Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[stephen40]

IMO, this topic is not worth arguing anymore. Clearly some people believe that the parents' rights trump everything else, including the fate of Baby Lisa. I highly doubt that the those who created the Constitution were trying to protect parents from having to talk about what happened the night their infant vanished...
JMO

Much to my chagrin.
bbm/mo

 

[annalia]

It came from the lawyers. First Cyndy Short, then JP - I think JT too. It has been said many times, and it has never been refuted by LE. So, if you don't believe lawyers you may not believe it. :dunno:

I believe it, It would be stupid for the lawyers to lie about it, and there is no reason to.

It doesn't have anything to do with believing lawyers. And I've never said that I don't believe "lawyers", so please don't misrepresent my posts. I happen to have several lawyers in my family who are all above reproach, I would say that most attorneys are. However JT, in my view, is a different story altogether.

What I didn't recall is anyone saying that the family turned to the FBI to help find their baby. That implies that the family sought out the FBI, and that the FBI doesn't view them as a possible suspects.

I also don't recall them saying that the parents are answering LE's questions from their living room.

Since the FBI doesn't speak out publicly we don't know what they think, so just because they haven't come out and refuted it doesn't really mean much.

JMHO

 

[annalia]

:clap:

I agree 100%. The topic is dead. Our Founding Fathers should be turning over in their graves for how the laws have been interpreted. Thank you Cluciano for bringing the obvious to my attention.

I'm still trying to find where it's stated that a boyfriend and girlfriend's rights are violated if they can't be questioned together.

 

[cityslick]

It doesn't have anything to do with believing the lawyers. And I've never said that I don't believe "lawyers", so please don't misrepresent my posts. I happen to have several lawyers in my family who are all above reproach, I would say that most attorneys are. However JT, in my view, is a different story altogether.

What I didn't recall is anyone saying that the family turned to the FBI to help find their baby. That implies that the family sought out the FBI, and that the FBI doesn't view them as a possible suspects.

I also don't recall them saying that the parents are answering LE's questions from their living room.

Since the FBI doesn't speak out publicly we don't know what they think, so just because they haven't come out and refuted it doesn't really mean much.

JMHO

IMO

Speaking of the lawyers, I got to really question how much the lawyers are actually 'representing' the parents rather than simply advocating for them. I mean, they are not so much 'defending' them in the general sense, because there is simply nothing to defend, the parents are not suspects or even POI's. The parents themselves did not specifically hire these lawyers and from what I understand, are not even paying them. So I have to question the type of relationship these lawyers have with the family as it doesn't seem to be the traditional lawyer/client relationship that we are used to seeing. I think the lawyers are acting as a gateway between LE and the parents but other than that, I wonder how much interaction is going on between the lawyers and parents.

 

[stephen40]

Speaking of the lawyers, I got to really question how much the lawyers are actually 'representing' the parents rather than simply advocating for them. I mean, they are not so much 'defending' them in the general sense, because there is simply nothing to defend, the parents are not suspects or even POI's. The parents themselves did not specifically hire these lawyers and from what I understand, are not even paying them. So I have to question the type of relationship these lawyers have with the family as it doesn't seem to be the traditional lawyer/client relationship that we are used to seeing. I think the lawyers are acting as a gateway between LE and the parents but other than that, I wonder how much interaction is going on between the lawyers and parents.

This would be an opinion right? No one knows what the lawyers and the parents are discussing. Lawyer-client privileges and all that.
bbm/mo

 

[annalia]

Speaking of the lawyers, I got to really question how much the lawyers are actually 'representing' the parents rather than simply advocating for them. I mean, they are not so much 'defending' them in the general sense, because there is simply nothing to defend, the parents are not suspects or even POI's. The parents themselves did not specifically hire these lawyers and from what I understand, are not even paying them. So I have to question the type of relationship these lawyers have with the family as it doesn't seem to be the traditional lawyer/client relationship that we are used to seeing. I think the lawyers are acting as a gateway between LE and the parents but other than that, I wonder how much interaction is going on between the lawyers and parents.

I have to go back and check but wasn't an announcement made that JT is now representing the parents, approved by the parents? Didn't JT fire CS and hire another local attorney?

