Lie Detector Tests & Corruption: A public figure speaks out

[CathyinTexas]

There was a massive, unidirectinal, war on Terri to show she was guilty. MOO

My question is: WHO started that assault on Terri and why? How do we know someone isn't directing it in order to cover the real perp up - or to misguide the attack?

LE work hard, I give them all the credit in the world for attempting to maintain the law but I DO NOT elevate them to the likes of God and think of them as flawless. LE make mistakes just like every other profession. moo mho

I still think the fact that TY is in LE has directed this case, if only giving credence to his and DY's "gut" feelings. It seemed that KH believed Terri and defended her in the beginning. But his quick moves to divorce Terri without even talking to her (!) and taking their daughter, makes me suspicious of him also.

 

[Kat010]

"As a former investigative reporter myself, there's one thing that I'm yearning to know, and it relates to who's connected to whom in the financial/power circles of that area. So far, I have not seen one reporter jump on what is to me, the most glaring missing element in this case, one that might explain why LE has notoriously assured a community of as-yet unproven safety for their children while also leading, IMHO, a lynch mob toward one person only."



I think clarification about the above comment would help refocus this thread. I will admit I have read every comment in the context of the one above.

What EXACTLY is meant in the quote above? I need help understanding it.

What is the "glaring missing element?"

Is it that LE has deliberately created a "witch-hunt" toward Terri to distract from someone connected to the "financial power circles" of the area?

WOW!

Does this assert that LE should be investigated because their focus on Terri is so bogus, it must be corrupt?

Just who in the financial/power circles might police be "covering" for...and what basis is there to suspect that?

I do agree with later posts that we have every right and obligation to ask questions...and that asking questions does not mean disrespect.

But these sentences and words seem to me to be more than questioning techniques or the reliability of lie detectors. This is questioning whether the entire investigation has been a deliberate fraud..or to use a word in the original post...a "cover-up." Because I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth...I'm just posting how these words seemed to me...so if others took this meaning, we have a chance to better understand.

Do some here believe that police are deliberately sidetracking this investigation, endangering school children, and undermining the investigation to find Kyron...in order to protect certain powerful people or politicians?

WOW again!

Quote:

"As a former investigative reporter myself, there's one thing that I'm yearning to know, and it relates to who's connected to whom in the financial/power circles of that area. So far, I have not seen one reporter jump on what is to me, the most glaring missing element in this case, one that might explain why LE has notoriously assured a community of as-yet unproven safety for their children while also leading, IMHO, a lynch mob toward one person only."

Are some calling for, "yearning for"... the police to be investigated?

Is the "glaring, missing element"...corruption.... to cover up for "financial/power circles?"

I'd like to better understand THIS part of the thread commentary...because this is pretty serious IMO. Along with words like "witch-hunt" and "cover-up"...these words seem to infer something about police motives. If any of the LE working on this case..read here...what do these words mean about their characters, their integrity, their true motivations? What "glaring missing element" suggests they have not been doing their jobs to the best of their ability with every honest intent?

I understand many feel protective of Terri's reputation. Let me just say, I feel protective of the hard-working men and women on that police force as well. If they come here to this Board, what do these words and sentences mean?

I hope I am misreading this...entirely possible...but others might too.

Are some calling for, "yearning for"... the police to be investigated?

Is the "glaring, missing element"...corruption!!.... to cover up for "financial/power circles?"

I think that you have entirely magnified and taken out of context what I said. FYI, I'm not protective of TH's reputation. I don't know her at all. I've worked in the "good guys" field, covered it, and repeating again--I did the work, got the approval, and ride patrol. Perhaps doing the same might yield a different perspective--I repeatedly urge people to take a solid Citizen's Police Academy (classes and hands-on stuff) in their town.

The words and sentences mean what they say--in context of the entire OP and the entire background material presented.

Yes, there's something that as an editor, I'd assign a reporter to; as a reporter I'd already have been on it. But frankly, it's long and boring unless you hit pay dirt (as was done in the original material provided).

And no, I'm not describing it for several reasons, including that to explain it would violate TOS here. You might wish to review our rules and understand that there's an entire boatload of people and entitites we don't go sleuth.

The way I wrote what I wrote was strong, and deliberately so. It was intended to give a chance for "another lens", some historical background, and a way to provide further opportunities for discussion. It's just that simple.

