Terri Horman, Getting Death Threats, Lawyer Says

[Sherbie]

Eh, what the heck. I'll go out on a limb with another theory LOL

I think he's been talking with LE and the DA to work out some sort of deal where she'll turn herself in, confess to *something* and give information leading to Kyron's whereabouts. That would also explain LE getting their ducks in a row this week.

IMO, this is going to include the name(s) of any accomplice or person she suspects may have been involved. I still think it's a possibility she may have put Kyron at risk through her actions and acquaintances, not necessarily having done anything to him herself, so I haven't figured out to what she'll 'confess'.

JMO, and keep in mind that I've been wrong on most every other theory I've come up with

Well we can be wrong together then, because that is pretty much exactly what I was thinking, too.

Please let it be so! rayer:

 

[twzzlrgirl]

IMO, the only way she will confess anything is if Kyron is alive. At least then she can seek medical help, etc. and possibly some kind of protection from the threats she's receiving (which, I believe) are true. If Kyron is dead, I think she will keep her mouth shut. At this point, without a body, she has nothing to lose by saying nothing and waiting everyone out.

 

[eyes4crime]

Eh, what the heck. I'll go out on a limb with another theory LOL

I think he's been talking with LE and the DA to work out some sort of deal where she'll turn herself in, confess to *something* and give information leading to Kyron's whereabouts. That would also explain LE getting their ducks in a row this week.

IMO, this is going to include the name(s) of any accomplice or person she suspects may have been involved. I still think it's a possibility she may have put Kyron at risk through her actions and acquaintances, not necessarily having done anything to him herself, so I haven't figured out to what she'll 'confess'.

JMO, and keep in mind that I've been wrong on most every other theory I've come up with

That's a good theory Calli! I wonder why he would do that? Seems things are going his way right now. He is considered one of the best defense attorneys in Oregon and I'm sure will use this 'death threat' issue to the max. Remember when LE sent out questionnaires to all the people they interviewed plus put it on the internet for everyone, everywhere to see? My bet is that he will somehow use these two events to help Terri out, if she needs it. Guess I'm thinking there is no reason for him to make a deal right now. Terri has not been charged with a single thing! Hope you are right!

 

[human]

In addition to the death threats being her "reason" for giving up her child , I think they serve another purpose.

In the beginning, there were people on FB supporting her-they seemed to be friends, IMO.

Terri's friends would be in a socioeconomic situation where they certainly would have a couch she could sleep on ,at least.

But the attorney is saying that she is having a hard time to find a place to live.

I think then that the attorney would argue that Terri has tons of friends that would take her in.

But alas, they cannot. They have to protect their families because of the death threats.

Otherwise, they would LOVE to have her come and stay.

 

[STEADFAST]

Looks to me like Oregon has surprisingly lax laws on threatening bodily harm. I'm no legal scholar (far from it!) but this is the only Oregon statute I can find that seems to address threatening.I think these threats would fall under the Oregon law against Harrassment.
§ 166.065¹



It's a Class B Misdemeanor if the communication

(c) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that person’s family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm.

It's a Class A Misdemeanor if

(D)(i) The person conveyed a threat to kill the other person or any member of the family of the other person;

further conditions"

(iii) A reasonable person would believe that the threat was likely to be followed by action.

(5) As used in this section, "electronic threat" means a threat conveyed by electronic mail, the Internet, a telephone text message or any other transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, cellular system, electromagnetic system or other similar means. [1971 c.743 §223; 1981 c.468 §1; 1985 c.498 §1; 1987 c.806 §3; 1995 c.802 §1; 2001 c.870 §2; 2009 c.783 §1]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.065

 

[winterrose]

It will be interesting how he plays out the defense in future court hearings.I hope nothing happens to her,there's a child missing and noone knows where he is or who he was passed off to.Hopefully she'll be put in protective custody so LE will have to watch her.I'm really worried about the baby,if she finds someone to actually carry out what she tried before,the baby could be in danger.

 

[Donjeta]

It goes without saying that I do not condone or encourage threats or any other criminal activity but have to say that receiving death threats is a pretty brilliant defense strategy for her right now. She's a victim of crime instead of a potential suspect and she's got an innocent reason not to contest the move, as she needs to move to a safer place, a reason not to contest the custody because she couldn't be sure the child is safe with her while death threats abound, and maybe even a reason not to contest the RO (if her attorney argues later that her witchhunting ex was one of the people she was afraid of). Houze knows his job.

I wish they didn't say three because three is a liar's number.

I hope she called LE and reported the threats and the persons involved are under arrest and not a danger to society because I don't want her harmed, I want her arrested if she's done something to warrant it. It would be a good idea for her not to live alone IMO but perhaps her family and friends are afraid of the threats. Maybe her lawyer can help arrange something.

 

[Aedrys]

By now, she really needs to go into hiding from her accomplice(s). I'm sure she's had death threats from all 3 of them. Which also explains why she can't tell the truth, by the way. Your Honor.


rut oh.
My hands were getting numb, so I stopped sitting on them, and now look what happened!

So KH, DY, and TY are the accomplices, or just the ones making the threats? And why would TY, a detective, risk his career by threating TH? I'm sure he would advise the other two against that. They have shown great restraint up until this point. And I don't for a second think they are TH's accomplices.

I'm not even sure how threatened she really is. There is no proof other than her lawyer's word that she's getting threats. If Terri is innocent because there is no solid proof saying that she's guilty, then we can apply the same standards here and say this is an attorney's ploy to get sympathy for TH in court instead of real threats.

If she's really being threatened, then that is something to be taken seriously, and I'm sure LE is on it if it's true. But we've also seen this woman call 911 at the drop of a hat. I'm not so sure she's not a hypochondriac at this point, or this case has brought in elements she has never had to deal with before (of course, I say that, and she's the one hiring landscapers to kill her husband, so who knows).

I don't want any harm coming to her, but at the same time, I reserve the right to be skeptical of these threats just like people are skeptical of her guilt.

 

[Calliope]

So KH, DY, and TY are the accomplices, or just the ones making the threats? And why would TY, a detective, risk his career by threating TH? I'm sure he would advise the other two against that. They have shown great restraint up until this point. And I don't for a second think they are TH's accomplices.

I'm not even sure how threatened she really is. There is no proof other than her lawyer's word that she's getting threats. If Terri is innocent because there is no solid proof saying that she's guilty, then we can apply the same standards here and say this is an attorney's ploy to get sympathy for TH in court instead of real threats.

If she's really being threatened, then that is something to be taken seriously, and I'm sure LE is on it if it's true. But we've also seen this woman call 911 at the drop of a hat. I'm not so sure she's not a hypochondriac at this point, or this case has brought in elements she has never had to deal with before (of course, I say that, and she's the one hiring landscapers to kill her husband, so who knows).

I don't want any harm coming to her, but at the same time, I reserve the right to be skeptical of these threats just like people are skeptical of her guilt.

Do you really think her attorney would lie about this?

 

[MsFacetious]

"If you do not ask for a contested hearing within the first 30 days after you receive the court papers, the Restraining Order will continue for ONE YEAR from the date the judge signed it. It can also be renewed for one year at a time after that."

"If it has been more than 30 days since the date you were served, the only type of hearing you may request is to make changes to custody and/or parenting time, your removal from the home, your restrictions from other premises, or contact by you in-person, by telephone, or otherwise."

http://www.oregon.gov/Lane/docs/InstrucsCONTEST-3-10.pdf

Changes to custody and/or parenting would only apply if the restraining order was against the spouse. Since it also protects the child, the restraining order will remain in effect for a year if she doesn't contest it. So she is "giving up custody" for a year.

I'm sorry... but a year is a very long time to give up your child. Especially your BABY...she doesn't have to have her all the time. Just supervised visits would be enough to allow her to modify it later and still keep her safe.

She's giving up custody?

"If the stepmom wants to contest the restraining order, which involves the custody of her 19-month-old daughter, she would have to file a request for a hearing by July 28 (within 30 days of the day the order was served on her, June 28), and a hearing would have to be held within five days of her request for a hearing."

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/judge_seals_restraining_order.html


"Houze said Terri agreed to move out, give up rights to custody, but the hearing will address financial and other issues."


http://www.nwcn.com/news/oregon/Hea...ng-step-mom-Terri-to-leave-home-98606239.html

 

[tehcloser]

"Houze said Terri agreed to move out, give up rights to custody, but the hearing will address financial and other issues."

I know Houze SAID that, but like with everything else in this case...I have a feeling there is more to it than her just giving up custody.

 

[Jules71]

Do you really think her attorney would lie about this?

Maybe Terri would lie to her attorney about getting death threats.

 

[Calliope]

"If you do not ask for a contested hearing within the first 30 days after you receive the court papers, the Restraining Order will continue for ONE YEAR from the date the judge signed it. It can also be renewed for one year at a time after that."

"If it has been more than 30 days since the date you were served, the only type of hearing you may request is to make changes to custody and/or parenting time, your removal from the home, your restrictions from other premises, or contact by you in-person, by telephone, or otherwise."

http://www.oregon.gov/Lane/docs/InstrucsCONTEST-3-10.pdf

Changes to custody and/or parenting would only apply if the restraining order was against the spouse. Since it also protects the child, the restraining order will remain in effect for a year if she doesn't contest it. So she is "giving up custody" for a year.

I'm sorry... but a year is a very long time to give up your child. Especially your BABY...she doesn't have to have her all the time. Just supervised visits would be enough to allow her to modify it later and still keep her safe.




"If the stepmom wants to contest the restraining order, which involves the custody of her 19-month-old daughter, she would have to file a request for a hearing by July 28 (within 30 days of the day the order was served on her, June 28), and a hearing would have to be held within five days of her request for a hearing."

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/judge_seals_restraining_order.html


"Houze said Terri agreed to move out, give up rights to custody, but the hearing will address financial and other issues."


http://www.nwcn.com/news/oregon/Hea...ng-step-mom-Terri-to-leave-home-98606239.html

Did he really state she would give up rights to custody? What I've seen reported is that he said she wouldn't fight the custody issue. Subtle difference. I wonder if that is simply the reporter's interpretation of what he actually said.

 

[Calliope]

Maybe Terri would lie to her attorney about getting death threats.

Possible, I guess. But I don't see him making this statement without first verifying it for himself.

 

[nursebeeme]

Maybe Terri would lie to her attorney about getting death threats.

we already know it is alleged that she encouraged MC to lie to her atty.

Sorry, but all lawyers take logic classes. I am seeing a classic logic argument here. I wonder if it is going through his head? I am sure it is! It certainly would be if I were the atty representing her. moo

 

[Aedrys]

Do you really think her attorney would lie about this?

It's a fact that some defense attorneys lie. Baez, in the Anthony case, keeps saying there is evidence to exonerate her, but it hasn't been produced yet. Just the other day, he said that his experts found something new in the evidence they were looking at, wow, that's fast for looking at something in one day.

It's what some defense lawyers do. They shield and protect their client and their reputations by lying, or at least blowing things out of proportion. He's a defense attorney. Even if she is getting threats, I doubt they are to the level he's insinuating. He's doing this to gain sympathy for his client. It's what defense attorneys do.

He's just more convincing and better at doing it than other defense attorneys. I will give him that. Even though I question the threats, I still go back to what an accomplished lawyer he is and would he lie for her. I think like the other poster said, maybe she lied to him.

ETA: Out of respect to RoughlyCollie, the defense attorneys I mention here are the unethical ones. I let my emotions get away from me and characterized all defense attorneys, and that wasn't fair at all. I need to stop mixing up Houze with Baez.

 

[tehcloser]

Raises hand!!!!!!! Where do I sign up for these logic lessons? Seems mine has taken a leave of absence since this case started.

 

[Donjeta]

Did he really state she would give up rights to custody? What I've seen reported is that he said she wouldn't fight the custody issue. Subtle difference. I wonder if that is simply the reporter's interpretation of what he actually said.

If either option results in her not seeing the baby for at least one year, I'm not seeing what the difference is. Please could you enlighten me?

 

[cluciano63]

If she doesn't fight custody of the baby, then I think it is likely she cannot produce Kyron.

 

[nursebeeme]

Raises hand!!!!!!! Where do I sign up for these logic lessons? Seems mine has taken a leave of absence since this case started.

here you go teh (you crazy wbsleuther you!)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Sb_BdS6FY[/ame]