Contempt of Court :Revealing Sealed Docs

Given Terri's track record of things she has said, how much weight could one give to the statement you seek from her now, regarding Cook's access to the document?

Examples:

  • If Terri was innocent and left Kyron at school and went to run errands, why do her alibi statements not jibe with her cell and bank records (and possibly other evidence not yet revealed)? Would the argument here be that "sure, cell and bank records say one thing, but we haven't heard what Terri says about this".
  • Then there's those darn sticky polygraphs - we have no idea what all Terri was asked on those but we know she failed two or three of them and even walked out without completing at least one of those. Would the argument here be, "sure, she failed polygraphs and walked out too, but we haven't heard from Terri what she says about this". It should be noted here that the same polygraphs were given to 3 other parents, who all passed.

But even if one were to discount Terri's multiple failed polygraphs, discount Terri's bank records, discount Terri's cell phone records, discount statements from the landscaper, and now discount statements from her most recent love, I would LOVE to know what the devil's advocate approach would be for:

Why is Terri not contesting custody of her baby K? We know she wants her baby back - she went to Kaine's gym to try to get her. She asked the clerk to let her know when Kaine and baby K were at the gym again.

So why not attend the July 22nd hearing and fight to get her baby? Why not stand in front of a judge and tell her story of innocence and at least get a shot at 50/50 custody? If we stick to the 'we haven't heard from Terri on this' does that mean we also cannot put any weight in her attorney's statement that Terri will not be contesting custody? In your quest to hear from Terri, does attorney Houze speak for her?

If there really is no proof of any wrong doing, she should be able to get partial custody. Why would she not try?

If she is innocent and all of this is just statements from others and as you put it: "but we haven't heard what Terri says", then why not take the July 22nd opportunity to speak? Especially when it could mean getting custody or partial custody of her baby?

For those who think LE is being singularly focused on Terri and perhaps thinking LE has nothing on her, then why couldn't she walk into that judge's chambers and make that case so she could get her baby?

I am sincerely interested in any devil's advocate reply.

...

She could be guilty of all that you say about everything regarding Kyron's disappearance, and could still be NOT guilty that someone else saw the RO while it was under seal because of what THAT person chose to do (speculating that it is possible MC decided to take a peek and a few pics of the RO while she was in another room).

For instance: I have yet to hear LE say she was in possession of her cell phone all day long and that they could verify it was in her hands for the entire time that the cell phone pinged. There is a discrepancy with the phone and where she says she was, yet there is a possibility that someone Terri is protecting had the phone. It is a possibility. And it would be something Terri needs to admit to, and name that person (if such a person exists). I have to ask, if this possibility is viable, WHY she wouldn't tell. The answer is simple, and cannot be said here.

For instance: I would be hard pressed to tell you exactly where I've been today (basically my house making ribs and tater salad, so didn't really go anywhere, but get me to detail after that and we're going into gray area) so how many of these bank records veer differently than what she told LE, and to what degree? Is it a matter of saying she was at Albertson's or Fred Meyer but there are no bank records to prove it (cash covers that). They have video of the stores; I guess we'll see if she's there. If she never claimed she was there, I guess we'll see.

For instance: We have LE stating that Terri is being cooperative, yet there are things she's not telling them. We have no statement from an official on a polygraph, and forgive me for this one, I'll take with a grain of salt (or Whisperer's box of salt) anyone claiming the pass/fail of any test who doesn't wear a badge.

For instance: LE reported that statements made by Kaine and Desiree were not statements from them. Therefore, while I appreciate that Kaine felt strongly enough by what LE told him regarding the landscaper and the MFH plot, and a judge felt confident there was probable cause to grant a restraining order, Terri was not arrested for such a plot and remains free. I don't have to play devil's advocate here. I merely have to bide my time to see how this one pans out. It's hinky beyond hink. But my opinion on this doesn't matter, and it is the actions of LE which will measure and caution my leap into the firepit burning around Terri's feet to add fuel to that fire. Just my way.

For instance: There have been days' worth of reports discussing Terri's PPD and other issues. The source of this was Kaine, as far as I can see, and therefore must be taken as at minimum him putting together what he's seen over the past 19 months which has caused a rift to form in their marriage in the first place and potentially feed into Terri's behavior in the last month since Kyron disappeared. Then she is slapped with a divorce and a RO and her husband flees their home with their daughter. She's represented by a lawyer now, and there's nothing which will help her look 'normal' based on everything I've typed so far in all these paragraphs. So her lawyer may advise her to get help and stay in that help. Instead of doing that, however, she finds a new man, and now she's facing a contempt of court charge. I imagine she's now being strongly urged to get that help and stay in that help. No judge would grant custody to her at this point....there is just too much to pretend there's not SOMETHING going on. But none of it can say with any absolute what that something is.
Standing in a courtroom to fight for custody will not focus on that custody. It will look to answer all these other questions surrounding her, and without an adequate defense, she would be a fool to even try. As sad as it might seem, she is in a zero sum position, where the struggle is a lot more than whether she can parent her daughter again. It is whether she can keep her freedom. And for those who believe she's the ultimate narcissist, that won't be a hard choice for her to make.

But I always ask myself: What if she didn't do it, who did, and why would she protect that person? Because if nothing else, I believe Terri has information which could end this mystery. She doesn't want to give it, and by all accounts, Terri is behaving in a most self-destructive manner. What would cause a woman to discombobulate so much that she has more and more skeletons falling out of her closet and it doesn't make her speak? Either she really believes she'll get away with something horrendous, or she's taking the bullet for someone else.

I have nothing yet which wipes out a possibility of someone else. And as for the RO, I hold that it is possible MC snuck the photos of the RO and sent them to the others without her knowledge.

(none of this answers to the probability that it is true. Only to the possibility that it could be true.)
 
True debs at this point absolutely. But have we ever heard her voice from day 1 when she and Kaine were one united front? I can't recall her ever making a statement but I've been wrong before.

I agree totally, grandmaj! I've kept close watch on this case from the beginning and I think the sound of TH's actual voice is one we've never heard. If we are wrong, I hope someone here lets us know.:)
 
Written earlier today elsewhere in the forum:

I think that...important to that which we are learning and discussing on this thread is:

Included in this article:

In his letter, Houze said Terri Horman would not be contesting any of the matters before the court, including a restraining order that prevents her from any parenting time with her daughter, K[].<<

So.. Not only will Terri not contest the "leaving the home," she is NOT going to contest not having parenting time.

======
UPDATE:

BUT WOAH...the OregonLive.com site is not playing fair. The link to that article (the webpage) now has changed text.

>>Terri Horman's attorney also alerted the court Monday that she would not contest her husband's restraining order or his push to force her out of their Portland home on Northwest Sheltered Nook Road. The restraining order restricts Terri Horman from any parenting time with their 20-month-old daughter Kiara. Yet, she would have the right to ask the court to reconsider at a later date.<<

Either way, it is what it is...no hearing to contest the moving out, nor fight for parenting time BUT this could be considered later.
 
Written earlier today elsewhere in the forum:

I think that...important to that which we are learning and discussing on this thread is:

Included in this article:

In his letter, Houze said Terri Horman would not be contesting any of the matters before the court, including a restraining order that prevents her from any parenting time with her daughter, K[].<<

So.. Not only will Terri not contest the "leaving the home," she is NOT going to contest not having parenting time.

======
UPDATE:

BUT WOAH...the OregonLive.com site is not playing fair. The link to that article (the webpage) now has changed text.

>>Terri Horman's attorney also alerted the court Monday that she would not contest her husband's restraining order or his push to force her out of their Portland home on Northwest Sheltered Nook Road. The restraining order restricts Terri Horman from any parenting time with their 20-month-old daughter Kiara. Yet, she would have the right to ask the court to reconsider at a later date.<<

Either way, it is what it is...no hearing to contest the moving out, nor fight for parenting time BUT this could be considered later.


I disagree. I think that's just faulty (albeit mayby innocently so) reporting. Read the court papers in the KOIN link I cited above. The 22nd was about ouster...nothing to do with custodyh.
 
Let's see...

>>Either she really believes she'll get away with something horrendous, or she's taking the bullet for someone else.<<

Taking the bullet for some perp she doesn't know (or does know) that snuck into the school and took away a 7 year old?

Umm...what a valiant woman. Some how, that just doesn't work for me...hmmm I'm trying to think of why that is exactly.
 
Let's see...

>>Either she really believes she'll get away with something horrendous, or she's taking the bullet for someone else.<<

Taking the bullet for some perp she doesn't know (or does know) that snuck into the school and took away a 7 year old?

Umm...what a valiant woman. Some how, that just doesn't work for me...hmmm I'm trying to think of why that is exactly.

I didn't say it was valiant. It is cowardice in its worst form. BUT, if it's a possibility, it has to be asked, who would that person be? A stranger? Not hardly.
 
Oregon State Bar info on RO's.

http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1140_RestrainingOrders.htm

snip:



Perhaps our member posting on this isn't/wasn't located in Oregon? But it looks to me that a contact address must be supplied?

The RO had his address blacked out. Not sure if that would have been so on Terri's copy or not. But at the bottom of the document it did list Kaine's contact address and phone number as his attorney's.
 
Thanks Wondering1,

I read the document per moving out of the house... Doesn't say anything about the child custody -- true enough.

Did notice here, for what it is worth:

Document entitled: INSTRUCTIONS – OBTAINING A FAPA RESTRAINING ORDER (FAPA 6/08)

>>In a few cases, the judge may wait to make a custody order and will set a hearing to get more information about the children from you and the respondent. You must go to that hearing or the order will probably be dismissed (dropped).

Otherwise, the respondent has 30 days from the date of service to request a hearing. If the respondent does not request a hearing, the restraining order will stay in effect.

If the respondent does request a hearing, it will be held very quickly. You may have as little as two days to get ready to go to the hearing. If the hearing is scheduled more than a few days away, the court will send you notice of the time and date of the hearing in the mail. If there is not enough time to mail you a notice, the court may contact you by telephone. Be sure the court always has your current contact addresses and contact phone numbers so you get notice of any hearing. You also can call the court to check to see if a hearing has been set.

You must go to the hearing or the order will probably be dropped. If you cannot go to the hearing due to an emergency, call the court clerk right away. It may be helpful to have an attorney represent you at the hearing, but it is not required.<<

So...a hearing was scheduled on the 22nd, that won't be happening, no contest to the house thing (do I have that right?) I think that July 28th is the 30 day mark from June 28th when RO was served. Suppose that a "quick hearing" could have been requested for custody, eh (per the above)? Has there been anything we've read that would have disallowed a quick hearing?

Hmmm...the quick hearing was foregone maybe? And the 22nd is too soon -- or they can't bring up custody at that time since that was about vacating the house?

So the news reporting may have been faulty (DANG THEM), but I guess a question about "why isn't she trying to get shared custody or visitation" is still out there. Some have discussed that IF there was a hearing on that, certain information would have to come forward that her attorney might not want at this point in time.

Thanks again for reading that document and pointing it out.
 
Hmmm...

I'm going back to the article text mentioned above:
>>Terri Horman's attorney also alerted the court Monday that she would not contest her husband's restraining order or his push to force her out of their Portland home on Northwest Sheltered Nook Road.<<

How can we find out the exact text of what the attorney alerted the court? Anyone have a clue?

IF the reporter is correct, then Terri (at this point in time and per the 22nd, I guess) has chosen not to contest "her husband's restraining order" -- which included the child custody thing, right?
 
I didn't say it was valiant. It is cowardice in its worst form. BUT, if it's a possibility, it has to be asked, who would that person be? A stranger? Not hardly.

Hiya Debs,

Nice to see you this evening.

Agree...it has to be asked, I kinda wondered if she was taking the bullet for LE at first, maybe trying to draw the perp out -- make them kinda relax and screw up -- thinking she was LE's focus.

So can you think of why she would take a bullet for someone? I mean she didn't commit suicide to get out of her marriage, she allegedly tried to hire someone to give her husband a bullet. Kinda makes you think she isn't into doing herself in for the sake of someone else or some kind of problem.
 
Hmmm...

I'm going back to the article text mentioned above:
>>Terri Horman's attorney also alerted the court Monday that she would not contest her husband's restraining order or his push to force her out of their Portland home on Northwest Sheltered Nook Road.<<

How can we find out the exact text of what the attorney alerted the court? Anyone have a clue?

IF the reporter is correct, then Terri (at this point in time and per the 22nd, I guess) has chosen not to contest "her husband's restraining order" -- which included the child custody thing, right?

The hearing on the 22nd was to be an expedited hearing for the original restraining order and issues with the divorce--probably to get a rush divorce and worry about the money and property issues later. The part about getting her out of the house as an addendum to the original RO. The letter her attorney wrote to the court said they would not be contesting any of the issues that were to be brought forth at the hearing on the 22nd. However, she will have to find another family law attorney to address the divorce issues. So essentially, she is not going to fight the visitation issue at this time. Once she gets an attorney for the divorce issue, perhaps it can be revisited.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/kyrons_stepmom_wont_contest_he.html

"Terri Horman's attorney also alerted the court Monday that she would not contest her husband's restraining order or his push to force her out of their Portland home on Northwest Sheltered Nook Road. The restraining order restricts Terri Horman from any parenting time with their 20-month-old daughter Kiara. Yet, she would have the right to ask the court to reconsider at a later date."
 
Thanks Wondering1,

I read the document per moving out of the house... Doesn't say anything about the child custody -- true enough.

Did notice here, for what it is worth:

Document entitled: INSTRUCTIONS – OBTAINING A FAPA RESTRAINING ORDER (FAPA 6/08)

>>In a few cases, the judge may wait to make a custody order and will set a hearing to get more information about the children from you and the respondent. You must go to that hearing or the order will probably be dismissed (dropped).

Otherwise, the respondent has 30 days from the date of service to request a hearing. If the respondent does not request a hearing, the restraining order will stay in effect.

If the respondent does request a hearing, it will be held very quickly. You may have as little as two days to get ready to go to the hearing. If the hearing is scheduled more than a few days away, the court will send you notice of the time and date of the hearing in the mail. If there is not enough time to mail you a notice, the court may contact you by telephone. Be sure the court always has your current contact addresses and contact phone numbers so you get notice of any hearing. You also can call the court to check to see if a hearing has been set.

You must go to the hearing or the order will probably be dropped. If you cannot go to the hearing due to an emergency, call the court clerk right away. It may be helpful to have an attorney represent you at the hearing, but it is not required.<<

So...a hearing was scheduled on the 22nd, that won't be happening, no contest to the house thing (do I have that right?) I think that July 28th is the 30 day mark from June 28th when RO was served. Suppose that a "quick hearing" could have been requested for custody, eh (per the above)? Has there been anything we've read that would have disallowed a quick hearing?

Hmmm...the quick hearing was foregone maybe? And the 22nd is too soon -- or they can't bring up custody at that time since that was about vacating the house?

So the news reporting may have been faulty (DANG THEM), but I guess a question about "why isn't she trying to get shared custody or visitation" is still out there. Some have discussed that IF there was a hearing on that, certain information would have to come forward that her attorney might not want at this point in time.

Thanks again for reading that document and pointing it out.

haha...I think I'm a little ocd :) I think she still has until ~July 28 to request a hearing on the custody issues. And yes, there are very good reasons for her not to go there from a legal perspective, if not from a mommy perspective. Better to not lose now. She will always have the right to request a re-evaluation of custody, regardless of whether she challenges the RO or not. They expire annually.

Although i will say that the status quo is typicallyh preserved. So if KH has baby girl for an extended period of time, it will be an uphill battle for TH to get her back down the road. Even if she is never charged, or charged and aquitted. OTOH, if she is charged and acquitted, a judge would likely take that into account and restore some custody. Bottom line, better to keep her options open at this time and under the circumstances, imojmo.
 
The hearing on the 22nd was to be an expedited hearing for the original restraining order and issues with the divorce--probably to get a rush divorce and worry about the money and property issues later. The part about getting her out of the house as an addendum to the original RO. The letter her attorney wrote to the court said they would not be contesting any of the issues that were to be brought forth at the hearing on the 22nd. However, she will have to find another family law attorney to address the divorce issues. So essentially, she is not going to fight the visitation issue at this time. Once she gets an attorney for the divorce issue, perhaps it can be revisited.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/kyrons_stepmom_wont_contest_he.html

"Terri Horman's attorney also alerted the court Monday that she would not contest her husband's restraining order or his push to force her out of their Portland home on Northwest Sheltered Nook Road. The restraining order restricts Terri Horman from any parenting time with their 20-month-old daughter Kiara. Yet, she would have the right to ask the court to reconsider at a later date."


Again, I totally disagree. I think the reporting is wrong. Can you point me to a court doc that says the July 22nd hearing has to do with anything but ouster and correcting a typo. I'm happy to be wrong :)
 
Precisely; so why give up the July 22nd hearing and all chance to get all or some custody of her baby right now?

I just posted a much longer reply to you on the subject of 'hearing what Terri has to say'. Then saw this post from you which feeds precisely into my point - she is actually turning down the chance to speak in a courtroom - even on a topic that one could say has nothing to do with Kyron's fateful disappearance.

Terri is turning down the chance to get her own child back right now. It wasn't a motion to move the date out further, it was a clear statement from her attorney that Terri is not contesting the restraining order in regards to current custody of her baby.
...

underlined by me

She's not contesting because she knows she'll be arrested soon
 
Again, I totally disagree. I think the reporting is wrong. Can you point me to a court doc that says the July 22nd hearing has to do with anything but ouster and correcting a typo. I'm happy to be wrong :)

Yes. It is in the quote I provided, underlined by me:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/kyrons_stepmom_wont_contest_he.html

"Terri Horman's attorney also alerted the court Monday that she would not contest her husband's restraining order or his push to force her out of their Portland home on Northwest Sheltered Nook Road. The restraining order restricts Terri Horman from any parenting time with their 20-month-old daughter Kiara. Yet, she would have the right to ask the court to reconsider at a later date."

"restraining order OR his push to force her out...." I would say that refers to the original restraining order that prohibits contact with the baby and ALSO the ouster from the houster.

ETA: I cannot get into OJIN tonight--looks like it is down right now, but the letter references two different case numbers that have been consolidated. And the letter from her attorney references "any matters to be heard" at the hearing. I really believe the hearing was for both the original restraining order and the home issue.
 
Read the second two pdf links on this koin link. The bottom one Terri (Petition for Terri Horman to move out (302.1KB) describes the matters at issue - primarily ouster) and sets a hearing for the 22nd of July.

The top one (Moulton Horman doesn't contest moving out (52.8KB)) is the letter from her attorney saying there's no dispute regarding the matters scheduled for July 22nd -- i.e., the ouster only.

The title of the links themselves confine the issue to ouster. These pleadings have NOTHING to do with the custody issues, imeo.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/mostpopular/story/Terri-Horman-called-911-during-police-sting/Dz4uMChK60KCWjy3W5FG4Q.cspx
 
but I guess a question about "why isn't she trying to get shared custody or visitation" is still out there. Some have discussed that IF there was a hearing on that, certain information would have to come forward that her attorney might not want at this point in time.

Thanks again for reading that document and pointing it out.

bnsbm

she can't have a standard family court hearing on custody and visitation because of the RO -- that's a totally different animal. She can't have any custody until she successfully challenges the RO before the Judge that issued it. And, yes, you are right about the reasons she wouldn't do that right now. Believe me, I'm not defending her. I'm just trying to clear up the technical/procedural/legal aspects that there is uncertainty about.
 
Again, I totally disagree. I think the reporting is wrong. Can you point me to a court doc that says the July 22nd hearing has to do with anything but ouster and correcting a typo. I'm happy to be wrong :)

Read the second two pdf links on this koin link. The bottom one Terri (Petition for Terri Horman to move out (302.1KB) describes the matters at issue - primarily ouster) and sets a hearing for the 22nd of July.

The top one (Moulton Horman doesn't contest moving out (52.8KB)) is the letter from her attorney saying there's no dispute regarding the matters scheduled for July 22nd -- i.e., the ouster only.

The title of the links themselves confine the issue to ouster. These pleadings have NOTHING to do with the custody issues, imeo.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/mostpopular/story/Terri-Horman-called-911-during-police-sting/Dz4uMChK60KCWjy3W5FG4Q.cspx

After reading the petition for the expedited hearing, you may be right. I will check OJIN tomorrow and see exactly when the hearing is for the original RO.
 
After reading the petition for the expedited hearing, you may be right. I will check OJIN tomorrow and see exactly when the hearing is for the original RO.

If she has even requested one. I think she has about two weeks left to do so. Thanks for checking. I'll be looking for your update :) This whole thing is so bizarre, though. I anticipate waking up to news that pales in comparison to whether or not she's trying to get custody of baby girl back.:furious:
 
She could be guilty of all that you say about everything regarding Kyron's disappearance, and could still be NOT guilty that someone else saw the RO while it was under seal because of what THAT person chose to do (speculating that it is possible MC decided to take a peek and a few pics of the RO while she was in another room).

For instance: I have yet to hear LE say she was in possession of her cell phone all day long and that they could verify it was in her hands for the entire time that the cell phone pinged. There is a discrepancy with the phone and where she says she was, yet there is a possibility that someone Terri is protecting had the phone. It is a possibility. And it would be something Terri needs to admit to, and name that person (if such a person exists). I have to ask, if this possibility is viable, WHY she wouldn't tell. The answer is simple, and cannot be said here.

For instance: I would be hard pressed to tell you exactly where I've been today (basically my house making ribs and tater salad, so didn't really go anywhere, but get me to detail after that and we're going into gray area) so how many of these bank records veer differently than what she told LE, and to what degree? Is it a matter of saying she was at Albertson's or Fred Meyer but there are no bank records to prove it (cash covers that). They have video of the stores; I guess we'll see if she's there. If she never claimed she was there, I guess we'll see.

For instance: We have LE stating that Terri is being cooperative, yet there are things she's not telling them. We have no statement from an official on a polygraph, and forgive me for this one, I'll take with a grain of salt (or Whisperer's box of salt) anyone claiming the pass/fail of any test who doesn't wear a badge.

For instance: LE reported that statements made by Kaine and Desiree were not statements from them. Therefore, while I appreciate that Kaine felt strongly enough by what LE told him regarding the landscaper and the MFH plot, and a judge felt confident there was probable cause to grant a restraining order, Terri was not arrested for such a plot and remains free. I don't have to play devil's advocate here. I merely have to bide my time to see how this one pans out. It's hinky beyond hink. But my opinion on this doesn't matter, and it is the actions of LE which will measure and caution my leap into the firepit burning around Terri's feet to add fuel to that fire. Just my way.

For instance: There have been days' worth of reports discussing Terri's PPD and other issues. The source of this was Kaine, as far as I can see, and therefore must be taken as at minimum him putting together what he's seen over the past 19 months which has caused a rift to form in their marriage in the first place and potentially feed into Terri's behavior in the last month since Kyron disappeared. Then she is slapped with a divorce and a RO and her husband flees their home with their daughter. She's represented by a lawyer now, and there's nothing which will help her look 'normal' based on everything I've typed so far in all these paragraphs. So her lawyer may advise her to get help and stay in that help. Instead of doing that, however, she finds a new man, and now she's facing a contempt of court charge. I imagine she's now being strongly urged to get that help and stay in that help. No judge would grant custody to her at this point....there is just too much to pretend there's not SOMETHING going on. But none of it can say with any absolute what that something is.
Standing in a courtroom to fight for custody will not focus on that custody. It will look to answer all these other questions surrounding her, and without an adequate defense, she would be a fool to even try. As sad as it might seem, she is in a zero sum position, where the struggle is a lot more than whether she can parent her daughter again. It is whether she can keep her freedom. And for those who believe she's the ultimate narcissist, that won't be a hard choice for her to make.

But I always ask myself: What if she didn't do it, who did, and why would she protect that person? Because if nothing else, I believe Terri has information which could end this mystery. She doesn't want to give it, and by all accounts, Terri is behaving in a most self-destructive manner. What would cause a woman to discombobulate so much that she has more and more skeletons falling out of her closet and it doesn't make her speak? Either she really believes she'll get away with something horrendous, or she's taking the bullet for someone else.

I have nothing yet which wipes out a possibility of someone else. And as for the RO, I hold that it is possible MC snuck the photos of the RO and sent them to the others without her knowledge.

(none of this answers to the probability that it is true. Only to the possibility that it could be true.)

---
Sorry, I usually snip a quote but because my reply relies on so many pieces of your post, I kept the whole thing in. :innocent:

Here's the problem:

While it would be easy to take any one thing (in any case) and create alternatives for what that thing was or how that thing happened, the trouble starts when 1) either some of those things only have alternatives that are reasonably or statistically improbable or 2) the stack of things gets taller and taller.

In each of your example 'for instances', we see this problem. Either we have to think of a fairly improbable explanation for it or even if we can come up with an "okay, this could be the case" then that thing still gets added to a stack of 'other things that hang together' that is growing ever higher.

For instance:

  • You state Terri might not be guilty of showing M Cook the RO and hence giving him access or knowledge of it to then photograph. She might be in another room, as you state, when he does this. While this is a possibility, it is certainly not likely. The intensity, speed, and circumstances with which this relationship developed is, on its own, a good indicator that the document was shared. The sexual nature of their relationship is an even bigger indicator that the document was shared. This wasn't a handyman stopping by to fix the sink who happened to see a document on a counter and who suspected it might be sealed to everyone else on the planet and hence, worth risking the grab and photographing of; and it wasn't a new lover who inadvertantly stumbled upon a document and decided to take pictures of it as it hung out on the kitchen counter, just in case it meant something later. Besides the above, there is also the point that he does not say he obtained document in some clandestine manner.

  • To your point that Terri could have paid cash at a store: paying cash at a store is not a bank record. Paying cash at a store would be a store purchase record. LE said bank record. I'm not saying cash wasn't used that day, but your argument is poised against the bank records statement, so that is what I am debating.

  • Thinking polygraphs might really not have been failures because the failure term came from family: The trouble is, that family heard it from Terri herself. She described her polys as failures and she did it in front of the other parents. To go for the 'grain of salt' we'd have to believe 1) Terri overstated her failures (she really didn't fail but she told everyone else she did) or 2) the other parents made that up and more than one was willing to state 'Terri said she failed' on national television.

  • Granted, on the cell phone records we are all in the dark on the detail of it; however, at its face, something should arouse suspicion in a reasoned thinker. Whether she had the phone with her and it did not jibe with her alibi or whether she intentionally left it somewhere or gave it to another so that it would confuse her alibi - either way, is telling us something about intentional deceit on her part.

  • To your point about your day - making dinner and the gray of what precisely you might have after that: this is not a similar comparison to Terri's day. The murky of her day is not centered around a single location in a specific home or a kitchen or an action. Her day includes other people, interactions with people of varying ages, roles, & relationship to her, traveling to multiple locations, and engaging in multiple actions at different times during the day. The analogy breaks down as well, the minute we interject trouble in the day. You weren't interviewed about whose ribs you were cooking, from where you obtained those ribs, your recipe or the temperature of the stove, or who you were serving to and why and when. You weren't asked anything about your day (or even the being whom you were cooking). Terri was asked everything about her day - because there was trouble that day. Kyron Horman, her step-son, disappeared before making it to his classroom. He was very likely murdered the morning of June 4th, Two Thousand and Ten while in her care or within minutes or hours of her care. This day is not similar to who or what you made for dinner or what you did after that. As an antecdote even, it just doesn't work.

  • You already stated the 'cooperation' example was weak, so I won't go there, as I agree. :)

  • On your zero sum point, Zero sum refers to a person in relation to other persons, not in relation to themselves. The situation Terri finds herself in regarding answering the RO vs details of her actions on June 4th are not an example of what Zero sum means.

  • On the statements of PPD and narcissism, I did not use those terms in my post (that you replied to) so will leave those alone as well. I personally don't believe Post Partum Depression fits into this scenario, at all. To your point of more and more skeletons in her closet, I hope it is obvious that some of these are unfolding real-time and did not even exist prior to Kyron's disappearance. Some of the information coming out and some of the actions we are seeing in her after the fact, are brand new fresh at the moment, real Terri. No skeletons needed.

No fire-pit here, other than the one self-imposed by Terri Horman. Kyron is the victim in this tragedy, not Terri Horman.

EDIT: By the way, Debs, I enjoy your posts on the board and was thinking I should come back and add some kind of smiley to all of this! ;)

I need to go to bed soon, that's for sure. Is it that late, already?? :eek:
...
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
4,342
Total visitors
4,502

Forum statistics

Threads
592,424
Messages
17,968,638
Members
228,766
Latest member
CoRo
Back
Top