Kyron Horman, 7 years old PORTLAND, OR #33 10/07/10 - 10/17/10

[seemeatthebeach]

For monkey's who don't follow Blinkoncrime.com or don't have time to go through all the comments...here are comments from a Family Law Attorney that might help us sort thru the goobly guck of legal language which for me is like trying to read a foreign language.
I highlighted a few interesting parts....

Thanks Blink for all your hard work on Kyron's and the many other cases you cover. 

http://blinkoncrime.com/



Following this afternoon’s legal melee, blinkoncrime.com Editor In Chief asked prominent Washington State Family Law Attorney, Lea Conner, to weigh in:

    Although I preface my comments with the fact that I practice family law in Washington State and not in Oregon, I am an Oregon native that has followed this case closely.

    I’m a bit perplexed by Peter Bunch’s reasoning that if the court were to abate the dissolution, he would respond by filing a motion to modify the restraining order so that Terri Horman could have visitation with the parties’ daughter. Essentially, Mr. Bunch is arguing that the abatement would prejudice his client’s ability to parent her child. My understanding of the Multnomah County local rules is that an abatement means that the entire case is halted. Neither party can bring a motion before the court, nor can the court hear argument or make any ruling on motions.

    It was also interesting to hear Mr. Bunch argue that proceeding with the divorce would violate Ms. Horman’s right against self-incrimination in the disappearance of her stepson. This is the first time that Terri Horman has publicly acknowledged any self-incrimination issues. In her motion for abatement, Ms. Horman, through counsel, argued that the ongoing investigation into Kyron Horman’s disappearance had made it “virtually impossible…to proceed with divorce-related issues in an effective an[d] orderly fashion[.]” Were Mr. Bunch to bring a motion to allow visitation, Mr. Horman would no doubt argue that Ms. Horman’s actions demonstrate that Ms Horman or someone she knew was responsible for Kyron Horman’s disappearance, and that her behavior since Kyron’s disappearance shows that she is unstable and poses a threat to their daughter’s safety.

http://blinkoncrime.com/2010/10/07/kyron-horman-missing-kaine-and-terri-horman-face-off-in-family-court/comment-page-3/#comments

 


Lea Conner says:
October 9, 2010 at 1:57 am

Lea Connor, Direct Response To Poster- Thanks again to Lea for her analysis and contribution to blinkoncrime.com following the hearing:

In my humble opinion, Mr. Bunch raised the issue of the December 26 9-1-1 call for a reason. Mr. Bunch would not raise such an issue unless it is helpful to his client.

It could be that Mr. Bunch was telling Laura Rackner that her client had better agree to modify the TRO and allow Ms. Horman some visitation, or Ms. Rackner’s client would be forced to explain himself — and the December 26 9-1-1 call — at hearing.

However, I just cannot see Mr. Bunch filing a motion for visitation. In order to have that motion heard, the court would need to remove the abatement, which would allow Ms. Rackner the ability to conduct discovery.

Any motion regarding visitation would also open the door to scrutiny of Ms. Horman’s parenting. Ms. Horman cannot seek visitation while continuing to dodge that issue. Mr. Horman will get to explore Ms. Horman’s care of Kyron, including the events of June 4, as it is wholly relevant to her ability to parent Kiara.

 


http://blinkoncrime.com/2010/10/07/kyron-horman-missing-kaine-and-terri-horman-face-off-in-family-court/#comments

[seemeatthebeach]

http://www.kgw.com/news/Terri-Horman-Seeks-Visitation--104610209-missing-kyron-portland.html

Terri Horman Seeks Visitation

by Kyle Iboshi

kgw.com

Posted on October 8, 2010 at 5:51 PM

PORTLAND, Ore. -- The stepmother of Kyron Horman wants supervised visitation of her 22-month old daughter, as she battles her estranged husband in a divorce case.

Terri Horman hasn't seen her daughter since her Kaine filed for divorce and a restraining order in late June, amid a search for his son Kyron, who disappeared from Skyline Elementary and remains missing. 

Crews planned to once again search Sauvie Island over the weekend for clues in the case. Details: Sauvie Kyron search

"Ms. Horman misses her child and would like to see her," said attorney Peter Bunch during a divorce hearing Thursday.

Terri's lawyer said he plans to ask the court to alter the current restraining order. It requires Terri Horman to stay away from her daughter.

A family law expert explains several factors are considered when determining visitation, but ultimately it boils down to what is best for the child.

