Police Chief Darryl Forte good reasons to not suspect the child's parents

[~n/t~]

At a meeting with The Kansas City Star's editorial board, Forte said the police were "not trying to vilify the family" in the Lisa Irwin case.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/252758/20111120/missing-baby-lisa-irwin-tough-month-kansas.htm

 

[~n/t~]

Could the good reasons be they already have their suspect?

 

[NotSoSherlock]

Could the good reasons be they already have their suspect?

Could be. I was just wondering when lab results would start coming back. The lab work might be coming back and showing something to support the SODDI theory.

 

[Sigh Sister]

Could the good reasons be they already have their suspect?

Wonder what questions they still need answers to? Could they be questions that DB/JI are not answering? He said there are good reasons not to suspect them, but I'm wondering if they feel there are also good reasons TO suspect them.

 

[~n/t~]

Could be. I was just wondering when lab results would start coming back. The lab work might be coming back and showing something to support the SODDI theory.

I'm thinking the same. For the police chief to come out and say such a statement, I'm guessing lab results didn't implicate either parent.

Interviewing the children would also be a major factor in their investigation on what may have happened that night.

I wonder what they found if anything to suggest it may have been SODDI?

 

[~n/t~]

Wonder what questions they still need answers to? Could they be questions that DB/JI are not answering? He said there are good reasons not to suspect them, but I'm wondering if they feel there are also good reasons TO suspect them.

IDK maybe their relationship with the other characters in the case?

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I'm not following the case very closely, but I don't take it that he is saying that. I mean I can read that statement at face value and his saying that LE is not focusing on the parents says to me that they just want to know the truth so that whoever is responsible can be brought to justice and Lisa can be brought home and laid to rest.

LE always, or hopefully always, goes where the evidence takes and I have faith they look at these crimes from all different angles leaving no stone unturned even though we may not know what is going on behind the scenes. Maybe LE really has to put this out there so defense attorneys can't say that their clients are being persecuted at the expense of the truth?

IDK. How horrible about his knowing one of those recent victims. Maybe its difficult at times to see all this attention on this one case when he has so many of them that deserve equal attention. Not to mention the crime stats that deserve attention too.

 

[~n/t~]

I'm not following the case very closely, but I don't take it that he is saying that. I mean I can read that statement at face value and his saying that LE is not focusing on the parents says to me that they just want to know the truth so that whoever is responsible can be brought to justice and Lisa can be brought home and laid to rest.

LE always, or hopefully always, goes where the evidence takes and I have faith they look at these crimes from all different angles leaving no stone unturned even though we may not know what is going on behind the scenes. Maybe LE really has to put this out there so defense attorneys can't say that their clients are being persecuted at the expense of the truth?

IDK. How horrible about his knowing one of those recent victims. Maybe its difficult at times to see all this attention on this one case when he has so many of them that deserve equal attention. Not to mention the crime stats that deserve attention too.

If they have good reasons to believe they're not involved, why continue focusing on them and wasting time and resources where it shouldn't be? I took his statement to mean they've moved on.

 

[hambirg]

I hate to say it, but I think that reporter for International Business Times may have gotten it wrong. (I'm not fond of "According to a KMBC.com report" and that report only has a portion of what follows or "Forte is believed to have said")

I did find the KMBC.com report. . .it's here:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/19/3275281/forums-popularity-pleases-kc-police.html

I think that reporter was talking about this from the Kansas City Star quote.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/19/3275281/forums-popularity-pleases-kc-police.html

But on Wednesday, in a meeting with The Star’s Editorial Board, Forte said the police are “not trying to vilify the family.”

The police have good reasons for doing what they are doing, the chief added. That’s essentially a response to the attorneys, who have indicated the police have been overbearing in their treatment of the parents, implying they were involved in the disappearance of baby Lisa.

Forte said he wouldn’t comment further on the case, adding that the department has one spokesman - Steve Young - handling the crushing number of local and national media requests about this matter.

Why so reticent?

