Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[stephen40]

That just seems like they are aware that she is deceased & that is why they are doing nothing to find her. Laying low, waiting for people to move on & forget...

That thought stills my heart. I wager it's true. IMHOO

 

[stephen40]

SY did make a statement after Oct 8th that the parents were answering questions. . .not that they had come in and been interviewed. . just that they answered some questions regarding tips. I took that to mean they answered some questions over the phone. . .nothing hard hitting.

I am sure, just as I'm sure that the sky is blue, that Jersey is talking to LE.

You renewed my faith then. For some reason I think Jersey will be the one who causes an arrest to be made and may even cause LE to find Lisa. mo

 

[Blessed2Bme]

You renewed my faith then. For some reason I think Jersey will be the one who causes an arrest to be made and may even cause LE to find Lisa. mo

I hope you are sooo right. Jersey knows something. But can anyone answer a question I have. What happens from here- today- this standpoint of the investigation? With no one talking--whats next as far as LE is concerned.:waitasec:

 

[hambirg]

I hope you are sooo right. Jersey knows something. But can anyone answer a question I have. What happens from here- today- this standpoint of the investigation? With no one talking--whats next as far as LE is concerned.:waitasec:

I don't know. They keep looking for tips and evidence that points to the parents, which is what I think what they already know points to. They can follow a million leads, but if they are all already cleared and nothing else points to anybody else what else can they possibly do? That is why I can't give any credence to posters saying that LE has tunnel vision. I think that is simply not true. They have chased down every possible lead. . .but nothing has led anywhere. It all takes them right back to where they started,

MOO

ETA_ I have some close friends that are detectives. I know for a fact that they want the truth. They are not looking for the easy out. They want to know what happened and see that justice is served. . .but if all their white board cat scratches do nothing but point right back at the parents. . then what?

 

[Blessed2Bme]

I don't know. They keep looking for tips and evidence that points to the parents, which is what I think what they already know points to. They can follow a million leads, but if they are all already cleared and nothing else points to anybody else what else can they possibly do? That is why I can't give any credence to posters saying that LE has tunnel vision. I think that is simply not true. They have chased down every possible lead. . .but nothing has led anywhere. It all takes them right back to where they started,

MOO

ETA_ I have some close friends that are detectives. I know for a fact that they want the truth. They are not looking for the easy out. They want to know what happened and see that justice is served. . .but if all their white board cat scratches do nothing but point right back at the parents. . then what?

It makes sense that LE want the truth. Oh course but when no one is talking then what...It's just another cold case??? uggg i hate typing those words Lisa needs to be found. Thanks for your opinion Hambirg.

 

[deoneta]

For whatever reason, either because they feel they are unfairly the focus of the investigation or because they have something to hide, the parents and their attorneys feel it's in the best interests of the parents not to be interviewed again by LE. Barring a surprising change of heart, I don't think they will reveal any more information. I don't think Jersey has talked about this crime to LE. He's experienced with LE and the legal system and knows that keeping silent is usually the best policy. Unless, they have evidence that ties him to the crime, he has nothing to gain by talking. Or else, he really isn't invovled and has nothing to say. All MOO

 

[katydid23]

That is odd and reminds me of Billy Jean Dunn who said "Every day Hailey isn't found is a good day for me".
:banghead:

See my signature line for the actual quote.:crazy:

eta: when I was following that case, and I read that statement by her, I was dumbfounded. I swore it would remain my sig line until we found sweet Hailey. I am afraid it might be my sig forever though. :rose:

 

[hambirg]

For whatever reason, either because they feel they are unfairly the focus of the investigation or because they have something to hide, the parents and their attorneys feel it's in the best interests of the parents not to be interviewed again by LE. Barring a surprising change of heart, I don't think they will reveal any more information. I don't think Jersey has talked about this crime to LE. He's experienced with LE and the legal system and knows that keeping silent is usually the best policy. Unless, they have evidence that ties him to the crime, he has nothing to gain by talking. Or else, he really isn't invovled and has nothing to say. All MOO

I disagree. If he knows anything. . he is going to talk. He's already in jail for something else and looking at time. If he didn't kill Lisa but knows something why wouldn't he be spilling it? The first to talk is the first to walk. I think he has been telling what he knows. I don't think he killed Lisa, but he knows some things. So he is talking. It serves him. JMHO

 

[crimecurious]

I don't understand why DB can't be arrested for child endangerment. I.E. being admittedly blacked out drunk when something happens to a child.