"The issue is not going to be whether the child's mother, Terri deserves to see the child.  The issue is what does the child need and how can we be sure the child's needs are being met," said family law attorney Jody Stahancyk.

Kaine Horman has mixed feelings about visitation, "Depending on the circumstances, the answer could be yes or no."

He anticipates the visitation issue will be resolved at future hearings.

Complete coverage: Kyron Horman case



So it will require a court hearing

After reading the Family Law Attorney's (Lea Conner) comments on www.blinkoncrime I agree with you about requiring a court hearing.

That being said, I don't see Terri's attoney filing a motion before January 2011's court date, because in order for the court to hear the motion, the court must remove the abatement. (this is my interpretation, and could be totally wrong)

 Lea Conner says:
October 9, 2010 at 1:57 am

However, I just cannot see Mr. Bunch filing a motion for visitation. In order to have that motion heard, the court would need to remove the abatement, which would allow Ms. Rackner the ability to conduct discovery.

Any motion regarding visitation would also open the door to scrutiny of Ms. Horman’s parenting. Ms. Horman cannot seek visitation while continuing to dodge that issue. Mr. Horman will get to explore Ms. Horman’s care of Kyron, including the events of June 4, as it is wholly relevant to her ability to parent Kiara.

http://blinkoncrime.com/2010/10/07/kyron-horman-missing-kaine-and-terri-horman-face-off-in-family-court/#comments

[klaasend]

CLARIFICATION BY UBRMEL on this flyer:


Flyer by Private Party
Posted on doors at restrooms at Gilbert Boat Access area.** NOTE- THIS FLYER WAS PRINTED BY A "PRIVATE PARTY" I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE PRIVATE PARTY IS OR IF THE INFO IS CORRECT OR NOT, I JUST TOOK THE PHOTO.





Sign on Door
PRIVATE MADE POSTER/Posted on doors at restrooms at Gilbert Boat Access area.** NOTE- THIS FLYER WAS PRINTED BY A "PRIVATE PARTY" I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE PRIVATE PARTY IS OR IF THE INFO IS CORRECT OR NOT, I JUST TOOK THE PHOTO.

[Puzzler]

This is a post from Blink's site and a response from Blink to the post.  I'm not sure I understand what all this means, but it is interesting.

http://blinkoncrime.com/2010/10/07/kyron-horman-missing-kaine-and-terri-horman-face-off-in-family-court/#comments

S says:
October 9, 2010 at 3:31 am
“Le will be picking from the poisonous tree on the mfh issue as far as Terri is concerned.
B”

So if prosecution tries to show Terri’s motive to be involved in Kyron’s abduction was to hurt Kaine, they won’t be able to use the alleged mfh plot in court. I really think without that they are going to have a tough time with motive.

Before the tides completely shifted against Terri, several interviews were conducted of family and friends who said Terri loved Kyron and he loved her and that their relationship toward each other was loving. The only thing I have read about Terri treating Kyron badly was that gobbledy gook from H Oakes blog about her slapping him in front of teachers and parents at Skyline which I just don’t buy. There were a lot of people upset about him not being able to get out of bed without permission but I believe that can be explained away to be for his protection. Some kids want to get up and wander around after parents have gone to sleep and get hurt. We don’t really know the circumstances surrounding this and it could have been Kaine’s idea to enforce that he stay in bed until allowed to get up. Just saying.

I think as soon as Bunch and Houze get the discovery which Rackner is privy to they won’t have a very difficult time getting the RO thrown out and Terri Hormon will be allowed to see her daughter. The RO is based on Kaine’s belief that Terri tried to have him murdered. His belief is based on info from LE. LE’s info came from RS AKA ??? I would not be even mildly surprised if Houze (should he be allowed to get the goods on RS) could come up with a number of women in the Portland area who have been lunged at by RS or slapped, or hit, or raped or ripped off. Possibly if any of the Portland MSM would grow a couple and print a pic of Mr. Lawnmowerman, all kinds of women who wish they never met him would come out of the woodwork.

It’s like the bottom fell out of the June 26th basket and all the eggs were smashed in the dirt.

Yes, I know this is a tough realization for many, but it is what it is.

I think if you asked Staton today if they needed a body to prosecute THIS crime, realistically, he would have a different answer. I am truly praying the search teams out there this weekend find our little Ky.

Lastly, we found Mr. Sanchez, as did The Oregonian in about 5 minutes. Either he is being protected, detained or “other” for Bunch not to be able to subpoena him for Thursday hearing. I spoke to one witness early that was looking out the window while he and his staff were working on her lawn. He testified before the GJ, I would offer it is common practice NOT to subpoena folks who may something you don’t want them to.