Joking or not, Forte said this strategy was designed to hold down the number of subpenas that might be issued in the future regarding the case.

To me, this was a broad hint that, as many people expect, this case is not going to end well, either for baby Lisa Irwin or for her parents.

And let’s hope I’m wrong, wrong, wrong.

ETA-I hope that is ok to link. I realize it is an editorial piece, but I couldn't find any other MSM referencing that quote and it's context. And I much prefer the word of a writer who was actually in the Kansas City Star editorial board meeting than a reporter in India who was not.

MOO

 

[~n/t~]

If that's the case then his statement about not trying to vilify the parents makes no sense. That is exactly what they're doing.

If they have the evidence they would be arrested and charged by now instead they're back home and no further search warrants as far as I know.

I think if DB truly did fail a polygraph, they would've polygraphed the dad as well and they haven't done so which leads me to believe they did whatever they needed to do with the searches of the home to rule out the parents.

Test results should have been back by now and so far there has been no indication that anything was found to implicate either parent.

To hold down the number of subpeonas? What in the world does that mean? Is that what they're basing this case on? Seriously?

 

[natsound]

I'm not following the case very closely, but I don't take it that he is saying that. I mean I can read that statement at face value and his saying that LE is not focusing on the parents says to me that they just want to know the truth so that whoever is responsible can be brought to justice and Lisa can be brought home and laid to rest.

LE always, or hopefully always, goes where the evidence takes and I have faith they look at these crimes from all different angles leaving no stone unturned even though we may not know what is going on behind the scenes. Maybe LE really has to put this out there so defense attorneys can't say that their clients are being persecuted at the expense of the truth?

IDK. How horrible about his knowing one of those recent victims. Maybe its difficult at times to see all this attention on this one case when he has so many of them that deserve equal attention. Not to mention the crime stats that deserve attention too.

:tyou: :yourock: :goodpost:

 

[hambirg]

If that's the case then his statement about not trying to vilify the parents makes no sense. That is exactly what they're doing.

If they have the evidence they would be arrested and charged by now instead they're back home and no further search warrants as far as I know.

I think if DB truly did fail a polygraph, they would've polygraphed the dad as well and they haven't done so which leads me to believe they did whatever they needed to do with the searches of the home to rule out the parents.

Test results should have been back by now and so far there has been no indication that anything was found to implicate either parent.

To hold down the number of subpeonas? What in the world does that mean? Is that what they're basing this case on? Seriously?

Idk. . .take it however you want. Personally, I take it to mean that they are not "trying" to vilify the parents. . .just investigate a missing baby case and get to the truth. :dunno:

ETA- I feel like the thread title should be changed because he is not quoted as saying "good reasons to not suspect the child's parents" It's reported by Mr. Abouhalkah that what Forte said was. . .The police have good reasons for doing what they are doing,

 

[natsound]

If that's the case then his statement about not trying to vilify the parents makes no sense. That is exactly what they're doing.

respectfully snipped

I think he says "we're not trying to vilify the family". But that's neither here nor there. IMO, it's prudent for a police chief to make such a statement whether or not they're focusing on the family.

 

[~n/t~]

Idk. . .take it however you want. Personally, I take it to mean that they are not "trying" to vilify the parents. . .just investigate a missing baby case and get to the truth. :dunno:

I'm sorry if I came across as snarky it was not intended towards you at all. It just irks me that these parents are going through hell and there may be a custody battle for JI's son because they were vilified. It's all so sad.

 

[natsound]

I'm sorry if I came across as snarky it was not intended towards you at all. It just irks me that these parents are going through hell and there may be a custody battle for JI's son because they were vilified. It's all so sad.

IDK if you can blame the custody battle over public perception. DB did admit to being drunk the night her child disappeared. That's pretty reckless behavior.

 

[hambirg]

I'm sorry if I came across as snarky it was not intended towards you at all. It just irks me that these parents are going through hell and there may be a custody battle for JI's son because they were vilified. It's all so sad.

