2010.06.28 - Kyron's Dad files for divorce and restraining order

[gitana1]

You know, that's a good point. So what you're saying is that they asked, but didn't serve supoenas or do anything legal like a motion to compel LE to give them information? I'm trying to understand what happened here. If they just called and asked and LE, who said no, and they never did try to get a court order for that info, then they have no right to whine about not getting information.

And part of me is glad to see that they aren't treating motions like candy just yet (like another lawyer in another big case), but why complain about not getting info when they never wrote a motion for that info? If it's so important, it seems like they would have taken more steps than just asking for the information. That's if I understand what happened correctly.

Well, they may have served Kaine but I doubt they served LE with anything. Perhaps they did but that would be an exercise in futility because they are under no obligation to release information relevant to an on-going investigation. They probably just asked what evidence LE has and were denied that info. I'm not sure.

 

[grandmaj]

So Gitana are we not now back where we were before, that in order to amend this RO Terri needs to testify?

I'm just not understanding how this can happen if Terri won't answer questions. :waitasec:

 

[gitana1]

So do you do mostly civil cases? IIRC, most criminal attorneys will not ask their clients if they are guilty because should that client testify, the attorney is an officer of the court first and foremost-so if their client lies on the stand, the attorney would have to report the perjury. For example, if someone confessed to a murder and then took the stand stating emphatically they did not do it, the attorney would have to turn them in.

Yes, I do almost exclusively "family law" cases. I think the rule regarding perjury is that an attorney cannot ask a question that they know the answer to is false. They can ask open-needed questions that call for a narrative answer, if they fear the client will lie. They cannot turn their client in for perjury because that would breach their duty to their client. No attorney would ever do that. They can, however, ask to withdraw as counsel citing a "conflict" if they know their client has just lied to the court or plans to because the lie puts the attorney in an ethical dilemma between their duty not to mislead the court and their duty to their client (confidentiality).

 

[gitana1]

If this were an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, divorce where the restrained parent fails to contest because of laziness, indifference, or some other pathetic non-excuse, I would agree with you 100%. They get a big fat fail on one of the principal criteria in any custody decision. But this is far from an ordinary case and I don't think there is any competent judge out there who would not understrand TH's situation and strategy.

The law is the law. She has lost custody of Baby K and will be very unlikely to ever get it back unless Kaine is later found to be unfit. So even though the court understands her unique position, they are not going to alter the law for her. Her attorneys know that. So my view is that she had a choice between preventing possible incrimination and her kid. She did not choose her kid. That tells me that there is something to the allegations.

Again, you can't look at this as an ordinary case, you have to take into account the high public/media interest and the damage that negative coverage can have to an accused's defense. Sure, she can plead the 5th and probably not aid the prosecution. Maybe they could learn something from the questions she declines to answer but it's unlikely. The bigger risk are the headlines: "Terri pleads 5th When Asked About Day Kyron Disappeared." Look at all the damage that has been done to her by the bad press so far, the majority of the public are convinced she's guilty and ready to burn her at the stake - and that's based things that are tangential to the Kyron case, at best. Think about the impact on potential witnesses.
A circumstantial case depends on the inclination of the jury to connect the dots and make the inferences that the prosecution wants them to. Juries are much more likely to follow the prosecutor's logic when the accused is an unsympathetic, unlikeable individual. No matter how much a juror believes they can be impartial in spite of what they've heard on the news, we all know it factors into their deliberations at some level. That's what Houze is concerned about - every negative news story raises the bar he needs to clear one notch higher.
So do the likely benefits outweigh the risks? Any contest of the RO will necessarily involve arguing the MFH and Kyron allegations. The chance of this happening without Rackner putting TH on the stand is zero (KH has already said that this was more about getting TH to talk than anything else.) If TH gets on the stand and has to take the 5th on questions regarding either subject, the judge will likely make a negative inference of fact. Why contest in the first place when you know you've got both arms tied?

Again, if this were an ordinary case with no media attention and no potential capital crime, I would be with you all the way in your analysis.

My response in blue above.

You are right. But again, the question was why would an innocent TH give up custody of her child (and contact for the foreseeable future). I do understand what you're saying. I get the future jury pool problems, etc. But I don't look at things the way criminal law attorneys do. I think crim law attorneys view these cases as doing whatever is necessary to keep their clients out of prison, assuming that there is some guilt. They don't care whether their clients are innocent or not. And they don't care what their clients give up to keep out of prison.
I think differently. I know litigating parents very, very well. I know the lengths they will go to, to keep their kids. It is more important to them than anything, usually. So you have competing interests - possible prison or the child. I know what choice a defense attorney would make but I also know what choice an innocent mom of a toddler would make.
It's not that easy to prove a capital case that's based on circumstantial evidence. Unless there is some merit to it.

 

[Kat010]

Unless Kaine knows what he knows from first hand observation, then merely testifying as to what LE told him, is hearsay and can and should be objected to. It won't fly.

Wow. I didn't realize that. So basically, the MFH plot allegation in the RO is legally just...hearsay? Not permitted in a criminal court? Civil court?

Wow. This gives me a whole new thing to go think about--thank you!

 

[gitana1]

Reading this again, 2 things leap out at me:

1. Why would Terri need to plead the fifth when asked where the money came from? The source of the money must somehow be connected to Kyron's disappearance. Why else would she have to plead the fifth? IF her parents paid the money there is no need for her to plead the fifth. I know others have said this--it is just remarkably glaring to me.

2. I really think this is an inappropriate time for KH to be asking about the money. It does seem as though the right time to look carefully at the source of the retainer is when property is going to be divided. The obvious intent is for KH to get TH on the stand--I would love that, too. But I don't think it is right to circumvent the normal divorce process to that end.

Parties can and do - all the time- ask for an attorney's fees determination early on in the process. Thus, KH is not going outside the normal divorce process. I agree that he is trying to use to to gain information otherwise closed to him, but the process he is using is normal.

 

[BeanE]

Wow. I didn't realize that. So basically, the MFH plot allegation in the RO is legally just...hearsay? Not permitted in a criminal court? Civil court?

Wow. This gives me a whole new thing to go think about--thank you!

And if we look to LE to see what they have to say about it firsthand, all we have is not just one, but two, publicly issued press releases, saying that the info about the MFH did not come from them.

 

[Kat010]

And if we look to LE to see what they have to say about it firsthand, all we have is not just one, but two, publicly issued press releases, saying that the info about the MFH did not come from them.

Wow again. Then...but...but..what about KH's statement that LE told him ..the whole they gave him "probably cause", etc.? Huh?:waitasec:

 

[Donjeta]

And if we look to LE to see what they have to say about it firsthand, all we have is not just one, but two, publicly issued press releases, saying that the info about the MFH did not come from them.

Did they mean that LE didn't give Kaine the info about MFH or that LE didn't give the news media the info about MFH?

 

[BeanE]

Did they mean that LE didn't give Kaine the info about MFH or that LE didn't give the news media the info about MFH?

One of each. July 4 refers to news media. July 8 refers directly to Kaine and Desiree. If you listen to the video of Kaine and Desiree, very near the beginning, you will hear Kaine talking about the MFH.


MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS NO COMMENTS REGARDING THE JULY 8, 2010 YOUNG/HORMAN PRESS CONFERENCES
Posted: July 8th, 2010 6:48 PM

There will be no comment from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office regarding the information reported during the Horman/Young July 8, 2010 press conferences. The information released in during these conferences did NOT come from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. This is an ongoing investigation.

http://www.mcso.us/public/newsroom.htm

July 8 press conference:
http://www.katu.com/home/video/98077594.html


MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS NO COMMENTS REGARDING THE JULY 4, 2010 OREGONIAN STORY
Posted: July 4th, 2010 10:07 AM

There will be no comment from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office regarding the information reported in the July 4, 2010 Oregonian. The information released in the Oregonian article did NOT come from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. This is an ongoing investigation.

http://www.mcso.us/public/newsroom.htm

July 4 Oregonian story:

Landscaper tells detectives Terri Moulton Horman offered him money to kill her husband
Published: Sunday, July 04, 2010, 4:00 AM
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/landscaper_tells_police_terri.html

 

[Donjeta]

It could just mean that they didn't authorize the release of the information, not that they weren't the original source of the story IMO.

I think they'd be looking at Kaine through very weird glasses now if he'd made up a story that LE told him that his wife was trying to get him killed and I can't believe he'd have thought he could get away with it.

 

[BeanE]

It could just mean that they didn't authorize the release of the information, not that they weren't the original source of the story IMO.

No, LE quite clearly and unequivocally says the info did NOT (their caps) come from them:

The information released in during these conferences did NOT come from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office.

The information released in the Oregonian article did NOT come from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office.

 

[goatman]

Page 7 last paragraph:
"it can be assumed that husband knows or should surmise that whoever paid Mr. Houze (which happened after the parties seperated) had no intent to benefit husband by that payment). <<<< find this odd, still deciphering it.

"The court should be aware that, after Husband filed his motion for suit money, Mr. Houze and Wife's divorce attorney met with Husband's lawyer. At that meeting, they represented, as officers of the court, that the amount of money allegedly paid to Mr. Houze was inaccurate, and that a third party or parties paid for Mr. Houze's attorney fees. Wife's lawyers also represented that the money was neither a gift to Wife nor a loan" (pg. 3)

If this were a normal divorce, wouldn't that be all that was required? What more would they need? It wasn't hers and isn't his?

Question: If, instead of sharing Houze's fee with KH, since Houze was retained while they were still married, could KH then end up being solely responsible for Houze's fees? IE: "look we gave the money back, now I owe him XYZ, and that is a marital liability"

If it were a news outlet, wouldn't they want their 'pay' back by now? Exclusive interviews, ect?

 

[Donjeta]

No, LE quite clearly and unequivocally says the info did NOT (their caps) come from them:

The information released in during these conferences did NOT come from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office.

The information released in the Oregonian article did NOT come from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office.

I still think it could mean that A) this is a Kaine and Desiree presser, not a LE presser, so take it to mean that Kaine and Desiree said these things to you and not that LE said it to you, and B) it was not an authorized MCSO source that told the Oregonian this.

It's a way of covering up and protecting the investigation and avoiding comment. They did not say it's not true and Kaine made it up, they said it's an ongoing investigation.

Anyway, was it the MCSO that investigated the MFH plot or one of the other agencies that have been involved?

Would it be a crime of any sort to make up slanderous stuff and claim LE told you so?

 

[Donjeta]

Page 7 last paragraph:
"it can be assumed that husband knows or should surmise that whoever paid Mr. Houze (which happened after the parties seperated) had no intent to benefit husband by that payment). <<<< find this odd, still deciphering it.

If it were a news outlet, wouldn't they want their 'pay' back by now? Exclusive interviews, ect?

So, it's someone who likes Terri but Kaine not so much. It figures. Is there something in the Oregon law about gifts during the marriage and after separation? Could the former be considered gifts to the couple, intended to benefit both of them? Anyway, given the somewhat adversarial situation between them now it's pretty clear that whoever wants to have Houze defend Terri from the accusations Kaine has shared with us isn't concerned with what Kaine wants.

So he's got a point there.

 

[Billylee]

One of each. July 4 refers to news media. July 8 refers directly to Kaine and Desiree. If you listen to the video of Kaine and Desiree, very near the beginning, you will hear Kaine talking about the MFH.


MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS NO COMMENTS REGARDING THE JULY 8, 2010 YOUNG/HORMAN PRESS CONFERENCES
Posted: July 8th, 2010 6:48 PM

There will be no comment from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office regarding the information reported during the Horman/Young July 8, 2010 press conferences. The information released in during these conferences did NOT come from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. This is an ongoing investigation.

http://www.mcso.us/public/newsroom.htm

July 8 press conference:
http://www.katu.com/home/video/98077594.html


MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS NO COMMENTS REGARDING THE JULY 4, 2010 OREGONIAN STORY
Posted: July 4th, 2010 10:07 AM

There will be no comment from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office regarding the information reported in the July 4, 2010 Oregonian. The information released in the Oregonian article did NOT come from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. This is an ongoing investigation.

http://www.mcso.us/public/newsroom.htm

July 4 Oregonian story:

Landscaper tells detectives Terri Moulton Horman offered him money to kill her husband
Published: Sunday, July 04, 2010, 4:00 AM
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/landscaper_tells_police_terri.html

Detectives with the Multnomah County Major Crimes Team shared the landscaper's account with Kyron's father, Kaine Horman, last weekend, prompting him to leave the house June 26 with the couple's 19-month-old daughter.

Yes, the article doesn't say that MCSO gave the media that info, but it does say the above, which, must have come from Kaine telling them the info. So if Kaine's not lying, then the MCSO shared the info with him. Correct?

 

[i.b.nora]

I think this has something to do with the 'release' of the information:

Multnomah County D.A. no longer opposes unsealing documents filed against Terri Moulton Horman

Published: Wednesday, July 07, 2010, 4:00 PM Updated: Wednesday, July 07, 2010, 4:55 PM
Michael Russell, The Oregonian

"As reported in The Oregonian Sunday, Kaine Horman filed the documents June 28 after learning of allegations that Terri Moulton Horman had attempted to hire a landscaper to murder him six to seven months earlier. The restraining order was granted.

At the request of the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, the contents of the documents were sealed. The Oregonian and other media asked a county judge last week to release the documents. At the time, the district attorney's office argued that their unsealing could harm the sheriff's investigation into Kyron Horman's disappearance.

But in a letter sent Tuesday to Judge Keith Meisenheimer, Chief Deputy District Attorney Norm Frink wrote that given Sunday's report, the sheriff's office could no longer make that argument."

more...

 

[BeanE]

Detectives with the Multnomah County Major Crimes Team shared the landscaper's account with Kyron's father, Kaine Horman, last weekend, prompting him to leave the house June 26 with the couple's 19-month-old daughter.

Yes, the article doesn't say that MCSO gave the media that info, but it does say the above, which, must have come from Kaine telling them the info. So if Kaine's not lying, then the MCSO shared the info with him. Correct?

BBM. According to MCSO, no, they did not.

 

[Donjeta]

BBM. According to MCSO, no, they did not.

I don't think it can mean that. It doesn't make any sense to me, frankly. Kaine would know that he'd look very bad if he'd make something like that up about LE, and I don't think he'd want that in the middle of a missing child investigation. What would he gain anyway? Maybe he'd enjoy trashing Terri's reputation but it could very well eventually lead to ruining his own reputation if a source figured out that this was a bunch of BS. He couldn't have been sure that Terri wouldn't contest the RO and he wouldn't have to produce his LE witnesses which he couldn't have done if it was just a lie.

It'd be an amazing coincidence if LE didn't share the information with Kaine and he just magically happened to leave with the child and file for RO inventing a MFH plot coinciding with LE doing a MFH sting. I suppose the MFH sting would be a fact since there apparently is a 911 call about it.

 

[JBean]

This is the way I follow the information:
1. LE gave KH info regarding the MFH plot.
2. KH filed the RO based on info supplied by LE
3.The PC where the info was discussed did not originate from LE but rather from KH.
4. Once the info became public there was no reason to keep the docs sealed.
LE is only denying that they released any information to the public(by way of a PC). Probably an important distinction to make if prosecuting.

The infomration at the presser did not come from LE, the info from the presser came from KH.
JMHO