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

[Deleted member 718]

Anita Kissee's (reporter for KATU) twitter:

"Believe stories that are vetted through numerous sources, not just one person. That's my advice."

"PLEASE! Do NOT believe everything you read about the #KyronHorman case."

http://mobile.twitter.com/anitakissee

 

[Emeralgem]

It would have been nice if the experts talked about something as simple as "perhaps Terri just needed a cellphone as the one she used may have been disconnected and had no money or credit to get one on her own." :crazy:

Perhaps, the experts know it isn't as simple as Terri just needed a cellphone because the one she had may have been disconnected and had no money or credit to get one on her own...

After watching the latest video released from KOIN I'm now wondering IF TMH texted DS or called her and IF DeDe left the premises for 90 plus minutes after receiving the text or the call from TMH what phone did she receive the text or call from TMH on IF she (DeDe) is claiming her phone was at home?

 

[ThoughtFox]

Great cartoon, Donjeta!

Was DeDe with Terri (those ten days) when the sexting thing came out? Sorry, this case has me all befuddled. Too many facts, speculations, rumors and whatnot crammed into my mind.

Yes, this really is confusing with the timeline. These stories overlap because DeDe and Michael Cook were the closest people to Terri during the ten days after Kaine moved out at the end of June. And that's not speculation, that's fact.

Kaine Horman abruptly moved out of the family home in late June, taking the couple's 20-month-old daughter, Baby K, with him. He then filed for divorce from Terri Horman and was granted a restraining order June 28.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/02/earlyshow/main6736423.shtml

Spicher's friends also revealed that she moved in with Terri Horman soon after Terri's husband, Kaine, moved out and filed for divorce.

Gjerning said, "Because DeDe is the friend that she is she stopped what she was doing and went out and stayed with her for 10 days."

http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/kyrons-dad-claims-wife-had-affair-after-boy-vanished/19552113

According to the motion filed by Horman's attorney, Laura Rackner, Moulton Horman first met Cook after Kyron's disappearance on June 4, after Cook helped organize searches for the boy and stopped by the family home with food and drink. The documents allege Moulton Horman and Cook began exchanging sexually oriented photos via text messages on June 30, four days after her husband left her.

The court filing references "hundreds of text messages as well as several photographs of [Moulton Horman] in various states of undress and graphic sexual activity."

"While at times [Moulton Horman] references the fact that she misses both children K and Kyron, the significant majority of the material deals with social and personal matters between Mr. Cook and respondent [Moulton Horman]," Rackner stated.

Horman is asking Judge Keith Meisenheimer to hold Moulton Horman in contempt of court for sharing the contents of the sealed restraining order with Cook, including Horman's new address, a move Horman said compromised his and Baby K's safety.

 

[grandmaj]

I don't believe for a minute that Terri is so destitute that she couldn't buy her own phone. IMO the reporters have it right she did have a friend purchase the phone in order that she could fly under the radar for a while. MOO

 

[Barry]

ITA that it's hard to dismiss all the TH behavior in it's totallity. And, although I'm still on the fence, I am leaning very heavily towards TH direct or indirect involvement. One thing I have learned from experience though, is even after using Occams Razor, what remains can still be very, very complicated.

 

[1Chump]

Okay... I think a lot of people are confused on how exactly the law applies.

It only applies when a guilty client plans to take the stand and lie.

If a client insists on testifying and lying and the attorney can't convince them not to, you can't do anything about it and it's certainly a sensitive situation for the lawyer, but there isn't any set way to deal with it.

Again, it's only a concern when a client wants to get on the stand and lie. It has no bearing on anything else. The vast majority of people take their attorney's advice and won't go on the stand to lie.

An attorney CANNOT allow a client to get on the stand and lie. The attorney can be disciplined, disbarred and/or jailed.

IMO, the confusion is the discussion started over a client admitting to guilt. The attorney has to know for a FACT that the person is going to commit perjury. A client who confesses their guilt or a witness admitting that they are lying would be a fact. A client who the attorney suspects is guilt or a witness the attorney suspects is lying is not a "fact" so they have no legal duties and/or responisibilities regarding potential "perjury."

 

[ThoughtFox]

ITA that it's hard to dismiss all the TH behavior in it's totallity. And, although I'm still on the fence, I am leaning very heavily towards TH direct or indirect involvement. One thing I have learned from experience though, is even after using Occams Razor, what remains can still be very, very complicated.

I liked Donjeta's cartoon, but I'm not someone who always thinks Occam's Razor is the answer to all things. When you lack even a small amount of information it can throw the "simplest" explanations out the window.People are complicated, unpredictable, and just plain weird sometimes. Logic isn't the answer to everything.

This case keeps getting more bizarre, and it doesn't seem as if anything is simple or straightforward.

 

[ThoughtFox]

I don't believe for a minute that Terri is so destitute that she couldn't buy her own phone. IMO the reporters have it right she did have a friend purchase the phone in order that she could fly under the radar for a while. MOO

I'm beginning to wonder just how many phones they gave her?

 

[1Chump]

Below is a post from AZlawyer... Part BBM is reference to your above post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Chump
IMO, Houze would not continue to represent her. His ability to defend her would be severly hampered by such a confession. Because while attorneys cannot violate the privilege, they also cannot suborn perjury.


Below is a post from AZlawyer... Part BBM is reference to your above post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
No, the attorney could not reveal his client's confession or information about where the body is, and certainly would not have to withdraw from the representation. The vast majority of criminal defendants are, in fact, guilty, so a criminal defense lawyer who insisted on representing only innocent people would get hungry pretty fast. My understanding is that defense attorneys discourage their clients from telling them such information, however, and focus on ensuring procedual fairness and getting the lowest possible sentence for a client who is obviously guilty.

This is why I could never be a defense attorney. The ethics are too complex for me lol. I prefer to sleep at night

I never said that the attorney HAD to withdraw. I said that a "confession" of guilt severly hampers an attorneys ability to defend. IMO, most attorneys would withdraw because they were be severly hampered in defending their clients.

It is not about suspecting the client is guilty. It is about knowing the client is guilty because the client admitted they are guilty. If the client admits guilt, the attorney woudl know if the client testified they are innocent, they are lying. If the client admitted guilt, the attorney would know an alibi witness is lying. The attorney cannot intice a witness to lie. The attorney could not allow an alibi witness and/or client to get on the stand and lie.

If the attorney "suspects" their client is guilty, the client testifying they are innocent or an alibi witness testifying the client was with them at the time of the crime, would be allowed because the attorney only "suspects" they are lying but does not know for a "fact" that they are lying.

 

[Wings Of Light]

An attorney CANNOT allow a client to get on the stand and lie. The attorney can be disciplined, disbarred and/or jailed.

IMO, the confusion is the discussion started over a client admitting to guilt. The attorney has to know for a FACT that the person is going to commit perjury. A client who confesses their guilt or a witness admitting that they are lying would be a fact. A client who the attorney suspects is guilt or a witness the attorney suspects is lying is not a "fact" so they have no legal duties and/or responisibilities regarding potential "perjury."

Rather than continue this back and forth... I'll just use an actual case:

http://www.4lawschool.com/pr/people.shtml

You can read what the court ruled yourself.

As long as the attorney tries to convince them not to lie on the stand, they can't get in trouble.

This is not a cut and dry issue, but the courts generally agree with what I've written before.

Where this all started is whether or not you want your client to tell you the truth about what happened. The answer is yes, of course. It would be nearly impossible to defend them if they didn't. It is not hampering in the slightest to have your client tell the truth. That's what a good attorney wants. The caveat: Don't put them on the stand during the trial if they are guilty and intend to lie. If they insist, the attorney can just let them narrate.

 

[goatman]

I have read 99% of the posts in this thread (probably missed one or two). And there are a couple of things I feel like I need to point out about the position I am taking (new cell phone doesn't make TH look guiltier).

1. IMO no one is saying that Kaine is guilty of doing anything to TH's phone, computer or whatever. The idea is that KH has the potential TO do it and either way (guilty or not) TH has a right to protect herself from it.

2. Furthermore, KH has used information that has been found out through the monitoring of TH by LE b/c of Kyron in his divorce from TH. TH would be stupid (IMO) to not a get a new phone that would require a warrant. At this point, I am fairly certain that KH was either on the cell phones jointly or owned them exclusively AND up until she got a new phone LE didn't need a warrant or HER permission to monitor, record, ect anything she did as long as KH gave it.

By getting a new phone TH hasn't usurped justice, we don't know what kind of phone (bat or 'normal) it was and we don't know that she hasn't been monitored on the new phone.

My guess is that switching phones was a way to have LE have to get a warrant to monitor her and what she does. Unless they have a warrant for the new phone(s) and she doesn't comply with the new warrant- she hasn't broken any laws-and neither has anyone else.

By protecting her rights and forcing LE to exercise theirs (warrant or no monitoring) she hasn't committed a crime.

ONE of my theories: While Kyron is the most important person and finding him should be of the utmost importance, TH has to also deal with the divorce and MFH plot. KH has used information from the search for Kyron in the divorce. It isn't about TH not caring about Kyron (if she does). It is about protecting herself from not being further hurt in the divorce proceedings. I have said this before, but it may have got lost in the banter.

 

[Dee10]

I have read 99% of the posts in this thread (probably missed one or two). And there are a couple of things I feel like I need to point out about the position I am taking (new cell phone doesn't make TH look guiltier).

1. IMO no one is saying that Kaine is guilty of doing anything to TH's phone, computer or whatever. The idea is that KH has the potential TO do it and either way (guilty or not) TH has a right to protect herself from it.

