Did Lisa's Mom do it? Poll

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Is Lisa's Mom Guilty

  • Yes she is

    Votes: 205 29.2%
  • No, I believe her

    Votes: 108 15.4%
  • Not sure, on the fence

    Votes: 365 52.0%
  • Dad and Mom together

    Votes: 24 3.4%

  • Total voters
    702
  • Poll closed .
This is a really good and thoughtful theory of what may have happened, AZlawyer. But why would she do this? The little boy would never be prosecuted, would he? He's much too young for that ~ and it would have obviously been an accident formed from good intent, right? So why would she do this? Not to cover the fact that she was incapacitated by alcohol ~ because she's already admitted to that. I don't see a motive for this theory but I am slow.

If she's worldly enough to hire JT to represent her, wouldn't she be smart enough to know neither of the boys would have been held legally responsible?

ETA: Please forgive me; the first thing I should have said is how happy I am to see you participating in this forum, AZlawyer!!!!

I suppose what I was thinking was that DB would not want JI to know she drank to excess and got one of the kids killed on his first night working. If their relationship was a little rocky to begin with and/or he had expressed doubts about her parenting skills, she might have been desperate to hide what happened. Later, she might have realized that she was going to have to incorporate the drinking into her story, because of those pesky "gaps" in the timeline--but if she could keep the story about an intruder and not about her son dropping Lisa, then JI could not be as mad at her.
 
This is what I don't get. How can a woman who was extremely intoxicated hide a baby so well that LE hasn't been able to find her for 2 weeks? She had to have had help if she's guilty. This case is maddening.

I believe Caylee wasn't found for about 6 months, and whoever hid her (IMO Casey, acting alone) threw her body at the edge of a wooded vacant lot right near their home. So I guess it's possible for somebody who really isn't planning ahead and isn't exactly a criminal mastermind to still be able to hide a (small) body effectively.
 
I'm not getting the theory of DB getting rid of the phones because she had made a call for help in disposing of the body. It still doesn't explain the dogs not barking anymore than if it's a stranger abduction. If someone came per DB's call why didn't the dog bark? Why would she get rid of the phones if all police have to do is get her phone records? It just doesn't tie up any loose ends pointing to DB as the only possible perp in the case. If the dogs didn't bark b/c DB called someone the dogs are familiar with, then the abducter could have also been someone familiar to the dogs.
 
Personally I am still not convinced on the drinking to excess/possibly blacking out scenario. If Debbie regularly drinks I find it implausible that 5 glasses of wine could cause a black out. I think it more likely she needed an excuse as to her inconsistencies and inability to remember.

My impression the whole way along is that Debbie is very concerned with Debbie.

JMO

ETA: Debbie also copped to taking AA meds which apparently can lead to a higher likelihood for blackouts when combined with alcohol. This really is all just a little too convenient for my liking.
 
ITA,someone said that on HLN today I think,that maybe D is using the "drinking" as an excuse.
If something happened had she really been drinking,whether it was her fault or not,she would be feeling soooooo incredibly guilty for drinking,she would not be acting the way she is acting IMO,like "I was drinking,so what? I may have blacked out,no big deal but I did not do anything wrong"
I also find the husband completly sticking by her really suspicious.
If she was drunk and now the baby is gone,he would be MAD ,no matter how it happened.
IMO they both know what happened to Baby Lisa :(
 
I think DB did something to L, but proving it is another matter. Unless she confesses, I see no evidence linking her to this crime - no body, especially, and as time passes, evidence is rapidly being destroyed.

How would LE, at this point, have enough information to charge DB with anything? Maybe social services could get involved, but there's nothing to say J is a bad father, so I doubt the other kids would be removed from the home.

Maybe she'll write a book, and people will be dumb enough to buy it, making her $$$. And, of course, there will be no resolution about Lisa.
 
I'm not getting the theory of DB getting rid of the phones because she had made a call for help in disposing of the body. It still doesn't explain the dogs not barking anymore than if it's a stranger abduction. If someone came per DB's call why didn't the dog bark? Why would she get rid of the phones if all police have to do is get her phone records? It just doesn't tie up any loose ends pointing to DB as the only possible perp in the case. If the dogs didn't bark b/c DB called someone the dogs are familiar with, then the abducter could have also been someone familiar to the dogs.

I don't think she would call a stranger for help. Whoever she called would be someone the dog knows, so no barking. You and I know that the police can hget phone records, but that does not mean Deborah does. ESPECIALLY if they are prepaid, LOTS of people think they are untraceable. They "can" be if you buy and register with a fake name, but you have to be planning ahead to do that, won't help a bit if you registered the phone properly. She left high school to marry and have her son... she isn't necessarily worldly or wise.

I am totally on the fence. After describing a scenario almost the same as one someone else posted nearly simultaneously (boy could have dropped baby) but with a happier ending (she is only injured, and will be returned), I ended with a sentence that allowed for an outsider (who the dog might or might not know) taking the baby either to make a point to Jeremy about Deborah's drinking and subsequent neglect or to keep and raise since she did not deserve Lisa.

I hope we will soon know what happened, but when I consider Kyron and Hailey and Joshua Davis and Aliyah Lunsford I think there are some cases we may never get answers to.
 
I suppose what I was thinking was that DB would not want JI to know she drank to excess and got one of the kids killed on his first night working. If their relationship was a little rocky to begin with and/or he had expressed doubts about her parenting skills, she might have been desperate to hide what happened. Later, she might have realized that she was going to have to incorporate the drinking into her story, because of those pesky "gaps" in the timeline--but if she could keep the story about an intruder and not about her son dropping Lisa, then JI could not be as mad at her.

