2010.07.31 - Why are they searching DDS' relatives' properties?

[human]

Dede's car had a sticker on the back of it- a huge one that said something about water rescue.

Then the next time I saw a picture of her car, the sticker was off of the back of the car window.

I wonder why that is?

 

[KeyboardCat]

! Interesting article !

And forgive me, but this is going to be a very long post. I have wondered, as have other people here, about what law enforcement could have that was determined to be "probable cause" in the justification of search warrants. So I have been knee deep in probable cause, search and seizure, and the fourth amendment alllllll day. So here is what I've found.

http://www.probablecause.org/whatisprobablecause.html

"Probable cause must be based on factual evidence and not just on suspicion."

and

"While there are some sources of probable cause that need to be supplemented by other sources, some sources are sufficient enough to stand on their own."

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A135857.htm

State of Oregon Court of Appeals says "Probable cause exists if facts are shown that would "permit a neutral and detached magistrate to determine that seizable evidence probably would be found at the place to be searched[.]" State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255, 269, 192 P3d 1283, adh'd to on recons, 345 Or 471, 198 P3d 937 (2008). "Probably" means "more likely than not." State v. Chambless, 111 Or App 76, 80, 824 P2d 1183, rev den, 313 Or 210 (1992)."


I had assumed that in order to search the property of a third party in a criminal investigation, the threshold of "probable cause" to issue a search warrant would be higher than it would to search the property of a "suspect." My assumption was not correct.

Zurcher vs Stanford Daily United States Supreme Court opinion:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0436_0547_ZO.html

"The issue here is how the Fourth Amendment is to be construed and applied to the 'third party' search, the recurring situation where state authorities have probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or other evidence of crime is located on identified property, but do not then have probable cause to believe that the owner or possessor of the property is himself implicated in the crime that has occurred or is occurring."

The Supreme Court states "in criminal investigations, a warrant to search for recoverable items is reasonable "only when there is ‘probable cause' to believe that they will be uncovered in a particular dwelling." Search warrants are not directed at persons; they authorize the search of "place" and the seizure of "things," and, as a constitutional matter, they need not even name the person from whom the things will be seized. United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143, 155 n. 15 (1974)."

The conclusion is this: Any property that is searched, whether it belongs to a "suspect" or someone unknown to a suspect, each search warrant is based on the probable cause that there are specific items of evidence at the property.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt4frag2_user.html

"Particularity.—“The requirement that warrants shall particularily describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.”111 This requirement thus acts to limit the scope of the search, inasmuch as the executing officers should be limited to[p.1221]looking in places where the described object could be expected to be found.112 "

Also http://articles.directorym.com/Searches_and_Seizures_FAQ_Oregon-r935227-Oregon.html says:

"A judge will issue a search warrant after the police have convinced her that:

* it is more likely than not that a crime has taken place, and
* items connected to the crime are likely be found in a specified location on the property.

To convince the judge of these facts, the police tell the judge what they know about the situation. Usually, the information given to the judge is based either on the officers' own observations or on the second-hand observations of an informant.The police are limited in their ability to use secondhand information. As a general rule, the information must be reliable given the circumstances. Generally, reliable information is corroborated by police observation. "

and:

"But corroboration is not necessary in every case. Sometimes a judge will issue a warrant if the source of the information is known to the police and has provided trustworthy information in the past."

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=...M&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=wyxytXR2F7Y3ZZZt.fE2qA--

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Oregon+"probable+cause+continuum"&fr=yfp-t-701-s&u=www.law.uoregon.edu/org/street/docs/StreetLaw.ppt&w=oregon+"probable+cause+continuum"&d=I29mKLZfVGxp&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=uJ.sfY_mDSGwCgOqZj87kw-

Probable Cause Continuum as related to Search Warrants:

No information

Hunch= Unable to point to specific facts, the officer has a "gut feeling," similar to intuition.

Suspicion= Officer knows a minor fact that suggests evidence may be found, or officer knows a larger fact originating from an unknown or unreliable source that evidence may be found somewhere.

