What IS Terri GUILTY of?

[Rayne]

Hi, everyone. I've been lurking a bit, reading a lot, and thinking a lot. And there's something I'm not getting. I'm sure I'm missing something, so I'll ask this, and then maybe get some info that jogs the old brain neurons back into action.

Oh - and I apologize if it's been discussed before (I've read a lot here, but not everything!)

So, TH won't pursue custody or visitation of her daughter, and there's a reason why ... but it's the reason why I'm not getting. The standard belief seems to be, she has something to hide. But ... what? (i.e., what is she guilty of?)

If she was responsible for Kyron's disappearance, all she has to do (in domestic court) is stick to her original story: "I had nothing to do with it, I was driving around randomly." Then it's KH's responsibility to 'prove her wrong.' Well - if he could beyond any doubt prove her wrong, then LE would have the same info, and if it was that certain, would probably have charged her by now. If KH can't prove her wrong, then - it's her word against his, so what does she have to lose? At least she'd have tried.

If the evidence LE has so far isn't enough to charge her, then even if KH was allowed to present that evidence, it doesn't seem it could be all that damning. But I doubt KH could present that evidence, actually, because it's LE evidence in an ongoing investigation - not sure he could get 'hard copies' of it and without hard copies, it's hearsay (I think???). He'd have no proof either. It'd still be her word against his.

She can't be afraid to lie on the stand, specifically about KH's allegation that she was responsible for Kyron's disappearance: (a) if she was responsible for Kyron, I can't believe she'd have a case of the morals over lying; and (b) the only way to prove she lied in domestic court would be if she finally gets charged and convicted - and by that time I'd think domestic court perjury would be the least of her worries.

I don't understand what she'd have to 'take the 5th' about it if she just chose to stick to whatever story she'd already told LE. Domestic court isn't going to go into investigating and trying to prove she couldn't have done what she says, the way LE will - it's not a criminal investigation - it's just whatever KH can present, and whatever she can present, and that's it. So if she sticks to telling domestic court the same thing she told LE, what's there to take the 5th about?

In fact, the fact that she hasn't been charged might be in her favor in domestic court - whatever allegations KH makes, if LE doesn't have enough to charge her, then she could argue that KH is just wrong and there's obviously no 'proof' - or LE would have charged her by now.

Is it the MFH plot? Well, she could deny that. There must not be sufficient proof or she could have been charged with that already, too, and if there was sufficient proof, I doubt LE would have bothered with the (failed) sting - if you had proof, you wouldn't need that. In fact, if Houze is as good as he's supposed to be, he could probably shred (or coach Bunch [is that the right name?] to shred) any mention of the MFH on the basis of that failed sting, and the fact that it's more hearsay.

Was it the sexting? Well - that's bad form (putting it mildly) but not illegal. It's already out in the public, so there can't be a drive to keep it secret. To get visitation a person doesn't have to be a 'model' or 'good' parent - just not be a danger to their child ... sexting when done while the child isn't in her care shouldn't preclude visitation. (again - I think?) I work for a lawyer and we have a client who works as an 'exotic dancer' at a 'gentleman's club' (translation - high end strip joint) but got full custody of her young daughter, because she does said dancing at night, after the child's in bed (with a sitter), so ... doesn't affect her ability to be a good mom.

Could it be the emails Desiree talked about? Those could be submitted as evidence, and if she really had said horrible things about Kyron, that would be hard to get around, and could make her look dangerous to children. That's the only thing I can think of that she might think she'd have to 'take the 5th' on - but for that to be true, they would indeed have to pretty darned awful. (if she'd just said "I hate that kid, he's wrecking my marriage" or something - that could be explained away as venting in the moment, possibly).

Please know, I'm not suggesting she *should* do any of these things, or feeling sorry for her, or anything. I'm just analyzing.

I know the burden of proof is different in civil (domestic) court than criminal, but even with that ... I don't get it. Someone please enlighten me to what I'm missing. :waitasec:

Thanks for reading ... sorry so long. :blushing:

Rayne

 

[lonetraveler]

I do believe that Terry tried to hire a hitman to murder her husband. I also believe that a woman who would do this would not hesitate to hire someone to also snatch Kyron and take him somewhere and do away with him.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

I don't understand what she'd have to 'take the 5th' about it if she just chose to stick to whatever story she'd already told LE. Domestic court isn't going to go into investigating and trying to prove she couldn't have done what she says, the way LE will - it's not a criminal investigation - it's just whatever KH can present, and whatever she can present, and that's it. So if she sticks to telling domestic court the same thing she told LE, what's there to take the 5th about?

<sbm>

ANY statements made by an innocent person can and will be used against them.

statements terri makes during the divorce proceedings will be used against her in any other case. for instance, if prosecutors ever try to charge her with something re: kyron disappearance.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Hi, everyone. I've been lurking a bit, reading a lot, and thinking a lot. And there's something I'm not getting. I'm sure I'm missing something, so I'll ask this, and then maybe get some info that jogs the old brain neurons back into action.

Oh - and I apologize if it's been discussed before (I've read a lot here, but not everything!)

So, TH won't pursue custody or visitation of her daughter, and there's a reason why ... but it's the reason why I'm not getting. The standard belief seems to be, she has something to hide. But ... what? (i.e., what is she guilty of?)

Rayne: It's really simple. According to her attorney in the court papers she doesn't want to do the required mental evaluation she would need to get custody back. Therefore, she is trying to avoid questions about her parenting skills and state of mind as a mother ~ she doesn't want anything on the record that could be used against her if she is ever charged in Kyron's disappearance.

Remember, the filing below is coming from TH and HER Attorney, so there seems to be a recognition of guilt in her unwillingness to be evaluated for the custody case.

http://media.katu.com/documents/motion+to+abate_2.pdf

See # 7, page 2, among all the other reasons she gives.

7. Further it is likely that the resolution of custody and parenting time will require an evaluation by a competant psychologist. Such evaluations are broad in terms of the information the evaluator requires from each parent. . . .
8. The evaluator must be independent, and the evaluation process must be free of outside influence, such as media attention and the scrutiny associated with this case. Because of the current investigation and actions taken by the police, it is evident that the evaluator, and his or her work product, would become part of the investigation

So that's pretty straightforward. She doesn't want anything she says to be scrutinized as part of the Kyron case.

It goes on . . .

...which would completely disrupt the evaluation process. It is unlikely that any competant evaluator would agree to work on this matter under those circumstances.
I think this last part of the claim was thrown in just to sound as if there is another reason for Terri not wanting to be evaluated. I don't know why a competant evaluator would refuse to participate just because of media coverage. So I think that's a bogus claim.

 

[GrainneDhu]

So, TH won't pursue custody or visitation of her daughter, and there's a reason why ... but it's the reason why I'm not getting. The standard belief seems to be, she has something to hide. But ... what? (i.e., what is she guilty of?)

If she was responsible for Kyron's disappearance, all she has to do (in domestic court) is stick to her original story: "I had nothing to do with it, I was driving around randomly."

SBM (snipped by me)

Welcome Rayne!

I think the above illustrates a common mistake made by many, many people. Maybe most people: the idea that it is easy to stick to a lie under cross-examination.

It seems like it would be easy. It seems like it would be a simple matter to come up with a story that is vague or unproveable at crucial points, stick to it and avoid incriminating one's self.

But that's actually, factually, provably false. It turns out that it is incredibly difficult to maintain a lie and keep it sufficiently consistent with reality under examination that no holes or damaging admissions show up.

And that is why criminal defence lawyers tell their clients not to talk. Those lawyers know that IF their client is guilty, talking is one sure way for that guilt to be revealed. And that if their client is innocent, they can still say things that may tend to incriminate themselves even though they are factually innocent.

This video has been posted a few times on this board but I think it bears repeating:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/ame]

Even if TMH is factually innocent (which I consider a long shot but still within the realms of possibility at this point), she could still say something that would tend to incriminate herself.

