Catch 22? Why stay at the family home?

Discussion in 'Kyron Horman' started by Wrinkles, Jul 4, 2010.

  1. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay gang...was just thinking...

    1. Your step son disappears
    2. LE is reported to have stayed at your home 24/7 at one point in time
    3. You seem to be in the spotlight
    4. Your husband leaves and takes your little one, getting an RO

    Now then... Curious question... Does anyone know "who" owns the KH and TH family home? I read elsewhere (I couldn't get into the records to prove it), that KH owns it, but I don't know if TH's name is also on the paperwork as owner. Even so...

    So...you have had LE at your home. What are the chances of there being bugs in the house? (not talking spidies and things!) Is that legal?

    IF it is, you are staying in the home, you could be recorded and heard by LE.

    IF you leave the home, you are vacating the family premises and could end up homeless, so to speak. [In a divorce, the person who leaves the home could end up being the one out of it until the LONG divorce process ends.]

    All of this in context with another thought... Do you ever talk to yourself (or outloud when you are by yourself)? I surely do... :biggrin: (I might shout at the TV if someone on it says nonsense, I might just say what I think of it and why! I might shout at the computer or LAUGH at it, if I am watching a particular video.) And assuming you have your parents staying with you, might you not talk to them and say your thoughts/feelings OR vent?

    Bottom line, I don't know that IF there was a chance that my home was being bugged AND I was a possible suspect, that I would want to stay in my home. The whole thing would put just too much pressure on me, guilty or innocent. BUT...what if that home was where I wanted to live -- my only main means to have "my home" over my head, so that I didn't have to go live with my parents?

    Oh...and I wonder if my car could be bugged too?

    So, do I invite my parents to my home to give me emotional support, or do I go stay with them? If I leave my home, could it be invaded by my spouse -- they come in and strip me of whatever they want or move back in and I could be out -- afterall, they have an RO against me?

    Catch 22?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. oxymoran

    oxymoran New Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course, maybe she's innocent and simply wants to remain near to the Search HQ for a child that she jointly raised since he was an infant. (More cynically, maybe she wants to stay close to her high-priced knight in shining armor---Houzy Mason the defense council.)

    Although its easy to point the finger at her, based on her track record I think there is many times more chance she's guilty of infidelity than harming a child. And if she was being unfaithful that Friday morning, that could certainly explain her lack of candor with LE (if we believe DY's claim she's not cooperating).

    I suspect she's no dummy...she knows if she admits her indiscretion there's no reason to believe that would remove her from the umbrella of suspicion over Kyron's disappearance...probably the opposite. I suspect thats why she's having to stay put and say nothing. jmoo

    In any case, she will leave the house to talk to her Defense Council in his office...and if she took the step of fleeing to Roseburg to stay with her mom, its highly likely that those pesky bugs would somehow fly the 200 miles south.
     
  4. gwenabob

    gwenabob A nice girl with a disturbing hobby

    Messages:
    2,486
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    According to the tax records, Kaine owns the house alone. It was purchased a few months before they married.
     
  5. scandi

    scandi New Member

    Messages:
    18,228
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    . . . unless that child was a threat to her in some way. If something he knew could stand in the way of the lifestyle she hoped to live out in the future. It is what Dr Albaugh as a TH in the Scott Peterson case said is what causes most people to murder others. It might not have been planned, just a reflex movement welling up from inside her being that caused his possible demise. Not premeditated but an ending result of what she had become as a person, striking out to preserve what she wanted to maintain as a lifestyle. MOO
     
  6. citigirl

    citigirl Member

    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Gwenabob, although my husband purchased our house before we were married, the house is legally mine also in my state. I think at this point TH may feel it is in her best interest to stay in the house if she wants to fight for custody. She may think she will be awarded the house if she stays there.
     
  7. DairyGirl

    DairyGirl New Member

    Messages:
    5,205
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I had some friends that divorced in Oregon a while back. He owned the house, her name wasn't on it. When they divorced she was award half the equity that it accrued while they were married. Don't know if that is standard.
    As far as her staying if there are bugs there, if I were her I would assume there were. I am sure she is sticking with her story of innocence. I don't see her making any confessions to her parents or friends. One thing I am curious about, if they bugged any conversations between her and her lawyer I am sure they would be useless because of attorney/client privilege, right? I am sure he knows better then to talk at her house in any case.
    Anyway, I doubt the judge would award her the house if Kaine winds up raising their daughter.
     
  8. Calliope

    Calliope Former Member

    Messages:
    6,534
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5345653&postcount=237"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2010.06.28 - Kyron's Dad files for divorce and restraining order #2[/ame]



    Also included in the section titled:

    A. Mandatory (Not Discretionary) Relief

    The court must order the following relief


    3. Ouster

    Require respondent to move from petitioner's residence
    if:

    a. the residence is solely in petitioner's name;
    b. the parties jointly own or rent the residence; or
    c. the parties are married to each other.


    4. Restraint from Entry onto Specified Premises

    Restrain from entry into any premises, and a
    reasonable surrounding area, when the Court
    considers such restraint necessary to prevent
    abuse. Such a surrounding area must be
    specifically described.

    Specified premises typically include:
    a. petitioner's business or place of
    employment,
    b. petitioner's school,
    c. A close relative’s home that the
    petitioner frequently visits.


    6. Police "Standby" for Essential Personal
    Property


    Order that a peace officer accompany the party
    moving from the residence when that party
    removes essential personal items (or property of
    the children) from the residence.





    Did the judge choose to ignore what's listed to be mandatory relief? What did he know of the investigation that would cause him to ignore that? I wonder if Terri's attorney advised her to move out, even without an order?
     
  9. DairyGirl

    DairyGirl New Member

    Messages:
    5,205
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Also, Kaine may have a prenup. If he was smart he would.
     
  10. Calliope

    Calliope Former Member

    Messages:
    6,534
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
  11. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Oxy...

    Nice to see you :)

    It is difficult to discuss this case, because on one hand I do not want to play a part in scrutinizing someone who may have done some questionable things in their life (haven't we all?), but maybe did not do that for which they are being scrutinized.

    That brings me to another Catch 22 of sorts. The family (dad, mom, step dad) goes to a news conference, they have supposedly been fully briefed by LE, they implore TH to cooperate. "Imploring" isn't like just saying, "We hope she will continue to cooperate" (as if she "has been" doing that) or "We hope she will begin to cooperate" (as if she "hasn't done" that, yet it was indicated that all family were before recent events). No, they are "imploring" her -- beseeching her...

    The next day, police come out and say TH has been cooperating. They (LE) know she has an attorney now, they know there is an extra layer between TH and them... BUT...she has been cooperating.

    So does the family think that "imploring" Terri to cooperate is really important if she has done that and there are no problems? Oh there are some probems with stories, and maybe due to indiscretion or lack of integrity in some answers...

    Has TH been cooperating or hasn't she? Her head is surely spinning with the kinda mixed signals, but maybe that is what the mixed signals have been meant to make happen.

    So what's going on with the "Imploring to cooperate" vs "she has been cooperating" and all of that within 24 hours. It "was" the family that "implored" but they also checked with LE before they gave their statement.

    Were I TH, I would feel befuddled -- why are you all one day saying "I implore you to cooperate" and the next saying, "She has cooperated."
     
  12. citigirl

    citigirl Member

    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I agree with you--but TH may think she is going to get custody of their daughter. I think she may be in denial about a lot of things.
     
  13. nurseratchett

    nurseratchett "Luck is the residue of design"

    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe Kaine chose to let her remain in the house because he wants to keep her close? Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer perhaps?
     
  14. Calliope

    Calliope Former Member

    Messages:
    6,534
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well the benchguide reads as though the judge has no choice but to order the respondent out of the home. It says it's mandatory. Makes me wonder why that didn't occur (assuming the RO was issued under this law)

    ETA: see below post by Carole
     
  15. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmmmm...really? I can't imagine that (i.e. "although my husband purchased our house before we were married, the house is legally mine also in my state.") Which state is this if I might ask?
     
  16. WholeLottaRosie

    WholeLottaRosie Dancing on a moonbeam!

    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not Citigirl, but,I have the same situation, in IL.
     
  17. oxymoran

    oxymoran New Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Presumably because they haven't yet held the hearing to assess the veracity of the Petitioner's claim. I'm not familiar with the workings of OR law...but surely in the Land of the Free you cant lose the right to access your real estate simply because someone asks for a temporary restraining order (ex-parte) at a hearing at which you were not present...(although you can clearly lose access to your kids on a temporary basis with the same limited due process.)
     
  18. DairyGirl

    DairyGirl New Member

    Messages:
    5,205
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They weren't imploring her to cooperate, they were imploring her to "fully" cooperate. Like maybe she is cooperating by submitting to a LDT but maybe not passing the LDT. Just because someone is cooperating doesn't mean they are "fully" cooperating.
     
  19. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hello DairyGirl,

    Nice to see you :)

    You wrote:
    >>I don't see her making any confessions to her parents or friends.<<

    I don't think that hearing a confession would be the only reason a bug could be useful. If a house were bugged, and a listening to the video of the parents saying, "Kyron is alive" was heard on the bug, then suddenly someone in the household let out a maniacal laugh just afterward, that could be important to those listening to the bugs. On the other hand, if they heard a response of something like, "Oh GOD GOD, I sure hope they are right...I miss him so much..." See what I mean...any number of responses could guide those listening to that which was heard in a bug, I might guess.
     
  20. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Calliope,

    I'm not sure I understand the "mandatory relief" portion, per what is written, but your question of "Did the judge choose to ignore what's listed to be mandatory relief?" is good. IF the mandatory relief means that IF the other person is NOT the named owner they must move out -- then maybe there is a reason TH is continuing to live there. Could it be like a 30 day notice?
     
  21. DairyGirl

    DairyGirl New Member

    Messages:
    5,205
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Although that doesn't seem fair I would rather a child be protected from a dangerous parent even if it means that sometimes a parent's rights might seem to be circumvented, at least temporarily. If she is not dangerous I am sure she will be allowed access to her child. It's a shame to have lost time together in that case but less of a tragedy then allowing a dangerous parent to be around an innocent child.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice