Dan Abrams ABC to Interview Lisa's parents 10/17/2011 & Today Show

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
frankie069 said:
I think the point is being missed here. We dont even know if she really did have a drink. Just because she bought that wine doesnt mean she drank it. It means she bought it. It could have been a cover-up the whole time. Like I said, great defense to say I blacked out and dont remember anything. I dont buy it at all. If she drank with someone, you would think that they would have come forward as to not wanting to be part of a murder. (unless of course they helped). All we have is Deb saying she was drunk. Well, you dont get drunk and black out and then are able to pop up out of bed sober when your husband comes home from work a few hours later. Its all lies. This family has been lying since day one and all this time has been wasted. WHY are they not being arrested for lying to police and obstructing justice. WHY are those other children not being taken to the station to be questioned on what happened that night.

Who did she buy the wine with, her brother right? Well maybe he helped her. There was no stranger involved in this at all. Just think how that stranger would have had all the cards stacked just right for him that night, it would be like hitting the lottery and so far fetched. What we have here is another narcissistic sociopath. Handcuff her already..
Click to expand...

She admitted across the media blitz she was drinking and was drunk.
 
Why hasn't anyone thought of doing a separate media interview with each of the parents without the other being there? That would be interesting and maybe Jeremy would actually be allowed to say something without Deborah interrupting him.

Nah, Deborah probably wouldn't allow it.

MOO
 
dunlurken said:
She said she was drunk.
Click to expand...

She has said a lot of things, doesnt mean its the truth. CA said there was a Zanny.. Its a defense ploy. Mark my words.. They are preparing her defense in the media. Wherever she got rid of the body, its a good place because with no body it will be harder to convict her. So if she has the media basically working for her and her already building her defense, she is that much ahead.
 
waltzingmatilda said:
But, all landlines have a dialtone to dial 911 even when service is out of order or temporarily disconnected. I keep a landline plugged in next to the bed in case I need 911. My cell charges in the family room/kitchen.

Perhaps the family just didn't realize this or it may be different in MO as I used to work for Bellsouth on the SE coast.

MOO

wm
Click to expand...

just want to make this clear because i misspoke in my former post:

megyn kelly said that the three cell phones were on restricted access. she said that the family claims the 2:30 am call couldn't have happened. they did not pay their cell phone bill. no landline was mentioned at all. she said one phone was broken and one phone was DB's, one was JI's.
 
LaLaw2000 said:
Why hasn't anyone thought of doing a separate media interview with each of the parents without the other being there? That would be interesting and maybe Jeremy would actually be allowed to say something without Deborah interrupting him.

Nah, Deborah probably wouldn't allow it.

MOO
Click to expand...

Dan Abrams did. But both interviews were very short....at least they only aired small snippets of them.
 
dunlurken said:
She said she was drunk.
Click to expand...
Yes, but is she saying this so she can claim impairment, and hang her defensive hat on a lesser charge as a result, or was she really drunk? IMO.

I don't trust much of what she says at this point.
 
natsound said:
This string of comments began with a poster hypothesizing that PD has burned clothes, cell phone pings and statements from a neighbor. My argument was, if PD had all those things, they would have enough evidence to make an arrest, which they have not done. A murder arrest was made, however, in the Anthony case without a body.
Click to expand...

Police really doesn't like making an arrest without a body. There are quite a few of current cases where they have not.
 
natsound said:
This string of comments began with a poster hypothesizing that PD has burned clothes, cell phone pings and statements from a neighbor. My argument was, if PD had all those things, they would have enough evidence to make an arrest, which they have not done. A murder arrest was made, however, in the Anthony case without a body.
Click to expand...

In this case, a Grand Jury is meeting tomorrow and it is up to them to decide if charges will be filed. I am actually surprised that a Grand Jury is meeting so soon about this case, which to me means that LE does have evidence with the exception of finding Lisa.
 
GourmetSoy said:
3 questions I have are:

1. Did JI see DB bring the box of wine into the house after her trip, or did she just bring in the wipes and baby food? (if she didn't bring in the wine then that tells me she was closet drinking)

2. Did JI notice the fan was indeed on in the bedroom the night Lisa was allegedly abducted? (I find it hard to believe that she remembered to turn on the fan if she couldn't remember to turn off the lights, lock the front door, close the window in the computer room or check on her sick child.)

3. Was DB in pajama's/normal sleeping clothes, or was she in the same clothes she was wearing when JI left for work?
Click to expand...