I understand that you disagree. Is it that you believe in LDTs? Or that you believe that humans don't make mistakes, or that there isn't such a thing as "tunnel vision" or that there never is a desire to protect some element of the community?

That's the short version of what the thread is about.

 

[Kat010]

You do know who Barry Slotnick is, right? Well-known is more like infamous. I grew up in the tri-state area and remember his name very clearly. He was known as the "mob lawyer" and was defense counsel for John Gotti (the mafia king-pin) and Bernhard Goetz (the subway shooter). Basically, he's the east coast equivalent of OJ's attorneys. I'm guessing he passed his legacy on to his son, and that even Houze can only aspire to his level of infamy. I found this article, which is sums it up, imo.

It starts out with Slotnick telling the reporter he doesn't smoke -- while smoking right in front of him. Then he says, "Are you going to believe your eyes or what I tell you?"

Here's another snippet on his mindset in defending Goetz:

What about Darrell Cabey, the most seriously wounded of the youths, who was permanently paralyzed? Cabey was lying on the floor when Goetz came over to him and reportedly said, "You don't look so bad, here's another," then fired a bullet into his back. That follow-up attack is expected to present serious difficulties for the defense. Does Slotnick think of Cabey?

"I have to think of him as the I contend he is, a mugger who got what he deserves," says Slotnick. "When it's over, I'll reflect on him as a human being."

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20096202,00.html

Thanks. The name faintly jingled a bell, but I didn't know why.

 

[Kat010]

I don't know if Terri is guilty or not, but if she is - how terrible if she walked due to a technicality...or even worse, that the Constitutional rights afforded to her such as an 'impartial jury' is considered by the judge as unobtainable. Case thrown out! Yikes There goes any justice for Kyron! moo

Well said. You've hit on one of my major fears--that without a solid case with hard evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" any evil-doer can walk out of a courtroom. If TH is guilty, by golly, I WANT LE to come up with enough solid evidence that will hold up in a courtroom.

I also agree with another poster (sorry, I don't remember who) who said that TH getting that well-known attorney probably shocked LE and everyone else--and slowed things down. Sometimes I wonder if she hadn't gotten him, would she already have been arrested?

BTW, is anyone else seeing posts spread out horizontally so that scrolling l/r is required?

 

[CathyinTexas]

Perhaps it's irresponsible considering one of their students became a missing person when last seen in the school, but it's not uncommon and I wouldn't have been shocked by it in one of my daughter's small schools had someone said they thought she was in the restroom. Especially on a day when volunteers are there, a science fair in the morning and a talent show in the afternoon - it wasn't a normal day, there were other adults around who might have given permission to the odd girl or boy who had to run to the bathroom and things weren't running in their normal routine.

I'm sure Skyline is now revamping their classroom rules but in a small school in a safe area I wouldn't be shocked to know that a teacher wasn't positive that little Johnny didn't ask to use the restroom a few minutes before. A request that happens so often and is usually of such little real consequence that you don't think much of it. I also know that my daughter didn't attend a school that used a bathroom pass until 7th grade. I didn't think it was irresponsible of them not to issue one - I just didn't think of it at all because it was never something that presented a problem.

What about the fact that his belongings were still in his classroom, wouldn't that seem strange to the teacher and prompt her to look into it further? Since the children were allowed to roam freely, and even go outside without adult supervision shouldn't a competent teacher assume that something could be amiss?

 

[CathyinTexas]

I'm not feeling the theory that Terri is innocent and only seems guilty because the school district, school administration, his teacher, LE, lie detector administrator, and Kyron's parents are all incompetent, corrupt or vengeful. :snooty:

Things take on a life of their own in certain circumstances and this may be one of those times. The initial bungling could have happened to protect the reputation of the school. They were so quick to assure the community that it wasn't the fault of the school, and it was still safe for the children to go there. IMO.

 

[Kat010]

Things take on a life of their own in certain circumstances and this may be one of those times. The initial bungling could have happened to protect the reputation of the school. They were so quick to assure the community that it wasn't the fault of the school, and it was still safe for the children to go there. IMO.

Well said.

And then the tidal wave picks up steam: a desire to close the case quickly, a suspect at the ready, tons of soap opera drama, ego (always a big player in big cases with LE/DA), the behind-the-scenes influence of TY (a "brother in blue"), the "don't talk" instructions by the church lady, and KH's "don't talk" instructions to co-workers, the constant public focus on TH, the leaks, the busy busy busy Source family, the pressers in which KH & DY attacked TH (and later they admitted that despite the early appearances and assurances of LE providing info that they didn't base all their statements on LE--along with an almost reprimand from LE at one point denying that they'd provided the info alluded to), and and and and ...

and.

Then there's the LDTs, the searches, the media, the squawking of TV heads like NG, and things wind up getting repeated as fact when they're not fact at all. Which is one reason that I appreciate WS--we provide links along with analysis based on fact, not hysteria.

 

[CathyinTexas]

No, I don't think that is correct, IMO- they are looking for a third party in addition to Terri Horman, and DeDe Spicher. They have clearly indicated they are looking for that 3rd person as an accomplice, not an individual perpetrator.


"They also want to know if a third person is tied to Kyron’s disappearance.

Investigators have witnesses who saw an adult in and around the truck in front of Skyline School between 8:15 and 8:45 that morning.

Investigators aren’t identifying the gender of the person in the truck but have reason to believe the person may not be Spicher."

http://www.katu.com/news/local/101040699.html

Also, I haven't seen anything from LE since the statement by Captain Gates made on June 18th that contradicts the following confirmation that Terri was the last person known to have seen Kyron:

"Terri is the last person known to have seen him before he disappeared."

http://www.mcso.us/public/newsroom.htm

How can that be, when they know that the other student saw and spoke to him after she left? This is what is troubling me about their focus.

 

[Kat010]

How can that be, when they know that the other student saw and spoke to him after she left? This is what is troubling me about their focus.

Me, too.

And I still want to know, if there was someone around or in the Horman truck--did TH lock the truck that day?

Small point, but important.

 

[stmarysmead]

I think that you have entirely magnified and taken out of context what I said. FYI, I'm not protective of TH's reputation. I don't know her at all. I've worked in the "good guys" field, covered it, and repeating again--I did the work, got the approval, and ride patrol. Perhaps doing the same might yield a different perspective--I repeatedly urge people to take a solid Citizen's Police Academy (classes and hands-on stuff) in their town.

The words and sentences mean what they say--in context of the entire OP and the entire background material presented.

Yes, there's something that as an editor, I'd assign a reporter to; as a reporter I'd already have been on it. But frankly, it's long and boring unless you hit pay dirt (as was done in the original material provided).

And no, I'm not describing it for several reasons, including that to explain it would violate TOS here. You might wish to review our rules and understand that there's an entire boatload of people and entitites we don't go sleuth.

The way I wrote what I wrote was strong, and deliberately so. It was intended to give a chance for "another lens", some historical background, and a way to provide further opportunities for discussion. It's just that simple.

I understand that you disagree. Is it that you believe in LDTs? Or that you believe that humans don't make mistakes, or that there isn't such a thing as "tunnel vision" or that there never is a desire to protect some element of the community?

That's the short version of what the thread is about.

Thank you for your reply.

No, actually I pretty much can agree with you on LDTs. I certainly do believe humans make mistakes. I'm absolutely sure humans have made some mistakes in this case as in every other facet of our human lives.

But I believe there is a difference between saying LE has made mistakes and asserting "witch-hunts" ..."cover-ups"...and deliberate LE attempts to target Terri to protect someone in the power elite of the area.

I asked you if you were asserting or "yearning" that there should be an investigation into LE's handling of the case when you said this:

"As a former investigative reporter myself, there's one thing that I'm yearning to know, and it relates to who's connected to whom in the financial/power circles of that area. So far, I have not seen one reporter jump on what is to me, the most glaring missing element in this case, one that might explain why LE has notoriously assured a community of as-yet unproven safety for their children while also leading, IMHO, a lynch mob toward one person only."

I asked simply because I DID want to understand. It read to me, as a writer, as if your "strong words" were not about mistakes. I would hope if LE reads here, they might not feel these words IN ANY WAY implied corruption on their part.

In that spirit, I asked for clarification.

I am new. I respect and admire that this Board is not reckless in the individuals we sleuth. I assume that same care is taken as to what is said here about the men and women doing the investigation. Is it within the rules to make strong statements to that effect that LE may be involved in a deliberate cover-up, but against the rules to explain why those statements are justified?


Perhaps it's as simple as this: I don't believe there is any evidence that LE has been corrupt in this case; that LE is engaging in a cover-up in this case; that LE is conducting a witch-hunt to protect some powerful entity in this case; that LE needs any investigation at this time of their handling of this case.

Mistakes, of course.

Corruption ("cover-ups" OR deliberate misdirection of a case) should require us to really be able to back that up in spades...and be in a place where we feel we can fully and completely do so.

 

[Kat010]

SBM & BBM

First, 1Chump, I wish I had some magical way to take away your guilt; there aren't words for how painful that all sounds. I'm so sorry that happened to you.

The bolded part addresses my own question: is it even possible for the subconscious mind to reason from the person's own definition to another person's (quite different) definition?

I really, really doubt that it works that way. Anyone who wants to experiment with it, try taking one or more of the implicit association tests at:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

These tests measure the test taker's emotional positive or negative association with various concepts (race, fat vs thin, etc). The interesting thing is that it doesn't matter what your philosophical convictions about the issue are; it measures what your unconscious associations are. Which can be very different from your philosophical convictions.

I can think of two friends right now, one who failed a polygraph falsely and one who passed a polygraph falsely.

The friend who failed had been accused of assaulting a man in an empty residence hall corridor. No witnesses to the beginning of the incident, it was just he said, she said. A witness did hear something in the corridor and came out of his dorm room to check it out. That witness saw a small woman (my friend) literally bouncing off a wall, as if she had been shoved violently or thrown against the wall. The man claimed my friend initiated an assault and that he "pushed her away" in self defence.

The man showed the police a faint mark on his skin that he claimed came from her fingernails; she kept her fingernails extremely short because she had a job in a biology lab where contamination of cultures was always a concern. He was over 6 feet tall and weighed something like 200 pounds; she was 4 foot 10 inches tall and weighed 85 pounds. He had several previous arrests for various kinds of assault (but no convictions), she had no previous arrests at all.

The police asked each of them to take a polygraph. He passed, she failed. The police decided not to file any charges anyway because the evidence was so flimsy and the chief witness so unbelievable.

I am convinced that my friend did not suddenly assault a man over a foot taller and over 100 pounds heavier than she. She was not violent, she was very into nonviolence as a philosophy (this was the early 1980s) and my friend was not crazy.

She said the officer that administered the polygraph said he thought she failed because after the incident, she was scared and angry; she had some fantasies and vivid dreams about physically harming the man (who she claimed initiated the assault from start to finish). Just asking her about the incident was enough to trigger a visible reaction (she would flush, her pupils would contract, etc).

I have a friend who has to take periodic polygraphs as part of his job. He has passed each time, including the questions about illegal drugs (his job does not involve driving or operating heavy machinery, unless you count a calculator as heavy machinery). I know that he has an interesting life outside of work and that it includes frequent experiences with recreational substances.

And yet he passes the polygraph each time. He sincerely and honestly feels that his off work activities are none of his employer's business and that as all of his job evaluations have been outstanding, whatever he chooses to do outside of work is clearly not affecting his performance.

And my last thought is this: for thousands of years, humans have tried to understand emotional responses. Without much success but leaving a lot of great art and literature as evidence of the attempt.

I am completely unconvinced that a machine can do better in understanding emotional responses than, say, someone like William Shakespeare.

Great post, thanks.

And yes, the "viewpoint" (for lack of a better word) of the testee (is that a word?? LOL) does factor in to it. Which is why sociopaths, who don't feel guilt, so easily pass LDTs.

During our presentation, we learned that my boss, a very honest, church-going, and well-loved guy who was totally reliable, probably could not pass a LDT. Why? If they asked him "have you ever taken someone else's money" and he suddenly remembered that he'd borrowed money from me and hadn't repaid it, his own sense of ethics would compute that as "yes" but chances are he'd say "no", intellectually understanding that the question was about deliberate theft.

There's a lot of power in the words used, and our reactions to them.

Let alone the physical things. I also was told that I'd have a hard time passing a LDT. I have a very rapid heartbeat (that's just me) and I'm prone to palpitations--which increase under stress. No big deal, that's just how I'm wired--until the palps get really big.

If I were in the stress of a LDT, my already quick heartrate would speed up. And I'd have palpitations, which would then worry and stress me even more..and so on. According to the expert who presented to us, I should never take a LDT.

