LE wants to interview the parents separately

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Ahhh it's always an accidental drowning. Like Dr. G said "100% of accidental drownings are reported to 911". People don't make accidents look like kidnappings.

No. They make make murders look like accidents that looked like kidnappings.
 
Well, that's just too bad for a mother who gets drunk and is unable to provide proper care for her baby. Worry about being blamed?!?!?! IMHO, a mother should be blamed for the "accident" because she could have prevented it if she hadn't been drunk.

Should she not be more concerned/worried/upset/etc. about her dead drowned baby????

YES! I would think so. However, we have seen moms who worry more about themselves than their children, unfortunately.
 
There wasn't an "accidental" drowning!!! Not in this case and not in the Caylee Anthony case. 100% of accidental drownings are reported. I know this from personal experience. My nephew got out of the house at 18 months old. It was wintertime, he fell in the pool. He had figured out how to unlocked the sliding glass door and open it, back them the locks were low and the doors weren't heavy. When he was found, BLUE, COLD, STIFF and we thought very dead, 911 was called! With a family member shouting 911 orders to my other family member, my nephew was revived, brought back from not breathing, brought back from stone cold dead. Never ONCE, for a SECOND, was there ANY hesitation on ANYONE'S part to do the right thing and TRY to save the baby. There was NO time for any thought to come into anyone's head, pure reaction, just something you DO when anyone is in crisis. It wouldn't have mattered if he was there for 10 minutes or 30 minutes, the reaction would NOT HAVE CHANGED!!

Sorry for shouting, but coming from one that has personally experienced this same trauma, you don't hide the baby, make up stories, not call 911 or bury the child in the woods!!!!! EVER!

I have never posted about this, not even in the FCA forum when that was her defense excuse, just had to post it tonight. There can't be another baby in which this excuse it used! I can't take it. Baby Lisa did not accidentally drown. Period. IMO. JMO. MOO!
 
BTW, his name is Marc Klaas. He would not have needed to submit to a poly graph - no one ever suspected he was guilty of anything. His daughter was abducted from a slumber party and there were two 12 year old girls who had iron clad stories of what happened - and Marc was not involved. The girls eventually untangled themselves from their bondage, and notified Polly's mother what happened.

Marc was never a suspect.

I'm well acquainted with the details surrounding the abduction of Polly Klaas, and while Marc was never a suspect, he knew well that LE always looks at the family first. He's been interviewed countless times and has stated that he begged LE to give him a polygraph, as he wanted to get it out of the way and get LE on to looking for his daughter.

Marc is often consulted in missing children cases, and he always says, "the truth never changes." He's always suspicious when someone changes their story.
 
I heart Mark Klass. What a classy gentleman!

:beats:

I do too! He is a classy gentleman! And a champion of missing children everywhere. Whenever he's interviewed, I listen. :loser:
 
There wasn't an "accidental" drowning!!! Not in this case and not in the Caylee Anthony case. 100% of accidental drownings are reported. I know this from personal experience. My nephew got out of the house at 18 months old. It was wintertime, he fell in the pool. He had figured out how to unlocked the sliding glass door and open it, back them the locks were low and the doors weren't heavy. When he was found, BLUE, COLD, STIFF and we thought very dead, 911 was called! With a family member shouting 911 orders to my other family member, my nephew was revived, brought back from not breathing, brought back from stone cold dead. Never ONCE, for a SECOND, was there ANY hesitation on ANYONE'S part to do the right thing and TRY to save the baby. There was NO time for any thought to come into anyone's head, pure reaction, just something you DO when anyone is in crisis. It wouldn't have mattered if he was there for 10 minutes or 30 minutes, the reaction would NOT HAVE CHANGED!!

Sorry for shouting, but coming from one that has personally experienced this same trauma, you don't hide the baby, make up stories, not call 911 or bury the child in the woods!!!!! EVER!

I have never posted about this, not even in the FCA forum when that was her defense excuse, just had to post it tonight. There can't be another baby in which this excuse it used! I can't take it. Baby Lisa did not accidentally drown. Period. IMO. JMO. MOO!


OK, so I see you have very strong feelings about this, lol. BTW, I am very glad your little guy survived! What a thing!

My theory--working theory that is, and it can change--is this:

Mom drinks. A lot. JI hates it and tells her she needs to knock it off. She says she will, but keeps on drinking. They quarrel over it sometimes. He is sick and tired of dealing with her drunk a$$ night after night and having to deal with the kids at bedtime and everything else because she is getting tipsy by then. He doesn't want to kick her out because then she will take the baby and he *knows* what a custody struggle will be like, from past experience. And she might get full custody and keep on drinking. Better he keep her there where he can at least keep an eye on the situation.

He is a little worried about working that evening shift because he doesn't know what she will do while he is gone. She promises she won't get drunk, and he trusts her and goes ahead with the night shift because they need the money.

She tells JI she needs to go to the store just to buy some baby food and wipes. She pays with the joint debit card for that, and borrows money from her brother to buy the wine that she isn't supposed to have. That's why he got the change. She'll pay him back later. She hides the wine somewhere and JI takes off before she brings it in. He has no idea she plans to get drunk that night and she knows he would be furious if he saw the wine.

She goes ahead and drinks with her neighbor, figuring she will be fine by morning and he'll never be the wiser. She'll get the neighbor to throw the box away at her house, or just hide it somewhere.

Later, after the neighbor leaves, Lisa wakes up and is soiled. DB decides in her drunken state to go ahead and give her a quick bath then give her a bottle and put her back to bed. She draws the bath and puts the baby in and gets distracted or nods off. She comes to and realizes the baby has drowned. She knows JI will totally blame her. She can't let anyone know what happened because for sure JI will toss her to the curb with her son and she will have no place to live and no way to support herself. She has burned too many bridges and has little in the way of family/friend support. They may not be rich, but it is pretty comfy and she doesn't want to lose it.

She has to come up with a plan to hide this terrible thing she has done. She is not thinking clearly. She wraps the baby up and tapes her well and drives down to the river and throws her in along with the phones. It was an accident, but her husband, and probably the police won't see it that way. If she calls 911, the result will be either jail or homelessness. Either way, the baby is gone, and calling 911 and telling the truth won't bring her back.

I haven't fully figured out the phones yet. Obviously something is on them that she doesn't want anyone to see. That's my theory du jour. Go ahead and pick it apart and let's see what works and what doesn't. You won't offend me. Just be nice.
 
gwenabob - Thank you. We didn't know how long my nephew was in the pool, he was blue, cold and no heart beat. DB wouldn't have known how long Baby Lisa was in the bathtub, according to your theory, any mother's natural reaction would be to call 911, period. Now, is she intentionally drowned her child (we have seen that one), only then would she not all for help. JMO! My opinion will never change on this one. No amount of a cushy, comfy, lifestyle would change any "mom's" natural reaction. The phones missing, just adds to my theory, whoever did this to Baby Lisa, knew something was on those phones.
 
gwenabob - Thank you. We didn't know how long my nephew was in the pool, he was blue, cold and no heart beat. DB wouldn't have known how long Baby Lisa was in the bathtub, according to your theory, any mother's natural reaction would be to call 911, period. Now, is she intentionally drowned her child (we have seen that one), only then would she not all for help. JMO! My opinion will never change on this one. No amount of a cushy, comfy, lifestyle would change any "mom's" natural reaction. The phones missing, just adds to my theory, whoever did this to Baby Lisa, knew something was on those phones.

Well, I have other working theories that involve other means of death too. In fact, tomorrow I might have a two for one sale on my theories!

I was just thinking of how a towel might be what the dog alerted on and how that might weave into one of my theories. I'll keep working on them if you all keep reading them. :crazy:
 
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/25...e-is-part.html
Legal dance with police in Lisa Irwin case is part of the system

--more @ link--



Police have issued public appeals to Bradley and Irwin for separate “unrestricted” interviews to follow up on issues raised at their last formal interrogation on Oct. 8.
Conducting separate interviews is a standard police procedure. Officers even do it at traffic accident scenes, where they pull drivers and witnesses apart to speak to them. So they certainly wouldn’t deviate from the practice in a missing-child case, said Capt. Steve Young, a Kansas City police spokesman.

“We want to know what they have to say on their own,” Young said.

The parents also have refused to allow police to have specially trained social workers reinterview their older children from previous relationships, boys ages 6 and 8 who were at the home when Lisa disappeared.

As a general rule, police do not interview children who are witnesses. Instead, they refer them to a child protection center, where social workers talk to the children. Police are not allowed in the room.

In the Irwin case, social workers talked to one boy for 30 minutes and the other boy for 50 minutes the day Lisa vanished. Police have not been able to send the boys back to the center.
 
I agree they should be interviewed separately. Nothing wrong with that at all. Lets see if they have consistent stories. I hope LE gets to do this. I dont understand how they cannot make them do this. We have a missing baby here... Seems the parents have forgotten that..
I would be utterly appalled if LE violated DB and JI's rights.

Of course Lisa has rights, and of course I want her found ASAP. But if DB or JI is responsible for whatever happened to Lisa, if LE violated their rights, any chance of a conviction would be shot to hell.

IMO
 
There wasn't an "accidental" drowning!!! Not in this case and not in the Caylee Anthony case. 100% of accidental drownings are reported. I know this from personal experience. My nephew got out of the house at 18 months old. It was wintertime, he fell in the pool. He had figured out how to unlocked the sliding glass door and open it, back them the locks were low and the doors weren't heavy. When he was found, BLUE, COLD, STIFF and we thought very dead, 911 was called! With a family member shouting 911 orders to my other family member, my nephew was revived, brought back from not breathing, brought back from stone cold dead. Never ONCE, for a SECOND, was there ANY hesitation on ANYONE'S part to do the right thing and TRY to save the baby. There was NO time for any thought to come into anyone's head, pure reaction, just something you DO when anyone is in crisis. It wouldn't have mattered if he was there for 10 minutes or 30 minutes, the reaction would NOT HAVE CHANGED!!

Sorry for shouting, but coming from one that has personally experienced this same trauma, you don't hide the baby, make up stories, not call 911 or bury the child in the woods!!!!! EVER!

I have never posted about this, not even in the FCA forum when that was her defense excuse, just had to post it tonight. There can't be another baby in which this excuse it used! I can't take it. Baby Lisa did not accidentally drown. Period. IMO. JMO. MOO!

With all due respect, you have not experienced the "very same trauma." We do not know Lisa's fate. I seriously doubt she left the house on her own or that she experienced an accidentally death.
 
With all due respect, you have not experienced the "very same trauma." We do not know Lisa's fate. I seriously doubt she left the house on her own or that she experienced an accidentally death.

I may be misinterpreting but I believe that was the poster's entire point. :waitasec:
 
This is a perfect example of the addition of facts.
First no mention of the alcohol
Then I was drunk
Then I was drunk and I take anti-anxiety drugs every morning.

Now, her rep adds one more thing to the long litany of excuses for her not hearing/remembering the events of that night.

I was drunk, I take an anti-anxiety drug every morning and, oh yeah I forgot, I took a sleeping pill.

I guess having the fan on high was keeping her drunk self awake.

Just bouncing off your post......

I really wish they had tested her BAC that night (I'm a bit stuck on that- sorry :blushing:).
I guess even if it's not SOP it's possible they asked, she took the test and they do have the levels, but that seems unlikely.

But what they can do with these alleged meds in the mix, is to check out the dates on her pill bottles to check to see if she is using them as directed.
Check date of rx, count pills and see if it adds up. If there's less pills than there should be, it's possible that she is over-medicating as well as drinking too much.....Or worse, sharing them with 'others' that should never be taking them, if you get my drift?

Hoping that these meds are one of the things LE covered during the last SW.
Could even be something that they want to discuss with DB in this 'tough questions' interview.

JMO
 
I still feel something happened to Lisa earlier than the parents "kidnapping" timeline, so that gave them plenty of time to "take care of Lisa" and come up with a reason why she was missing.

Unfortunately as we all know, the longer Lisa is missing, she will probably never be found and no one will be charged.
 
I still feel something happened to Lisa earlier than the parents "kidnapping" timeline, so that gave them plenty of time to "take care of Lisa" and come up with a reason why she was missing.

Unfortunately as we all know, the longer Lisa is missing, she will probably never be found and no one will be charged.

I agree. MOO
 
I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my brain around the fact that the parents of a reportedly "kidnapped" baby are forcing LE to negotiate an interview with them. Really?
 
I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my brain around the fact that the parents of a reportedly "kidnapped" baby are forcing LE to negotiate an interview with them. Really?

I can understand why. If what mom said happened during the first interview session is true, I'd want to negotiate an interview as well.

If I was truly innocent, showing me burnt clothing and accusing me of harming my child would indicate and convince me that they are narrow minded and are not looking for my abducted child.

I'd negotiate a deal to ask any questions that would not point the finger at me and I would want proof that they are following up on all potential leads in the case.
 
I can understand why. If what mom said happened during the first interview session is true, I'd want to negotiate an interview as well.

If I was truly innocent, showing me burnt clothing and accusing me of harming my child would indicate and convince me that they are narrow minded and are not looking for my abducted child.

I'd negotiate a deal to ask any questions that would not point the finger at me and I would want proof that they are following up on all potential leads in the case.

But that would be an oxymoron. If I had a missing child and I banned any questions about me the police would be unable to follow up on all potential leads by definition.

I know I'm innocent but the police don't. They need to eliminate me to move forward with the investigation.

If they find somebody else it will hurt their case if the suspect's defense attorney will be able to point out all the questions that I refused to answer, I who was there, I who was the last one to see my baby. It could give them reasonable doubt and I don't want that, I want justice for my child.
 
But that would be an oxymoron. If I had a missing child and I banned any questions about me the police would be unable to follow up on all potential leads by definition.

I know I'm innocent but the police don't. They need to eliminate me to move forward with the investigation.

If they find somebody else it will hurt their case if the suspect's defense attorney will be able to point out all the questions that I refused to answer, I who was there, I who was the last one to see my baby. It could give them reasonable doubt and I don't want that, I want justice for my child.

This would be a second interview or third depending on how many questions were already asked by LE. IMO, by the first or second interview, LE should already have a good idea and possible theory as to what may have happened to the child. There would be no need to keep reinterviewing the parents a third time.

Interviews:

1) The initial questions following the 911 call. The basics. Timeline, child's clothing, photos of the child, etc.

2) Possible persons of interest, review timeline, employers (if any), names of family members, friends, coworkers, neighbours. Questions about the child. daycare, health issues, siblings, etc.

Then it's up to LE to investigate everything. If stuff was found in their investigation that needed to be addressed then bring in the parents again for an interview.

In this case, they did it backwards, imo. Show the parents (mom) the burnt clothing which may or may not have been the child's. Accuse her of killing the child.

Of course, I'd be frantic if I was innocent. This clearly shows they have tunnel vision. I would do exactly what mom and dad did in this case. Lawyer up
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
223
Total visitors
352

Forum statistics

Threads
608,929
Messages
18,247,743
Members
234,506
Latest member
LunarNomad
Back
Top