2. Furthermore, KH has used information that has been found out through the monitoring of TH by LE b/c of Kyron in his divorce from TH. TH would be stupid (IMO) to not a get a new phone that would require a warrant. At this point, I am fairly certain that KH was either on the cell phones jointly or owned them exclusively AND up until she got a new phone LE didn't need a warrant or HER permission to monitor, record, ect anything she did as long as KH gave it.

By getting a new phone TH hasn't usurped justice, we don't know what kind of phone (bat or 'normal) it was and we don't know that she hasn't been monitored on the new phone.

My guess is that switching phones was a way to have LE have to get a warrant to monitor her and what she does. Unless they have a warrant for the new phone(s) and she doesn't comply with the new warrant- she hasn't broken any laws-and neither has anyone else.

By protecting her rights and forcing LE to exercise theirs (warrant or no monitoring) she hasn't committed a crime.

ONE of my theories: While Kyron is the most important person and finding him should be of the utmost importance, TH has to also deal with the divorce and MFH plot. KH has used information from the search for Kyron in the divorce. It isn't about TH not caring about Kyron (if she does). It is about protecting herself from not being further hurt in the divorce proceedings. I have said this before, but it may have got lost in the banter.

You make some very good points & I agree with (BBM) your guess. IMO although it may not be a crime to me it seems unethical and sneaky as the phone was purchased by DeDe. If she didn't have the money, why couldn't she use the darn house phone, it's not like she is going anywhere these days KWIM? :banghead:

 

[goatman]

You make some very good points & I agree with (BBM) your guess. IMO although it may not be a crime to me it seems unethical and sneaky as the phone was purchased by DeDe. If she didn't have the money, why couldn't she use the darn house phone, it's not like she is going anywhere these days KWIM? :banghead:

I completely agree with BBM. That is the catch for me...not that she had a new phone but WHO purchased it. Although, it could be said that at one point DD was the closest to her-so that would make sense on that level.

Could be worse for her- could have been MC that bought the phone. Now, how would that have looked!:waitasec:

 

[Dee10]

I completely agree with BBM. That is the catch for me...not that she had a new phone but WHO purchased it. Although, it could be said that at one point DD was the closest to her-so that would make sense on that level.

Could be worse for her- could have been MC that bought the phone. Now, how would that have looked!:waitasec:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[nosysw]

You make some very good points & I agree with (BBM) your guess. IMO although it may not be a crime to me it seems unethical and sneaky as the phone was purchased by DeDe. If she didn't have the money, why couldn't she use the darn house phone, it's not like she is going anywhere these days KWIM? :banghead:

I'm sorry, what is BBM? I thought it stood for BlackBerry Mobile but that doesn't make sense here...and I thought I was up on my texttalk (even though I don't actually text,lol!)

 

[Calliope]

I'm sorry, what is BBM? I thought it stood for BlackBerry Mobile but that doesn't make sense here...and I thought I was up on my texttalk (even though I don't actually text,lol!)

bolded by me

 

[nosysw]

bolded by me

Thanks! I'll (try to) add it to the old memory bank!

 

[RoughlyCollie]

I never said that the attorney HAD to withdraw. I said that a "confession" of guilt severly hampers an attorneys ability to defend. IMO, most attorneys would withdraw because they were be severly hampered in defending their clients.

Well, that is not true, IMO. A defense attorney's job is not to get their client acquitted.

 

[1Chump]

Well, that is not true, IMO. A defense attorney's job is not to get their client acquitted.

No A defense attorney's job is to give his client the best defense possible.

IMO, having one hand tied behind your back makes it impossible to do that. By nowing for a fact that your client is guilty, you have to be more guarded to make sure you do not suborn perjury. If your client does not confess, you have more freedom because if someone did lie, you would not know it as a fact.

 

[Kat010]

Dee, maybe she isn't using her parents' housephone because her attorney told her not to. There's the chance that LE got a warrant to tap that phone, and if they did, they do not have to tell her or the parents.

Also, folks who are attached to their cell phones, etc. etc. at the hip just "need" one. Imagine if we lost all our connectivity, from computer to laptop to cell phone to (gasp!) Kindle. Losing that connectivity would be a huge stressor for someone like her who used FB, etc. etc. and her cell phone all the time. .

And she just might want to talk to friends. She's pretty much cooped up in that house.

Then there's the safety factor. If a car breaks down when you're, say, going into Portland, having that cell phone is essential.

Why not go buy one herself? First, if she doesn't buy it, there's no track back to her.

But I think most importantly, given her situation, she's not going to be able to run down to the big box store. Media are chasing her car and watching her. She's very recognizable now. She's received threats. Read some of the comments on various sites on the web, and imagine the looks and comments she'd get if she just tried to go shopping.

In essence, she's under siege. In that case, send a friend to do the errands. IMHO