That said, there is gulp in my throat the size of Texas, daily, in this case.
B

[seemeatthebeach]

So if prosecution tries to show Terri’s motive to be involved in Kyron’s abduction was to hurt Kaine, they won’t be able to use the alleged mfh plot in court. I really think without that they are going to have a tough time with motive.

Why wouldn't the prosecution be able to use the MFH plot in court because Terri's motive for making Kyron disappear was to hurt Kaine?

That makes no sense to me.......Am I missing something??

It's possible, Terri at some point decided having Kaine killed wasn't hurtful enough.....and knew getting rid of his son, Kyron, would be the ultimate revenge.
IMO

[Puzzler]

So if prosecution tries to show Terri’s motive to be involved in Kyron’s abduction was to hurt Kaine, they won’t be able to use the alleged mfh plot in court. I really think without that they are going to have a tough time with motive.

Why wouldn't the prosecution be able to use the MFH plot in court because Terri's motive for making Kyron disappear was to hurt Kaine?

That makes no sense to me.......Am I missing something??

It's possible, Terri at some point decided having Kaine killed wasn't hurtful enough.....and knew getting rid of his son, Kyron, would be the ultimate revenge.
IMO

I don't know. I'm trying to figure that out, too.  I get the impression from reading at Blink's and some of Blink's comments that Rackner could hurt the "criminal case".  Maybe what they're saying is that Kaine based his info on what LE told him, LE told Kaine what Rudy said, and could it be that they're saying there's no proof that what Rudy said was true? That Rackner is privy to certain information that once Bunch/Houze get access to it changes things?

It's confusing to me, too.

[seemeatthebeach]

If Terri's motive for her involvement in Kyron's disappearance/death was to hurt Kaine, all the more reason to prohibit Terri from having any contact with Kiara.

JMO

[seemeatthebeach]

So if prosecution tries to show Terri’s motive to be involved in Kyron’s abduction was to hurt Kaine, they won’t be able to use the alleged mfh plot in court. I really think without that they are going to have a tough time with motive.

Why wouldn't the prosecution be able to use the MFH plot in court because Terri's motive for making Kyron disappear was to hurt Kaine?

That makes no sense to me.......Am I missing something??

It's possible, Terri at some point decided having Kaine killed wasn't hurtful enough.....and knew getting rid of his son, Kyron, would be the ultimate revenge.
IMO

I don't know. I'm trying to figure that out, too.  I get the impression from reading at Blink's and some of Blink's comments that Rackner could hurt the "criminal case".  Maybe what they're saying is that Kaine based his info on what LE told him, LE told Kaine what Rudy said, and could it be that they're saying there's no proof that what Rudy said was true? That Rackner is privy to certain information that once Bunch/Houze get access to it changes things?

It's confusing to me, too.

Then why are attorney's pushing for (up to 2 years) the abatement.

I'm very confused too Puzzler.....I think because it's 2 criminal cases intertwined with the civil case.(divorce)


Where's Kyron???

[Puzzler]

So if prosecution tries to show Terri’s motive to be involved in Kyron’s abduction was to hurt Kaine, they won’t be able to use the alleged mfh plot in court. I really think without that they are going to have a tough time with motive.

Why wouldn't the prosecution be able to use the MFH plot in court because Terri's motive for making Kyron disappear was to hurt Kaine?

That makes no sense to me.......Am I missing something??

It's possible, Terri at some point decided having Kaine killed wasn't hurtful enough.....and knew getting rid of his son, Kyron, would be the ultimate revenge.
IMO

I don't know. I'm trying to figure that out, too.  I get the impression from reading at Blink's and some of Blink's comments that Rackner could hurt the "criminal case".  Maybe what they're saying is that Kaine based his info on what LE told him, LE told Kaine what Rudy said, and could it be that they're saying there's no proof that what Rudy said was true? That Rackner is privy to certain information that once Bunch/Houze get access to it changes things?

It's confusing to me, too.

Then why are attorney's pushing for (up to 2 years) the abatement.

I'm very confused too Puzzler.....I think because it's 2 criminal cases intertwined with the civil case.(divorce)


Where's Kyron???

I was wondering earlier about the "up to two years". 

Maybe the attorneys assumed the judge wouldn't give two years up front, but asked for it in case whatever time the Judge did give (in this instance until January) came and the DA still
had not filed any charges on anyone in Kyron's case, then the attorneys would have an opportunity to have the Judge extend his time frame.

