LE making progress? What ever happened with..

[Bluestars]

Maybe she always did, and maybe she's been cleared.

As SMM pointed out, we just don't know.

That might be true, but since she was very quick to get an attorney, I would guess that she was concerned about the questions she would be asked. I believe an innocent person would have no reason to be concerned. Since LE performed a few searches after gathering information from something that belonged to Dede, that tells me that there was something there pertaining to Kyron.

Just like Terri not wanting to answer questions that may incriminate her. You may look at is as an innocent person protecting her rights. I look at it as a guilty person making sure she does not incriminate herself. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[BeanE]

That might be true, but since she was very quick to get an attorney, I would guess that she was concerned about the questions she would be asked. I believe an innocent person would have no reason to be concerned. Since LE performed a few searches after gathering information from something that belonged to Dede, that tells me that there was something there pertaining to Kyron.

Just like Terri not wanting to answer questions that may incriminate her. You may look at is as an innocent person protecting her rights. I look at it as a guilty person making sure she does not incriminate herself. It's all a matter of perspective.

BBM. That is not how I look at it, but I definitely don't assume 'guilt' or 'involvement' just because someone retains an attorney, because I know that's simply not true.

Retaining or consulting with an attorney is always a good idea. Period. MOO.

 

[Bluestars]

BBM. That is not how I look at it, but I definitely don't assume 'guilt' or 'involvement' just because someone retains an attorney, because I know that's simply not true.

Retaining or consulting with an attorney is always a good idea. Period. MOO.

It sounds to me like Terri's attorney is worried about her answering questions and incriminating herself. Dede was probably worried about the same thing. I know many people disagree, but I think they are both hiding something and more concerned with protecting their secrets than with finding Kyron. That is certainly just my opinion. The bat phones were a dead giveaway to me, although some may feel that they were purchased because of poor phone reception.

 

[miabellamoure]

Maybe she is really cooperating now.

Well...we can dream, right?

 

[Bluestars]

Well...we can dream, right?

Yes we can! :smile: Stranger things have happened with this case.

 

[BeanE]

ETA: To clarify this does not speak to guilt or innocence at all. It only speaks to whether TH and her atty think that she is being targeted by LE as it relates to investigation of Kyron Horman's disappearance. I strongly believe that Terri and her attorney are both operating from that position.

I agree.

 

[carbuff]

So, are you saying that her attorney is just fabricating the notion that she is being looked at by LE so he can delay the proceedings by fabricating the notion that she could incriminate herself if they proceed?

That means they are making this whole thing up so she can put off the divorce?

Not buying that for a second.

Either there is a concern about self incrimination because LE is investigating her or there isn't. I mean it just doesn't make any sense if LE is not investigating her to delay the proceedings based on self incrimination. the basis of the delay is that the LE investigation is causing a hitch in her giddyup as it relates to revealing information to the divorce court.

ETA: To clarify this does not speak to guilt or innocence at all. It only speaks to whether TH and her atty think that she is being targeted by LE as it relates to investigation of Kyron Horman's disappearance. I strongly believe that Terri and her attorney are both operating from that position.

No, I meant that the attorney doesn't even have to think she is in fact being targeted -- it's his job to be prepared for any situation, and as long as the issues in the divorce are the same ones in the criminal investigation, there's the potential for what's said in the civil divorce case to be used in the criminal case. One of the things about taking the fifth is that in many cases, you can't plead self-incrimination after speaking about the subject because you've already brought it up yourself.

His words emphasize to the judge what the situation is. What he said says nothing about what LE might actually be doing or thinking.

So basically I agree with you

 

[DreamyEye]

Okay, I don't know how much weight this should be given, but whether she's been named a target or not, I believe that TH is the main target of LE's investigation. Because from what I've seen, whether it's right or wrong, LE puts a lot of stock in lie detector tests, and when a person flunks--or tests "inconclusive," LE seems to make that person a suspect and a target. I think they also regard it as very meaningful when someone refuses to take a lie detector test--even when that person has cooperated on earlier tests and then refuses to take test #2 or #3. Has anyone besides TH flunked lie detector tests in this case?

 

[Billylee]

Okay, I don't know how much weight this should be given, but whether she's been named a target or not, I believe that TH is the main target of LE's investigation. Because from what I've seen, whether it's right or wrong, LE puts a lot of stock in lie detector tests, and when a person flunks--or tests "inconclusive," LE seems to make that person a suspect and a target. I think they also regard it as very meaningful when someone refuses to take a lie detector test--even when that person has cooperated on earlier tests and then refuses to take test #2 or #3. Has anyone besides TH flunked lie detector tests in this case?

Hi Dreamy,

I'm thinking you could be right about what weight LE would put on a LDT, but I don't know for sure.

This case is so confusing though, because as far as we know, those who have been asked to take LDT's (and not refused) have passed, however, we have no confirmation of that from LE, it comes from the people taking them. And oddly enough, the only information we have of anyone who failed a test also comes from the person who took it and she said that SHE WAS TOLD she failed. That could mean inconclusive, that could mean LE told her she failed to try to get info from her, yet she may have passed for all we know. We at this point, don't know from a verified source, (i.e., LE or the person that administered the tests) who did what. So.... here we are.

 

[DreamyEye]

Hi Dreamy,

I'm thinking you could be right about what weight LE would put on a LDT, but I don't know for sure.

This case is so confusing though, because as far as we know, those who have been asked to take LDT's (and not refused) have passed, however, we have no confirmation of that from LE, it comes from the people taking them. And oddly enough, the only information we have of anyone who failed a test also comes from the person who took it and she said that SHE WAS TOLD she failed. That could mean inconclusive, that could mean LE told her she failed to try to get info from her, yet she may have passed for all we know. We at this point, don't know from a verified source, (i.e., LE or the person that administered the tests) who did what. So.... here we are.

I see your point Billylee, and have been wondering if LDT results are like medical conditions: private information about a person that cannot be disclosed by LE. To me, though, it follows that she flunked or came up with inconclusive results simply because she was asked to take more than one test. I've never heard of anyone solidly passing one and then being asked to take another. For one thing, I don't know who pays for them ... but it's got to be an expense that's watched pretty carefully.

It's an interesting issue, all right. And now I'm going to have to go back and read the lie detector thread again! :banghead:

 

[mmmagique]

Nope. LE can tell who "passed" and who "failed" a lie detector test, and to what degree if they so choose.

 

[BeanE]

This case is so confusing though, because as far as we know, those who have been asked to take LDT's (and not refused) have passed, however, we have no confirmation of that from LE, it comes from the people taking them. And oddly enough, the only information we have of anyone who failed a test also comes from the person who took it and she said that SHE WAS TOLD she failed. That could mean inconclusive, that could mean LE told her she failed to try to get info from her, yet she may have passed for all we know. We at this point, don't know from a verified source, (i.e., LE or the person that administered the tests) who did what. So.... here we are.

What? No. Unless Terri made a statement while I was sleeping (just woke up), then the information on her alleged failed polys did not come from her, but from Kaine and Desiree.

Kaine and Desiree said that Terri said that LE said that she failed.

It's Whisper Down the Lane. Anything but confirmation.

 

[Billylee]

What? No. Unless Terri made a statement while I was sleeping (just woke up), then the information on her alleged failed polys did not come from her, but from Kaine and Desiree.

Kaine and Desiree said that Terri said that LE said that she failed.

It's Whisper Down the Lane. Anything but confirmation.

You are right and also didn't one of TH's friends say TH had failed, or did that person just say TH was on her 2nd or 3rd poly, so that could mean inconclusive, but again, that was what the friend said Terri said.

 

[BeanE]

You are right and also didn't one of TH's friends say TH had failed, or did that person just say TH was on her 2nd or 3rd poly, so that could mean inconclusive, but again, that was what the friend said Terri said.

The friend J Finster said only that Terri was taking another poly.

We had that thread where I was researching the polys, and Kaine and Desiree each said Terri failed two polys, one time each (documented in that thread).

Those were the only two references I could find where anyone said she failed two polys. No one else found any.

