Terri's friends want to distance themselves after being dragged into investigation

[Susan10]

DS doesn't have to talk to LE. She doesn't have to take a LDT (if they have requested one from her)

She doesn't have to talk to the media. She is well within her rights to refuse to talk to anyone.

But why won't she talk to LE? Why not? She didn't commit a crime right? She didn't cover up a crime right? She doesn't have any knowledge of a crime being commited right? She doesn't have any knowledge of a crime being covered up right?

So why not go in and talk to LE and let them ask her whatever questions they wish to ask her on behalf of a missing 7 yr old boy that has been missing now over a month and a half.

It doesn't make her guilty of anything, but it sure makes me shake my head in wonder how anyone would not assist in any way.

The argument that this is reported as being from "sources" well I can't argue that, but I, personally, never dismiss a source until I see it proved to be an outright error. If we had no sources in this case, we would have no media coverage. JMHO and all that jazz

It is such a shame! Now DS's family is being dragged down into this sordid mess, too. Her father must feel horrible - in this link he is making "no comment," but I think he's only coming from an LE frame of mind. I feel sorry for him....DS is his daughter, for heaven's sake.

http://www.katu.com/home/video/99148424.html

 

[SuziQ]

the other friends did the poly. No problemo, apparently.

So now Dede is going for the court of popular opinion.

No jobs for her.

How long will this case take? She wanted to go to med school. Kiss that goodbye.

If she has nothing that she knows,like the other friends must not have, then she would be smart to clear herself.

I always think of that driving ad that they used to have on TV. "You can be right-dead right."

Principles, whatever she wants to stand on, are not too smart to me in this case.

Exactly. The other two friends appear to have done the right thing, which you have to think wouldn't be too hard to do if you've done nothing wrong. You do the right thing like 97% of other people in this case and there's no problem. But DD takes the route she did. Have to ask....why is doing the right thing so hard for her and what's she hiding.

 

[LillyRush]

I've been trying to catch up after a very long week. But, I just read two articles where it states specifically that DS's home was searched this week by FBI. So, I don't get it. How exactly is that not cooperating? Did LE say she wasn't? The only place where I've seen it mentioned that she supposedly isn't cooperating is in the email from KH, DY and TY, all of whom have seemed to have a different definition so far of cooperation than LE.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

But, I just read two articles where it states specifically that DS's home was searched this week by FBI.

LE had a warrant -- DS did not consent to a warrantless search. FWIW, I don't know whether she had the opportunity to do so.

Not cooperating could mean that she refused to talk to LE, as it is her constitutional right to do. There are lots of good reasons for an innocent person not to subject themselves to police interrogation. Someone posted a great video about that here on Kyron's forum, which explains why in detail.

Not cooperating could mean that she refused to undergo a polygraph exam. There are good reasons for not doing that, too, because they are not always reliable indicators of a person's truthfulness or lack thereof. She also has a constitutional right to refuse to do that.

Both innocent and guilty people refuse to cooperate in these ways with LE. The mere refusal to answer questions or to be polygraphed, without more, is not indicative of a person's guilt or innocence.

If DS were the parent or stepparent of a missing child, that would send up huge red flags. Her status as TH's friend, does not, without more. Well, we do have more, in that it is alleged that DS's whereabouts are unknown for a crucial time period during the morning Kyron disappeared. That is a red flag, but it could also be a red herring. Without more information, no one knows for sure, except for DS.

 

[Kat]

You know what? I'm all for standing on principle. But if that's the choice you make, you must be prepared for the consequences. And, furthermore, if you're standing on principle, why not come out and say what the principle is? What's the point of taking a stand, if no one knows the principle you're standing on?

Did y'all see the WW article about DDS lying to them? Perfect opportunity to explain her principles if she had any...imo/jmo

Curious if Spicher had any insight into the case, we knocked on the door of her condo in Tualatin several days later. The woman who answered the door was the same person shown in the photo and identified as Spicher in the press release from Kyron’s parents.

But the woman at the door told us DeDe Spicher wasn’t home. She identified herself only as a “friend” who was in town “to help.”

Asked where she was from, the woman paused and looked away.

“Where I’m from,” she said.

We left our card and walked away, thinking that if people are going to fib, they should at least be quick about it.

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2010/07...ede-spicher-wasnt-cooperative-with-us-either/

I agree wondering1.

Standing on priciple is totally acceptable in my book. I see people who take stances all the time and are vocal about why they take that stance. Pretty darn vocal about what they are and aren't going to do as a matter of priciple as well. (FWIW, and a lot of people may not get this inside joke, but I lived in TX for a decade, a lot of principled population there )

But why chose to stand on principle and envoke constitutional rights (if that is what she is doing) in the a case of a missing 7 yr old boy?

A child that is endangered, at this point in time.

So, no if anyone asks me, she isn't standing on principle. She isn't envoking her constitutional right...unless it is to not implicate herself.

Just my opinion, could change as soon as more news comes out concerning this...

 

[Donjeta]

I'm fine with people envoking their constitutional rights and staying silent. Just go ahead, that's why it's their right. It just looks darn fishy if a person prioritizes their constitutional rights over helping in a missing child investigation, knowing full well that it's going to look fishy and other people are going to wonder if they've got something to hide.

"Oh, I could help in the investigation to find that missing child? I don't know anything but at least they could stop wondering if I know something. Nah, I don't think so, I will stay silent just because I've got a right to do so."

 

[LillyRush]

LE had a warrant -- DS did not consent to a warrantless search. FWIW, I don't know whether she had the opportunity to do so.

