Will the Grand Jury Indict & if so, on what charge(s)?

[Calliope]

Ok, now I'm more confused... but thanks, will read it a few more time.

Sounds as if the prosecutor brings his evidence against a specific person. If the GJ believes a crime has been committed, they indorse the indictment. If they feel something's wrong but aren't sure what crime occurred (or if the suspect can be charged), they present their question to the Court for direction. I could well be misreading that altogether lol. But after reading that section, it seems to me the prosecutor must have a person they are going after specifically to be indicted on specific charges. It doesn't read as though it can be used to compel people to talk just to collect evidence without a specific suspect in mind (did that make sense?) JMO of course.

 

[butterfly1978]

I voted other atthis point, I think they will be stuck with charging her with Obstruction for now until they can get more evidence. I just dont think they have enough at this point for the mfh or kidnapping because it may not be kidnapping but murder.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Am confused again...I thought several people weighed in and said grand juries are not called for the purpose of gathering evidence, but only to hear evidence and decide whether or not to indict...in other words, working on specific charges.

Can they just call people in for a week or ten days to talk about their relationships with Terri, how she has been acting the past six months, etc. and ask if they have any information about Kyron? Or do they have to have a specific charge or charges in mind and the people coming in may or may not be able to clarify the details surrounding the crime in question?

Even what I am asking is confusing... guess I will go to the legal thread.

The thing I keep in mind is that all of these people who are testifying have been interviewed by LE or been served with warrants for evidence (home searches, computers, emails, text messages). Therefore, most of the people testifying in front of the Grand Jury are talking about incidences and evidence that LE already knows about from the evidence or statements they have gathered, or from Facebook or any number of places that might have been subpoenaed.

However - here's another point - new evidence "might" come out of a Grand Jury because the members of the Jury can ask questions, and they might actually ask a question the police have not asked before. I don't think that is forbidden in a GJ, as long as the question deals with the case at hand and might be used later in a criminal trial.

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

No Indictment

maybe i'm still not connecting the dots?

 

[froginTtown]

wow...great question Bean-E.. I have skipped the poll for now and will hash it over .. I don't think it will be homicide or manslaughter though... We would have heard that they found Kyron deceased... I can see the other charges being brought onto her though... I also remember reading that the GJ can hear more than one case at a time... I take that to mean that they may be hearing the murder for hire too... I'm confused if they can bring the larger charges up later... (sorry, haven't read the whole thread yet., I don't want it to change my thoughts... cuz I know there are some great points in there..lol..)
so for now, I will vote other , for all the charges except Homicide and Manslaughter... I'll go vote now...

 

[froginTtown]

:waitasec: I'm really confused about the way a GJ operates,is this a preliminary hearing or what is it..??? The "secret GJ" really screws me up.. I try to read how they operate and I swear it confuses me more than I already am.... :truce: ...

I am also wondering if a 16 yr. old can be called in to testify... can someone help me with that question..?? :waitasec: TIA...

 

[Calliope]

:waitasec: I'm really confused about the way a GJ operates,is this a preliminary hearing or what is it..??? The "secret GJ" really screws me up.. I try to read how they operate and I swear it confuses me more than I already am.... :truce: ...

I am also wondering if a 16 yr. old can be called in to testify... can someone help me with that question..?? :waitasec: TIA...

Yes, a minor can testify. Under 12 years of age, the Court appoints a parent or guardian to accompany them.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/132.090.html

 

[mayagrl]

Although like everyone here I want Kyron home, I hope the GJ takes their time so whatever charges are appropriate and will lead to conviction, and finding Kyron. My thoughts on the MFH sting is that this may have been a way not only to get additional evidence but maybe to just shake the tree. They may think they have enough but want it airtight. We don't know what evidence, if any, the landscaper brought forward. KH and baby were safely away, so wouldn't hurt to wait on charges. It seems like they have sexts from her to him or vice versa. I voted "other" because I don't know enough law to decide. The GJ is doing God's work IMO and I pray for Him to give them wisdom everyday.

 

[STEADFAST]

:waitasec: I'm really confused about the way a GJ operates,is this a preliminary hearing or what is it..??? The "secret GJ" really screws me up.. I try to read how they operate and I swear it confuses me more than I already am.... :truce: ...

I am also wondering if a 16 yr. old can be called in to testify... can someone help me with that question..?? :waitasec: TIA...

