TY says that Terri seemed "defensive."

[GrainneDhu]

I'm not sure she could put up an effective fight against the RO; how can she prove she did NOT try to hire someone to kill her husband? Her lawyer probably advised her to wait until her name is cleared, if it ever is. But I'm just not sure how one fights a case when it is a matter of a so-called "he said, she said."

In criminal court, one method would be by attacking the credibility of the witness.

Does he have any unusual reason to cooperate with LE? For instance, is he a drug pusher, undocumented immigrant, probationer in violation of his terms of probation or some such thing?

Has he ever made similar allegations in the past which were unfounded?

What were the conditions under which he made the allegations? Was it at the end of a "friendly" 39 hour continuous interview that, oddly enough, was neither videotaped nor recorded? Or were there substantial gaps in the videotapes or recordings?

Did he receive some sort of consideration in exchange for his testimony? That's not illegal and while professionals realise they should just lay it out, some non-professionals freak out and try to lie to the jury about it.

Plus pointing out the lack of any other evidence (assuming there is no other evidence or that the only evidence implicates her in an affair but not MFH) and the fact that the alleged target is still alive and well.

I'm actually less convinced about the MFH allegations than I am that TMH is involved in Kyron's disappearance (I am almost convinced TMH is the responsible party there).

 

[AvalonBlue]

While I believe the above to be true and correct, I have not seen too many media outlet reporters lately who could even construct a sentence properly so I never count on their using elements such as this correctly.

******
I'm in total agreement regarding what I consider troubling spelling, grammar, sentence construction, etc., noticed especially in the last year or so, in print and on MSM websites.

When I first started finding spelling or "wrong word" errors about five years ago, I thought it was sadly due to both "not enough or too much" utilization of spell check programs *and* not having a live human being actually *read* copy. Now, I see so many errors of so many types (pun intended) I'm inclined to believe standards are rapidly sliding down the proverbial "slippery slope.":snooty:

Back to point on this case, I feel it is SO clear that errors, lack of fact checking, etc. have amped up the analyzing of almost every word in every link or article we read. It's so weird when it turns out that many of us have gotten hung up on some particular wording that turns out to not have even been accurate in the first place!

Also, I think it is so important to read links, articles *and* watch any videos from which the written information is gleaned. I'm a mental health therapist (though not verified on this board yet) and have provided "expert" testimony in court a number of times.

When I later received transcripts of my testimony, I began to learn first hand that how we talk and how, on paper, those same words come across so differently is pretty amazing. There is such a noticeable difference in how conversational speech differs from the general way we write.

Watching the videos is so important also because of the extreme importance of body language -- and we've certainly been getting and giving lots of feedback about *that* in this case. I don't really believe there is yet a really accurate "tried and true" way to interpret body language, however, seeing someone say what you then additionally read on a screen or in print definitely adds to formulating a more complete and accurate picture of a situation.

P.S. I sure hope I haven't made any glaring spelling, usage errors, etc. in this post or I will be highly embarrassed.:blushing:

P.P.S. I just joined WS in June and once I have a sufficient number of posts I *DO* plan on applying to be verified as a professional poster. I only mention my profession in this post to add credence to my observations re "reading" versus "seeing" things.

 

[wondering1]

Would you advise your client to testify under oath in a RO hearing in a matter that does not directly affect the outcome of a possible criminal case?

What if that client argued passionately for going ahead and testifying? Would you let a client's emotional reaction change or bias the legal advice you gave?

Well, to start out, I think her testimony in the RO hearing might directly affect the criminal prosecution. If there was any chance of that I would *adivise* her not to testify and expect that she would follow my advice or face serious consequences...and I would document my advice and her contrary decison to the maximum.

 

[cluciano63]

Avalon, not to continue on an off-topic subject, but the part about trying to figure out what the media is saying with particular wording has become an exercise in futility. We always seem to think there is a hidden meaning in their choice of words, or the order in which they appear, only to eventually figure out, usually by reading another article by same "writer", that they just can't write properly constructed sentences. It is partly lack of training, combined with the new need to post stories in minutes, rather than working on them until a late deadline.

