CO Father of missing baby 25 years ago reaches out to parents of baby Lisa

[mck16]

Here's something:



http://www.kctv5.com/story/15953146/neighbor-says


I think few people have an alibi in the middle of the night when almost everyone else is sleeping, but the friend might have some idea. We don't know where the friend he stayed the night with lives or whether the friend observed the man sleeping and getting up at 5. He apparently has a cell phone so the cell pings might tell the police something about where he was. Not fool proof since it's possible his phone was somewhere he wasn't, but anyway, they would know where he was at 5:59 when he got the call. The people at the AFB would presumably know when he turned up for his shift. Google maps says that this AFB is about an hour and a half away from Baby Lisa's address so you have to factor in some driving time if he was where MT saw someone at 4 am. I assume it could go a little faster during the night, if you don't mind speeding.

Thank you. The reason I asked was because yesterday on my drive home a reporter on Vinnie P. was saying that there was a person identified by the man on the motorcycle. He said that this man lives in the neighborhood, and he (the reporter) also said that he had talked to him. He said that this person does Not have an alibi for that night. He wouldn't reveal anymore because he didn't want to give his identity away.

Did anyone else see this. It was about 5:00 p.m. on Vinnie Politan. tia

 

[Turnadot]

Guys, I have a Ninja Manual and I can confirm there's nothing about baby snatching in there.

 

[mck16]

BBM
Sorry - I have been real busy today - trying to keep up here too. Last I had heard, GA had pretty much let it be known who he was talking about, but hadn't actually NAMED him. That seems really stupid, IMO. He doesn't have the kind of protections that journalists do, and could easily be sued for slander.

What kind of protection do journalists have? tia

 

[Turnadot]

[/b]

What kind of protection do journalists have? tia

Freedom of the Press?

I'm not American, I'm just taking a guess at it.

 

[mck16]

Freedom of the Press?

I'm not American, I'm just taking a guess at it.

There may be some protection but I don't think that is it. See definition below. I will keep looking and see if I can find more on the subject. But, I am pretty sure they can be charged with libel.

freedom of the press  noun the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter without governmental restriction and subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc.

 

[Turnadot]

There may be some protection but I don't think that is it. See definition below. I will keep looking and see if I can find more on the subject. But, I am pretty sure they can be charged with libel.

freedom of the press  noun the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter without governmental restriction and subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc.

Sure, but it's damn hard to sue the press for libel. Extremely hard, I'd say Freedom of the Press covers a hell of a lot - even if they print your name, because if they are careful with their words and they are because they rely on subtext a lot, IMO, they can always say they didn't accuse John Doe, and it's not their fault people assumed John Doe was guilty.

So I think there's some legal protection there and a lot of wiggle room if they don't come right out and say John Doe is guilty. Otherwise the press is too hamstrung.

JMHO, of course.

 

[annalia]

Even though he doesn't actually come out with his name, he didn't need to, there's no question who he's referring to. I wonder if he could be potentially be sued?

From the link in the OP

ABEYTA: We have a suspect.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do you think you knew who did it?

ABEYTA: Yes. We think that. And we have the eyewitness. You know, remember the eyewitness who saw man carrying the baby late at night? That`s very unusual. And there was two witnesses to that. So what we did is we did some investigation, I have prepared a seven-page report to the FBI, and to the police department. They are reviewing it. And we feel somewhat confident that we`re on the right trail.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. I know you can`t name names and I don`t want you to for legal reasons, but is your suspect someone who is known to the family? Is your suspect someone who is known to the family?

ABEYTA: Yes, yes. Yes. Yes, it is.

(CROSSTALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is it someone who lives in the community?

ABEYTA: Yes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is it someone who lives in the community?

ABEYTA: Yes. Yes, it is.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I don`t want to play "20 Questions" with you, but we`ve got a big cast of characters here. Let me ask you this, do you think cops are about to make an arrest?

ABEYTA: I think they`re working on it. I think they`re trying to find out and validate the information that we gave them. I don`t think they`re -- I don`t know how close they are, because they don`t report to me, I don`t report to them, we just gave them the information, same with the FBI. But I can say that this is --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Gil?

ABEYTA: Yes? Go ahead.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: The prosecutor`s office says it could be years before this case is solved. Quote, "There is no case. Nothing has been presented to us. If it gets solved, it will be solved years from now. At this point, nothing has been presented to our office." But you`re saying something completely different.

ABEYTA: I`m saying to you that we have prepared a document naming a suspect near the family that has the experience, had the opportunity to be able to do this. Also, I want to add that that had the training to do this. Remember that -- training to do this. And so --

 

[Whisperer]

I'm just not so "sold" on this guy, if it's the neighbors husband that he suspects.
So far as I can tell, no one can state with any certainty that Baby Lisa was seen alive on Monday except for the parents and the neighbor who says she "looked" in on her and was "apparantly" fine.

