i can't speak to why a landscaper would participate in a sting operation. I only know that operation failed. I only know nothing has yet come from that sting operation, though I wonder if the Grand Jury is sitting to discuss whether there is enough to charge Terri for a crime regarding a MFH plot in the past. What I do know is that at this point, LE has said nothing regarding a MFH, has not indicated that Terri is even implicated in one. What they may have said to Kaine to alarm him enough to explain to the judge that he has reason to believe Terri wanted to hire someone is not the same as saying she DID hire someone. And I am not suggesting he or his lawyer lied to a judge to get a restraining order. Having reason to believe something is enough in most instances to get a restraining order. That is not the same as suggesting there was proof of it, nor that there will be proof in order to keep the restraining order in place once it's served its purpose.
As to why Terri hasn't spoken of it, or why the landscaper hasn't spoken of it, I cannot guess. I imagine the landscaper is under orders to not speak, since he was in fact involved in a police sting which was meant to garner evidence. Legally it is smarter to keep their mouth shut. The law must prove it; Terri is not required to explain herself to the public. Sure, everyone would like her to defend herself "if she's innocent" but not speaking is not proof of guilt.
And I for one expect that should I ever find myself in such a situation, someone...........even if it is one lone person out there......would defend the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I have seen nothing of any sort which points to proof. I've only seen gossip and innuendo and suggestions that there MIGHT be something which will MAYBE prove Terri was on some sort of crime spree. As of this moment, I have not seen it.
For information:
"The Presumption" states:
- With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof.
- With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
- The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.