Mother preparing to be arrested

[jjenny]

Yea, well, there are plenty of examples of people that don't "break." CA's lawyer admitted she knew all this time the child was dead, but she didn't break. Scott Peterson never admitted to anything. I am not saying that DB did anything, but going by someone breaking clearly isn't supported by what people have done in the past.

 

[vlpate]

Yea, well, there are plenty of examples of people that don't "break." CA's lawyer admitted she knew all this time the child was dead, but she didn't break. Scott Peterson never admitted to anything. I am not saying that DB did anything, but going by someone breaking clearly isn't supported by what people have done in the past.

And, like in the CA case, David Netz is going by what he's being told. I find it hard to believe LE would call DB white trash....the rest, maybe, but that seems like something thrown in for the pity party. JMO

 

[TorisMom003]

Yes, because LE clearly crossed the line by calling DB white trash. I doubt very seriously that was the part that really upset DBs father or even DB herself. Anyone know what type of person is typically called white trash? From what I have seen and heard it usually is someone that has children out of wedlock or children from a man that is not their husband. Poor and uneducated as well. Loose morals, bad parent, etc. So IMO even if LE did not say "you are white trash!" they certainly have implied it by their accusations of her.

MOO

 

[TorisMom003]

Yea, well, there are plenty of examples of people that don't "break." CA's lawyer admitted she knew all this time the child was dead, but she didn't break. Scott Peterson never admitted to anything. I am not saying that DB did anything, but going by someone breaking clearly isn't supported by what people have done in the past.

The two examples that you used have similar personalities. KC was never held accountable for anything that she had ever done that was wrong or illegal. Her parents lied, coverd up for her and made excuses. I did not follow S Petersons case close enough to know for sure, but if I remember correctly his mother was the same way as Cindy and George Anthony. Neither were held accountable for their past actions and neither showed any sign of remorse, guilt or even true concern for their loved ones that they were accussed (and in Scotts case found guilty of) of killing. A person of that mind set is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible to "break".

With DB we have not heard that her family is anything like the Anthonys or the Petersons. We have not seen blind faith from them while excusing whatever past actions DB (may have) committed that were criminal. It is my opinion that DB is nothing like KC or S Peterson. Because of DB not being like them it is (again IMO) unfair to try and judge what DB will or will not do based on what they have done. Perhaps someone who is more similar to how DB was raised would be a better choice of an example. Unfortunately I can not think of anyone like that at this point since we have no proof that DB did anything to Lisa.

MOO

 

[crimecurious]

Susan Smith comes to mind...

 

[Abby Normal]

I assumed that preparing would include

1) hiring an attorney to protect your rights
2) getting legal matters with regards to your children and guardianship in order
3) getting personal matters with regards to your family in order, deciding ahead of time how others should explain to your children.
4) trying to figure out who/how others could be involved, and explain apparent issues to media to help clear yourself to prevent arrest (otherwise known as spin).

 

[vlpate]

Yes, because LE clearly crossed the line by calling DB white trash. I doubt very seriously that was the part that really upset DBs father or even DB herself. Anyone know what type of person is typically called white trash? From what I have seen and heard it usually is someone that has children out of wedlock or children from a man that is not their husband. Poor and uneducated as well. Loose morals, bad parent, etc. So IMO even if LE did not say "you are white trash!" they certainly have implied it by their accusations of her.

MOO

BEM: What accusation? I've not seen LE accuse her of anything. DB has a bad habit of changing her story - some see that as lying. All DN has to go on is what DB is telling him, he wasn't in the room when she was being interrogated.

DB and JI have not done a single thing in the past three weeks to move the search for their daughter forward. LE has hunted down almost 1,000 tips and they've come up with nothing. They have questions that might help find Lisa, they need to have the boys interviewed - NOTHING from these two people. How do you just let your baby go that way?

LE has done everything they can do without the cooperation of the parents. We've seen this before - they will hide behind the lawyers until the case dies and becomes cold....a waiting game. It's beyond me how anyone can complain about LE at this point.

 

[Elley Mae]

I know that LE has been tight lipped, but I do find the difference in the two responses to the two LDT interesting.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15953146/neighbor-says

Kansas City Police Department confirmed that the neighbor has been cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of baby Lisa. The spokesperson said the department "has moved on from him," according to CNN.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/FBI-Search-for-Mo-baby-leads-to-Kan-landfill-2207009.php


Kansas City police spokesman Steve Young declined to comment on whether the parents have been tested, citing the ongoing investigation.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-fbi-searches-landfill/story?id=14688581


Bradley also said police accused her of failing a polygraph test. Police said they could not comment on this claim, but said Bradley is "free to say whatever she wants."

 

[jjenny]

I know that LE has been tight lipped, but I do find the difference in the two responses to the two LDT interesting.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15953146/neighbor-says

Kansas City Police Department confirmed that the neighbor has been cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of baby Lisa. The spokesperson said the department "has moved on from him," according to CNN.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/FBI-Search-for-Mo-baby-leads-to-Kan-landfill-2207009.php


Kansas City police spokesman Steve Young declined to comment on whether the parents have been tested, citing the ongoing investigation.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-fbi-searches-landfill/story?id=14688581


Bradley also said police accused her of failing a polygraph test. Police said they could not comment on this claim, but said Bradley is "free to say whatever she wants."

Yep, so far LE hasn't said they cleared baby Lisa's family or moved away from them.

 

[TorisMom003]

Susan Smith comes to mind...

Susan Smith "broke" after she was confronted with LE knowing that she had lied about the car jacking that supposedly happened at a stop light. She then told LE what had happened and where they would find the boys. Again, not like this case.

MOO

 

[TorisMom003]

BEM: What accusation? I've not seen LE accuse her of anything. DB has a bad habit of changing her story - some see that as lying. All DN has to go on is what DB is telling him, he wasn't in the room when she was being interrogated.

DB and JI have not done a single thing in the past three weeks to move the search for their daughter forward. LE has hunted down almost 1,000 tips and they've come up with nothing. They have questions that might help find Lisa, they need to have the boys interviewed - NOTHING from these two people. How do you just let your baby go that way?

LE has done everything they can do without the cooperation of the parents. We've seen this before - they will hide behind the lawyers until the case dies and becomes cold....a waiting game. It's beyond me how anyone can complain about LE at this point.

We have heard that during one of the first interviews that LE did accuse DB of doing something to Lisa. There was another witness in the room during the time although that will more than likely be ignored and dismissed since it was a defense attorney.

We have no clue what DB and JI have or have not done in the past 3 weeks to look for or help look for Lisa. LE is not giving weekly reports as to what the parents are doing or not doing. For all that we know the parents could be working with the FBI instead of local LE.

IMO LE has not done everything they could have done with or without the co-operation of the parents. When you have at least two unoccupied homes approximately 4 blocks from the home that were not checked out, that tells me that more could have been done. To recheck areas three times (landfill) and ignore other areas completely is lacking in a thorough investigation. Perhaps if the family felt that LE were doing everything possible to look for Lisa instead of focusing only on a small area that DB could have traveled that night then the family would be more willing to co-operate.

MOO

 

[cheko1]

BEM: What accusation? I've not seen LE accuse her of anything. DB has a bad habit of changing her story - some see that as lying. All DN has to go on is what DB is telling him, he wasn't in the room when she was being interrogated.

DB and JI have not done a single thing in the past three weeks to move the search for their daughter forward. LE has hunted down almost 1,000 tips and they've come up with nothing. They have questions that might help find Lisa, they need to have the boys interviewed - NOTHING from these two people. How do you just let your baby go that way?

LE has done everything they can do without the cooperation of the parents. We've seen this before - they will hide behind the lawyers until the case dies and becomes cold....a waiting game. It's beyond me how anyone can complain about LE at this point.

I totally agree with you........at no point has the parents did anything to help find this baby! Lieing to LE about the time line is crucial in a case. Its quite apparent somebody knows something. If the boys can help LE in any which way whats the problem with questioning them????

LE has done EVERYTHING to attempt to find baby Lisa. DB even stated she never talked to the neighbor she drank with. I'd of been beating her door down asking if she had the baby?

I'd of did anything & everything to HELP LE find my baby. LE would hate me I'd be calling everyday or camped out at the police dept! I don't understand how anyone could do anything other if they wanted there baby back.

 

[In da Middle]

We have heard that during one of the first interviews that LE did accuse DB of doing something to Lisa. There was another witness in the room during the time although that will more than likely be ignored and dismissed since it was a defense attorney.

We have no clue what DB and JI have or have not done in the past 3 weeks to look for or help look for Lisa. LE is not giving weekly reports as to what the parents are doing or not doing. For all that we know the parents could be working with the FBI instead of local LE.

IMO LE has not done everything they could have done with or without the co-operation of the parents. When you have at least two unoccupied homes approximately 4 blocks from the home that were not checked out, that tells me that more could have been done. To recheck areas three times (landfill) and ignore other areas completely is lacking in a thorough investigation. Perhaps if the family felt that LE were doing everything possible to look for Lisa instead of focusing only on a small area that DB could have traveled that night then the family would be more willing to co-operate.

MOO

BBM I think he should totally be believed because I dont think he was a defense attorney. I think he was stated as being a law professor. somebody that would be deemed as neutral, I would think.

O’Brien works with the Innocence Project at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html#ixzz1cy9Tlfz0
​

 

[cheko1]

We have heard that during one of the first interviews that LE did accuse DB of doing something to Lisa. There was another witness in the room during the time although that will more than likely be ignored and dismissed since it was a defense attorney.

We have no clue what DB and JI have or have not done in the past 3 weeks to look for or help look for Lisa. LE is not giving weekly reports as to what the parents are doing or not doing. For all that we know the parents could be working with the FBI instead of local LE.

IMO LE has not done everything they could have done with or without the co-operation of the parents. When you have at least two unoccupied homes approximately 4 blocks from the home that were not checked out, that tells me that more could have been done. To recheck areas three times (landfill) and ignore other areas completely is lacking in a thorough investigation. Perhaps if the family felt that LE were doing everything possible to look for Lisa instead of focusing only on a small area that DB could have traveled that night then the family would be more willing to co-operate.

MOO

The family is the one who is going to suffer........they're the ones who should be co-operating it is without a doubt the families loss. The family is the one who lacked good judgement in the first place. The Mom lieing to LE / about times / then she said she may of blacked out what is LE supposed to do??? Refusing to co-operate sure isn't going to find baby Lisa. JMHO but the family failed Lisa once by not protecting her / now its LE's fault they aren't co-operating????? Something is wrong with this scenario!!!!

 

[Mish]

BBM I think he should totally be believed because I don't think he was a defense attorney. I think he was stated as being a law professor. somebody that would be deemed as neutral, I would think.

This is just MY OPINION, but I'm not sure I would classify anyone in this case as "neutral", including Sean O'Brien. While it is true (or at least stated in the news) that he is a law professor ("O'Brien works for the Innocence Project at the University of Missouri-Kansas City) he also:

* briefly represented the couple during the Oct 8th interview
* is quoted (in the link you provided, In da Middle, which I can't figure out how to do:blushing as saying, "he's begun to set boundaries for how the couple deal with investigators".
* stated, "I'm sure if I wouldn't have been there, it would have been more heavy-handed" [referring to the Oct 8 interview]
* states, "they read the newspaper to hear about progress in the investigation".
* but then states, "the couple also receives 5 or 6 calls a day from investigators". [oops- that was stated by Ms. Short]

It appears to ME, that Mr. O'Brien isn't entirely neutral about this investigation, especially when he states that the parents must use the media [newspapers] to gain information on the search for their child, then also says that they speak to the investigators 5 or 6 times a day. I would think during one of those 5 or 6 calls, they would have ample opportunity to ask the status of their missing daughter. :waitasec:

Whether one wants to admit it or not, I think everyone involved in this case has their own opinion for what happened. That's just human nature. Where the problem starts is IF one's personal opinions affect the investigation of a missing 11 month old precious baby.

But to stay on topic, I just don't feel that Mr. O'Brien is any more neutral than the rest of the people involved with this case.

 

[vlpate]

We have heard that during one of the first interviews that LE did accuse DB of doing something to Lisa. There was another witness in the room during the time although that will more than likely be ignored and dismissed since it was a defense attorney.

We have no clue what DB and JI have or have not done in the past 3 weeks to look for or help look for Lisa. LE is not giving weekly reports as to what the parents are doing or not doing. For all that we know the parents could be working with the FBI instead of local LE.

IMO LE has not done everything they could have done with or without the co-operation of the parents. When you have at least two unoccupied homes approximately 4 blocks from the home that were not checked out, that tells me that more could have been done. To recheck areas three times (landfill) and ignore other areas completely is lacking in a thorough investigation. Perhaps if the family felt that LE were doing everything possible to look for Lisa instead of focusing only on a small area that DB could have traveled that night then the family would be more willing to co-operate.

MOO

BEM: I was referring to 'in the media'. I have no doubt they asked her if she killed or did something with Lisa. Statistics prove there's an overwhelming possibility she did. They have to move past her - and there's no time to walk on eggshells so mom is not offended. She lied and said she put Lisa to bed at 7:30 and then checked on her at 10:30, a straight up, bold faced, self-serving LIE. She skewed the timeline so IMO she would look like a concerned and caring mother when the TRUTH is, she was getting drunk with the neighbors and doesn't know what she did or didn't do....including killing her baby.

It wasn't until the video came out that she told the world (as David Netz is so proud of saying), that she was drunk. :clap::clap::clap: The entire timeline changes - the timeline is absolutely critical to finding a missing child. She screwed it up. She lied. She covered for herself.

If any of this so far is false and appears that I am going after the mother, please, let me know how I might see the positive side. It's escaping me.

Perhaps if the family felt that LE were doing everything possible to look for Lisa instead of focusing only on a small area that DB could have traveled that night then the family would be more willing to co-operate.

How's that spiteful attitude working out for them? How about they GIVE them more to go on? How about take the boys down and let them answer questions. Something happened to Lisa and she was too drunk to know what that was - the boys were sober, they may be able to help.

I don't know, seems more like guilt than spite to me.

 

[gluestk]

BEM: I was referring to 'in the media'. I have no doubt they asked her if she killed or did something with Lisa. Statistics prove there's an overwhelming possibility she did. They have to move past her - and there's no time to walk on eggshells so mom is not offended. She lied and said she put Lisa to bed at 7:30 and then checked on her at 10:30, a straight up, bold faced, self-serving LIE. She skewed the timeline so IMO she would look like a concerned and caring mother when the TRUTH is, she was getting drunk with the neighbors and doesn't know what she did or didn't do....including killing her baby.

It wasn't until the video came out that she told the world (as David Netz is so proud of saying), that she was drunk. :clap::clap::clap: The entire timeline changes - the timeline is absolutely critical to finding a missing child. She screwed it up. She lied. She covered for herself.

If any of this so far is false and appears that I am going after the mother, please, let me know how I might see the positive side. It's escaping me.



How's that spiteful attitude working out for them? How about they GIVE them more to go on? How about take the boys down and let them answer questions. Something happened to Lisa and she was too drunk to know what that was - the boys were sober, they may be able to help.

I don't know, seems more like guilt than spite to me.

vlpate,
I like your logical thinking. Keeping the boys away from le makes the mom look guilter to me. A mother who has a child missing for a month would beg borrow and steal to get her baby back. IMO

 

[Caligram]

If one's child has been kidnapped, there would be no reason to not cooperate with LE. This is not a made for tv crime drama, Lisa Irwin did exist, once. Parents claimed their child was kidnapped, and point out to LE some obviously staged areas of their home. Then these parents resist the follow-up questions which LE has after investigating the shetchy info initially provided.
Someone who had nothing to hide would be pleading with the police to investigate everybody. If she/he has nothing to hide they will insist upon a LDT. They would ask to be injected with a truth serum. They would not be afraid of the truth. They would not run, they would not hide and accuse LE of making them behave like they're guilty.

The family members are a little late in trying to defend the parents who are now on the run. It's one thing to not want the family tarnished with a murderer weighing down the branches of their family tree. But it serves no good purpose to willingly talk to the media with the intent of painting a picture of devoted parents. Even if the parents came from dysfunctional famillies, that isn't going to get them immunity.

I get so angry with all the time and money that LE has to "waste" looking for children who are not "missing". There has to be harsh additional jail time for those who lie to LE about a missing child while knowing the child is dead.

IMHO

 

[Donjeta]

BBM I think he should totally be believed because I dont think he was a defense attorney. I think he was stated as being a law professor. somebody that would be deemed as neutral, I would think.

JMO but I don't think being a professor and a defense attorney are mutually exclusive. He is with the Innocence Project and besides having a teaching position he has lots of experience being a defense attorney, sounds like.

Professor O'Brien served as the Chief Public Defender in Kansas City, Missouri from 1985 through 1989, when he was appointed Executive Director of the Missouri Capital Punishment Resource Center, now the Public Interest Litigation Clinic, where he represents clients in capital trial, appeal and postconviction cases. Professor O'Brien’s noteworthy cases include Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), which preserves the right of habeas corpus review for innocent prisoners, and Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998), which preserves habeas corpus jurisdiction over Eighth Amendment issues which arise when death row prisoners become insane while awaiting execution.

More about him at the link:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/obrien.htm

IMO it sounds like he's made a teaching career out of being a good defense attorney.

This is in no way intended to diminish his credibility, just that it makes no sense to me to call him a neutral since he represented the parents. It was by definition his duty to be on the side of those that the represented. Anyway, that's what I'd want if I got someone to represent me in an interrogation.

 

[Abby Normal]

JMO but I don't think being a professor and a defense attorney are mutually exclusive. He is with the Innocence Project and besides having a teaching position he has lots of experience being a defense attorney, sounds like.


More about him at the link:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/obrien.htm

IMO it sounds like he's made a teaching career out of being a good defense attorney.

This is in no way intended to diminish his credibility, just that it makes no sense to me to call him a neutral since he represented the parents. It was by definition his duty to be on the side of those that the represented. Anyway, that's what I'd want if I got someone to represent me in an interrogation.

I think many of us consider him neutral because he doesn't have a vested interest in the success or failure of the subjects at hand. JT, for example, fights for those he represents, one because he gets paid and also (to a big extent) for his reputation. He has a personal vested interest in the outcome of his cases.

O'Brien on the other hand does not. He does not benefit in any way from their success or failure or guilt or innocence. He has no personal vested interest.