Lie Detector Tests & Corruption: A public figure speaks out

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
In not yet believing that Terri is guilty does not mean that I believe in her innocence. I am just trying really hard to put myself in the mindset of a juror, for example, and waiting to see what LE has to present that is admissable evidence of a particular crime. I feel badly for LE that right now, they don't even know what the crime is, after nearly three months. I'm sure they have their opinions, but no real knowledge.

I've learned from cases such as Haleigh and Madeline that you don't always get to have an answer and that is very sad to contemplate. When these cases first happen, it is natural to expect that a solution will soon follow, as the alternative is too horrible. I have to remind myself that it is all too possible that this could be one of those tragic and mysterious cases, while hoping every day that we will learn that Kyron has been located and a party or parties have been charged,
 
LE hasn't publicized anything specific about this case, or what they've found, or what theories they're working.

TH herself told family/friends that she failed the polygraph(s).

LE has never said exactly who they are focusing on.

Oh yes, we can all read between the lines, but there isn't one 'on-the-record' quote from the Portland police in which they have named anyone a suspect or POI. They haven't discussed evidence publicly, they haven't talked about details of their investigation...they've said nada. And they will continue to do it this way.

As for the (crime) reporters, they do get cozy with contacts and they do get inside information, but they sit on that info until they are given a green light to go forward. If they want to keep their contacts in high places, they learn to play by those rules. Crime reporters never spill all that they know during an active investigation. Oh and media reports are very much influenced by the contacts of reporters.

I have first-hand experience with this and have witnessed how it works and it's pretty typical in the reporting/news biz.
 
I agree.

"Public feedbag" or no, I think those who are working diligently to bring Kyron home deserve our respect unless we have proof of "leading lynch mobs", "soft-pedaling",or some nefarious behavior toward Terri that is blatantly inappropriate.

We do not know what they know. We do not know what others have told them. We do not know the evidence they have uncovered. Therefore, how can we fairly criticize using such terms?

Quote: "There's been a solid rush to focus on TH and anyone, apparently, who liked her, or had anything to do with her. There's been a focus on smearing her and making sure that any and all leaks, and comments from other extended family members get fulll play."

The police are trying to find a missing child. IMO, they "feel" this case tremendously. They, like all of us, have a sense of urgency. In that context, they believe they have reason to ask questions of the public about Terri, DeDe. and the truck.

Is that a "focus on smearing" her? What SHOULD they do?

Are they supposed to be required to ask equal questions about others...if the investigation is not leading that way? Is protecting Terri as important then developing leads to find Kyron?

A Landscaper said Terri tried to hire him to kill Kaine. If the police found him credible...what would we have them do in regard to Kaine, his safety and the safety of Baby K...when that accused person was possibly the last person with a missing child? Not tell Kaine? Not protect Baby K? ONE CHILD is already missing!

Was that "smearing" Terri?

If the police found the MFH credible, was it wrong for Kaine to go to court? Should he have stayed with Baby K in a house with someone who may have tried to kill him...so that Terri would not be "smeared" by the public revelation?

Quote: "There's a history of cover-ups in that area, which is something I've long suspected. There's a history of bending things for political advantage, also not a surprise."

I don't understand what this means. How do these two statements apply to LE? What do they mean in the context of the investigation?

Is it just possible that all these things about Terri are coming out...because that's where the investigation is leading?

If a woman...whose friends give her bat-phones and who is "sexting" her husband's old friend... is accused by a Landscaper of trying to hire him to kill her husband whose son has just gone missing during a time she was driving aimlessly around and her best friend was also missing from work...inspires the police to ask the public questions about her...HOW does that link the police department to a history of "cover-ups", "bending things for political advantage"...or the charge of "smearing?'

I don't understand.