 

[Haeve]

<snip>

P.S. I sure hope I haven't made any glaring spelling, usage errors, etc. in this post or I will be highly embarrassed.:blushing:

<snip>

No problem, see Muphry's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law

 

[RoughlyCollie]

In re: Not contesting the petition to keep K away from Terri.....has anyone even bothered to give her the wherewithal to understand that she was on a spiral and right now, contesting anything would mean explaining a lot of things she herself doesn't understand (like, say, hooking up with an immigrant landscaper and then a friend of her husband, and well, lots of other things) and realizing the court would simply say to her "sorry Terri, you're a ho and you need to get yourself on track." and without having to go through the court to realize that, has begun what she can to get where she must be to be the mother she HAS to be for K?

Cuz I do.

I don't understand what you are asking.

Are you asking if anyone has advised TH that if she has to explain her actions to the court, and she doesn't understand what precipitated them, and her explanations are not reasonable and indicative of mental health, that she will not get custody of her daughter?

Are you also asking if anyone has explained to TH that her behavior is indicative of mental illness ("on a spiral") and that she has to get therapy to become a fit parent to her daughter, before she makes her case for that in court?

 

[AvalonBlue]

Avalon, not to continue on an off-topic subject, but the part about trying to figure out what the media is saying with particular wording has become an exercise in futility. We always seem to think there is a hidden meaning in their choice of words, or the order in which they appear, only to eventually figure out, usually by reading another article by same "writer", that they just can't write properly constructed sentences. It is partly lack of training, combined with the new need to post stories in minutes, rather than working on them until a late deadline.

I hear you, cluciano! In my post I was, in part, attempting to convey that very futility, in addition to the sometimes poorly written reports.:blowkiss:

Thank you for saying it so well!:clap:

And, I agree with your last sentence, too, about how a combination of factors, including the 24/7 "All News, All the Time" pressure makes for "bad" copy.

So, I do have empathy...as well as some pretty apparent OCD characteristics when it comes to the written word!:Banane37:

 

[RoughlyCollie]

She's a terrific human being, as great as she is a great attorney.

Now, maybe she and I had a very unusual attorney/client relationship but I don't think so. Then again, what do I know?

I think she's a terrific attorney who had a terrific client.

Attorneys cannot force their clients to take their advice. Some do, some don't.

 

[AvalonBlue]

No problem, see Muphry's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law

Oh, thank you, Haeve! Your link is just perfect! :Banane13:

I've known about basic Murphy's Law for years, yet "Muphry's Law" has eluded me until tonight.:doh:

I am SO lol, which we all need so much right now.:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

 

[Haeve]

Oh, thank you, Haeve! Your link is just perfect! :Banane13:

I've known about basic Murphy's Law for years, yet "Muphry's Law" has eluded me until tonight.:doh:

I am SO lol, which we all need so much right now.:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

:woohoo: You're welcome. I've worked as a copy editor. I once made a major typo (mixed up two legitimate words, with a one letter difference) in a cover letter for a copy editing job. All the while talking about my attention to detail. :banghead: Muphry is not my friend.

And back on topic, I posted about this before, but I think I put it more delicately. Apologies to any reporters here, but in my experience many reporters may not actually be stupid, but they might as well be, the way they jump to conclusions. For those who don't know, copy editors also do fact-checking, or make the reporters do the fact-checking they were supposed to do.

I read a profile about a local fellow and it described his appearance, including the "chewing tobacco" in his pocket. I looked at the photo and clearly what the man had was "roll your own" tobacco. Did it matter all that much? Not really. Was it accurate? Not at all. But in a crime case like this one, little details like that make all the difference in the world.

Hopefully there are fairly seasoned reporters on this case, but the Oregonian is in trouble financially so maybe not. My point is, reporters can only bring their own biases and their own opinions to a story, even if it is not an opinion piece. In the case I cited above, the reporter likely had no experience with the sector of the culture who rolls their own cigarettes, so she made an assumption. Compound little errors like this over the course of a story that's been going on for nearly 6 weeks and imagine how many little things have been inaccurate. I agree that it's maddening. :furious:

Sorry, I tried to steer this back to how it relates to the case but can't quite tie it in to the thread topic.

