My point is that Kaine Horman specifically noted in his application for the RO which has denied Terri access to her home and her daughter, that he got the information directly from LE. Once he stated that, he was stipulating that the State (Prosecution includes LE) had provided one side information and is denying the defense the right to see that same information due to it being an active criminal investigation.
If it was so important to protect that information from Terri, whose son is missing also, then it should have been handled much differently for Kaine. What they did, in essence, is violate their own cause of "ongoing investigation" by revealing this information to the extent they did. And now Terri's attorney is arguing that she has the right to that same information, due to LE's own violation of their rule.
Hi guys! I've been in court myself this morning and so I've had limited time and have not read through all the thread, but here's the deal from what I have seen thus far:
LE is under no obligation to reveal to anyone info they have accumulated during an on-going criminal investigation. But they can give that information to whomever they want.
Does that create an unfair advantage to Kaine in this case?
Well, as I have said repeatedly, Kaine would have had to (and still would have to) produce actual evidence and/or non-hearsay testimony in support of his allegations, in order to prevail in an RO request, (unless TH failed to contest it, which she did), and/or in connection with any custody case in which he is using those allegations to be awarded custody or bar TH from any visitation. So essentially, there is no real prejudice to TH as a result of one-handed info from LE to KH. he has to be able to either put up or shut up.
However, if I was TH's attorney, I would argue the way he is arguing because even though KH legally has to produce actual evidence, if she contests the allegations in any context, her attorneys know that the judge may be influenced by the unsupported allegations.
I'd like to comment about a couple of other things I have seen.
First, this is not a custody or visitation hearing. TH is not asking for that today. But very interestingly to me, her attorney is now saying that if he is granted the abatement, he will seek a modification of the RO as to custody/visitation. So it looks like he is going to treat the disso and RO separately and go for some rights to visitation through the RO. This will be very, very interesting to watch if that's what happens. Because this is when TH will be forced to address allegations and KH will be forced to provide evidence supporting his allegations, if pressed by TH.
TH has never expressed that she does not want her child and her failure to contest the RO or otherwise fight for custody does not show that, IMO. What is does show is that she is more afraid of criminal implications than she is afraid of being separated from her daughter, and that is significant.
Now, her attorney has indicated she may try for visitation somehow, in the future, but the same obstacles remain - so will she actually go for visitation rights now? Nothing has changed. She will still have to address the allegations in some way - either by testifying, objecting to hearsay or simply staying off the stand but forcing KH to prove his case, and arguing against what he tries to present. And why hasn't she tried to do any of this before? Why no attempt to modify up to now, or to even address only custody in the RO previously?
Those are the interesting questions to me. And what happens next will be very telling, IMO. We may all stand to learn a lot.