Think of the grand jury as the same as discussions about indictments among the people inside the DA's office, except with a group of citizens deciding about whether to indict or not. Nobody would like for those kinds of discussions to be broadcast to the world; all sorts of information that would never be allowed in a courtroom would be brought out, and people might be harmed by what they reveal. Also, the whole idea of a grand jury is to protect against some prosecutor going crazy with power and indicting all his enemies or otherwise abusing his position.

 

[grandmaj]

I think it is important to note that a GJ also locks people in to their testimony. This is an important role in an investigation. The person can't then change their story down the road.

 

[socalgal2]

I love mulitple choice! Thanks BeanE! I picked 5 of them. I won't elaborate on my thoughts at this time. I'm last minute packing for my Cruise!:angel:

 

[matou]

As ridiculous as this sounds, I'm no longer 100% convinced that Terri is involved. I'm also not convinced that LE has evidence to support Kyron being deceased, I think they only know what we know: Kyron is missing and possibly endangered. I doubt LE will charge anyone with homicide unless they have direct evidence of Kyron's death. Unless someone saw Terri with Kyron after she said she last saw him, how can they charge her with anything related to Kyron's disappearance? Communication via cell phone or internet with a possible accomplice, I suppose. What charge would that be, conspiracy to kidnapping?

 

[cypress]

Even if I take the position that Terri is guilty, and that is not my position, I'm not sure what the peripheral evidence proves.

There is evidence of Terri running errands and moving normally about her day on June 4. There has been some rumbling by sources and whatnot that Terri's timeline was a bit off, and the reports about cell phone pings; however, she was somewhere, doing something, that required bank transactions. She was at the gym. She was on the phone with her friend. She was posting pictures on Facebook. She sent Desiree an e-mail. It's going to be difficult to disprove her story about driving baby K around to soothe her earache, and the story isn't outrageous. Many parents have used the motion of a car to soothe a fussy or tired child. If baby K is/was teething, then this explains why Terri would drive her around and believe it is acceptable to go to the gym. However, will the GJ make such deductions? Has anyone on the GJ soothed a child in a similar way? Will her story seem outrageous to them?

IMHO, there is no one who saw Kyron leave with Terri. This is an educated assumption on my part. LE spent several days questioning parents and students at Skyline. I believe the number of those questioned was in the hundreds. A few days later, LE sent out the questionnaire. Then there was another reminder for people to turn in the questionnaire. IMHO, the questionnaire would've been unnecessary if LE had received the information they'd needed/wanted, and I believe they were interviewing people under the assumption that Terri took Kyron from the school, and also IMHO, no one saw him leave with her. I believe that's why the questionnaire was sent out. They needed that vital piece of information. It doesn't matter, IMHO, what people assumed, it only matters if anyone saw him leave with her. If there are no witnesses, and Terri was moving about her day rather normally, it's going to be difficult to prove she took him from the school.

There is no murder scene, murder weapon, etc. LE have stated or inferred repeatedly that there is no evidence Kyron is deceased. It's not just that there's no body. If there was evidence of a murder but LE had no body, that'd be an entirely different matter, IMHO; however, there's not evidence of a murder. I don't believe the GJ will indict her on murder charges. I believe it'd be difficult for the prosecution to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt based on the glaring lack of evidence.

LE wanted to arrest Terri on the MFH plot. When the sting went belly up, I believe LE's chances to arrest Terri did also.

It's difficult for me to fathom on what charges she'll be indicted, but I believe she will probably be indicted on something. Unless new and extremely damning evidence comes to light, I have serious doubts about a conviction, though.

 

[cluciano63]

I'm not seeing how Terri can be indicted on any of the major charges (kidnapping or murder). Not really seeing how she can be charged with anything to do with Kyron, at this point. Unless LE finally found their witness who can say that they saw Terri leave the building with Kyron, which somehow I doubt, as it does not appear that anyone who was in the school that day has testified as yet and that would seem to be a priority. But of course that person, if they exist, still may be on the list.

How can it even be any kind of neglect to leave a child in a school? Or any kind of custodial issue?

Hope we aren't going to see her charged and convicted of some lesser offense just because they can't prove any of the major offenses...again a similarity to Haleigh's case

 

[MsFacetious]

Arizona's Elizabeth Johnson is being held for. K, CI and CA, if they arrest Terry for those 3 felonies and a body is later discovered they can also drop the CA charges, as they did for Casey Anthony.

