Kyron Horman Case: Terri Horman Sexts Sent To Kaine Horman’s Phone…. WHAT?
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
Related Posts
Related Posts:
6,473 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
@Blink
I think I like my job better than yours
How do you do yours with out going crazy
Thanks for all your efforts daily
Portland looks bad but most of us are just plain
people trying to do our best in hard times
Like everywhere else
I wish we could locate Kyron
I hope Feb really brings a break in this case
Not another disappointment
I can not see why anyone wants to surf the
Web to look at abused children
Sick
@Riverpearl
Hope you are still around someplace
I enjoyed your posts
As time goes on I kind of think who ever took
Kyron went to the airport and left on a private
plane
So I am happy Android is going get his pic
out worldwide
Just when I think I’m able to write a coherent response to the DOD story and the OR Supreme court ruling, my post turns into a book and I have to back away.
If this were my world folks would be afraid of ever getting caught harming a child or knowingly placing a child with someone who intends to do them harm.
Yes, we have rights. I have the right to know that my streets are safe for children, to the utmost extent they can be. There should be no second offense for child rape, inappropriate touching, beating (and by beat, I mean placing that child in real danger of permanent physical damage), or recording/viewing images of said harm to babies. May the punishment be designed to clean our streets of this evil. Period.
The lines can be hashed out by committees, voted on by the tax paying public, and leave politicians out of it because they are inept and weak, for the most part, in their lust for power and prestige. While they’re rubbing elbows with corporate donors, pledging to support that new bridge for their builder buddies, and taking weeklong cruises and calling them ‘meetings’ so our tax dollars will pay for them, children are not being protected in a way that makes sense.
Yup, I’m ticked. May not be making perfect sense here, balancing reality with what ‘should’ be is difficult for an idealist. Our system has never been perfect but when the raping of our children becomes a national past time, even in our own Pentagon, then it’s time for an overhaul. Where was the cry of the politicians when the DOD story was revealed? Those voted into office to represent the voters remained silent.
I have felt that Kyron’s story would in some way change the way we as a society protect and percieve threats to our children. I hope beyond words that this is true.
@Amy Sister
wonderful post thank you
From Mockingbirdsings’ reference:
“from the kgw.com article – basically the same on other sites too:
SALEM — The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled in two cases that people who surf the Internet for child pornography haven’t violated a law against encouraging sexual abuse of children — so long as they haven’t paid for, downloaded or shared the porn.”
What chaps me about this decision is something that has been confirmed to me many times when trying to protect commercial images on a website I manage.
***The act of VIEWING an image on your computer, from the internet, –by definition– means that you have downloaded it to your computer. The files (images) are all there in your ‘temporary’ folder, but they stay there until you delete them.***
I’m hardly a rocket surgeon, so it’s hard to believe this argument was not presented to the Supreme freakin’ Court.
I’ll have to read further to see how this decision was arrived at, but the top of the fold headline from today’s Oregonian:
Ruling: Child porn OK to view
““Looking for something on the Internet is like walking into a museum to look at pictures — the pictures are where the person expected them to be, and he can look at them, but that does not in any sense give him possession of them,” Justice Michael Gillette wrote.”"
That is just factually wrong, and I’m surprised it’s allowed to be wrong so far up the judicial food chain.
Jared Harrell.
August 9, 2009 two roomates discover child porn on his computer and on discs. They turn the computer and discs over to LE on August 10, 2009. Jared is known to have photographed one 3 year old girl while nude and fully exposed. These images are included in what is given to LE. The toddler child is known to the roomates.
On February 24, 2010 an arrest warrant is finally issued for Jared Harrell. During the seven month investigation Jared abducted, raped, and murdered 7 year old Somer Thompsen while she was walking home from school. Her body was found in a Georgia landfill.
Is their a logical explanation why it took LE 7 months to arrest the POS and get him off our streets?
See how there is something exceedingly wrong with our approach to these less than humans? We should aggressively, swiftly, and with full reproach, go after them. Jared should have been in custody in a matter of weeks.
The link I submitted was old. Here is the link to last nights story. Scroll down to:
PENTAGON CHILD PORN INVESTIGATION, 1,700 potential suspects not checked out: Senator Chuck Grassley (R) Iowa
http://www.allthingsandersoncooper.com/
Idahogal, Many thanks, but these are “Little Boy Lost” 08/03/10
Cannot find “Searching for Kyron” 11/12/10.
37.Idahogal says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:33 am
@Erose – Try this link, it goes directly to the videos Parts 1-4:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38530051#38530051
http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/local/story/Kroger-to-propose-legislation-to-fix-Oregons/Kq0KVvYz00q1RGrAqWWvqg.cspx
Attorney General John Kroger said Friday he would draft legislation to fix Oregon’s possession of child pornography law in response to an Oregon Supreme Court ruling.
“It is vitally important that we have every law enforcement tool available to fight child pornography,” Kroger said in a press release.
A divided Oregon Supreme Court overturned two child pornography convictions on Jan. 6, ruling that the crime of Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse requires proof that the defendants intended to download child pornography. The court ruled that the defendants had viewed the pornography, but failed to prove that they intended to download it.
Chief Justice Paul DeMuniz, in a concurring opinion, suggested that the Legislature could clarify that they intended to cover the evidence of child pornography involved in the two cases.
Kroger will propose legislation that clarifies the Legislature’s intent that Encouraging Child Sexual Abuse includes the type of evidence involved in the two court cases.
Does someone need the digits of the Federal prosecutor? I could help them out.
B
Blink, will you educate me on fed vs. state?
Are you suggesting this should go to the US Supreme Court? Or are you saying there are Federal Laws in place to protect these children? If the latter is true then at what point are those investigated tried in the federal courts?
Wouldn’t the laws be more strictly enforced and upheld in the courts if state and federal were on the same page?
It may not be a bad thing that we’re forced to reveiw our standing with regard to child rape and pornography. I only hope no criminal falls through the cracks during the revamping and that in the end the laws become far more strict with regards to how the vermin are investigated, arrested, tried, and punished. Then, studied.
31.GraceintheHills says:
January 7, 2011 at 1:07 am
************************************
50.evie says:
January 7, 2011 at 11:55 am
********************************************
Great big thank you to everyone who dug in and found the correct
information on this guy.
We are awesome here on this site, aren’t we???;)
OT
This is disgusting and yet seems to be fitting in right along with the other information we are learning about child porn and etc.
Notice the ex- husband was sentenced to 43 yrs in prison.
Oregon woman sentenced in dog sex case
http://www.kgw.com/news/Oregon-Jefferson-sentenced-in-animal-sex-case-113075374.html
@49. Jden. It has always bothered me volunteers became acquainted w/school storage & trash areas this way. To reassure you, I recognized this denomination as my former church’s (Ours joined maybe 25 yrs ago about when it was founded), and it is to the right of Karl Rove. D Quayle was typical of our members. Steeped in Swiss/dutch Reformed theology. Straight arrows. However, a fair number of unmarried older singles here, of whom JW and DDS are “typey.”. If a perp was associated with Sunset, likely a stray. Not typical of this denom to volunteer in public schools (tho the environment is an OK cause now), and probably happened due to pastor’s 3 in the school.
Wayup, You are probably right. Left by the back door, yes possibly, but don’t you think that if in he was incapacitated there would be some evidence?
In regards to a reenactment we are on the same page. I wanted them to do that day one. Not only could they see what scenarios work and do not, but it would be interesting to see where the perp would “place” themselves.
9.Wayupnorth says:
January 6, 2011 at 7:30 pm
enumclawrose says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:27 pm
“How did ANYONE remove a child from a public school and not leave a trace?
Without a trace, leads me to believe he walked out of the school.”
Maybe because he was carried out a back door into a truck parked in the rear lot of the school, where other people would not be.
re: http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/local/story/Kroger-to-propose-legislation-to-fix-Oregons/Kq0KVvYz00q1RGrAqWWvqg.cspx
——————-
A county sheriff once observed to me that the most disgusting and unforgivable crimes have a market, just like a business.
“Eliminate the market, you eliminate the crime as much as possible.”
An adult who seeks and chooses to view child pornography is a diseased human and I believe is not fixable.
It’s always been my opinion that upon a first offense — and that include “just looking” — you separate that adult from the rest of society, possibly forever.
As unpleasant a thought that is, adult males (mostly, it’s males) who need to see child porn are a clinical study for us. We need to figure them out and from that, turn the brain of a man who needs to see that material into a source of prevention for our society to employ.
Doing so could possibly reveal, through research, a cure for the pedophile that involves something as simple as medication. Do we avoid that possibility by only imprisoning these men and then eventually releasing them with ankle bracelets and sex offender registries? The way we handle pedophiles now, after they serve time, is not working.
Everyone here,
Glad there are some of us still left.
Amy & Justice say it all.
______________________________________________________________________
7.Amy’s Sister says:
January 7, 2011 at 2:14 pm
snips>
Just when I think I’m able to write a coherent response to the DOD story and the OR Supreme court ruling, my post turns into a book and I have to back away.
May the punishment be designed to clean our streets of this evil. Period.
I have felt that Kyron’s story would in some way change the way we as a society protect and percieve threats to our children. I hope beyond words that this is true.
______________________________________________________________________
43.justice23 says:
January 7, 2011 at 10:55 am
enumclawrose says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:33 pm
BTW, no mentioning of the child exploitation going on within DOD, just the risk to national security. Where have the priorities gone?
———————————————————–
snip>
I am basically convinced now more than ever that when it comes to the protection/safety of our children, the only people we can truly trust is ourselves.
Enumclawrose, I’ve been hoping to view Dateline Searching for Kyron also. The MSNBC site went from posting teasers to now, nothing at all. You haven’t lost it, it’s just not there. I’ve also tried YouTube without success, can’t say it’s not there for sure due to the vast amount of Kyron related videos and how the posters title them.
Enumclawrose – looked again and got 1 video that was posted on the MSNBC site as a web only item related to Searching for Kyron. It’s video of Terri in the 2005 Emerald Cup Bodybuilding competition.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40157577
I don’t understand our legal system. How can 2 women get 2 life sentences for an $11 armed robbery but a grandmother can abuse her grandson for years and end up with 35 months http://www.katu.com/news/local/113048794.html.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013809294_sisters31.html
Honestly, who do we explain this??
Sorry, ‘how do we explain this.’
I felt compelled to review the two SF photos, with KyH and without.
In the photo with KyH, notice his left side tee-shirt (your right) is completely straight vertically. Reconstructionists, would a tee-shirt fall like that, waved on one side and not the other? If he indeed was holding (the missing arm) back behind, then it would be almost impossible for that tee-shirt to be in a straight line as it would be pulled at some spot. Try it on yourself.
Now compare his display to the others. If KyH made that project all except for the laminating (as TmH stated), he has superior artistic, spacing and penmanship skills for his age.
Back to the shot with KyH, it appears to me as if KyH was placed in the photo and the RETF picture was placed again ontop of the original photo so that the RETF picture could be clearly seen for some reason, unobstructed by the flash. The flash appears to be behind the RETF picture here, but in front of the picture below. The photos are almost the same angle, top one closer in.
One important detail is that the bottom photo is opened up wide, yet the top photo seems to have been closed just enough to reveal the man & girl in the background. Why?
Now, is there a reason why someone would want to (just barely) catch one or both of these two (background) men and put them on FB online as attendees of the SF while KyH was there?
The top one (with KyH) could have been one that was caught while the man in the background was unaware (his head is hidden) and someone thought that this photo should have KyH picture in there as well.
Has anyone looked through all of TmH pictures to see if this particular KyH shot is a picture that might have been taken at another time?
Is anyone good at scale? Does KyH look the proper scale for that picture? He looks quite a bit larger than the little girl in the background, to me. Typical shoeboxes are 11.5″-15″ in length. If we compare the shoebox to the white paper on the right (possibly standard 8×11 paper), the shoebox is larger in size.
My adult head measures 7″ wide, 8.5″ high.
In this picture, KyH’s head is approx. 2/8″ smaller vertically than the shoebox is wide, which means his child-sized head would have to measure 8.5″-12″ vertically. Possible? Further, can we assume the floor tiles are 12×12″? Looks that way as compared to the exhibits. Compare the floor tiles to KyH’s head.
