If innocent, would a press conference help Terri?

[krowdkat]

Excellent posts, GrainneDhu, That's exactly why I don't understand why TH would retain such a high-priced criminal defense attorney such as Houze before any charges are levied against her if she is innocent. You are correct that whether or not she spends one week or 5 years in court, her defense attorney most likely won't return the majority of her retainer. I also agree that Houze probably told her that a case such as this could potentially cost upwards of 350K in the event that she is ever charged and in need of defending and she didn't necessarily pay him a lump sum for 350K at this point. She had to have retained him for some amount though as he has already shown up at a hearing for her.

So why not just hire an EXCELLENT family lawyer and deal with that pesky RO that prevents her from seeing her precious baby girl, if she is indeed innocent? Why try and delay divorce proceedings, seeminly indefinitely, if that means she won't be able to see her baby because the RO is intact?

 

[ami]

Respectfully snipped by me.

But...if she believes all that...WHY isn't she screaming that there is some crazy lunatic child abductor out there, and where the he** is her stepson, and what is happening to him, and WHY oh WHY aren't they looking for him?!! (the perp)

Even if she hates Kaine, she seemed to love the child...how could she let this continue without insisting that she is innocent, and begging LE to find out what really happened?

If Terri believes for one minute that this is the truth of the matter and that she believes he was kidnapped from inside that elementary school then she has a duty to get out and announce publicly, loudly, and repeatedly that there is a man in the area[he was on June 4th] and has already taken one innocent little boy and snatched him from the safety of their children's elementary school. That this maniac has not been caught and therefor still on the loose and what in God's name would keep him FROM NOT RETURNING TO HIS LAST PLACE THAT HE SUCCESSFULLY KIDNAPPED A STUDENT?
She as a parent would be making damn sure that this was known by ALL PARENTS , STUDENTS, AND STAFF and would be ensuring that this not happen to another innocent child.

She would not be sexting herself in graphic sexual activities to a hi school classmate of her husband. Ugly coping and all. If Terri were innocent and knew that Kyron had been kidnapped from his school she would be doing EVERYTHING HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO FIND HER STEPSON AND WOULD DEFINITELY BE ACTIVELY MAKING SURE THAT IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO ANOTHER SKYLINE STUDENT....

Yes exactly - that was the point of my post. In response to people who say there is no reason for her to speak up, in response to people who say she imagines she'll get convicted and put to death (which is why she's not speaking, not fighting for baby K). Playing devil's advocate - this is what an innocent Terri is saying - how much sense does it make in light of what we see before us?

My post was showing the benefits an innocent Terri would get from a press conference, and why an innocent Terri would not assume she was about to be jailed and/or sentenced to death.

Terri's emails have described an airtight alibi and a stranger seen with Kyron after Terri left the school. If that were really the case, then a press conference with a statement from the eye witness to the strange chaperone man with Kyron and a sketch of his appearance would certainly help the investigation, wouldn't it? Or a plea for people to be on the lookout.

But the fact that Terri is not entreating the public/LE/the media to listen to the evidence about Kyron's "real" kidnapper, to find Kyron despite what they might think of her --- tells me there is a good reason for this. What could be important enough to stand in the way of Terri publicizing a description of a stranger seen with her stepson before his disappearance? I can't think of anything more important than that right now.

Is she not publicizing that because she's afraid she will look even more guilty somehow? Or because she thinks people might not believe her? Are those beliefs more important than an innocent but persecuted Terri helping to find Kyron? Is there anything other than finding "the real kidnapper" that will conclusively prove her innocence right now?

 

[Calliope]

If she were to say anything even slightly off from what she's told police, the DA would jump on it at trial. GrainneDhu explained that quite well a page or two back. She needs to keep her mouth shut. IMO, that's even more important if she's innocent.

 

[Aedrys]

Just wanted to say, there's another case where the defendant has never said to look for another murderer or kidnapper out there (past an invisible nanny). She and her parents have never looked for anyone else, nor have they begged the public to look for the real kidnapper/murderer. Besides everything else, that one thing has stuck in the craw of many people, including me, who follow the Casey Anthony case. If someone did it, why has she, her defense, or her parents NEVER looked for this other person or begged the public to look for another person? It speaks volumes as to her guilt.

Terri can't win. Talking might help, but most likely it will hurt her. If she did talk, I might be closer to being on the fence or farther from it depending on how she talks and presents herself. But not talking and trying to find the real kidnapper/killer is just making her look all the more guilty to a lot of people. And if it's people like me, jaded by other cases where guilty defendants have done the same thing, guilt is the first thought when someone doesn't talk or doesn't demand that LE find the real kidnapper/killer.

 

[Donjeta]

Excellent posts, GrainneDhu, That's exactly why I don't understand why TH would retain such a high-priced criminal defense attorney such as Houze before any charges are levied against her if she is innocent. You are correct that whether or not she spends one week or 5 years in court, her defense attorney most likely won't return the majority of her retainer. I also agree that Houze probably told her that a case such as this could potentially cost upwards of 350K in the event that she is ever charged and in need of defending and she didn't necessarily pay him a lump sum for 350K at this point. She had to have retained him for some amount though as he has already shown up at a hearing for her.

So why not just hire an EXCELLENT family lawyer and deal with that pesky RO that prevents her from seeing her precious baby girl, if she is indeed innocent? Why try and delay divorce proceedings, seeminly indefinitely, if that means she won't be able to see her baby because the RO is intact?

If time goes by, nothing happens, and she's never charged for anything and it turns out that LE doesn't have any evidence against her after all (no surprise there if she's innocent) I imagine it would be a bit annoying if her parents and other relatives bankrupted themselves paying some outrageous fee as a top shot criminal defense attorney's retainer.

 

[MarieFaith]

If she were to say anything even slightly off from what she's told police, the DA would jump on it at trial. GrainneDhu explained that quite well a page or two back. She needs to keep her mouth shut. IMO, that's even more important if she's innocent.

Yes, if her main concern above all others is keeping herself out of trouble, she's doing the right thing.

If her main concern was finding Kyron, and making it known by whatever means possible that an abductor was on the loose and could strike again, bringing the same agony and despair to another family, then she should have already talked to the media...a long time ago.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Yes, if her main concern above all others is keeping herself out of trouble, she's doing the right thing.

If her main concern was finding Kyron, and making it known by whatever means possible that an abductor was on the loose and could strike again, bringing the same agony and despair to another family, then she should have already talked to the media...a long time ago.

Well said!

 

[Calliope]

Yes, if her main concern above all others is keeping herself out of trouble, she's doing the right thing.

I said that's even more important if she's innocent. I don't want someone charged and sent to prison just for the sake of doing so. I want the right person sent away.

 

[Adrienne37]

Their media-avoidant strategy in the beginning made me wonder if the perp might be found inside the family and it turns out that that's what they suspected all right. IMO knowing there were the suspicions of Terri it is easier to understand why they didn't embrace the press fully at first. She was still inside the family fold at the time and they weren't ready to jump and accuse her publicly yet. It would be a lot harder to find right words and not look unnatural when talking with the media if there is a family white elephant that you have to avoid touching. (Just watch the first family presser again, in which Kaine and Tony made statements if you want an example...)

Wonder what Terri would have said if she'd talked and how the public would have benefited. Is there some reason why we can't still benefit from hearing what she has to say?

As for me, I don't care to hear the woman utter a sound. Her actions have spoken far more loudly than words can ever convey. It's JMO but I wouldn't believe a word out of her mouth.

 

[MarieFaith]

I said that's even more important if she's innocent. I don't want someone charged and sent to prison just for the sake of doing so. I want the right person sent away.

And if an innocent Terri had spoken out and passionately defended herself, the likelihood of the right person being sent to prison would have been greatly enhanced.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Excellent posts, GrainneDhu, That's exactly why I don't understand why TH would retain such a high-priced criminal defense attorney such as Houze before any charges are levied against her if she is innocent. You are correct that whether or not she spends one week or 5 years in court, her defense attorney most likely won't return the majority of her retainer. I also agree that Houze probably told her that a case such as this could potentially cost upwards of 350K in the event that she is ever charged and in need of defending and she didn't necessarily pay him a lump sum for 350K at this point. She had to have retained him for some amount though as he has already shown up at a hearing for her.

Biased by my own personal experience, I would always tell someone to get the best attorney they could possibly afford.

Many of those exonerated by the Innocence Project, when you read their files, you wonder why the Innocence Project even had to bother with DNA testing because the prosecution's case was so incredibly weak at the original trial.

It's because the falsely convicted had representation that pretty much uniformly sucked. Remember, not so long ago, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a man convicted in a death penalty case had received "adequate representation" even though his lawyer had been observed to be asleep several times during his original trial. The standard for adequate representation is scarily low.

So, to me, a cheap lawyer is false economy. Go with the best and you're less likely to have to go back and fix what the first one did wrong.

So why not just hire an EXCELLENT family lawyer and deal with that pesky RO that prevents her from seeing her precious baby girl, if she is indeed innocent? Why try and delay divorce proceedings, seeminly indefinitely, if that means she won't be able to see her baby because the RO is intact?

She found out via the RO that LE suspected her of MFH. Even if she were inclined to simply go to a family law attorney, I cannot believe that any competent one wouldn't tell her immediately to hie herself to a good criminal defence attorney. In fact, I strongly suspect that a good family law attorney would refuse to represent her unless she also had a good criminal defence attorney representing her.

As for why she has applied for an abatement, I believe that her argument is stated in the motion to abate. I won't try to second guess it.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Terri's emails have described an airtight alibi and a stranger seen with Kyron after Terri left the school. If that were really the case, then a press conference with a statement from the eye witness to the strange chaperone man with Kyron and a sketch of his appearance would certainly help the investigation, wouldn't it? Or a plea for people to be on the lookout.

SBM

Still assuming that TMH is factually innocent, her alibi is far from airtight. It involves 90 minutes of driving around to soothe baby K, 90 minutes where the only known witness to her actions was an 18 month old toddler.

As I recall, those emails were written relatively soon after Kyron disappeared. What if she found out after she wrote them that the man Kyron was seen with was another parent, whose whereabouts were impeccably accounted for? Or what if she found out that it was just a rumour, that the person she heard it from had already discovered it was false?

Yes, there was the case of the Duke lacrosse players. I maintain that since they knew they were factually innocent, they knew that their DNA would not show up in the rape kit and even though they did not have the test results at the time, they already knew what the results would be.

Imagine if the rape kit results had come back with DNA from one or all of them. That press conference would not have made a jot of difference and would probably have significantly hurt them at some point in the judicial process.

 

[gardeness]

I think that Terri made the right decision in hiring Houze. She didn't need to be charged--she saw the writing on the wall, just as did most of the public. In fact, it is still obvious that Terri is the focus and she still hasn't been named a suspect...

 

[GrainneDhu]

If time goes by, nothing happens, and she's never charged for anything and it turns out that LE doesn't have any evidence against her after all (no surprise there if she's innocent) I imagine it would be a bit annoying if her parents and other relatives bankrupted themselves paying some outrageous fee as a top shot criminal defense attorney's retainer.

Maybe.

Considering that her parents have not taken out a new mortgage on their home, I doubt they are or would be completely bankrupt.

And all I can go by is how I feel about my nephews: if they needed a good criminal defence attorney, I'd get the money somehow and I wouldn't grudge it. They're my nephews, my boys and I love them. If it never went to trial, I'd figure that my action in helping provide a top notch lawyer had helped prevent it.

Mostly, though, I was raised to give gifts without strings attached. It's a gift, not a bribe.

I had, at one point in my life, the opportunity to put my money where my mouth is now. I had a quarter million dollar trust fund (it was a lot more back then than it is now!) that I gave to a family member. I have never regretted it nor have I ever reproached my family member for the loss.

We're family and I love that person much more than I could ever imagine loving money.

So this is not a theoretical for me; I know exactly how I would act because I've already done it.

 

[loves2bmom]

Maybe.

Considering that her parents have not taken out a new mortgage on their home, I doubt they are or would be completely bankrupt.
And all I can go by is how I feel about my nephews: if they needed a good criminal defence attorney, I'd get the money somehow and I wouldn't grudge it. They're my nephews, my boys and I love them. If it never went to trial, I'd figure that my action in helping provide a top notch lawyer had helped prevent it.

Mostly, though, I was raised to give gifts without strings attached. It's a gift, not a bribe.

I had, at one point in my life, the opportunity to put my money where my mouth is now. I had a quarter million dollar trust fund (it was a lot more back then than it is now!) that I gave to a family member. I have never regretted it nor have I ever reproached my family member for the loss.

We're family and I love that person much more than I could ever imagine loving money.

So this is not a theoretical for me; I know exactly how I would act because I've already done it.

Wait, but didn't they refinance?

Snipped from article:http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/kyron_hormans_parents_plan_fun.html

On Friday, The Oregonian learned that Terri Horman's parents recently refinanced their home with a $165,450 mortgage, paying off the previous mortgage of $86,000. The deed of trust was filed Aug. 17 in Douglas County.

