's disappearance, indicating an extreme hatred of Kyron and talking about wanting to hurt him. (Emails by TH).
10. TH asking Desiree to take back custody of Kyron, shortly before he disappeared: (Statements by TH).
11. The MFH plot allegations. (Statements by TH).
12. TH failing to contest, at all, the MFH allegations and the allegations that she was involved in Kyron's disappearance, thereby acquiescing to a restraining order against her that barred her from having contact with her own infant daughter, effectively giving up custody of the child, and permanently affecting her ability to ever regain significant rights to her child, on the grounds that it might incriminate her. (TH's LACK of action here is not a statement at all, and it is admissible).
Every single one of the above can be established through a witness or witnesses who testify that these are things TH wrote or stated or sent in an e-mail, or did or didn't do, etc..
Then, there are hearsay exceptions that would cover #9 (Kyron wetting the bed and becoming very upset when it was time to go back to his dad's and constantly stating he wanted to stay with his mom, in the months prior to his disappearance) and probably the statement of Kyron to his classmate, in #4 :
§ 40.460¹
Rule 803. Hearsay exceptions
• availability of declarant immaterial
The following are not excluded by ORS 40.455 (Rule 802. Hearsay rule), even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) (Reserved.)
(2) A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
(3) A statement of the declarants then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition, such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain or bodily health, but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarants will.
(28)(a) A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that:
(A) The statement is relevant;
(B) The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and
(C) The general purposes of the Oregon Evidence Code and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.450
§40.465¹
Rule 804. Hearsay exceptions when the declarant is unavailable
(1) Unavailability as a witness includes situations in which the declarant:
(a) Is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of a statement;
(b) Persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of a statement despite an order of the court to do so;
(c) Testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of a statement;
(d) Is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/40.465