What would the motive be to altering these photographs before uploading to FB?
http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2010/06/22/kyron-horman-update-man-spotted-in-photo-from-stepmoms-facebook-page/
sjso says:
January 7, 2011 at 1:16 am
The more I read about Oregon.. ..Portland = Pornland.. Pretty sick stuff going on in that state.
————————–
There are nearly 4,000,000 residents living in Oregon. As in every other state, the vast majority of Oregonians are wonderful, giving, hard-working, compassionate people. Portland is friendly, beautiful, wonderful place to call home and raise a family.
Regarding the Pastor I mentioned early this morning. Thank you for Neighbor and Astaria for clarifying for me. One other question though…what is going on at Sunset? Pastor has been on leave, possibly not coming back – to be decided by Commission?
While I thought I would never post here again — I must.
I realize I have not always had nice things to say about Oregon — and that likely pissed some people off. HOWEVER, I really do see that there MUST NOW be some sort of recognition about what the heck I have been saying all along.
When I read about the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision, I was NOT surprised. I am sorry that many of your are. Am I nonetheless disgusted? Quite the contrary. I am one of those who has been jumping up and down about how things REALLY ARE HERE — but yet met with much discontent. That is not my fault nor problem.
I do not hold any of you in true ill-regard. But I do hope this serves as a huge lesson for future relations of any kind. Not everyone is full of it.
Happy New Year.
Mother Hen,
Nice to see you. I am not sure how the Oregon Supreme Court decision is about “you”, but I completely agree that if I were a resident, I would be more up in arms, than this Jersey girl, “up in here”.
B
evie says:
January 7, 2011 at 3:21 pm
re downloading, etc.
I understand what everyone is saying about downloading. I think there are 2 big problems (at least). One is that training for judges, juries, legislators, and others has not kept up with reality in the area of internet crime. Internet crimes seem to be harder for people to grasp and evaluate in some (though probably not too many) cases – not the end result which we know is wrong, but the methods and how to understand them.
The second problem is that there are cases where a person may not be guilty but could still be prosecuted. Some years ago I worked in a high school in a part of town where few kids could afford computers. We provided labs and some of us let students use computers in the office area that were set up for them to apply to colleges and for scholarships. Every student signed a pledge concerning their internet use, but we also made a point to walk around, talk to them, etc., so we knew what they were working on. One day one of the people in my office area found porn (adult, not child) on one of the computers. She was horrified and immediately called the security person most knowledgeable about how to make it “go away” and who was assigned to report on computer issues.
The security person and I (who had some knowledge of computers also) began an investigation and an attempt to track the history and see what time this had been going on since we had students sign in and out. Nobody was well trained in how to handle this then, at least among school district employees. We got stuck in one of those circular pop up things and could not get out. As soon as you deleted something, more porn sites would pop up and take its place. The district was supposed to have some (technology) guards against that sort of thing, but obviously they didn’t work. We tried all the standard procedures the security person knew, while trying to not look at the screen any more than we had to, and finally were so frustrated we talked about searching for a hammer. We ended up removing the computer, locking it in the safe, and calling for more professional help the next day. (It wasn’t my call, I was just assisting. Because of the subject matter, the standard was to have 2 people investigate – in this case, both women.)
The time period we found for the computer use was after the regular school day and was suspected to most likely be a particular janitor on the evening shift, but many people were in the building until late hours (including me at really busy times of the year), so there was no proof. I did hear that it happened again in another part of the building and he was (coincidentally?) transferred later (also a common practice then).
I have often thought, though, about what might have happened if the adult who found it on her computer had not been the first to see it, but perhaps a student saw it instead and thought she was responsible. What if someone had walked in just as it appeared? Would everyone have believed her? It was very late in the day – what if she waited to report it until the next morning?
Maybe it’s an old story and off topic, but it’s the same school district.
Let me make this even more confusing-
Regardless of the Oregon ruling, the Federal Statute takes precedence anyway, so wth?
B
Does someone need the digits of the Federal prosecutor? I could help them out.
