MSM coverage of Baby Lisa, 10/29/11

[~n/t~]

That depends on what you mean by "didn't go so well". Did you expect KB to win a conviction single-handedly?

I'm simply talking about a real journalist who will go after the facts, and strive for accuracy in reporting - not another mouthpiece for DB and JI.

She was great in getting the information first hand in a State that has the Sunshine Law and covering the case based on court documents from LE and prosecution stand point. Unfortunately, it gives one side of the story and the media and the public will interpret it the way they want. (BTW....I think CA is guilty of murder and just trying to prove a point that this type of reporting can backfire). Who would've thought the "accidental drowning" theory would convince 12 jurors? Right? It can't/won't happen in this case because there is no Sunshine Law in MO so Kathi, although good at what she does, will have minimal information same as the others. Her reporting won't go here nor there. The facts in the case will only come out at trial if it gets to that point. LE is keeping a lot of it close to their vests and whatever is leaked only calls for speculation.

An unbiased reporter will look at both sides not just one side and I haven't seen that in this case yet. Based on what I've seen as coverage of this case, clearly it's become finger pointing at the parents without real evidence to back it up. Take the cell phone call as an example. We have no idea why MW got that phone call but yet the media and the public have already concluded that it is somehow connected to one of the parents. Some have even gone as far as DB or JI placing that phone call to dispose of Lisa's body and/or other theories. In fact, we have no idea if that phone call originated from because we have nothing. We do not know where it pinged from. We do not know if it was answered or not, etc etc.

I'm usually very suspicious of the family in a missing child case and tend to rush to judge but after a few cases where I thought the parent was involved and it turned out they were not, I've decided that unless there is REAL hard evidence that points to the parents, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have not seen anything in this case yet to make me fall off the fence. The test results or an arrest may make me change my mind but until then, I will continue to believe they are not involved.

 

[SilkySifaka]

She was great in getting the information first hand in a State that has the Sunshine Law and covering the case based on court documents from LE and prosecution stand point. Unfortunately, it gives one side of the story and the media and the public will interpret it the way they want. (BTW....I think CA is guilty of murder and just trying to prove a point that this type of reporting can backfire). Who would've thought the "accidental drowning" theory would convince 12 jurors? Right? It can't/won't happen in this case because there is no Sunshine Law in MO so Kathi, although good at what she does, will have minimal information same as the others. Her reporting won't go here nor there. The facts in the case will only come out at trial if it gets to that point. LE is keeping a lot of it close to their vests and whatever is leaked only calls for speculation.

An unbiased reporter will look at both sides not just one side and I haven't seen that in this case yet. Based on what I've seen as coverage of this case, clearly it's become finger pointing at the parents without real evidence to back it up. Take the cell phone call as an example. We have no idea why MW got that phone call but yet the media and the public have already concluded that it is somehow connected to one of the parents. Some have even gone as far as DB or JI placing that phone call to dispose of Lisa's body and/or other theories. In fact, we have no idea if that phone call originated from because we have nothing. We do not know where it pinged from. We do not know if it was answered or not, etc etc.

I'm usually very suspicious of the family in a missing child case and tend to rush to judge but after a few cases where I thought the parent was involved and it turned out they were not, I've decided that unless there is REAL hard evidence that points to the parents, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have not seen anything in this case yet to make me fall off the fence. The test results or an arrest may make me change my mind but until then, I will continue to believe they are not involved.

I am more likely to stick with the parents longer than others, just because I have seen many where they are innocent yet have been crucified publicly for behaviors that turn out to mean nothing nefarious.

On the fence here, don't particularly like either parent from what I have seen and they are less than parent of the year material but haven't seen anything that would make me think they killed Lisa. To me its likely that less perfect parents might be targeted simply because they don't have all the safeguards but it makes them media targets too.

Remember Johnny Foster? Most were convinced that it was the mother or step dad especially with the media reporting ..it was way biased. Yet it turned out to be another woman who kidnapped and murdered him. It was pure luck she was caught too. If there hadn't been that one surveillance video where the body was dumped one or both of those parents would be on trial for murder imo and convicted. Media had them strung up by the thumbs.

