Terri Horman retains criminal defense attorney!

Is anyone concerned that (if arrested, charged & tried) she will get off on a technicality or by some other means, since she has such a 'good attorney'?

I think LE has been very careful in this case. I don't get the sense that they've made mistakes that will give the defense any hooks.
 
Defending a guilty client can be likened somewhat to a dance. The defense attorney is obligated to put on the best defense possible for his client, but he is bound by the law not to knowingly put a client (or other witnesses) on the stand whom he knows will lie under oath. This is call subornation of perjury, and is a felony offense. So in many cases where guilt is suspected, the attorney will skirt around various issues without ever coming right out and addressing thm head-on. This may include never, ever asking them directly if they committed the crime to speaking in hypothetical terms. It is for the protection of both the attorney and client to engage in this dance, and a savvy client will know this.
 
<respectfully snipped>

If I am honest with myself, I think TH not getting a lawyer before now is the single most 'I am innocent' thing she has done since this started.

Or, simple minded.

Or, it was a brilliant, diabolical move to make herself look innocent and co-operative. :waitasec:

A report said that she was expecting to be arrested very soon for child endangerment. She needed a defense attorney no matter what. She knows she is a POI, no matter what LE say.


I am still open to more than one person, or her indirect involvement. If so, this lawyer just may guide her to a better deal if she talks about that.

LE have handled themselves well so far. Now a classy, competent lawyer. I think this bodes well for the case, how ever it turns out.

Now, if someone would bring Kyron home. Now. Please.

BBM

I guess I missed this report of a child endangerment arrest? - Where can I find it? - TIA.

Likewise, I am still open to the possibility that Terri was the trigger of what happened to Kyron, but did not herself harm Kyron. Lots of family dynamics & LE actions we have been able to observe would still support such a possibility, plus - any confidence this attorney may have in her situation...

I agree - as you say

1) Innocent - Delay getting attorney because she felt LE understood her story ... and she feels she is innocent.

2) Brilliant criminal mastermind

3) Guilty and just plain stupid

Adding to the list:

4) Guilty, emotionally disturbed bordering on mentally incompetent

5) Deeply flawed, emotionally unstable, recklessly endangered her child.

This case is either simple, or multi-layered & complex. All along, it has rather felt like the latter.
 
BBM

I guess I missed this report of a child endangerment arrest? - Where can I find it? - TIA.

Likewise, I am still open to the possibility that Terri was the trigger of what happened to Kyron, but did not herself harm Kyron. Lots of family dynamics & LE actions we have been able to observe would still support such a possibility, plus - any confidence this attorney may have in her situation...

I agree - as you say

1) Innocent - Delay getting attorney because she felt LE understood her story ... and she feels she is innocent.

2) Brilliant criminal mastermind

3) Guilty and just plain stupid

Adding to the list:

4) Guilty, emotionally disturbed bordering on mentally incompetent

5) Deeply flawed, emotionally unstable, recklessly endangered her child.

This case is either simple, or multi-layered & complex. All along, it has rather felt like the latter.

I'll take door number 4.
 
I think LE has been very careful in this case. I don't get the sense that they've made mistakes that will give the defense any hooks.


I agree ; only possible cloud on the horizon,IMO, is that TH was interviewed more than once by LE, and she did not have an attorney present ( as far as I know ). Interesting move on her part.
All JMO
 
I agree ; only possible cloud on the horizon,IMO, is that TH was interviewed more than once by LE, and she did not have an attorney present ( as far as I know ). Interesting move on her part.
All JMO

Does she have to have an attorney present if she has not been classified as a suspect or POI? I mean why would you need an attorney if you're innocent and just answering questions to help in the search of your beloved step son?
 
But I think it makes a difference in the way that the lawyer can defend the client. If the client has confessed (privately) and the lawyer knows s/he is guilty, I believe the lawyer is not allowed to assert otherwise. If the lawyer does not know for a fact that the client is guilty, I think the lawyer *can* say the client didn't do it. Anyway, that's how I understand it.

To defend someone, the lawyer doesn't necessarily have to say or establish that the client is innocent, just that the state hasn't made its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A lawyer can't, however, encourage someone to commit perjury or put on a witness the lawyer knows will commit perjury. So if the lawyer knows the person committed the crime, even if there's someone who's testifying to a false alibi, the lawyer can't put that witness on. If the defendant wants to testify, he or she can because of the constitutional right to defend yourself. When the lawyer knows the person is going to commit perjury though, the lawyer has to advise against it. If the defendant insists, the lawyer has to allow him or her to go ahead, but can't participate. In these cases, instead of the testimony coming in the form of the attorney questioning the witness, the defense attorney sits down and the defendant tells his or her story in narrative form. This is a big give away that the attorney knows the defendant is lying.
 
Does she have to have an attorney present if she has not been classified as a suspect or POI? I mean why would you need an attorney if you're innocent and just answering questions to help in the search of your beloved step son?

bold by me.

An attorney will help keep LE on track looking for evidence that can help the DA convict the person who kidnapped Kyron.

