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

[mmmagique]

The Ohio Supreme Court, in 2000, for example, ruled that someone who had denied all guilt or who would deny all guilt to questions posed could not invoke the Fifth Amendment. That decision was soundly reversed by a unanimous US Supreme in 2001 in Ohio v. Reiner. The Court in that case (which contained Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O’Connor, hardly flaming liberals) reaffirmed that one of the Amendment’s “basic functions … is to protect innocent men … ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.” The Court went on to add that “truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth. ”

I know what you’re thinking: How can truthful answers from an innocent person incriminate that person? The answer lies in the meaning of “incriminate”; it does not mean to prove one guilty as most folks think.

incrimination of oneself; specifically: the giving of testimony which will likely subject one to criminal prosecution”

(emphasis added by [author]).

So that it is an innocent person who might be wrongfully prosecuted through his own testimony that the Amendment tries to protect; not a criminal with something to hide. In fact, the Supreme Court views very expansive protection under the Fifth. In Hoffman v. United States, the Court held that The Fifth does not protect just potential answers to questions that may be enough to support a conviction (“I shot him”, for example) but in fact “embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant.” That’s the ticket: the testimony need only furnish a link needed not to convict but merely to prosecute the potential defendant.

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2010/04/on-taking-the-fifth/

Exactly what kind of testimony can an innocent person give (in this particular case) that would tend to incriminate him/her?

 

[stmarysmead]

Conversely, but also respectfully, isn't it also "opinion" that losing one's mother isn't a huge lose? Also:

"If Terri Horman tried to arrange a "hit" on Baby K's father, a man she claims to "love".... if she somehow got rid of, DISPOSED of... Baby K's brother, a little boy who loved her...her presence is of no benefit long term to Baby K. or any other impressionable child.''

Too many "IFs" for me to be able to justify tearing a tiny child out of her mother's arms, to even risk the possibility she might be traumatized further down the road, maybe for the rest of her natural life.

I believe if baby K is capable of missing her brother, Kyron, she is more than capable of missing her mother - indeed, I believe she is probably crying for her mother. I know I missed my mother and it made a lasting impression on my life when she went away for a year when I was a toddler. I didn't understand, but I knew she was gone, and I knew I hurt.

The benefits of allowing baby K to see her mother would far outweigh any negatives, in my opinion.

Those "ifs" about Terri's malevolence are coming from the professionals investigating the case.

THAT is why they cannot be dismissed.

The concept that Baby K is crying for her Mother has been contradicted by her Father...and even experts disagree as to how a child this age would be impacted . Do we even know Terri was an involved parent? Maybe she was on the computer and sexting all day...and the Baby spent long periods with little interaction. Or maybe there were worse things going on in that house. This is a crimional investigation. A child from that house id GONE. The husband in that house has been told his wife tried to have him killed.

I cannot romanticize Terri Horman as some normal loving Mother. There are horrific events...FAR FROM the NORM...swirling around her...things her attorney says she cannot speak about because she might "incriminate" herself. The very things that her lawyer says Terri Horman is the "de Facto" suspect of DOING. Things that the Mother of the missing child calls "sickening."

I am sorry for what you experienced. I do think each of us brings a bit of our own selves to interpret these cases. I ask myself, if Baby K were my grandchild, what risk would I be willing to take with her? Would I put a Baby in a car that MIGHT have defective brakes? Would I put a Baby in frequent contact with a suspected child murderer?

I look at Desiree's pain. She trusted her beloved child to Terri's care and now he is missing. Unless and until we know Terri poses no risk to children, a helpless toddler who cannot verbalize what Mommy does to her or in her presence...should not be gambled with.

 

[believe09]

Perhaps, mmmagique, (and I am speculating here) "I really hated my husband enough to say that I wanted him killed" or "My stepson was really getting on my nerves and was interfering in the quality time I had with Baby K."

They would look omninous to an investigator perhaps, but might be perfectly innocent statements made out of natural frustration.

 

[stmarysmead]

If the Landscaper's story is false...a he-said, she-said...and nothing more...innocent comments taken out of context...please explain how Terri could incriminate herself by fighting those charges?

Adultery, sexting or anything similar is not a crime. Please explain what possible crime might Terri be charged with...if the Landscapers story is as baseless as you all think?

What crime? What is Terri "incriminated " with?

No wife has ever been charged for statements like

"I really hated my husband enough to say that I wanted him killed" or "My stepson was really getting on my nerves and was interfering in the quality time I had with Baby K."

Nor for fooling around with the help.

So what is attorney talking about...why can't she address these baseless charges? How would she "incriminate" herself if this is all there is? Seems to me we debate that there's nothing there against Terrri...then we debate thatshe has a right not to incriminate herself...but I have yet to see anyone link those two together in defense of Terri.

So what can she be incriminated with...if the Murder for Hire is a fraud?

 

[GrainneDhu]

The Ohio Supreme Court, in 2000, for example, ruled that someone who had denied all guilt or who would deny all guilt to questions posed could not invoke the Fifth Amendment. That decision was soundly reversed by a unanimous US Supreme in 2001 in Ohio v. Reiner. The Court in that case (which contained Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O’Connor, hardly flaming liberals) reaffirmed that one of the Amendment’s “basic functions … is to protect innocent men … ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.” The Court went on to add that “truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth. ”

I know what you’re thinking: How can truthful answers from an innocent person incriminate that person? The answer lies in the meaning of “incriminate”; it does not mean to prove one guilty as most folks think.

incrimination of oneself; specifically: the giving of testimony which will likely subject one to criminal prosecution”

(emphasis added by [author]).

So that it is an innocent person who might be wrongfully prosecuted through his own testimony that the Amendment tries to protect; not a criminal with something to hide. In fact, the Supreme Court views very expansive protection under the Fifth. In Hoffman v. United States, the Court held that The Fifth does not protect just potential answers to questions that may be enough to support a conviction (“I shot him”, for example) but in fact “embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant.” That’s the ticket: the testimony need only furnish a link needed not to convict but merely to prosecute the potential defendant.

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2010/04/on-taking-the-fifth/

Thanks just wasn't enough for this very clear explanation of incrimination.

 

[mmmagique]

Perhaps, mmmagique, (and I am speculating here) "I really hated my husband enough to say that I wanted him killed" or "My stepson was really getting on my nerves and was interfering in the quality time I had with Baby K."

They would look omninous to an investigator perhaps, but might be perfectly innocent statements made out of natural frustration.

I have no idea what would lead someone testifying in court to state the second sentence, and I truly doubt Terri would, but even if she did that is not necessarily incriminating.

The first one, yes. And yep, that's pretty incriminating. But if she did say she "wanted him killed" and made plans for that to happen (which according to LE, Rudy was promised a "large sum of money" for doing it) then she really isn't innocent.

 

[GrainneDhu]

The bonus, Calliope, is that criminals with something to hide benefit from this same ammendment. As well.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man imprisoned."

I think old Tom Jefferson is spinning in his grave today. According to the Department of Justice, somewhere between 2.5% to 5% of all people in prison today are factually innocent, the victims of false conviction.

 

[stmarysmead]

Can anyone cite a case where just a statement like this resulted in a woman being charged and prosecuted for a Murder for Hire?

"I really hated my husband enough to say that I wanted him killed" or "My stepson was really getting on my nerves and was interfering in the quality time I had with Baby K."

Or has her child removed from her custody?

If this is all LE has, can you imagine the howls of derison if Teri's excellent attotney called them on their "evidence" and THIS was IT!

The news media would have a field day! Terri would sudden;y receive enourmous sympathy and support! LE would be embarrassed!

No way would a excellent high priced attorney feel his client was incriminated by such a flimsy nothing piece of "evidence." No way would any Mother let such drivel keep her from her child.

But both those things have happened. Terri's excellent attorney says he cannot put her on the stand...she will incriminate herself.

Common sense says...they KNOW there's something HUGE here that they fear.

 

[stmarysmead]

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man imprisoned."

I think old Tom Jefferson is spinning in his grave today. According to the Department of Justice, somewhere between 2.5% to 5% of all people in prison today are factually innocent, the victims of false conviction.

Better that a thousand possible murderous Mothers wait for their children, than one more helpless child DIE for our judicial and societal carelessness.

 

[believe09]

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man imprisoned."

I think old Tom Jefferson is spinning in his grave today. According to the Department of Justice, somewhere between 2.5% to 5% of all people in prison today are factually innocent, the victims of false conviction.

Yup, that is what he said. All I am pointing out is that when you are a victim, an actual player in a case that thas had so much tragedy, it is far harder to be flag waving than it is, in certain cases, to be upset that the defendants receive far more advantages when it comes to our judicial system. Regardless of how right or wrong it is.

I think Kaine has been restrained. Across the boards. Not perfect, but given the stakes, very restrained. JMVHO.

