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

 

[daisy7]

I think the fact of the matter is that he wasn't signed out.
Now, as for her having said he'd be gone on Friday, I don't know that she said that. I mean, I believe it's a fact that he had a Dr. appointment on the following Friday (the 11the, the last Friday of the school yr) but as to why the teacher's impression would be that it was on the 4th, I don't know. It doesn't appear to me that there was any mention of it that morning- which I'd expect there would've been had they spoke at all- and so I need to read the email before I can decide whether I think it wasn't clear.
At this point, for me, if the teacher was confused, then that's on the teacher.

I'd like to read the email also. It could be as simple as TH said next Friday and the teacher understood it as the next Friday, the upcoming Friday. I always clarify with next and include the calendar date. There was a Seinfeld episode about this

 

[GrandmaBear]

I don't think it would be the big deal it seems to be if she had said "next" Friday. I think more likely she said I will be taking him out of school on Friday for a doctor's apptn. Not "this" Friday nor "next" Friday. This way worked so they wouldn't raise an alarm right away and yet she could explain it away as oh I meant next week.

i too though would like to see the actual email. If the Friday wasn't identified by date then she should have sent it before the Friday she meant, not before TWO Fridays. And again she did take him out of school that day and was seen with him so WHAT was the excuse for it then? Had she emailed about another reason for THAT Friday.

Nah, sorry, I don't think it adds up in her favor.

 

[Regina]

I'd like to read the email also. It could be as simple as TH said next Friday and the teacher understood it as the next Friday, the upcoming Friday.

If it wasn't clear, I'd expect that the teacher would have asked for clarification.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Maybe she did. We wouldn't necessarily know.

 

[Regina]

I don't see anyone else being a viable suspect but her. With no direct evidence. And she had it very well planned as far as what she was going to do to him and with him.
But it's the lack of direct evidence that is a problem.

Eye-witness testimony is "direct" evidence but it's also the leading factor in wrongful convictions.
Circumstantial evidence, such as DNA, can be very strong or weak depending on the circumstances (lol!)

 

[GrandmaBear]

But enough circumstantial evidence can lead to beyond reasonable doubt regardless of if it is all strong, just enough to link and do the dot to dot three times or with different parts of it and end up at the same last dot.

I would be a terrible eyewitness. I'd be good if it was someone I knew or knew of which I think in this case is what the witnesses are. I'd remember if I saw Sally or Barney at the science fair or ran into them exiting when I was entering if I knew them or of them. If something calls my attention or spurs my instinct that something may be wrong, I then pay attention to the car, the person, etc. and I'd be good but something would need to spur it. But on a day to day basis with strangers, and no reason to be on alert, I'd be terrible!

When I have a cashier day and a constant customer after customer after customer, i couldn't' tell you what any of them looked like at the end of the day or even five minutes later normally. One I'm processing through and two more in line and I couldn't tell you what the next person in line looks like, etc. nor the one I am dealing with as I'm doing my job with my focus on it. IF though I get a moment to chat a bit and no one else is in line after the customer, then MAYBE I will recall and take a good look at their face and more. Even then I see so many a day that no, only if something stands out.

Today I cashiered and a man left his bag of what he had purchased. This is not a rare thing, at least once a day someone leaves behind their entire purchase or one bag or one item. I can't run outside to catch them, etc. if I notice. Today I didn't know but he next customer saw someone had left a bag, it wasn't his. This guy I remembered was wearing overalls, older and had a cane. I knew this for a few reasons and had had time to chat with him for a few seconds. So I told this next customer if he saw him in the parking lot as I couldn't run after him or go see where he went, I had customers in line, to let him know he left his stuff. The 2nd customer called me to the door to determine if a man he saw walking to his vehicle was him from behind. I felt it could have been but pretty sure not, he was shorter. I told him he had overalls on and a cane, this guy didn't and wasn't tall enough. I went back to my till/lane, he went to another door and called me over quickly again and the guy he was looking at then I felt was him.

So my whole longwinded point is that I did good as an eyewitness in this one. BUT if asked I could not have provided a police sketch with details on face, etc. even though I talked right to him with eye contact.

I don't mean anything really with this but more generally about all cases and eyewitnesses, it just depends on the reason they pay attention IF they even did.

In THIS case, I don't have much problem believing the eyewitnesses, they were all people who knew her or knew Kyron or at least knew them from seeing them at school, etc. In that kind of situation I'd be good and most of us would be and I believe them in this one for that reason and more. And there isn't just one.

So eyewitnesses can go either way. Maybe in some cases, they have been the issue, the few found that way but in others they are right on and remember for a reason.

I still remember the guy weeks later that purchased rat poison and a Mother's Day card for instance... Odd combo.... He said it himself and called my attention to it...

 

[Regina]

But enough circumstantial evidence can lead to beyond reasonable doubt regardless of if it is all strong, just enough to link and do the dot to dot three times or with different parts of it and end up at the same last dot.

Indeed, but my point was that circumstantial evidence can be better- more reliable- than "direct" evidence. (The Anthony jury didn't get that, they didn't understand circumstantial evidence at all.)

 

[Regina]

In THIS case, I don't have much problem believing the eyewitnesses, they were all people who knew her or knew Kyron or at least knew them from seeing them at school, etc. In that kind of situation I'd be good and most of us would be and I believe them in this one for that reason and more. And there isn't just one.

I'd have to know more about the sightings before I could evaluate them.
Unless I'm mistaken, info regarding one of the sightings was that "they weren't holding hands", which I found odd and a reason to question who they may have actually seen.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Who was the friend of Terri's that many believe helped her. It may be time to re-question her.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Indeed, but my point was that circumstantial evidence can be better- more reliable- than "direct" evidence. (The Anthony jury didn't get that, they didn't understand circumstantial evidence at all.)

Yeah, that is one problem with it, the occasion juror(s) that think every crime should have video of the actual crime (uh duh) like in that case that is being retried (and may be delayed) because one juror wanted such a thing and more or said it was what it would take for him/her to find guilt. Total lack of understanding of jury instructions on circumstantial evidence and of reasonable doubt. The other jurors tried to explain it but nope, wouldn't budge.

i do think it helps or is best if there is ENOUGH of it though. Like just on its own, the Friday email is not enough by any means. It is a small piece of a bigger picture and hopefully they have a ton of those small pieces or bigger ones even but apparently not enough in someone's opinion to charge. But again, back that long ago, it wasn't as common to proceed without a body and some other things. I think they need to take a new look at this and give a push maybe in some areas... Look at some other recent cases that have won convictions and compare to see if they have enough and so on.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I'd have to know more about the sightings before I could evaluate them.
Unless I'm mistaken, info regarding one of the sightings was that "they weren't holding hands", which I found odd and a reason to question who they may have actually seen.

You lost me there. Why would it have been odd for a 7 year old boy not to be holding hands with his stepmom? Were they like always glued holding hands always or something?

Or do you find the point that it was said the odd thing?

 

[GrandmaBear]

Who was the friend of Terri's that many believe helped her. It may be time to re-question her.

Yeah, I think they should give this case a big new look, maybe with fresh eyes and give a few pushes and bumps and see what shakes loose.

 

[Regina]

Who was the friend of Terri's that many believe helped her.

She's someone they alienated a long time ago.

 

[Mel70]

Eye-witness testimony is "direct" evidence but it's also the leading factor in wrongful convictions.
Circumstantial evidence, such as DNA, can be very strong or weak depending on the circumstances (lol!)

DNA. You can't deny that. That's what I was saying. There's no physical evidence tying her directly to this. But with everything else. It points to her.

 

[Regina]

Yeah, that is one problem with it, the occasion juror(s) that think every crime should have video of the actual crime (uh duh) like in that case that is being retried (and may be delayed) because one juror wanted such a thing and more or said it was what it would take for him/her to find guilt. Total lack of understanding of jury instructions on circumstantial evidence and of reasonable doubt. The other jurors tried to explain it but nope, wouldn't budge.

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.

i do think it helps or is best if there is ENOUGH of it though. Like just on its own, the Friday email is not enough by any means. It is a small piece of a bigger picture and hopefully they have a ton of those small pieces or bigger ones even but apparently not enough in someone's opinion to charge.

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.

 

[Regina]

DNA. You can't deny that. That's what I was saying. There's no physical evidence tying her directly to this. But with everything else. It points to her.

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

 

[daisy7]

Who was the friend of Terri's that many believe helped her. It may be time to re-question her.

Dede

DeDe Spicher's former boyfriend describes Terri Moulton Horman's friend as a 'high-energy, dynamic' person who changed dramatically

Investigators looking into the disappearance of Kyron Horman have searched Spicher's Tualatin condo, the garden property where she was working June 4, and her aunt's address as they seek to determine Spicher's movements the day Kyron disappeared.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[Regina]

You lost me there. Why would it have been odd for a 7 year old boy not to be holding hands with his stepmom? Were they like always glued holding hands always or something?

Or do you find the point that it was said the odd thing?

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

 

[Mel70]

In the "Anthony" Case. Really?. I was shocked, Along with everyone else, That a jury was that dam blind!. When she admitted it. There were still charges that could have brought against her. Unreal! 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.

 

[Regina]

In the "Anthony" Case. Really?. I was shocked, Along with everyone else,

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