HOLD THE PHONE
In what can only be considered the latest bombshell development in the case of missing Portland boy, 7 year old Kyron Horman, blinkoncrime.com has discovered that the recent sexually graphic text messages or sexts, allegedly exchanged between Terri Horman and mutual friend Michael Cook, may have been altered. Definitely, alter-able.
Blinkoncrime.com has confirmed that the phone number which Kaine hand-wrote on the originally sealed emergency restraining order dated June 28, 2010, matches the cell phone number he also alleges, through his attorney Laura Rackner, was used by Michael Cook to RECEIVE the “sext” messages in question.
What’s the issue?
Kaine Horman owns the phone and the account it is registered to, and unless the allegation is that Terri Horman, using her own phone as purported by Kaine, is herself posing as Michael Cook and sexting herself, which would seem like a physical impossibility given some of her *glamour shots*, we have a serious problem.
In Kaine’s own handwriting on the June 28th Restraining Order, he pens that is an alternative number for Terri Horman.
In the contempt order filed by Kaine Horman on July 12, Ms. Rackner states that she has personally seen the “work phone” records of Michael Cook, and goes on to say “a search” of his cell phone reflected that he took snapshots on June 28th of the earlier served restraining order, which had been sealed, and was the basis for the contempt motion in the first place. He took pictures of sealed documents on the phone belonging to the other person bound by the same order prohibiting Terri Horman from showing anyone. As there are no texts on the work number until July, it is the only logical conclusion.
I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that at some point it occurred to someone that using good faith information in your affidavit, which when not alerting the court that your client has complete ownership and access to the data on the phone account in question, can look like bad faith in a nano-second, thus the withdrawal.
However, not everyone is on the same the playbill because the 21 pages of texts, which were released in PDF format, and do not include any numbers for Terri Horman herself, were supplied in an electronically redacted format; which again indicates this was not an original file.
It was not until the unredacted pdf’s became available October 26th and we converted them to HTML files could we see that based on the file format, it is clear these records came from the account owners and were not subpoenaed from the carrier. Original files, also provided to the respondent, are the requirement of the court. We all know texts can be sent from our phone online accounts, and from our phones directly; I think I even have voice command to text widget thingie.
Anyone that had access to the account, which is registered to Kaine Horman, could clone, spoof, or manipulate those messages, period. That aside, let’s consider the possibility that Terri Horman HAD implicated herself even slightly in any messages on phones that may be utilized to illicit information by a woman who demonstrated her complete knowledge that she understood what expectation of privacy parameters she was under the impression she was operating under, and engaging in, with the “textee”.
Terri Horman was represented by counsel, it would not be difficult for Stephen Houze allege that Kaine Horman was in constant contact with MCSO, had already been provided case sensitive information by them, and as such, was acting as an agent in soliciting the text messages. You see where I am going with this?
The fruit of that poisonous tree is more like the fruit of the poisonous orchard.
The implications of this scenario are abysmal. While I completely understand the desperation of a Father wanting to locate his child, since I have yet to really see anywhere Cook attempts to engage Terrri Horman about Kyron’s whereabouts at any time; I do not get the point of the exercise.
Ms. Rackner is a first rate “Super Lawyer”, but she is not above the burden of her duty to insure that what is being provided to her as a “good faith basis” is just that.
Does this information make Terri Horman any less vulgarly inappropriate at best? Hell to the No.
While it is true on the surface because of this information one will be hard pressed to prove it was definitely Terri Horman who sent the electronic ipecac none of us will soon forget, her attorneys have not denied it was her, nor do I expect them to, at least not until they read this.
What it does, yet again, is potentially compromise the criminal case involving the disappearance of Desiree Young and Kaine Horman’s son Kyron.
This afternoon, blinkoncrime.com contributing editor and Legal Analyst, Lea Conner weighed in:
Kaine Horman claims that law enforcement provided the texts records to him, but that does not mean that the records came from the cell phone provider, nor does it mean that the conversations involve Michael Cook or Terri Horman.
In fact, there are indications that the text message transcripts filled by Mr. Horman are not as they appear. At least one of the phones purported to belong to “Michael Cook” is registered to Kaine Horman.
Just as important, none of these records indicate any information about the texts Mr. Horman alleges were sent by his wife. Mr. Horman does not list any cell phone number, not one message ID, not one cell record that indicates the identity of other party to the conversation let alone indicating Ms. Horman as the other party to the text message “conversations.” In the case of the phone with the “503″ prefix (503-XXX-XX76), Mr. Horman is the registered owner of the phone that was purportedly sending texts as “Michael Cook.”
More bizarre, Mr. Horman listed this number as belonging to Terri Horman in his application for a temporary restraining order. Was this a slip on the part of Mr. Horman? Mr. Horman claimed in a motion for remedial contempt that Ms. Horman showed a copy of the restraining order to Mr. Cook and allowed him to photograph the document.
Given that the phone Mr. Horman is the registered owner of the phone he purports was used by “Michael Cook,” it begs the question as to whether Ms. Horman ever allowed Mr. Cook access to the sealed restraining order. As a party to the action, Mr. Horman had the very same sealed documents. Mr. Horman, through Counsel Laura Rackner, claimed to have reviewed Mr. Cook’s “work cell phone records.”
It is not clear if the documents Ms. Rackner referenced as Mr. Cook’s “work” cell records are, in fact, for the phone registered to Mr. Horman. If the sealed documents referenced in Mr. Horman’s contempt motion were photographed with the phone registered to Mr Horman — the same phone that Mr. Horman claims was used by Mr. Cook — it might help explain why Mr. Horman withdrew his contempt motion.
Had he gone forward with the motion, he might have had to explain how it was the documents allegedly photographed by Mr. Cook were the same documents that he had in his possession, and that the phone used to photograph sealed court documents was registered to him, not Mr. Cook.
The records for the phone with a “971″ prefix (971-XXX-XX63) are unlisted. This phone also purported to send texts as “Michael Cook.” Due to the unavailability of any registration for this phone, it is impossible to tell to whom the phone belongs, or who was actually sending texts from this phone. The unredacted copy of the cell phone records filed on October 25, 2010, only identifies one caller on each set of cell phone records. This means that the records came from the phone, not the cell provider. Text records on pages 1 through 12 of Exhibit 1 are from (503) XXX-XX76 (“Cell Phone A”). These pages allegedly represent text messages sent between 10:17 pm on June 30, 2010 through 7:19 pm on July 1, 2010.
In separate court documents, “Michael Cook” is identified as the sender of text messages and the recipient of text messages is identified as “Terri Horman.” Cell Phone A is a Cingular/AT&T cell phone registered to Kaine Horman. It is also a phone number listed by Mr. Horman in his restraining order application as a phone number for Ms. Horman.
Pages 1 through 12 of Exhibit 1 does not list any phone number for the portion of the conversation attributed to Ms. Horman, only that the texts listed were received by (503) XXX-XX76. Text records on pages 13 through 17 of Exhibit 1 are from (971) XXX-XX63 (“Cell Phone B”).
These pages allegedly represent text messages sent between 6:49 pm on July 4, 2010 through 8:30 am on July 6, 2010. The bottom of page 17 has a partial text message sent on July 6, 2010, which purports to be sent after 8:30 am. Cell Phone B is an unlisted cell phone with AT&T (formerly Cingular).
In separate court documents, “Michael Cook” is identified as the sender of text messages and the recipient of text messages is identified as “Terri Horman.” Pages 13 through 17 of Exhibit 1 does not list any phone number for the portion of the text messages attributed to Ms. Horman, only that the texts listed were received by (971) XXX-XX63. All texts in Exhibit 2 are from Cell phone A, and allegedly represent text messages sent between 2:29 pm on July 3, 2010 through 9:40 am on July 4, 2010.
Exhibit 2 does not list any phone number for the portion of the text messages attributed to Ms. Horman, only that the texts listed were received by (503) XXX-XX76. All texts in Exhibit 3 are from Cell phone B, and allegedly represent text messages sent between 8:44 pm on July 6, 2010 through 8:41 am am on July 7, 2010. The top of page 1 of this exhibit has part of an undated message from 8:41 am., possibly on July 6, 2010, that states “I understand. I’m upset about kitty. I didn’t do [sic]”
Exhibit 3 does not list any phone number for the portion of the text messages attributed to Ms. Horman, only that the texts listed were received by (971) XXX-XX63. Surely investigators working on this case must know that the cell records filed by Mr. Horman as coming from Michael Cook’s phone were not from Mr. Cook’s phone, but from a phone registered in his own name.
Someone in law enforcement must have noticed that the number Mr. Horman claims belong to Michael Cook is also the number he claimed belonged to his wife in his TRO application. Mr. Horman signed his application for temporary restraining order on Monday June 28, 2010, prior to its filing at 4:39 pm that afternoon.
This was two days after the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office conducted its failed sting operation at the Horman residence on Saturday June 26, 2010. MCSO was unable to confirm the murder-for-hire plot that had been alleged by the landscaper. As a result, MCSO was not able to arrest Ms. Horman.
As such, why did law enforcement then give the green light to Mr. Horman to obtain a restraining order on the basis that his wife had hired to hire a hit man? Or did Mr. Horman act unilaterally without the endorsement of law enforcement? Surely Mr. Horman must have known that law enforcement could not verify the landscaper’s story, yet he went ahead and filed a restraining order based on the very allegations that law enforcement could not verify. So why did he sign his name to allegations that he knew were not true?
The text messages don’t check out. The murder for hire allegations don’t check out. The only common thread here is a man whose son disappeared on June 4, 2010. As tragic and anguishing as Mr. Horman’s circumstances may be, that does not excuse misrepresenting information to the court.
Mr. Horman cannot claim that the phone registered in his name is Michael Cook’s work cell phone, nor can he claim that the phone allegedly used by Michael Cook was used by Ms. Horman. When Sheriff Dan Staton talked about knowing things that might surprise people, could he have been talking about cell phone records? Maybe Stephen Houze and Peter Bunch will force the sheriff to reveal its source for the records.
Although the answer would not bring Kyron home, it might at least alleviate some of the blame heaped on Ms. Horman, as unpopular as that may be.
Lea Conner, contributing editor, blinkoncrime.com
Madeline Tanner, copy and contributing editor, blinkoncrime.com