LE wants to interview the parents separately

[MyBelle]

LE has the right and the power to interrogate anyone they want if they have reasonable suspicion. Do you think Jersey could have said "umm... no thanks"? Of course not- if there was reasonable suspicion they have the right to take you in for questioning.

Surely, after 17 hours, they have enough evidence for probable cause to just do what they need to do. And if they don't- then there is a good chance the parents are innocent and LE is misusing their power.

disclaimer: I don't have data that would make me think LE is misusing their power- which brings me back to my point: if there is reason to believe they have more information, then take them in. Don't waste time complaining to the media!

LE can't interrogate anyone if they lawyer up. Jersey could have said no, I want my lawyer.

JMO

 

[Cracka*Jaxx]

These parents havent even looked for their child.. There is no such thing as rest and sleep. I couldnt sleep if my child was out there.. Not at all..

I've never had children so my family consists of my furry kidz. Quite a few years ago one of the dogs went missing. We discovered it about 30 minutes after I had last seen her. My boyfriend and I immediately started knocking on doors at the apartment complex where we lived and did get a lead. Then I went over to a building close by where she had apparently followed someone walking to work. But no one there had seen her there.

For the next two weeks I put up flyers around town, got a notice in the local newspaper and had it broadcast on the radio. It was winter and I kept envisioning her injured and laying in a ditch somewhere, hoping I would find her. I couldn't sleep at night knowing I was in a warm house, and I worried about her condition. I would get up at 4am and before work I'd drive around town and stuff flyers into mailboxes.

A few weeks later I did get a call from someone who had the dog. It turned out that she went to a nearby shopping center and jumped in the back of someones car. The family liked her and planned on keeping her until they became aware of my search efforts. If I hadn't been pro-active they would have simply kept her.

My point is that I could hardly get any rest and was worried all the time. Finding her was all that was on my mind for those two weeks. I never just sat back figuring that someone else was going to do all the work.

I can't even imagine how frantic I'd be if it was my child who was missing. I'd be wracking my brain over and over trying to think of anyone who could have taken her. I'd be out pounding the streets, hoping I'd see a clue that LE missed. I wouldn't be calming sitting for an interview on GMA. I wouldn't just be talking- I'd be taking action. So I just don't get it ... What are the parents doing to help find baby Lisa?

 

[cachmo]

Well, I think it is. I just think that. Maybe I'm way way off base.

Why, I wonder, don't they SAY what they mean, instead of continuing over weeks time of using the term "unrestricted"?

My ASSumption; That when DB and JI was questioned in the beginning there were questions that they wouldnt answer. Ristricting the line of questioning in the eye of LE.
KWIM?
Thats how I take LE wanting an unrestricted conversation

 

[1tasha]

Wow Ive been reading all the threads on this case for the last week or so and only this one has made me want to reply! Im totally amazed at the fact that these parents are not rushing down to see LE right now to speak to them and assist in finding their precious baby? Also in the UK the police would bring them in to speak to them they wouldnt be allowed to hamper the investigation is it different in the US? Im trying to stay on the fence but many alarm bells are ringing the LE may have more facts than we have but I wish these parents would start responding like any normal people would if their baby had been taken. Sheer panic, fear, stress, upset, desperation and determination to do everything possible to find her!!!
Please let baby Lisa be found safe x

Honestly, this seems like a relatively new trend. Other's might have earlier examples. But this idea that anyone other than law enforcement feels "in charge" of the investigation seems new. As if they were..the CEO...of their own company..or hand..don't make me go there.

 

[Abby Normal]

Very true, lone.
If it were my child missing, I would cooperate up, down and sideways to find my child. I would let LE yell in my face and call me a liar all day if it would mean getting my child back. But I am not these parents. They may have their reasons that make no sense to us.
I just wish the media and LE wouldn't keep putting them in the worst light possible, and focus more on finding the baby instead of who is guilty. Doesn't matter right now... find this baby first and THEN work to convict whoever did it. Getting Deborah in jail should not be their priority right now. Finding Lisa should be.

But what if you realized they were so busy yelling in your face that they weren't looking for your child? Wouldn't you want to take away that distraction?

I'm not saying this is the case- I just keep hearing that they should let LE question them ad nauseum... and I don't know enough behind the scenes details.

But I do maintain that if LE has ANYTHING on them, it shouldn't be an option for DB and JI. If they have NOTHING on them then they need to get to exploring some new options.

 

[RANCH]

Well that's an interesting speculation about what they are talking about by "unrestricted". Since we can't know what they mean, your guess is as good as any.

I would like to know what "unrestricted" actually means too. One poster said it meant the ability for LE to ask tough questions. At this point I would hope that all of the questions are tough. Asking Debbie what her favorite ice cream is would not be a tough question. So what does "unrestricted" really mean?

 

[mrye4709]

BBM.

And what's wrong with that? They have that right under the constitution, and frankly if LE can't make a case against them without over riding their constitutional rights, then there probably isn't much of a case to begin with.

If these people did something to their child, I would personally like to see them brought to justice for it. The last thing we want is a re-run of that other case I won't mention down in Florida.

Thanks wasn't enough, I see no problem with them having a lawyer present.:twocents:

 

[Abby Normal]

BBM.

And you have the right to remain silent, at all stages even before you're arrested. So yes, Jersey could have said "umm....no thanks."

Yes, once they get there they have that right. It's a very good constitutional right. But LE still has the right to try.

 

[TxLady2]

I must be mistaken but I thought Miranda Rights was only upon arrest.

Yes, it is. But people still have the right to have an attorney present during questioning, even if they are not under arrest.

Replying to another post... this case is FAR from black and white. Refusing to "cooperate" with LE is not proof that the parents are guilty, and would not hold up in court.
When LE says someone is not cooperating, sometimes that means they are not confessing to a crime. It's cop talk. If they believe these parents did something to their baby, but they don't have the evidence to prove it, they might say anything to make them look as bad as possible. They are well aware of the court of public opinion, and sometimes they use that to their advantage. They want the case solved, and if it means lying, they will do that too.
Not saying that's true in this case, just saying it's possible.

 

[Amster]

I would agree with you, if I didn't live in the great state of Texas where we have droves of innocent people being let off death row by the Innocence Project who blindly had faith in LE and were tricked and ended up convicted even though they were innocent.

It does happen, and they have other children they have to raise. They can't afford to go to prison for a crime they didn't commit and leave their children orphaned.

DROVES of innocent people??? :innocent:

 

[fudge]

Honestly, this seems like a relatively new trend. Other's might have earlier examples. But this idea that anyone other than law enforcement feels "in charge" of the investigation seems new. As if they were..the CEO...of their own company..or hand..don't make me go there.

Its madness if they need information that will help find this baby they should be able to do whatever it takes and it beggars belief to me that these parents are doing nothing major to locate Lisa - its astounding, something has to give here regardless of if they are guilty or not JMO

 

[kgeaux]

I am very familiar with LE and I can tell you that they wouldn't be saying that if there wasn't a reason.

LE uses a technique in interrogations to see if they can force a confession. It is commonly called "lying." They can, and do, tell innocent people that they have PROOF of that person's guilt....during separate interrogations, like they want to repeat with these parents, they will lie to one by telling them the other has confessed, and be telling the same lie to the other one.

It's totally agreed that it is "not without a reason." The reason is to increase pressure and encourage a confession.....and this reason remains even if the person(s) being interrogated happen to be completely innocent.

Won't it be interesting to see who if anyone is charged with baby Lisa's demise?

Yes, it will. I haven't formed an opinion, yet.

That is such a jaded view of LE and the way they do things. Too many people here (I think) watch too much CSI. LE does not do things this way. They want to find whoever took Lisa. It's about Lisa. It's not about DB. Too many people are forgetting that!

I don't watch much TV. And I have never watched CSI. I have read many articles on interrogation techniques, have watched many videos of interrogations, etc. And I do believe LE believes they are going about the right way to find Lisa. However, I also believe that if LE has formed an erroneous opinion as to what has happened, they will follow that wrong opinion forever and ever.

Is it unconstintutional?

One has a right to an attorney.
Doesn't mean one HAS to be there. Yes?-No?

imo

Yes, actually it IS unconstitutional to continue to interrogate a person once they've requested a lawyer. The accused has a right to have the attorney PRESENT when dealing with LE.