There are so many variables involved in a LDT. Can a machine pick up physiological reactions? Sure thing. So can humans--body language, sweating, etc.

But can a machine filter those reactions in terms of the testee's background, health, subconscious, and understanding of the connotation of the precise words used? Not always, IMHO.

Here's one major question that I have--there's a very large culture that thinks Americans are stupid for our insistence on telling the truth. I've read quotes that say that lying is an accepted part of their business dealings and culture.

So, could anyone from that culture actually *fail* a LDT, because they'd have no guilt over "lying"? Hmmm. Darned if I know.

 

[Kat010]

The credit goes to gliving!! This is the link included on the original post:
http://srnpdx.org/current_newsline

And a round of applause for gliving! Yeaaaa! And thanks for noting that!

 

[liz b.]

Well said.

And then the tidal wave picks up steam: a desire to close the case quickly, a suspect at the ready, tons of soap opera drama, ego (always a big player in big cases with LE/DA), the behind-the-scenes influence of TY (a "brother in blue"), the "don't talk" instructions by the church lady, and KH's "don't talk" instructions to co-workers, the constant public focus on TH, the leaks, the busy busy busy Source family, the pressers in which KH & DY attacked TH (and later they admitted that despite the early appearances and assurances of LE providing info that they didn't base all their statements on LE--along with an almost reprimand from LE at one point denying that they'd provided the info alluded to), and and and and ...

and.

Then there's the LDTs, the searches, the media, the squawking of TV heads like NG, and things wind up getting repeated as fact when they're not fact at all. Which is one reason that I appreciate WS--we provide links along with analysis based on fact, not hysteria.

I for one think that you have raised some interesting and provocatve points. I for one think I'm capable of reading, sifting, and weighing those points in order to assess their veracity. And I'm positive that other posters here can do the same thing.... As to possible cover ups and local corruption,I grew up in NYC, a place not unknown to have these things... At this time I don't fully believe that this is the case here, but I do believe that there is something very strange about the whole case,including the way that Kyron disappeared... IIRC, the FBI at the very beginning called it a " unique case ".

IMO all kinds of things are fair game to be discussed, including the issues that you wrote about....

All JMO

 

[liz b.]

Great post, thanks.

And yes, the "viewpoint" (for lack of a better word) of the testee (is that a word?? LOL) does factor in to it. Which is why sociopaths, who don't feel guilt, so easily pass LDTs.

During our presentation, we learned that my boss, a very honest, church-going, and well-loved guy who was totally reliable, probably could not pass a LDT. Why? If they asked him "have you ever taken someone else's money" and he suddenly remembered that he'd borrowed money from me and hadn't repaid it, his own sense of ethics would compute that as "yes" but chances are he'd say "no", intellectually understanding that the question was about deliberate theft.

There's a lot of power in the words used, and our reactions to them.

Let alone the physical things. I also was told that I'd have a hard time passing a LDT. I have a very rapid heartbeat (that's just me) and I'm prone to palpitations--which increase under stress. No big deal, that's just how I'm wired--until the palps get really big.

If I were in the stress of a LDT, my already quick heartrate would speed up. And I'd have palpitations, which would then worry and stress me even more..and so on. According to the expert who presented to us, I should never take a LDT.

There are so many variables involved in a LDT. Can a machine pick up physiological reactions? Sure thing. So can humans--body language, sweating, etc.

But can a machine filter those reactions in terms of the testee's background, health, subconscious, and understanding of the connotation of the precise words used? Not always, IMHO.

Here's one major question that I have--there's a very large culture that thinks Americans are stupid for our insistence on telling the truth. I've read quotes that say that lying is an accepted part of their business dealings and culture.

So, could anyone from that culture actually *fail* a LDT, because they'd have no guilt over "lying"? Hmmm. Darned if I know.

OT,but what culture do you mean ? It sounds fascinating.

All JMO

 

[Kat010]

I for one think that you have raised some interesting and provocatve points. I for one think I'm capable of reading, sifting, and weighing those points in order to assess their veracity. And I'm positive that other posters here can do the same thing.... As to possible cover ups and local corruption,I grew up in NYC, a place not unknown to have these things... At this time I don't fully believe that this is the case here, but I do believe that there is something very strange about the whole case,including the way that Kyron disappeared... IIRC, the FBI at the very beginning called it a " unique case ".