 

[Annazed]

In re: Not contesting the petition to keep K away from Terri.....has anyone even bothered to give her the wherewithal to understand that she was on a spiral and right now, contesting anything would mean explaining a lot of things she herself doesn't understand (like, say, hooking up with an immigrant landscaper and then a friend of her husband, and well, lots of other things) and realizing the court would simply say to her "sorry Terri, you're a ho and you need to get yourself on track." and without having to go through the court to realize that, has begun what she can to get where she must be to be the mother she HAS to be for K?

Cuz I do.

Do you have a link that gives information about the landscaper in to alleged MFH plot? I was not aware of his having been identified as an immigrant. That would maybe explain his not having come forward earlier (if even that is the case), but I thought it was only speculated about here. Thanks!

 

[Donjeta]

In re: Not contesting the petition to keep K away from Terri.....has anyone even bothered to give her the wherewithal to understand that she was on a spiral and right now, contesting anything would mean explaining a lot of things she herself doesn't understand (like, say, hooking up with an immigrant landscaper and then a friend of her husband, and well, lots of other things) and realizing the court would simply say to her "sorry Terri, you're a ho and you need to get yourself on track." and without having to go through the court to realize that, has begun what she can to get where she must be to be the mother she HAS to be for K?

Cuz I do.

Are you saying that she doesn't contest because she's realized she's gotta get her life together to be a top mom again?

 

[AvalonBlue]

Respectfully snipped

Sorry, I tried to steer this back to how it relates to the case but can't quite tie it in to the thread topic.

Well, let's see -- the thread topic is about TY saying that TH seemed "defensive."

A lot of the last posts in this thread (mine included) have been raising important points about how MSM has been covering the family, neighbors, landscapers, long-long high school buddies, attorneys, etc.

We've been discussing how seriously we can take certain "reported" info based on a number of factors, including lack of proper fact checking, jumping to conclusions, what is included and what is possibly excluded, bad spelling, usage, grammar, etc.

We have been looking at this currently in this thread as it refers to TY at first giving TH the benefit of the doubt when she was protesting being scrutinized by LE -- and then him deciding that she was being defensive. We really don't know exactly how long it took TY to go through this process -- and, based on how all of our minds work with our life experiences -- we can't really know how TY being in LE might impact how he takes in info and forms opinions.

In connection with this, we have been looking at DY recently revealing that she was suspicious of TH from the get go -- from that very first phone call. We've been contrasting TY's latest statement to DY's revelation about doubting TH.

It's not impossible, or even unlikely, that TY, even with his training, or maybe *especially* because of his training, is a person who is able to gather facts *and* suspend forming his opinion until enough of those facts get gathered in the fact basket. Also, even with his profession, he has had a different family role to focus on ever since K went missing. Local LE and FBI let him know early on he would not be getting any "special" information.

TY was able to focus on his role as husband, step-father, etc. within the extended family *and* also give some good basic info to all about how an investigation proceeds so the others would be prepared.

At the very same time, it is also possible, and I think very likely, that DY no matter how much she loves and respects her husband and his experience, was probably steaming out her ears at TH all the way to Portland and increasingly since then.

DY has talked of mothers' intuition -- and I think we hear her loud and clear on that topic! I think she and Tony are intelligent, mature people and could/can tolerate that he might originally give some benefit of the doubt to TH -- while DY's Mama Bear instincts were growing ever stronger every minute.

I feel strongly that DY *did* make her feelings known right away to TY, KH, TH, and LE. I do believe that simmering issues that could exist in any such parenting arrangement came to a boil in those first few days and that did have a great deal to do with the family not appearing en masse before the press. (And, look what's happened ever since then - "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" -- and "Damn, how could the public ever expected all this?")

Everyone, please read Haeve's post #110 from tonight to read the great points made there. Haeve was the inspiration for helping me to get motivated to write this post.

