Terri obtained new cell phones from friends to avoid investigator's scrutiny

[SurfieTX]

Is her parents (or whoever she is staying with now) phone out of order? Maybe she shouldn't have gotten (probably) the most expensive lawyer in town. We all make choices I guess.

I was just thinking a bit ago about life w/o cell phones. How did we manage? :waitasec: I'm pretty sure the only thing Houze or his staff would discuss with TH on a cell would be court dates, reminders, that kind of thing. I highly, highly doubt they would get into nitty gritty details. TH was at Houze's office, last week or so, and she spent, what, 7 or 9 hours there?

 

[Chablis]

I said nothing of the sort. Terri has rights and LE must follow rules in order to gather anything from Terri which they wish to use to implicate her. Once again, it is about her rights. It isn't about whether I think she did it or not. It's about what rights she has and what rules LE must follow.

That is all.

Right, but can it then be argued that they shouldnt have probably bugged Scott Petersons phone, or Drew Peterson, or maybe the phones in the Cummings case? Shes the last known person to be with a missing child who spend 90 hours wandering around driving, the LE have every right to bug her phone and know her wearabouts. Sorry if she does not like that, but thats just how it is.

 

[BeanE]

It is reported in the msm... and as such I thought we were allowed to discuss it. It is a quote from that article and imhoo I believe the reporting. That is my opinion.

I didn't say anything about discussing it, nursie. Your post stated it was a fact; I pointed out that it wasn't, that the reporter is contending it, without even saying where he/she got the info from. Not even unnamed sources.

Of course we can discuss it (so far as I know), and of course, you have the right to believe the reporter, and to your opinion. :blowkiss:

 

[wvjules]

1. How would her friend(s) getting her a new phone be obstruction of justice?

2. I find it very odd that there are NO sources listed in this article.

3. I don't see "Terri Supporters". I see Kyron supporters who aren't ready to throw Terri under the bus with the limited information we have.


I had a lot more to say but I will leave it at that.

 

[nursebeeme]

I said nothing of the sort. Terri has rights and LE must follow rules in order to gather anything from Terri which they wish to use to implicate her. Once again, it is about her rights. It isn't about whether I think she did it or not. It's about what rights she has and what rules LE must follow.

That is all.

right I get that. I am all about that! I want whomever did whatever to Kyron to be prosecuted fairly in a court of law.

I was just wondering what you were really meaning when saying "just cause" etc. And wondering what you meant by it... thanks for clarifying it.

I am positive LE is following all the rules to get her cell phone records, pings, computer files, etc.

 

[sofia76]

Cell phone spyware MUST be installed on the cell phone that is being spied on. You cannot receive data from someone else's phone simply by installing software on your own phone. Some companies are bogus and try to rip people off by misleading them about that. Remember, there is a lot of falsehood in advertising. But if you believe that company, I have some pumps over here to sell you that will grow your man by 3 inches TONIGHT.

ETA: Also, I have my phone password protected. It kicks in after 1 minute of inactivity. After ten wrong attempts at the password, all the data on the phone is deleted. This way if I ever lose my phone in a public space or I leave it somewhere unattended, there is some barrier.

 

[BOZGAL]

I think it would be interesting to know just "when" this phone was purchased and given to Terri.

Excellent point Billylee
For many reasons I certainly would be interested to know when the phone(s) were purchased.

jmho

 

[Calliope]

Cell phone spyware MUST be installed on the cell phone that is being spied on. You cannot receive data from someone else's phone simply by installing software on your own phone. Some companies are bogus and try to rip people off by misleading them about that. Remember, there is a lot of falsehood in advertising. But if you believe that company, I have some pumps over here to sell you that will grow your man by 3 inches TONIGHT.

The review I posted used the spyware from the company that stated in their FAQs that it is downloaded to your phone. The review states that it was just as the company claimed.

 

[Billylee]

I would like to know if the phone was purchased before TH lawyered up or after. Just curious.

 

[ami]

I guess we could ask on the attorney thread about rights under investigation, but I'm guessing now from things I've read that it varies from state to state (such as recording conversations and calls, etc).

I haven't read anything about Terri believing her rights are being violated. So far it doesn't seem like she's had any more scrutiny than normal in this type of investigation based on other media coverage I've read - actually far less than some.

Also LE in this case appears to be and from all accounts actually is building a solid case against *someone* that will hold up in court in the case of an eventual prosecution. I cannot imagine they would jeopardize that case by violating Terri's rights in an obvious and public way based on public insistence that she's guilty. In fact they've shown the opposite inclination: keeping the public unhappily in the dark in order to build a more solid case.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

Whether I were innocent or guilty, I would want my privacy, and I would find a way to get a cell phone so my conversations would not be traced or listened to, and my whereabouts could not be ascertained.

 

[Charlie09]

Whether I were innocent or guilty, I would want my privacy, and I would find a way to get a cell phone so my conversations would not be traced or listened to, and my whereabouts could not be ascertained.

Then you should probably NOT have a cell phone.

 

[sofia76]

The review I posted used the spyware from the company that stated in their FAQs that it is downloaded to your phone. The review states that it was just as the company claimed.

Perhaps a review posted by someone in the company to fool potential buyers?

 

[nursebeeme]

1. How would her friend(s) getting her a new phone be obstruction of justice?

2. I find it very odd that there are NO sources listed in this article.

3. I don't see "Terri Supporters". I see Kyron supporters who aren't ready to throw Terri under the bus with the limited information we have.


I had a lot more to say but I will leave it at that.

I raise my hand when I say I am a Kyron supporter... and my beliefs on who may have done this are my own.


not sure the word "terri supporter" is a good one... as it is very polarizing not to mention I have not seen that phrase in this thread... if I missed it I am sorry.

And just because some have opinions that terri had something to do with this I do not think it is synonymous with "throwing her under the bus" when we are discussing opinions here.

moo

 

[Mamietwo]

I wish we knew. If it was someone else, TH sure has a lot of "good friends" that will do VERY questionable things during the investigation of a missing CHILD!

My thinking is that if investigators have found out this much (about the new cell phones) they'll find out who the culprit is that got them for her.

 

[goatman]

Right, but can it then be argued that they shouldnt have probably bugged Scott Petersons phone, or Drew Peterson, or maybe the phones in the Cummings case? Shes the last known person to be with a missing child who spend 90 hours wandering around driving, the LE have every right to bug her phone and know her wearabouts. Sorry if she does not like that, but thats just how it is.

IMO, what is being argued is that IF KH was the owner of the account/phone numbers/phone then LE wouldn't need a search warrant if KH gave them permission. LE exercising their rights is not what is being argued. I believe it is the forcing of LE to exercise their rights (ie get a search warrant or don't listen in) that is being argued. At least from my perspective.:waitasec: make sense?

 

[Mamietwo]

Lack of money? So she can retain a lawyer with $350,000 but she can't afford her own cell phone? That's a bit ridiculous.

Did we get a confirmation on that money for the lawyer? I can't figure out where she'd get that kind of money. She'd have her hands on $3500.00 and maybe someone just forgot to put the comma and period in the appropriate places, which would make it look like $350,000. Just a thought.

 

[winterrose]

Thinking about this now,it is more understandable why DS was using code words,like the Red Robin in such and such a town is hot,no ac and things like that.If they went to the point of getting her a new cellphone,they were finding ways of contacting her online,IMO.So,if she is involved and any of them know it,I hope they're brought up on obstruction charges.

Wiki..
Modern obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of Perverting the course of justice.

Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, who is not a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent allows any person questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so. (In such a case, the investigators may subpoena the witness to give testimony under oath in court) It is not relevant if the person lied to protect a suspect (such as setting up a false alibi, even if the suspect is in fact innocent) or to hide from an investigation of their own activities (such as to hide his involvement in another crime). Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if he was under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Since this thread isn't about civil rights and privacy and we could argue about it til we're blue in the face, this is the last I'll say about it -- I just can't imagine if my child were missing that my priority would be to get a secret phone.

Anyhoo -- I really can't wait to hear more details about this. I'd like to know how LE found out, who bought the phone and when. I think those are all important keys to this. I'd also like to know if the phone is in their possession or if they learned about it after TH got rid of it. And, of course, WHO was she contacting?!?

I think another important thought is that if TH has a friend who is willing to secretly get a phone for her so she is able to hide her tracks, what else is said friend willing to do?

 

[PoppyH]

Did we get a confirmation on that money for the lawyer? I can't figure out where she'd get that kind of money. She'd have her hands on $3500.00 and maybe someone just forgot to put the comma and period in the appropriate places, which would make it look like $350,000. Just a thought.

I believe she sent a text to her sext mate stating that is was 350,000, its not confirmed tho JMO