Reasonable Grounds/Belief/Suspicion= Officer knows several minor facts or a larger fact, or officer knows large fact from source of unknown reliability pointing to a particular person.

Probable Cause= Officer has enough evidence to lead a "reasonable" person to assume evidence will be found at a particular place, and the evidence will be connected to criminal activity. This basis is the minimum required to obtain search warrants.

Preponderance of Evidence= "More likely than not." This is the amount of evidence needed to win a civil case.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt= Highest amount of proof. This is required for a person to be convicted.

Noteworthy: The Reasonable grounds/suspicion/belief is the threshold to search the person/workplace/residence/vehicle of those under probation or parole supervision in the expectation that any violation would be found. http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/corrections/info.htm This is difference than search and seizure laws pertaining to private citizens.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/02.html
A search warrant cannot be used to find evidence that would be used to justify the search warrant itself. You cannot put the cart before the horse, so to speak. This is why each search warrant has to specify the items to be seized in particular, and where to search for the particular items. And this is signed by a neutral magistrate or judicial official who has taken into consideration the sworn affidavit or affirmation who also concludes it is reasonable to believe there is "probable cause." This is sort of a two pronged test within itself in issuing search warrants.

I'm very sorry for the wall of China post, my whole point is that in order to execute search warrants on any property, there has to be more than a hunch. Property where Terri Horman lives can't be searched simply because they have "probable cause" to believe she is guilty. There has to be "probable cause" to believe that certain items of evidence specified in the search warrant will be found at the particular location. The probable cause to believe Terri Horman is guilty does not translate into searches of her friend's properties, either.... And it certainly doesn't translate into searches of properties of her friend's relatives.

But if Dede's relatives gave consent, then it can be searched without a warrant.

The article, http://www.kgw.com/news/Reward-missing-Portland--Kyron-Horman-up-to-50000-99349594.html , says "investigators have conducted several searches related to Speicher, including property belonging to relatives of her." Now I know many of us have had problems with these local news articles and their wording. But the way that sounds to me, is that they are quite concerned about any information she may have.... concerned enough to want to search properties she has access to.

But consent to a search can be withdrawn at any time, and anytime a search is conducted under one of the exceptions to the fourth amendment, legal problems can arise if the exception is later contested. Its always best to obtain a search warrant. And in my opinion, its more than a rule of thumb in high profile cases.

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Pa...ll-When-You-Need-a-Search-Warrant/Page/2.aspx

"For any search, whether of a house, a car, or a container, if you have probable cause and time to get a warrant, it's a good idea to seek one. Even though one of the exceptions might apply, you will generally reduce the risks of both suppression of evidence and civil liability if your entry and search are judicially authorized. And if there is no identifiable exception, there is no lawful way to conduct a search except with a warrant—which brings us back to the rule-of-thumb: try to get a warrant whenever possible."

 

[nonfictionrocks]

! Interesting article !

And forgive me, but this is going to be a very long post. I have wandered, as have other people here, about what law enforcement could have that was determined to be "probable cause" in the justification of search warrants. So I have been knee deep in probable cause, search and seizure, and the fourth amendment alllllll day. So here is what I've found.

http://www.probablecause.org/whatisprobablecause.html

"Probable cause must be based on factual evidence and not just on suspicion."

and

"While there are some sources of probable cause that need to be supplemented by other sources, some sources are sufficient enough to stand on their own."

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A135857.htm

State of Oregon Court of Appeals says "Probable cause exists if facts are shown that would "permit a neutral and detached magistrate to determine that seizable evidence probably would be found at the place to be searched[.]" State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255, 269, 192 P3d 1283, adh'd to on recons, 345 Or 471, 198 P3d 937 (2008). "Probably" means "more likely than not." State v. Chambless, 111 Or App 76, 80, 824 P2d 1183, rev den, 313 Or 210 (1992)."


I had assumed that in order to search the property of a third party in a criminal investigation, the threshold of "probable cause" to issue a search warrant would be higher than it would to search the property of a "suspect." My assumption was not correct.

Zurcher vs Stanford Daily United States Supreme Court opinion:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0436_0547_ZO.html

"The issue here is how the Fourth Amendment is to be construed and applied to the 'third party' search, the recurring situation where state authorities have probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or other evidence of crime is located on identified property, but do not then have probable cause to believe that the owner or possessor of the property is himself implicated in the crime that has occurred or is occurring."

The Supreme Court states "in criminal investigations, a warrant to search for recoverable items is reasonable "only when there is ‘probable cause' to believe that they will be uncovered in a particular dwelling." Search warrants are not directed at persons; they authorize the search of "place" and the seizure of "things," and, as a constitutional matter, they need not even name the person from whom the things will be seized. United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143, 155 n. 15 (1974)."

The conclusion is this: Any property that is searched, whether it belongs to a "suspect" or someone unknown to a suspect, each search warrant is based on the probable cause that there are specific items of evidence at the property.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt4frag2_user.html

"Particularity.—“The requirement that warrants shall particularily describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.”111 This requirement thus acts to limit the scope of the search, inasmuch as the executing officers should be limited to[p.1221]looking in places where the described object could be expected to be found.112 "

Also http://articles.directorym.com/Searches_and_Seizures_FAQ_Oregon-r935227-Oregon.html says:

"A judge will issue a search warrant after the police have convinced her that:

* it is more likely than not that a crime has taken place, and
* items connected to the crime are likely be found in a specified location on the property.

To convince the judge of these facts, the police tell the judge what they know about the situation. Usually, the information given to the judge is based either on the officers' own observations or on the second-hand observations of an informant.The police are limited in their ability to use secondhand information. As a general rule, the information must be reliable given the circumstances. Generally, reliable information is corroborated by police observation. "

and:

"But corroboration is not necessary in every case. Sometimes a judge will issue a warrant if the source of the information is known to the police and has provided trustworthy information in the past."

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=...M&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=wyxytXR2F7Y3ZZZt.fE2qA--

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Oregon+"probable+cause+continuum"&fr=yfp-t-701-s&u=www.law.uoregon.edu/org/street/docs/StreetLaw.ppt&w=oregon+"probable+cause+continuum"&d=I29mKLZfVGxp&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=uJ.sfY_mDSGwCgOqZj87kw-

Probable Cause Continuum as related to Search Warrants:

No information

Hunch= Unable to point to specific facts, the officer has a "gut feeling," similar to intuition.

Suspicion= Officer knows a minor fact that suggests evidence may be found, or officer knows a larger fact originating from an unknown or unreliable source that evidence may be found somewhere.

Reasonable Grounds/Belief/Suspicion= Officer knows several minor facts or a larger fact, or officer knows large fact from source of unknown reliability pointing to a particular person.

Probable Cause= Officer has enough evidence to lead a "reasonable" person to assume evidence will be found at a particular place, and the evidence will be connected to criminal activity. This basis is the minimum required to obtain search warrants.

Preponderance of Evidence= "More likely than not." This is the amount of evidence needed to win a civil case.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt= Highest amount of proof. This is required for a person to be convicted.

Noteworthy: The Reasonable grounds/suspicion/belief is the threshold to search the person/workplace/residence/vehicle of those under probation or parole supervision in the expectation that any violation would be found. http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/corrections/info.htm This is difference than search and seizure laws pertaining to private citizens.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/02.html
A search warrant cannot be used to find evidence that would be used to justify the search warrant itself. You cannot put the cart before the horse, so to speak. This is why each search warrant has to specify the items to be seized in particular, and where to search for the particular items. And this is signed by a neutral magistrate or judicial official who has taken into consideration the sworn affidavit or affirmation who also concludes it is reasonable to believe there is "probable cause." This is sort of a two pronged test within itself in issuing search warrants.

I'm very sorry for the wall of China post, my whole point is that in order to execute search warrants on any property, there has to be more than a hunch. Property where Terri Horman lives can't be searched simply because they have "probable cause" to believe she is guilty. There has to be "probable cause" to believe that certain items of evidence specified in the search warrant will be found at the particular location. The probable cause to believe Terri Horman is guilty does not translate into searches of her friend's properties, either.... And it certainly doesn't translate into searches of properties of her friend's relatives.

But if Dede's relatives gave consent, then it can be searched without a warrant.

The article, http://www.kgw.com/news/Reward-missing-Portland--Kyron-Horman-up-to-50000-99349594.html , says "investigators have conducted several searches related to Speicher, including property belonging to relatives of her." Now I know many of us have had problems with these local news articles and their wording. But the way that sounds to me, is that they are quite concerned about any information she may have.... concerned enough to want to search properties she has access to.

But consent to a search can be withdrawn at any time, and anytime a search is conducted under one of the exceptions to the fourth amendment, legal problems can arise if the exception is later contested. Its always best to obtain a search warrant. And in my opinion, its more than a rule of thumb in high profile cases.

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Pa...ll-When-You-Need-a-Search-Warrant/Page/2.aspx

"For any search, whether of a house, a car, or a container, if you have probable cause and time to get a warrant, it's a good idea to seek one. Even though one of the exceptions might apply, you will generally reduce the risks of both suppression of evidence and civil liability if your entry and search are judicially authorized. And if there is no identifiable exception, there is no lawful way to conduct a search except with a warrant—which brings us back to the rule-of-thumb: try to get a warrant whenever possible."

Wow, you have been busy but for clarity, in your first paragraph do you mean wandered or wondered? Either word works for me in regards to your detailed research . BTW, the aqua-blue font is especially hard to read late at night, can you please pick an easier colour next time for us night owls? YTB / TIA

 

[KeyboardCat]

Wow, you have been busy but for clarity, in your first paragraph do you mean wandered or wondered? Either word works for me in regards to your your research . BTW, the aqua-blue font is especially hard to read late at night, can you please pick an easier colour next time for us night owls? YTB / TIA

You're right, it should have been wondered not wandered :doh:

And I'm sorry about the colors too!! Please forgive me!

 

[Mamietwo]

KeyboardCat:

I sure hope all your searching pays off for some good information in this case and soon. Boy, what a day you had! But thank you, truly, for posting all of it!

 

[Mamietwo]

You're right, it should have been wondered not wandered :doh:

And I'm sorry about the colors too!! Please forgive me!

No problem on the colors, all you have to do is highlight them and the words stand out very clear. Thanks for all of that!

 

[ThoughtFox]

Thank you for all the research, Keyboard Cat! :woohoo:

In a nutshell, I've learned while reading so many cases here is that search warrants are usually specific about what they are looking for. Searches can't be done just to harrass people or for LE to "fish" for something non-specific.

In this case I imagine for searching pieces of land they can just say in the warrant "Kyron Horman or his personal effects or any evidence of his whereabouts." If they are seeking computer hard drives, then they will specify those plus the emails connected to any accounts from that household.

It's interesting because if there is a trial (and there probably will be one someday) we may get to see what the warrants actually say.

 

[Donjeta]

Okay, I still can't find the quote from Kaine about DS, but I did find an interesting comment on this article about "Who is DeDe Spicher?"

http://www.kgw.com/news/Who-is-DeDe-Spicher-99118324.html

It's the first comment right now 7/28/10 3:57 pm

Claims that DS's car never left the farm, nor did her cell. Surely LE would have looked into that, right?

I wonder if the person DS was landscaping for that day is a relative of hers and if it's a big property where you can do things unseen by others on the property...? If so, they might have searched that property, particularly if TH pinged nearby.

 

[Emeralgem]

I wonder if the person DS was landscaping for that day is a relative of hers and if it's a big property where you can do things unseen by others on the property...? If so, they might have searched that property, particularly if TH pinged nearby.

Hi Donjeta..Don't have a clue where to locate the information but I read something about the farm she was working on that day being on 40 acres of land..JMO

 

[Leila]

! Interesting article !

And forgive me, but this is going to be a very long post. I have wondered, as have other people here, about what law enforcement could have that was determined to be "probable cause" in the justification of search warrants. So I have been knee deep in probable cause, search and seizure, and the fourth amendment alllllll day. So here is what I've found.

http://www.probablecause.org/whatisprobablecause.html

"Probable cause must be based on factual evidence and not just on suspicion."

and

"While there are some sources of probable cause that need to be supplemented by other sources, some sources are sufficient enough to stand on their own."

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A135857.htm

State of Oregon Court of Appeals says "Probable cause exists if facts are shown that would "permit a neutral and detached magistrate to determine that seizable evidence probably would be found at the place to be searched[.]" State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255, 269, 192 P3d 1283, adh'd to on recons, 345 Or 471, 198 P3d 937 (2008). "Probably" means "more likely than not." State v. Chambless, 111 Or App 76, 80, 824 P2d 1183, rev den, 313 Or 210 (1992)."


I had assumed that in order to search the property of a third party in a criminal investigation, the threshold of "probable cause" to issue a search warrant would be higher than it would to search the property of a "suspect." My assumption was not correct.

Zurcher vs Stanford Daily United States Supreme Court opinion:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0436_0547_ZO.html

"The issue here is how the Fourth Amendment is to be construed and applied to the 'third party' search, the recurring situation where state authorities have probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or other evidence of crime is located on identified property, but do not then have probable cause to believe that the owner or possessor of the property is himself implicated in the crime that has occurred or is occurring."

The Supreme Court states "in criminal investigations, a warrant to search for recoverable items is reasonable "only when there is ‘probable cause' to believe that they will be uncovered in a particular dwelling." Search warrants are not directed at persons; they authorize the search of "place" and the seizure of "things," and, as a constitutional matter, they need not even name the person from whom the things will be seized. United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143, 155 n. 15 (1974)."

The conclusion is this: Any property that is searched, whether it belongs to a "suspect" or someone unknown to a suspect, each search warrant is based on the probable cause that there are specific items of evidence at the property.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt4frag2_user.html

"Particularity.—“The requirement that warrants shall particularily describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.”111 This requirement thus acts to limit the scope of the search, inasmuch as the executing officers should be limited to[p.1221]looking in places where the described object could be expected to be found.112 "

Also http://articles.directorym.com/Searches_and_Seizures_FAQ_Oregon-r935227-Oregon.html says:

"A judge will issue a search warrant after the police have convinced her that:

* it is more likely than not that a crime has taken place, and
* items connected to the crime are likely be found in a specified location on the property.

To convince the judge of these facts, the police tell the judge what they know about the situation. Usually, the information given to the judge is based either on the officers' own observations or on the second-hand observations of an informant.The police are limited in their ability to use secondhand information. As a general rule, the information must be reliable given the circumstances. Generally, reliable information is corroborated by police observation. "

and:

"But corroboration is not necessary in every case. Sometimes a judge will issue a warrant if the source of the information is known to the police and has provided trustworthy information in the past."

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=...M&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=wyxytXR2F7Y3ZZZt.fE2qA--

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Oregon+"probable+cause+continuum"&fr=yfp-t-701-s&u=www.law.uoregon.edu/org/street/docs/StreetLaw.ppt&w=oregon+"probable+cause+continuum"&d=I29mKLZfVGxp&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=uJ.sfY_mDSGwCgOqZj87kw-

Probable Cause Continuum as related to Search Warrants:

No information

Hunch= Unable to point to specific facts, the officer has a "gut feeling," similar to intuition.

Suspicion= Officer knows a minor fact that suggests evidence may be found, or officer knows a larger fact originating from an unknown or unreliable source that evidence may be found somewhere.

Reasonable Grounds/Belief/Suspicion= Officer knows several minor facts or a larger fact, or officer knows large fact from source of unknown reliability pointing to a particular person.

Probable Cause= Officer has enough evidence to lead a "reasonable" person to assume evidence will be found at a particular place, and the evidence will be connected to criminal activity. This basis is the minimum required to obtain search warrants.

Preponderance of Evidence= "More likely than not." This is the amount of evidence needed to win a civil case.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt= Highest amount of proof. This is required for a person to be convicted.

Noteworthy: The Reasonable grounds/suspicion/belief is the threshold to search the person/workplace/residence/vehicle of those under probation or parole supervision in the expectation that any violation would be found. http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/corrections/info.htm This is difference than search and seizure laws pertaining to private citizens.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/02.html
A search warrant cannot be used to find evidence that would be used to justify the search warrant itself. You cannot put the cart before the horse, so to speak. This is why each search warrant has to specify the items to be seized in particular, and where to search for the particular items. And this is signed by a neutral magistrate or judicial official who has taken into consideration the sworn affidavit or affirmation who also concludes it is reasonable to believe there is "probable cause." This is sort of a two pronged test within itself in issuing search warrants.

I'm very sorry for the wall of China post, my whole point is that in order to execute search warrants on any property, there has to be more than a hunch. Property where Terri Horman lives can't be searched simply because they have "probable cause" to believe she is guilty. There has to be "probable cause" to believe that certain items of evidence specified in the search warrant will be found at the particular location. The probable cause to believe Terri Horman is guilty does not translate into searches of her friend's properties, either.... And it certainly doesn't translate into searches of properties of her friend's relatives.

But if Dede's relatives gave consent, then it can be searched without a warrant.

The article, http://www.kgw.com/news/Reward-missing-Portland--Kyron-Horman-up-to-50000-99349594.html , says "investigators have conducted several searches related to Speicher, including property belonging to relatives of her." Now I know many of us have had problems with these local news articles and their wording. But the way that sounds to me, is that they are quite concerned about any information she may have.... concerned enough to want to search properties she has access to.

But consent to a search can be withdrawn at any time, and anytime a search is conducted under one of the exceptions to the fourth amendment, legal problems can arise if the exception is later contested. Its always best to obtain a search warrant. And in my opinion, its more than a rule of thumb in high profile cases.

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Pa...ll-When-You-Need-a-Search-Warrant/Page/2.aspx

"For any search, whether of a house, a car, or a container, if you have probable cause and time to get a warrant, it's a good idea to seek one. Even though one of the exceptions might apply, you will generally reduce the risks of both suppression of evidence and civil liability if your entry and search are judicially authorized. And if there is no identifiable exception, there is no lawful way to conduct a search except with a warrant—which brings us back to the rule-of-thumb: try to get a warrant whenever possible."

Just clicking on "thanks" isn't enough! You did a fantastic job of pulling this all together in one excellent post!

It's interesting to note that Kaine used the terminology "probable cause" in his divorce documents..................

"In court documents, the boy's father Kaine Horman stated police had provided him with "probable cause" to believe that Terri was involved in Kyron's disappearance, plotted to have Kaine killed, and was having a sexual affair."

http://www.kgw.com/news/Reward-missi...-99349594.html

 

[Donjeta]

It just seems to me that whatever gives Kaine probable cause to believe that Terri did something might be significantly different than what gives LE or the court systems probable cause to arrest or convict her. Kaine is free to use evidence that is not allowable in court to form his beliefs.

 

[angelmom]

I wonder if the person DS was landscaping for that day is a relative of hers and if it's a big property where you can do things unseen by others on the property...? If so, they might have searched that property, particularly if TH pinged nearby.

And if my speculation that Terri picked up DS at the farm so they could go to the gym together is correct, then she would have pinged there.

And I can see how going to pick up DS could be left off your timeline. If your routine was to meet at the gym, but this day she picked her up, it would be easy to forget that few minutes.

 

[JustyThoughts]

On CBS Morning show today, Monday, statements were made:
- DS has indicated to someone that she forgot her cell phone that day.
- The GJ asked her one question: " Are you willing to come back?"
- Seems LE interest is most on the 10 days DS stayed with TH following KH moving out.

 

[JustyThoughts]

I guess her cell phone pings would either confirm or refute the location of her cell that day. Time will tell.

 

[Calliope]

On CBS Morning show today, Monday, statements were made:
- DS has indicated to someone that she forgot her cell phone that day.
- The GJ asked her one question: " Are you willing to come back?"
- Seems LE interest is most on the 10 days DS stayed with TH following KH moving out.

?

Well... I wonder if all they suspect is that Terri confided in her?

If this isn't about Kyron, I"m going to be ticked off.

 

[Donjeta]

And if my speculation that Terri picked up DS at the farm so they could go to the gym together is correct, then she would have pinged there.

And I can see how going to pick up DS could be left off your timeline. If your routine was to meet at the gym, but this day she picked her up, it would be easy to forget that few minutes.

Perhaps it might have been left out in the first telling but according to Kaine and/or Desiree she had been vocal about the cell pings showing she was somewhere she wasn't. IMO if the police indicated to her that there was a problem with her cell pings she would have been prompted to remember and I think she would have been able to explain the discrepancy pretty easily. "Yeah that's right, I forgot, I went to pick up a friend on my way to the gym and that must be why my phone pinged there." Recognition is always easier than straight recall and although you originally might not remember that you went to Farawayplace when asked, "please tell me what you did on Monday", once you've been told that the evidence shows that you went to Farawayplace it is easier for you to recall what you did there. IMO.

Anyway, if she was so vocal about these problems with the cell pings I'm pretty sure DS would have heard about it and been able to remind her "that was the day you picked me up, why didn't you tell them so?", and if it was something unusual for TH to pick DS up and go to the gym together there might have been a text message or an email or something in which they arranged it.

 

[Kat010]

Since the cell phone pings are such a big thing in this case, I found this reference on the (varying) accuracy of the pings--especially in rural areas:

http://searchengineland.com/cell-phone-triangulation-accuracy-is-all-over-the-map-14790

How many towers are in the area where TH supposedly was driving, and how far apart are they? How aabout at the location where DD was working?

What kind of phones did TH & DD have? How old? Did they have GPS technology? Which carrier?

All these things tie into the mix of figuring out a) if the pings reported by LE are accurate and b) if the pings were inaccurate, were they wildly so, or c) were they minor and LE exaggerated them (a common tactic) to increase pressure on TH?

Here's a brief, but interesting discussion re: cell phones pinging & SAR:

http://forums.equipped.org/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=205111

 

[Calliope]

I want to know:

Was DeDe at home that morning (as her attorney claims)?

If not, did she leave abruptly as unnamed source claims?

If so, how long was she gone and where was she?

Do any of her relatives own a white truck?

Where was DeDe at approximately 3 pm June 4th and 2 am June 5th?

 

[debs]

?

Well... I wonder if all they suspect is that Terri confided in her?

If this isn't about Kyron, I"m going to be ticked off.

A precious little has been about Kyron so far. I hate to see you upset, but I can't see yet how this is about him.

 

[palladore]

On CBS Morning show today, Monday, statements were made:
- DS has indicated to someone that she forgot her cell phone that day.
- The GJ asked her one question: " Are you willing to come back?"
- Seems LE interest is most on the 10 days DS stayed with TH following KH moving out.

Thanks for posting this. There has been speculation that DD had an active part in Kyron's disappearance or the disposal of his body. But my feeling has been that LE was putting the screws to DD because they haven't been able to figure out critical details about TH's movements on the 4th. LE, I suspect, is reasonably certain the elements of TH's account is a crock of .... And are desperately hoping that TH said something to DD in the ten days she stayed with her that willl provide the key to cracking TH's timeline.