I've always said that LE will solve this, and I still believe it. It is a little difficult,though, to believe that LE has so much evidence, and that it's almost wrapped up, when they keep coming back and appealing for any kind of help, in the form of possible witnesses. Kyron vanished on 6/4.It's almost September... people's memories just won't be that sharp and focused any more It makes one feel uneasy about the direction of Kyron's case... IMO

All JMO
 
There actually has been a response to this issue from a guy associated with the school or the school board. He claims the episode as stated by TP happened the day before, Thursday June 3. That is so outlandishly bogus, it almost doesn't bear disputing.

What needs to be kept in mind is that LE was aware of TP's story and asked his family to not repeat it. His grandmother who understood the significance of what the child was telling, made it public.

If anything points to a coverup, this does. The boy's version absolutely paints a picture of negligence by the school's personnel.

LE has asked Kaine and Desiree not to repeat their evidence, either. And the school staff, and probably a lot of others who have come forward were asked not to talk about the specifics of the case. They have addressed this time and time again - they don't want one person's words to become another person's false memories. And they check stories out and if they sound credible and have back-up they move forward. They themselves say "no comment, we can't talk about the ongoing investigation" during PC's.

So why is asking this particular person to not repeat their story so suspicious, when it's exactly what they're asking everyone else as well? I mean if LE told everyone else to by all means share evidence with the press but told this little boy not to say a word - then it would feel like a coverup. But they are muzzling everyone, and they are admitting it and giving reasons for it all the while.

I mean
 
If they "knew" it was Terri she would have been arrested by now IMO.

Read on the innocence Project. Read the stories about people who have spent years in prison only to be found innocent. Why? Because LE had tunnel vision and in some cases built a case around that tunnel vision. Some of the stories are heartbreaking.

In a case such as this you can never have tunnel vision. At this point Terri's life has been ruined and if she is not guilty God help those who helped spread rumors and those that had their 15 mins of fame.

IMO
I have read on the Innocence Project, quite extensively, thank you.

I see nothing in this case to indicate that LE has 'tunnel vision'. Quite the contrary, for close to a month after Kyron's disappearance (and probably after that month), LE was very publicly searching multiple avenues. To imply that LE focused SOLEY on TH in the immediate aftermath of June 4, is, IMO, misleading to the extreme.

And, as someone with experience in LE...it's, um, not logical to say that if LE 'knows' someone is guilty that they would be arrested by now. I can quote many cases where LE was fairly certain (though they still investigated other avenues...as in this case) that a certain perp was guilty...and in many of these cases, MONTHS passed before the very-early-on-presumed perp was arrested, if they were ever arrested...(see Peterson, Scott, and Peterson, Drew, for an example). Did you think...up until Lacy's body was found...that Scott Peterson wasn't suspected as being guilty by LE? Lacy wasn't found for close to four months. Do you really think that LE doesn't suspect Drew Peterson right now, despite the fact that his Stacy Peterson's body has yet to be recovered???

I don't know if TH had anything to do with this, I can only go by what's in the media and what LE is doing. And LE is very clearly focusing on TH. I'm not going to assume that LE has 'tunnel vision' without proof, especially given their very wide spread investigation early on after June 4...nor will I assume that because there hasn't been an arrest yet that LE doesn't have any proof. Good old fashioned experience with other cases with pretty obvious POIs that took several months (or longer) to crack taught me that much.
 
LE hasn't publicized anything specific about this case, or what they've found, or what theories they're working.

TH herself told family/friends that she failed the polygraph(s).

LE has never said exactly who they are focusing on.

Oh yes, we can all read between the lines, but there isn't one 'on-the-record' quote from the Portland police in which they have named anyone a suspect or POI. They haven't discussed evidence publicly, they haven't talked about details of their investigation...they've said nada. And they will continue to do it this way.

As for the (crime) reporters, they do get cozy with contacts and they do get inside information, but they sit on that info until they are given a green light to go forward. If they want to keep their contacts in high places, they learn to play by those rules. Crime reporters never spill all that they know during an active investigation. Oh and media reports are very much influenced by the contacts of reporters.