I don't think that the parents are paying them directly, and I don't think they originally went out and sought JT out, but they are getting paid, they said they were getting paid but wouldn't say how. My guess has always been that there will be a major national media interview, worth $$$$ and the attorneys will get their cut from that. Another reason for JT to not allow DB to speak to the local media, her price goes up.

JMHO

 

[Karmaa]

Again, it´s a perceptual difference. IMO the last time you saw your missing baby is among the most crucial details and not something so unimportant that you wouldn't bother to correct it if you're concerned with getting the main information out there if the interviewer gets it wrong. The time of last contact with the missing person is one of the most important parts of that main information. Just JMO. She did several interviews after the news came out that Lisa was last seen at 10.30 and she had several chances to correct that info before her drinking confession interview.

Regarding selective memory and liars having a good memory for details, I believe you read it in a post in this thread because I think I did too.

JMO but it's not necessarily correct. If someone includes a lot of extraneous, random detail in their story that distracts them from getting to the point it may be a clue that they could be lying, but OTOH truth tellers may be able to supply some extra detail in successive retellings because it's true and they lived it and remember it, they don't have to make it up or be content with repeating a rehearsed story.

If only there was some foolproof way of telling liars from the truth tellers.

Bold 1: THANKS!!! I read so much stuff between the internet and my classes that if I don't bookmark or cite it, I am probably sunk, lol. It's a good quote though, and probably true.

Bold 2: I agree 100%. The best we can do is guess based on what we see. What makes that really hard is that a lot of liars have been lying for years, and they are really good at it, at least at first. Give them some rope and they will usually hang their self with it.

 

[Karmaa]

We know that Bradley initially told police she last saw Lisa at 10:30 p.m. Oct.. 3. We know during a search of the home they found the receipt for the box of wine, which was bought just before 5 p.m. Oct. 3. We know police then confronted her about this.

Police have not officially said she changed her time, but as you said the media has implied this.

We know the family initially said the box of wine was bought for one reason. We know eventually DB admitted she consumed a significant portion of the box of wine that night.

We know Cyndy Short said police took the remaining (if any) contents of the box but left the box itself behind.

And we know a baby is missing and that's heart breaking

It is - especially the day before Thanksgiving. I am praying that she is returned today or tomorrow. That would be a Thanksgiving to remember for ALL of us!

As far as the box of wine - there is a good possible explanation for why it was empty. LE could very well have drained the box to measure how much was in there / gone. That could either support or reject her claim about how much she drank. Of course we don't know if this happened or what the results were.

Logic would indicate that IF that's what happened, the results would have supported the amount DB's said she drank, or LE would have taken the box as evidence. It would also seem to support that DB told the cops about the drinking from the beginning, or again - they would have taken the box as evidence after draining it. If DB & friend(s) drank it all that night, LE might not have taken it on the first search, but they sure as heck would have snagged it on the next search after they found out about the drinking.

JMO.

 

[Karmaa]

It doesn't have anything to do with believing lawyers. And I've never said that I don't believe "lawyers", so please don't misrepresent my posts. I happen to have several lawyers in my family who are all above reproach, I would say that most attorneys are. However JT, in my view, is a different story altogether.

What I didn't recall is anyone saying that the family turned to the FBI to help find their baby. That implies that the family sought out the FBI, and that the FBI doesn't view them as a possible suspects.

I also don't recall them saying that the parents are answering LE's questions from their living room.

Since the FBI doesn't speak out publicly we don't know what they think, so just because they haven't come out and refuted it doesn't really mean much.

JMHO

Please go look again.

I didn't accuse you of not believing lawyers, nor did I misrepresent anything.

I answered the specific question that you asked, and I said "if you don't believe lawyers you may not believe it". I have no idea if you believe lawyers or not.

 

[epiphany]

I have to go back and check but wasn't an announcement made that JT is now representing the parents, approved by the parents? Didn't JT fire CS and hire another local attorney?

I don't think that the parents are paying them directly, and I don't think they originally went out and sought JT out, but they are getting paid, they said they were getting paid but wouldn't say how. My guess has always been that there will be a major national media interview, worth $$$$ and the attorneys will get their cut from that. Another reason for JT to not allow DB to speak to the local media, her price goes up.

JMHO

Joe T did say that he is "representing Deborah and Jeremy...in this process, the investigative process." In fact, he had been in contact with them for over a week prior to this announcement on the 17th of October.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...a-irwin-family-to-hold-230-pm-news-conference

Joe Tacopina said during a news conference Monday that he had been hired to represent Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley.

 

[annalia]

Joe T did say that he is "representing Deborah and Jeremy...in this process, the investigative process." In fact, he had been in contact with them for over a week prior to this announcement on the 17th of October.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...a-irwin-family-to-hold-230-pm-news-conference

Joe Tacopina said during a news conference Monday that he had been hired to represent Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley.

Thank you for finding it epiphany.

 

[deoneta]

IMO

Speaking of the lawyers, I got to really question how much the lawyers are actually 'representing' the parents rather than simply advocating for them. I mean, they are not so much 'defending' them in the general sense, because there is simply nothing to defend, the parents are not suspects or even POI's. The parents themselves did not specifically hire these lawyers and from what I understand, are not even paying them. So I have to question the type of relationship these lawyers have with the family as it doesn't seem to be the traditional lawyer/client relationship that we are used to seeing. I think the lawyers are acting as a gateway between LE and the parents but other than that, I wonder how much interaction is going on between the lawyers and parents.

If the attorneys are acting as a gateway between LE and the parents, it looks to me like that gate is slammed shut. The attorneys seen to have had enough interaction with the parents to characterize their state of mind, their upset with the accusatory tone of LE interrogation, their hope to get life back to 100% normal and so forth. The attorneys are doing some things that defense attorneys traditionally do, promoting SODDI theories in the media and painting their clients as victims of a tunnel visioned, overzealous LE, all aimed at influencing a potential jury pool and raising reasonable doubt. All MOO.

 

[Nixie]

IMO, this topic is not worth arguing anymore. Clearly some people believe that the parents' rights trump everything else, including the fate of Baby Lisa. I highly doubt that the those who created the Constitution were trying to protect parents from having to talk about what happened the night their infant vanished...
JMO

Its not a pick or chose thing. The right to remain silent was put in the constitution so that law enforcement couldn't trick people or use violence to make people confess to a crime they didn't commit. It was also put in place so people would know what crime they were being charged with. Baby Lisa has rights, no one can prove her parents violated her rights or the parents would lose their freedom. I think the parents should do the interviews, but I also think they have the right not to do them. What rights should be taken away from someone before they are found guilty of a crime or even charged with committing a crime? Should they be thrown in jail until the police are satisfied? Should they be forced to do whatever the police want until the general public thinks they are innocent? By defending the rights of one person, you defend the rights of all people. You can't use force to make someone talk, using any form of that would make confessions come from people who aren't guilty of crimes. The founders knew the system would be flawed, but they also believed everyone had rights. I am not sure what rights people want the parents to lose I mean what can you do to them? You can have opinions but with no evidence you can't just start hauling people into jail until they do what you want them to do. The parents have been interviewed, they consented to searches, they have the right to remain silent, they are exercising that right. I don't personally agree with the choice they are making but I think they have that right. by thinking that I do not believe their rights are more important then Lisa's rights that is not a fair judgment. They are two separate issues and if it is found that Lisa's rights were violated by her parents, then they will be punished. People's rights have been abused to much in this country's history for it not to be important everyone has them. Ask someone whos rights have been violated how important they are, research a country that doesn't give their people rights and see how justice is served. I will stand up and fight for the rights of children but I do not think rights should be taken away from anyone until I am shown they did something deserving of losing their rights.

 

[In da Middle]

And she remembered the kitten. Altho it's unclear to me if the kitten ever existed.

What happened to their dog (and kitten) after they moved out, stayed with PN for several weeks, and then moved back? :waitasec: I never saw the dog out in front, nor coming or going with them...