[Puzzler]

Yes, a lot of the confusing part is that there is a civil case paralleling a criminal investigation.
This is a very unusual case.  Very complex because of the parallel. 

What a mess!   

[fatcatlurker]

KOIN link to suit money doc.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/c/0/9/c09a8c35-dbaa-4b10-860f-4487d00f3637/Memo_suitmoney.pdf

So basically she gets her 350K that is Not a Gift and Not a Marriage Asset and now she is asking him to pay all court costs for the divorce as well?  hmmmm Tricky Tricky.

[Monkey King]

Link to Memo for Abatement document:

http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/0/9/e/09ed8122-16eb-4a52-987c-3a139c024bcd/memo_abatement.pdf

Thank you Puzzler for posting links to these documents.

Bunch presented very good arguments and backed them up with case law.

He appears to be a very good attorney.

[no rose colored glasses]

So if prosecution tries to show Terri’s motive to be involved in Kyron’s abduction was to hurt Kaine, they won’t be able to use the alleged mfh plot in court. I really think without that they are going to have a tough time with motive.

Why wouldn't the prosecution be able to use the MFH plot in court because Terri's motive for making Kyron disappear was to hurt Kaine?

That makes no sense to me.......Am I missing something??

It's possible, Terri at some point decided having Kaine killed wasn't hurtful enough.....and knew getting rid of his son, Kyron, would be the ultimate revenge.
IMO

I'm trying to grasp the above post brought over from Blinks but I don't understand.  Le will be picking from the poisonous tree on the mfh issue as far as Terri is concerned.    what does that mean?

[fatcatlurker]

I think it was a bluff on both sides....none of it involving the divorce.

Kaine tried to get Terri to talk - no 5th

Terri's attorney's tried to get the MFH on the table in the civil case so it could not be used in the possible future criminal case.

Neither won IMO.  Stalemate or Checkmate which ever you like.  Or I could just be confused as He77!  ha ha ha!  JMO.

[Puzzler]

KOIN link to suit money doc.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/c/0/9/c09a8c35-dbaa-4b10-860f-4487d00f3637/Memo_suitmoney.pdf

So basically she gets her 350K that is Not a Gift and Not a Marriage Asset and now she is asking him to pay all court costs for the divorce as well?  hmmmm Tricky Tricky.

Her attorneys said $350K number is "exaggerated".  So I don't think she got $350K.  I think she was messing around with Michael Cook on the text message.  She didn't say she paid $350K.  I believe her parents refinanced their home and paid a retainer fee to Houze.  I believe that's why we heard Terr's dad was at the court house the other day, ready to testify in the second hearing (the one about the $350K).  But, since the Judge ruled on abatement until January, then the $350K hearing could not be heard at that time...it's abated until January.

I also think that we'll find out eventually that Terri's parents paid the retainer "directly" to Houze; therefore, Terri never received the money herself.

[no rose colored glasses]

I think it was a bluff on both sides....none of it involving the divorce.

Kaine tried to get Terri to talk - no 5th

Terri's attorney's tried to get the MFH on the table in the civil case so it could not be used in the possible future criminal case.

Neither won IMO.  Stalemate or Checkmate which ever you like.  Or I could just be confused as He77!  ha ha ha!  JMO.

I think you are right, or both of us are confused as He77 

[Puzzler]

From Wikipedia:

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is as well.

Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[2] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The discovery of a witness is not evidence in itself because the witness is attenuated by separate interviews, in-court testimony and his or her own statements.

The doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:

it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source;
it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
the search warrant not based on probable cause was executed by government agents in good faith.
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine stems from the 1920 case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States.[3]

[no rose colored glasses]

Puzzler I'm embarrassed to say that all I could think about was Adam and Eve, I really need to stop reading over here  Thank-you for that definition, I never heard of that before.

[Puzzler]

Puzzler I'm embarrassed to say that all I could think about was Adam and Eve, I really need to stop reading over here  Thank-you for that definition, I never heard of that before.

No Rose - YW

[Puzzler]

What do you all think about this comment of Blink's snipped from post #363:

I spoke to one witness early that was looking out the window while he and his staff were working on her lawn. He testified before the GJ, I would offer it is common practice NOT to subpoena folks who may something you don’t want them to.


To me is sounds like the witness testified before the GJ and said something that the DA didn't know about or would not have called this witness if the DA knew what was going to be said...
in other words - a surprise of some sort.