They dropped the child neglect charges in October, before Caylee's body was found in December. They charged her with the forgery/check fraud before dropping the child neglect charges. Then they went after the murder indictment. But they didn't have a body until December.

They cannot drop the Child abuse, neglect or endangerment charges against Terri later, if there has already been a conviction. Which is what I am talking about. If they convict her of one of those, then find his body... they may not be able to try her for murder if that is what happened.

 

[Jo in Calif]

They dropped the child neglect charges in October, before Caylee's body was found in December. They charged her with the forgery/check fraud before dropping the child neglect charges. Then they went after the murder indictment. But they didn't have a body until December.

They cannot drop the Child abuse, neglect or endangerment charges against Terri later, if there has already been a conviction. Which is what I am talking about. If they convict her of one of those, then find his body... they may not be able to try her for murder if that is what happened.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about what we thought Terry might be charged with, not convicted of.

 

[carbuff]

Other: I think it's very likely several other people will be indicted in addition to or instead of TH.

Since I'm not privy to the information presented to the grand jury, and only have the media circus and hearsay to go on, I don't care to speculate what the charges might be or who they might be against.

 

[cypress]

They dropped the child neglect charges in October, before Caylee's body was found in December. They charged her with the forgery/check fraud before dropping the child neglect charges. Then they went after the murder indictment. But they didn't have a body until December.

They cannot drop the Child abuse, neglect or endangerment charges against Terri later, if there has already been a conviction. Which is what I am talking about. If they convict her of one of those, then find his body... they may not be able to try her for murder if that is what happened.

Caylee's case is COMPLETELY different, IMHO. Admittedly, I don't know all the ins and outs, but Caylee was missing and Casey didn't report it for about a month. There was the dead body smell in the trunk reported by Cindy, etc.

There is nothing along those lines in this case. Terri says she left Kyron at school. When Terri, Kaine, and baby K met the bus and Kyron wasn't on it, there was an immediate response. There's no dead body smell, no evidence of a murder, no weapon with blood or other fluid on it, no physical inference that Kyron is not alive other than he has been missing for two months.

With Casey, there was eventually the evidence of the presence of chloroform and evidence in the truck was consistent with that of a decomposing body. Based on assertions by LE, Desiree, and Kaine, I believe there is no such evidence in the Horman white truck.

 

[MsFacetious]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about what we thought Terry might be charged with, not convicted of.

We are, in general. However, I am making the assumption that they won't charge her with something, if they don't intend to convict her of it. I guess I could be wrong... :waitasec:

I also know that Caylee's case is different. However, the point I was making was they didn't want to convict her of child neglect and then not be able to charge her with murder when they found the body. They had to drop the neglect charges in order to charge her with murder.

Marc Bookal's case is probably a closer comparison. Yes, it is a different state. But Terri Horman has essentially the best attorney in Oregon, he would argue it too.

Marc Bookal

Corey Byrd was the mother's boyfriend, taking care of Marc Bookal when he disappeared on December 14, 2009. He was reported missing within a couple hours.

February 9, 2010

A charge of endangering the welfare of a child is going to be dropped against Corey Byrd.

Orange County District Attorney Frank Phillips Tuesday said he would seek to have the charge dropped against Byrd.

“Based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding this case it would appear that Mark Anthony Bookal may have been the victim of a kidnapping or a homicide,” said Phillips.

Byrd remains a person of interest in Mark Bookal’s disappearance and under state law prosecution of Byrd for the misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child would preclude any possible future prosecution of Byrd for more serious charges resulting from the disappearance of the child.

Phillips said in addition to creating the double jeopardy issue, prosecution of Byrd in the City of Newburgh Criminal Court would require the DA’s office to provide the defense with information which would hamper the investigation into the disappearance of the young boy.

http://www.hvpress.net/news/125/ARTICLE/8726/2010-02-09.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crim...inst-Cory-Byrd-dropped-in-case-of-missing-boy

That's what I'm talking about. Maybe someone else knows for sure if it would be an issue in Oregon. Fortunately Corey Byrd had a parole violation and was still able to be held despite this charge being dropped. Marc's body was found 5 weeks later.

 

[cluciano63]

Watching this Dateline-type show on NBC tonight about a woman who was murdered...and even when another woman came forward with a detailed story about what happened, due to her husband confessing to her that he was the "hit man" who had killed the woman, LE could do nothing until more years had passed and another person came forward with more details. So it makes me think it is not that easy to charge someone without physical evidence or mutilple witnesses.