I don't like the word "apparently" when used by witnesses. I also hate the word "amazing", spoken in a court of law, to describe a person. It is weak. And don't get me started on "Absolutely"...I shutter at the word..

Webster definition of "Apparently":
Used by speakers or writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying.

.......and that is how I feel about the neighbor and her choice of words when she states she ,apparently,saw Lisa in her crib. She is not convincing.

 

[Chewy]

He pretty much can say whatever he wants the way he is saying it. You have the laws backwards. The press is liable for things citizens can pretty much say whatever they want. However if he names the guy he can be sued.


Also he says "IT" not he or she.

 

[Turnadot]

He pretty much can say whatever he wants the way he is saying it. You have the laws backwards. The press is liable for things citizens can pretty much say whatever they want. However if he names the guy he can be sued.


Also he says "IT" not he or she.

Ah, OK. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[annalia]

Interesting, maybe an attorney will weigh in. It is confusing to me.

According to this, the person just needs to be identifiable, not necessarily always mentioned by name.

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/libel-and-slander

A plaintiff may not recover for libel or slander without proving that the defamatory statement identified the plaintiff. A defamatory statement that names the plaintiff clearly identifies the plaintiff as the subject of the defamation. Not all defamatory remarks name the subject, however, and defamatory messages alone do not damage reputations. A damaged reputation only occurs when recipients of the message know who the message is defaming.

Defamation against one unidentified member of a general group or category of people is not slanderous or libelous. For example, a false ACCUSATION that an otherwise unidentified student at the state university cheated on final exams is not slanderous or libelous because the student remains unidentifiable. The question becomes more difficult if the message offers more identifiable information. A false accusation that a red-haired female business major who lives on the second floor of her sorority house and drives a black sports car cheated on a final exam in her accounting class could be slanderous or libelous if the female business major could show that others identified her as the subject of the defamation.

 

[1&2&3]

IIRC, this neighbor that is not being named took a LDT given by LE and passed. This was discussed on an earlier thread about 7-10 days ago, if that long. So, that would clear him in my book.

 

[Chewy]

So what? LDT are unreliable. I don't fault DB for not passing hers and I don't write someone off the hook for passing his. If he has an alibi that's different but LDT's should be a tool in guiding an investigation, not evidence of guilt or innocence.


Defamation of character is not quite the same thing as libel or slander. You can win a case like that but it's not the same level of a crime.

 

[annalia]

Chewy, I'm just curious, are you an attorney? I hope that's ok to ask.

 

[In da Middle]

IIRC, this neighbor that is not being named took a LDT given by LE and passed. This was discussed on an earlier thread about 7-10 days ago, if that long. So, that would clear him in my book.

I only recall HIM saying he passed the LDT.

 

[mck16]

I am not being snarky or a SA when I ask this question. What keeps me and other posters safe on this site. Could we be sued for slander if something was said about another person and that person thought they were being slandered? I really have wondered this for a long time. tia if anyone knows.

 

[mck16]

I only recall HIM saying he passed the LDT.

That is exactly what I was thinking when I read that post. I don't think LE has released any LDT results. And that includes DB. jmo

 

[Chewy]

Chewy, I'm just curious, are you an attorney? I hope that's ok to ask.

Of course it's ok to ask. Nope I'm not a lawyer. I just follow a lot of celebrities who sue magazines. First famous one I think was Carol Burnette.

Defamation of character is harder to prove (I'm assuming because the boundaries are easier to cross)

But just because we put two and two together and assumed that he meant THIS GUY doesn't mean he can sue.

Look at Zanny in CA's case. The woman who had the same name whom it seemed she was fingering is still trying to sort it out in court.

Seems to be tied into proving damages, not just "how dare you say that!"

http://www.personalinjurylawyer.com...er/proving-harm-defamation-character-lawsuits

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.

 

[Whisperer]

IIRC, this neighbor that is not being named took a LDT given by LE and passed. This was discussed on an earlier thread about 7-10 days ago, if that long. So, that would clear him in my book.

Not so fast... Who said he passed the poly? :fence:

 

[Whisperer]

I respect Mr Abeyta's passion, but right now I consider him sort of a loose cannon. IDK, but I'd rather get help from calmer and less intrusive sources like Marc Klaas and John Walsh, and Tim Miller.

All three of them know the pain of losing a child, but woulnd't try to insert themselves into the investigation.

IMO

I'm sticking with Mark Furhman.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/11/0...the-latest-revelations-in-the-baby-lisa-case/