You have only seen a very tiny glimpse of their coming and going. In the years I have been here, I know a dog exists, but I have also never witnessed it going in or out with them. It stays out back here and goes in and out through the back I presume. Their front yard is not fenced and we have pretty strong leash laws here. I see no reason to see it go in or out through the front.:waitasec:

 

[Donjeta]

Are you saying that the law is that you can't take your dog out for a walk? What kind of dog gets enough exercise if it stays leashed in a tiny back yard? Maybe I misunderstood.

 

[Baxter]

Please go look again.

I didn't accuse you of not believing lawyers, nor did I misrepresent anything.

I answered the specific question that you asked, and I said "if you don't believe lawyers you may not believe it". I have no idea if you believe lawyers or not.

I know this post was not addressed to me, but in the context of your post below, it does seem that you are questioning her belief in lawyers.

snipped Karmaa
"It came from the lawyers. First Cyndy Short, then JP - I think JT too. It has been said many times, and it has never been refuted by LE. So, if you don't believe lawyers you may not believe it.

I believe it, It would be stupid for the lawyers to lie about it, and there is no reason to."
__________________

 

[norest4thewicked]

I FINALLY got home from traveling for 2 weeks and I truly hoped that baby Lisa would have been found by now. And, very sad to see that the parents are still not cooperating. Far too many threads to read for me to catch up, but I don't see anything that has really changed in the past 2 weeks.

 

[Sabot]

Its not a pick or chose thing. The right to remain silent was put in the constitution so that law enforcement couldn't trick people or use violence to make people confess to a crime they didn't commit. It was also put in place so people would know what crime they were being charged with. Baby Lisa has rights, no one can prove her parents violated her rights or the parents would lose their freedom. I think the parents should do the interviews, but I also think they have the right not to do them. What rights should be taken away from someone before they are found guilty of a crime or even charged with committing a crime? Should they be thrown in jail until the police are satisfied? Should they be forced to do whatever the police want until the general public thinks they are innocent? By defending the rights of one person, you defend the rights of all people. You can't use force to make someone talk, using any form of that would make confessions come from people who aren't guilty of crimes. The founders knew the system would be flawed, but they also believed everyone had rights. I am not sure what rights people want the parents to lose I mean what can you do to them? You can have opinions but with no evidence you can't just start hauling people into jail until they do what you want them to do. The parents have been interviewed, they consented to searches, they have the right to remain silent, they are exercising that right. I don't personally agree with the choice they are making but I think they have that right. by thinking that I do not believe their rights are more important then Lisa's rights that is not a fair judgment. They are two separate issues and if it is found that Lisa's rights were violated by her parents, then they will be punished. People's rights have been abused to much in this country's history for it not to be important everyone has them. Ask someone whos rights have been violated how important they are, research a country that doesn't give their people rights and see how justice is served. I will stand up and fight for the rights of children but I do not think rights should be taken away from anyone until I am shown they did something deserving of losing their rights.

Amen to that.

 

[Karmaa]

I know this post was not addressed to me, but in the context of your post below, it does seem that you are questioning her belief in lawyers.

snipped Karmaa
"It came from the lawyers. First Cyndy Short, then JP - I think JT too. It has been said many times, and it has never been refuted by LE. So, if you don't believe lawyers you may not believe it.

I believe it, It would be stupid for the lawyers to lie about it, and there is no reason to."
__________________

I wasn't. I don't know anything about this poster so I don't know what (s)he believes in. Many people don't trust what the lawyers say - so I was just getting that out of the way before someone jumped on the fact that it came from the lawyers. Have a great Thanksgiving

 

[stilettos]

Are you saying that the law is that you can't take your dog out for a walk? What kind of dog gets enough exercise if it stays leashed in a tiny back yard? Maybe I misunderstood.

Well I do not know about these particular people nor this locations leash laws. What I do know is that people around here (deep south)...do not think anything about penning their dogs is 4x4 pens outside :furious: and not letting them out at all, except occasionally in winter to hunt. It is criminal. We adopted our neighbors dog this way...he kept digging out of the pen to come to our house. They only fed him once a day or every other day...the dog was left there during lightening storms and hail...whatever! :banghead: They replied to our concern with "It's just a dog". Seems that is the mentality here. :waitasec: