Kyron Horman Missing: Civil Suit Against Terri Horman DELAYED AND SEALED- Prompted By NEW LEADS
Portland, OR- As many of you have been following since June 2010, there is a new development today in the disappearance of Kyron Horman.
As predicted at BOC, the civil suit brought by Deisree Young, Kyron’s Mother, against Terri Horman, Kyron’s step-mother and the defacto suspect in his disappearance has been granted an abatement.
In a sealed filing, motions by Assistant District Attorney Michael Schrunk and Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton were granted, delaying the suit . The motions included supporting affidavits that continuing the action as already ruled would compromise the investigation.
The decision presents an ironic twist .
Terri Horman’s lawyers originally fought vehemently to abate the action, but were unsuccessful. As recently as last week, the Judge in the case ordered medical records to be accessible to both parties to the action.
In Judge Kantnor’s decision to NOT abate the suit at the request of Attorney Peter Bunch for Terri Horman, the Multnomah County Prosecutors Office declared “no position” on the matter after being contacted by the court.
It is not known if that order prompted the request to delay the suit .
Sheriff Stanton, Eldin Rosenthal, Norm Frink and Stephen Houze declined comment at press time.
On Monday, Judge Henry Kantor granted the motions to abate the civil proceeding and ordered the motions and affidavits filed by the district attorney and sheriff sealed.
A hearing had been scheduled for Dec. 14 to hear Young’s attorney argue before the court to compel testimony from DeDe Spicher, an alleged witness in the case. Today’s ruling is likely to render a postponement of that proceeding.
Sheriff Dan Staton, told Oregon Live, it is based on early leads that are now panning out:
“There are a couple of investigative pieces that are going to open up,” Staton told The Oregonian Tuesday. “Our belief is they’re going to open up several investigative doors.”
He said the new “investigative avenues” are based on information collected in the early phase of the investigation that are now yielding some results.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
4,315 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Having giving that inventory to teachers multiple
times in el ed, beginning in preK, I can’t think
of a single time, or any reason,
I put a date of drs’ apptmt on it.
None of teacher’s business,
imo, who it’s going to other than
a medical professional who asked for
their cooperation, whether
pediatrician neuropsych etc.
The school (Miss Porter) can initiate and do its own
ARD screening. Otherwise a child’s medical information and workups
most parents esteem private, including who is doing the workup and when,
unless the parent decides to submit a written report to the school to
ask they do initiate an educational screening with the goal
being a 504 or IEP.
I don’t personally think most parents embarking on an initial
eval, where the school has not begun a screening, would
disclose any information whatsoever. A parent would just ask
the form be done, a week in advance.
I think I see where I’m screwing things up. I was thinking that the forms Terri gave Porter (if she did) the day before, were to excuse Kyron for a doctor appointment on June 11.
In looking at some standard forms used at schools, it appears that isn’t how its done, as I don’t see any asking for a pre-excused absence. I guess, there would be no reason to give the teacher any form for a future absence. (which i think is kinda’ weird) The child is just held out of school by the parent for whatever reason and then when the child goes *back* to school the next day the child brings in a form signed by parent that states why the child was absent and asks to be excused.
MbS, is this how it works? If so, then can we assume, IF there was paperwork given to Porter by Terri, that it was more than that? Was it some sort of evaluation forms that Terri needed Porter to fill out prior to the appointment (if there was one) in regards to Kyron’s recent behavior?
After looking at some standard forms out there, I’m confused as to how this all works. I do still feel though, that when a child does not show up to school, a phone call should be made, and Matt Shelby said on June 5, that Skyline does not do that.
Some misc. forms:
https://www.schoolservice.com/store/c-21-excuse-tardy-admission.aspx
So, bumble, your thought is a good one, maybe Porter did call Terri and it was not returned, but it wasn’t their policy to do so, According to Shelby and on such a busy day, unless she had concerns about the backpack and jacket, I don’t think she would have. Also, we have Shelby saying, that his teacher and another teacher, both *thought* Kyron went with Terri. So, why would she call? Bad policy IMO.
looking around for why mcso polyed, rather than OSP or DA investigator,
I stumbled on this forum
http://forums.officer.com/sitemap/f-179.html
Interestingly, according to a poster on thread 118, it was illegal at least back in
2009 to poly any job applicant for any LE position
in Oregon (too unreliable and subjective per another).
@TRuth. Every public school district probably differs ( PPS’ policy manual is on line; I put link here once), but I think it’s policy everywhere if a child doesn’t show & there’s no excuse then a call is supposed to go the parents’ specified contact no. notifying of the absence. Here it’s done by robocalls. I suppose notice matters more in high school.
As far as medical appointments, generally a parent calls the Office to notify the morning of, then sends a wrotten note (Bobby was at the Dentist) on signing the kid in at the Office. I suppose organized parents might do an advance written note in addition to a return written note, but imo that’s not usual. In my District no forms are used, & I’ve written tge return notes on everything but toilet paper.
The behavioral inventory was a short form often seen by el ed teachers in early years & come generally from the pediatrician’s office. Different pediatricians have their own pet product, and don’t have their name or info on it.
from the OR officer forum I just posted on Thread 152.
“I haven’t heard anything about MCSO but there is not a hiring freeze in the area. Portland, Beaverton, Clackamas, and Gresham are all hiring. MCSO’s patrol division really small and they don’t cover a lot of area due to the majority of the county being annexed by Portland and Grasham, just fyi.” (late 2008, opinion of mcso by one OR officer)
Well reading that, one has to wonder how MCSO kept the investigation with R Leonard throwing pots of money at them back in the day. He wanted something perhaps relating to prisons (the places where they supply jail employees) & Union.
@grasshopper, et al. Last item on the docket as of Friday afternoon:
Entered 7/09/13 File date 7/08/13
Request for Hearing
21 Day Hearing
Rsp 1 Horman Terri Lynn Moult
@Truth
Regarding “appointment” …. as a PPS mom, if my kids’ doctor needed forms filled out for an appointment the next day, I would have stayed in the room while the teacher filled them out. If they were for the following week the doctor might have included an envelope, or I would have arranged to come pick them up. Confidential information like that shouldn’t be just hanging around on a teacher’s (classroom) desk.
Porter never publically said that TMH told her she was going to an appointment with Kyron that day.
I always told the teacher beforehand, or the office, if I knew my child wouldn’t be in school the next day. But sometimes I would go in and sign them out. If it were a morning appointment, i’d sign them in when we got back to the school. We ALL knew we had to sign our kids out. Funny that no journalist ever investigated the sign-out sheet to see if TMH had signed Kyron out for other appointments.
Truly, even though TMH was poly’d that first weekend, it was the “reported” statement by PPS that the teacher “thought” TMH had taken Kyron to an appointment that really started the “stepmom must have did it” campaign.
I respectfully disagree that started the campaign. LE started the campaign during interviews, and of course don’t forget the flyers with her picture and name.
To my knowledge, having interviewed folks that I refuse to publish in an ongoing case, I can say folks were told she and “we think one other person” were involved.
This case is such a hot mess even if the woman was involved, it is unlikely it could ever be prosecuted it is so botched.
B
Latest Docket page on FAPA:
http://vwoolfexploresthenorthwest.blogspot.com/
ok so it’s both entries. Service directly to TMH and announcement of contest filing, as noted “21 day hearing”. It begins.
B
“Blink,
Does your profile include thinking of their outward physical appearance in this designed continuum?”
Blink replies:
“who’s appearance?
I am sorry WPG, I may not be understanding your question exactly.
B”
The offender’s own outward physical appearance to his victim and initial impression made upon his victim and his victim’s environment – - – is that part of the offender’s thinking/design.
I think what you are asking me is does the profile of this offender consider his own appearance and all that includes as it relates to his appearance’s possible influence in securing his victim and blending into the environment to thwart efforts of apprehension and possible witness recall?
Yes. Very much so. He is going to look like the guy you saw in the you can’t remember where or when but caught your thought for a milisecond but your not sure why and you could not tell me what he was wearing but you think it was something light colored and he may have -um, lost that thought already. Add in that it is weeks before anyone asks you about it and has told you someone else is involved.
He is not going to wear anything specifically identifying as to parental status or grandparent status or team affiliation, etc. (ie: My kid is on the honor roll at xx)
Nothing to spark conversation, nothing that will show up better than something else on CCTV or surveillance cams. If wardrobe is a functionality of his continuum, he has been wearing it for practice sessions and he may have taken images of it from every angle. He may have several sets of the same outfit. This are all part of what is likely hundreds of variables that unfortunately will not be known as I said the other day without a prior victim tie-in, crime scene, confession, or recovery at best.
I am strictly going on what we believe are knowns as compared to other cases I have studied and of course the empirical data.
Because I know how uber smart and critically adept you are, do you mind if I anticipate your next question?
Yes, this particular MO item contributes to my profile belief of SZ.
The question I believe this profile answers if one were to posit is “How do I look like a ghost retroactively without anyone thinking I am one initially, lest I scare them before I want to?”
B
B
does this mean hearing must be by July 29? that’s 21 days, or do weekend days not count?
vw says:
July 14, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Latest Docket page on FAPA:
http://vwoolfexploresthenorthwest.blogspot.com/
Blink replies:
“ok so it’s both entries. Service directly to TMH and announcement of contest filing, as noted “21 day hearing”. It begins.”
____
vw, Blink,
Interesting.
There should be a “Service” to KH of a copy of the filing of a Motion to Contest . . . is it not yet noted in the docket? What about a notation of the filing of a Motion to Contest with the court?
Thanks in advance.
Yes, it may be that has not been returned yet. It is typically always filed first with the affidavit of service(s) and then the returns are filed separately as they are received by the court for all parties.
It is definitely the filing for a contested RO hearing. That does not mean automatically that Kantor will hear it- in fact, depending upon what the motion contains, he may not.
Personally, I think Bunch/Houze come out swinging on this one to point out that the change in circumstances described by Engel and Kantor as unchanged defies the “best interest of the child standard” inasmuch as CFS to my knowledge, has never been brought in.