IMO all kinds of things are fair game to be discussed, including the issues that you wrote about....

All JMO

You understand exactly.

Thank you so much.

I have this belief that citizens have not only the right, but the responsibility to question, review, analyze, ask for answers. We don't have a society in which we routinely accept what "authority" says because we're afraid to question/criticize (no KGB to disappear us) and because we are a nation with the freedom to speak our beliefs.

We're also a notoriously feisty and contentious culture! Which I kinda think is a good thing.

 

[Kat010]

OT,but what culture do you mean ? It sounds fascinating.

All JMO

Aaargh. I don't have the links. But at one point, I was reading about some Middle Eastern cultures, and was appalled at the laughter about the American belief in lying as a bad thing.

I'm so sorry that I didn't save all that. But it obviously made a big impression on me.

 

[stmarysmead]

A "cover-up" in a missing person's case would be corruption. Do you disagree?

Misdirection of a case onto an innocent woman to cover for the powerful would be corruption. Right?

Words are very important. Especially important when they impact the reputations of others. And the investigation into a missing child.

Terri is part of a tragic mystery. That is why she is being investigated. The LE are just coming to work every day, doing their jobs. I ask again...on what basis should they be investigated by a reporter or anyone?

Certainly it is important that, unless there are specific areas we can point to that CLEARLY justify otherwise,that LE be afforded the presumption that they have conducted a clean investigation. It may be helpful to Terri to infer they have been on a "witch-hunt" (you word), but is that really fair at this point?

There are historical incidents of terrible behavior in every profession. But here we are talking about a specific police department investigating a specific case. Would it be fair to suggest Terri the teacher has seduced children because there are historical cases where that has been the case? Would it be fair for us to discuss investigating her...without stating any specifics other than historical precedence?

You stated:

"I'm yearning to know, and it relates to who's connected to whom in the financial/power circles of that area. So far, I have not seen one reporter jump on what is to me, the most glaring missing element in this case, one that might explain why LE has notoriously assured a community of as-yet unproven safety for their children while also leading, IMHO, a lynch mob toward one person only."

If the "glaring missing element" is "connected" to the "financial-power elite" and "that"...."explains"...why LE is "leading a lynch-mob" ...what can that mean other than corruption.

I have re-read that many times. Help me NOT to misunderstand.

If that is not referring to corruption, please parse it for me so I may see your meaning. If you do not believe there has been a deliberate cover-up to benefit someone in the power elite of the area..let's clear that up too.

Let's clear this up because this is an extremely successful, well-read website. Others who just read here... might think you were inferring LE corruption as well. That thought might undermine LE.

Don't you think, beyond our debate...that allowing the aura of corruption to hover over a discussion of this SPECIFIC police department...if we cannot provide any credible basis...is terribly unfair.

Your defense of Terri tells me you care about fairness.

So let's extend that to these hard working professionals...and to justice for Kyron. If people begin to believe LE has led a cover-up or witch-hunt, how can that benefit justice for Kyron?

Please do not take offense at my questions. If I'm "twisting"... show me where. Let's just clarify that there is no basis to infer corruption...and no one else can possibly be as dunder-headed as me..to read your comments as about anything but....LE may have made a few mistakes.

 

[PaulaF513]

Apparently they do not have enough to arrest just yet. Reminds me of the scott peterson case. LE knew they were on the right track. They followed up on other possible leads that led nowhere but SP's story, conduct, demeanor, etc., did not add up. When the affair came out, that solidified their feelings. But, no bodies, not enough to arrest. There was almost zero physical evidence at that time. The moment they found those bodies, SP was arrested.
But, ask his family and some others on the web. There is a whole group who feel exactly the same way about SP's case as some currently do about this one - that LE unfairly targeted one person, covered up a bunch of exculpatory evidence and helped convict an innocent man. Oh, they scream and yell about all of that but they have never offered any credible proof supporting their position, IMO.
I think if Kyron is found, we will know more almost right away.



I have been asking the same question. This really bothers me.