I agree completely! I really think DB acted alone, and it was an accident due to gross negligence. IMO DB has admitted the drinking because her legal counsel has advised her to, to garner some sympathy and so he can say what he's saying today, "See? Look how truthful she is."

I just hope they find her soon. Time is of the essence, as we learned from the Anthony "dry bones" case.

Did mom smother the baby by accident? Did she do something violent in a fit of drunken rage at an inconsolable baby?
 
Still on Team DB here. I don't buy for one minute she hurt this baby. I know lots of people that drink wine at home when their kids go to bed. I don't think any thing has said she is guilty of anything and most the stuff I see is pure supposition but no fact here.

I will admit I always give parents the benefit of the doubt until they are proven guilty however, I also am not blind. I am just not seeing her guilt here. I think it is way out there in the realm of possibility.
 
I gotta say that if she was REALLY interested in finding her child - she would not have waited TWO WEEKS before coming clean AND she would be looking, handing out flyers, begging for the child's return. IMHO she is only attempting to cover her own tracks.

Tacopina (sp??) admitted this morning on one of the talks shows (I think, it's in the media thread for today) that they knew about the drinking. This wasn't new to them. So she wasn't hiding it. She didn't feel the need to tell the whole world. And I wonder why? Probably for the reaction she is now getting, which is taking the focus off of Lisa and putting on her.

ETA: Post 4 in this thread.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151889"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151889[/ame]
 
I don't think mom did anything to harm Lisa, but have been speculating if mom set something up for financial purpose's.......
 
Didn't she admit to following missing children cases? How the mom is always suspect and she'll never feel that way again? I wonder if she followed cases online? Like, here? Creepy thought.
 
Please post your thoughts and opinions without name calling. Thanks everyone!

Ima
 
Didn't she admit to following missing children cases? How the mom is always suspect and she'll never feel that way again? I wonder if she followed cases online? Like, here? Creepy thought.

I think if she had actually followed them closely, like beyond watching MSM coverage, she would have been able to play the media better.
 
1)I am still inclined to say that of the three kids, Lisa would be the safest one from planned murder by the parents. Older kids and step kids are more at risk of parental aggression IMO. Not the only shared child, the only girl, and a cute baby who by all accounts is a very happy child.

2)I do not believe that parents cover up accidents by ditching a body. I just don't. I'd need to see some hard proof that it's happened more than once. Like really happened, and the science supports the theory. I think 100% of the time, parents hope that emergency responders can do something they couldn't. IMO.

3) I do think DB made some bad choices that may have contributed to it being allowed to happen. I don't know what happened, I don't have a theory. This is just my sense about the parents.

MOO
 
Still on Team DB here. I don't buy for one minute she hurt this baby. I know lots of people that drink wine at home when their kids go to bed. I don't think any thing has said she is guilty of anything and most the stuff I see is pure supposition but no fact here.

I will admit I always give parents the benefit of the doubt until they are proven guilty however, I also am not blind. I am just not seeing her guilt here. I think it is way out there in the realm of possibility.
Me too, but the fact is DB was drunk. She said so, and can't remember when she last saw Lisa. It was either 6:40pm or 10:30pm.

Considering she was that drunk, It's not out of the realm of possibility for me that she was too s-faced to tend to her baby, resulting in an accident that killed Lisa.

Or, someone took advantage of the fact that DB was drunk and kidnapped Lisa.

Personally, I'm on the fence.
 
1)I am still inclined to say that of the three kids, Lisa would be the safest one from planned murder by the parents. Older kids and step kids are more at risk of parental aggression IMO. Not the only shared child, the only girl, and a cute baby who by all accounts is a very happy child.

2)I do not believe that parents cover up accidents by ditching a body. I just don't. I'd need to see some hard proof that it's happened more than once. Like really happened, and the science supports the theory. I think 100% of the time, parents hope that emergency responders can do something they couldn't. IMO.

3) I do think DB made some bad choices that may have contributed to it being allowed to happen. I don't know what happened, I don't have a theory. This is just my sense about the parents.

MOO

RBBM

Statistically, and sadly, a child as young as Lisa is actually at the most risk of being a victim of homicide perpetrated by a family member. The risk is lowest for school age children.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/#B1
 
RBBM

Statistically, and sadly, a child as young as Lisa is actually at the most risk of being a victim of homicide perpetrated by a family member. The risk is lowest for school age children.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/#B1

I was under the impression that the noted statistics include shaken baby syndrome, post partum psychosis, smothering and other unplanned/rage based murders. It also includes statistics of those with only one baby and no older kids, and not a comparison of likelihood within families with multiple kids.

I was specifically speaking to premeditated murder. Buying wine and baby products as a cover-up and planning it on a night dad worked, etc. And the likelihood within a family unit.
 
I'm not getting the theory of DB getting rid of the phones because she had made a call for help in disposing of the body. It still doesn't explain the dogs not barking anymore than if it's a stranger abduction. If someone came per DB's call why didn't the dog bark? Why would she get rid of the phones if all police have to do is get her phone records? It just doesn't tie up any loose ends pointing to DB as the only possible perp in the case. If the dogs didn't bark b/c DB called someone the dogs are familiar with, then the abducter could have also been someone familiar to the dogs.

BBM: Now that it has come out that she was drunk it is possible the dogs barked and she didn't hear it.
 
Didn't she admit to following missing children cases? How the mom is always suspect and she'll never feel that way again? I wonder if she followed cases online? Like, here? Creepy thought.


BBM: Yes, she sure did ... I have been looking for the video that has DB's statement about her following missing persons cases and can't find it ...

Anyone remember what interview DB said this in, and have a link ?

TIA !
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
216
Total visitors
349

Forum statistics

Threads
608,819
Messages
18,245,988
Members
234,455
Latest member
Dogdetect
Back
Top