Having said that, I have not read that LE has requested the parents to submit to questioning without their lawyer present. I HAVE SEEN a poster on this thread say that the parents should submit to all questioning without putting restrictions on LE. Another poster said, "What IF the restriction the parents wish to oppose is to have their lawyer present?" And apparently some took that to mean that the poster was saying that LE had asked for the lawyers to stay away......it sort of grew into a rumor. But it wasn't started by the "What if" poster. It was started by those who mis-read that poster's question to be a fact.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

I've stated over and over that I am speculating. (I know not everyone has read all the posts in this thread, but my guess was since you were participating in this conversation where we're talking about having a lawyer present, and you posted you thought those demandS were unreasonable, my guess was you were not steering the conversation away from the current one, about having lawyers present). If you were addressing a different possible demand, I would think you might have said well I think these demands ______ would be unreasonable, but not the ones we are discussing.

Posts can be so short that it's hard to tell when topics are being switched without notice.

You're speculating. You've stated it repeatedly as fact.

And there is more than one conversation on here- lawyers, old detectives, new detectives, shifting timelines etc.

 

[Karmaa]

DROVES of innocent people??? :innocent:

I don't know about the droves, but if you want a shot of reality, google Kevin Fox. If you want to know how cops railroad people. If you want to know how a good dad was thrown into jail for 8 months as a CHILD RAPIST (and yes, he suffered what you would expect from that), then go look his case up.

He was proven 100% totally not guilty. No questions. So, go read how well-meaning cops and LE sometimes get an idea in their head and just roll with it. And look at the similarities to this case. Then maybe you will understand why some people want there to be EVIDENCE and not just speculation.

 

[1tasha]

LE uses a technique in interrogations to see if they can force a confession. It is commonly called "lying." They can, and do, tell innocent people that they have PROOF of that person's guilt....during separate interrogations, like they want to repeat with these parents, they will lie to one by telling them the other has confessed, and be telling the same lie to the other one.
It's totally agreed that it is "not without a reason." The reason is to increase pressure and encourage a confession.....and this reason remains even if the person(s) being interrogated happen to be completely innocent.



Yes, it will. I haven't formed an opinion, yet.



I don't watch much TV. And I have never watched CSI. I have read many articles on interrogation techniques, have watched many videos of interrogations, etc. And I do believe LE believes they are going about the right way to find Lisa. However, I also believe that if LE has formed an erroneous opinion as to what has happened, they will follow that wrong opinion forever and ever.



Yes, actually it IS unconstitutional to continue to interrogate a person once they've requested a lawyer. The accused has a right to have the attorney PRESENT when dealing with LE.

Having said that, I have not read that LE has requested the parents to submit to questioning without their lawyer present. I HAVE SEEN a poster on this thread say that the parents should submit to all questioning without putting restrictions on LE. Another poster said, "What IF the restriction the parents wish to oppose is to have their lawyer present?" And apparently some took that to mean that the poster was saying that LE had asked for the lawyers to stay away......it sort of grew into a rumor. But it wasn't started by the "What if" poster. It was started by those who mis-read that poster's question to be a fact.

Tacky to quote my own post, but this is what I've seen listed as a restriction. It comes from their attorney:

When asked if there are restrictions on the conversations Lisa's parents will have, Tacopina said, "Oh, there's a restriction. I'm imposing that the questioning is going to be in good faith and fair and not the questioning that was done within an hour of baby Lisa's disappearance."

Tacopina claimed police accused Bradley of murdering her child within an hour of beginning to interrogate her.

"That's just not good investigatory tactics and it doesn't build good faith in them," Tacopina said.

He said Bradley would be willing to sit down for questioning "as long as the investigators doing the questioning are ones who have not previously determined guilt before having a stitch of evidence. We want a fair investigation."

 

[MyBelle]

LE may be doing a good job in many ways but this public presser thing for "not cooperating" or "we need to see them individually" is out of line. THey have two attorneys and LE knows their phone numbers. Any request can be made through them

The only reason for the public statement of it is to muddy up DB and JI in the public..the same thing we accuse the DT of doing..poisoning the jury pool

The only reason for the public statement was because Tacopina made a pizzy public accusation. Absolutely, LE should respond. LE works for the public.