For example, a purely made up situation: say investigators have secret evidence that Kyron was caught on security cameras at a store around 9am on 4 June. There was an adult with him but the angle of the tape and what that person was wearing are such that they cannot be recognised.

Now, in my purely made up example, the adult with Kyron was not actually TMH, it was some other adult (the abductor, actually).

Immediately after the footage with Kyron on it was taken, the camera malfunctions somehow. Pure coincidence but it does.

Now, again, this is completely made up: what if TMH was in that store 15 minutes later? No one recognised her, no one has placed her at that store and she was not there with Kyron. Had she been there 14 minutes earlier, she could have rescued Kyron but she wasn't.

If she admits to the police that she was in that store at 9:15 am that morning, that is a statement that would tend to incriminate herself. It places her in very close proximity to Kyron's secretly known position.

And all this is the reason why TMH's lawyers don't want her to talk.

Keeping in mind, of course, that for four weeks, TMH was talking to LE and, apparently, anyone else who would listen. Whatever it was she said was not, apparently, enough to exculpate her in LE's eyes, so how would more talking help her?

 

[cluciano63]

There was a Dateline on tonight about a Long Island woman who wanted her husband dead, due to a nasty divorce, etc...she asked her private investigator if he could arrange it. He calls the cops and then calls her back, with the call being taped by the DA. In the call, she repeats what she wants, confirms the conversation they had the other day, etc...talks money.

The DA said if she hadn't later met with an undercover cop and continued the conversation and handed over a down payment, they would not have charged her.

So I'm wondering if what TH may have done is have the first conversation but it never got to the money stage and for sure, no money must have changed hands. It seems as though it would not be much to go on, as far as charging for conspiracy for murder, unless it gets to the money stage, at least in the cases I've found.

Anyway, this just made me think of Terri.

 

[loves2bmom]

There was a Dateline on tonight about a Long Island woman who wanted her husband dead, due to a nasty divorce, etc...she asked her private investigator if he could arrange it. He calls the cops and then calls her back, with the call being taped by the DA. In the call, she repeats what she wants, confirms the conversation they had the other day, etc...talks money.

The DA said if she hadn't later met with an undercover cop and continued the conversation and handed over a down payment, they would not have charged her.

So I'm wondering if what TH may have done is have the first conversation but it never got to the money stage and for sure, no money must have changed hands. It seems as though it would not be much to go on, as far as charging for conspiracy for murder, unless it gets to the money stage, at least in the cases I've found.

Anyway, this just made me think of Terri.

I saw that too Clu. It "surprised" me that this seemingly normal, upstanding mother of 4 could just sit there and coldly ask for her husband to be killed and chuckle about it. I immediatly thought of TH too.

 

[KariKae]

This might be a little off topic...But what is TH doing now? Does she just stay holed up in her parent's house all day watching CSI? I haven't heard she has a job.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I'm pretty sure Terri doesn't have a job because I have never heard any mention of one. With so many people out of work, if you're an employer, the last one you want to hire is one who will bring bad publicity to the company. Actually, I would be surprised if Terri had even applied for jobs.

 

[cluciano63]

Just to mention the acquittal this week of the suspect in the murder of Stephanie Condon...the jury was not allowed to hear that he had been charged with breaking into a neighbor's home and stealing ladies underwear, a charge to which he filed a no contest plea. I wonder how many things about TH we have heard that would never be allowed before a jury. This man was likely guilty, in my opinion, but the case was totally circumstantial, the biggest thing being his changing stories. In Kyron's case, LE will need to have more than changing stories and a questionable alibi, which is all we know of right now.

Stephanie's body was eventually found, many years later and two years before the trial, but it did not add any evidence to the case.

 

[Eileen730]

Hi, everyone. I've been lurking a bit, reading a lot, and thinking a lot. And there's something I'm not getting. I'm sure I'm missing something, so I'll ask this, and then maybe get some info that jogs the old brain neurons back into action.

Oh - and I apologize if it's been discussed before (I've read a lot here, but not everything!)

So, TH won't pursue custody or visitation of her daughter, and there's a reason why ... but it's the reason why I'm not getting. The standard belief seems to be, she has something to hide. But ... what? (i.e., what is she guilty of?)

If she was responsible for Kyron's disappearance, all she has to do (in domestic court) is stick to her original story: "I had nothing to do with it, I was driving around randomly." Then it's KH's responsibility to 'prove her wrong.' Well - if he could beyond any doubt prove her wrong, then LE would have the same info, and if it was that certain, would probably have charged her by now. If KH can't prove her wrong, then - it's her word against his, so what does she have to lose? At least she'd have tried.

If the evidence LE has so far isn't enough to charge her, then even if KH was allowed to present that evidence, it doesn't seem it could be all that damning. But I doubt KH could present that evidence, actually, because it's LE evidence in an ongoing investigation - not sure he could get 'hard copies' of it and without hard copies, it's hearsay (I think???). He'd have no proof either. It'd still be her word against his.

She can't be afraid to lie on the stand, specifically about KH's allegation that she was responsible for Kyron's disappearance: (a) if she was responsible for Kyron, I can't believe she'd have a case of the morals over lying; and (b) the only way to prove she lied in domestic court would be if she finally gets charged and convicted - and by that time I'd think domestic court perjury would be the least of her worries.

I don't understand what she'd have to 'take the 5th' about it if she just chose to stick to whatever story she'd already told LE. Domestic court isn't going to go into investigating and trying to prove she couldn't have done what she says, the way LE will - it's not a criminal investigation - it's just whatever KH can present, and whatever she can present, and that's it. So if she sticks to telling domestic court the same thing she told LE, what's there to take the 5th about?

In fact, the fact that she hasn't been charged might be in her favor in domestic court - whatever allegations KH makes, if LE doesn't have enough to charge her, then she could argue that KH is just wrong and there's obviously no 'proof' - or LE would have charged her by now.

Is it the MFH plot? Well, she could deny that. There must not be sufficient proof or she could have been charged with that already, too, and if there was sufficient proof, I doubt LE would have bothered with the (failed) sting - if you had proof, you wouldn't need that. In fact, if Houze is as good as he's supposed to be, he could probably shred (or coach Bunch [is that the right name?] to shred) any mention of the MFH on the basis of that failed sting, and the fact that it's more hearsay.

Was it the sexting? Well - that's bad form (putting it mildly) but not illegal. It's already out in the public, so there can't be a drive to keep it secret. To get visitation a person doesn't have to be a 'model' or 'good' parent - just not be a danger to their child ... sexting when done while the child isn't in her care shouldn't preclude visitation. (again - I think?) I work for a lawyer and we have a client who works as an 'exotic dancer' at a 'gentleman's club' (translation - high end strip joint) but got full custody of her young daughter, because she does said dancing at night, after the child's in bed (with a sitter), so ... doesn't affect her ability to be a good mom.

Could it be the emails Desiree talked about? Those could be submitted as evidence, and if she really had said horrible things about Kyron, that would be hard to get around, and could make her look dangerous to children. That's the only thing I can think of that she might think she'd have to 'take the 5th' on - but for that to be true, they would indeed have to pretty darned awful. (if she'd just said "I hate that kid, he's wrecking my marriage" or something - that could be explained away as venting in the moment, possibly).

Please know, I'm not suggesting she *should* do any of these things, or feeling sorry for her, or anything. I'm just analyzing.

I know the burden of proof is different in civil (domestic) court than criminal, but even with that ... I don't get it. Someone please enlighten me to what I'm missing. :waitasec:

Thanks for reading ... sorry so long. :blushing:

Rayne

I think maybe Terri might be an alcoholic and maybe was having some affairs!
Her lawyer maybe told her to let Kaine have custody now and seek custody at a later time when things settle down...

she will have to prove herself sober and a fit mother she cant do that now with all the accusations against her..

she cant go to court at all once she gets on the stand its all over for her they can ask her anything at all.

JMO