True's response: The community of blogging is interesting to me because of the people who choose to interact, and offer their opinions. Some who comment seem nice – someone you’d like to have coffee with, or have lunch and discuss topics of mutual interest. Some seem angry, and immediately preface their comments with an affront – generally in the first or second sentence of their comment. It’s fascinating to read all the comments / statements, and to speculate who the authors are. It’s too bad that each comment doesn’t incorporate a mini resume and a photo. But, I guess that would discourage most people from commenting at all.
Anonymous, No, I don’t read or watch everything about the Kyron Horman case. I have many interests. His disappearance is somewhat of a priority for me, but I just don’t have the time to read and absorb all developments. And, as a result, I sometimes offer an opinion for which I’m not appropriately prepared.
However, if I may – Stephen Houze might not have been allowed discovery regarding the law enforcement investigation of the ‘murder for hire’ plot because Terri Horman was not actually charged. Now, there are ways that Houze could get the information, if he was so inclined – which I don’t believe he was or is. He could, of course, initiate his own investigation. But, I believe he was using the request as a legal tactic or maneuver, a smoke screen more or less.
Let me give you an example. Law enforcement has an informant in the Mafia. Law enforcement attempts to link a member of the Mafia to a crime, based on information supplied by the informant. The effort fails, but said Mafia member realizes that he has been targeted by law enforcement. Although, he has not been charged, and may not be, he demands (through his attorney) to know who the informant is and the allegations against him. To bring the comparative analysis closer, let’s also consider that there is an ongoing civil suit, unrelated to the informant's information, regarding the misappropriation of business assets.
Anonymous, under your reasoning, the informant’s identity should be released – very bad news for the informant whose life expectancy would suddenly take a nosedive.
Terri Horman will be made aware of any criminal investigation and all the evidence, at the time she is actually charged and prior to any trial. In the meantime, she is little more than a witness. In this instance, it appears she is an uncooperative witness.
Terri Horman's attorney invoking the Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with what was printed in the newspaper. It has everything to do with what she might say under oath. Again, I must point out that Terri could simply deny that she engaged the landscaper in any scheme to ‘off’ Kaine. What her attorney (Houze) is afraid of is that she will be cornered on the stand, that Kaine’s attorneys will catch her in lies that constitute perjury – and / or incriminate her in a crime.
As I understand it, the pending trial, of which we speak, is a child custody issue. It appears to me that Terri, for personal and undisclosed reasons, is prepared to forfeit any custodial rights concerning her daughter. For the most part, she already has.
True Nelson
Dear True,
ReplyDeleteI enjoy your blog and think you are remarkably courteous to commenters, especially considering some of their vitriol. I respect your experience and knowledge of criminal psychology and law enforcement. Thanks for filling us in on your point of view. Who knows what is really going on? It amazes me that people would be so rude over something they can't prove one way or another.
Still, common sense tells me that something is rotten in the Denmark that is Terri Horman.