Are WE to blame for being suspicious?

[BritsKate]

LOL...all yours, Brits.

:gthanks::yourock:

 

[askfornina]

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.

that thread exists. it was very short last time i checked, IMO because there are very few facts in this case, the timeline is incomplete thus far. there is very little concrete evidence to "sleuth"

:fence:

 

[Mountain_Kat]

that thread exists. it was very short last time i checked, IMO because there are very few facts in this case, the timeline is incomplete thus far. there is very little concrete evidence to "sleuth"

:fence:

For anyone wanting to explore the intruder theory, there is a great floor plan of the house in the Floor Plan thread. That would be a great place to start.

 

[LancelotLink]

There already is one, Monkey.

Oh. Must be a lively one... :crazy:

 

[Chris_Texas]

#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:

I was called "sexist" in this very thread. Twice I believe. :crazy:

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I was called "sexist" in this very thread. Twice I believe. :crazy:

Quit griping and run out and get me some midol. :floorlaugh:

 

[Donjeta]

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

The problem with the timeline is that a substantial portion of it depends on the parents word (that we know of) which is not 100% reliable because they've changed their story. So who knows if our conception of the timeline is anywhere near accurate.

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.

How long does it take to drive from their home to the river? We only have their word that she didn't know when he was coming home.

I've never been in that situation but supposing someone finds themselves with a dead body in their hands and feels strongly that it should be disposed of so that they don't get in deep doodoo, knowing that someone else is expected home shortly. I don't think it's impossible at all that that someone would not just leave it there and accept their fate, waiting for the hammer to fall and the partner to come home to find the dead body on the floor. That someone might just decide to dispose of the body quicker and invent an excuse why she was out in case the partner comes home while she's gone.

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.

Maybe she has Skype or email or a phone she didn't tell the investigators about or borrowed the neighbor's phone or someone was supposed to come over anyway or lives so close she could walk and tell them in person?

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.

Why is it so easy to mix the names Lisa and Deborah? I have done it too even though they're nothing similar, and I've seen others do it. Strange.

 

[GoodGurl]

Or it all - whatever it was - happened earlier in the day and the evening was just staging.

MOO, of course.

 

[gwenabob]

Why is it so easy to mix the names Lisa and Deborah? I have done it too even though they're nothing similar, and I've seen others do it. Strange.

sbm

I think it is because Lisa is an older name. You don't hear babies being named Lisa these days. I knew a LOT of girls named Lisa when I was a kid, along with Karen, Debbie, Jennifer, Laura, Tammy, Sherry, Brenda, etc. Funny how names fall into waves of popularity.

Anyway, you expect an older person to be named Lisa. Not a baby. I think that is why we are tripping over it. JMO.

 

[Whocanitbenow]

I am not reading anything because I don't want to respond directly to anyone.. Just to Opening Question.

I think in this day and age, we have to be suspicious. We need to be cautious and be on watch. However, I think that can swing really hard in the wrong direction and that can cause issues.

With someone like CA ,she gave us all the ammunition we needed. I think most of us believe at the minimum it was neglect and at most, out right murder.

To me those suspicions were well warranted.

This case to me has been shifted along those lines of " they had to do it" but there is no proof, no stinky car, No blood, No chloroform, No lying for 31 days. None of that.

So I think that we need to be cautious, weigh it all out and even pose scenarios for possibility but still remain in the trench looking for justice.. not blame.

 

[kgeaux]

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.

I thought the notorious criminal defense attorney was provided for them by an anonymous benefactor? Although I know they have agreed to let him represent them, it's quite a different action from going out and tracking him down on their own.

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.

She must wonder if she DOES know what happened to Lisa on some level. kgeaux was once a young college student, and kgeaux did once drink to the point of blacking out. Some of what happened that evening came back to me eventually, but other things are lost forever. I don't know how I got home that night, for instance, nor do I remember changing to my PJs and climbing into bed, but I must have done those things because I woke up the next afternoon in my own home, in my own bed and wearing my PJs.

 

[~n/t~]

No I wouldn't, I doubt if anyone here would make a conscious decision to endanger their children but I have to ask ask how many would admit to hiring a babysitter, going on a night out, coming home after having a few drinks and sending the babysitter home ..... or has everyone else always been so perfectly far-sighted as to always have at least one adult always there as the 'designated in loco parentis' ?

I dunno, mea culpa, today I have two healthy, well-adjusted, happy, grown sons I probably don't deserve to have because, hand on heart, thinking back and going off today's standards I must have been one horribly inadequate parent. I didn't always think through EVERY possible scenario of what could go wrong if I did 'X' and 'Y' happened and then what if 'W'? I wish I had had ALL potential threats to my children's safety neatly mapped out on some flowchart to pin on my fridge and then they and I wouldn't have to go through any of the near misses and, yes, actual accidents that happened and scared the carp outta me. Those incidents were salutary warnings in the forefront of my mind ever after but only after they happened. There but for the grace of God and all that.

Excellent post. Thanks wasn't enough.

 

[~n/t~]

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

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151875&page=6

 

[LancelotLink]

That is a theory, like Dr. Baden's theory. Geez Louise!!
This is Websleuths, for crying out loud.
Some of us come here to sleuth. Give me facts, timelines, evidence, something to work with. Do not give me cheerleading, or try and argue or debate with what DB may be feeling, thinking, doing...that spin I can get from her lawyer.
Her actions are speaking for themselves.

 

[Chris_Texas]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151875&page=6

I guess I missed the original question, but no problem...

Based on the information available at this time, I believe the most likely explanation is that Mom and possibly Dad are guilty of either deliberately or accidentally causing the death of this infant, and further that one or both are involved in covering it up.

That is MY opinion.

I will, of course, welcome and weight any new information that comes to light.

