Terri's Constitutional Rights

[Aedrys]

I'm just going to say it. Kaine is NOT helping by stating that "the judge" thinks that finding Kyron is the top priority and that the divorce is "part of the investigation." The only judge he has been in front of is about his divorce/civil matter, and so far, no one has been charged with anything about Kyron. Houze is an expert at getting people off on technicalities, and he WILL do that if he can. And he might just be able to do that based on Terri's right to the 5th.

I am empathetic and understanding to Kaine's and Desiree's hurt, struggle and wont for the truth. I really am. However, it is equally important to not sabotage the criminal investigation and prosecution for whatever happened or is happening to this precious little boy.

ETA: These judges have and will have a very heavy load upon them, as this case will most certainly set a precedent regarding civil/criminal rights during potential concurrent proceedings. As we have seen, Rackner, Houze and Bunch are quoting cases left and right to bolster their opinions and positions.

Their child is taken and Terri is the last person to see him. Evidence keeps coming out that is sinking Terri and further as the person who did this. So is Kaine supposed to keep his pain to himself to protect Terri's rights? He is not going to walk on eggshells with her. He is not going to be nice about this. This is his SON, not a sock, not a toy, a flesh and blood CHILD. He has the right to say what he wants about the person he thinks took and hurt his child. As for the judge, if the judge was to look the other way like nothing is happening that is not unethical but going overboard in being fair in Terri. Boohoo, cry me river. She can dish it but not take it apparently - and how is that a violation of her rights anyway? As long as the judge isn't bending over backwards to accomodate Kaine, which would be another ethical and this time legal violation, then the judge has the right to do what he or she wants. The judge cannot ignore the missing child when ANOTHER child's life is a stake. That would be a horrendous oversight that the judge would be raked over the coals for later.

I still haven't seen any proof that any of her rights are in jeopardy. And if she was so worried about her right to privacy, then she shouldn't have been emailing and texting people like crazy. People like that aren't thinking about privacy at all. Terri definitely wasn't. It's no wonder she bristled at the police looking into her. She knew the crap she had put out there would come back and haunt her.

Terri just needs to deal with what's going on. It's not going to stop, and no one is up and going to be nice to her when she is doing nothing but helping herself and not giving a crap about a missing and endangered child. No rights are being violated here. She can have to right to silence while Kaine and Desiree have the right of free speech. They can say what they want especially when evidence is showing up to support what they are saying. We may not have seen all of that evidence yet, but by reactions we've seen, it's most definitely there and there's more we probably don't even know about yet.

As long as no one is violating her rights, Terri is, all by herself, up a creek without a paddle. And honestly, if any of her rights were being violated, Houze and Bunch would be on that faster Speedy Gonzales can run. There's no way they're not going to make a big deal about her rights being violated. And they haven't. That says a LOT to me about Terri and her rights thus far.

The only thing violated right now is her feelings, and that doesn't count for squat in a court of law.

 

[SurfieTX]

Their child is taken and Terri is the last person to see him. Evidence keeps coming out that is sinking Terri and further as the person who did this. So is Kaine supposed to keep his pain to himself to protect Terri's rights? He is not going to walk on eggshells with her. He is not going to be nice about this. This is his SON, not a sock, not a toy, a flesh and blood CHILD. He has the right to say what he wants about the person he thinks took and hurt his child. As for the judge, if the judge was to look the other way like nothing is happening that is not unethical but going overboard in being fair in Terri. Boohoo, cry me river. She can dish it but not take it apparently - and how is that a violation of her rights anyway? As long as the judge isn't bending over backwards to accomodate Kaine, which would be another ethical and this time legal violation, then the judge has the right to do what he or she wants. The judge cannot ignore the missing child when ANOTHER child's life is a stake. That would be a horrendous oversight that the judge would be raked over the coals for later.

I still haven't seen any proof that any of her rights are in jeopardy. And if she was so worried about her right to privacy, then she shouldn't have been emailing and texting people like crazy. People like that aren't thinking about privacy at all. Terri definitely wasn't. It's no wonder she bristled at the police looking into her. She knew the crap she had put out there would come back and haunt her.

Terri just needs to deal with what's going on. It's not going to stop, and no one is up and going to be nice to her when she is doing nothing but helping herself and not giving a crap about a missing and endangered child. No rights are being violated here. She can have to right to silence while Kaine and Desiree have the right of free speech. They can say what they want especially when evidence is showing up to support what they are saying. We may not have seen all of that evidence yet, but by reactions we've seen, it's most definitely there and there's more we probably don't even know about yet.

As long as no one is violating her rights, Terri is, all by herself, up a creek without a paddle. And honestly, if any of her rights were being violated, Houze and Bunch would be on that faster Speedy Gonzales can run. There's no way they're not going to make a big deal about her rights being violated. And they haven't. That says a LOT to me about Terri and her rights thus far.

The only thing violated right now is her feelings, and that doesn't count for squat in a court of law.

Morally, I agree with you 100%. Houze is not stupid. He is documenting everything to a complete "T." And Kaine providing hearsay evidence about what the judge and implying what LE "has said," is really detrimental IMHO. That is prejudicial compromise, and Houze will exploit that. He's no Baez.

As we have seen in the OJ trial and others, the law is a fickle little friend or foe. I want justice to be served. I'm just as outraged as Kaine is, as I believe her to be guilty. Houze is a heavy hitter, though, and I do worry that those two statements made by Kaine may come back and bite him and LE in the rear.

ETA: Houze hinted at this when he said it would be "unethical" for him or Terri to respond to the allegations on Dateline or whichever show it was. He's definitely posturing and hinting for what is to come, IMHO.

 

[Aedrys]

Morally, I agree with you 100%. Houze is not stupid. He is documenting everything to a complete "T." And Kaine providing hearsay evidence about what the judge and implying what LE "has said," is really detrimental IMHO. That is prejudicial compromise, and Houze will exploit that. He's no Baez.

As we have seen in the OJ trial and others, the law is a fickle little friend or foe. I want justice to be served. I'm just as outraged as Kaine is, as I believe her to be guilty. Houze is a heavy hitter, though, and I do worry that those two statements made by Kaine may come back and bite him and LE in the rear.

ETA: Houze hinted at this when he said it would be "unethical" for him or Terri to respond to the allegations on Dateline or whichever show it was. He's definitely posturing and hinting for what is to come, IMHO.

The only time that this has come up is in regards to custody of baby K, and marital assets - two things that dang well should have Kyron being missing as a serious consideration to whether Terri should get any custody of baby K, and if Kaine should have to shell out his money to Terri like she wants. It galls me that she thinks she can just leech off of him now that she's not hireable. And it galls me that with what is going on with Kyron, she thinks she can get full custody of baby K? What kind of dream world is she living in where that's going to happen?

Houze and Bunch can huff and puff all they want, but their own client brought this down on herself with an unverifiable and not adding up timeline, countless texts and emails, and a constant selfishness instead of any concern whatsoever for Kyron. They might claims rights violation at some point, but I don't think it'll be detrimental to anything when she's not willing to submit to evaluations or reveal her source of money in the divorce case. Kaine and Rackner have zero to work with thanks to Terri clinging to her to right to silence. What are they supposed to do, give someone who has given them nothing even more ground by not mentioning Kyron at all?

Kyron cannot be ignored. Kyron can't NOT be a part of the divorce case since him going missing is the entire reason the divorce is happening right now. To take Kyron out of the equation is to make the divorce solely about Terri and her needs, and that is not right. Kyron has to be part of this so that baby K can be protected and Kaine won't be paying a guilty woman his hard earned money, which will probably go to defending herself in a criminal trial down the road. I bet that makes Kaine just sick to his stomach to even think about that.

No one is violating her rights. There is no danger of Kyron harming the divorce case that I can see. There is only Terri, pouting in her corner that the judge just doesn't give her what she wants without her having to lift a finger. Since when does anyone get what they want in a court of law by just asking and not submitting proof of parental fitness or proof of financial information? If Terri's not willing to fight the allegations against her and put herself through the fire to see her daughter, then I guess a rights violation is the only path she has at this point to get anything. What a hard, selfish path to go down instead just to keep protecting herself. Well, she can protect herself right into a jail cell for kidnapping and killing Kyron, and never get to see baby K again or get a good divorce settlement. I don't see her getting anything she wants by worrying more about her rights than anyone else's. It's just not working for her.

 

[SurfieTX]

The only time that this has come up is in regards to custody of baby K, and marital assets - two things that dang well should have Kyron being missing as a serious consideration to whether Terri should get any custody of baby K, and if Kaine should have to shell out his money to Terri like she wants. It galls me that she thinks she can just leech off of him now that she's not hireable. And it galls me that with what is going on with Kyron, she thinks she can get full custody of baby K? What kind of dream world is she living in where that's going to happen?

Houze and Bunch can huff and puff all they want, but their own client brought this down on herself with an unverifiable and not adding up timeline, countless texts and emails, and a constant selfishness instead of any concern whatsoever for Kyron. They might claims rights violation at some point, but I don't think it'll be detrimental to anything when she's not willing to submit to evaluations or reveal her source of money in the divorce case. Kaine and Rackner have zero to work with thanks to Terri clinging to her to right to silence. What are they supposed to do, give someone who has given them nothing even more ground by not mentioning Kyron at all?

Kyron cannot be ignored. Kyron can't NOT be a part of the divorce case since him going missing is the entire reason the divorce is happening right now. To take Kyron out of the equation is to make the divorce solely about Terri and her needs, and that is not right. Kyron has to be part of this so that baby K can be protected and Kaine won't be paying a guilty woman his hard earned money, which will probably go to defending herself in a criminal trial down the road. I bet that makes Kaine just sick to his stomach to even think about that.

No one is violating her rights. There is no danger of Kyron harming the divorce case that I can see. There is only Terri, pouting in her corner that the judge just doesn't give her what she wants without her having to lift a finger. Since when does anyone get what they want in a court of law by just asking and not submitting proof of parental fitness or proof of financial information? If Terri's not willing to fight the allegations against her and put herself through the fire to see her daughter, then I guess a rights violation is the only path she has at this point to get anything. What a hard, selfish path to go down instead just to keep protecting herself. Well, she can protect herself right into a jail cell for kidnapping and killing Kyron, and never get to see baby K again or get a good divorce settlement. I don't see her getting anything she wants by worrying more about her rights than anyone else's. It's just not working for her.

And this is why it is IMPERATIVE for her to be charged with this horrific crime prior to the divorce coming before a judge and finalized. Otherwise, this really puts the ball in her court. Like it or not, she can and will plead the 5th, and Houze will use it to his advantage in a criminal proceeding. She will most certainly lose custody of her daughter and any/all assets; however, Kyron's fate or location will likely not ever be addressed.

At first, I really thought Kaine had the upper hand in this, but the more I look at things, I think she has a good legal foothold, sadly.

This makes me so sad.

 

[human]

st mary's mead is so right on about the trials nowadays.

It does not seem to be about justice, but an attorney making a name for him/herself by using clever tricks. It seems like it's "gotcha".

I don't know if it's true or not, but I have read that LE can find something really horrible, but they can't do anything about it if there is no search warrant. Or if they missed some procedure that an attorney can "gotcha" on them.

I don't know if I am getting across my point, but it is right there with st mary's mead.

 

[AlexisFresca]

st mary's mead is so right on about the trials nowadays.

It does not seem to be about justice, but an attorney making a name for him/herself by using clever tricks. It seems like it's "gotcha".

I don't know if it's true or not, but I have read that LE can find something really horrible, but they can't do anything about it if there is no search warrant. Or if they missed some procedure that an attorney can "gotcha" on them.

I don't know if I am getting across my point, but it is right there with st mary's mead.

Human, thats correct. If procedure isn't followed to a 't', damning evidence (especially if it makes or breaks a case) can be thrown out if it was obtained illegally. While its unnerving, its completely legal, of course. Ties into accusers getting a fair trial, facing their accusers and so on.

Unfortunately, on TV shows these days these illegal tactics are allowed in a courtroom to 'get the bad guy', but IRL, it doesn't happen that way. Its more about dramatics and making a good tv show.

But it is my biggest concern, her hiring Houze, and this case - that she will get off on a technicality or ill followed procedure from LE's end. I truly pray that LE has gone through the proper channels.

 

[JBean]

We have had several cases here in my county where the police, out of frustration, planted or manufactured evidence and/or just lied on the police report to make sure a perp they knew and were sure was guilty was convicted. They knew they did not have enough evidence, but felt strongly that the accused was guilty and wanted to make sure they were convicted.

Do you all think that is justified if the police are positive they are guilty? Do you think that if they could not get the evidence legally then the perp should not be convicted? Or do you think the law should be followed and people like this need to get off if it cannot be proven in a court of law? or do we need to do whatever we need to to make sure that people LE thinks are guilty are put away?

This is a general question about rights and not about Terri.

 

[citigirl]

Human, thats correct. If procedure isn't followed to a 't', damning evidence (especially if it makes or breaks a case) can be thrown out if it was obtained illegally. While its unnerving, its completely legal, of course. Ties into accusers getting a fair trial, facing their accusers and so on.

Unfortunately, on TV shows these days these illegal tactics are allowed in a courtroom to 'get the bad guy', but IRL, it doesn't happen that way. Its more about dramatics and making a good tv show.

But it is my biggest concern, her hiring Houze, and this case - that she will get off on a technicality or ill followed procedure from LE's end. I truly pray that LE has gone through the proper channels.

What bothers me most about our system is that if the prosecution finds something out that is super-inflammatory, and tells the jury a lot about the defendant's character, it can be thrown out by the judge. Because it might sway the jury.

That seems so counter-intuitive to me.

 

[AlexisFresca]

No, I don't believe in 'planting evidence'. It leads to a dangerous slippery slope. We have enough of that going on in our government as it is, and the slow chipping away of our rights.


As for me, I am very curious as to what LE has those 4 binders of evidence they have against Terri?

 

[JBean]

We live in a nation where "identity politics" has become a divisive but effective tool. We are encouraged to side with someone because they are like us and therefore needful of our support no matter what. This happens IMO on both sides of the political spectrum.

I believe this is prevalent in our justice system as well. The real "victim" is obscured as the accused is cast as some sort of "victim" and, on that basis, the jury is asked to nullify.

The real victim is forgotten in the process.

Anything can be justified if the person on trial can be cast as a "victim"...and other "victims" decide to give that person a free pass. I can see Terri as the "controlled" wife...the victim of Kaine...being "forgiven" and voted not guilty even if the evidence is DAMNING...by a juror who thinks Kaine reminds her of her ex-husband who "controlled" her. I read such things all over the Internet.

Finding just the right jury that is susceptible to "identifying" with whatever type of "victim" the accused is going to be trotted out as...is not the Founders idea of 12 men honest and true. A jury of your peers should not be a jury TO WHOM YOU DEFINITELY APPEAL.

That's how I feel anyway.

How do you feel about voir dire?
do you think the prosecutors are as selective as the defense to whom is seated in the jury? I think both sides have something at stake when it comes to jury selection,so imo,it is a 2 way street. As long as they both use the same tools and follow the same rules it is reasonably fair and levels the playing field.
jmho of course

 

[Mylou]

We have had several cases here in my county where the police, out of frustration, planted or manufactured evidence and/or just lied on the police report to make sure a perp they knew and were sure was guilty was convicted. They knew they did not have enough evidence, but felt strongly that the accused was guilty and wanted to make sure they were convicted.

Do you all think that is justified if the police are positive they are guilty? Do you think that if they could not get the evidence legally then the perp should not be convicted? Or do you think the law should be followed and people like this need to get off if it cannot be proven in a court of law? or do we need to do whatever we need to to make sure that people LE thinks are guilty are put away?

This is a general question about rights and not about Terri.

God forbid the planting of evidence would ever be legal. That would mean , if you just felt someone were the perp you could plant evidence. That is a terrifying thought!

 

[GrainneDhu]

st mary's mead is so right on about the trials nowadays.

It does not seem to be about justice, but an attorney making a name for him/herself by using clever tricks. It seems like it's "gotcha".

I don't know if it's true or not, but I have read that LE can find something really horrible, but they can't do anything about it if there is no search warrant. Or if they missed some procedure that an attorney can "gotcha" on them.

I don't know if I am getting across my point, but it is right there with st mary's mead.

It's called "the fruit of the poisoned tree."

The Supreme Court has decided that if LE breaks the law in gathering evidence, prosecutors cannot benefit from it. The reason being that it is impossible to have an effective justice system if one side has an incentive to break the law.

No defence attorney, no matter how incredibly good they are, can force LE or the prosecution to break the law. A defence attorney may well hope that LE or the prosecution does break the law and will, of course, exercise due diligence in checking to see if it has happened but the defence cannot force LE or prosecutors to do so.

The answer to Plato's ancient question (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) in the US is "defence attorneys."

 

[JBean]

st mary's mead is so right on about the trials nowadays.

It does not seem to be about justice, but an attorney making a name for him/herself by using clever tricks. It seems like it's "gotcha".

I don't know if it's true or not, but I have read that LE can find something really horrible, but they can't do anything about it if there is no search warrant. Or if they missed some procedure that an attorney can "gotcha" on them.

I don't know if I am getting across my point, but it is right there with st mary's mead.

Once a DA or SA files charges, make no mistake about it;the goal is to get a W on their record. A DA or SA will not file charges on every arrest for good reason. if they do not think they can make a case, they will not file, because it will result in a loss on theri record. The W will make or break any prosecutors career, so they are as interested in winning the case as any defense attorney.

Do both sides lose sight of justice in the process? I think so. My point in my posts is that this probelm is not specific to the defense. The issue of careers,gotcha's, and WINS, is the same for both sides. No doubt about it. This is why following procedure,protocol,and respecting rights is of the utmost importance, because it is not just the defense that will find ways to circumvent the system to get a W.

Of course, there are many times that each side is looking for that W in the interest of justice over their careers as well. The DA may want to make sure a bad guy is put away and he defense may want to insure that an innocent goes free.

 

[gitana1]

Morally, I agree with you 100%. Houze is not stupid. He is documenting everything to a complete "T." And Kaine providing hearsay evidence about what the judge and implying what LE "has said," is really detrimental IMHO. That is prejudicial compromise, and Houze will exploit that. He's no Baez.

As we have seen in the OJ trial and others, the law is a fickle little friend or foe. I want justice to be served. I'm just as outraged as Kaine is, as I believe her to be guilty. Houze is a heavy hitter, though, and I do worry that those two statements made by Kaine may come back and bite him and LE in the rear.

ETA: Houze hinted at this when he said it would be "unethical" for him or Terri to respond to the allegations on Dateline or whichever show it was. He's definitely posturing and hinting for what is to come, IMHO.

People have been saying that, all along, Houze and company have been setting up to do something. For example, like to fight for Terri's right to her child, etc. I don't see it. I predicted they would not seek visitation rights (after the RO that TH failed to contest). I was wrong. They did. And when they did so, some stated, "Aha! This is what they have been setting up for, waiting for! Now we'll see TH's attorneys bring out the big guns." But then they dismissed the petition. Why? Because they really don't have a leg to stand on unless TH plays ball. And she can't. I basically just see Houze and company doing their best to keep their client contained and quiet pending an eventual criminal trial.

With this specific statement on the part of Kaine, I see nothing wrong at all, legally or otherwise. No prejudice, no fodder for Houze. Because if it was incorrect, it may annoy the judge a bit, but I doubt it would affect the case much, not when the outcome of the family law case as to custody is to heavily tilted in Kaine's favor.
But, it's not incorrect. The judge actually stated in court, exactly what Kaine said he did: "The highest interest in this whole proceeding is to try to find the child alive." http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/judge_delays_terri_and_kaine_h.html
Also, that statement is not hearsay because hearsay is an out of court statement and what the judge said was in court.
Houze is known as an excellent attorney. I don't doubt he is. But he is not a magician. This will not be an easy case for him, IMO.

 

[gitana1]

We have had several cases here in my county where the police, out of frustration, planted or manufactured evidence and/or just lied on the police report to make sure a perp they knew and were sure was guilty was convicted. They knew they did not have enough evidence, but felt strongly that the accused was guilty and wanted to make sure they were convicted.

Do you all think that is justified if the police are positive they are guilty? Do you think that if they could not get the evidence legally then the perp should not be convicted? Or do you think the law should be followed and people like this need to get off if it cannot be proven in a court of law? or do we need to do whatever we need to to make sure that people LE thinks are guilty are put away?

This is a general question about rights and not about Terri.

No, not right ever. What if LE was wrong about their belief? LE needs to get whatever proof they can and then let the DA make the decision as to whether it's a strong enough case to bring to a jury. Fabricating evidence or planting it is against everything our country is supposed to stand for. It's corruption.

 

[gitana1]

What bothers me most about our system is that if the prosecution finds something out that is super-inflammatory, and tells the jury a lot about the defendant's character, it can be thrown out by the judge. Because it might sway the jury.

That seems so counter-intuitive to me.

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. The item must be "more prejudicial than probative." So it's a balancing act. Just because a fact may be inflammatory does not mean it fails to come in. It depends on whether the fact helps the jury determine guilt or innocence, or not or whether it's inflammatory nature outweighs its relevance to the case.

 

[stmarysmead]

Once a DA or SA files charges, make no mistake about it;the goal is to get a W on their record. A DA or SA will not file charges on every arrest for good reason. if they do not think they can make a case, they will not file, because it will result in a loss on theri record. The W will make or break any prosecutors career, so they are as interested in winning the case as any defense attorney.

Do both sides lose sight of justice in the process? I think so. My point in my posts is that this probelm is not specific to the defense. The issue of careers,gotcha's, and WINS, is the same for both sides. No doubt about it. This is why following procedure,protocol,and respecting rights is of the utmost importance, because it is not just the defense that will find ways to circumvent the system to get a W.

Of course, there are many times that each side is looking for that W in the interest of justice over their careers as well. The DA may want to make sure a bad guy is put away and he defense may want to insure that an innocent goes free.

Jelly, I could not agree more. I have two words that seared the issue of prosecutorial abuse in my heart: Duke Lacrosse. So please do not misunderstand that my disgust is not limited to the defense and does cut both ways.

But disgusted I am at the state of our "justice" system right now. I would like less manipulation of the law, less gamesmanship, and more concern on both sides for the truth.

And, just to be clear. No, I would never condone manufacturing evidence...or rigging line-ups, or intimidating witnesses, or withholding exculpatory DNA. I saw that in real time and it was horrific.

One of the best books about the Duke case is entitled "It's not about the truth."

The title comes from a statement that Duke Athletic Director Joe Alleva made when he told the Lacrosse Coach Pressler that he wanted his resignation. When Pressler begged him to wait for the DNA results and begged, "We must stand for the truth," Alleva replied, "It's not about the truth anymore." He went on, "It's about the integrity of the university, it's about the faculty, the city, the NAACP, the protesters, and the other interest groups."

In the Duke case , it was the prosecutor who wanted to be reelected and figured thirty years of 3 kids lives was a small sacrifice to win and increase his pension. He was willing to exploit those kids...their lives for his gain.

In this case, defense attorneys pushed to have a toddler forced into visitation with the woman who she may have seen murder her brother violently...and they wanted all the usual tests and safeguards that are done in any NORMAL divorce exempted for their client.

Exempted. EXEMPTED. They wanted no safeguards for Baby K.

Is that...."about the truth?" About the truth of Terri's mental and medical state...about the truth of whether she is "safe" to be around any child? Now emails have surfaced showing intense "hatred " for a 7 year old...and a desire to hurt him.

But let's hand over Baby K. With none of the usual safeguards.

The Defense attorneys IMO were playing games with that child. It was appalling and vile. It is not their job to take chances like that with this Baby's physical and mental health. Terri exempted from the usual tests and safeguards. For what...PR for their client? Grandstanding? Because they read on the Internet that bloggers were questioning why she had not asked?

IMO, that has set the tone for what is to come. I fear it will not be about the truth and therefore it will not be about Kyron.

Or justice.

 

[citigirl]

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. The item must be "more prejudicial than probative." So it's a balancing act. Just because a fact may be inflammatory does not mean it fails to come in. It depends on whether the fact helps the jury determine guilt or innocence, or not or whether it's inflammatory nature outweighs its relevance to the case.

I understand that. But... let's take the MFH. Let's say it is impossible to link the MFH to Kyron's disappearance. Houze will surely argue that it isn't probative since it has nothing to do with Kyron. But, for the rest of us, it shows us what lengths TH is willing to go to to get rid of someone she doesn't like.

 

[pufnstuf]

We have had several cases here in my county where the police, out of frustration, planted or manufactured evidence and/or just lied on the police report to make sure a perp they knew and were sure was guilty was convicted. They knew they did not have enough evidence, but felt strongly that the accused was guilty and wanted to make sure they were convicted.

Do you all think that is justified if the police are positive they are guilty? Do you think that if they could not get the evidence legally then the perp should not be convicted? Or do you think the law should be followed and people like this need to get off if it cannot be proven in a court of law? or do we need to do whatever we need to to make sure that people LE thinks are guilty are put away?

This is a general question about rights and not about Terri.

I prefer the way Dexter handles those situations.

 

[wvjules]

I understand that. But... let's take the MFH. Let's say it is impossible to link the MFH to Kyron's disappearance. Houze will surely argue that it isn't probative since it has nothing to do with Kyron. But, for the rest of us, it shows us what lengths TH is willing to go to to get rid of someone she doesn't like.

In order for the alleged MFH to be admitted into Kyron's case wouldn't they need to atleast charge her with it? They just can't say "we believe she attempted to hire Jack Frost to murder Mr. Horman" without having enough evidence to actually charge her with it, can they? Don't they need to prove that what they say is true?