The Talent show

[eyes4crime]

But if they are called, it's for investigative purposes. People (and children) are not called at random. They may decide to refuse to testify.

But how do we know this child was called? Why did KOIN post the blurb that began this thread? Did KOIN never follow through and elaborate?

Excuse me for putting forth my thoughts but we really don't know if this GJ was called together for an indictment or for investigative purposes. Just a guess, but I would say investigative. moo

Are you suggesting this child took the 5th? Maybe he was on a list of people to be called and wasn't. Or maybe he was called and the GJ decided not to question him. Or maybe he was asked one question. Please let's leave this child alone, he is a friend of Kyron's and made a couple statements about seeing his best friend. To guess about his role in the GJ seems invasive to me. I feel very protective of him, he's a child who has lost his best friend. moo mho

 

[chasing.halos]

(also, do any of you feel like a dog chasing your tail around and around and around lately? I sure do lol. I feel like Odie from Garfield)

 

[debs]

A two minute skit in a talent show. We're asking for such a small amount of Kyron's day. Two minutes. Was he or wasn't he? I'm amazed at how difficult that question has become.

 

[BeanE]

Do we have that link saying he appeared, Deb?

If we are allowed to credit the OP's link, then he testified that Kyron WAS supposed to be in the show.

You may want to look at this post with more info from the OP, and the quote in it as well:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Talent Show confirmed

 

[BeanE]

Except there's an assumption of testimony in that article to a secret grand jury, a presupposition I would not be comfortable making, but shouldn't dream of telling someone else what to assume.

I really don't see where the article is making that assumption, debs. I see the article saying two separate and distinct things:

- that the child appeared before the GJ, according to his mother

- that the mother told the reporter that Kyron was supposed to be in the talent show

 

[Jo in Calif]

I was always curious about that. I thought GJ testimony was kept secret. Did the child tell reporters?

People going before the GJ are not sworn to secrecy, Only the members of the GJ are sworn to secrecy. Anyone who appeared before the GJ can talk about what they were asked or what they answered. IIRC the child that appeared did not tell the reporters, nor did his mother, as to what he was asked or what he answered, IMO smart mother.

 

[BeanE]

Unless their lawyer or Mother informs the media. Which is how this thread began.

Okay!

His mother knows he appeared because she provided transportation.

She was not allowed to go in with him, he is not allowed to speak about what happened in there, so she doesn't know whether he testified or not.

Many people - including reporters - in many cases - use the phrase "testified before GJ" when the correct phrase to use is actually "appeared before GJ".

Of course, even someone appearing before a GJ is often an assumption. A person is seen entering a courthouse on a day when a GJ is in session, and a watchful reporter will report they appeared or even testified.

They could have just needed to go to the bathroom real bad, and the courthouse ladies room was the nearby facility.

 

[BeanE]

People going before the GJ are not sworn to secrecy, Only the members of the GJ are sworn to secrecy. Anyone who appeared before the GJ can talk about what they were asked or what they answered. IIRC the child that appeared did not tell the reporters, nor did his mother, as to what he was asked or what he answered, IMO smart mother.

Oh no! Then I completely misunderstand lol.

Looks like I need to read more. :blushing:

ETA: Actually I thought it was that they can talk about the information or events, but they can't specify if they testified about it.

I'll go read more.

 

[debs]

I really don't see where the article is making that assumption, debs. I see the article saying two separate and distinct things:

- that the child appeared before the GJ, according to his mother

- that the mother told the reporter that Kyron was supposed to be in the talent show

You're correct; preposition error. Rather than "with that article" I typed "in that article"..........back to school I go.

D'oh

 

[Billylee]

Having sat on an OR GJ, I can tell you that we never swore anyone into secrecy. Now, I can also tell you, that no one pleaded the 5th in front of us. (Doesn't mean it can't happen.) I can tell you that once, someone was waiting outside to testify and then changed their mind and we never got to hear it. Now I'm guessing the DA was okay with that.

I also feel (JMO) that to call a young child to GJ means that his/her testimony must be VERY relevant to the case. AND as BeanE pointed out yesterday, we do not know who the child even was, nor who the child's mother was. It may not have been J Schreiber at all. The report about the child's testimony says "9 year old boy" and "his mother".