(The Finster link is also in that same thread IIRC.)

 

[Kat010]

The friend J Finster said only that Terri was taking another poly.

We had that thread where I was researching the polys, and Kaine and Desiree each said Terri failed two polys, one time each (documented in that thread).

Those were the only two references I could find where anyone said she failed two polys. No one else found any.

(The Finster link is also in that same thread IIRC.)

And, LE is perfectly free to lie about anything to see if they get a reaction. I'm reading up on several cases these days and finding out how often LE lies about LDT results and other items. In one horrific case, they told a man that his recently-murdered wife had filed for divorce and shoved the papers at him (they assumed he'd killed her, with no evidence to support that).

Luckily, he looked at the "divorce papers" and noticed that they weren't in his wife's handwriting. They were fake, created by LE to get a response from him and prove a motive. They had jerked him out of bed naked, cuffed him, badgered him, and two hours later, said "oh yea, your wife's dead." They totally overlooked evidence that would have led them to a serial killer and indeed, later scoffed at other LE who said there was a serial killer, a truck driver, hopping off interstate highways to hunt for victims.

They also told the husband, AKA the victim, that he'd failed a LDT. Not surprisingly, LE has refused to ever reveal that actual test and the results, even after the serial killer was tried and convicted in more than one jurisdiction for more than one murder.

If they'd somehow decided early on--maybe from DY rantings to TY?--that they didn't like TH and would focus on her, then they'd be free to do or say anything to poke her over and over to get her to say something, anything, they could seize on.

I've learned so much from this case, and it's been shocking. No way would I talk to LE now, other than as a witness to something not related to me, without an attorney. Those videos and cases like this have been an educational experience.

 

[stmarysmead]

We can find examples of bad doctors, doesn't mean we don't need them. Doesn't mean we are better off never checking out our symptoms. I don't concentrate on the bad ones...I'm grateful for the good ones.

If we assume, without any specific reason to do so, that LE is corrupt, we help create a malignant virus in our justice system. Essentially, we undermine the whole profession...and the process that protects us and the weakest among us. There can be no justice for victims if that sentiment becomes the prevalent one.

LE LIES! Don't believe them!

That is terribly counterproductive to justice IMO.

In other words...LE is presumed guilty. High priced lawyers may then exploit that sentiment to undermine public trust...and let the most sadistic excuses for humanity among us...sneer at their victims and walk free.

I think one should save criticism for LE when we have reasons specific to that case.

There is NOT ONE REASON in this case. Just "feelings"..."suspicions." If Terri is a fabulous human being than LE must be devious, dumb, and deceptive.

IMO, that is unfair and nonfactual.

When one promotes that viewpoint, IMO, it serves the monsters among us...gives them more latitude to hurt and kill and walk free.

There are a few bad LE, but that doesn't mean LE is lying about Casey Anthony, lying about the Stepmother in the missing child case in N.C. or lying about Terri Horman.

I think of these trusting children...helpless to escape their homelife...at the mercy of self absorbed creatures who can inflict pain "without a reaction", betray trust "without a reaction" ...put the most horrific plans into play against CHILDREN...."without a reaction." It's a disservice to them to undermine the authorities who are working on their cases,trying to achieve justice for them...or to malign the reputation of those individuals by promoting a theory that LE is untrustworthy.

Unless we have specific FACTS we can cite.... Does anyone have a fact with which to prove these LE are lying? Otherwise, how does this pertain to this case?

 

[BeanE]

We can find examples of bad doctors, doesn't mean we don't need them. Doesn't mean we are better off never checking out our symptoms. I don't concentrate on the bad ones...I'm grateful for the good ones.

If we assume, without any specific reason to do so, that LE is corrupt, we help create a malignant virus in our justice system. Essentially, we undermine the whole profession...and the process that protects us and the weakest among us. There can be no justice for victims if that sentiment becomes the prevalent one.

LE LIES! Don't believe them!

That is terribly counterproductive to justice IMO.

In other words...LE is presumed guilty. High priced lawyers may then exploit that sentiment to undermine public trust...and let the most sadistic excuses for humanity among us...sneer at their victims and walk free.