Sorry to take everyone O/T

 

[Billylee]

I knew a young woman, years ago, who went in for what should have been a fairly routine surgery. The hospital screwed up on monitoring her post op care, and she died. Her husband sued the hospital and won over a million. Her young daughter was around 20 months old. She was a beautiful baby girl, always laughing, smiling. She became sullen, crying all the time, crying for her mommy, and clinging to her father's side. The effects of her losing her mother were horrific, even at such a young age. Cognitive abilities that had been all coming to her easily such as talking, potty training, suddenly became increasingly difficult. I saw her at a birthday party when she was 3 or 4 and, she would not leave her father and play with the other children. Many psychologist visits and much money later that child finally started coming around, but it took many years.

Separation of a child from a mother is never easy on the child. I've seen it, it's tragic. And even though this father was loving and caring, he could not replace or make up for the absence of this child's mother.

I believe, as there is absolutely no mention by LE, KH, DY or anyone else of any abuse toward that baby or J, or Kyron, that Terri should be allowed supervised visits with her daughter, for the benefit of her daughter.

A bit more info on very young children who are denied the presence of their mother:


http://kidsaid.com/dougypage.html
Introduction

It is believed that infants grieve. If there are people who have been consistently present in a baby's life, the child will have a sense of something missing.

A young child often does not initially respond to hearing that someone has died. Many parents are concerned that their child has no initial reaction or visible grief.

It is important to remember that a young child's perception is oriented in the five basic senses. It is concrete, short-range and based on what is felt in the moment.

A young child does not comprehend the concept of death. A person is gone; then a person is there. When a person is gone and then still gone and then still gone, a child may grieve at each moment when he or she feels the person's goneness.

A child may not grieve at all for these leavings until the accumulative affect of goneness inspires a longing or aching protest within the child.

The child will miss the specific elements of the person: sound of voice, expression, smell, activities experienced together. A child's missing of the person who has died will not necessarily be as a result of hearing that that person is dead.

Very young children may grieve a specific person. The primary care giver is most missed by young children: smell, voice, rhythm, etc.

Young children also mourn the loss of secondary people in their lives such as other family members and persons with whom the child spends large amounts of time.

 

[pufnstuf]

Exactly what kind of testimony can an innocent person give (in this particular case) that would tend to incriminate him/her?

The beautiful thing about civil court is that, while any party may invoke the fifth amendment, the judge may make an adverse inference regarding the questions to which the party invoked the fifth.

While such an inference cannot be made in a CRIMINAL case, it most certainly can be made in a civil case.

This is why I think it's ludicrous for Terri to file a motion to modify parenting time--which will result in a hearing at which she will not testify.

Except for the fact that...

It's a broadly used strategy on the behalf of defense attorneys for the defense to coordinate with the civil attorney who is representing his (possibly future) defendant in a civil case. Criminal attorneys know that they can use ancillary civil cases involving their defendant as a means to obtain discovery that they might not otherwise be able to obtain until much later.

So it's likely that Terri isn't truly filing this motion to modify just to see her daughter. It may just be smart strategy that will benefit her down the line, should she find herself the defendant in the case of Kyron's disappearance/murder or in the case of contracting to kill her now estranged husband.

 

[believe09]

I appreciate your perspective BillyLee-I think it is a case by case. We do not know what kind of quality of care was being given to Baby K in the 6-8 hours a day TH was alone with her child. I am not implying anything, we just do not know. We do not know if Kaine returned home at 3 everyday and took on her care and Kyron's care. For the rest of the night. We just have no idea.

So I think it is hard to say that every child will grieve at the loss of a parent under all circumstances even at a tender age.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Exactly what kind of testimony can an innocent person give (in this particular case) that would tend to incriminate him/her?

Assuming that TMH is factually innocent of any part of Kyron's disappearance, there's a lot and it has been extensively discussed on WS.

For just one example, the rumoured 90 minute gap in her timeline for that morning and the rumoured changes in her account of her actions that morning (neither of these has been confirmed officially, so I believe they are rumours).

If TMH is factually innocent, then there would be, by definition, an innocent explanation for both those things.

So say that she really did drive around to soothe Baby K but didn't keep track of where exactly she went. She didn't know it would soon be important to be able to recount precisely her movements that morning because for her, it was just an ordinary morning.

Maybe she had the radio or CD player playing and was kind of in the zone, driving and singing along and not really paying any particular attention at all. At some point, she may have been on Sauvie Island but because she was not keeping track of where she was, she just didn't notice.