You fear a violent act (s) against a child, from it’s Mother, based on a hearsay allegation that the respondent is on record saying initially they cannot defend without interfering with the woman’s 5th ammendment GUARANTEE, and in subsequent hearings contest it while the backstory is repeatedly trying to work out visitation with the custodial parent when that parent refuses flatly unless respondent “answers questions about his son’s disappearance”.
Well, maybe she is DB Cooper in disguise, maybe that is a good reason to keep her from her baby for another year.
Bottom line, the issue here HAS to be the best interests, and all that entails, for one Kiara Horman. Not Kaine, not Desiree, not Kyron, not MCSO, not the DA and NOT TMH.
In my mind, 3 years later, nobody can say that is at the forefront here as a result I firmly believe that the court needs to assign a GAL to protect Kiara’s rights to enjoy that standard under the law. She has become a pawn and as a Mother, I find that inexcusable. Convicted felony prisoners have more rights to see their children, ftlog.
MCSO and the DA interjected themselves in this matter, no getting around that. They provided the basis allegations (hearsay) and the only way around this is to be able to attack the basis unless the parties agree to expand that scope if you will.
Back to Kiara’s rights under OR law- they include being free from custodial interference from any persons. That includes them. Now, am I suggesting that LE made up some sort of situation in bad faith to use this to drive TMH to the interview room? No.
However, you know have 2 issues to deal with and one is that they have the BURDEN of providing the support to the allegation and further scrutiny as to whether it is even credible, and whether that “circumstance” still exists. The second, and I believe the dicier of the 2, is to WHOM that information was given and when- and what was it’s good faith basis.
Unless it was Ed Snowden, that individual or individuals has to be cross examined for the allegation’s “basis” to the RO, imo.
Keep in mind, removing the emotion from the equation, as a matter of law, Kantor himself has essentially said this RO has established it’s own precedent (incorrectly as it is on record it was contested) in lay terms, this entire enchilada could happen to anyone in that jurisdiction via citation if unchallenged. If Judge Kantor wants to write laws he can run for a lobbying or legislative office.
Until then, he is out of his wheelhouse by a mile wrt to the overlapping civil, criminal and dissolution cases. That said, this is not the only case in his jurisdiction lawyers have or will have, and I get that. His very statement of “but what will she tell us” is an affirmation of his impartiality based on sitting 2 cases and it’s exparte conversations we have not been privy to with LE/DA.
B
@vw. TY for the J Kantor RO Renewal pic. Don’t call him Arbitrator; call him arbitrary.
Why? This RO renewal says Kaine has “fear of further acts of abuse.”
Further? There was never a scintella of evidence of any act of family abuse.
One would expect a police report filed with initial RO. Let Kaine call PPB or MCSO–file a Police Report.
Or there would be a 3rd party witness. Or cpsd would have a report, investigate & send
a report. It is insane to take this woman’s daughter
with no more than a divorcing husband’s word. If he is ever re-nominated for Federal Bench again, I am going to
point out his factual Orders in this case to MoveOn, Emily’s List, and various womens’ groups. They can figure out
the rest.
for Motivation Bunch could watch the pit bull affect of that older defense lawyer immediately after the Zimmerman verdict. Said he wanted to stay in the Bar a couple more years so had no comment in her job performance.
ROTFL, I nicknamed him Carville. The Florida Bar would not dream of touching anything whatsoever to do with this case, imo. Very soft on high profile in that state as I know from past experience.
B
Ah, okay. The “Request for Hearing” is the “contesting”:
http://courts.oregon.gov/Washington/docs/familylaw/7a_obtain_ro/instructions_to_contest_a_restraining_order.pdf
(snips)
CONTESTING A FAMILY ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA)
RESTRAINING ORDER
INSTRUCTIONS
WHAT IF I DISAGREE WITH SOME OR ALL OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER?
The judge granted the restraining order based on input from the other side (the Petitioner). If you disagree with information given to the judge, or you disagree with all or part of the order, you have a right to give the judge your input.
HOW DO I OBJECT TO THE RESTRAINING ORDER?
If you want a judge to consider whether the restraining order should remain in effect, or change some of the things in the restraining order, you must fill out the form called “Request for Hearing.” The “Request for Hearing” form is part of the court paper that says “Notice to Respondent/Request for Hearing” on the top, right hand side of the page.
You should have received a copy of this form when you were served with the restraining order. If you did not receive one, you may download the Request for Hearing form from the Washington County Court website,
http://courts.oregon.gov/sites/OJD/OSCA/cpsd/courtimprovement/familylaw/index.page.
You have 30 days after you are served with the restraining order to ask the judge to dismiss or change the order, by filing a “Request for Hearing.” The Request for Hearing must be filed with the court within 30 days from the date you were served. If you request a hearing and the judge continues the Restraining Order, federal law may prohibit you from possessing or purchasing any firearm or ammunition (including hunting rifles).
If it has been more than 30 days since the date you were served, the only type of hearing you may request is to make changes to custody and/or parenting time, your removal from the home, your restrictions from other premises, or contact by you in-person, by telephone, or otherwise. Either party may request this type of hearing. You may request such a hearing by asking the clerk at the courthouse for the forms needed to “modify” a restraining order. The judge may schedule a hearing to decide whether or not to change the order.
The judge may decide not to change the order, even if both sides agree that they want the same changes.
WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO NOT OBJECT?
If you do not ask for a contested hearing within the first 30 days after you receive the court papers, the Restraining Order will continue for one year from the date the judge signed it. It can also be renewed for one year at a time after that.
WHEN WILL THE CONTESTED HEARING BE HELD?
If the court has already ordered a hearing about custody of your children (sometimes called an “exceptional circumstance hearing”): If the court has found that there are “exceptional circumstances”
regarding custody of the child/ren, the court will schedule a hearing to be held within 14 days. The box on the top of page 1 of the restraining order and “Notice to Respondent/Request for Hearing” will give you information about the date and place for that hearing. At the hearing, you will be asked to provide information
about your children.
If the court has NOT ordered a hearing but you would like to request one: If the order grants custody and you ask the judge to make a change relating to child custody, the court must hold the hearing within 5 business days of your request. If you are not asking the judge to change child custody, the court must hold the hearing
within 21 days of your request. If the hearing is scheduled more than a few days away, the court will send you notice of the time and date of the hearing in the mail. If there is not enough time to mail you a notice, the court may contact you by telephone. Be sure the court always has your current contact addresses and contact phone numbers so you get notice of any hearing. You also can call the court to check to see if a hearing has
been set.
If you do not go to the hearing, you will lose your chance to ask the judge to dismiss or change the Restraining Order. If you cannot go to the hearing due to an emergency, call the court clerk right away. It may be helpful to have an attorney represent you at the hearing, but it is not required.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE HEARING I REQUEST?
The purpose of the hearing is to decide whether or not the restraining order will remain in effect, and if it does
remain in effect, if the order will stay the same or change in some way.
@T.Ruth – I started to answer your question, then found my post from early last year, so I’m giving you that again. It was interesting to read what I said to see if I’ve changed my thinking about the possibilities since then. I think the bottom line is that Terri had no obligation to offer an excuse for an absence in advance, but she did have an obligation to check him out through the office if she wanted him to leave school. She also had no obligation to use a specific form. A note or email, or even a phone call was acceptable.
(from previous post)
@ T. Ruth says:
March 13, 2012 at 3:28 pm
I had children in PPS and I worked for PPS for many, many years as well as other school districts. I was very familiar with attendance policies. Before the Autodialer, I was hired by one PPS high school to (among other duties) call parents of students with chronic attendance concerns when they were absent from class in an effort to raise attendance and keep parents informed. The parent/guardians were great, but the job was a headache because of the way records were kept and the many challenges and changes those students had outside of school. The rules should have been changed long ago, but part of the reason why they were not was that the basic concern was not for student safety, it was primarily the concern for academic comparisons and measuring success of the school itself. (Not at all to say schools didn’t care about student safety.) Another reason tracking attendance was such a mess was lack of staff time to file and follow up all the paper records – there were other reasons, but they don’t matter. There were way too many options for reporting.
The Autodialer was an improvement, but it wasn’t and isn’t perfect, and it relies totally on accurate input, and all (human) parties completing their tasks as required.
Keep in mind that before 2010, a student would be absent (declared unexcused) and then have 3 days to bring a note changing it to “excused”. The common reason for prearranged absences was if a student were to be gone for a long period (more than 3 days, as I recall), such as an out of town family funeral, or needed to get homework so they could keep up their grades while absent. Since students were/are withdrawn automatically after 10 consecutive absences, being informed by prearranged absence is important to schools.
I have written here about PPS attendance before, but you may find this helpful to compare to what you posted from PPS Supt. in June of 2010. These procedures were in place in August 2010, before the start of the 2010 – 2011 school year and, I think, as a direct result of Kyron’s disappearance. I think the changes may give clues to what issues the district was nervous about. Here’s a link to the whole document:
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/files/admin-connection/PPS_Attendance-Procedures_10-11.pdf
(snips from this document – for all grades) My words are in brackets.
Parents must contact the school office when a child will be absent from school. The note/call/email is not to go to the teacher only.
[I don’t know of any school that did not direct parents to the school office or attendance office rather than the teacher in letters and school handbooks, but in practice, the procedures were more flexible and might occasionally include going to a teacher, principal, nurse, or counselor in certain circumstances. This makes it very clear now. By including the office, it also protects a teacher who can’t prove he or she was told about an absence.]
Students leaving school early must check out through the school office.
Parents/guardians must come to the school office or send the student with an excuse to check their student out of school early; they may not go directly to the student’s classroom. This must be clearly communicated with parents.
[Nothing really new about these directions except "clearly communicated with parents" – many teachers would not make a parent walk back to the office and then back to the room to get a child if they hadn’t gone to the office first, particularly a parent they knew, and there used to be more convenient doors open for parents to enter rather than only in the office area. This gives teachers official permission to say no to parents who have not communicated with the office.]
Teachers should not permit a student to leave class for the remainder of the day without permission from the school office.
[High school students would just leave and deal with an excuse later, so this primarily fits younger students. It allows the teacher to say no without an argument on the spot and leaves it to the parent and office to work it out. Most teachers I have known would consider it common sense not to take only a young student’s word that he/she had to leave, even if policy allowed. It clearly puts the burden on the teacher to refuse permission to leave or to notify the office immediately if a student left anyway. This one does make me wonder if Kyron had come into the class as the science fair was ending and then left again before roll was taken (teacher bathroom comment). If THIS policy had been in place and followed, the office would have been informed Kyron was gone when he didn’t come back right away. It clearly makes it a teacher error not to do so.]
All students leaving school early must check out through the school office. Each school must establish procedures to ensure that the teacher is certain the student has permission to leave class early (this can be through an ‘early release slip’ or a call to the classroom, etc.).
[Here’s another reason I wonder if Kyron briefly said to his teacher that he was leaving, or at least someone did – “school must establish procedures to ensure that the teacher is certain the student has permission to leave”. In other words, the new requirement spelled out here seems in direct response to something not done in Kyron’s case. Also, the term “school procedures” essentially makes it the principal’s responsibility to see this is carried out.]
———————————
I tried to read this document as a parent, then as a teacher, teachers’ union rep, principal, secretary, and school district attorney. I can sort of hear their voices in certain phrases as the district tried to tighten things up. If you think about it that way, you can sense where they felt vulnerable, which is a clue, IMO, to what may have happened on the school’s end of things. These policies certainly seem to clear up what is expected of teacher, office, principal, and parent. I think the previous policies may have been written in a way that made it more difficult to hold certain people accountable even though we all know they should have been.
For SZ to be able to convince Kyron to go with him:
1) he would need Kyron to know what was happening in advance so he wouldn’t question it – but Kyron might have told someone, so too risky
2) he would have to subdue him (which I think we rejected before)
3) he would have to be instantly recognized and trusted either by experience (past history) or status (position of authority or relationship), or have the help of someone trusted, so no questions, or
4) he would have had to have a demeanor and a story that would have instantly intrigued a little boy for the few minutes it took to leave the school property
As I said once a long time ago – on June 4th, Kyron made the best decisions he could have made based on his 7 years of experience with life – if only the adults had done the same. It makes me think that not only does SZ assume he knows how a (targeted) child thinks, but also how adults in that child’s environment think and will react. Not only did he get his victim, look at how many people (and agencies) he thinks he outsmarted. Maybe he is still enjoying the “afterplay” (for want of a better word)? If there is anything we can see that he has greatly underestimated, however, I think it’s the persistence of those working on this case.
Fwiw, and both my children are now HS ages, since they were in elementary a parent could not remove the child for a Dr. appt without prior notification to the school ( sending the child with a note given to the teacher, or in later years, a note to the attendance monitor and office unless it was a medical emergency. In which case I would still have to report directly to the office ( thankfully I did not have this except once when Blinkette was 7 and reaggravated a growth plate fracture that had not healed well and had to be re-casted but in that instance the school nurse called me.)
In short, at no time could we have ever just shown up to the office and said that one of our children had a Dr. appt and we were withdrawing them for the balance of the day or a few hours AND.. it requires an excuse from the Dr or DDS to be returned with the child.
If not, it is considered not excused until it is rectified. Y’all are from within that system and since TMH volunteered and knew everyone fairly well, do you think that played a role or no?
I remain surprised that especially with such young children stricter standards were not in place. Both my and Dad’s DL images are on file- and in the instance we would need one of the Grand’s to pick up, we need their DL’s in advance and on file with written permission, lol.
B
Thank you very much MbS. I agree there are clues in the changes made as well.
Okay, so here’s a question, if in fact Terri did what she told Jaymie, i.e., gave Kyron’s teacher paperwork saying Kyron had an appointment on the 11th, what would Porter have done with that paperwork, considering there was no requirement to have it in the first place? Toss it?
@ Blink, etal
7/09/13 Entered
7/05/13 Filed
Service/Acceptance of
Re: Petition , Notice and Order
to renew restraining Order
RSP 1 Horman Terri Lynn Moult
This was, in my interpretation, the formal Serving of the new R/O to TMH
Also:
I examined all three files. The Divorce, The FAPA, and the Suit. Nothing new past the R/O being served to TMH. The docket contains the 7/08/13 filing of the Request for hearing, but the file does not have it yet.
@rose…what did you make of the lack of date (notary)? Usually they are so anal about details.
I’m curious about the rationale or including the RO in the “complex case” designation. They supposed attempt to hire RS happened months before Kyron went missing. Kaine was not harmed in the months in between and there was never even an alleged threat to Kiara. The only connection to Kyron’s disappearance is that this was all brought up to pressure Terri into saying what DA wanted her to say. Is there a time limit on what can be brought up and used to justify a restraining order?
From vw’s post above. “The judge may decide not to change the order, **even if both sides agree that they want the same changes.”**
Well what in the heck is the point of requesting a hearing if the judge can just say, nope, we aren’t changing anything, even if both parties want the same changes? We know here that Kaine doesn’t want Terri to have access to her child, so we know right off the bat the parties don’t agree, which according to the above doesn’t even matter, but, will just give the judge more reason to do nothing.
IOW, if the judge himself decides the child is better off having no contact with her mother, he can override either parent, even when they’re in agreement? Is this right? This is weird.
Agreed, Kiara needs a GAL. I know I asked this before, but as Terri still is her mother AND has no charges against her whatsoever, can she not request one for her?
“According to sources, investigators believe Terri Horman was vague about which Friday she was referring to when she gave notified the school of her stepson’s anticipated absence, and only after he was missing did she clarify that the doctor’s appointment was on June 11, the Friday after the science fair.”
http://www.komonews.com/news/98987454.html
I wonder what they were going to report when the used the word “gave” and then changed it to “notified”? I suppose one could say *gave notice to the school*, but that’s awkward here, usually giving would mean handing someone something. Hmmmm, just interesting little slip, I hadn’t caught earlier.
Idk. Where I went & read adult Court records while in cosd they were invariably inconpletely notated. Courthouses are busy places.
My mental image of outward appearance of a SZ such as Blink describes fits husband 2, also a hands-on technician.
Be nice to know MCSO polyed him & substantiated corroborated whereabouts. Motivation, and so on. imo.
Interesting you throw in Snowden’s name Blink. To this layperson he is the poster child for Borderline features.
Military, education, relationship, and so on. Thinking Vlad should get a psychological pre-admission, then realized
based on hus strict-limit setting a Borderline would never comply with, he’s already had him profiled. Think of nations, Presidents, gov’t entities, and Corps thrown like balls in the air by a Borderline–who thrives on the chaos and attention. Application here? When I see 3 Court cases (on same transaction), multiple judges, attorneys, DAs, gov’t agencies & actors, persons gone wild with stalking and anger, and so on–what Borderline(s) threw those balls in tge air and are keeping them in motion?
@Blink. GAL is not a solution–would just be another “ball” from the Borderline(s). Some crony attorney from Beth Israel. The only solution is removing the investigation from any local agency over to tge FBI. The ideal time for his honor the Mayor in league with County Comms to negotiate that was back when DOJ/FBI wanted Portland to re-join that Federal terror prevention task force, as a quid pro quo (negotiated out if public view). Imo if Kitzhaber made it clear to local politicis Staton have to give the case up, it would happen. Wyden could also get it done, but he’s in syngague ties with the other roosters.
please note, in addition to Snowden as poster child for Borderline features imo–a separate matter from the underlying content he went to work for BA to find & use which put him on stage–, he also represents a mild-mannered appearing, well-groomed, white male computer nerd.
could one of the Borderlines could be an unknown mcso employee.
“could” was supposed to be: “‘course”.
dang autocorrect.
On a beautiful summer day like this, I can’t stop thinking about little Kyron and how he should be playing outside in the sunshine and having fun with this sister, or going to summer camp with friends.
and then I thought about people who are missing – and if there is a connection.
DAD. What if the only reason he ran from the police on the Oregon Coast like he did was because he knew he was in Big Trouble re Kyron if he got caught. What if DAD is actually SZ?
Think about it. Everything fits together – all of the pieces/people fit together in some way. So why aren’t the police looking at his brother and family more closely – they would probalby know where he is. And why don’t they just hire a special investigator, like a Cold Case person, to start fitting things together.
Kyron needs to be here, alive, happy, having fun, playing in the sunshine, but sadly, I think he has lost not only his childhood….
…correction .. HIS sister…
by the way, has anyone ever decided that DAD is NOT the SZ??
T. Ruth says:
July 15, 2013 at 11:44 am
Thank you very much MbS. I agree there are clues in the changes made as well.
Okay, so here’s a question, if in fact Terri did what she told Jaymie, i.e., gave Kyron’s teacher paperwork saying Kyron had an appointment on the 11th, what would Porter have done with that paperwork, considering there was no requirement to have it in the first place? Toss it?
—————-
I have always thought that the paperwork that TH gave Ms porter was an evaluation form to be filled out by the teacher and given to the doctor when Kyron went to the Doctors appt on the June 11th.
I have never heard that the form was any kind of a written excuse for Kyrons future absence on June 11. I think if he had missed school because of the appointment then the paperwork for the excused absence would have been filled out on the 11th.
I suppose Ms porter could throw the evaluation for away instead of filling it out for TH but I don’t know why she would do that.
As far as a formal note regarding Kyrons absence Th would not have given that to Ms porter until the day before or the day of the appointment June 11.
JMO
Blink,
This picture is a little unsettling. Not sure why.
http://www.bringkyronhome.org/events/kyron-s-car-show/
by husband 2, I mean (look at online images) caucasian (school demographic 84%), cleanly groomed–nothing distinctive, weight and height nondescript, demeanor nondescript, age fits in well, upper lower/or lower upper middle class, cl
cl
sheesh. Supposed to be clothing unremarkabke & blends in (at least in online pics).
Quite a string of events coming up for “Kyron”. Kyron’s car show is next. this has turned into quite a business for Kaine.
http://www.bringkyronhome.org/events/kyron-s-car-show/
Regarding the note and notification. TMH said in her email she had made an appointment on Thursday for the next Friday. That was the Thursday, I presume, before Kyron was taken.
How could Porter, who, i’ve heard, was spearheading the Science Fair, have time to get the paperwork ready for TMH to take to the doctor within a day. Nor would a parent expect such a quick turnover for a possible seizure disorder work-up.
Which leads me to believe one of two things happened.
1. Somehow Porter got the paperwork done right away and TMH did indeed pick up the paperwork on Friday morning and took it with her, causing Porter to believe she was headed to the doctor even IF she’d been told the afternoon before that the appointment was the 11th.
2. The paperwork stayed on her desk. She maybe thought of burning it or throwing it away, but decided to give it to LE, unfinished.
Usually when I have medical paperwork that one or all of my kids need done for a doctor they send a self-addressed envelope along and ask the teacher to send it to them confidentially. And as a teacher I am/was VERY careful to not have any children or other parents see it. Especially medical records, which are NOT to be divulged. Along that vein, that report of Ms. Porter saying to the kids that Kyron had gone to the doctor is a NO, NO in schools i’ve taught in. Not sure about PPS, but as a parent I would be in the principal’s office. Could you imagine a kids’ embarasment if that appointment coincided with something like a lice infection at the school?
I can tell you though, that this issue was very pivotal in this case Not just for Skyline parents. I was very nervous about the case, as a parent with kids in a PPS school very close. and was VERY relieved when we heard that the suspicion had turned to the stepmom. It meant my own kids were safe and that it was some family divorce thing. Hearing something about some “pings” and then watching the presser where she seemed uncomfortable (shifty?) sort of cinched it, for me. She was guilty…and my kids were safe.
Course I kept following the case.
What email are you sourcing VW, if you please.
B
Speculating here . . . JF, as a local teacher, might have eventually heard things through the school grapevines. Are JF and TMH still friends?
cd says
I have always thought that the paperwork that TH gave Ms porter was an evaluation form to be filled out by the teacher and given to the doctor when Kyron went to the Doctors appt on the June 11th.
That’s always been my impression also. A doctor would want to know if the troublesome behavior was limited to home or not. If Porter was giving these kids color coded reports and Kyron’s were frequently troubling, she would have to know that his parents were disturbed by his school antics. I don’t imagine Terri was silent about K’s behavior. Maybe Porter had second thoughts about her methodology in the classroom and didn’t want to complete a report that could have reflected badly on her.
How is the doctor’s appt relevant to the case? Terri was captured on video at 2 FMs. IIRC all of her time has been accounted for except for something like 10 minutes. The only point of the dr’s appt confusion is to excuse Porter from not noticing Kyron’s absence. Doesn’t explain anything about what happened to Kyron.
It is extremely relevant. It’s interpretive value or it’s confirmation provide substantive potential evidentiary value in this case.
Substantiating a confirmed or prospective appt on June 11th. Absolutely voids LE chief theory.
No appt on Friday the 4th, conversation it was scheduled for the 11th
re: vw post 7-15-13
in your last paraghraph about being relieved and thinking kyrons disapearance was a “family divorce thing” is a perfect discription of why and how so many people suspect(ed) tmh. i am just afraid the investigators followed the same thinking so much so that they didnt make the school a crime scene, didnt need to check school phone records, didnt check local sex offenders for some time, didnt check any town video for anything other than the horman truck, and many other things that would have made sz into s anyone else
vw says:
July 15, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Regarding the note and notification. TMH said in her email she had made an appointment on Thursday for the next Friday. That was the Thursday, I presume, before Kyron was taken.
What email are you sourcing VW, if you please.
B
———————-
@vw was this the reported email?
http://www.katu.com/news/local/100323934.html
-snip
Horman went on to talk about Kyron’s recent behavior:
“The past 2 weeks he’s been acting really weird. Staring off into space. Can’t remember anything. Walks into the room and then back out, stopping to stare and then move on. The doc thinks that he is having mini seizures and I made an appt on Thursday for next Friday to have him checked out.”
@grasshopper says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Quite a string of events coming up for “Kyron”. Kyron’s car show is next. this has turned into quite a business for Kaine.
http://www.bringkyronhome.org/events/kyron-s-car-show/
*******
Does the placard itself seem a little “odd” to anyone?
For me, the age-progressed image of a missing child without his glasses appearing to be driving a car and enjoying the outing is inappropriate and in poor taste. At a quick glance, one might expect to see him there.
I have a background in the Ad biz, this would not have passed the creative brief.
B
@blink #36
What emails are you sourcing, vw, if you please?
These, blink…first on katu, then on Olive:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/katu_terri_moulton_horman_emai.html
(keep in mind, however, that the KATU “source” of the emails, remains unknown, iirc.)
Thank you for the refresher vw, that comment is supported by witness accounts in terms of TMH exchange with Porter in the gym that Thursday as well.
B
If Terri gave Ms. Porter evaluation paperwork on Thursday, June 3, AND
Ms. Porter *thought* that Terri took Kyron to the doctor on Friday, June 4, would it not make sense that Porter would have given it back to Terri prior to June 4, or at the very least that morning, so that Terri could take it to the doctor with her? It would make no sense to mail it to the doctor if Porter thought the appointment was the next day.
None of this is making any sense to me. Terri makes an appointment for Kyron sometime Thursday, June 3rd, for the following Friday, June 11th. She also goes to the school that day (June 3rd) and hands Ms. Porter some eval paperwork requested (I assume) by the doctor. Where and when did Terri get this paperwork, if it is an evaluation form? Why would Porter think that the doctor appointment was the next day?
If this was a medical evaluation form that she gave Porter, then doesn’t this substantiate Terri’s statement that the doctor thinks he may be having mini seizures? So this tells me, (if she’s not lying) that Kyron had indeed already been to the doctor, at which time she picked up the evaluation forms for the teacher to fill out. Where else would she get them, if not at the doctor office?
If Kyron had been to the doctor already for this, why wouldn’t Kaine or Desiree say, or did they not know? Does this explain LE’s refusal to discuss whether or not Kyron had any medical issues?
TMH’s email Saturday June 5, 2010:
“The past 2 weeks he’s been acting really weird. Staring off into space. Can’t remember anything. Walks into the room and then back out, stopping to stare and then move on. The doc thinks that he is having mini seizures and I made an appt on Thursday for next Friday to have him checked out.”
Blink’s reply to vw:
“Thank you for the refresher vw, that comment is supported by witness accounts in terms of TMH exchange with Porter in the gym that Thursday as well.
B”
Blink,
I’m confused on “Thursday’s” timeline.
If TMH made the appointment on that Thursday (June 3), did she do so before she left home that morning to drive Kyron to school with his project?
If the projects were being dropped off in the gym, and this is where a verbal exchange with MsP. occurred, how/when did TMH confirm with the doctor’s office the date of the appointment before she talked with MsP. and allegedly gave her paperwork?
What about the witnesses to this exchange in the gym – - – did they see TMH hand Ms.P paperwork or an envelope?
Unless TMH returned to school at a later time that Thursday, June 3 and
had another exchange with Ms.P, or perhaps made the appointment prior to Thursday June 3, then I’m confused on the timing of what TMH alleges occurred as relayed by J.Finster.
Interesting, in this old video, June 12, 2010, the reporter says Kyron worked on his science fair project with his Dad, no mention of step-mom. This is the only place I’ve heard this. Not that it matters much, just weird that it’s the only time I’ve heard it.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/96220474.html?tab=video&c=y
Hmmm, I don’t don’t know why I’m looking at these old vids today, but here Officer Shultz says again that Kyron worked on his science project with his Dad. Not Dad & Stepmom.
Also in this video, Schultz says that Bootsie was a “guard cat”, and followed him (Schultz) around the property and tht Kaine told him he (Kaine) would watch the cat follow Kyron as Kyron walked to the bus stop.
http://www.katu.com/home/video/96230129.html
Now, didn’t Kaine say he walked Kyron to the bus stop everyday?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OR_DATA_CENTER_CRASH_OROL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
**********************************************************************
I work with the DAS system, read this story this morning and thought I recognized the Matt Shelby quoted. So from the frying pan to the fryer? Hmm, as far as I knew (working on the inside) State of Oregon is still under a hiring freeze. Apparently he left PPS and is now at the State.
*thanks for the kind words about what I’ve dubbed “Treadmill Incident 2013″. It wasn’t pretty, but I’m back on that particular horse/treadmill.
@herveness.
Would that more Gov’t employees who were 1st year
Kyron-case-associated could be found State employment
in addition to Shelby, Moawad.
You motivate me. Need to tread, & not litely.
https://touch.www.linkedin.com/?sessionid=7873219304357888&as=false&rs=false#public-profile/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpub%2Fmatt-shelby%2F29%2F391%2F338
what a cutie, imo.
note first 2 jobs.
don’t suppose he ever visited Skyline while with PPS?
@herveness.
looks like 3 more State jobs just opened up for Kitz team players:
The apparent genesis/history of Mon nite’s computer crash is rich:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/oregon_employment_department_c.html
get this: “Pohlman’s credibility, however, came into question in March when he was arrested on accusations of drugging and sexually assaulting several women in Portland. He pleaded not guilty.”
Reminds me of a similar Defense Dept software development /paycheck story tonite on npr where the institution didn’t support integrated IT software reform under Gates so $1 Billion in software development was dumped before fruition.
The way TH explains the teacher’s defense is unrelated to Kyron’s appointment, so it makes me wonder what was really said by the teacher about the doctor’s appointment.
“The teacher thought I said I was going to take Kyron with Kitty for a doctor’s appt.,” she wrote on June 5, 2010.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/100323934.html