OR KYRON HORMAN: Missing from Portland, OR - 4 June 2010 - Age 7

Kyron's photo is shown age-progressed to 14 years. He was last seen at school on June 4, 2010. Kyron was last seen wearing a black t-shirt with "CSI" in green letters and a handprint graphic. He was also wearing black cargo pants, white socks, and black Sketchers sneakers with orange trim. Kyron may wear glasses.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Kyron was last seen in Portland, Oregon on June 4, 2010. He usually rode the bus to Skyline Elementary School, where he was a second-grader. The school is in the 11500 block of Skyline Boulevard in a rural area in northwest Portland, about two miles from Kyron's home in the 15700 block of Sheltered Nook Road.

His stepmother, Terri Lynn Moulton Horman, stated she drove him to school because there was a science fair that day and Kyron wanted to set up his exhibit, a display about the Red-Eyed Tree Frog. They arrived shortly after 8:00 a.m. and dropped Kyron's coat and backpack off at his classroom.

A witness saw Terri and Kyron together at 8:15 p.m., in front of Kyron's exhibit. The bell rang at 8:45 a.m. and Terri says she left then. She said Kyron told her he was going to his classroom. He has never been heard from again.

Terri reported Kyron missing at 3:45 p.m., after he failed to arrive home at 3:30 p.m. as scheduled. No one reported having seen Kyron at the school after the 8:45 bell. His teacher marked him absent after classes began at 10:00 a.m.; she thought he was at a doctor's appointment.

Because so many hours had passed since he was last seen, police launched an extensive search immediately. Over the next few days they interviewed all the students and staff at Skyline Elementary School and searched the school, school grounds and the surrounding area. It was one of the largest searches in Oregon history.

Kyron's loved ones described him as timid and stated he would be unlikely to leave the school and go off on his own.


Less than two weeks after Kyron's disappearance, police stopped the search and announced they had upgraded his case from a simple missing child to a criminal investigation.

At the same time, they stated they didn't think Kyron had been abducted by a stranger. They focused on Terri, stating cellular phone records indicated she wasn't where she said she was on the day of her stepson's disappearance.


Investigators questioned Terri's friend, DeDe Spicher, about her possible knowledge of Kyron's disappearance. They searched her home and asked the public if they had seen Terri, her white pickup truck or Spicher on June 4 between 9:45 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Spicher stated knew nothing about Kyron's disappearance and she believed Terri was innocent of any wrongdoing.


Authorities have yet to name a suspect in Kyron's disappearance, in spite of their focus on his stepmother. Kaine speculated Terri caused the child's disappearance in an effort to hurt him, and suggested she may have had help from other individual. Both of Kyron's parents continue to hope that he is alive. His case remains unsolved.

NCMEC -

Have you seen this child? KYRON HORMAN

Missing From: PORTLAND, OR. Missing Date: 06/04/2010. Kyron's photo is shown age-progressed to 14 years. He was last seen at school on June 4, 2010. Kyron was last seen wearing a black t-shirt with

api.missingkids.org

NamUs -

The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)

By bringing people, information, forensic science and technology together, NamUs helps resolve cases.

www.namus.gov

Charley Project -

Kyron Richard Horman – The Charley Project

edited by staff to add media link

KYRON HORMAN has been missing from Portland, OR since 4 June 2010, in spite of hundreds of hours spent trying to locate him.

His stepmother, Terri Lynn Moulton Horman, stated she drove him to school because there was a science fair that day and Kyron wanted to set up his exhibit. They arrived shortly after 8:00 a.m. Terri reported Kyron missing at 3:45 p.m., after he...

www.crimewatchers.net

 

[Regina]

Terri makes no sense. From what I've seen. She's a compulsive liar. She got into telling a huge one here. And then changing her story. And if it's the truth. It doesn't change. A liar will tell different lies and forget which version of what they told to who. Which is usually their downfall.

I can't see that her timeline would have been difficult to establish, yet they appeared to have had difficulty.
What I found ironic is that they publicly focused on two people and then said they didn't want info that had been subjected to suggestion. Lol!

 

[Mel70]

I really thought the court clerk had read it wrong. I was in disbelief. Same with the Simpson verdict, absolute disbelief.

Your words and feelings. Yes. Exactly.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

She's someone they alienated a long time ago.

It wouldn't hurt to call her in and ask her some more questions. Like: How have you been sleeping since Kyron's disappearance.

 

[Guess Who]

Well if the DA read this thread, they'd see that the majority would convict, so what gives ya think?

BUT...majority is not ALL, which is what it takes for a conviction, which is what gives, I think. They also have to be hearing the doubt in people and that definitely is part of the decision to indict. It's a waste of everybody's time and money to take a case to court and then not get a conviction.

 

[Guess Who]

I really thought the court clerk had read it wrong. I was in disbelief. Same with the Simpson verdict, absolute disbelief.

Two things I see in common with both of those cases are long term, sequestered juries. They wanted to go home.

 

[Mel70]

Two things I see in common with both of those cases are long term, sequestered juries. They wanted to go home.

And of course that's more important. Give them supervised visitation with their families. FFS.

 

[MamaDee943]

I really thought the court clerk had read it wrong. I was in disbelief. Same with the Simpson verdict, absolute disbelief.

I've been on a jury and it's kind of hard to keep an open mind, a lot of people don't realize what it takes to make a case or not to come to a decision in your own thoughts before the trial was actually over. I've also read and heard some people who were confused about "reasonable doubt." or "circumstantial." To me, I wonder how many people in this country charged with serious crimes ever get a decent trial.
IMO, Casey's attorney knew he was going to have to plant doubt in the jurors' minds.... a LOT of doubt, and that's how he won his case. I watched that trial and it was clear to me, but not everybody thinks alike.,
No, Caylee didn't drown in the pool. I think she drugged Caylee and kind of overdid it, and as a result it killed her,. Apparently, she drove around for days with the body in the trunk. After she couldn't stand the smell anymore, she wrapped her in a trash bag and dumped her in the trees and brush. All the other stuff was just to create doubt.

 

[Mel70]

I've been on a jury and it's kind of hard to keep an open mind, a lot of people don't realize what it takes to make a case or not to come to a decision in your own thoughts before the trial was actually over. I've also read and heard some people who were confused about "reasonable doubt." or "circumstantial." To me, I wonder how many people in this country charged with serious crimes ever get a decent trial.
IMO, Casey's attorney knew he was going to have to plant doubt in the jurors' minds.... a LOT of doubt, and that's how he won his case. I watched that trial and it was clear to me, but not everybody thinks alike.,
No, Caylee didn't drown in the pool. I think she drugged Caylee and kind of overdid it, and as a result it killed her,. Apparently, she drove around for days with the body in the trunk. After she couldn't stand the smell anymore, she wrapped her in a trash bag and dumped her in the trees and brush. All the other stuff was just to create doubt.

Yep. I believe she overdosed her on chloroform. Hense the web search how to make it. She died as a result. Because precious Casey wanted to go out and couldn't find the babysitter. There was increased levels of chloroform in the trunk. Given off by deceased bodies during decomposition. There is no one that could convince me of the pool. And no one could make me understand anyone ever, The jurors actually questioning her guilt.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well in the Anthony case, one juror actually said something like "it was all circumstantial", as though there's no value in it when in fact, most cases are circumstantial.
Basically, I think it came down to not only a lack of understanding but a lack of common sense.


An earlier notification of his absence would have been good, of course, but I don't see how it's relative to Terri's timeline.
And I don't think it's an idea that can go both ways, that one one hand, Terri wanted it believed that he'd be absent and on the other, believed that he should have been in school. It just doesn't make sense to me.

She wanted it believed he would be absent so no alarm would be raised, no one would think anything of it and she'd have time. by not clarifying what day, this also allowed her to cover it by saying she meant the following Friday. However, it didn't fit considering she left with him with NO EXCUSE to do so then and told no one so no matter how one looks at it, it doexn't clear her, it does the opposite.

No parent in general would not tell a school if taking a child but apparently she didn't. Because she knew the note covered them...? But when faced with it, she said she meant the following Friday. Do we even KNOW he had an appointment for then or not? I almost bet you they have her on this one. Add in the failed polygraphs where it was likely something she was asked there too...

I think if we knew all that LE knows those of us who feel she did it would be more convinced than ever.

Jmo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well if the DA read this thread, they'd see that the majority would convict, so what gives ya think?

Just because I feel her guilty here in the outside world doesn't mean I'd convict her as a juror. It would depend on the case presented and the jury instructions. I'd follow the rules if I were a juror.

It's far different. At least for me it is.

 

[GrandmaBear]

What was said comes across to me as though there was a question as to whether whomever they saw were together.

Just because they weren't holding hands? That's a leap imo. I see parents with children every day, lots of them now that school is out and generally no hands are being held other than maybe ones a few years younger than Kyron.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Two things I see in common with both of those cases are long term, sequestered juries. They wanted to go home.

Nothing could make me find someone I found guilty (after trial) not guilty and release them onto the street. Not sequestering, not going broke, nothing. And it is very difficult for me to believe 12 people all would do that either when they thought her guilty or even 11.

What i would do would be to inform the foreperson to tell the judge I am NOT changing my mind and this is a hung jury so release us. It might take a second time, do so again. Etc.

Sequestered or not most jurors take their job very seriously. I'd have to say most were not convinced if that many all voted not guilty. IF there were one or two hold outs and others felt the person was guilty, they'd have others who felt the same, not like they'd be alone. So clearly a majority felt that way, not guilty...

Both cases had serious issues. OJ AND Casey

On another note, I think sequestering is ridiculous and should not be used. The entire jury system is based on faith that a juror will do as they say they will. Well then why isn't that same faith used in that they won't discuss with anyone at home, will stay away from news, etc. Both blind trust and faith are given the ones chosen.

Jmo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I've been on a jury and it's kind of hard to keep an open mind, a lot of people don't realize what it takes to make a case or not to come to a decision in your own thoughts before the trial was actually over. I've also read and heard some people who were confused about "reasonable doubt." or "circumstantial." To me, I wonder how many people in this country charged with serious crimes ever get a decent trial.
IMO, Casey's attorney knew he was going to have to plant doubt in the jurors' minds.... a LOT of doubt, and that's how he won his case. I watched that trial and it was clear to me, but not everybody thinks alike.,
No, Caylee didn't drown in the pool. I think she drugged Caylee and kind of overdid it, and as a result it killed her,. Apparently, she drove around for days with the body in the trunk. After she couldn't stand the smell anymore, she wrapped her in a trash bag and dumped her in the trees and brush. All the other stuff was just to create doubt.

I agree 100 percent. The pool was a lie to make it seem more accidental and negligent than entirely selfishly drugging your child. I'm not positive she overdid it, there are a couple of scenarios I could see but that is one of them.

The case was not good, there was doubt planted and that was one trial I was never convinced of a guilty verdict but was worried about a hung jury.

In OJ much of it can be put squarely on Furhman and the LAPD with some other things to add to it.

As to your remark of not forming an opinion as the trial goes on and before it is done, I do think most do and I think it a ridiculous rule. Most I think start with no opinion and depending on testimony, evidence, etc. they hit a tipping point of leaning one way or another. That doesn't mean however if the other side came back with something that blew that out of the water or proved it false, you wouldn't revert to not as certain, etc. or even to the favor of the other side than where you were.

I used to want to make selection when I was called. The farthest I ever made it was my number called from the group to the box as they weaned to select. I made it awhile and then was let go. I was disappointed actually and by that point would have liked to have seen the trial. It wasn't a murder, not sure if I'd have wanted to on that or not but at that point in life I probably would have thought I did.

Not so any longer. I have no interest in ever being one but if called, I would be honest and if picked, I would do as instructed. I hope I never am one.

I don't want someone's life in my hands even if it is just afffecting their life by finding them guilty of a minor crime or of affecting the victim of even a minor crime if I find the perp innocent.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Yep. I believe she overdosed her on chloroform. Hense the web search how to make it. She died as a result. Because precious Casey wanted to go out and couldn't find the babysitter. There was increased levels of chloroform in the trunk. Given off by deceased bodies during decomposition. There is no one that could convince me of the pool. And no one could make me understand anyone ever, The jurors actually questioning her guilt.

I think it is by far the most likely too but also feel there could have been chloroform and a hot car death (trunk?) while unconscious or any combination of such. This IS Florida when one conisders heat. To go even further, Casey could have intentionally overdid it. And who knows she may have killed her by abuse or given her another drug too before the chlorofrom. I can see some possibilities but NO, I do NOT believe the pool bullsh*t.

The grandmother is the one having not seen the child that drilled Casey on where she was. But then all that time later oh she drowned in THEIR pool. I know, I know, grandma wasn't home or whatever...

It was all a story and they needed one that did not put chloroform in this and one that made it an accidental death and even then had to lay it or hint at grandpa to ensure the jury could see another possibility of how and even who, one or both, etc.

Argghhh whatever. Never forget though that Casey Anthony partied with cops and area lawyers and officials and more and I'm sure had things on some of them or many of them. the investigation itself and a lot more I question. Too tired to go on about it or recall all but yep. And she isn't much different now as to who knows her and she hangs around, etc., still right amongst some of that type and that kind of group. Last I knew.

Maybe there should be a thread here about it. Don't think there is. I'm sure you likely had one prior. Case may be over but comes up yet a LOT and always will as does OJ.

 

[Regina]

Two things I see in common with both of those cases are long term, sequestered juries. They wanted to go home.

Yeah, that an interesting point. In Outrage, Vincent Bugliosi wrote about all the reasons he sees that the Simpson trial went south. (Besides anyone interested in the case or trials, in general, I especially recommend it to all attorneys, DA's and judges, lol!)
I haven't given much thought to sequestering but I think trials- opening statments to closing arguments- should be no longer than a few weeks, opening to closing Seriously, 2-3, at most.

 

[Guess Who]

Yeah, that an interesting point. In Outrage, Vincent Bugliosi wrote about all the reasons he sees that the Simpson trial went south. (Besides anyone interested in the case or trials, in general, I especially recommend it to all attorneys, DA's and judges, lol!)
I haven't given much thought to sequestering but I think trials- opening statments to closing arguments- should be no longer than a few weeks, opening to closing Seriously, 2-3, at most.

can you imagine being stuck with a dozen other strangers 24/7 for months and not being able to do anything remotely like your usual life and not knowing when you get to return to normal life? Yes, 2-3 weeks seems reasonable IF a sequestered jury was a must. Basically imprisoning people that are trying to do their civic duty seems so very wrong.

 

[Regina]

I think she drugged Caylee and kind of overdid it, and as a result it killed her,.

I've read that that's what the judge thinks, also.
It appears to me that she likely drugged her before she deliberately suffocated her with the duct tape.

 

[Regina]

She wanted it believed he would be absent so no alarm would be raised, no one would think anything of it and she'd have time. by not clarifying what day, this also allowed her to cover it by saying she meant the following Friday.

We just disagree. Again, I don't see her needing time, I see her running errands, spending time.
As for a misunderstanding as to which Friday, at this point, it appears to me to be an unrelated issue.

Just because they weren't holding hands? That's a leap imo. I see parents with children every day, lots of them now that school is out and generally no hands are being held other than maybe ones a few years younger than Kyron.

I can't think of any other reason why an eye-witness would mention handholding unless it was an attempt to establish whether or not a particular child was with a particular adult.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Yeah, that an interesting point. In Outrage, Vincent Bugliosi wrote about all the reasons he sees that the Simpson trial went south. (Besides anyone interested in the case or trials, in general, I especially recommend it to all attorneys, DA's and judges, lol!)
I haven't given much thought to sequestering but I think trials- opening statments to closing arguments- should be no longer than a few weeks, opening to closing Seriously, 2-3, at most.

I don't think most merit weeks or months on end but a few likely do. They could ease that burden on jurors some by simply NOT sequestering for those of that length but then again, what I said is I don't believe in sequestering at all. There is also this recent thing I'm seeing a lot more lately where they halt the trial for a day or two here and there during it. And THAT just takes more time out of juror's lives even if they get that day or two here and there off, it makes the trial end later.

I can tell you right now or at least would bet on it that if the DEFENSE says they need a month for their side of the case, or two, your idea of two to three would NEVER have a chance of happening. They will never do a thing that can give the defense a claim or appeal of unfairness.

Just end sequestering. Clean up court scheduling by streamlining the courts while they are at it. In this country, a huge percentage of counties' judges handle everything from minor traffic, misdemeanors all the way up to murder. They handle divorce, family matters, probate. Etc. And attorneys should not be able to delay without PROOF of their conflicts, etc. or other reasons for a delay.

It's all one big hot mess.

I could go on and for that reason, I'm stopping now lol.

 

[GrandmaBear]

can you imagine being stuck with a dozen other strangers 24/7 for months and not being able to do anything remotely like your usual life and not knowing when you get to return to normal life? Yes, 2-3 weeks seems reasonable IF a sequestered jury was a must. Basically imprisoning people that are trying to do their civic duty seems so very wrong.

It shouldn't be a must. They are taking on faith what the juror said in the selection process that they saw or didn't see, knew about the case or didn't know and if they can be fair despite it. And most of the big ones have had a ton of pretrial publicity, online talk, etc. So why isn't it the same for if they go home during trial and trust them to not watch, not talk, etc.? Like much in the system, it makes no sense and is contradictory.