Thanks. The wording in this article below implies all three of the searches were done after obtaining a warrant. Well, they don't specifically say all three, but they refer to everything in plural..warrants, documents, etc. So, it sounds like the investigators just went ahead and got warrants for all of the new searches whether or not anyone planned to or did ask for one.

"It is not known at this time what investigators used as a basis to obtain the warrants for the searches. A source says the warrant documents are sealed."
from: Police search homes of three Terri Horman friends
http://www.katu.com/news/99069479.html

 

[SuziQ]

FWIW, solid probable cause needs to be given to a judge to obtain a search warrant.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

So, it sounds like the investigators just went ahead and got warrants for all of the new searches whether or not anyone planned to or did ask for one.

It sounds like that to me too -- a stealth attack, so to speak, and certainly not unheard of. That would worry me a lot, were I DS, whether I was innocent or guilty. I would be shocked and frightened if LE showed up at my door with a search warrant.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

FWIW, solid probable cause needs to be given to a judge to obtain a search warrant.

Yup, that's what they say. LE can choose the judge they take it to -- some are more amenable to cooperation than others. The mere existence of a search warrant doesn't mean all that much to me. I'd like to see it and the supporting documentation.

There are plenty of cases in which searches yield nothing, or are for the premises of people who turn out to be innocent, notwithstanding "probable cause".

 

[RoughlyCollie]

"Oh, I could help in the investigation to find that missing child? I don't know anything but at least they could stop wondering if I know something. Nah, I don't think so, I will stay silent just because I've got a right to do so."

I don't think most innocent people remain silent for that reason. They do it because they don't want to risk becoming a suspect or a defendant. That is the actual risk. In cases like this one, it perches the person who is well-informed about criminal jurisprudence on the horns of a dilemma.

DS's father is in law enforcement. I would not be in the least bit surprised if her own father has told her many times over not to take a polygraph or speak to the police about a crime that has been committed, without first consulting an attorney, whether she is innocent or guilty, and whether or not she wants to, and whether or not she sees no risk in so doing.

I would not be surprised because my husband and I have told this to our children, over and over and over again. It bears repeating so that it sinks into their heads as a bright line rule that must not be violated under any circumstances.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't think most innocent people remain silent for that reason. They do it because they don't want to risk becoming a suspect or a defendant. That is the actual risk. In cases like this one, it perches the person who is well-informed about criminal jurisprudence on the horns of a dilemma.

Yes but what are the odds that a random non-involved person becomes the defendant simply because she told where she was that day? If you cooperate at least you have a chance that they can verify your story and you can demonstrate that you're on the straight and narrow but if you refuse to cooperate you may easily look like a suspect anyway.

I would be pretty mad if my children refused to help in a missing child investigation because it's just not right. (IMO)

 

[LillyRush]

Yes but what are the odds that a random non-involved person becomes the defendant simply because she told where she was that day? If you cooperate at least you have a chance that they can verify your story and you can demonstrate that you're on the straight and narrow but if you refuse to cooperate you may easily look like a suspect anyway.

But, do we know that she hasn't done that for certain? Sorry, I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I had a family member in emergency hospitalization and surgery this week, so I am trying to do the speed version of catching up on news. I've read 4 articles now since being online and none of them mention that LE has told them that she has not done those things. It's just the parents' email and certain news outlets repeating what they said.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

Do you honestly think it would be the right thing to do for your children to refuse to help in a missing child investigation?

Absolutely. No cooperation without consulting a criminal defense attorney first. For my children, that would be their parents.

 

[Donjeta]

But, do we know that she hasn't done that for certain? Sorry, I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I had a family member in emergency hospitalization and surgery this week, so I am trying to do the speed version of catching up on news. I've read 4 articles now since being online and none of them mention that LE has told them that she has not done those things. It's just the parents' email and certain news outlets repeating what they said.

Maybe she did, I don't have a clue beyond a couple of articles. I was speaking on a more general level anyway.

 

[LillyRush]

Also, how do we know that DS is not one of the friends included in this bunch that has distanced themselves from TMH?

I'm just trying to figure out the intense focus on DS as opposed to the other two who were also searched this week.

 

[newone]

Also, how do we know that DS is not one of the friends included in this bunch that has distanced themselves from TMH?

good point!:angel:

 

[Donjeta]

I would be crushed if no one wanted to help find my child, not even the innocent people.

 

[Kat]

I'm of a different opinion. If one of my children were to be asked by LE if they would consent to an interview about a missing child I would take my child into the office myself.

Even my oldest which is 30 yrs old. I would tell her to go in there and tell everything she knows and don't hold anything back. Unless my adult child told me that she had knowledge that a crime was commited or that a crime had been covered up. Then I would proceed to metaphorically take her head off her shoulders and stick it straight up her...well you get the picture. I would retain her a criminal defense attn at that point.

I can't speak to what I would do with my minors because they aren't applicable. I've taught them to ask for me or their Dad to be present if they have LE requesting an interview.

But we are all different and that's what makes the world interesting

 

[RoughlyCollie]

I've read 4 articles now since being online and none of them mention that LE has told them that she has not done those things. It's just the parents' email and certain news outlets repeating what they said.

To me, that is the strangest thing about this case. LE is tight-lipped, but appear to be leaking information to the media through the victims. The trouble is that the information LE is leaking, if indeed they are, may not be complete or accurate.

What worries me is that the FBI has been involved in cases in which innocent people's reputations were destroyed by the media after the FBI leaked information about the investigations and their suspicions. Two of those people were Richard Jewell and Stephen Hatfill.