B
—————————
Blink – I am not an attorney, but thinking about your comments, I looked at the federal laws and compared them to Oregon’s law. I also looked at this site:
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide_porn.html
Citizen’s Guide to United States Federal Child Exploitation Laws
“Federal prosecutors enforce the laws that make it a crime to possess, receive, distribute or produce child pornography in a way that affects interstate or foreign commerce. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252, 2252A. Thus, federal jurisdiction is implicated when the visual image is transported across state lines, or when the visual image was produced using materials that were transported across state lines. It is important to note that this set of requirements covers transporting pornographic materials depicting children electronically by computer. For example, it is illegal under federal law to send an email containing child pornography to a person in another state. It is also illegal to send an email containing child pornography to a person in the same state if the computer server for the email is located in a different state. Given the complex configuration of the Internet, this will almost always be the case. Not surprisingly, it is illegal to download child pornography from an Internet web site. Even in cases where the image itself has not traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, federal law may still be violated if the materials used to create the image – - such as the CD Rom on which the child pornography was stored, or the film with which child pornography was created – - traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. Id. While federal courts may interpret these situations differently depending upon the jurisdiction, the federal government has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute offenders in such situations. Mailing child pornography via the United States Postal Service is automatically a federal offense, even if material is mailed to someone in the same state. Moreover, people possessing, receiving, distributing or producing child pornography can be prosecuted under state laws in addition to, or instead of, federal law.”
“People who sell or purchase children intending or knowing that the child will be involved with any sexual activity are also prosecuted under federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251A. Federal prosecutors have legal authority to prosecute people who buy and sell children for pornographic or sexual activity when the child being sold or transferred must be transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or the offer to sell or purchase the child is communicated or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including computer or United States mails. Where this interstate conduct does not occur, state and local law enforcement authorities can prosecute this reprehensible conduct.”
—————————–
I did not quote any Oregon law here, but some may find the following federal wording interesting to consider:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252—-000-.html
United States Code 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography
(excerpt)
(5) either—
(A) in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or on any land or building owned by, leased to, or otherwise used by or under the control of the United States Government, or in the Indian country (as defined in section 1151), knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography; or
(B) knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography that has been mailed, or shipped or transported using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or that was produced using materials that have been mailed, or shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;
(d) Affirmative Defense. — It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (a)(5) that the defendant—
(1) possessed less than three images of child pornography; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any image or copy thereof—
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such image.
————————————-
The word “knowingly” is such a key word. And the “Affirmative Defense” makes me think about certain people we have been following. Whether it’s child porn or any other criminal activity, you have “knowingly” and then you have what it takes to defend yourself spelled out.
Who in our whole list of suspects has acted “promptly and in good faith,” taken “reasonable steps”, and “reported” what they know?
I don’t want to disillusion anyone about the value of “fixing” Oregon’s laws here, or about the value of already having a more encompassing federal law. BUT, if you read the OR Supreme Court ruling, you’ll realize that the problem is in getting a conviction. That sticks.
The same arguments used by the 2 OR defense attys can be used at the federal level.
In both of these OR cases, these defendants were up to something more than viewing images on the screen. Those crimes are more easily pursued in court, assuming you have evidence.
I hope OR will change their laws. But, in reality, having a law in place does not equate to a conviction that will stick. Eventually not only the prosecutors know that, but LE does as well. And LE is so short-handed that they have to set priorities for what they go after. They don’t publish that or make public statements about it. They do develop informal practices. They have to. Should I MOO here?
With these 2 OR cases, the viewing on screen would’ve been icing on the cake–not the cake itself. None of us should rely on hard-to-enforce laws to prevent child exploitation.
@Amy’s Sister:
About Jared Harrell. Most states are so backed up that the lag time after LE was given his computer and discs by his roommates to actual examination of that evidence is typical. Again, because of resource constraints.
But there is hope. A lot of federal money has come available to states for their crime labs, especially in the area of child exploitation. Last year my home state’s Bureau of Investigation (FBI-equivalent at state level) sought and obtained fed money by renaming one of their units to include the words “Child Exploitation”. By doing so, they were able to expand that unit’s staff from 3 to 10. And to reduce their estimated lag time for examining digital forensic evidence from NINE months to THREE months. And, that’s quite an accomplishment.
And, that’s pretty typical for states. And, in Jared’s case LE had sent his computer to the state crime lab. That’s why it took so long to know what was on his computer.
On the SM site, one post has a screenshot (link below) of KH’s response to TH’s October 29th response to his initial accusations against her concerning visitation:
http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo242/Brandi-Monkey/Kyron/Image242.png
From that screenshot, the discussion on SM continued concerning TH being a risk to her daughter, as claimed by KH.
But there is one statement in KH’s reply to TH that is as follows:
“(c) the horrific situation that now exists regarding Kyron’s location, and (d) (snip)…”
Does this statement clearly suggest that Kyron’s location (and fate) is currently known?
divorce hearing March 31
http://www.kptv.com/news/26408010/detail.html
Looks like the divorce + RO proceedings have been rescheduled for March 31st.
Hopefully we’ll hear something new in the criminal investigation before then.
God Bless LE and give them strength, courage, and knowledge to find sweet Kyron.
Prayers for Kyron, Kaine, Desiree, and Tony.
Where are you little man?
From KPTV today:
Horman Divorce Hearing Scheduled For March
POSTED: 7:57 pm PST January 7, 2011
UPDATED: 6:04 am PST January 8, 2011
PORTLAND, Ore. — A motions hearing has been scheduled for March 31 as part of restraining order and divorce proceedings between Kaine and Terri Horman.
A hearing had been scheduled for Thursday morning, but was canceled.
http://www.kptv.com/news/26408010/detail.html
6.evie says:
January 7, 2011 at 3:21 pm
“…What chaps me about this decision is something that has been confirmed to me many times when trying to protect commercial images on a website I manage.
***The act of VIEWING an image on your computer, from the internet, –by definition– means that you have downloaded it to your computer. The files (images) are all there in your ‘temporary’ folder, but they stay there until you delete them.***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would appear that some of the Oregon Supreme Court justices are not that computer savvy. I mean how many people have child porn “pop ups” appear on their computers without having previously visited those types of sites? Also, I just don’t understand how they can say that viewing child pornography alone is not a crime. IMO, each time a pornographic image of a child is viewed, the viewer is contributing to the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.
From a legal perspective, I understand the decision.
Basically, it is about not being able to assign “intent”.
Here is the problem, your exactly right, if a child porn image is on a person’s computer for any reason, it is a Federal crime, and should be a crime, regardless of the origin, unless the ORIGIN is to blame, in which case, that is a crime someone else committed while using same computer, period.
As a student of the behavior profile of these sick freaks, I will never understand how their rights come first over a child to anything. It is ludicrous.
Want a reason to go to war? It should be to protect our children from pedophiles.
B
B
This may already be posted but just in case…
A motions hearing has been scheduled for March 31 as part of restraining order and divorce proceedings between Kaine and Terri Horman.
http://www.kptv.com/news/26408010/detail.html
MockingbirdSings says:
January 7, 2011 at 4:28 pm
http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/local/story/Kroger-to-propose-legislation-to-fix-Oregons/Kq0KVvYz00q1RGrAqWWvqg.cspx
Attorney General John Kroger said Friday he would draft legislation to fix Oregon’s possession of child pornography law in response to an Oregon Supreme Court ruling.
Does someone need the digits of the Federal prosecutor? I could help them out.
B
————————————-
Thanks Mockingbird … and thanks to Blink for further adding in her assitance! This is great news to hear. Hopefully the people that have the power to actually do something with this don’t drop the ball. I think we need a revolution regarding these sick people previously allowed to slip through the cracks. May justice eventually be served for all the innocent victims out there. Very proud to call myself a Blinker today … peace to all of my fellow BOC’ers.
Love and many, many prayers today and always for Kyron.
I see that the hearing has been reset for the end of March. Sounds like new judge needed time to settle in.
13.enumclawrose says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 7, 2011 at 6:03 pm
14.enumclawrose says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 7, 2011 at 6:20 pm
18.GraceintheHills says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:35 am
Blink says, “From a legal perspective, I understand the decision.
Basically, it is about not being able to assign “intent”.
Here is the problem, your exactly right, if a child porn image is on a person’s computer for any reason, it is a Federal crime, and should be a crime, regardless of the origin, unless the ORIGIN is to blame, in which case, that is a crime someone else committed while using same computer, period.
As a student of the behavior profile of these sick freaks, I will never understand how their rights come first over a child to anything. It is ludicrous.
Want a reason to go to war? It should be to protect our children from pedophiles.