I think one should save criticism for LE when we have reasons specific to that case.

There is NOT ONE REASON in this case. Just "feelings"..."suspicions." If Terri is a fabulous human being than LE must be devious, dumb, and deceptive.

IMO, that is unfair and nonfactual.

When one promotes that viewpoint, IMO, it serves the monsters among us...gives them more latitude to hurt and kill and walk free.

There are a few bad LE, but that doesn't mean LE is lying about Casey Anthony, lying about the Stepmother in the missing child case in N.C. or lying about Terri Horman.

I think of these trusting children...helpless to escape their homelife...at the mercy of self absorbed creatures who can inflict pain "without a reaction", betray trust "without a reaction" ...put the most horrific plans into play against CHILDREN...."without a reaction." It's a disservice to them to undermine the authorities who are working on their cases,trying to achieve justice for them...or to malign the reputation of those individuals by promoting a theory that LE is untrustworthy.

Unless we have specific FACTS we can cite.... Does anyone have a fact with which to prove these LE are lying? Otherwise, how does this pertain to this case?

SMM, it is commonly known that LE lies during questioning in order to attempt to elicit information from people.

They are allowed to.

It is accepted procedure.

There is nothing - NOTHING - corrupt or immoral or unethical or underhanded or counterproductive to justice or dumb or devious about it.

It is a commonly known fact.

You can find copious information about this accepted technique that LE uses, all over the internet.

I find it disturbing to see a commonly known and accepted technique that LE uses, in order to do their job, cast in such a negative and disparaging light.

 

[pufnstuf]

snipped...

Unless we have specific FACTS we can cite.... Does anyone have a fact with which to prove these LE are lying? Otherwise, how does this pertain to this case?

There are none.

 

[JBean]

LE does have the right to lie, they do so as a generally accepted practice. It does not imply they are corrupt and has nothing to do with corruption. You cannot equate the 2 . This is NOT about bad LE at all.

Please be careful to read what other posters are actually saying.

Now if we are going to specifically call LE corrupt in this case, it is a problem and not ok.That is a strong accusation and there is nothing to suggest that the LE involved with this case is corrupt.

I think many posts are being misinterpreted.

But discussing the possibility that LE takes advantage of their ability to use misinformation to extract other information is totally fine.

But with that said let's not go wild on this topic. We really have no idea and while speculating is fine, please don't get carried away.

Hopefully that makes sense.

So, let's all move on.

ETA: I hope i don't have to clarify this, but will anyway. I am referring specifically to the ability to lie as an accepted interrogation tactic. I am not referring to LE having the ability to lie under oath, in a police report, or anything of that nature.

 

[pinktoes]

And, LE is perfectly free to lie about anything to see if they get a reaction. I'm reading up on several cases these days and finding out how often LE lies about LDT results and other items. In one horrific case, they told a man that his recently-murdered wife had filed for divorce and shoved the papers at him (they assumed he'd killed her, with no evidence to support that).

Luckily, he looked at the "divorce papers" and noticed that they weren't in his wife's handwriting. They were fake, created by LE to get a response from him and prove a motive. They had jerked him out of bed naked, cuffed him, badgered him, and two hours later, said "oh yea, your wife's dead." They totally overlooked evidence that would have led them to a serial killer and indeed, later scoffed at other LE who said there was a serial killer, a truck driver, hopping off interstate highways to hunt for victims.

They also told the husband, AKA the victim, that he'd failed a LDT. Not surprisingly, LE has refused to ever reveal that actual test and the results, even after the serial killer was tried and convicted in more than one jurisdiction for more than one murder.

If they'd somehow decided early on--maybe from DY rantings to TY?--that they didn't like TH and would focus on her, then they'd be free to do or say anything to poke her over and over to get her to say something, anything, they could seize on.

I've learned so much from this case, and it's been shocking. No way would I talk to LE now, other than as a witness to something not related to me, without an attorney. Those videos and cases like this have been an educational experience.

Kat: I'd really like to read about that case. Can you point me to where I might find it?
TIA