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

[bessie]

I don't think we need evidence that it was. I'm saying that given how her number was published on the internet, and how this spyware works it's reasonable to assume it's a risk and therefore IMO her attorney would advise her to get another phone.

Or to be less paranoid, Kaine deleted her from his calling plan.

Either way. I just don't see why her getting a new phone has people up in arms.

Neither do I, and I'm one who leans toward her being guilty. I'm much more concerned about cavalier attitudes toward an individual's right to privacy.

 

[ami]

If a person does not themselves defend their rights, people will be more than willing to trample right over them to get what they want.

The only facts I have are that Kyron's human rights have been violated, and that LE is building a case to bring the criminal responsible for this to justice.

I haven't read anything that says Terri's rights have been violated in this case or that LE has broken the law in their investigation of her. If that story comes out at some point I'll be interested to read it.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

Then you should probably NOT have a cell phone.

I think I should steer clear of committing crimes, cell phone or not. But as an innocent person, just because a crime was committed doesn't mean I should give up my privacy. As an innocent person, why should I have to? I would have had nothing at all to do with the crime and my private info would be meaningless.

I would fully cooperate with LE at the beginning, but I would not cooperate with being a target if LE suddenly got tunnel vision for some reason. Remember, after my full cooperation, it is not my responsibility to lead the investigation in a fruitful direction -- nor would I be permitted to do so. If LE gets tunnel vision erroneously, they have the responsibility and the ability to turn that around. It is LE's mismanagement of the case that is the problem, not me.

If I were a guilty person, I would not want to give LE any leads that would enable them to discover that. I don't think any criminal would. For that reason, I would expect criminals to work their butts off to obstruct justice, since the Justice would work against them.

 

[wvjules]

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

Just another action by Terri that makes her look guilty as sin (which I am 100% convinced that she is). If she had nothing to do with Kyron's disappearance, then why in the heck did she need a cell phone to avoid investigator's scrutiny? I'm anxious to see how all of the Terri supporters can justify this. JMO.

Terri supporters = see bolded from page 1 of this thread

I'm sure I could have used a better phrase than "throwing her under the bus" but my sentiment is the same.

I want whoever did this to kyron to pay the price as much as the next guy. I'm just not convinced it is Terri yet. I'm looking at all of the information objectively as I hope LE is doing.

 

[winterrose]

Makes me wonder about the theory that she may have had a "throwaway phone" before Kyron went missing. You can buy prepaid phones and activate them without giving real information.

Which could also make sense any of her friends could have,like leaving a jobsite without a word and leaving one's cellphone,because if there was another cellphone,it wouldn't be necessary.KWIM

 

[BeanE]

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.

Her attorney contends she didn't pay anywhere near $350,000, and whatever she may have paid, was not necessarily her own money - for example, her parents may have loaned it to her.

She has no job, and no known source of income, so not having the $$$ to buy a cell phone is reasonable.

 

[stmarysmead]

Really? We all talk to friends and family about our troubles, and personal affairs. So, if a friend calls you to talk about something very personal, you wouldn't mind having those details be monitored and possibly become public? Are you going to advise your friends before each and every conversation that anything you say might be intercepted and recorded?

Are you sure that you really want everything in your life, and that of your friends and family, to not be private, but accessible? Say your daughter is in the hospital on emergency status, your BFF calls, or your minister, and you're so upset and you ask for help not only because of her health but because she's there because of a serious problem after an abortion? And maybe she's a minor child, too? You're willing to have that information be accessible?

Please understand that when I say "you" I am *not* meaning you, personally. Not at all. I am using "you" in a theoretical sense for purposes of discussion.

And frankly, I have never known anyone who doesn't have any secrets at all. I've even lived part of my life in front of media (and while in media was a well-known "personality" with my face all over town!) and I can tell you--I'm open, I'm honest, and I have secrets that are none of anybody's business. Except those who I decide to confide in.

And today, no one keeps their worries and their personal conversations restricted only to face-to-face. That time is long past.

Sorry for the length, but I think that whatever bits of privacy are left to us are something that we shouldn't give away. I understand the "I have nothing to hide", as I've said that myself, in theory, but in reality--even something innocuous, if taken out of context, can sound awful.

Let's say I have a friend who's such an activist that friends laughingly refer to her as a "zoning law terrorist" because she gives the city heck all the time. So one day I say on the phone "I can't believe this! I gotta go 'cause I have to pick my terrorist friend up at the airport. She's only here long enough to drop off a package and then she's outta the country.

I'm speaking to a friend who's part of that circle. She knows who I'm taking about, a 75-year-old activist who's dropping off a package of care items for our prenatal unit and visiting friends before heading off to France for her annual vacation.

What comes out of that, that gets picked up and leaked is "Kat010 was overheard discussing plans for a terrorist to drop off a package." Well, kiss my reputation goodbye!

I know that sounds exaggerated--but it's not really in this day of snooping. And we all have personal conversations. We all have words that we use for kidding around in certain circles.

I understand what you're saying and I respect the points you make. But I look at this as if a tornado has come into the lives of these people. In normal times, I would not want to have numerous extra people living under my roof, or wearing my clothes...or a million other things. But in an emergency, one has to assess what matters most. After a "tornado", we subject ourselves to whatever we must.

I am far from Mother Teresa, but I think the first proirity should be an endangered child. ALL THE MORE SO...if that is a child I love.

Every thing you mention would absolutely be a burden to me...but what does it matter if in any small way, it helps bring Kyron home. And yes, if I had to traion myself to say before every conversation...this may be recorded...if this was my loved one...I'd say on standing on my head.

In desperate situations, with a child at risk, I think most people would endure inconvenience and loss of privacy...in the same way, hungry Mothers feed their child first...as a personal sacrifice.

Is divorce strategy or even privacy more important than this little boy? I imagine Desiree would put her every conversation on county-wide speaker-phone...just on the chance it might help.

 

[ami]

Neither do I, and I'm one who leans toward her being guilty. I'm much more concerned about cavalier attitudes toward an individual's right to privacy.

I don't think it's weird if she got a new phone, and actually I assumed she'd already gotten a new one after the sexts were shared (I assumed Kaine wouldn't want her sexting on his dime anymore... ).

The article implied that she got multiple phones through friends and that LE thought this fact was important enough information to warrant searches of her friends.

A new phone? Meh, I got one last week, no biggie. Multiple phones she kept secret from LE during an investigation? I think that's significant.

 

[LaceSprocket]

Perhaps, this is "old news," but the Oregonian is only reporting it just now.

From the article:
"Investigators have been focusing on Terri Moulton Horman's close circle of friends after learning that one of them obtained new cell phones for her so she could avoid investigators' scrutiny after becoming the focus of the inquiry into the disappearance of her 7-year-old stepson. "

If you recall, we already knew that Terri's friends were being questioned. And everyone was wondering WHY. Perhaps now we know WHY. Because "one of them" got Terri new cell phoneS. (Why did they say multiple phones? Isn't one good enough?)

If her "friend" did that... IMO, it's pretty stupid and juvenile. Because just how did that conversation happen? Terri friend: "Hey Terri... here's some new cell phones so those rat bastards in LE can't listen to your conversations!" Seriously?? Nice way to get yourself implicated. If Terri had ANY sense whatsoever, she should have declined saying, "No thanks. I don't need LE to question me any more than they are already."

Regardless of guilt or innocence, Terri and her friends' behavior are juvenile and snarky towards LE. It's almost like a game to them: Let's see how far we can push the envelop...? Like a bunch of catty school girls rallying around the playground bully. I've seen it dozens of times. Back in 8th grade, that is.

 

[Mamietwo]

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

Thanks Poppy, I had read that before but as I was saying, that it's pretty unlikely that she got her hands on that kind of money and as you've listed it above, and I in my post, without the comma the same number of zeroes are there. If a period is added before the last two zeroes, it becomes $3500.00 and in a text I would think it'd be easy to leave out the period. We do not know if she put a comma in there, do we, no one has seen the text?

 

[gwenabob]

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.

If you really want your privacy, you will NOT use a cell phone. You would use a land line. Any cell phone has the potential to be listened to completely by accident. I don't think anybody should have an expectation of true privacy with a cell phone.

