Are WE to blame for being suspicious?

[cityslick]

but they are not the ONLY important thing. IMO, finding my missing child would be on a somewhat higher order of importance than protecting my "legal rights". People surrender rights all the time, to help, because something else is more important, all kinds of reasons. No one is compelled to exercise their rights-it is a choice and choices have consequences. In this case, the choice to refuse to cooperate with police may mean the child may not be found or may be found too late. Obviously, these parents have determined that their "rights" are more important than assisting law enforcement in finding their child. That's certainly their legitimate determination to make. But, it is also my legitimate right to have an opinion about that choice and to compare to other parents in the same situation and to make conclusions based upon this behavior.

The problem is they being condemned for murder for making that legitimate choice. They are getting destroyed on this forum and yet they, at this point in the investigation, are simply parents of a missing child.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

The problem is they being condemned for murder for making that legitimate choice. They are getting destroyed on this forum and yet they, at this point in the investigation, are simply parents of a missing child.

Who ever said the were guilty of MURDER? :waitasec:

 

[cityslick]

Who ever said the were guilty of MURDER? :waitasec:

Read some posts, you'll see what I mean. Not necessarily in this thread but others.

 

[not_my_kids]

I think a majority of people would not report anything, even if they saw something obvious, like a parent drinking on the front stoop. Most of us were brought up with the notion to 'mind your business'. We were taught that because you never know what the true situation and circumstances are. If you see a mother slapping the behind of a child (which hardly happens anymore), are you going to approach them? Or are they simply disciplining their child? And who are you to tell someone how to parent their children. Like I said, if everyone's parenting skills were open to the world, anyone could find something to criticize them on.

There is a show on tv that actually highlights this behavior of 'minding your business'. They would set up scenarios where something blatant is happening to see what reaction the public gives. In most of these scenarios, a large percentage of people simply ignore and keep walking, even if it's something that is obvious (for example, a man verbally berating a woman in public).

Maybe it's just location, but to me, a parent sitting outside drinking is obvious only that an adult is drinking. Bear in mind, I live in a city where 700 of the 90,000 residents are registered sex offenders, and a good deal of the rest of them are just waiting to be caught. We are the murder capital, per capita, of the United States. Our unemployment is sky high. To say that most of the parents in my city have a substance use or abuse issue is an understatement. Around here, we were taught to mind our own business not because it wasn't polite, or because we didn't know the situation, but because meddling in someone else's business can and will get you killed around here. I think this urban attitude may be spreading, as people flee the large cities in droves, but take their defense systems, such as silence, with them. JMO.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Read some posts, you'll see what I mean. Not necessarily in this thread but others.

I think there are very few posters here who suspect either of these parents of outright murder. I do, however, think that a great many posters have come to a reasonable conclusion that something happened in that house, and that these parents are being less than forthcoming about what they know.

MOO, of course.

 

[Donjeta]

Try searching the phrase "lawyered up" on this forum, and take a look at the dismissive attitude in many of the posts. Or search "dense attorney" and see what you get.

I'd call those reactions dismissive of people's legal rights.

I didn't read everything but on a quick search I didn't find anything that said that they shouldn't have the same right to an attorney on their side that everyone has.

 

[JeannaT]

I think there are very few posters here who suspect either of these parents of outright murder. I do, however, think that a great many posters have come to a reasonable conclusion that something happened in that house, and that these parents are being less than forthcoming about what they know.

MOO, of course.

With the timeline, I just can't make it work out that the parents are responsible.

Any path I try to take (the kids killed Lisa accidentally, the moms covered)(Deborah killed Lisa accidentally after the neighbor left and drove off to dispose of her body although she believed Jeremy would be coming home any minute)(Jeremy raced home to find a dead body and in lightening speed they disposed of her very well before calling the cops a few minutes later) etc.

I can't run any possible scenario to the ground (including that she had a boyfriend/friend come over and take the living or dead child - she had no phone, how could she have summoned someone?) without it hitting a big brick wall of being impossible.

I also can't see Lisa covering for anyone else who might have been in the home. I think a mother would cover only for her husband or another child of hers, and those scenarios above hit a brick wall.

It's like being in a maze where there isn't actually an outlet. No path leads out, of the parents being involved/knowing more.

The only thing left, is she's telling the truth and someone else came in without her knowledge and took the baby.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

And since this seems to have become a place where those of us who have differing opinions can clear the air, let me say this:

I have had posters here accuse me of inappropriately picking on someone's personal appearance, simply because I mentioned a haircut. Never said anything more than the passing comment, "DB cut her hair."

I have had posters here accuse me of wanting to lynch this woman, simply because I pointed out that her varying accounts of what happened that night don't add up.

I have had posters here lecture me about how I need to be responsibile for my words and actions on an online forum.

In the top right corner of every post, there is an alert button. If I ever say anything that anyone feels is a violation of the forum rules, please, feel free to click on my post and have a mod look at it. What you don't get to do is lecture/berate/or chastize me for comments I make that you don't agree with. We're all adults here...we should be able to speak to one another as adults.

All JMO

 

[cityslick]

With the timeline, I just can't make it work out that the parents are responsible.

Any path I try to take (the kids killed Lisa accidentally, the moms covered)(Deborah killed Lisa accidentally after the neighbor left and drove off to dispose of her body although she believed Jeremy would be coming home any minute)(Jeremy raced home to find a dead body and in lightening speed they disposed of her very well before calling the cops a few minutes later) etc.

I can't run any possible scenario to the ground (including that she had a boyfriend/friend come over and take the living or dead child - she had no phone, how could she have summoned someone?) without it hitting a big brick wall of being impossible.

I also can't see Lisa covering for anyone else who might have been in the home. I think a mother would cover only for her husband or another child of hers, and those scenarios above hit a brick wall.

It's like being in a maze where there isn't actually an outlet. No path leads out, of the parents being involved/knowing more.

The only thing left, is she's telling the truth and someone else came in without her knowledge and took the baby.

I brought this up in another thread but I think bears repeating here. As far as her behavior, what if it's a scenario where someone really did take the baby and DB is going through an incredible amount of guilt about it? What if she actually does blame herself and psychologically it's affecting her and what she says. Just a thought.

 

[BD1]

I brought this up in another thread but I think bears repeating here. As far as her behavior, what if it's a scenario where someone really did take the baby and DB is going through an incredible amount of guilt about it? What if she actually does blame herself and psychologically it's affecting her and what she says. Just a thought.

And the truth is, if you are drunk to the point of possibly blacking out, I don't think you could ever honestly not blame yourself, no matter what turns out to have happened. Because you could never know for sure, barring video or another person's witnessing, what happened.

 

[Chris_Texas]

Try searching the phrase "lawyered up" on this forum, and take a look at the dismissive attitude in many of the posts. Or search "dense attorney" and see what you get.

I'd call those reactions dismissive of people's legal rights.

Perhaps so...

However, these questions often rise when the public sees a parent placing their legal rights ahead of their parental obligations.

The same can be said for adult drinking. An adult has a legal right to drink. They have the legal right to drink so much that they are drunk. They can legally drink so much that they are puking their guts out, and on the verge of passing out. They can even legally do it in front of their kids -- they have that right. They can EVEN legally stick their sick infant in a crib, forget about them, then drink so much that they don't have the slightest clue what they did the night before, and get snarky with anyone who questions it.

But when their infant vanishes and is likely murdered in the midst of this perfectly legal party-parent activity, don't condemn the public for questioning or criticizing this perfectly legal excess.

But then, in this case, so far as I know the only person saying that Deborah was blasted is Deborah herself, and she offered this excuse days later in the midst of a wildly-changing story of what happened. We don't know if she drank a drop, nor is there any particular reason to believe anything she has to say.

 

[Rallihanna]

The problem I have is that there is no reason for LE to be making stuff up. They didn't WANT the search warrant content's released. They didn't ask for it to be put out there that a dog "hit" on something making it appear as though LI isn't alive.

The parents reaction has been to just deny; they aren't cooperating, they aren't out searching, they are just doing interviews with national media that frankly aren't showing themselves in a very positive light.

We are all here trying to do one thing- bring LI home.

 

[Chris_Texas]

many people here are more concerned with their behavior since their child disappeared, which, along with their changing stories, do arouse suspicion which is understandable given statistics. I could care less what someone's personal life is like-anyone can be a crime victim. But, once you claim you're a victim then you're kind of expected to cooperate with the people investigating the crime you reported. When you refuse to do that, hire a notorious criminal defense attorney, ignore local media in favor of national appearances where licensing fees are routinely given, and use media time to defend your actions instead of being concerned with your child, it's pretty ridiculous to expect rational people to blindly believe that you are just an innocent victim who is being treated unfairly. I initially believed them-only their subsequent behavior changed my mind. I don't think it's reasonable to ignore the obvious-that experience has shown that parents whose children are missing and who want them found, cooperate with the authorities who are searching.

My "hinky meter" was pegged the second I heard the claim that the supposed kidnapper also stole their cell phones.

 

[Boytwnmom]

someone else may be paying but they had to "hire" him. I'm also admitted in NY and familair with the rules of professional responsibility there. These include restrictions on payments by third parties and what must be disclosed in order to ensure there is no violation of the attorney-client relationship. No one can make a person use a particular lawyer nor would a lawyer take on a client who didn't independently choose to engage him:

(f ) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client, or anything of value related to the lawyer’s representation of the client, from one other than the client unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent;
(2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and
(3) the client’s confidential information is protected as required by Rule 1.6.

I have never said anything about her drinking nor her hair nor anything else but their failure to cooperate, both of them, not just her. I believe their actions are incompatible with those of people distraught by a missing child who seek to have her returned and seem much more in keeping with other cases where people have relied upon the passage of time to destroy evidence and where they enlist an attorney associated with notorious clients like JVS to put out misinformation like the one about HRD's hitting on fingernails and diapers.

IMO, rich or poor, drunk or sober, parent of the year or somewhat neglectful, when your child goes missing form her crib in the middle of the night, there is nothing you won't do if you want that child found and returned. That's my criticism here.

They didn't hire the 'notorious' criminal attorney, he was provided by a benefactor. They are defending their actions and why do you think that is? Have you seen the posts on this forum lately?

I'll say she had something to do with it when I see evidence of such. Getting drunk and getting her hair done isn't evidence she murdered her child.

 

[stilettos]

and since this seems to have become a place where those of us who have differing opinions can clear the air, let me say this:

I have had posters here accuse me of inappropriately picking on someone's personal appearance, simply because i mentioned a haircut. Never said anything more than the passing comment, "db cut her hair."

i have had posters here accuse me of wanting to lynch this woman, simply because i pointed out that her varying accounts of what happened that night don't add up.

I have had posters here lecture me about how i need to be responsibile for my words and actions on an online forum.

In the top right corner of every post, there is an alert button. If i ever say anything that anyone feels is a violation of the forum rules, please, feel free to click on my post and have a mod look at it. What you don't get to do is lecture/berate/or chastize me for comments i make that you don't agree with. We're all adults here...we should be able to speak to one another as adults.

All jmo

halleluyer!

 

[LancelotLink]

Maybe a thread for those who believe an intruder abduction is what happened is in order. That way, posters who see this as a possibility can have a place to go over the timeline, facts, etc. and begin sleuthing.

 

[BritsKate]

And since this seems to have become a place where those of us who have differing opinions can clear the air, let me say this:

I have had posters here accuse me of inappropriately picking on someone's personal appearance, simply because I mentioned a haircut. Never said anything more than the passing comment, "DB cut her hair."

I have had posters here accuse me of wanting to lynch this woman, simply because I pointed out that her varying accounts of what happened that night don't add up.

I have had posters here lecture me about how I need to be responsibile for my words and actions on an online forum.

In the top right corner of every post, there is an alert button. If I ever say anything that anyone feels is a violation of the forum rules, please, feel free to click on my post and have a mod look at it. What you don't get to do is lecture/berate/or chastize me for comments I make that you don't agree with. We're all adults here...we should be able to speak to one another as adults.

All JMO

#1: Pretty sure I love you! :blowkiss:
#2: You forgot unintelligent, narrow-minded and cruel.
#3: Can I use the bolded portion for my siggy? raying:

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Maybe a thread for those who believe an intruder abduction is what happened is in order. That way, posters who see this as a possibility can have a place to go over the timeline, facts, etc. and begin sleuthing.

There already is one, Monkey.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

#1: Pretty sure I love you! :blowkiss:
#2: You forgot unintelligent, narrow-minded and cruel.
#3: Can I use the bolded portion for my siggy? raying:

LOL...all yours, Brits.

 

[Chris_Texas]

The problem is they being condemned for murder for making that legitimate choice. They are getting destroyed on this forum and yet they, at this point in the investigation, are simply parents of a missing child.

This is a bit of a stretch. They are far more than just the parents of a missing child. They are also the parents with the missing cell phones. The parents refusing to cooperate with police. The parents with the changing story about what they did and when they did it. The parents who waited a week before announcing that they were lying when they said they last saw the kid at 11pm, and that it was actually about 6pm. The parents who claim that their boys heard something that night, but then refused to allow police to question them about what they heard. The parents who made a show of putting up missing posters in front of the cameras, then reportedly took them back down when the cameras were turned off. The parents who refused to talk to the local media because it would interfere with their national TV deal.

And I could go on.