JMO

 

[luckyme]

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15902780/day-26-thursday-will-mark-1-month-since-baby-was-last-seen

 

[~n/t~]

I am more likely to stick with the parents longer than others, just because I have seen many where they are innocent yet have been crucified publicly for behaviors that turn out to mean nothing nefarious.

On the fence here, don't particularly like either parent from what I have seen and they are less than parent of the year material but haven't seen anything that would make me think they killed Lisa. To me its likely that less perfect parents might be targeted simply because they don't have all the safeguards but it makes them media targets too.

Remember Johnny Foster? Most were convinced that it was the mother or step dad especially with the media reporting ..it was way biased. Yet it turned out to be another woman who kidnapped and murdered him. It was pure luck she was caught too. If there hadn't been that one surveillance video where the body was dumped one or both of those parents would be on trial for murder imo and convicted. Media had them strung up by the thumbs.

JMO

I thought Diena Thompson was guilty. I thought Tara MacDonald (Victoria Stafford's mom) was guilty. I thought Breanna's mom acted suspicious.

Boy was I wrong. All media perception and nothing to do with real facts.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I thought Diena Thompson was guilty. I thought Tara MacDonald (Victoria Stafford's mom) was guilty. I thought Breanna's mom acted suspicious.

Boy was I wrong. All media perception and nothing to do with real facts.

Thank you!
This needed to be said IMO.

 

[SilkySifaka]

I thought Diena Thompson was guilty. I thought Tara MacDonald (Victoria Stafford's mom) was guilty. I thought Breanna's mom acted suspicious.

Boy was I wrong. All media perception and nothing to do with real facts.

Yes MSM shapes the perception and yet most families have skeletons in their closets which don't mean they will kill their children. That is an extreme even for parents with histories of drug abuse

MSM is out for the sensational in most cases, they love to find drug abuse or domestic violence in the backgrounds. Not saying they aren't important considerations but they aren't the be all and end all. Problem is they rarely come out with the tidbits that make it more likely they are innocent..or at least they downplay those while hyping the other.
I wish the media would start being objective and reporting in such a way that they show both sides. There is nothing nefarious in getting a lawyer, and if you are offered the chance of a nationally known one, then jumping at it seems to be normal to me. Yet the media made it sound as if it was proof of guilt.

IMO

 

[MissJames]

What else does the media have to go with? Is there any info that leads to an abduction?

LE has to look at ALL scenarios. Haven't they been looking into sightings and sexual predators ? Wasn't the homeless man a focus?

I just don't see tunnel vision on LE' part .They are going where the evidence takes them,IMO.

 

[LancelotLink]

IMO, they should fire BS because he has lied and can't answer a direct question, and it isn't helping - just making the Irwin camp look worse. He was hired to find Lisa, IIRC. That's what he should be doing instead of wasting precious time talking to the media.

All JMHO, of course.

WildBS, the Spinvestigator.

 

[~n/t~]

What else does the media have to go with? Is there any info that leads to an abduction?

LE has to look at ALL scenarios. Haven't they been looking into sightings and sexual predators ? Wasn't the homeless man a focus?

I just don't see tunnel vision on LE' part .They are going where the evidence takes them,IMO.

I guess they have looked into an abduction scenario. After all, they recreated the crime by having a tall, muscular police officer try getting into the window. Interesting, they didn't let the woman officer try going in to see if they got the same results or a shorter guy.....a teen perhaps? Oh and the white "figure" that was seen across the street from that gas station. SY said it was amateur and rogue reporting even though the gas station manager was the one who brought the video forward because he thought it was suspicious. Yes, they are looking at everything <insert sarcasm>.

Strange. I tried to look for the video but all the sites I tried say the video is no longer available. I'll keep trying to locate it or if anyone has it handy if they can post it.

 

[Donjeta]

Peters said when Cyndy Short was hired on as local counsel the case started heading in the right direction but, after just nine days, Short was fired. Kiesling asked Bradley about Short no longer representing them and Bradley said that was the first she heard of it, leaving many to assume the conflict was between New York attorney Joe Tacopina and Short. It seems Tacopina is calling the shots and Peters said that's backwards.

"It's the client who decides who is representing them. For them not to know, there's a problem," said Peters.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15902780/day-26-thursday-will-mark-1-month-since-baby-was-last-seen

 

[SilkySifaka]

I guess they have looked into an abduction scenario. After all, they recreated the crime by having a tall, muscular police officer try getting into the window. Interesting, they didn't let the woman officer try going in to see if they got the same results or a shorter guy.....a teen perhaps? Oh and the white "figure" that was seen across the street from that gas station. SY said it was amateur and rogue reporting even though the gas station manager was the one who brought the video forward because he thought it was suspicious. Yes, they are looking at everything <insert sarcasm>.

Strange. I tried to look for the video but all the sites I tried say the video is no longer available. I'll keep trying to locate it or if anyone has it handy if they can post it.

Amateur and rogue reporting when it doesn't fit LE's theory or puts some other theory on the table.

When it comes to spin in the media, in this case i find LE is just as guilty of it as the DT. I think it was when they held the presser to announce the "news" that the parents were not cooperating according to what LE viewed as cooperation. Later it turns out that Dad overreacted at accusations of guilt (who wouldn't after a while) and they left. IMO the presser reinforced any feelings the parents had of not speaking any more to LE even if it was just for the night at first..it totally broke any trust the parents had in LE. Then the story becomes they aren't cooperating because they won't allow unrestricted access....well....what..the..heck.. is that meant to mean and why tell the media this.

LE could have left it at "not cooperating" they didn't need to go to the media again and spell out how in a cryptic manner making the parents look even worse.

Clearly their strategy iis to use the media to pressure the parents. My problem is why people are then upset at the DT using it to pressure LE. Both sides are using them.

Biggest problem is MSM letting themselves be used by both sides rather than reporting facts

ETA and in this case i think its a darned good thing there is a DT willing to push back. Not sure how effective they are but imo a lot of the mess started with Short so we will have to see next week

 

[cachmo]

She was great in getting the information first hand in a State that has the Sunshine Law and covering the case based on court documents from LE and prosecution stand point. Unfortunately, it gives one side of the story and the media and the public will interpret it the way they want. (BTW....I think CA is guilty of murder and just trying to prove a point that this type of reporting can backfire). Who would've thought the "accidental drowning" theory would convince 12 jurors? Right? It can't/won't happen in this case because there is no Sunshine Law in MO so Kathi, although good at what she does, will have minimal information same as the others. Her reporting won't go here nor there. The facts in the case will only come out at trial if it gets to that point. LE is keeping a lot of it close to their vests and whatever is leaked only calls for speculation.

An unbiased reporter will look at both sides not just one side and I haven't seen that in this case yet. Based on what I've seen as coverage of this case, clearly it's become finger pointing at the parents without real evidence to back it up. Take the cell phone call as an example. We have no idea why MW got that phone call but yet the media and the public have already concluded that it is somehow connected to one of the parents. Some have even gone as far as DB or JI placing that phone call to dispose of Lisa's body and/or other theories. In fact, we have no idea if that phone call originated from because we have nothing. We do not know where it pinged from. We do not know if it was answered or not, etc etc.

I'm usually very suspicious of the family in a missing child case and tend to rush to judge but after a few cases where I thought the parent was involved and it turned out they were not, I've decided that unless there is REAL hard evidence that points to the parents, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have not seen anything in this case yet to make me fall off the fence. The test results or an arrest may make me change my mind but until then, I will continue to believe they are not involved.

I think MO has a Sunshine Law http://ago.mo.gov/sunshinelaw/sunshinelaw.htm

 

[LancelotLink]

If Joe T. is supposedly the one who DID want the boys interviewed...why weren't they? Was that addressed?

I thought they got this backwards, too. Seems like CS was the one who had it set up and JT stopped it. So, seems like CS either wanted it or wanted it to appear the family was reaching out...JT stopped it, sounds like he doesn't want it.

I missed the first half of the JJP show. :maddening:

 

[Velouria]

I think MO has a Sunshine Law http://ago.mo.gov/sunshinelaw/sunshinelaw.htm

Thanks cachmo, but I think it only applies to governmental bodies, not law enforcement.

 

[cachmo]

Thanks cachmo, but I think it only applies to governmental bodies, not law enforcement.

O Ok. I suck at interpreting law. Do you mind trying to explain the difference in lay terms.
Why no 911 tapes?
Please help me

 

[matou]

How do you know this is not true? Is it because it wasn't revealed in the media? What if JT, as their lawyer, knows a lot more than the media, you, me and the rest of the public?

True, however, will he reveal info that reflects his client in a negative light, other than liking to drink wine at night? If there was a baby in that blob's arms the media would be all over that and they have not done so. Why not? If he's revealing this info to Good Morning America, I'm gonna guess that he would be willing to prove it with the tape showing a baby or a witness testimony of this fact. So to me that means no baby with the blob. JT either made a little booboo or is misleading the public about what is on that gas station tape. JMO I believe he is deliberately misleading the public.

 

[LancelotLink]

Call? What call? You know the phones don't work (until they do).

Sounds to me like Stanton, the BSer himself, was trying to implicate MW. I too have wondered if possibly MW knows the drinking buddy/light monitoring neighbor, but why would the neighbor use an Irwin/Bradley phone to call MW? Was Judge Jeanine stating fact that the neighbor knows MW, or did she pose it as a question? TIA for anyone who heard it. That call is bugging the you-know-what outta me.

OT/P.s. If MW is not involved at all, I hope she heard the show tonight and comes out guns a blazin'. When Vasco DeGama called his presser after being implicated for a meaningless phone call, I was literally clapping (man, that guy was a sharp dresser).

How did she contact the brother for a ride if phones did not work? Drinking buddy phone? I wish we could hear from her and for once I wish I could hear the 911 call...burglary in progress. :waitasec:

 

[Velouria]

O Ok. I suck at interpreting law. Do you mind trying to explain the difference in lay terms.
Why no 911 tapes?
Please help me

You know what cachmo? I stand corrected. The Sunshine Laws do apply to LE in Missouri, however, 911 calls are an exception in some states.

Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wyoming currently exempt 911 calls from the operation of public records statutes.

http://www.newsroomlawblog.com/2010...s/states-move-to-curtail-access-to-911-calls/

 

[~n/t~]

True, however, will he reveal info that reflects his client in a negative light, other than liking to drink wine at night? If there was a baby in that blob's arms the media would be all over that and they have not done so. Why not? If he's revealing this info to Good Morning America, I'm gonna guess that he would be willing to prove it with the tape showing a baby or a witness testimony of this fact. So to me that means no baby with the blob. JT either made a little booboo or is misleading the public about what is on that gas station tape. JMO I believe he is deliberately misleading the public.

Honestly, if I was a defense attorney, I wouldn't show all my cards up front and I'm hoping JT is doing just that. The best thing for him to do is keep his mouth shut at this point. CS loved to talk and that may have been what caused her to get fired. IDK but possible.

Whether the white mystery person was carrying a baby or not should be left up to LE to investigate. We don't know what they're sharing with JT or not, if anything. So far, I haven't heard that the mystery person has been ruled out. I would think the person in the video would have come forward by now but they haven't. Maybe something or maybe nothing.

 

[LancelotLink]

O Ok. I suck at interpreting law. Do you mind trying to explain the difference in lay terms.
Why no 911 tapes?
Please help me

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=20225
State Laws Relating to Confidentiality of 9-1-1 Call Recordings
Missouri
Missouri Rev. Stat. §610.150.
"911" telephone reports inaccessible, exceptions.
Except as provided by this section, any information acquired by a law enforcement agency by way of a complaint or report of a crime made by telephone contact using the emergency number, "911", shall be inaccessible to the general public. However, information consisting of the date, time, specific location and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of the crime or incident shall be considered to be an incident report and subject to section 610.100. Any closed records pursuant to this section shall be available upon request by law enforcement agencies or the division of workers' compensation or pursuant to a valid court order authorizing disclosure upon motion and good cause shown.

Which also explains why they released 911 calls during the tornado, but not in this case. I had asked before why the difference.