B
B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, indeed, Blink. It seems the rights of these perpetrators trump the rights of victims in so many cases.
@ Shelly says:
January 7, 2011 at 11:34 pm
_______________
Maybe Pastor Ron Kincaid is busy promoting his book, not yet released:
http://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Dare-Challenge-Transform-Relationship/dp/0830756566
Question for Attorney Conner: Is the next hearing date being set for the furthest end of 3 months an indicia the Judge intends to encourage settlement? That both parties are now considering settlement and believe it will take time? That it suits Terri’s abatement argument while suiting Kaine’s expectation of arrest? None of the above?
Alatraz for anyone that harms a child,looks at child porn, you do not look unless you have an interest, enough of pervs rights…put them out there, no guards, air lift food and water in, let them take care of each other,their will be plenty of drs. , lawyers, judges, teachers,etc. there, so they don’t need ant thing but to exist…LEAVE THE CHILDREN ALONE!
@16. Shelly. I’ll reply at risk of being OT, altho I think you are just practicing the “investigation” called for once, because we both know this church has 2ce this year sent myriad volunteers into Skyline school’s bowels to “help.”
In perusing, thoroughly, the “site” trying to find your source info, I couldn’t. But I saw that FB wall posting was shut down recently due to negativity.
I saw 150 volunteers were to clean out basement room, paint, etc this Sept 12. What could be on LE’s mind to have 150 strangers “clean up” possible latent evidence traces?
I think a straight arrow type w/in his belief system.
this church bolted PCUSA 3 yrs ago for EP.
Twould be a church property battle perhaps (maybe that’s what Commission refers to). Or, he has a book K and may be on leave to write. Follows the “Willow Creek” model (1st megabusing promoters to secure “growth” in late 1960s via busing). vacations with family in Michigan (that good ol Reformed bastion, epicenter of EP denom). IMO most of this denom’s churches found their own Christian schools and involve in publics only to complain about science teaching.
I am doubtful online child porn etc. have anything to do with Kyron, other than crimes LE may have encountered during their investigation. But then I am of the opinion that LE already knows what who they believe killed Kyron but can’t figure out how they are going to prove it. (I am sorry to be blunt, I do think Kyron is dead, and I believe LE thinks so as well.)
I read on a less tightly regulated Kyron blog just now a poster commenting on
judicial impeachment/liberal judges viz the Oregon porn ruling. I would welcome a succinct rehash of the judicial/legislative/exec roles by Atty Connor ( Blink already been there done that today with this case).
I also express sorrow at the confluence of a young man with major mental illness today and “hate speech” in politics, resulting in tragedy, hoping the statutory regulation of hate speech in politics can be improved as well as porn enforcement.
While Atty Conner’s perspective is always welcome here on any matter, I just want to remind all that her area of practice is Family Law, not criminal.
B
NelMel says:
January 8, 2011 at 9:55 am
“(c) the horrific situation that now exists regarding Kyron’s location, and (d) (snip)…”
Does this statement clearly suggest that Kyron’s location (and fate) is currently known?
**************************************************************************************
@ NelMel.
I was reading over at SM this morning too.
I about choked on my coffee when I read “part c” in Kaines response to TMH.
“the horrific situation that now exists regarding Kyron’s location …”
What does this mean?
It sure sounds like Kyron’s location and fate are known by the wording of that statement.
My mind has been reeling with all kinds of terrible possibilities that might exist.
Lord help us.
Blink –
What’s your opinion on the wording in this statement about Kyron that is linked from SM ??
http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo242/Brandi-Monkey/Kyron/Image242.png
Blink.
In my post above with the link from SM that NelMel mentioned …
I meant to ask if you could give your opinion in regards specifically to “part c/point c” of Kaines reply to TMH.
Part C/Point C says: “the horrific situation that now exists regarding Kyron’s location …”
http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo242/Brandi-Monkey/Kyron/Image242.png
I believe it is just intentionally vague and ambiguious verbiage.
B
Want a reason to go to war? It should be to protect our children from pedophiles.
B
————————-
Amen fellow soldier! Now that is definitely a cause worth fighting for!
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/07/search-for-kyron-horman-now-has-a-phone-app/?test=latestnews