 

[Barry]

Now I'm curious. What are the checks and balances in place when LE has a phone tapped, and is privy to client/attorney conversations? Although they may not be able to use it in court, they might get useful information on the defense strategy, which could be used to the prosecutions advantage.

 

[Calliope]

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

No, an investigative report by a news station IIRC.

 

[evelyn24]

No, she's not a suspect.

And you don't have to be one in order to have an attorney, and to have all contact done through the attorney. And if the attorney advises you to do or not do this or that,that's the way LE has to play it.

Well of course she is, but LE won't say it to the public. I'm not dumb and have common sense along with reading a million of these cases on WS and other crime forums. I can clearly see LE along with DA are focusing on Terri, and she is indeed a suspect in their eyes.
imo

 

[citigirl]

I am wondering if one of the reasons LE declared this a "criminal investigation" is that these types of activities by Terri and her friends can now be considered interference with an investigation, particularly if LE has evidence that the phones were purchased specifically for that reason. Does give LE more leverage to threaten charges for friends who do not cooperate with LE...

Makes more sense to me now that LE made a big deal of answering the "criminal investigation questions emailed by reporters.

 

[MsFacetious]

I'm getting the impression this is all just a game to her.

I'm still wondering about "let me make myself look as guilty as possible without confessing... to distract attention away from and cover up for _______" (NOT any of the other parents... I do not feel they are in ANY way involved. Just to clarify.)

 

[evelyn24]

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.

Nobody cared if their phones were bugged, this is true. Also, if either of those men were caught trying to get a friend to purchase a phone to have private conversations without the possibility of LE knowing, I don't think they'd get as many supporters cheering for their privacy as Terri is getting.

 

[Patty G]

When did LE state: "so she could avoid investigator's scrutiny"? Or is this statement the opinion of the reporter? When did LE mention anything about cellphones?

Let's say Terri did get a cellphone from one of her friends; could it be possible that Kaine disconnected the cellphone she had after finding out about the text messages? Since Terri has no job or income and probably no access to the checking/savings account she may have accessed at one time, it seems reasonable enough for a friend to get Terri a cellphone. :crazy:

 

[sorrell skye]

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

I think it goes without saying that all of us here are Kyron supporters - at least I can vouch for that being the reason why I've been following this case for the past 8+ weeks.

The *Terri supporter* phrase was mentioned in post #3 of this thread. I'm not sure if it was directed @ anyone or any group in particular, but IMO it has the potential of being interpreted as a veiled insult toward those who are sitting on the fence awaiting more information or who insist on substantiated info.

I'm curious as to the source of this cell phone info. As others have pointed out, the article doesn't mention any source at all - not even the pet "reliable source". An oversight on the part of the journalist or the editor? Maybe. Or maybe they've just decided they can't be bothered with even a half-hearted attempt @ sourcing their information. Perhaps a few letters to the editor are in order?

If this info is true, who leaked it to the media - and why?

My concern is that there seems to be an extraordinary amount of info being leaked to the press that is primarily painting a picture of TH being guilty before she's been formally charged. Obstruction of justice allegations have been tossed out there. IMO, it goes both ways - the continuous leaking of info (whether accurate or not) by all these anonymous sources is dangerous in terms of justice, regardless of whomever is eventually charged.

If LE chooses to not release info to protect the integrity of the investigation (which also means protecting the success of any potential prosecution) then IMO the release of this kind of info (again whether accurate or not) needs to be reined in.

I'm a Kyron supporter. I'm a truth supporter. I'm a justice supporter.

I want the person responsible for Kyron's disappearance to be brought to trial & successfully prosecuted & convicted - whomever that is. If that person is Terri, so be it. If that person is someone else, so be it. It would be a travesty of justice if a successful investigation & prosecution was hindered or otherwise undermined due to the constant leaking of *info*. IMO, that would be obstruction of justice.

As far as I'm concerned, a gag order should be issued.

 

[sofia76]

No, an investigative report by a news station IIRC.

Do you have the link to that video? I saw a video about cell phone spyware done by a news station - and they made it clear that you needed access to the phone that was going to be spied upon. They also said you needed at least 5-10 minutes with the phone to download the software onto it. It was KSL TV. YouTube video uQmVi0sduqI