How terrible for her knowing that some nutjob has stolen her step-son and every moment of every day imagining the nightmarish things the monster is doing to him.
 
To defend someone, the lawyer doesn't necessarily have to say or establish that the client is innocent, just that the state hasn't made its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A lawyer can't, however, encourage someone to commit perjury or put on a witness the lawyer knows will commit perjury. So if the lawyer knows the person committed the crime, even if there's someone who's testifying to a false alibi, the lawyer can't put that witness on. If the defendant wants to testify, he or she can because of the constitutional right to defend yourself. When the lawyer knows the person is going to commit perjury though, the lawyer has to advise against it. If the defendant insists, the lawyer has to allow him or her to go ahead, but can't participate. In these cases, instead of the testimony coming in the form of the attorney questioning the witness, the defense attorney sits down and the defendant tells his or her story in narrative form. This is a big give away that the attorney knows the defendant is lying.

BBM
Such a well written post, Rosetattoo.

I have to say, I think these practices are also why it's considered suspect when a defendant doesn't take the stand. Although sometimes defendants don't take the stand not because they are guilty (necessarily) but because they are so unlikeable or weird (etc.) and the defense knows they will be received poorly by a jury/judge.
 
Does she have to have an attorney present if she has not been classified as a suspect or POI? I mean why would you need an attorney if you're innocent and just answering questions to help in the search of your beloved step son?

I seriously doubt that she had an attorney present when first describing to police when she last saw Kyron. If my child went missing and police arrived to help find him, I would be busy giving them as much info as I could to help find my child. I would not have a lawyer there at that point.

But if the child wasn't found within a day or two, I'd get legal counsel. At the very least, to try and spur police activity. If I felt like police weren't doing the right thing in terms of finding the child, a lawyer might be able to help with that. There have certainly been cases where LE have poor judgement (determining children are runaways for example, or dragging their feet in looking for them, or ignoring information parents have given them).

However, if I had someone in the extended family who was in LE, and as many professionals out searching for Kyron as Terri had, I might not feel that such a thing was needed. It really did seem like LE went above and beyond in searching for Kyronn.
 
Well, well, well.
This poses the question of "Why a PI?"

Why not? As a defense attorney I'm sure he works with PI firms - maybe even contracts with a particular one.

Why would he use his own car in such a public case? It seems not at all unusual to me that he was in a car registered to a 3rd party.
 
Now that Terri has counsel, she surely won't be cooperating any longer in any way that might be the least bit incriminating (unless she wants to make a confession). So I wonder how that will change the dynamics for LE insofar as withholding all their investigative information from the public.

Will it now be time to brief the public on where the investigation stands? Will LE release what they know (or at least some of it) and ask the citizens for help or will they maintain the no-info policy they've instituted?

I am relieved that Terri has finally retained an attorney. She needs someone to protect her interests and speak on her behalf, regardless of innocence or guilt. I hope the attorney will make a statement/give interviews soon so that we can at least get some idea from her perspective of where the investigation stands.

If she's guilty of harming Kyron, I don't applaud anything that would hinder LE's investigation, including her retention of an attorney. That just makes LE's job more difficult.
However, in this case, LE has already interviewed her extensively and given her two polys. So, again, if she's guilty, the damage to her has been done and LE probably has all they can get from her anyway. Now, LE just need to keep building their case with no need for much more from her.
 
BBM
Such a well written post, Rosetattoo.

I have to say, I think these practices are also why it's considered suspect when a defendant doesn't take the stand. Although sometimes defendants don't take the stand not because they are guilty (necessarily) but because they are so unlikeable or weird (etc.) and the defense knows they will be received poorly by a jury/judge.

I think most people feel this way. In a criminal case, however, the judge will instruct the jury that the defendant has a right not to testify and will emphasize that the jury is not to infer anything from the defendant's decision not to take the stand. I don't know if most jurors are willing and able to follow this instruction.
 
Well, well, well.
This poses the question of "Why a PI?"

Defense attorneys hire private investigators to help them find exculpatory (hopefully) evidence, really anything that can help the defense.

Also, lawyers can't testify for a defendant, so they hire outside investigators who can.
 
Is it unusual that it's been two days and we've not heard from Terri's attorney? I was expecting to hear something right away - something PR-ish. Then again, she has not been charged with anything, so not sure what he has to respond to, technically.

If none of this stuff (divorce filing, retaining a well known defense attorney) has anything to do with Kyron's whereabouts, I'm going to be very frustrated.
 
I mean why would you need an attorney if you're innocent and just answering questions to help in the search of your beloved step son?

I would get an attorney if one of my children were missing. No way do I want a crime pinned on me, and it could be, because factual innocence cannot always be proved. Even alibis may not be believed because of who is giving them (for example, a relative). Sometimes inaccurate inferences are drawn from circumstances, and/or LE focuses on a particular person to the exclusion of other possibilities.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't be fully forthcoming with information that directly bears upon the investigation, because I would be.

It would be horrifying to be suspected of a crime I did not commit, especially if it concerned my missing child.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
1,053
Total visitors
1,174

Forum statistics

Threads
589,929
Messages
17,927,795
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top