In a missing child case, the innocent will have no reason to invoke this amendment privilege, yet that is just what DeDe Spicher, friend of Terri Horman has done.
Court documents recently released from testimony last month show this very thing: DeDe Spicher refused to answer questions about Kyron's disappearance and conversations she had with Terri Horman, whom a judge has called the "prime suspect."
She refused to answer more than 100 questions.
Why would anyone refuse to answer questions about a missing 7 year old?
Desiree Young, Kyron's mother, had her lawyer ask questions about the initial contact between Dee Dee Spicher and Terri Horman in which is alleged that Spicher gave Hormon "advice that is not in the best interests of our son."
Since police failed to arrest Horman, the parents of Kyron have filed a civil suit against Horman in hopes of learning what she did to Kyron, on the day she reported him missing. Reports have been that shortly after, she met up with Spicher.
What is not known, to date, is if DeDe Spicher, not a suspect in the case, has the right to claim Fifth Amendment privilege, which will be decided in a separate hearing.
Why would DeDe Spicher, if she did not kill Kyron, need to plead the 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination?
Could it be that Spicher advised Horman on moving the body from the original location?
Please note that it would have to be something that would incriminate her in a manner in which she could be prosecuted, even if this means as an accessory after the fact.
We did receive a report here that Terri Horman may have, early on, made a decision to move the body's location. It is unconfirmed.