JMO

 

[JeannaT]

Thats OK.. the parents may have their attorneys, but Lisa has us, well most of us.. And she always will...

I think I speak for every single person on this board when I say every poster here has Lisa on their minds and in their prayers if they are religious. I really don't understand why you keep inferring this, as you have several times, and that there are people posting here who make you "sick".

Everyone is pulling for Lisa, with different theories.

 

[Sherbie]

LE may be doing a good job in many ways but this public presser thing for "not cooperating" or "we need to see them individually" is out of line. THey have two attorneys and LE knows their phone numbers. Any request can be made through them

The only reason for the public statement of it is to muddy up DB and JI in the public..the same thing we accuse the DT of doing..poisoning the jury pool

That they want to interview them separately says to me (and it's JMO) that they may be trying to get one of them to crack and break away from the other; or they may think that the type of responses they get (wording and context) might reveal collusion (or confirm there isn't any); or LE might be able to use one's responses to goad the other into revealing something.

I believe they're using this as an investigative tactic, to bring pressure on the parents to come back to the table (perhaps even hoping one of them will begin to panic at the thought of separate interviews and start talking, if they have knowledge). I don't see this is a deliberate attempt to poison any potential jury pool.

 

[Abby Normal]

IMO it hurt LE to say that they weren't cooperating immediately after an 11 hour sit down. I'm old fashioned like that though.

And to some extent that flavors my opinion the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time they say it.

Either go through the lawyers and do whatever you need to do to talk to them, or name them POI's and bring them in. Yes they may lawyer up, but it's the tried and true process that our country established... and I like our country.

 

[yllek]

bbm - We do not KNOW if DB or JI lied to LE. No one does. LE has not said.

All we know is that they have made some changes in what they either SAID to media, or how the media interpreted what they said. For instance, no one can provide a link to DB saying that she checked on Lisa at 10:30. All I could find was where she responded "yeah" to a question that may or may not have been interpreted as she last saw the baby at 10:30.

If anyone has a link, I would like to see/hear it. But even if there is such a link, somewhere, it still doesn't prove whether she told LE the truth or not.

BBM

It is well established, on tape and in print that Debbi initially claimed 10:30 pm as the last time Lisa Irwin was seen. This was information obtained by police from the parents when LE rushed to the home and investigated the 911 call; shortly therafter issuing an Amber Alert. It is not disputed by anyone, including Debbi, that she provided this information.

Here are 3 different links referring to the 10:30 initial last sighting given by Debbi. There are many more.

1. This is the information that the parents gave to LE to issue the Amber Alert on Oct 4th.

Police issued the alert for Lisa Irwin early Tuesday morning. The baby was last seen at 10:30 p.m. Monday asleep in her crib at her parents' home in the 3600 block of North Lister Avenue.
http://www.kmbc.com/news/29381804/detail.html#ixzz1bpwbFIp8
==============================================

2. Debbi then confirmed the 10:30 pm check-in time she had given police in the GMA interview on Oct 6th.

Reporter: “So, so, so, Debbie, try and take us back to the last time you saw Lisa. You put her, you checked in on her around 10:30 Monday night?”

DB: “Um, Yeah. Between the time she went to bed and the time I went to bed, and uh, I gave her her bottle, I, I, I put her to sleep, and uh, that was the last time we seen her.”
http://abcnews.go.com/watch/good-mor...ary-steve-jobs
===============================================

3. Debbi's attorneys have not denied that Debbi claimed 10:30 p.m. as her final check-in on Lisa, and then changed the time to 6:40 p.m. after announcing she was drunk that night and possibly blacked out. They won't deny what is easily proven, on-tape and well documented. The change in Debbi's final sighting of Lisa was even a key point of the announcements that Tacopina had come on board on 10/17/11.

Bradley told police she last saw her daughter, Lisa Irwin, when she checked on her at 10:30 p.m. But Monday, she told NBC's "Today" show she actually last saw Lisa when she put her to bed at 6:40 p.m. She gave no explanation for the modified times.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/baby-lisa-irwins-parents-joe-tacopina_n_1016594.html