ETA I can't tell you if the DA tells them not to talk about it, though.

 

[BeanE]

I *finally* found the link to the KOIN archive of Kyron news articles and videos.

Anyone who wishes to, can go through all 30+ pages and look for the article and video on the GJ child.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/content/n...-out-Kyron-Horman/Dz4uMChK60KCWjy3W5FG4Q.cspx

 

[BeanE]

This comes at the same time that a Multnomah County grand jury continues to meet, with a 9-year-old classmate of Kyron's being the latest to appear. The mother of the boy said she was not allowed inside and did not ask him about the secret proceeding. Her son and Kyron were scheduled to perform together in the school talent show the afternoon of his disappearance.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...story/+"talent+show"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[debs]

This comes at the same time that a Multnomah County grand jury continues to meet, with a 9-year-old classmate of Kyron's being the latest to appear. The mother of the boy said she was not allowed inside and did not ask him about the secret proceeding. Her son and Kyron were scheduled to perform together in the school talent show the afternoon of his disappearance.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...story/+"talent+show"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I just realized that her son "and Kyron" were supposed to appear in the talent show together with however many other children. I've always taken that statement that they were doing the same talent skit.....but really all it says is that her son, also, was going to be in the talent show.....though we really still don't know how she knows whether Kyron was supposed to be in that show.

:: sigh ::

 

[BeanE]

I'm noodling.

- If Terri is guilty, it is to her benefit for people to believe that Kyron was to be in the talent show. ("Oh my God yes! He was even supposed to be in the talent show! And I was so excited to hear how it went. (cries)).

She could easily say yes, he was supposed to be in it, but she was unable to go because it was the baby's nap time or because the baby was fussy and teething or whatever.

Yet with Kaine and Desiree saying he wasn't supposed to be in it etc (I posted the exact quotes previously), it appears that Terri was saying Kyron was not supposed to be in it.

Why would Terri, if guilty, make herself look more guilty?


- So let's say this child did testify that he and Kyron were supposed to be not only in the talent show, but in a skit together. What would he testify to? Well, maybe that he and Kyron had practiced together the day before.

So I was thinking about that, and I couldn't reconcile it with Kaine not knowing anything about it the next morning and wishing Kyron well in it.

But then I thought, well what if Terri is guilty, and she didn't want Kaine to know about the talent show, but she wanted Kyron, at school, to appear to others as if he was going to be in it to deflect from her involvement.

I couldn't think at first how that would work for her, until I thought that she could tell Kyron he was going to be in it, encourage him to practice with the other child etc, but tell him "Let's not tell Daddy. Let's make it a surprise! Daddy's coming home from work early on Friday. Don't say a word to him about the show, and when he comes home, I'll drive him up and you can surprise him with the show!"

That would work, and explain why Kaine didn't know, but how Kyron could be under the impression, along with the other child, that he was going to be in the show.

The only thing is, I'm not sure what that would buy Terri. Any thoughts on that from anyone?

TIA

 

[Calliope]

Do you mean this child had a lawyer that advised him not to testify?

I'll need a link to understand that too if you are going to say his situation was comparable to DeDe's.

I think her point was that just being called to the GJ doesn't mean the person testifies. He most likely did.

I'd like to know what court-appointed guardian was present during his testimony, since it appears the mother was not. Lawyers are not allowed in the GJ proceedings. Only the prosecutor.

http://law.onecle.com/oregon/132-grand-jury-indictments-and-other/132.090.html

I realize it says "may", but I hope to God they didn't put this child in front of the GJ without an advocate present.

 

[Calliope]

I can't imagine a child called to testify before a grand jury, refusing to testify unless a lawyer advised him to do so. DeDe has been singled out by LE on fliers. There is information in the media that she was "missing" from her job.

You posted that perhaps this child would not speak...why not? What has he to fear, like Dede, with saying if Kyron was in the show? Not a valid comparison IMO.

IIRC, it was reported she wasn't asked any questions, was told she'd be called back but has yet to be. I don't know for certain that she refused to testify. IMO, that's just been speculation.