No, I didn't take it as being snarky at all. :hug:

I'm just not a fan of bad reporting and I think that's what happened here. A writer who was in the board meeting says the chief said "The police have good reason for doing what they're doing" and a reporter in India took that to mean "the police have good reason not to suspect the parents." and ran with it. Things get lost in translation, kwim?

ETA- Please don't take anything I said as being snarky either. That's not my intention. I'm kind of a stickler for details and I guess I'm skeptical in my old age. . .I question EVERYTHING. . .:lol:

 

[tink92]

I'm sorry if I came across as snarky it was not intended towards you at all. It just irks me that these parents are going through hell and there may be a custody battle for JI's son because they were vilified. It's all so sad.

I know..my heart aches for them. I detest the hatred towards them just because stats say they must be guilty. The venom reminds me of the crazies who would shout and scream abuse outside the Anthonys home..to Cindy and George. and that poor man was driven to suicide.

 

[Rooster27]

I hate to say it, but I think that reporter for International Business Times may have gotten it wrong. (I'm not fond of "According to a KMBC.com report" and that report only has a portion of what follows or "Forte is believed to have said")

repsectfully snipped.....

appreciate your input. I always feel the IBT is a day behind and interpreting what other news channels have said, and then the copywriter slams a heading on it and we think we have new news. I have been noticing that all along, but until you posted, hadn't fully assembled the observation.

 

[yllek]

No, I didn't take it as being snarky at all. :hug:

I'm just not a fan of bad reporting and I think that's what happened here. A writer who was in the board meeting says the chief said "The police have good reason for doing what they're doing" and a reporter in India took that to mean "the police have good reason not to suspect the parents." and ran with it. Things get lost in translation, kwim?

ETA- Please don't take anything I said as being snarky either. That's not my intention. I'm kind of a stickler for details and I guess I'm skeptical in my old age. . .I question EVERYTHING. . .:lol:

I posted this ibtimes article in the 11/20/11 MSM thread, but a poster who is a local reporter commented that despite the 11/20/11 date on the article and the reference to 46th day of the investigation, the statements from Forte were actually weeks old and regurgitated (and possibly misquoted) from other sources. I asked a mod to weigh in as to whether the article should remain posted and it was removed from the thread, along with posts commenting on it.

If this reporter in India took "good reason to do what they're doing" and turned it into "good reason not to supsect the parents", that's definitely misleading or a questionable translation.

In any case, I hadn't seen Forte's comments before, so I think it's interesting. LE has always maintained that neither the parents, nor anyone else, is a suspect. They are not trying to villify anyone, imo, as Forte states. The only people who have said that police consider (or said or treated) Debbi a suspect are Debbi, Picerno and Ashley Irwin. Imo, Chief Forte is being consistent with what Young and Graves have said publicly all along. It is the official public position of the KCPD at this time. MOO...

FWIW, someone asked the CNN reporter covering this case, Jim Spellman, for his take on the ibtimes report on his twitter yesterday:


JIM SPELLMAN:
These LEOs have to be very careful with what that say so its hard get much actual meaning from this
16 hours ago

JIM SPELLMAN:
I see it....not sure there is much to be made of that comment with out details of why he says that.
16 hours ago
http://twitter.com/#!/jimspellmancnn

 

[~n/t~]

No, I didn't take it as being snarky at all. :hug:

I'm just not a fan of bad reporting and I think that's what happened here. A writer who was in the board meeting says the chief said "The police have good reason for doing what they're doing" and a reporter in India took that to mean "the police have good reason not to suspect the parents." and ran with it. Things get lost in translation, kwim?

ETA- Please don't take anything I said as being snarky either. That's not my intention. I'm kind of a stickler for details and I guess I'm skeptical in my old age. . .I question EVERYTHING. . .:lol:

The reporter is in India? How do we know that? I just looked at some of the other cases IBTimes reports

http://www.ibtimes.com/archives/articles/reporters/drishya-nair/


:dunno: