A Blink On Crime Exclusive: DeDe Spicher speaks for the first time about her ordeal in the Kyron Horman investigation- continued  ©

S. Christina Stoy, Editor In Chief- Blink On Crime

DeDe Spicher and Terri Moulton Horman

In the first part of blinkoncrime.com’s exclusive interview with DeDe Spicher,  she revealed that after over 3 years of attempting to provide Multnomah County Sheriffs Office as well as Assistant Deputy Attorney Norm Frink with the necessary information they requested to clear her from any suspicion in the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Skyline second grader Kyron Horman; she has finally been cleared after passing a polygraph as part of her requirement under an immunity deal that has been sealed with the court.  Unofficially cleared, that is.

Spicher and her attorney Chad Stavley,  who have since refused all local media requests,  would very much like the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office and current District Attorney Rod Underhill to clear her officially and publicly.

Spicher is adamant that law enforcement never had any reason to question her statements to them from the beginning, has cooperated fully for over three years and recently testified before the grand jury to prove she had nothing to hide.  While she would like the public to know that any assertions to the contrary are untrue, and sometimes have been offered maliciously,  her desire to speak out about her experience over the last three years is primarily to force investigative resources to review it’s progress- and hopefully adjust in a way to further leads in Kyron’s case.

As was proven not only by her recent polygraph,  but also by the verification that no evidence ever existed to support investigator’s theory in the first place,  Spicher had no information about anyone’s potential involvement in Kyron’s disappearance, let alone her own.

The continuation of our interview, which provoked some very interesting revelations long felt to be a possibility by many, was confirmed by Ms. Spicher  as she says- told to her by Terri Moulton Horman are prompting new possible theories in the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Kyron Horman.  Two days after Kyron Horman’s eleventh birthday.

Stoy: So, in your estimation then,  why do you think that detectives Herron and Kravfe were so sure that you were involved or knew who was.

Spicher:  I have thought about this a lot, and I think there were a few reasons.  I think because I was advised through a meeting Terri had with a family friend and attorney that she should assume that all of her communication was being monitored by law enforcement and anyone she had contact with.  He told her to assume the house was bugged as well as vehicles, etc.  I also believe you did an article a while back that pointed out her phone was in Kaine’s name.   As this was a day or two after she was served with the restraining order,  she was also told that

Stoy (interrupting): You bought a prepaid phone after June 28^th and never had one before that?  I had read that you or someone else purchased them the day of or the day after Kyron’s disappearance.

Spicher: No.  I purchased one prepaid phone, after Terri shared the info from her meeting, in my own name, either June 29^th or 30^th.    I think they were hung up on the fact that I came to her aid with no contact for so long so they just were convinced there had to be.

Stoy: ok, sorry, continue.  So you are not saying that LE was suggesting that you were hiding some other number you had and that was how they were alleging that you HAD to have been in contact with Terri or some other person prior to and on June 4th and that escalated your “poi” status in your opinion?

Spicher:  They did not say that to me specifically, but what they repeated over and over again, was that Terri and I had to have had some form of communication we were hiding.  It never made any sense to me because I knew I only had my cell that I had forever until the end of June,  and I knew I had not been in contact with Terri since her 40^th birthday party in March.  So I would ask- well then I guess that means that you don’t have any contacts you can’t verify from either of us so why am I even in this “interview”?

To my recollection they never shared with me or answered any of my questions in response when something they kept hounding me about seemed absurd and conflicting with their theory.

Stoy: Which was?

Spicher: At first,  I think that they really believed I was involved,  and at some point I think they were talking more “accessory after the fact” because I got the impression ( although they did not share it with me) that Terri’s cell phone activity that day was nowhere near where I was,  and my vehicle never left, nor did I.  They would not verify that they located the ceramics/glassware artist [pottery artisan] I told you about and still have not.

Stoy: So in your opinion, you were clearly the linchpin of this case,  they [LE] believed you held the key to solving it and/or implicating Terri exclusively at that point, they no longer entertained your involvement per se?

Spicher: I honestly don’t think I could say that I ever believed that they stopped treating me as some sort of suspect.  I never felt that way,  but yes, absolutely they 100% believe that Terri is responsible and I definitely believed we all had to be interviewed and scrutinized or whatever,  but I really thought up until the meeting with Norm Frink that they [LE] would abandon that theory quickly because if they were positive I was the key, and I knew I was not, that would also eliminate Terri, who I did not and do not believe, but have no proof, was involved or knew anything.

Stoy: Right, so if you had nothing, and they felt you were the only nexus, it had to mean that they had no independent evidence of anything or anyone else so they would start in another direction?

Spicher: Right, but every interaction I had with them following and including the request to participate in the sting against her, made me believe they never did.  To get back to the why question you asked me- my final thought on that is that they kept pointing out that I was the person to tell everyone not to speak to them without attorneys in the beginning.    I would ask like who do you mean,  because that would have been my opinion across the board for any situation, but it was definitely based on what was getting out about how they were going about this.  I was scared and it turned out it was good reason.   I also would point out to them that I did not think that was or should be the basis for suspicion because if it was, it seemed to me that I was told that several staff members at Skyline had hired counsel, and Kaine was the FIRST to have one between he and Terri and I had told her at least a week or so before that she should.

Stoy: Why do you think she did not immediately take your friendly advice?  Your Dad was LE, and I presume she knew that.  People can say what they want, but I know many members of law enforcement in different jurisdictions and agencies.  I have worked with them or contributed analysis to cases with them privately [I cannot and would not ever include that in anything I choose to write on] and I can tell you that I do not know one of them that if they were the focus of a criminal probe or internal investigation they absolutely do not agree to an interview without a representative.  In fact,  Herron is or was the President of Mulnomah County Police Union or was, if I recall correctly.  So to that end, I find that a pretty hypocritical reason for suspicion of anyone.

Spicher: (laughs) Interesting.  I am not sure that I knew that. The reason Terri didn’t get an atty before the RO was because she was told by LE that if she did, she wouldn’t be privvy to any of their investigative discoveries, she would be out of the loop in finding Kyron.

Stoy: Have you had a desire or opportunity to review any sort of past events regarding the MCSO, I guess I should add, that involve anyone in this case or investigation you have had contact with?

Spicher: No,  do you mean like any other detectives or that sort of thing?

Stoy: Have you ever met with or been interviewed with any other agencies or detectives?

Spicher:  I believe I either met or just said hello to the guy you mentioned in that recent article of yours while he was at the house.  Both Kaine and Terri were there at the time as well.

Stoy: Bobby O’Donnell?

Spicher: That’s it,  yes, him.  Why did you ask me if I am aware of any sort of events- should I be?

Stoy: Well, I think that tangentially if I were you I would be considering just about everything as it related to what you have been through,  and I am aware of some what I will refer to as “stuff” but what I don’t want to do prior to the completion of our interview process is temper any of your responses with anything I know peripherally if that’s ok with you.  If you wish, once I publish the continuation which will have that sort of information,  I would invite you to comment on it for the record if you choose- are you ok with that?

Spicher: yes, that’s fine and probably a good idea.

Stoy: back briefly to the “sting request against Terri- On that issue- the request they extended to you outside the presence of your attorney and that they asked you not to tell Chad, as you think back ,  considering you have had no communication with Horman for over three years did you believe they thought it would work?  What did your attorney say when you told him?

Spicher: I can’t and won’t address any conversations I have had with my attorney,  but to answer your question as to my opinion,  I really don’t know for sure, I knew that I did not, and thought it was really, really odd- that was my first reaction.  After more thought,  and other conversations,  I don’t see how they thought it would work, or why they were still seemingly convinced after I had just passed the poly, etc, Terri was still their suspect and responsible.   What is your opinion on it?

Stoy:  I think I may reserve my thoughts on that for my piece.  Again, not wanting to temper your opinions  as we move along here and I think that could happen if I did.  Is that ok with you?

Spicher: Sure, thank you.

Stoy: I would like to move on to another subject for discussion.  I would just like to confirm for the record that I have never prior to this interview, asked you any questions about your potential knowledge of steroid use by yourself, or by Terri or Kaine Horman.  Is that correct? (more…)

Civil As An Oxymoron

Desiree Young, Kyron’s biological mother and arguably the bravest soul in recent memory as far as the frantic and grieving mom’s of missing children’s set is concerned, believes her youngest son has been kidnapped by Terri Horman.

Or that she arranged for same by some unknown party and is demanding his location or the location of his remains.

Her recent civil suit filed by Eldon Rosenthal makes these direct allegations against the woman that by her own admission,  she  entrusted with the care of her toddler son in 2003.

Her suit is demanding $10 million dollars with a reservation to amend to include punitive damages later.  The complaint is 5 pages long, or apparently $2million a page.

Last month a ruling by Judge Harry Kantor denying an abatement motion will allow the suit to proceed, for now.

The decision was widely seen as a win for Desiree Young in her tenacious quest to seek answers in the disappearance of her son Kyron from The Skyline School on June 4^th, 2010.   Headlines throughout the region and the evening talking head regulars praised the Judge’s decision for the Mom who has had no previous success in very public campaigns to engage Terri Horman’s cooperation in the investigation.

The legal community however, not so much.  The decision to move the case forward relied largely on the fact that although it was patently clear from Ms. Young’s filing and subsequent public commentary by her and counsel Eldon Rosenthal that she alleges Horman has committed criminal acts resulting in the disappearance of Kyron Horman.

Terri Horman has neither been declared a suspect by police nor has she been indicted by a grand jury who continues to meet on the case.

Kaine Horman, Kyron’s father, learned about the suit filed by his former wife by a member of the media seeking comment on his reaction to it.   He has not been made a party to the civil action although he was awarded primary physical custody of the couple’s son in March, 2004.

I count myself with the thousands that want this aggrieved Mother and Father to locate their child regardless of the outcome.

That said, it is ridiculous to think a woman whose criminal attorney has advised her not to respond to a twice- renewed restraining order precluding her from seeing her now 3 year old daughter is going to utter a syllable outside of assertion of her 5^th amendment rights during any deposition she is compelled to participate in.

On  June  4,  2010,  Terri  Horman,  acting  alone  or  in  concert  with  others, intentionally kidnapped Kyron Horman from ; Skyline Elementary School.  Kyron has not been seen or heard from by either of his parents since prior to Terri Horman taking Kyron to school that morning.

Did Not Miss The Memo

The Honorable Harry Kantor penned an accompanying order memorandum to his ruling following oral arguments on August 18^th, It is  worthy of the Honorable Belvin Perry’s stamp of approval- with the exception of course that is does not contain the phrase, “no earthly idea.”

It did however; contain the first ever direct statement that Terri Horman is a suspect in the investigation, a PRIME suspect, no less.  In pertinent part:

“..The focus of the defendant’s motion is to stop the prosecution of this civil case while an ongoing active criminal investigation into both young Kyron Horman’s disappearance in 2010 and a murder-for-hire plot against Kyron’s father, Kaine Horman, is pending, so that the defendant (Terri Horman, Kyron’s step-mother and Kaine’s wife) is not required to decide whether to exercise her constitutional rights against self-incrimination under the United States and Oregon Constitutions before it is necessary to do so in any criminal prosecution which may follow the investigation. The plaintiff is Kyron ‘smother.  The defendant is a prime suspect in the investigation  …” (emphasis added by me)

Interestingly, Judge Kantor takes it upon himself to declare Terri Horman a prime suspect in BOTH the ongoing criminal investigations of a murder for hire plot and Kyron’s disappearance.

While it is a fair statement to say that both sides agree that Terri Horman is the subject or focus via “laser pointer” of the investigation into Kyron’s disappearance and her attorneys used that point to support abatement.  At no time and in no document or filing has either side said Terri Horman was a prime suspect of anything?  Where does Judge Kantor come by such information?

For his Honor to state his concern over tainting a jury pool, and then to allege, or divulge, as it were, that Terri Horman is a prime suspect in a murder for hire plot in an ongoing criminal investigation-  is he  privy to such information from some alternative source that is not contained on the record?

A request for any exparte information should be forthcoming.   Where is the conversation with District Attorney Rod Underhill or his office read into the record?  It has not been.

Lea Conner, Washington Family Attorney and BOC legal analyst sees Judge Kantor’s take differently:

“…The judge is not referring exclusively to the Desiree Young lawsuit.

Kaine Horman claimed in his TRO petition that law enforcement provided him with probable cause to believe that Terri Horman had attempted to hire someone to kill him.

He again made the same claim in papers filed after the TRO petition (specifically alleging that Terri was sexting the landscaper who she wanted to murder him, then allegedly sexted Michael Cook). 

 Kaine reiterated his allegations a third time in papers he filed last fall in response to Terri Horman’s motion for parenting time. 

 Kaine once again claimed Terri Horman tried to hire a hit man when he sought to renew the restraining order in 2011. There was an additional line added to the renewal, and though it sounded like something new, it was just Kaine reiterating the same allegations. 

 The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment applies to criminal matters, and it does not allow prior testimonial statements of witnesses to be admitted where the witness has since become unavailable. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 

 Here, we are talking about a civil matter. The Confrontation Clause and the holding of Crawford do not apply to civil matters or other non-criminal proceedings…”

In Oregon, a special appearance is used by a party who wishes to vacate an unauthorized proceeding without consenting to jurisdiction of the court:

A “special appearance” is made by a party when he or his attorney seeks to obtain from the court an order vacating some proceeding which, it is insisted, has been undertaken by the adverse party in an unauthorized manner; such an appearance being thus limited to prevent conferring jurisdiction of the person.  Again, Ms. Conner’s thoughts:

…” The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the judge’s point was the last couple of pages that says Terri Horman’s lawyers cannot make any motion without appearing. This is to say that a special appearance allows a challenge as to the validity of a specific action, but it does not otherwise allow an attorney (nor a party) to file other types of motions or to seek other relief, as was done here.

The abatement that the attorneys sought would act as a protective order. Abatement is not a challenge to the propriety nor validity of the underlying action. As such, Terri Horman’s lawyers needed to appear before filing a motion as to the issue of abatement. ..”

Judge Kantor chose the teamwork approach in an adversarial proceeding, and instructed Terri Horman’s counsel they will need to file an appearance.   He attempts to present the case’s challenges to both sides and seeks input as to how best to protect the rights of the defendant, in pertinent part:

The court does not have any particular length of time for this delay in mind at this juncture. lnstead, the court would like the parties and their lawyers to consult and confer about the following and then report back:

1.  Should the court require the defendant to file an answer to the complaint which admits or denies the plaintiffs allegations or simply allow the defendant to litigate as if she denied those allegations?  If so, by when and for how long?

2.   Should the plaintiff be required to establish “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause” (as defined in criminal cases) that the defendant has done what is alleged through other evidence before the defendant is required to answer oral or written deposition questions under oath?

3.   Should the plaintiff be required to serve written deposition questions, which would be subject to court review upon proper motion, and review the answers before taking the defendant’s oral deposition?

 Once the court has the parties’ answers to these questions, I will meet with the lawyers to form a schedule and plan for this case.  Further briefing and hearings may be required as well.

Defacto Suspect  Is Defacto Parent?

History is rife with hellacious stories of parents killing their own children,  their own families, and ones parent status should not be considered a reason to exclude anyone.  In fact, as we all know,  it is 90% more likely that Kyron disappeared due to the actions of a parent or family member and all law enforcement investigators  begin a parallel investigation of all with access or motive, from the start.

A hypotenuse only exists within a right triangle.   This case is anything but.

Horman, through her attorneys has already certified she will protect her right not to incriminate herself and considering one of the remedies Ms. Young is seeking is that she does just that-  who chaired the risk vs. reward strategy meeting in this case in its current form?

In Horman’s favor,  Oregon law is one of few in the country that specifies that a jury cannot take the fact that she pleads the fifth and ostensibly cannot or is very limited in her ability to defend her case into its deliberation considerations.

Has Desiree Young been appropriately prepared for the litany of possibilities that might arise out of this filing?

Like, say,  a counter suit or an effective defense resulting in a dismissal with prejudice? An award for Horman’s  attorney fees ?

For the record, for those of you cringing while reading that remark,  I cringed at writing it. (more…)