 

[gitana1]

I'm not sure she could put up an effective fight against the RO; how can she prove she did NOT try to hire someone to kill her husband? Her lawyer probably advised her to wait until her name is cleared, if it ever is. But I'm just not sure how one fights a case when it is a matter of a so-called "he said, she said."

You make a good point. How does one prove a negative? But, he said she said is the bulk of family law custody battles and a huge part of DV actions, in my experience. Most people don't abuse their wives or husbands, or expose their parenting flaws to outsiders so there are often no witnesses. The way the courts deal with that is by hearing the people testify, reading their declarations and judging their credibility based on what they read, see and hear. These judges see so many people, they are generally very good, typically, at determining who is telling the truth. Kinda like Judge Judy who was a family law judge for a long time before her t.v. show. They learn, over the years, how to tell.
Also, KH's statement that LE told him there is probable cause re TH and her involvement with Kyron's disappearance, as well as the statement about the hit, that's all hearsay. He normally would have to prove that up at the evidentiary hearing, if TH wanted to contest the issue and object on hearsay grounds. But I don't think she wants to risk contesting it because then she would have to testify. There is no criminal hearing pending so she cannot refuse on the grounds that a criminal case has been filed. If she otherwise decided to plead the fifth, in the fear of some future crim case, she would lose.
TH has a great attorney. He knows what he's doing, who his client is and what his client is facing. That's why he told her she cannot contest the RO.
Let me ask you, would you give up contact with your baby, on even a temporary basis, because you may have to prove a negative? That's what I cannot let go of and no one has given me a good reason why she would not be in court saying, "I don't give a da*n about these ridiculous allegations. I will look you straight in the eye, your honor and tell you flat, I did nothing. This *advertiser censored* is just trying to capitalize on my step-son's disappearance to get everything he can in our disso case. But I refuse to back down. That's my baby and she needs me, now." Instead, she cowers behind fiends or whoever, hiding her face and engaging in clandestine sexual activity during what to an innocent mother would be the worst moment ever, that she could imagine. It makes no sense to me.
Again, there are tons of excuses for each move she makes or fails to make, but the big picture and some key actions that are verifiable or close to being so, those do not fade just because there may be an excuse for one of the many things she has done. IMO.

 

[gitana1]

In re: Not contesting the petition to keep K away from Terri.....has anyone even bothered to give her the wherewithal to understand that she was on a spiral and right now, contesting anything would mean explaining a lot of things she herself doesn't understand (like, say, hooking up with an immigrant landscaper and then a friend of her husband, and well, lots of other things) and realizing the court would simply say to her "sorry Terri, you're a ho and you need to get yourself on track." and without having to go through the court to realize that, has begun what she can to get where she must be to be the mother she HAS to be for K?

Cuz I do.

I don't. Not for a minute. I try and see tons of cases. Hooking up with an immigrant landscaper and/or a husband's friend would not have one thing to do with a DV action or custody, unless it is related to something else that could be considered detrimental to her child, like, for example, her current paramour is a sex offender and she refuses to keep him away from her baby. Being a ho does not cost a person custody.
But, even if it did, when combined with something else, at the least, TH could get supervised visitation. I would do anything to see my baby. That baby was raised by her, a stay at home mom. Can you imagine a good, innocent mother who would not do anything to hold that baby for a few hours at the least?

 

[gitana1]

I have a question which you may well not be able to answer. But I hope you will give it a shot.

Pretend you are in Mr Houze's shoes. You have a client who has demonstrated a lack of good judgment. You know that her story for the day her stepson went missing is obviously suspected by LE to be false. You are looking ahead to the possibility of your client being put on trial in the matter of that child's disappearance.

Would you advise your client to testify under oath in a RO hearing in a matter that does not directly affect the outcome of a possible criminal case?

What if that client argued passionately for going ahead and testifying? Would you let a client's emotional reaction change or bias the legal advice you gave?

I'm not a lawyer at all and my answers would be that I would not want her to testify under oath at the RO hearing, I would do my utmost to dissuade her and it wouldn't matter how emotionally or passionately she pled to do so.

I know when I got a divorce, I had huge respect for my attorney. She has argued (and won) in front of the Supreme Court, she has huge amounts of experience, several of her cases have set precedent in state courts, etc. And I saw the effect of her withering glance!

There were times when she "advised" me to do something or not to do something. I put advised in quote marks because it was rather akin to a five star general advising a recruit fresh out of base camp that his shoes need better polishing. No order needed, merely the faintest hint of direction was all that was necessary.

She's a terrific human being, as great as she is a great attorney.

Now, maybe she and I had a very unusual attorney/client relationship but I don't think so. Then again, what do I know?

What do you know? I think you're smart, you know a lot! heck, you're a websleuther!!!
Under the circumstances you gave me, I would advise her that she cannot testify at all. if she argued passionately, I'd have to hear what she had to say, what her reasoning is and whether she can explain everything to my satisfaction. I would examine evidence like cell phone pings, via subpoena and see if it all adds up. I would depose the landscape guy, etc. But, I am not a criminal attorney. There are cases of potential overlap like civil DV cases where a criminal DV case is pending, or quasi-criminal contempt, but nothing like a hardcore criminal case and I've heard that defense attorneys do not ask their clients if they are innocent to have anything to hide. But I demand the truth from my clients so it is hard for me to say what would be the right thing to do or not in such a case. It is not my expertise.
I tell you what though, if my baby was taken from me, I'd fire any attorney who told me I could not fight to get her back. Unless I was guilty of something real, real bad. Yes, people listen to their attorneys but not when they tell them to jump off a bridge, you know what I mean?

 

[gitana1]

In criminal court, one method would be by attacking the credibility of the witness.

Does he have any unusual reason to cooperate with LE? For instance, is he a drug pusher, undocumented immigrant, probationer in violation of his terms of probation or some such thing?

Has he ever made similar allegations in the past which were unfounded?

What were the conditions under which he made the allegations? Was it at the end of a "friendly" 39 hour continuous interview that, oddly enough, was neither videotaped nor recorded? Or were there substantial gaps in the videotapes or recordings?

Did he receive some sort of consideration in exchange for his testimony? That's not illegal and while professionals realise they should just lay it out, some non-professionals freak out and try to lie to the jury about it.

Plus pointing out the lack of any other evidence (assuming there is no other evidence or that the only evidence implicates her in an affair but not MFH) and the fact that the alleged target is still alive and well.

I'm actually less convinced about the MFH allegations than I am that TMH is involved in Kyron's disappearance (I am almost convinced TMH is the responsible party there).

See, you do know a lot! You sound like a seasoned attorney here!

 

[Donjeta]

If my attorney told me that I have to give up even trying to see my babies without a fight I rather think I would tell him to jump off a bridge.

 

[GrainneDhu]

I think she's a terrific attorney who had a terrific client.

Attorneys cannot force their clients to take their advice. Some do, some don't.

<<BLUSH!>>

Truly, I have never really understood people who go to the trouble of finding a really good attorney and then don't follow that attorney's advice.

Some lawyers, yeah, it does seem kinda like a gamble as to whether their advice would be any good or not but most are way above that level.

 

[Kat]

In re: Not contesting the petition to keep K away from Terri.....has anyone even bothered to give her the wherewithal to understand that she was on a spiral and right now, contesting anything would mean explaining a lot of things she herself doesn't understand (like, say, hooking up with an immigrant landscaper and then a friend of her husband, and well, lots of other things) and realizing the court would simply say to her "sorry Terri, you're a ho and you need to get yourself on track." and without having to go through the court to realize that, has begun what she can to get where she must be to be the mother she HAS to be for K?

Cuz I do.

I had thought that she declined to contest the petition at this point in time because yes she would have to explain things and I had thought that she may have chosen to do so because she might just have a very good defense attn that advised her that those very behaviors would shine an unkind light on her. I do think she will contest it in the future debs. (sorry for the run on sentence debs, but I don't want to go back and edit )