Dr. Phil Show Hosts Missing Portland Child Kyron Horman’s Step Mom Terri Horman Over Two Episodes
I have been covering this case since Kyron Horman disappeared from Skyline School in June, 2010. Like most missing persons cases I have covered in the past, I am of the strong opinion that best efforts at the truth are the only way to propel investigations that, similarly to Kyron’s, have gone cold for one reason or another. This approach has worked in resolving some of my previous cases. I am proud of that. I remain steadfast to the integrity involved in those and future cases.
Over the past 10 months (or so) I have been developing an updated series on Kyron’s case to include my multiple interviews with Kyron’s step-mom, Terri Horman. Needless to say as she was the subject of at least three simultaneous cases before an Oregon court and remains a person of interest by the agency investigating her sons disappearance, this has been an arduous and sometimes delicate journey. Ms. Horman’s experiences during the ongoing investigation of the disappearance of Kyron Horman are critically important to propelling his case and with great hope- finding the truth about what happened to this cherubic and innocent child. There are dozens of sources, collateral interviews, forensic experts and legal analysts that also contribute to my series and have done so because of their belief that my motivation is to bring to light information and opinions in such a way that would almost “require” a focused review of Kyron’s case and the likely shaking of that proverbial tree everyone talks about.
Set to publish about 6-ish weeks ago I was asked to postpone the first installment of the series, which I did. I subsequently learned Ms. Horman was participating in the Dr. Phil program after she completed taping. Dr. Phils producers were well aware that Ms. Horman had interviewed with me extensively, and anticipated my series would be publishing information that was not known to the public previously in the days prior to her scheduled episode. When Ms. Horman conveyed to me that she feels obligated to speak out about “her son” in any national medium that will have her, I most certainly respected that. I still do.
While Dr. Phil seems like a gregarious fellow for sure, I have zero interest in being associated with his program, nor do I believe his shows content is designed to do any furtherance of investigation or truth. There is much concern (although I have no affiliation to the show whatsoever) that the timing of the publication of my series on the Kyron Horman matter might be interpreted differently or inadvertently contribute to the programs content or audience reactions. Not what I signed on for. A missing 7 year old boy six years running is not a framework for entertaining a target audience. He is not fodder for online social media bully campaigns- yet it occurs.
I will be publishing my series on Kyron’s case at a later date, in it’s entirety with no editing adjustments as a result of any of the appearances on Dr. Phil. I appreciate your patience and your understanding. Feel free to discuss the show below.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
6,633 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
ot policing by gut & DA cultures
She Was Convicted of Killing Her Mother. Prosecutors Withheld the Evidence That Would Have Freed Her. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/magazine/she-was-convicted-of-killing-her-mother-prosecutors-withheld-the-evidence-that-would-have-freed-her.html
As I have been saying for a few years now, this is an absolute epidemic. I have seen it in my own practice- in my view, to some degree, it is also enlightening Judges in criminal court- especially in serious felony cases.
B
OT @ATG. whoever now is DHS & Sessions will spend their resources and
make their deportation push in red stafes (why KS had press incidents)
& Southern border States imo.
” reminds me of activity that occurs when a gj is about to wrap ” I think this shoe fits.
Yup.
B
ot clarification: minimal due process = a right to show evidence to an ALJ they are here legally. Some legals are being dumped across the border bcz they do not have their papers physically on them when an illegal stop is made due to the color of skin. US citizens are being stopped & detained illegally. DHS is in chaos imo.
An interesting story on Rose’s link about how prosecutors sometimes hide evidence to strengthen their case to the detriment of the defense. This is done for a reason which could be a promotion or publicity that is favorable where a District Attorney is looking for a means to impress the public in order to get a judge position.
We don’t know how many cases across the country where this has happened.
However, sometimes where these cases are reopened by the various innocent project groups, they release a person that is a hardened criminal back into society who then continues his or her bad behavior.
Rose
I was not playing big tough Texan regarding the punishment of illegal aliens who commit crimes against a person. As a teen, I witnessed a drunk Mexican who was in the country as a part of the Bracero program that was in place to help farmers gather their crops, slice open the stomach of a man who was trying to get him safely to the sidewalk when he walked into the middle of a busy street. I have never forgotten that act.
I have also been the victim of another drunk illegal who drove his vehicle into the rear of my vehicle that was parked doing major damage. These people are generally not suitable culture wise to be accepted into our country.
A GJ wrapping up would also explain a
general directing a soldier to start petition drives
with a diff DA.
And no longer publicly commenting – as per Kyle I.
B
“I would think an obvious gj question/inquiry would be to request the maps of search areas in a case where it is likely their charter to determine a crime was committed in the first place. B”
Took me awhile to get this. For 2-3 mos before a GJ wrap up it is logical
to pad the quantity of search maps a GJ is likely to request during deliberations.
finally made the Portland news.
http://www.kptv.com/story/36016214/multnomah-co-sheriff-ice-address-criminal-and-deportation-history-of-sex-abuse-suspect
local Fox channel what else?
and imo Reese is right on criminal warrants, so Congr’ budget better add regional ALJs and attorney personnel to DHS & DOJ to go get those criminal warrants signed by a judge.
http://blinkoncrime.com/2012/09/07/kyron-horman-disappearance-exclusive-three-part-series-debuts-on-blink-on-crime/comment-page-2/
@Rose, here again, the attendance list. ^^^
@Ode, the list was supposedly to include anyone and everyone who was there between 8 and noon that day.
We know there are errors in spelling of names, for instance Emile Saks-Webb, is actually Emilie Saks-Webb, so who knows how many other spelling errors there are. It has always bothered me that Kim Holm’s name is on there, but in her TV interview she stated she wasn’t there that morning. Maybe she just meant she didn’t go inside, but perhaps dropped her son off. IDK, so anyway it makes one wonder what exactly being on that list means. Does it mean you were on campus, inside, or just sitting in your car after dropping off your kid???? IDK. It’s also interesting to me that one of the other flyers LE distributed was asking for anyone who was there between 8:00 and the afternoon sometime, but I don’t remember which one.
I can’t shake the feeling it was someone in LE…it is the only one that makes sense…that LE funeral…those steroids…was it payback? LE did not know Terri was not Kyron’s mother…although she really was if you get right down to it.
It doesn’t matter that Mike Reese is correct about needing a signed warrant by a federal judge to hold the perp or perps. All ICE ask for was a heads up regarding the time he was to be released so they could have officers there to take him into their custody.
This behavior is designed to show the feds that they will not be given any help by Multnomah County LE. An “up yours” gesture. All to the detriment of the public they are to protect and serve.
I agree that what is at odds here is the notification. They can’t access a criminal warrant if they are not advised the suspect is leaving custody. This is a political stance and a policy issue that played itself out in the most horrific of ways. To your point it will be used as an egregious example of what can happen as a result- Reese is going to have to weather that storm given his decision, not pass the buck to the Feds.
B
@ATG. I like big tough Texans. little ones too.
@Blink. I thot he’d wrap it up before that new GJ law took effect which due to Brown not signing it (unless I missed that in OR press) was to be 30 days from the date it was sent to her, iirc the last day of the legislative session. Was that July 7? So it woukd be Aug 6? No way Rod woukd risk a transcript requirement on this indictment, if he gets one. Will there be an arrest warrant & extradition request to CA?
——–
@ATG. ICE does not need a criminal warrant to stop and deport illegals. But if the person is jailed and they want a Sheriff to hold them while they (ice) get themselves over to pick him up,… that is to have him in custody then transfer custody, imo they need a criminal warrant signed by a Judge. Pretty easy to do with enough ALJs and one attorney in each regional DOJ tasked with this. Of course you need a cooperative proactive Sheriff who tells the rwgional point attorney he has someday. I doubt OR has that level of LE organization & cooperation in mcso.
IDK
Maybe the two searches at Springville rd were just training eexercise’s. MSCO could have claimed that they wee searches associated with the search for Kyron Horman so that people who lived there or needed access through there would not complain about the road being blocked off and strangers on their property.
I am sure that the searchers that were getting trained did keep their eyes open for any sign of Kyron.
If they were looking for a deceased Kyron was there any cadaver dogs with them? I didn’t see any on the KGW video.
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/search-related-to-kyron-horman-disappearance-underway-in-nw-portland/460567834
http://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-sheriff-sergio-martinez-deported-ice-immigrant-portland/
Personally, I think a motivated Sheriff, not a bureaucrat from PPB culture,
coukd’ve persuaded his DA to find something to charge him with.
“Reese is going to have to weather that storm given his decision, not pass the buck to the Feds. B”
I doubt the politicians and press that put and keep Reese in Office hold him to account, but rather buy his
storyline. They wanted a compliant bureaucrat and they got one. Without a free investigative press, County viters just defer to authority–the pastor, the banker, Wyden, the moneyed Corporate interests, the sports team owners, the DA, the Police Chief, the Sheriff.
—–
I found out reading last nite, Wheeler’s got myopia too….based on his 4 Chief finalists. (Aside, he should have dumped Marshman the choice of ppb good ol boys long ago and taken the heat then rather than stir up acrimony at tge time a new Chief is announced.) One of the 4 is from Oakland. googling I saw they got a great new Chief thus Jan who is tasked with cleaning out the culture of a troubled dept. Wheeler’s pick is a holdover from old Admin. In May housecleaning and new apptmts began. I figure this woman woukd’ve been a part of aggressive furniture rearrangement except since new chief came, she’s apparently been applying out and had the Portland prospect, so new Chief is likely giving her time to depart gracefully and with a promotion. both are female, but Portland’s candidate is also black. I don’t know why Wheeler would take someone from the top of a highly dysfunctional dept whose new chief would likely have communicated to last January that she expected her to find a new job elsewhere so she could appoint her own team..
the article that prompted my reading http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/367851-249947-portlands-police-chief-wheeler-choice-sets-up-political-risks
I have no idea why Wheeler would promote Marshman. If he does not,
look for him to retire and be made Reese’ Undersheriff, in line to succeed him.
jailor Reese’ problems are far deeper than one illegal violent meth ridden felon
http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2017/07/26/19190008/multnomah-countys-crowded-jails-mean-early-inmate-releases
He clearly values what County Commissioners value:
smaller budget expenditures over public safety.
o/t Oh my, the irony of a potential PPB chief named “Outlaw”.
Ikr!
B
Can a Barker constituent call his office and ask if Brown signed this Bill (my money says she didn’t bcz she doesnt politically labeled her Bill losing LE Union endorsements), and if not does it become law 30 days after it was sent to her July 10? http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/365697-247102-grand-jury-recording-stirs-strong-emotions
Prior to the Bill’s effect Krafve etal can weep ad nauseum the GJ while testifying to first hand impressions of Desiree’s and Kaine’s losses over 7 yrs and how hard DY has worked to bring her son’s abductor to justice. So DA had to wrap the GJ up before the law takes effect. He doesn’t want a transcript of testimony to the GJ.
Thanks Rose about the big and little Texans comment. I have had many more interactions with Mexicans than the two mentioned. Some are very good people, but the lower class and there are three or four levels, are unable to obtain the values required for an advanced society.
I am glad to see that Oregon is finally taking some modern steps regarding GJ activities. I doubt the Governor will sign the bill, but will do just as you suggested and let the 30 day period make it a law. IMO all GJ activities should be on video and any documents of evidence retained under court supervision for 25 or 30 years.
Blink. Can a GJ indict fir abduction and charge a John Doe?
Not without proof an abduction occurred- meaning, the prosecutor must put the charge before them if that is the gj function. Afaik- there is absolutely no evidence an abduction was witnessed and no evidence at all beyond that. To my knowledge one cannot indict without a basic bill of particulars.
B
@Rose says:
August 2, 2017 at 12:11 pm
It appears that the GJ law doesn’t take effect until March 1, 2018 for Multnomah and other largely populated counties, with the smaller populated counties given until 2019. But I think you are right, and this new law has possibly lit a fire under the DA’s office.
BTW, I think such legislation is long past due. It is cumbersome, to say the least, for the jury’s foreman to carry around all the juror’s notes at the end of the day, not to mention my shorthand days were long gone, and though I could remember some of it, it was a real pain to make all those notes in the first place! I remember us all discussing the fact back then as to why in the world testimony could not be recorded; sometimes people mishear and if not for those notes, a juror could be hearing something when the others heard something else entirely.
Agree entirely. Without a transcript, there is no real way to enforce it’s process and challenge it when it runs afoul of statute.
B
I realized it was foolish to ask a Barker constituent to ask his office about the law’s effective date & post here as it would reveal location. So I called, but his Office no was a message machine. Tried tho. If a GJ winds up, I expect we’ll know bcz Soldier will get the word from mama and spazz out.
Thank you Rose.
B
@TRuth. re ” appears that the GJ law doesn’t take effect until March 1, 2018 for Multnomah and other largely populated counties, with the smaller populated counties given until 2019.” isn’t that something? You’d think it’d be easier for smaller counties. but I bet those are red counties out west & placated house legislators 2 postpone.
So no need for an Aug 9 vigil I gather.
The 2016 vote totals indicate that there are two groups of Blue counties within the state of Oregon, One group lies along the Columbia river area all the way to the coast with the exception of Columbia county. This includes Hood River, Multnomah, Clackamas,Washington and Clatsop. A second group begins with Lane, Benton and Lincoln. All the rest are red counties and are principally East of I-5 except all the counties South of Lane which includes Eugene.
The total number of counties is 36 of which 8 were blue and 28 were red in 2016. Normally red counties are conservative or Republican/independent and Blue counties are liberal Democrat/Socialist in mapping schemes. The counties with large populations are all blue except Marion-the Salem area.
The GJ bill probably was written to allow time for the less populated counties to acquire funds for new equipment and training. Although, with the low cost of video equipment and storage devices every county should have been able to comply within 90 days.
I feel the counties or those representing them blaming the cost of equipment acquisition is a total smoke screen in this discussion. In many cases I work on where gj recordings are a component, client Attorneys are provided an upload link to a dropbox audio file or similar secure data storage/player scenario. Granted in gj some matters and matters gj’s are hearing “over time” would require certifications and indexing, etc, but that process is already in place for regular on the record proceedings. Oregon gj rules of evidence are to mirror that at trial- so in essence, if a witness, evidence or testimony does not follow statute rcp, it should not be presented. In my view, the trepidation ( of the only other state in the US that does not record gj previously) is because OR has used its gj to “indict now and investigate later”, and/or some of the transcript use upon appeal (if unavailable or a no true bill) can and has been used in other matters to bring perjury charges (Sandusky for Schultz, Curley and Spanier). Right now, we can assume the first gj ended in a no true bill- in that situation, outside of a copy of the actual no true bill, all notes are destroyed. The rules to convene (impanel) a 2nd gj on a substantively similar matter are succinct. Yet, by what means could a criminal defense attorney call out impropriety if the record is destroyed? This should ALSO be seen as a protective measure against allegations of prosecutor misconduct or subsequent Brady violations. As a “hypothetical” example – in a jurisdiction where recorded gj proceedings are part of discovery, the lone detective witness testifies to physical evidence currently undergoing testing at the lab that the results of which will lead to results “finding the decedents blood spatter all over the inside of the suspects vehicle.” This file was intentionally withheld by the pros until the eve of pre trial motion- here’s why- although a detective literally testified to the outcome of current lab testing prior to any results being received- not a drop of blood was either found or identified as blood of any party. It is believed to be root beer or some dark syrup soda product. He testified to a gj that it was the victims blood spatter- who the Hell thinks they can unring that bell?
B
My guess is that stats re gj use in OR are going to quickly bear out the defense bar’s arguments facilitating this in the first place. I can’t think of a greater need for transparency than one that has the ability to take away the liberty of an individual prior to due process.
Thank you fir the research ATG. That was interesting. A redibke Gov alternative to Brown in 2018 has just declared.
I don’t think support or not for proper GJ recordation, and testimony from LE, in OR is quite as simple as red and blue split. Imo the most opposed (or best case, unsupportive like Gov Brown) would be the most beholden to the support of various LE Unions at election time. That would be the Gov, all the DAs in the State, the AG, County Commissioners, etc. Its sturdiest opponenf, Jeff Barker, is from Aloha. But he’s retired PPB & beholden to LE Unions. It is outrageous DAs have been putting LE into GJ testimony to testify under oath to victims’ anguish and emotional state. that has nothing to do with wherher a crime occurred ir by whom. It elings after a onviction, presentencing.
here is today’s WW page http://www.wweek.com/homepage/
imo this news source has gone batshit crazy,
manifesting merely as the id of the
coowner since Meeker decamped the job and the State.
So sorry to lose what news it once had.
@harleycolt. about indicia of LE as perp.
under the premise SZ reads such sources that
remain (some don’t like SMonkeys or GoFundMe),
I segued from WS to her petition.
One signator bills himself as a
Secirity professional & Investigator in Vancouver.
So, imo the SZ signatures pointing to LE;
quick pickup no cameras
quick pick up no school security
wuick pick up on chaotic mgmt environment
quick pickup on assessing child
quick go to ground
quick destruction of evidence (kyron)
could as easily point to a security/investigator
independent contractor or employee (Quick Draw Rev was also one)
attuned to LE distractions (funeral, fleet) having knowledge
of how to abduct & rapidly conceal and ensure evidence never surfaces
When an entity does not have records to back a position, then the public is at the mercy of good or bad behavior. It makes for lazy people because there is nothing to refute a conclusion based on just someone’s concept or desired outcome.
Our legal system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent as are many countries laws.
The old time paper records or notes that were kept by grand juries were all that was available prior to modern recording methods. Audio recording has been available since its development in the early part of the 20th century, first on tin-foil rolls, then shellac flat recordings that turned at 78 rpm. Tape and wire recorders were being produced in the late 1930′s and early 1940′s. First audio and then audio and video. Filmed video has been around since the early years of the 20th century with audio tracks being added during the 1930′s.
Xerox copying was conceived and explored with the first patents being issued in 1917. It did not become a commercial reality until the middle and late 1950′s because the electronics to control the process were not available until that time.
All of our early recording methods were advanced by the entertainment industry because of the large costs of these early devices. The development of solid state electronic components made it possible for small less expensive devices to be used by the public, businesses and government including the legal profession. When the costs get right, the market will drive new ideas and further development.
Getting small computers into the courts was a hard job because they were resisted by the slow to advance judges. Computer clubs in the early days of small personal computers were the driving force that effected that advance.
Today there is no real reason not to have audio and video of all court proceedings including grand juries. Those that oppose them are doing so because they see an advantage to themselves by not having such a record. Such as having a detective testify about blood when the actual substance was a cola and the detective and DA knowing full well that they had no evidence to support the claim as in Blink’s comment.
Freedom and democratic processes are possible only as long as the people watch their government to see that it does not overstep its mandate and take advantage of the public they are to serve. Morality and public virtue are the guides.
Right, I do think that into is false, fwiw.
B
after I made my am comment, WW actually put up some
news stories after lunch in the early afternoon. before that
it seemed all happening and rave type stuff appealing
to various sense organs, not that I looked closely.
This is from an attorney in Texas, not Oregon, but it brings up an interesting point about GJ’s and I believe that Oregon is the same:
My felony charge was No Billed. What’s next with my case?
If a felony charge is No Billed that can be very good news. That means that there was not enough evidence to convince the Grand Jury that you committed a felony. Very often, once a No Bill is returned from the Grand Jury, the Prosecutor will sign a dismissal order. A Dismissal Order, once signed by the Judge, dismisses the case against you. However, once the criminal charge is filed against you, depending on the charge, the Statute of Limitations begins to run for you and the State.
What do I do for you on your felony case?
One thing I like to do is speak to the prosecutors as soon as possible before indictment and before they present your case to the Grand Jury. Sometimes, I can give them favorable evidence to your side of the story for them to considering showing the Grand Jury. This may be the deciding factor as to whether or not you get indicted.
The important note here is that once you are arrested for a felony, even if one Grand Jury decides to not to indict you and No Bills the charge, that does not prevent the prosecutor from trying to indict you again, at a later time, with a different Grand Jury! For example, once the members of one Grand Jury decide to No Bill your case, the prosecutor may have a number of years before the Statute of Limitations has expired. The prosecutor can keep trying to indict you until the Statute of Limitations expires.
Why can they keep trying to indict me?
The State can keep trying to indict you because the Statute of Limitations has not run out for your criminal charge. This is the way that the law is set up. This is because during that time (the Statute of Limitations) new evidence may become available, witnesses may disappear and then come back, new testing may become available (DNA for example), and overall the State has the right to present their case.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/grand-jury-system-bill-problem-terrence-marsh
It’s difficult to find out what happens when a NO TRUE BILL or NO BILL occurs in Oregon. But IIRC, the No True Bill goes on record. And once it’s on record, isn’t it a public record? If not, it should be. I’ve been looking all over for that information and can’t seem to find it in any state. Does anyone here know? Does a NO TRUE BILL become public record?
In any case, it sounds like multiple GJ’s can be assembled over and over for, well in the case of murder, forever, until the case is closed. But what happens to the prior testimonies that resulted in the first NO BILLS? And what if those who testified in the original NO BILL decisions die or become mentally incapacitated?
T.Ruth- that example is a good “working” one, but it is Attorney inflated (advertisement) and an oversimplification)one, “over” actual Oregon statute. In theory, a no true bill can result in a prosecutor resubmitting the case to another grand jury, HOWEVER, any evidence heard, any witnesses in the no true bill MAY NOT be used in the subsequent gj, only NEW evidence, or in a very limited and narrow fashion, previous evidence resulting in new investigative avenues.
As an example, I feel that Spicher’s testimony was that “new” evidence in the second gj. She was subpoenaed to the first, but was not called before it- she testified at the second. In Kyron’s case we also have the distinction that the statute of limitations on the mfh- or attempted solicitation to be clearer, has run out and the second gj was impaneled, not sitting. We know that her immunity deal required her participation in a lie detector test- one she asked to take immediately following her testimony to fulfill her obligation and was denied until a few weeks later. Please see below footnote re 2013 Brady codification re exculpatory evidence- I fervently believe that would have been considered exculpatory . It reset this case over 4 years later, ftlog.
That means that the impaneled gj can and will only hear evidence in Kyron’s case subject to the rules for a 2nd gj hearing case evidence where a first no true billed. Considering all notes from the first gj are to be destroyed with the exception of the actual no true bill form, which is filed with the clerks office (no, it is not public) it is next to impossible to prove (outside of compelling testimony which is largely protected by law anyway)what was presented in the first under previous Oregon law. Taking a beat here to touch on an important point- criminal defendants must be in a position to pay their counsel for the whopping investigative and research fees that come out of this red tape nightmare in the first place if they are faced with such a situation. They are likely to bleed their defense retainer just on this type of “unearthing” in the first place. LE and prosecutors rely on that in some situations and public defenders- forget about it, lol.
Important footnote for 2013 as well:
Codification into the discovery statute ORS 135.815. DA’s were under the misimpression that they were required to disclose only evidence about
which they themselves were aware
. Instead, Brady imposes on prosecutors the “duty to inquire” of the police whether they have any evidence within their possession that is potentially favorable to the defense. This is very important because the distinction REQUIRES the DA to ask of their investigative agency or agencies if they are aware of any exculpatory material- a prosecutor can never say “I didn’t know” therefore I could not provide it to the defense. This became a specific duty.
Very interesting comment here that went unchallenged (SHOCKER ALERT) from DA Rod UNderhill:
Multnomah County prosecutes about 5,000 felony cases per year, and “a significant number result in an indictment,” says Underhill. “If grand jurors felt that they were being misused or felt like rubber stamps,” or thought that “untoward behavior” was taking place, the media and public would hear about it, he adds. The reason they don’t is “because of the professionalism that occurs,” he says.
###
How on earth would the public hear about it when there is no record? How could this ever be a check and balance when gj proceedings are secret in the first place? That comment is senseless, imo.
Lastly- under OR statute, even an impaneled gj MUST hear the entire case presented before them- their very impetus for impaneling. That includes the Judge. I don’t know what process either the target of that gj would use to verify or refute this occurred in their case- but what are the chances the same jurors and Judge of this impaneled jury are the same after over 4 years? Repeating again- I have YET to speak to either a criminal defense Attorney or Professor of Law in this jurisdiction who has ever heard of similar circumstances.
If Terri or anyone tied to her was ever indicted in this case in the first place, I would be willing to bet that Underhill would either recuse or end up removed from prosecuting the case anyway. I said this years ago, but the more I learn the more “true-er” it looks. He would likely end up a witness. Can’t happen. I can think of several recent criminal cases where this actually came to fruition.
B
In looking at the local government codes in Oregon, I found the county organization for management. All counties were to be managed by a county judge and two commissioners as set out in the state Constitution. In 1962, the legislature pass a bill that allowed a county to have what is named “Home Rule”. This takes away the original organization and replaces it with three to five elected Councillors.
To date, nine counties have been approved for home rule. Eight of the nine have implemented home rule. The majority of the home rule counties are those with large populations and it includes Multnomah and Klackamas.
OT. So sad….
http://yournewswire.com/oregon-child-sex-ring/
On page 2 of KGW’s petition to disclose info on Kyron’s case, they argue that Sean Rea and TH have made themselves public figures. Does this indicate that the GJ is hearing information about TH’s alleged MFH when she was in her 20′s and where do they see the potential ties vis a vis Kyron’s case? It seems to say that is there direction further into the document.
So a GJ that has not indicted in 7 years is going to flip on a dime and vote a true bill because some live guy says TH tried to have him killed 20 years ago, and this somehow means exactly what in relationship to her MFH on her live husband. Even if both is true and she stole a gun and a car, why can’t they seem to prove any of it and how exactly does that get them to Kyron. IMO, after 7 years if they could get her, they would have by now. (Imagine those juror’s.)
I think about Kyron’s parent’s years from now realizing that they were taken down a rabbit hole, and the people that took them there are retired and are not accountable for their mistake, nor have they ever been.
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/kyron-horman/grand-jury-hearing-evidence-in-kyron-horman-case-documents-reveal/440862217
You touch on the second most haunting thing to me about this case. The first is obviously what happened to this little defenseless cherub. But to your point- I know plenty about the cruelty a poor investigation can wreak on grieving parents of a missing child. That includes the unwillingness to call it out for fear they will then be excluded from any developments- what could be worse than facing that your child is gone, no earthly idea where or by whom, and the people tasked with that outcome have failed, are failing over 7 years in. In my view part of the problem is MCSO staunch position that Terri is involved. I am confident that Desiree and Kaine cling to that for a myriad of reasons, but at its core is because in their heart of hearts they do not believe Terri Horman capable of physically harming Kyron, or “soliciting” same. Neither of them is likely to ever lose any sleep over the persecution of Terri as it serves their interests.
My prediction- the impaneled gj will be dismissed, if it has not been already, without seeking an indictment. Sean Rea will never be brought before a grand jury, that’s why he was leaked to Kyle in the first place. To my knowledge, gj’s can watch the news and read papers like anyone else and Iboshi was apparently not interested in vetting him.
Everyone involved with any sort of chops or network in Kyron’s case has known about him since 2010 or 2011. Does anyone really believe if he could not be used in some way that DY, who has also publicly claimed to know about him just as long, would not have leaked that herself? A year of nothingburgers all designed to ultimately land TH in the slammer tells me that death cop spiral has not worked, and it smells like a looming expiration date.
And really- in 2017, the plan B is that landing TMH in the klink without counsel present and taping her calls, attorney visits (illegal) and putting an undercover or CI in her cell is the ticket to solving this case when she has not so much as received an interview request through counsel since late June 2010??? WTF is wrong with this picture? Am I watching a really bad Kojak rerun?
B
correction: that is THEIR direction.
Pretend something is found in one of those well publicized search areas, what will that prove? Unless it can be establish that the evidence has remained in the same location for seven years, what could a jury make of something like that?
Since it is my firm belief that the very notion of impaneling a gj was based on securing Spicher’s testimony before it, I am somewhat jaded in this over 4 year 2nd gj ruse that ADA Rees insists has been suspended and extended several times at MCSO request. For starters, as a technicality here, MCSO has zero standing in any capacity to suspend a gj, that is and will always be a function of the DA’s office in the form of a Judge’s order, period. I saw that commentary (Rees) as a “guess who we plan to throw under the bus when we get screwed and sued?” salvo.
I am unequivocal in my belief that Spicher was, in part, a target subject of that gj based on the MCSO belief she was either involved or knew something about who was, directly from Horman. Do I believe that was one of the largest disjoints between a LEA and the DA presenting a case to the gj? You betcha. They expected her to show deception in her polygraph so they could void her deal and threaten her some more, get her to entrap Terri, etc. When Rees is then asked to publicly declare Spicher has been cleared after persecuting her publicly for years Rees responds by saying they will not clear her because she was NEVER considered a suspect by his office. Um, hello? Ever meet Frink? Were you aware that Spicher’s attorney used to work for him?
To your question re anything found on searches- first, it would need to be tied directly to the case in some fashion, whether that be to a person or a crime that can offer its evidentiary value to the case to be offered as evidence under the admissible evidence rule. GJ rules indicate that only evidence that can be introduced in court can be introduced to them- but I have no idea how much license is taken when none of that is documented outside of someone’s scrawl. Let’s say as an example they found a book titled “Kidnapping Kids From School for Dummies” with a map to Skyline with a lock of long red hair as a bookmark. The chain of custody of that material must be established first to determine its relevance before it is literally “just debris.” One thing that makes me pretty sure that the areas searched are being searched without any probable cause or relevance going in is because they are being searched by consent of the property owners. No LEA in the free world better be conducting a site specific search without a warrant to do so, and lets say for the sake of argument they do- and they run across my aforementioned best seller in Oregon 2010- if there is even the slightest hint it could be connected, all time stops, all personnel retreat to base except the dude securing the perimeter and a criminal search warrant (there are a few “versions”) would be obtained immediately. I am referring to very standard protocol with the assumption that MCSO follows those standards.
Does anyone really think in this jurisdiction over 7 years later that MCSO is conducting intel-based searches they are announcing to the media?
B
I can’t really respond to that without revealing the “private subject matter” or having more direct information.
That said, hypothetically, it is the same concept as “fake news”. Let me give a pseudo example involving Kyron’s case.
Let’s take for instance the search DY last orchestrated where none of her handlers hired by Klaas kids agreed to show up at the last minute. I have since learned why- or at least one reason. They were handed releases to appear on camera which is against their by-laws at the last minute AND actual compensation for appearances by some were paid.
SO… Tony’s SAR canine handlers step in as volunteers and viola- the bones and ensuing footage appear. Let me be clear on this point. ANY search of any kind for human remains will have a resident anthropologist on call. Said “on call” person had better be able to tell the difference between human remains, adult, child, or somewhere in between by a damn iphone pic. In the context it was offered it is beyond silly to think that did not happen. My point- it was an exercise in dramatic license to offer a highlight trailer prior to the episode. The other side of that is potentially the searchers involved- one way to weed out any potential leakers is to give information to a limited number of people and see where it ends up. I am never going to release source information, and doubl-never when I do not have permission to- but I knew in advance about that because some numnut from the show actually was talking about it in a hotel elevator. True story.
My point- if there was even the slightest indication potential human remains were found, LE is called, the scene is secured, the evidence response team is dispatched, and all the protocol response teams you can think of that go with that, all civilians are removed immediately and the “locator” is debriefed, etc. None of this is ever going to occur in a vaccum or without the media- who btw, has a network of folks whose job is to listen to all the various and sundry dispatch radio traffic on open and select or alternative channels. I can also tell you that when the search itself is confirmed or announced, as you saw, local media pays particular attention and they also have their own network of sources. I have dealt with this in my personal casework. In fact, one case had detectives telling a Mother that the human skull they located on a search was sent to a forensic anthropologist and we were awaiting testing- for A YEAR.
I simply called the chain of custody on down the line and viola- no skull in evidence anywhere. I had the case transferred to the State Police just based on that nonsense when it should have been years before. Victim was finally recovered.
B
Kinda found what I was looking for:
When a person has been held to answer a criminal charge and the indictment in relation thereto is not found “a true bill,” it must be indorsed “not a true bill,” which indorsement must be signed by the foreman and filed with the clerk of the court, in whose office it shall remain a public record. In the case of an indictment not found “a true bill” against a person not so held, the same, together with the minutes of the evidence in relation thereto, must be destroyed by the grand jury.
(2) When an indictment indorsed “not a true bill” has been filed with the clerk of the court, the effect thereof is to dismiss the charge; and the same cannot be again submitted to or inquired of by the grand jury unless the court so orders. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §54]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/132.430
************
If I’m interpreting this correctly, if one was “held” (as in arrested), then the “no bill” would be made public. If one is not “held”, then everything is destroyed.
And as far as #2 goes, it sounds like it could go on and on and on so long as the “court so ordered”:
In exercising discretion to allow or deny resubmission of charges to grand jury, trial court must determine, after considering averred facts, whether resubmission is in interest of justice. State v. Stokes, 350 Or 44, 248 P3d 953 (2011)
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/132.430
***********
IDK, but it sounds to me like as long as there is no arrest, this could be resubmitted to a new grand jury over and over and over, so long as the court determines it is in the interest of justice.
If that is correct, then my next question is just who (what court?) determines it is in the interest of justice to empanel yet another grand jury to rehear the evidence?
Good grief, this is as clear as mud.
I responded at length to you earlier T.Ruth, not sure if you saw that, but to your question- YES, it matters if a person was held or not on a charge- in this case and what it means “generally” is that the individual had to have been arrested at some point. They must have been held to answer (legal term) or in some sort of custody for that to apply. Many, many people are arrested prior to an indictment, and many are not (Terri) that means the DA was seeking an indictment to secure an arrest warrant, not putting it on “LE” so to speak.
So.. you actually answered your own question (do you prefer that over my windbagness? Lol, teasing) if there is a no true bill, and the person was not held” “…and the same cannot be again submitted to or inquired of by the grand jury unless the court so orders…” So the charges against Horman and the evidence in the first gj, assuming (and I have it on very good faith) that it was a no true bill, a second and impaneled gj may only hear new evidence or new evidence arising from old to be heard in any order that impaneled them in the first place. To add insult to injury here, as I have read some wording in some recent docs to state “reviewing evidence” the impaneled gj may be an investigative one where ultimately they have assumed the role of LE by some means. I have only ever seen that in one case- Ramsey. There may be others, but I am not aware of it and I don’t believe it has happened here, except to say that it is possible.
It is unlawful and unconstitutional to shop grand juries until they find 5 out of 7 jurists who love ham sandwiches.
I personally do not think Underhill a stupid man and I also find him far more risk averse than his predecessors. I hope nobody from the profession will take this as an insult, I do not mean it to be, but there are many prosecutors out there that are lousy litigators and most of them know it so it is a full on strategy to negotiate so things never get to court, lol.
B
erose says:
August 5, 2017 at 3:49 am
havent read Blink yet, but kgw’s position is
Ludicrous. One People interview, seeming to motivate LE to find her son, does not make Terri a public figure under the law. For 7 years her behavior has been anything but. Kyle’s starting to smell like a certain Jones.
also re “I think about Kyron’s parent’s years from now realizing that they were taken down a rabbit hole”
imo erose either bio was taken down a rabbit hole. grief or not, imo they jumped down with alarcity & enthusiasm feet first, and probably dug it themselves. They are victims of SZ but no other entity’s victim. They have however victimized Terri & Spicher & the Moultons brutally.
and victimized kiara imo
Blink, you are on a informative roll today. Thank you.
re “very notion of impaneling a gj was based on securing Spicher’s testimony before it,”
True that, aint mcso + Rees team pathetic? Maybe the same (fiction) supplier.
—–
That search of Desiree’s promoted by “a show” is some dramatic pumpkins.
It was Crime Watch Daily as I recall.
I have a very strong suspicion that Rees relied on MCSO “impressions” and learned his lesson.
B
toll should be ROLL. Our Blink is on a roll…
“personally do not think Underhill a stupid man and I also find him far more risk averse than his predecessors”
http://blinkoncrime.com/2016/09/21/dr-phil-show-hosts-missing-portland-child-kyron-hormans-step-mom-terri-horman-over-two-episodes/#comments
Predecessors? Shrunk, his predecessor, was in office 32 yrs and imo would’ve hung his gramma if it got a notch on his buckle. Portland press universally alleged his father was a falling down drunk of the most corrupt ilk, and he reigned in Goldsmidt’s time and did nothing, ditto on Kitz and Cogen’s drug use. And Frink, Underhill’s superior’s tactics overdecades speak for his ethics. Underhill has very little to live up to, apart from say psychlogically being akin to Narcissus gazing at his reflected water image, convincinghimself he is righteous. He owes Horman a publically proclaimed apology. He is the opposite of a model lawyer imo. And Rees? No explanation for his attorney behavior.
Dumb and dumber.
Here’s the thing for me Rose- it does nothing for Kyron in any way, to highlight any of the absolute misuse and abuse of offices here. I don’t know what anyone thought would happen when someone with a magic detective wand waived it over a bunch of former jailers or river patrollers and made them detectives with zero experience or training in a missing child case. News flash- many tenured and seasoned best practice detectives never see a case like this. Lots of agencies are unprepared to handle a similar case, it is unfair to task people with responsibilities without the skills or tools to accomplish it successfully. I am no great fan of Staton- but I am starting to ask myself the inmate v asylum question in this case as far as his ousting. He did call in the FBI, and he openly questioned the case direction and removed and demoted ODonell.
Who is the individual in that organization willing to say- we look like idiots and btw, a little boy is still missing on our watch? Maybe the fact that we keep operating the same way without an results requiring a re engineering of this case from an outside source? Just OMG already.
B
appreciate so much valuable research TRuth. & interp
whoever NewOne is, thank you for your
question which got a fine response.
Rose, Yes they dug the rabbit hole before they dove in, but I doubt they see it that way. IMO, for this to change it is their perception that needs to be changed, and it was/is the responsibility of the professionals to lead the investigation. And yes, yes, yes, they destroyed lives along the way.
I could not agree more with Blink’s statement about turning a case that has been mishandled because of zero experience or proper training to another organization such a state police or the FBI.
Ignorance of required skills by management in a LE organization is a major management problem. It is often the result of EGO by those who make the decisions.
This case and the Morgan Harrington case in Virginia are the prime examples that we have on this blog. In this case, the inexperienced MCSO people and in the Harrington case, the state police group assigned.
Police work and investigative work assigned to a LE agency is not easy. A real detective is a person who can think out of the box and is willing to realize when they need additional knowledge and are willing to secure the knowledge for themselves or hire an outside expert for assistance.