Basically, it comes down to a "he said" situation. I always found his language of LE giving him "probable cause" to be a little strange. To me, that statement should have been followed by the attachment of a signed statement from LE backing up KH's claim.
We had several discussions about RO's in Oregon. Didn't those discussions yield the fact that pretty much, you can say whatever you want to say in a RO request? That you don't have to attach proof? Did DY (then DH) include proof of her allegations against KH when she got a restraining order against him?
The statement "never went beyond talk" is a pretty significant one, IMHO. I think they're signaling that there's nothing there that would stand up in court. And so far they haven't produced anything. Although of course that may change. In this case, it seems that anything could happen next.
I think they are only admitting that Kaine is not dead...therefore no one went "beyond talk"and shot, poisoned, or spirited him off to places unknown.
And it has been able "to stand up" in one court anyway...Terri does not have her child.
Why has not one of the parties I mentioned, LE, Terri, her attorney, the judge in the case...disputed Kaine's allegation. Why not?
Gitana 1( a verified attorney) posted this in regard to the allegations:
"The way for TH to have dealt with that was to request a hearing and contest the allegations. TH could have done that even without actually testifying - that's her right - by merely objecting to hearsay allegations and forcing Kaine to provide actual proof, not just hearsay.
My law partner did that in a case where criminal charges were pending for the same alleged DV. He didn't put the client on the stand at all, just ripped apart the so-called evidence.
So answer me this, how would such a strategy act to open TH up to self-incrimination? It wouldn't because she would not be testifying. But she'd be forcing Kaine to put up or shut up and she would show that she's not going to just back down and take having her kid ripped from her. The fact that she didn't, even though challenging the allegations without testifying was an option, speaks volumes to me. She did not want Kaine to outline his evidence for some reason.
Why?"
and later in the thread..this:
I have explained how TH could have fought the RO without compromising her rights in a potential criminal case.
Changes to custody absolutely cannot be made at any time. OR law is fairly clear on this. I've posted a synopsis. TH will be unlikely to ever get any custody rights in the future, based on my understanding of OR law, unless she and Kaine mutually agree to change the court orders. However, requests for visitation and/or contact with her baby can be made and granted at any time.
What my comparison meant to show is that one cannot fail to contest an RO request and then later revisit the issue. If you fail to contest it and an RO is issued against you, that is tantamount to failing to contest criminal charges against you in that if you fail to plead at the arraignment, then fail to defend yourself in any way at trial, fail to present evidence, testimony, to cross examine witnesses or object to evidence, etc., such failure will result in a criminal conviction. One cannot later go back and say, "Oh, I'm ready to fight now." Once a conviction has been entered, that's it unless there is an appeal. Same thing with an RO. Once an RO has been issued after the thirty day time period has passed with no request from the accused for a hearing, there is a finding of DV against the accused and there are no more hearings or opportunities to contest that except appeal.
Of course a finding of DV and a criminal conviction have different consequences and my post did not imply that they did. Some posters seemed to have felt that there would be some later opportunity to undo the RO and this was a way of explaining that that is not true. I hope that helps. "
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111192&page=6
I agree with Gitana1. If Kaine's statement made in a legal document is unsubstantiated...whyever would a loving Mother allow THAT to stand and deprive her of her child?
Why would her attorney allow that?
If it CANNOT be substantiated what could be more important than Baby K to Teri?
Why would LE allow themselves to be misquoted? Terri would be able to have LE support HER in defending herself against Kaine IF...and only IF these allegations of her murderous intentions are empty and false.
