Are WE to blame for being suspicious?

[NancyA]

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.

Thank you so much for your candour, I really appreciate the input from the professional childcarer's point of view which provides me with even more food for thought.

 

[cityslick]

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.

Your entitled to your opinion, but to be honest, I'm baffled how you can have a mindset that these people are guilty. Guilty of what? And exactly what evidence makes you think like this? You proudly say you've never been on the fence, which means you think they had something to do with it before any word was uttered by them, before any detail came to light. Talking heads may suspect something aint right, but I don't think they have them locked up yet, especially since they are not even suspects yet.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm just glad people still have certain rights in this country, innocent till proven guilty and all that. Rather than being judged and condemned on internet msg boards.

 

[BritsKate]

Your entitled to your opinion, but to be honest, I'm baffled how you can have a mindset that these people are guilty. Guilty of what? And exactly what evidence makes you think like this? You proudly say you've never been on the fence, which means you think they had something to do with it before any word was uttered by them, before any detail came to light. Talking heads may suspect something aint right, but I don't think they have them locked up yet, especially since they are not even suspects yet.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm just glad people still have certain rights in this country, innocent till proven guilty and all that. Rather than being judged and condemned on internet msg boards.

But this is an internet discussion board and not a court of law. The presumption of innocence is sanctity defined in the judiciary but respectfully the court of public opinion has been in session since long before the internet. Years ago folks would discuss these types of cases at beauty parlours and workplace water coolers - and there, then, did many express an opinion before a suspect had been named, charged, or brought to trial.

JMHO

 

[Donjeta]

I could be wrong but I thought that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law means that people have certain rights and protections in place in the legal system of the state, before they can be convicted of anything. I've never thought that it extends to the right not to have negative opinions expressed of them by private individuals. There are laws to prevent slander, though.

 

[AnaTeresa]

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.

Well, my non-inebriated father dropped me on my head twice before I was a year old. Does that mean men shouldn't ever hold babies? While I think that anecdotal, personal experiences are valid in explaining our experiences, I'm hesitant at using them to draw mandates.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Well, my non-inebriated father dropped me on my head twice before I was a year old. Does that mean men shouldn't ever hold babies? While I think that anecdotal, personal experiences are valid in explaining our experiences, I'm hesitant at using them to draw mandates.

Plenty of drunks make it home just fine in their cars too. But we still have laws regarding drinking and driving.

 

[gwenabob]

I could be wrong but I thought that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law means that people have certain rights and protections in place in the legal system of the state, before they can be convicted of anything. I've never thought that it extends to the right not to have negative opinions expressed of them by private individuals. There are laws to prevent slander, though.

I agree. The theory of Presumption of Innocence simply means the court has to prove you "done it" rather than the accused prove they "din't do it".

It does NOT mean people, including LE and prosecutors, and the peanut gallery (us) are not entitled to call it the way we see it. Of course, we do depend on LE and the state to be able to back up their accusations with facts.

We, on the other hand, are allowed to use whatever we want including personal experience, gut feelings, first impressions, and what we read in the paper. Might we be wrong? Yes. We might. We take that chance. Might we be right? Most certainly.

Personally, I think DB's story stinks, and I'm giving JI the stinkeye. If they want to come sue me, well, that is their right. I'll be one of the million people standing over there--------> with the "I think you dunnit" T-shirts on. And they will have to prove I am wrong, and they will have to prove damages.

 

[NancyA]

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.

You stated all the requisite components - BBM - for me to make a judgment re a person's guilt or innocence, trouble is they are all things, IMO and clearly in that of some other posters, that are pretty much lacking in this case thus far. That leaves me with interpreting what the players’ feelings might be, their thoughts might be and what their doings might suggest to me.

For the rest, the fact that I may express a little empathy and compassion toward persons I am not yet convinced are guilty of any crime while exploring - or sleuthing if you will - other possible scenarios does not make me a cheerleader just someone who doesn't care to kick someone when it's not yet certain they are perps and just might be victims - once it's established that they are indeed perps I'll gladly eschew the poms in favour of a pitchfork.

 

[Donjeta]

Is it possible that the people who think someone might in fact be guilty are not always witch hunters but might sometimes be just people who arrived to a different conclusion based on the same information?

 

[Elley Mae]

I don't know where to put this, so I'll put it here. I do not want to hear from media or any Dr's that have a microphone in their face to tell the world how these two young people are in shock and aww and how this is overwhelming them. I will have no pity party for them. They are two Adults, he is 28 years old he has been an adult for 10 years, she is 25 years old, iirc she has been married since she was 15, she I for one don't buy into the rubbish that "they" are a young couple and this is all Too much. There is a MISSING baby here.

 

[NancyA]

Is it possible that the people who think someone might in fact be guilty are not always witch hunters but might sometimes be just people who arrived to a different conclusion based on the same information?

Yes, it's not only possible but IMO highly probable. In any given case there are always going to be polar extremes of 'absolute black' and 'pure white' but the majority of people usually fall somewhere in the wide spectrum of shades of grey in between those two poles until all the facts are in.

I was trying (clearly too clumsily and therefore ultimately unsuccessfully - my bad) to highlight that very point in my last post responding to Lancelotlink's post in which I took issue with the use of the word 'cheerleading' for people who think (and say) someone might in fact be innocent because they have arrived at a different conclusion based on the same information....

 

[Elley Mae]

Your entitled to your opinion, but to be honest, I'm baffled how you can have a mindset that these people are guilty. Guilty of what? And exactly what evidence makes you think like this? You proudly say you've never been on the fence, which means you think they had something to do with it before any word was uttered by them, before any detail came to light. Talking heads may suspect something aint right, but I don't think they have them locked up yet, especially since they are not even suspects yet.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm just glad people still have certain rights in this country, innocent till proven guilty and all that. Rather than being judged and condemned on internet msg boards.

I go one word further, "presumed" innocent until "proven" guilty.

 

[Abby Normal]

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.

Oh, i absolutely agree now that I'm a mom. I give myself a limit of 2 and in my 13 years as a mother, I've exceeded that exactly twice. Both times my husband was sober.

Addiction is rampant in my family. My experience makes me rather careful as a responsible adult as well.

It's just something that I have seen a lot, and at another point in my life I didn't blink an eye at it- even though it's a choice I wouldn't make.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

For myself, I can honestly say that the things that make me suspicious of DB are things that would make me leery of anyone. I have not and am not "jumping to the conclusion" that she killed Lisa.

 

[Beccaboo]

When any child goes missing and an Amber Alert is issued, no matter where in the country it is I will post it on Facebook, I will send out texts. I AWAYS want to believe the child will be found safe and sound. Sadly statistics tell us that is most likely not going to happen and the perpetrator is almost always related to the child. I never once thought Kyron's biological parents were involved. Terri is a whole different subject. When a child is missing the parents are going to be looked at first, that is just the way it is. Innocent parents are going to be ok with that. Whatever it takes to find the child. Innocent people do not lie, do not mislead, do not shut out local media, to not get tattoos. Are we to blame for being suspicious? No. All the suspicion in the world won't make an innocent person lie.
On the subject of drunk people and small children; anyone who thinks caring for a small child and being drunk is appropriate is sadly mistaken. Until you carry memories of being picked up and tossed out of the way, or worse yet having to take your infant daughter out of your fathers arms because he is too drunk to walk and carry a baby, you have no idea the impact it has. JMHO