 

[frankie069]

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

And this is why I find her guilty. Her time line is constantly changing. Everything about this story keeps changing. They have not told the truth once. Or if they have which story is the truth. There are so many of them..

Once again, proud to not be on the fence.

 

[Boytwnmom]

that Aunt Ashley said Joe T was their choice which makes sense. I highly doubt some benefactor would force on attorney on someone. Especially one who is associated with notorious criminals and heinous crimes-not the most normal choice for the parents of a missing child. I'm pretty sure the benefactor would have let them choose someone less associated with well known criminals. It just honestly strikes me as a strange choice for innocent parents of a "kidnapped" trial.

On the other point, she gives no indication she questions her actions at all. She was pretty vehement in her defense of adult time and seemed to harbor no blame for herself in not seeing her sick child for many hours or even remembering IF she saw her. And it's not like she couldn't "face it" or something as her attorney has told us how brutally honest she is as shown by her admitting to maybe be blacked out drunk. It would only make sense for a parent whose child went missing on their watch to question themselves and bear some guilt, no matter how undeserved but she was quite forceful in her defense of herself and her actions. Her attitude seemed to be that once the child was in bed her job was done and she could do whatever she wanted and if something happened...well...not her fault.

And, see, all of this together with the refusal to cooperate is, to me, like a HUGE neon sign blinking HINKY...HINKY and I just can't ignore it.

I thought the notorious criminal defense attorney was provided for them by an anonymous benefactor? Although I know they have agreed to let him represent them, it's quite a different action from going out and tracking him down on their own.



She must wonder if she DOES know what happened to Lisa on some level. kgeaux was once a young college student, and kgeaux did once drink to the point of blacking out. Some of what happened that evening came back to me eventually, but other things are lost forever. I don't know how I got home that night, for instance, nor do I remember changing to my PJs and climbing into bed, but I must have done those things because I woke up the next afternoon in my own home, in my own bed and wearing my PJs.

 

[frankie069]

I am not reading anything because I don't want to respond directly to anyone.. Just to Opening Question.

I think in this day and age, we have to be suspicious. We need to be cautious and be on watch. However, I think that can swing really hard in the wrong direction and that can cause issues.

With someone like CA ,she gave us all the ammunition we needed. I think most of us believe at the minimum it was neglect and at most, out right murder.

To me those suspicions were well warranted.

This case to me has been shifted along those lines of " they had to do it" but there is no proof, no stinky car, No blood, No chloroform, No lying for 31 days. None of that.

So I think that we need to be cautious, weigh it all out and even pose scenarios for possibility but still remain in the trench looking for justice.. not blame.

I hate to say it but they are causing the blame to be put on them because they arent being truthful. They will not even speak to anyone. Ok once, for 17 hours in over 3 weeks. They havent looked for their daughter, they use an old pic of her to put out there, they wont cooperate with LE anymore and really have they at all. Timelines constantly are changing with them, there is nothing truthful to come out of their mouth. I usually take what MSM says with a grain of salt but you have every single channel and reporter thinking this family is guilty, you have child advocates saying something is not right, you have defense atty's coming on TV that think everyone is innocent saying these parents are acting guilty and covering something up (and some of those are ones that came on TV saying CA's case was an accident and she was innocent), you have judges on TV saying they appear guilty. Every single person I know with the exception of my daughter (thats cause she takes after her father, lol) thinks DB and JI are guilty. Then I come on WS and there are a few and only a few that are leaning that way. Well there is a reason why this is the case. I dont ever want to see an innocent person accused of any crime. I dont ever want to think of a parent hurting or killing their child, but with what we have at this point in time to work with, I am saying if I was on a jury today, I would say guilty without a doubt. I dont know this woman so I have nothing against her to make me feel that way, its her actions and her NON action. I love the time line in one of the forums that is one here, it puts it so much into perspective. (if I didnt get lost on here so much I would get the link to the timeline if you didnt have it).

Anyway I guess really all I was trying to say was that DB and JI have no one to blame but themselves for the way they are being portrayed.

 

[Abby Normal]

No I wouldn't, I doubt if anyone here would make a conscious decision to endanger their children but I have to ask ask how many would admit to hiring a babysitter, going on a night out, coming home after having a few drinks and sending the babysitter home ..... or has everyone else always been so perfectly far-sighted as to always have at least one adult always there as the 'designated in loco parentis' ?

I dunno, mea culpa, today I have two healthy, well-adjusted, happy, grown sons I probably don't deserve to have because, hand on heart, thinking back and going off today's standards I must have been one horribly inadequate parent. I didn't always think through EVERY possible scenario of what could go wrong if I did 'X' and 'Y' happened and then what if 'W'? I wish I had had ALL potential threats to my children's safety neatly mapped out on some flowchart to pin on my fridge and then they and I wouldn't have to go through any of the near misses and, yes, actual accidents that happened and scared the carp outta me. Those incidents were salutary warnings in the forefront of my mind ever after but only after they happened. There but for the grace of God and all that.

I said earlier this month that when I was in college I worked as a nanny (FT and on call). Often (like nearly every weekend) I watched children of respectable, wealthy, citizens who came home (in a taxi) after drinking quite a bit. Yes 5+ drinks. I left them there, child asleep, monitor on, and assumed their safety. It NEVER occurred to me that the child may be in danger because of their choice to drink, or my choice to leave. And this was *standard* in the nanny world, at least the agency I worked for. We joked about the parents, but never did one of us question the safety. I'm sure if something had gone we would have been forced to, obviously.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

My inebriated father dropped me on a cement sidewalk when I was 5 months old.

People who are impaired should NEVER be allowed to pick up babies...much less be the sole person in charge of their safety!

JMO, but it stems from personal experience.