I have first-hand experience with this and have witnessed how it works and it's pretty typical in the reporting/news biz.
As someone in PR, I can attest to this. I'm not actively working with LE at this point in my career, but I AM actively working with reporters who are sitting on stories in hopes of getting an exclusive. Reporters who work big stories long term know *much* more than they print...MUCH more.
 
Now, some personal commentary.

From the get-go, I've been troubled by not only LE's insistence that nobody had anything else to worry about, and their sole focus on TH, but also by the soft-pedaling of what happened at the school that day.

It's seemed as though anyone who can help prove any of TH's allegations is blown off, or disregarded, including Kyron's little friend who steadfastly said he saw KH after TH left. And then there's the volunteer (AKA the "substitute") who listened and told the regular teacher that Kyron was missing only to be told that he was probably in the bathroom or getting a dirnk.

Lots of focus has been applied to whether or not TH told the teacher--"yelling across the room"--that Kyron had a dr's appointment. In point of fact, that's a red herring and bogus, IMHO.

Why? Had TH, who had, according to Kyron's friend, already left, done so, the teacher *would* have replied "Not to worry, his mom brought him to the science fair but then she had to take him for a dr's appt."

That's simple timeline and logic.

There's been a solid rush to focus on TH and anyone, apparently, who liked her, or had anything to do with her. There's been a focus on smearing her and making sure that any and all leaks, and comments from other extended family members get fulll play.

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.

In the end, TH might have done it. But then again, a pedophile might have done it.

The only thing we know at this point is: LE sure as heck doesn't know enough to make a solid case that will stand up in court. But they sure as heck were fast to reassure their community of something they can't prove to this day--and the entire situation has been muffled in a decided sidetracking from what really happened at school that day.

Let's face it, when they didn't even get to the groundskeeper before putting out that "white truck" flyer, LE revealed that they didn't do their basic homework. But, according to them, all's well with kiddies returning to school, as they've said from the start.

There's a history of cover-ups in that area, which is something I've long suspected. There's a history of bending things for political advantage, also not a surprise.

This post goes to the validity of what led Leonhardt to raise heck about the former governor, which then led to his experience with lie detectors.

Sometimes the most valuable lie detector we have is asking: what's being swept under the rug and why? Lie detector tests aren't admissable in court for darned good reasons.

But common sense always finds a way in--unless it's deliberately blocked.

IMHO.

Great post. Thanks so much!
 
I really don't think that this case can be compared to any other case. When I think about the "evidence" in this case, it just falls short. It's like the "poor man's version" of evidence, IMO--simply not equivalent to evidence I've seen in other cases--it doesn't quite make the mark... MOO
 
Respectfully snipped for space and BBM.

Since LE has released almost zero info and hasn't even deemed TH a POI, how are they "leading a lynch mob"? Seems like they are just trying to conduct their investigation based on what they know (which we don't).

Please see my sig line that appears with each and every post I make.
 
I don't have much of a problem with this. The woman apparently has some experience with public relations. clip...

.

From my perspective, with a great deal of public relations experience, I don't think she's a pro at all. And I don't think she had the right to assume the mantle of leadership and instruct an entire community.

I'm sorry if you feel personally insulted by looking at differing options, but believe me, none of this thread is personal at all. It's understood on WS that we look at different options and have different viewpoints--and that doing so is not personal.

Here's what I'd really like to see discussed: the OP and the questions I posed in a later post. We've all hashed out personal reactions, our beliefs, etc. but I'm right now interested not only in Kyron, but in LDTs, history, and the larger framework of this case.

TIA!
 
There actually has been a response to this issue from a guy associated with the school or the school board. He claims the episode as stated by TP happened the day before, Thursday June 3. That is so outlandishly bogus, it almost doesn't bear disputing.

What needs to be kept in mind is that LE was aware of TP's story and asked his family to not repeat it. His grandmother who understood the significance of what the child was telling, made it public.

If anything points to a coverup, this does. The boy's version absolutely paints a picture of negligence by the school's personnel.

There's a lot interesting about his testimony, including speculation about why the grandmother thought it was so important that it be heard. My belief is that as his step-grandfather is a retired Portland police officer, the family is well aware of the value of his testimony. JMO.
 
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:


Absolutely none of that has been posited, Steadfast. If you're referring to me personally, I've said repeatedly that I don't know if TH is guilty or not. I'm a card-carrying member of the Fence club.

However, I do think it's useful to put things in the old blender, swirl 'em around and look at things a bit differently.

How do you feel about the material presented in the OP? And the basic questions?
 
I agree.

"Public feedbag" or no, I think those who are working diligently to bring Kyron home deserve our respect .....clip.. .

Sorry, these discussions do not contain disrespect. Frankly, I always worry when questioning authority is automatically seen as "disrespect." As a former investigative journalist, I can assure you that many times people cry "disrespect" when actually there's something being covered up. And, you may not have read this before: I've invested almost 100 hours in training in our local Citizen's Police Academy and I take all the risks of riding patrol. Yep. And a noted public safety official, who just solved a big arson case, lives 2 doors up from me, and, like the other LE folks I know, thinks I'm groovy. One thing I do know: good cops question other cops.

I'd urge those participating in this thread to read all the materials referenced in the OP.. Please? Oh, please.

LE takes steps, does things in public, leaks thing (that dearly beloved Source family!), and makes choices. Once they make those choices and those things are in the public venue, then they are open to discussion, pro and con.

Many people think that there's many hinky things about this case. It's only fair and reasonable to discuss them, and to look at various options.

I've never seen logical, objective thinking messed up by looking at varying options and varying patterns. Or, as LE in this case recently declared, looking at things "through a different lens."

Yes, public servants are accountable to us, their employers. And that includes having to live with public commentary.
 
I think doctor's appt's are private into and she probably didn't want to get into it with a child .

If I'm remembering correctly, the teacher told the volunteer not to worry.

The volunteer is an adult. And there's nothing wrong with saying "oh, Johnny has a dr's appt." No violation of privacy concerns at all.
 
BBM
We know LE no longer believe that Terri was the last person to see Kyron - they are looking for a 3rd party meaning they have to think someone else saw Kyron after Terri. moo

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
 
.

(clip)


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.

Agreed. The teacher was notified that Kyron wasn't where he should be. And that fact was never followed up on, from what we know now.

This makes no sense to me, either. At one point I taught a summer class, a special thing, on writing for kids from 6 to, I think, my eldest was 14. It was a riot, and we wound up with a party for parents where kids read their works. (I still have some of the hand-made notes the kids on their own made for me. I'm a sentimental type.)

I can tell you this: I knew where every one of those kids was, at every moment. And there was just me and a classroom filled with wiggle worms and giggle kiddies.
 
Very interesting and thought provoking posts... About the WW, what do you think about their coverage of Kyron's case ?

All JMO

Thanks for asking! I think they've been doing a far better job than some media, especially the "chase the closed car" types.

They have some good writers with real style, and they've offered some good articles. I particularly like this one, which I think only could have been improved with Kyron's pix & a graf at the end noting that the most important thing is Kyron and where he is.

But I also think that the article was presented the way it was as a very sly commentary that a little boy is missing, and here's all the players in this soap opera. Very biting, IMHO.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3639/14358/
 
Originally Posted by gitana1 clip "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."

Right--and, his backpack was still in the classroom...
 
In my mind, "smearing" someone indicates lying about them or spreading a malicious untruth.

How has LE "smeared" Terri?

We have certainly learned that she was married to a Meth user who she said had AIDS or HIV in a court document. He fathered her child. She left him and married a man who paid for her education and adopted her child She left him. She continues to take money from that man to support that child while she herself does not work and is supported by her third husband. She had an affair with Kaine while his wife was pregnant.

