Interviews 10/17/2011 All interviews #2

[Wise Old Owl]

OK - interesting new statements.

This from Fox - Fox and Friends interview just now.

Both Tacopina and BS were there.

BS spoke again, a little about the benefactor. Its a "she" and she is "connected" to the family. hhmmm...........

The question was asked about "do you think the family had anything to do with it?'

BS said "no, well, not from the parents. It didn't come from within THAT home - it came from outside the home." That tells me - extended family.

Tacopina said that DB told LE about her drinking. Told them early on. LE has known this - so her coming forward yesterday wasn't "new" to them.

Of course they both believe that DB and JI had nothing to do with it, but wouldn't give odds on the baby being found alive.

Interesting.

 

[Patty G]

OK - interesting new statements.

This from Fox - Fox and Friends interview just now.

Both Tacopina and BS were there.

BS spoke again, a little about the benefactor. Its a "she" and she is "connected" to the family. hhmmm...........

The question was asked about "do you think the family had anything to do with it?'

BS said "no, well, not from the parents. It didn't come from within THAT home - it came from outside the home." That tells me - extended family.

Tacopina said that DB told LE about her drinking. Told them early on. LE has known this - so her coming forward yesterday wasn't "new" to them.

Of course they both believe that DB and JI had nothing to do with it, but wouldn't give odds on the baby being found alive.

Interesting.

They were on FOX too! OMG. Hopefully a link will be available as I missed this interview.

 

[not_my_kids]

I will say that the drunken defense will not work legally. Any defense that you use in court has to fall into one of the acceptable defense categories. Meaning you can't just walk into court and say that you killed someone but it wasn't your fault, the neighbors dog told you to. Now murderous talking dogs can definitely fall under a mental illness defense, but it would have to be filed as a mental illness defense, not the talking dog defense.

When it comes to drugs and alcohol, rarely are they an acceptable defense. In fact, inebriation can only be used as a defense if the person were inebriated against their will or under duress. Since she chose to drink, she was over the legal age to drink, and no one held a gun to her head or forced the alcohol down her throat, she has no defense. The closest that they will be able to come to a defense using the fact that she was drunk is to claim that she is a raging alcoholic, and that her addiction to alcohol qualifies as a mental illness.

But, she won't be able to go into court and say that she was drunk, so sorry, but she should be let off the hook. The most she could use this defense for would be for her to say that she doesn't remember the events of the night and therefore cannot testify against anyone else or in her own defense.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm most of the way through my bachelors degree in Criminal justice administration, and we just recently had acceptable defenses pounded into our skulls, so I, for one, just wonder what the point is in admitting so publicly and so many times that she was drunk, because it definitely is not for her own defense.

 

[watchinginky]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but has anyone thought that maybe something happened earlier in the day, even before JI went to work?

Maybe buying the wine, baby wipes, etc. was staged and DB knew she would be on the surveillance video?

This is all JMO, but JI seems very odd, like he knows what happened. This reminds me very much of Ron Cummings where he had to make sure he was seen at work on the night in question. He looks down a lot when he speaks. Not a good thing when your baby is missing. Looks like guilt to me.

I always like to give the parents the benefit of the doubt, but now the story is changing. DB put Lisa to bed at 6:40pm instead of 10:30? In the interview yesterday, I noticed that DB didn't always look the interviewer in the eye. She would look away and close her eyes sometimes when she answered. To me, this indicates deception.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see them going on tv begging for Lisa's return or even hanging up posters or anything. Instead, she's on tv making excuses for herself.

All is JMO.

 

[vlpate]

I wonder if she tried to hire JB...lol

They couldn't pay their bill for a throwaway phone, how the heck do they afford Tacapino? They didn't "hire" Tacapino, there's absolutely no way. Someone is fronting the attorney, or he has been retained by one of the major stations. We will see which one before long.

It's all about fame....not about a missing baby.

 

[grandmaj]

No blogs peeps. Please ask before posting anything other than MSM. There are a few blogs that we allow based on tried and true past experience.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

I will say that the drunken defense will not work legally. Any defense that you use in court has to fall into one of the acceptable defense categories. Meaning you can't just walk into court and say that you killed someone but it wasn't your fault, the neighbors dog told you to. Now murderous talking dogs can definitely fall under a mental illness defense, but it would have to be filed as a mental illness defense, not the talking dog defense.

When it comes to drugs and alcohol, rarely are they an acceptable defense. In fact, inebriation can only be used as a defense if the person were inebriated against their will or under duress. Since she chose to drink, she was over the legal age to drink, and no one held a gun to her head or forced the alcohol down her throat, she has no defense. The closest that they will be able to come to a defense using the fact that she was drunk is to claim that she is a raging alcoholic, and that her addiction to alcohol qualifies as a mental illness.

But, she won't be able to go into court and say that she was drunk, so sorry, but she should be let off the hook. The most she could use this defense for would be for her to say that she doesn't remember the events of the night and therefore cannot testify against anyone else or in her own defense.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm most of the way through my bachelors degree in Criminal justice administration, and we just recently had acceptable defenses pounded into our skulls, so I, for one, just wonder what the point is in admitting so publicly and so many times that she was drunk, because it definitely is not for her own defense.

First, congrats on the education! Its a great feeling to accomplish such a goal. Now, I have a question - could the "drunk excuse" be used in a "diminished capacity" role?

I say that cause its not rocket science and I think it would be fairly easy to get a psychologist to testify as to the "effects" of drinking which could cause a "diminished capacity" in someone who is drunk.

And, if that can't be used as a defense - I would think it would certainly play into the mitagating factors when deciding sentence. But that's a double-edged sword - because I think it could also be used as an aggravating factor as well - especially if the person has a history of drinking.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Turnadot]

The way their story keeps changing, it makes both DB and JI seem like liars. Now, they may not be lying, but when the the fish gets bigger with each retelling, there was probably never a fish to begin with, IMO.

 

[luckyme]

I will say that the drunken defense will not work legally. Any defense that you use in court has to fall into one of the acceptable defense categories. Meaning you can't just walk into court and say that you killed someone but it wasn't your fault, the neighbors dog told you to. Now murderous talking dogs can definitely fall under a mental illness defense, but it would have to be filed as a mental illness defense, not the talking dog defense.

When it comes to drugs and alcohol, rarely are they an acceptable defense. In fact, inebriation can only be used as a defense if the person were inebriated against their will or under duress. Since she chose to drink, she was over the legal age to drink, and no one held a gun to her head or forced the alcohol down her throat, she has no defense. The closest that they will be able to come to a defense using the fact that she was drunk is to claim that she is a raging alcoholic, and that her addiction to alcohol qualifies as a mental illness.

But, she won't be able to go into court and say that she was drunk, so sorry, but she should be let off the hook. The most she could use this defense for would be for her to say that she doesn't remember the events of the night and therefore cannot testify against anyone else or in her own defense.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm most of the way through my bachelors degree in Criminal justice administration, and we just recently had acceptable defenses pounded into our skulls, so I, for one, just wonder what the point is in admitting so publicly and so many times that she was drunk, because it definitely is not for her own defense.

Congrats. I love criminal justice. my sons a junior in college in same field. I was wondering can JI testify against DB since they are not legally married? I think they dont have the spousal priveledge. I have heard joe T also mention That the police did not take a blood test on DB so i was wondering if he was gonna use that along with drunk defense. I guess from what u said it wouldnt be a good defense, but he put it out their for a reason. moo:seeya:

 

[indepmo]

OK - interesting new statements.
Tacopina said that DB told LE about her drinking. Told them early on. LE has known this - so her coming forward yesterday wasn't "new" to them.

I mentioned in another post about her mentioning the drinking, she had to have presented LE that info during an interview or they would be all over her.

I love how these New Yorkers are getting all of this national attention now. Wild Bill was pointless being here because he isn't licensed, and I've heard rumors the attorney isn't. I know another female in Kansas City area was also on board. Her license, he can act as a consultant to the legal team or so I've heard. There are plenty of lawyers on here who could comment on that.

So what's next. If and when it goes to trial, a change of venue is requested due to the publicity here (IN NEW YORK!?!?)

 

[luckyme]

wise old owl.

We are thinking on the same page. :seeya: I believe it was put out there for a reason. moo

 

[vlpate]

OK - interesting new statements.

This from Fox - Fox and Friends interview just now.

Both Tacopina and BS were there.

BS spoke again, a little about the benefactor. Its a "she" and she is "connected" to the family. hhmmm...........

The question was asked about "do you think the family had anything to do with it?'

BS said "no, well, not from the parents. It didn't come from within THAT home - it came from outside the home." That tells me - extended family.

Tacopina said that DB told LE about her drinking. Told them early on. LE has known this - so her coming forward yesterday wasn't "new" to them.

Of course they both believe that DB and JI had nothing to do with it, but wouldn't give odds on the baby being found alive.

Interesting.

I'm telling you, I think it was someone sick and tired of Deborah being a bad mother - someone who may have called and DB answered the phone, slurring her words with the boys playing in the background and the baby crying.

