What do you make of Terri never speaking to the media?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
wondering1 said:
I suppose that's a risk they decided to take. Kinda like when I drive over the speed limit or in the HOV lane when I'm in a hurry. I'm prepared to accept the consequences if I'm caught.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY the point. The reporter was not in a public access area, he was trespassing. For another example....that is why the Hollywood paparazzi must stay on the streets/sidewalks outside of the clubs and restaurants. If they enter the buildings they are removed by security and prosecuted. Obviously some of them are willing to risk that event, but they must then accept the consequences.
 
gwenabob said:
Well, he certainly did a good job of making her feel uncomfortable. And quite frankly, I wish no comfort for Terri until she tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Click to expand...

Those who lie to cover wrong doing deserve every bit of discomfort they have asked for.
 
:waitasec:

If...IF...the reporter was in the garage illegally, I wonder if the producers allowed the footage on air knowing that, if they ran it by legal, etc. I honestly don't know what the procedure would be these days. In days past, if a reporter was doing anything remotely illegal (i.e., approaching members of a grand jury), editors wouldn't allow any facts garnered by such activities into print, and reporters violating the law would be reprimanded...and in the case of broadcast media, in serious news shows (not tabloid), such obvious illegal activity would not be allowed on air. The media has changed a lot in the past decade, however, especially print...I'm not sure if broadcast has been affected the same way. But I know for a fact that print media is run on a shoestring nowadays, and safeguards that were in place in days past aren't there anymore (such as having an active legal department, the separation of the advertising people and reporting staff, and something as simple as having a copy editing staff...the number of factual and grammatical mistakes made on a daily basis on the front page of my local paper is embarrassing).
 
Seems these legal questions would be better suited for the legal questions thread. As far as we know, the reporter in question hasn't been arrested.
 
I wonder what her reaction was once she was away from the reporter. I wonder if she started getting angry or yelling. Or maybe to get more sympathy she started boohooing. That blonde chick and her lawyer may have their hands full with her.
 
raeann said:
The only information that would be allowed by a judge would be whether the reporter had an appointment in the building, or verbal or written permission to enter the property, or a standing business relationship with a tenant that could be substantiated. WHY he wanted answers has nothing to do with the illegal physical act of entering private property without permission. It is a simple did you or did you not have a right to be there. Since LE has gone to great lengths in this case admonishing media to stay off of private property, and these very media sources have been showing video of those statements, it would be a bit difficult for them to play dumb and pretend they didn't know.
Click to expand...

Do you ask permission of a building's owner every time you enter a parking garage? I have never heard of such a thing. If the owner of the building thought the reporter was trespassing, then he has the right to ask him to leave. I doubt the reporter is still standing there next to the elevator. I think he probably left right after Terri took the elevator.

While the building is owned by a corporation, it is still considered a "public place" and people may come and go as long as they are not asked by an authorized person to leave. I really do not believe there is any case for trespass in this situation.

And as far as LE asking people to stay off private property, somehow I think they were talking about people's homes, not every single place in the city that is not publicly owned.
 
Aedrys said:
I understand her not saying anything. That is not what bothers me the most. She also didn't flinch, not even once. No reaction to the questions whatsoever. I'd at least expect signs of her being upset. Those questions should have hurt her inside if she was innocent. Instead she treated it like the reporter was an annoying cockroach. I bet she would have smashed him with her foot if she could have. There wasn't any concern for Kyron misisng, just annoyance that the reporter dared to inconvenience her with questions. That is what really bothers me.
Click to expand...

I have the exact same take on it as you. TH didn't look embarrassed, shocked, angry, sad, or even slightly irritated. Just a cold, dead stare. Absolutely emotionless.
 
raeann said:
EXACTLY the point. The reporter was not in a public access area, he was trespassing. For another example....that is why the Hollywood paparazzi must stay on the streets/sidewalks outside of the clubs and restaurants. If they enter the buildings they are removed by security and prosecuted. Obviously some of them are willing to risk that event, but they must then accept the consequences.
Click to expand...
We don't know this for a fact.
 
ddigger said:
Was there a moment that TH looked at the reporter before heading to the elevator or did she keep her eyes downward? The video is kind of hard to see on my laptop.
Click to expand...

I couldn't tell because her face was turned away from the camera and toward the direction of the reporter and she was partially blocked by the blonde woman.

An interesting note is the reporter stated they tried to contact her by email and phone. Why didn't she tell them then she didn't want to be bothered rather than let the blonde woman run interference for her on camera. The news media said they believed the blonde woman works for the high profile lawyer in her employ. I do not believe they don't want the publicity. Lawyers are a business for profit. For the record I know they defend people.
 
gwenabob said:
Wrong. That would be the case if it were the OWNER OF THE BUILDING who sued. You implied that Terri would have some kind of case. What would be her damages? She does not own the building. She could not sue for trespass.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Then thought maybe I was wrong and missed the point entirely -- which I often do lol. But that's why I even went down this path in the first place.
 
raeann said:
EXACTLY the point. The reporter was not in a public access area, he was trespassing. For another example....that is why the Hollywood paparazzi must stay on the streets/sidewalks outside of the clubs and restaurants. If they enter the buildings they are removed by security and prosecuted. Obviously some of them are willing to risk that event, but they must then accept the consequences.
Click to expand...

Since when is a parking garage not a puplic access area?
 
The interview never bothered her a bit, she showed no emotion at all.
 
raeann said:
EXACTLY the point. The reporter was not in a public access area, he was trespassing. For another example....that is why the Hollywood paparazzi must stay on the streets/sidewalks outside of the clubs and restaurants. If they enter the buildings they are removed by security and prosecuted. Obviously some of them are willing to risk that event, but they must then accept the consequences.
Click to expand...

Do you know for a fact that they did not have permission to be there?
 
Looks like she's giving a quick sidelong glance at the reporter here.
th01.jpg
 
Seriously, I don't know what happened in this case, however, she seems to be much too peaceful looking to have just lost her husband, daughter and step-son, does anyone else feel that way?
 
rosiebean said:
:waitasec:

If...IF...the reporter was in the garage illegally, I wonder if the producers allowed the footage on air knowing that, if they ran it by legal, etc. I honestly don't know what the procedure would be these days. In days past, if a reporter was doing anything remotely illegal (i.e., approaching members of a grand jury), editors wouldn't allow any facts garnered by such activities into print, and reporters violating the law would be reprimanded...and in the case of broadcast media, in serious news shows (not tabloid), such obvious illegal activity would not be allowed on air. The media has changed a lot in the past decade, however, especially print...I'm not sure if broadcast has been affected the same way. But I know for a fact that print media is run on a shoestring nowadays, and safeguards that were in place in days past aren't there anymore (such as having an active legal department, the separation of the advertising people and reporting staff, and something as simple as having a copy editing staff...the number of factual and grammatical mistakes made on a daily basis on the front page of my local paper is embarrassing).
Click to expand...

Now, it is just a cost analysis....would the fine/penalty be high enough to counteract the sensationalism value of the NON report? Apparently not, if posters here are finding enough value in "no comment/response" to watch it 5 times. This is ambush video, not even remotely proper journalism, they would have been far happier with a violent outburst on film than with honest, heartfelt, or well reasoned answers from either TH or a spokesperson. They got neither, but apparently there was no real news in the area today.

jmo
 
Permission or not, that woman isn't going to talk to a news reporter. The look on her face means little, she could have been exasperated that the media has been hounding her. She could have been taken completely by surprise and didn't know what to do other than *not talk* because she has been told to keep her mouth shut. She's not wearing a Kyron t shirt because she's most likely been advised not to do anything that would draw attention to the case or connect her with Kyron. She's doing all of this because her very high profile, highly skilled criminal defense lawyer tells her to do this. The woman is being flayed in the media (not to say that it's not for good cause) and she's doing what she's told to save what little face she has left at this point.
 
There is a Starbucks in the Lobby of the PacWest building.

I think that rules out trespassing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 111 more.
Total: 4,056 (members: 112, guests: 3,944)

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
3,944
Total visitors
4,056
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,197
Messages
17,964,885
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top