As I read with interest and consideration those who might argue (peaceably and in accordance with how we discuss in here) for Terri Horman (and in light of her friend saying people are heading for a dead end, whatever that means):
a) possibly not having anything to do with Kyron's disappearance AND
b) the possible "trumping up" of the murder for hire (i.e. where is the proof)
I cannot help but bring myself into remembrance of what we know to be true, along with some of Gitana's reflections.
What we know...
From the Restraining order of June 28th, 2010 (page 11 of 19):
>>"I believe respondent is involved in the disappearance of my son Kyron who has been missing since June 4, 2010. I also recently learned that respondent attempted to hire someone to murder me. The police have provided me with probable cause to believe the above two statements to be true."<<
AND
From the article at this link:
>>His attorney Laura Rackner told the court in a petition for an expedited hearing on the issue that Terri Moulton Horman will not contest the restraining order or filing of divorce papers, but has not said when she’ll move out of their home on Northwest Sheltered Nook Road.<<
We know that there was a restraining order mentioning that the police provided Kaine with probable cause per Kyron and the murder for hire. We know that Terri did not fight the restraining order.
We also know about the request for abatement -- and the argument therein about the psych evaluation, which I happen to believe was merely a sidestep from going through proceedings (but why?)
I cannot help but think that a person who knew they were innocent in both cases (i.e. that there could BE no probable cause, because they were entirely covered with truth) would NOT fight against the RO AND fight to get a Psych eval immediately so that they could gain custody and/or visitation of/with their 20 month old child. I might guess this would be particularly so of a person who has strong motherly feelings and who has mentioned the importance of the particular child to them. SURELY those advising Terri have explained the difficulty she would have in ever getting custody of that child if she did not immediately fight for it.
Gitana spoke to the "not fighting for custody" I believe -- she was far more clear and understandable about that then I am able to articulate. I may have even "clunked" in my explanation, perhaps she will remind us of her reflections on this.
SO... As early as June 28th, there were some red flares going up in a big way. In my opinion, Law Enforcement knew a scad of things that Terri knew too OR I believe she would have come out swinging for custody of her little girl. She didn't, why not? Could she have lost that fight if she was clean as a whistle? Perhaps someone has an explanation about this to help me -- could she have lost in picking up the fight against the RO and for her little girl right away? What would she have had to lose IF she was innocent, if they could prove nothing pointing to any "probable" guilt in Kyron's disappearance or the murder for hire?
We are now at August 6th and there have been and are witnesses called to the Grand Jury. My thought is that there was a fairly noteworthy framework in place as early as June 28th (or even earlier) -- the framework is being filled in to secure it as tightly as it can be and to, hopefully, move towards justice for Kyron's sake. My further thought is that LE does not want an innocent redhead in jail.
It certainly seems that only a network of fools would try to build on a foundation of sand. As I read arguments towards Terri's innocence in Kyron's disappearance and the murder for hire, I cannot forget the voice that seems to have spoken so loudly against that, and it is Terri's -- through her attorney -- and her not fighting that RO.