I believe that is Terri's truthful history. (correct me if I am wrong)

The truth is the truth...not smearing. These revelations are not the fault of LE. They are the story of Terri's life.

We don't know if Terri actually solicited a Murder-for-Hire...but it is the truth that someone claims HE was the guy she tried to hire. Her husband, the alleged prospective victim used this charge to get a restraining order. So the MFH story is no smear either. It is the an actual accusation that has been made by a witness against Terri.

We do know Terri was "sexting" because the Recipient of those texts has come forward. The story is true, so, again, it cannot be a smear. It is just what Terri chose to do during theses days as Kyron remains missing.

How has LE "smeared" Terri?

I think the only objective of the police must be to find Kyron. It is not their concern to try and protect anyone from unwelcome revelations about the facts and choices of their adult lives. They are not a public relations department. They are trying to find this little child. Period.

From Merriam-Webster:
Smear (3) a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization &#8212;often used attributively <a smear campaign> <a smear job>

The rest of it is personal interpretations and judgments. I'll put more faith in the MFH allegations when a) I know more about the person who made the allegations b) I know more about the sealed 911 call involving him back in May and c) LE provides enough information to arrest and charge her.

I don't know that she married a "meth user." For all I know, he started that after they got married and she got herself and her baby out of that situation. I don't know about the personal details of her marriage or support $ for a child legally adopted--that's their business and not germane to whether or not she did something to Kyron. If it is germane, then there's a lot of germane stuff about other players that needs to be looked at.

She's been married three times. So has DY. So? And, according to MSM reports, most recently the Oregonian, TH has worked throughout her marriage, except for the last 2 years. She's worked previously as a substitute and also at restaurants, both when single and when married. As for the last 2 years, she's also volunteered at Kyron's school. But most importantly--maybe she and KH decided that she would be a SAHM for awhile. Is it wrong that she was a SAHM taking care of Kyron and baby K? I don't think so. Nor did I think that SAHMs are living off anyone, nor do I think that they fail to provide "support" because to me, being on duty 24/7 and cooking, cleaning, running errands, nuturing, all those things of mommy-dom deserve credit, too, as much as a paycheck.

I want hard-core facts that provide a reason to arrest someone for a criminal offense. Moral judgments about lifestyles are a human thing to do--don't even start me on that sexting stuff!--but I also have to say that if we're offering up moral judgments, at least 3/4 of the current "parents" have, in my terms, serious moral problems. That's just my opinion--and it's not proof of anything criminal.

The problem with looking at the facts of a case in terms of evidence is that individual moral judgments and our feelings aren't evidence. And I don't think its unfair to ask for evidence, hard facts, and a resolutioin in this case.

I also find it interesting that not too long ago Gates said that "stranger to stranger" hadn't been ruled out--but other than that brief statement, the channel has been set to all TH, all the time. Did LE ever ask parents and those at the school if they saw anyone that they thought was strange? Did they follow up on the reported conversations of students that there was someone "creepy" at the schoola? Did they know before the groundskeeper came forward just recently that kids had been outside the building without an adult with them?

These are important things. JMO.

Now, how about LDTs and the material from the OP?
 
If I'm remembering correctly, the teacher told the volunteer not to worry.

The volunteer is an adult. And there's nothing wrong with saying "oh, Johnny has a dr's appt." No violation of privacy concerns at all.

Gosh, I think that is a HUGE privacy violation. A teacher has absolutely no business discussing a students medical or other non school related business with a volunteer.
I'd be giving that teacher and school district a lot of grief if it were my child, and possibly finding an attorney to file a tort claim.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
1,571
Total visitors
1,640

Forum statistics

Threads
606,658
Messages
18,207,670
Members
233,920
Latest member
charity4668
Back
Top