I don't see a problem with telling a kid, "Oh, he's gone for the day with his mom." I think it is right to address a child's concern in such a situation. But IIRC from the report, it was another staff member who expressed concern about where Kyron was. The answer, according to this classmate, was: "Calm down, calm down. he probably went for a drink or something." And then what? No one remembers the question that caused the teacher to feel the questioner was unduly upset? Something significant enough to cause a lack of calm is thereafter forgotten when the kid never comes back? As a former preschool teacher and daycare worker, this makes no sense to me. If true, someone should be fired, IMO.

BBM:

It was..."..Oh no, there's only 5...where's Kyron?"...asked by the "substitute" who was actually a volunteer. And after the teacher replied with the bathroom probability, "she" said..."oh...ok...I'm leaving then". There is confusion here in that we don't really know whether this was after the group came back from touring the other classes or when they were forming groups to begin.

 

[eyes4crime]

Well said. You've hit on one of my major fears--that without a solid case with hard evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" any evil-doer can walk out of a courtroom. If TH is guilty, by golly, I WANT LE to come up with enough solid evidence that will hold up in a courtroom.

I also agree with another poster (sorry, I don't remember who) who said that TH getting that well-known attorney probably shocked LE and everyone else--and slowed things down. Sometimes I wonder if she hadn't gotten him, would she already have been arrested?

BTW, is anyone else seeing posts spread out horizontally so that scrolling l/r is required?

BBM

I am one person who believes that if Terri had not secured an attorney she would have been arrested long ago. moo mho

For me, this case was moving along parallel lines with the Riley Fox case here in Illinois. Riley is a 3yo girl found raped and murdered and thrown in a creek. Her father, Kevin, was the one and only suspect. The drive by LE to arrest him was intense and focused. Kevin didn't get an attorney because as he said, I'm innocent. He failed lie detector tests (so he was told) and finally, after hours of interrogation, falsely confessed to the crime. Kevin was arrested on the eve of an important election here in Illinois. moo

Kevin was vindicated of the crime years later when LE finally tested the DNA found in Riley. This only happened because Kevin's brother went to a criminal defense attorney and asked for help. Kevin and his x-wife just won millions in a lawsuit against LE. moo

While following Kyron's case, I began to experience the same exasperation and alarm as I did in the Fox case. Very similiar! Sickening similar. Another recent case here in Illinois is that of Jerry Hobbs. Almost the same as the Fox case.

Thank goodness for good criminal defense attorneys!

It happens, LE can get caught up in their own frenzy - they can have tunnel vision just like any of the rest of us. LE are not perfect, they are human. moo mho

 

[PaulaF513]

To me, the fact that both LE and her husband found the Murder-For-Hire allegation credible is huge. The "morality stuff" and her past become vastly different if we can believe... that both her husband and the police believe...this is a woman who tried to hire someone TO KILL.

I don't even like to abbreviate this with "MFH"...somehow that diminishes it. Terri has been accused by a witness of the chilling act of MURDER FOR HIRE.

This is not just a naughty woman next door. The capacity to think of paying to cause a death to solve one's problems...is hopefully possessed by only a very slim minority of people.

It would seem that LE and her husband believe Terri is in that minority.

I assume that those who support Terri dismiss the Murder-for-Hire. The police seemingly don't dismiss it, and Kaine does not...I think that is very important.
Why don't they dismiss it?

Until they do...why should I? When and if that story is completely discredited...if nothing else but what we know now is revealed...then I could be convinced to view Terri differently.

bbm

I have suspicions about that claim because there was a 911 call to the police in May (I believe) from the Horman house. That call has been sealed at the request of LE. If this landscaper believed seriously that TH had solicited him for a murder-for-hire plot, why did he wait to notify the police. It seems odd to me that he is dug up by LE investigating Kyron's disappearance and he suddenly remembers that TH wanted him to kill her husband??? This sounds very much like a quid pro quo deal to me...for example, what can you tell us to help out here and we'll forget that you're in the country illegally. Maybe I'm wrong, it won't be the first time.

I just need to reiterate that I don't have a firm opinion of TH's guilt or innocence yet. For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone can have a firm conviction one way or the other, based on the meager information we have been given. I just feel strongly that LE has focussed on TH to the exclusion of equally possible theories. Primary among those is a child predator on the loose and escaping capture. I understand DY's mother's instinct, but I too believe that her suspicions from the onset (as she herself has related) have steered and bolstered LE's efforts in this case. I actually wish that they're correct in their focus because at least we'll know that a maniac is not on the prowl for more innocent children.