 

[stmarysmead]

IIRC, it was reported she wasn't asked any questions, was told she'd be called back but has yet to be. I don't know for certain that she refused to testify. IMO, that's just been speculation.

Point well made.

 

[Deleted member 718]

I couldn't think at first how that would work for her, until I thought that she could tell Kyron he was going to be in it, encourage him to practice with the other child etc, but tell him "Let's not tell Daddy. Let's make it a surprise! Daddy's coming home from work early on Friday. Don't say a word to him about the show, and when he comes home, I'll drive him up and you can surprise him with the show!"

That would work, and explain why Kaine didn't know, but how Kyron could be under the impression, along with the other child, that he was going to be in the show.

The only thing is, I'm not sure what that would buy Terri. Any thoughts on that from anyone?

TIA

Dunno BeanE. It would show Kaine had a flexible schedule that day and then I'd wonder why he didn't take 20 minutes for the science fair. I've read Kaine was the one who helped Kyron with the project,(please don't ask me to find that link, I've tried) seems to me he would be more interested in seeing Kyron's pride in the diorama than seeing a two minute skit.

I'm with Deb, why the vague answers from Desiree and Kaine with regards to Kyron's skit. What's the big deal with that? Unless the 9yo testified that they practiced that morning after Terri left? :waitasec:

 

[stmarysmead]

I'm noodling.

- If Terri is guilty, it is to her benefit for people to believe that Kyron was to be in the talent show. ("Oh my God yes! He was even supposed to be in the talent show! And I was so excited to hear how it went. (cries)).

She could easily say yes, he was supposed to be in it, but she was unable to go because it was the baby's nap time or because the baby was fussy and teething or whatever.

Yet with Kaine and Desiree saying he wasn't supposed to be in it etc (I posted the exact quotes previously), it appears that Terri was saying Kyron was not supposed to be in it.

Why would Terri, if guilty, make herself look more guilty?


- So let's say this child did testify that he and Kyron were supposed to be not only in the talent show, but in a skit together. What would he testify to? Well, maybe that he and Kyron had practiced together the day before.

So I was thinking about that, and I couldn't reconcile it with Kaine not knowing anything about it the next morning and wishing Kyron well in it.

But then I thought, well what if Terri is guilty, and she didn't want Kaine to know about the talent show, but she wanted Kyron, at school, to appear to others as if he was going to be in it to deflect from her involvement.

I couldn't think at first how that would work for her, until I thought that she could tell Kyron he was going to be in it, encourage him to practice with the other child etc, but tell him "Let's not tell Daddy. Let's make it a surprise! Daddy's coming home from work early on Friday. Don't say a word to him about the show, and when he comes home, I'll drive him up and you can surprise him with the show!"

That would work, and explain why Kaine didn't know, but how Kyron could be under the impression, along with the other child, that he was going to be in the show.

The only thing is, I'm not sure what that would buy Terri. Any thoughts on that from anyone?

TIA

That would work.

If Terri is guilty she needs Kyron thinking his day is going to go as he wants it to go. If he WANTS to be in the show...and he thinks he has a Doctors appt....I think he has to believe he will be back in time to participate. Maybe that's why the backpack is left..."Come on, you won't be gone that long. Leave your stuff."

Terri would not want to chance Kyron fussing at her at the school about leaving.

I think your idea about Kaine is very plausible. Children love surprises. Terri needs the max amount of time before the disappearance is discovered.

The "Dr's appt." allows Terri to get Kyron to leave while still maintaining the illusion to him that he will be back for the show. It renders Kyron cooperative in his own disappearance.

Terri needs Kyron at school for her alibi and then...leaving happily, without a fuss.

Poor little guy.

If Teri is guilty this is the most horrific betrayal of a child's trust. Ugh!

 

[Calliope]

Point well made.

Now if we want to speculate even further lol ....

The target of an investigation doesn't testify before the GJ. Nothing I've found to prevent them requesting to go before the GJ, but that would be ... well ... incredibly stupid.

So her not being called back could mean they don't need her testimony, they still have yet to call her, or ...