Mother preparing to be arrested

[Donjeta]

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.

Are you saying O'Brien doesn't fight for those he represents? :waitasec:

 

[In da Middle]

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.

BBM
Exactly! I agree.

I also took by his interview that he really was trying to be a mediator in the process. That takes neutrality. Both sides could use this to their advantage. This is the part I was considering neutral.

 

[doubt]

]If one's child has been kidnapped, there would be no reason to not cooperate with LE. [/B] 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

they cooperated. they were immediately accused and scared to death. that is on LE.

it is sheer and utter fallacy to claim that the innocent need not fear the police. it is also dangerous for the innocent person who actually believes it.

i get angry that LE has to waste time and money searching for those who are not lost. i get equally as angry when LE wastes time and money bc they're too small minded and arrogant to consider that their initial theory just might be wrong.

 

[Tuffy]

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."

Wow! Good catch, Elly Mae. SY has said that LE has "moved on" in regards to JT and SB. He won't even comment on whether the parents have been tested or on the conclusions.

IMO, they haven't been able to "move on" from the parents yet.

 

[Abby Normal]

Are you saying O'Brien doesn't fight for those he represents? :waitasec:

lol, no! Sorry if I'm not being clear.

When you retain an attorney they automatically have a personal interest in your case. Because not only your freedom, but their reputation and thus salary hinges on the outcome.

O'Brien was temporary counsel, possibly pro-bono. It was his job to represent them at that one meeting and I'm sure he did his job perfectly well. But he has no long term personal benefit (or financial advantage) in their success or failure.

So now that he is no longer representing them (he was temporary, only for that one meeting) he has no personal benefit or advantage in speaking favorably or helping them. He could just as easily move on and not talk about it at all. it's all the same to him.

 

[Donjeta]

BBM
Exactly! I agree.

I also took by his interview that he really was trying to be a mediator in the process. That takes neutrality. Both sides could use this to their advantage. This is the part I was considering neutral.

I didn't get that impression from the article that he was trying to be neutral.

Lawyers for a Northland couple pushed back hard against police Thursday for saying their clients have stopped cooperating in the search for their missing 11-month-old daughter.

Police also have pushed Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin unreasonably for a confession, their lawyers contend.

“To (police), refusing to cooperate means not wanting to sign a confession,” said Sean O’Brien, one of the attorneys.

This does not sound like something a neutral mediator would say imo.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html#ixzz1cydcU9kk

 

[Whisperer]

She WAS preparing to go to jail but she took care of that by hiring THREE different attorneys.

I refuse to buy into the "spin" being broadcast by all of her attorneys and spokespeople.

 

[Whisperer]

So they have brought in these law students to muck up the case more? Well, I guess you can never have too many attorneys and student attorneys working for ya...just ask Casey Anthony. It worked for her.

 

[Whisperer]

You wouldn't need an "innocent project", a high priced Criminal Defense Attorney, an expensive local attorney and a P.I from NY, hired by an attorney if you're innocent. She is guilty of something.

 

[Abby Normal]

So they have brought in these law students to muck up the case more? Well, I guess you can never have too many attorneys and student attorneys working for ya...just ask Casey Anthony. It worked for her.

what?

This is old news, this was a law professor who sat in to help long before JT when the couple still thought they didn't need a lawyer. This is first week of the case stuff.

And I haven't heard anything about law students, but I suppose I could have missed something?

 

[Donjeta]

lol, no! Sorry if I'm not being clear.

When you retain an attorney they automatically have a personal interest in your case. Because not only your freedom, but their reputation and thus salary hinges on the outcome.

O'Brien was temporary counsel, possibly pro-bono. It was his job to represent them at that one meeting and I'm sure he did his job perfectly well. But he has no long term personal benefit (or financial advantage) in their success or failure.

So now that he is no longer representing them (he was temporary, only for that one meeting) he has no personal benefit or advantage in speaking favorably or helping them. He could just as easily move on and not talk about it at all. it's all the same to him.

OK, I see your point although I don't presume to know if it's all the same to him.

 

[Donjeta]

what?

This is old news, this was a law professor who sat in to help long before JT when the couple still thought they didn't need a lawyer. This is first week of the case stuff.

And I haven't heard anything about law students, but I suppose I could have missed something?

Well, CS did say in the presser that she had a team of 17 people working in the case... there could have been a student or two in there somewhere...

Maybe this is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

 

[Whisperer]

what?

This is old news, this was a law professor who sat in to help long before JT when the couple still thought they didn't need a lawyer. This is first week of the case stuff.

And I haven't heard anything about law students, but I suppose I could have missed something?

I thought I saw the "Innocent Project" reference. That's a bunch of students gathering to pull a case apart...

 

[Whisperer]

Are you guys saying she had a Law Prof. in a room with her once when she was being interviewed???

...oh, man...I knew I was going to have to start using a calculator to keep track of the attorneys and their sidekicks in this case...:waitasec:

 

[Whisperer]

Well, CS did say in the presser that she had a team of 17 people working in the case... there could have been a student or two in there somewhere...

Maybe this is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

So far the broth is still cooking. did you say SEVENTEEN people working on the case. I may have to move up to scientific calculator to keep up with the number of expert helpers they have...:floorlaugh:

 

[In da Middle]

So far the broth is still cooking. did you say SEVENTEEN people working on the case. I may have to move up to scientific calculator to keep up with the number of expert helpers they have...:floorlaugh:

She is no longer on the case. The 17 people helping are helping her and not the family. She is the only one who seems to me that wants a resolution and is still willing to find it.

 

[Abby Normal]

OK, I see your point although I don't presume to know if it's all the same to him.

Fair enough

 

[Abby Normal]

I thought I saw the "Innocent Project" reference. That's a bunch of students gathering to pull a case apart...

They had a law professor in the room before they hired an attorney. He happens to work for the IP. No news about the IP being involved HTH!

 

[katshep]

Well, CS did say in the presser that she had a team of 17 people working in the case... there could have been a student or two in there somewhere...

Maybe this is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

O'Brien is a law professor (University Missouri- Kansas City) and part of The Innocence Project. He accompanied DB and JI to the Oct. 8 interview with law enforcement. He described LE's approach as just trying to extract a confession and that if he had not been there they would have been more heavy-handed.
O'Brien worked with Short on the case.
Here's the link: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html

 

[Whisperer]

O'Brien is a law professor (University Missouri- Kansas City) and part of The Innocence Project. He accompanied DB and JI to the Oct. 8 interview with law enforcement. He described LE's approach as just trying to extract a confession and that if he had not been there they would have been more heavy-handed.
O'Brien worked with Short on the case.
Here's the link: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html

...and as I recall, that was the last time the parents spoke w/LE. Appears that this Law Professor kept the parents from being interrogated by the bad, mean po po.

...having been made aware of this guy, I am completely convinced that DB is guilty.