Someone's answer to me yesterday when I mentioned this was that kidnapping is a felony, why would someone do that and take a huge risk. My answer is they probably wanted to teach her a lesson and it got away from them and now maybe they are too scared to bring Lisa back. Just a theory - and when you think about how little CPS does to intervene in situations like this - drunk mom, sick baby, two little boys, and black-outs - you wonder what else can be done but take them out of the house yourself.

I would really love to know a lot more about Jeremy's custody battle with his ex.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I just caught the "tail end" of Today Show while flipping channels and saw that BS and JT were on the show ...

I noticed they had a flier with info for Baby Lisa ...

I believe they are reading here -- when they had the presser yesterday, they had no flier -- and today ... presto ... a flier with Baby Lisa's picture ...

BS and JT "think" they are the"Dynamic Duo" ... :sick:

MOO ...

 

[eleni777]

That's exactly what I've been thinking as well. It would have been silent... Maybe no one else noticed...no blood or evidence... and she could have just put her in her crib until she had dealt with the boys and then decided how to handle it. She might not have called 911 because she was drunk etc etc

If that was the case wouldn't Cadavar dogs pick up the decomp scent...

 

[luckyme]

I'm telling you, I think it was someone sick and tired of Deborah being a bad mother - someone who may have called and DB answered the phone, slurring her words with the boys playing in the background and the baby crying.

Someone's answer to me yesterday when I mentioned this was that kidnapping is a felony, why would someone do that and take a huge risk. My answer is they probably wanted to teach her a lesson and it got away from them and now maybe they are too scared to bring Lisa back. Just a theory - and when you think about how little CPS does to intervene in situations like this - drunk mom, sick baby, two little boys, and black-outs - you wonder what else can be done but take them out of the house yourself.

I would really love to know a lot more about Jeremy's custody battle with his ex.

Why wouldnt they inform the police or something after Debbie has been found out? If they get caught they will go to jail and Debbie will get her baby back. Kidnapping is along time in jail! You could be right though! weirder things have happened. As for JI ex she doesnt even live in the states. Link on here somewhere. moo :seeya:

 

[Kamille]

Congrats. I love criminal justice. my sons a junior in college in same field. I was wondering can JI testify against DB since they are not legally married? I think they dont have the spousal priveledge. I have heard joe T also mention That the police did not take a blood test on DB so i was wondering if he was gonna use that along with drunk defense. I guess from what u said it wouldnt be a good defense, but he put it out their for a reason. moo:seeya:

I think we learned from the CA trial that a whether a defense is "legal" or not, it doesn't matter. Just come up with a good story in the opening statements and if you've done a good job picking a clueless jury then you're home free.

MOO

 

[luckyme]

I think we learned from the CA trial that a whether a defense is "legal" or not, it doesn't matter. Just come up with a good story in the opening statements and if you've done a good job picking a clueless jury then you're home free.

MOO

True! and the funny thing about that is my older son who is a criminal justice major and wants to go to law school had told me JB would get casey off and i didnt believe him. :furious: moo!

 

[Patty G]

October 18, 2011
The Today Show

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/44942594#44942594

 

[Wise Old Owl]

I'm telling you, I think it was someone sick and tired of Deborah being a bad mother - someone who may have called and DB answered the phone, slurring her words with the boys playing in the background and the baby crying.

Someone's answer to me yesterday when I mentioned this was that kidnapping is a felony, why would someone do that and take a huge risk. My answer is they probably wanted to teach her a lesson and it got away from them and now maybe they are too scared to bring Lisa back. Just a theory - and when you think about how little CPS does to intervene in situations like this - drunk mom, sick baby, two little boys, and black-outs - you wonder what else can be done but take them out of the house yourself.

I would really love to know a lot more about Jeremy's custody battle with his ex.

Your first point - yes, someone who believed they could "ride in on a white horse and save the day" - possibly.

I'm very curious about the extended family - both sides, all sides, all current and future ex's.

The "threat assessment, targeted violence" expert they brought in last week started ringing bells for me about this then. Now, this morning with BS' comments on FOX - it could very well be true that "someone" came into that house and took Lisa.

 

[Patty G]

I just caught the "tail end" of Today Show while flipping channels and saw that BS and JT were on the show ...

I noticed they had a flier with info for Baby Lisa ...

I believe they are reading here -- when they had the presser yesterday, they had no flier -- and today ... presto ... a flier with Baby Lisa's picture ...

BS and JT "think" they are the"Dynamic Duo" ... :sick:

MOO ...

I noticed the flyer they had yesterday and it says "Kidnapped" on the top. I had to go to Missing and Exploited Children to read what their flyer stated and it was different.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingk...seNum=1180911&orgPrefix=NCMC&searchLang=en_US