I saw a video from the next morning with reporters interviewing neighbours and I believe you could see DB in the background speaking with investigators. If it was her she was wearing checkered, flannel type pants and a hoodie.

Sorry...I have no idea where to find that video now.

MOO
 
LaLaw2000 said:
Why hasn't anyone thought of doing a separate media interview with each of the parents without the other being there? That would be interesting and maybe Jeremy would actually be allowed to say something without Deborah interrupting him.

Nah, Deborah probably wouldn't allow it.

MOO
Click to expand...

the abc interview was separate i believe.
 
Patty G said:
Looks like I missed something else. Where can I find the information about the fan? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'll see if I can find the direct quote, but in the interview (with Dan I believe) JI was asked about the break in and DB not hearing anything. He says that DB sleeps with the fan on high and their room is on the opposite side of the house.
 
NBCActionNews NBC Action News
#LisaIrwin family to hold 2:30 p.m. news conference pub.vitrue.com/EEi
 
LaLaw2000 said:
Why hasn't anyone thought of doing a separate media interview with each of the parents without the other being there? That would be interesting and maybe Jeremy would actually be allowed to say something without Deborah interrupting him.

Nah, Deborah probably wouldn't allow it.

MOO
Click to expand...

Dan Abrams interviewed them separately.
 
My niece, who was 6 at the time, witnessed something bad happen to her little brother, he was 2. She was questioned by LE 3 times. I was there for all 3 at the request of her mother. (My brother is bi polar and takes NO responsibility for her...thats another subject) The lady that interviewed her was in street clothes and 2 of the times they were in a room with a few toys coloring books that kinda thing. This woman was as gentle as you could get. The last time was at the park at school. My niece never realized she was talking to police. She was recorded in one session and that helped convict the man that hurt her brother.
My point is IF this is the way MY child was interviewed Id have no problem.
(they both went thru therepy because of the whole situation. It was the worst thing Ive ever had first hand knowledge of)
 
Turnadot said:
So?

He could tell me, or the child psychologist.

Either I or the psychologist would relay that information to LE ASAP. LE doesn't need full access to my kid. They would never get it. They would, however, get all the information the child psychologist could extract from my son.

When it comes to protecting my son from being tricked or manipulated, I don't much care what makes sense to a stranger.

An no, I don't trust LE to be ethical just because he's 5.
Click to expand...

LE uses psychologists/experts in talking to children already. So that would be a moot point.
 
frankie069 said:
IMO, these children should be taken to the police station and they will get a guardian to protect them as well, but they should be taken and questioned. None of us like to see our children hurt or upset, but think about this for one minute please, if your child saw something lets just say at a neighbors house, and the police wanted to question them, would you hold them back from that? If they were a potential witness would you stop them from catching lets say a kidnapper or a baby killer? If you look at it from that point of view, you would let your kids be questioned I believe, I know I would (IE, they had a description of a vehicle or a person that pulled another child off the street etc.). BUT if we were guilty of something, then thats a different story, you dont want those kids questioned. They might have the smallest clue that opens a HUGE door. I dont think they are going to be able to stop LE from questioning them at this point. Those kids will be court ordered to answer questions. As they should. (please note, I have nothing against those kids, they are innocent and my heart breaks for them but the law is the law and they can be questioned and its the only way we, well the police are going to get some answers). Sometimes to do the right thing, we have to do something that places another in an unfortunate circumstance. This is a necessary evil in my book.
Click to expand...


I agree, Frankie. I would want it done sensitively. I would take steps to ensure they would not be asked leading questions or badgered. Perhaps I could arrange for a nonfamily adult they were comfortable with present if that would put them at ease, like a teacher or a detective they were familiar with from the early days of the investigation. I'd explain to them that they were helping the police find their baby. But if my older children could have the key to recovering my baby safely, I would certainly have them interviewed beyond the initial interview at the time of the abduction. I wouldn't allow repeated fishing expeditions, but if new developments in the investigation warranted it, I would allow it!

Mary Katherine Smart was only 9, IIRC. While LE focused on Richard Ricci, she said it wasn't him. Months later, she was able to place the kidnapper. Her memory of the street preacher who worked on their roof a year earlier lead to Elizabeth's recovery.

So young children may have the missing link. If I were innocent and my baby was missing and in danger, I'd allow LE to re-interview my kids!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 72 more.
Total: 1,576 (members: 73, guests: 1,503)

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
1,503
Total visitors
1,576
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,333
Messages
18,202,187
Members
233,813
Latest member
dmccastor
Back
Top