Kyron disappears.

The factually innocent TMH does what many factually innocent people do: she does her best to cooperate, she answers all the questions put to her as honestly as she can but she is unable to answer precisely because for some reason she has simply forgotten some/all of what she did that morning.

LE gets the cell phone pings for anyone closely involved with the case as a matter of routine. And now they have information that impeaches TMH's credibility as a witness: she never mentioned being on Sauvie Island but her cell phone pings clearly place her there.

Had the factually innocent TMH stuck to: "I want to speak to a lawyer" the instant the questioning turned from "when did you last see Kyron?" to "and then what did you do after you left the school that morning?" she wouldn't be in nearly as much trouble as she is in right now.

Her presence on Sauvie Island would not seem as significant as it does now because it could not be used to impeach her credibility.

As it is, TMH now looks like a liar. She may well be a liar; I have no way of knowing at this point.

 

[mmmagique]

Do you have to drive over a bridge or anything to get to the island?

 

[Pensfan]

On the Monday after Kaine and her toddler had moved out, Terri stated:

"Everything's good," she said, giving a thumbs up. "We heard that
rumor. It's just a rumor that needs to be squelched. Everything's fine."
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/kyron_hormans_stepmom_terri_mo.html

If Terri is a truthful person, one has to seriously worry about her statement that "everything was good" after her toddler had been removed from her home for days. Is Terri a liar or was she delusional? Neither choices are positive qualities for a parent to possess.

 

[pufnstuf]

Do you have to drive over a bridge or anything to get to the island?

Yeah... one way on, one way off--if you're traveling by car.

 

[mmmagique]

That's a pretty big bridge to cross and not remember.

We've got some country roads out here that I can drive around and get lost in, but if I were to cross a bridge like that (coming AND going) I'd know it.

 

[wenwe4]

Despite the "quality of the relationship" Baby K had with her Mother, it was in fact a daily, hourly, relationship and the only one that Baby K knew with her Mother. If TH was the Primary Caretaker for this little girl - Baby K would not have much of a reference of any other lifestyle. Whatever we think is the most appropriate for this child - from her perspective - she has suffered huge losses. There is no way to say she hasn't. Her 2 brothers are no longer in her life on a daily basis, the person that met her needs for her entire life has been missing, and Daddy has been the only consistent person (that I am aware of) in her short little life.

I was attempting to bring a voice for this child into the disucssion of whether or not TH "should" have visits with her. I would support severing the parent/child relationship if 1) She is convicted of the heinous crimes she has been accused of; 2) Baby K is more traumatized by visits with her Mother in the long run and it presents a clear and present danger to her health and well being; and probably many other reasons I won't list.

I would like to say that even if we don't like the idea of possibly exposing Baby K to a child murderer - that "adult concept" would not occur to a 2 year old. If we begin to view the world through the "eyes of the child" we might gain a different perspective about "best interest of the child". After all, who speaks for the child? Someone she has never met and has no relationship with her? Wow, I would hate that for my own children! Since she is not a "dependant" of the State (ie: in foster care) has there been a Guardian Ad Litem or Court Appointed Special Advocate appointed for her? I don't recall reading anything about that being done in court.

I do appreciate that this discussion has brought up. I also want to remind everyone that we have no requirements to becoming a parent (with the exception of biology). Being a "good enough parent" is probably the best we can strive for, although it is certainly not "ideal".

 

[Billylee]

I appreciate your perspective BillyLee-I think it is a case by case. We do not know what kind of quality of care was being given to Baby K in the 6-8 hours a day TH was alone with her child. I am not implying anything, we just do not know. We do not know if Kaine returned home at 3 everyday and took on her care and Kyron's care. For the rest of the night. We just have no idea.

So I think it is hard to say that every child will grieve at the loss of a parent under all circumstances even at a tender age.

That is correct, we do not know. We can only go by what we have heard. On all accounts, I have heard only that Terri was a good mother to her children, ALL three of them. The only one who ever said anything different was an implication by DY, which she later retracted.

The reason I say supervised, is that obviously there are some very serious "allegations" being made by Kaine, which he says is based on information from LE, though LE flat out denies that the information came from them. Nonetheless, serious allegations, therefore supervised visitation until those matters are cleared, IMO are the way to go, so that BabyK's needs are addressed. I would in no way condone the visitation, if, in fact, there were any signs of prior abuse of any of her children. JMO