Neither Houze nor Terri Horman's parents could be reached for comment Friday about money

 

[krowdkat]

Biased by my own personal experience, I would always tell someone to get the best attorney they could possibly afford.

Many of those exonerated by the Innocence Project, when you read their files, you wonder why the Innocence Project even had to bother with DNA testing because the prosecution's case was so incredibly weak at the original trial.

It's because the falsely convicted had representation that pretty much uniformly sucked. Remember, not so long ago, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a man convicted in a death penalty case had received "adequate representation" even though his lawyer had been observed to be asleep several times during his original trial. The standard for adequate representation is scarily low.

So, to me, a cheap lawyer is false economy. Go with the best and you're less likely to have to go back and fix what the first one did wrong.



She found out via the RO that LE suspected her of MFH. Even if she were inclined to simply go to a family law attorney, I cannot believe that any competent one wouldn't tell her immediately to hie herself to a good criminal defence attorney. In fact, I strongly suspect that a good family law attorney would refuse to represent her unless she also had a good criminal defence attorney representing her.

As for why she has applied for an abatement, I believe that her argument is stated in the motion to abate. I won't try to second guess it.

My brother's law firm in Texas consist of 3 partners: criminal law, family law, and business law. All three support and consult on each other's cases (when necessary) and they don't charge their clients double for the services. Their firm is extremely successful and lucrative.

My brother is the criminal lawyer who was a cop for 10 years before passing the bar. There are TONS of excellent attorneys out there that don't charge the retainer that Houze charges.

I had a misdemeanor trespass charge levied against me last year and paid my criminal defense attorney $3000.00 to handle the entire case. We went to trial and it took 4 days plus all the pre hearings.

My attorney argued and won a case in front of the US supreme court this year. He is an excelllent attorney. He specializes in appeals for the most serious criminals in our state.

I guess my point was, IF TERRI IS INNOCENT, LE really shouldn't have much in the way of evidence inre to the RO. Terri would know this. Hiring the likes of Houze BEFORE an indictment seems like a collosal waste of money at this time. Definitely not later if/when she is actually charged.

I understand your point about the innocence project. However, I would like to mention that the majority of those exonerated were convicted prior to DNA (bad or good attorney). If DNA science had been available at the time of their trials, most wouldn't have been convicted (bad or good attorney). Also, I'm willing to bet that the majority of those wrongfully convicted had court appointed attorneys as opposed to hiring their own lawyers. I wouldn't suggest anyone use a court appointed attorney unless they were indigent and had no other means to raise a defense fund.

 

[Calliope]

And if an innocent Terri had spoken out and passionately defended herself, the likelihood of the right person being sent to prison would have been greatly enhanced.

I disagree. What she says to the public has no bearing on that.

 

[MarieFaith]

I disagree. What she says to the public has no bearing on that.

Speaking as a member of the public, if she had spoken out early on in a manner I and others have described, enough doubt in my mind as to her guilt would been generated to have me on the fence about her guilt/innocence.

And with more people being on the fence, and with a strong image of Terri out there to counteract the evil stepmom image, surely LE would have been pressured by the public, especially by Skyline parents, to put more emphasis on an abductor inside the school.

JMO

 

[passionflower]

IMO, it's 3 months to late.
3 months ago, did we see her pleade to a kidnapper?
Have we seen her say Happy Birthday Kyron?
Anything on the wall of hope?
Trying to get her own daughter back?
All I saw was a woman who thought of only her own needs.
What I saw, is a woman who ran home to another town to her elderly parents.
JMOO "actions speak louder than words"
and then sexting........."oh what a picture can say" JMOO

 

[Donjeta]

I disagree. What she says to the public has no bearing on that.

JMO but it might have. The investigators are people with likes and dislikes and subjective opinions of the subjects of their investigations and the images the players project of themselves in public and in private might have an effect on who they go after and how hard they try to get them hanged.

Anything that you say may be used against you in the court of law but IMO it could work the other way around as well. If and when the jury members have seen the public statements of the suspects before the trial or have had them filtered through the public discussion or if the tapes are brought up in the courtroom as evidence for some reason, there is a chance to make both a good impression and a bad impression.

It doesn't matter if the evidence is overwhelming but if the prosecutor doesn't have all that much and the defense attorney does a good job personal impressions and the opinions that the jurors have formed about the defendant's character and sincerity might sometimes tip the scale one way or another.