This is a recent local story of something similar and this lady has been charged... "A 15 month old little boy drowned Monday in St. Charles, and now his aunt is charged in his death. Police say 35 year old Erin Lottman got drunk while babysitting her nephew and then took him swimming. Prosecutors charged her Tuesday with involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child. Both are felonies."
http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-wo...nk-as-toddler-drowns-20110802,0,2015474.story

Then they could question DB ALL they want.

 

[Karmaa]

I know, I understand. You are thinking logically. Logic and crimes don't usually go together. People do things like this out of rage. No one likes to think of a mother/father killing their child. It just doesn't work for many people. When you've been around this stuff, you get to see and hear of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

If you can link me up with some cases that this scenario that you are referring to that actually happened...involving a child under one year of age, I would like to read about it.

It appears you may have missed the Haleigh Cummings case where the father married the POI within a month of the disappearance. Who would believe a father would marry the girl who is the main suspect/key in his daughter's disappearance. People are strange.

Quite frequently a tragedy like this splits up even the most loving couples. One may blame the other and just can't deal with their own feelings. That is another reason why this case baffles people. JI should be furious with DB for drinking/passing out and his daughter getting abducted. Surely, he would be in a position to blame her. Instead he supports her. The reasoning is askew. It is not normal. IMO, when this occurs, the supporter has an agenda for standing by the person. It could be he is hiding something or it could be he is covering up for someone or it could be he is the perp.

Maybe JI is not furious because he knows that DB is the good mother that all of the people who know her seem to think that she is. Maybe he believes her because he knows in his heart that she could not/would not have harmed the baby. Maybe he realizes that life is full of coincidences and that when you attempt to reconstruct incidents after the fact, a lot of things that would mean nothing on a normal night, can be twisted to seem sinister.

That's not to say that he would necessarily be right, but it would explain why he supports her. Actually, I think it's very interesting that no one in his or her family, except that one uncle or whatever, even hints that they don't believe her. That's rare, in my opinion. Usually in a case like this, with this much negative public opinion against a parent, there would be people from the other parent's side starting to show some doubt. If the people closest to them are not wavering, that would seem like maybe Deb has some rather positive mothering skills, and is not just the box-wine-drinking, leave-the-baby-in-the-crib, neglectful, irresponsible mother that some people interpret her to be.

JMO

 

[Karmaa]

I don't understand why DB can't be arrested for child endangerment. I.E. being admittedly blacked out drunk when something happens to a child.

This is a recent local story of something similar and this lady has been charged... "A 15 month old little boy drowned Monday in St. Charles, and now his aunt is charged in his death. Police say 35 year old Erin Lottman got drunk while babysitting her nephew and then took him swimming. Prosecutors charged her Tuesday with involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child. Both are felonies."
http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-wo...nk-as-toddler-drowns-20110802,0,2015474.story

Then they could question DB ALL they want.

First of all, they could not "question DB all they want". Our 5th amendment rights do not go away when we are suspected, charged, confined or even on trial.

Second, in the other case, the aunt deliberately placed the child into a dangerous environment. In Lisa's case, as far as we know, the baby was in her crib, which is generally not a dangerous environment. Being drunk, in and of itself is not illegal and it is not considered negligent, so long as the child is cared for. Driving a car drunk with a baby in it is negligent, but putting the baby in the crib while drunk is not.

 

[hambirg]

Maybe JI is not furious because he knows that DB is the good mother that all of the people who know her seem to think that she is. Maybe he believes her because he knows in his heart that she could not/would not have harmed the baby. Maybe he realizes that life is full of coincidences and that when you attempt to reconstruct incidents after the fact, a lot of things that would mean nothing on a normal night, can be twisted to seem sinister.

That's not to say that he would necessarily be right, but it would explain why he supports her. Actually, I think it's very interesting that no one in his or her family, except that one uncle or whatever, even hints that they don't believe her. That's rare, in my opinion. Usually in a case like this, with this much negative public opinion against a parent, there would be people from the other parent's side starting to show some doubt. If the people closest to them are not wavering, that would seem like maybe Deb has some rather positive mothering skills, and is not just the box-wine-drinking, leave-the-baby-in-the-crib, neglectful, irresponsible mother that some people interpret her to be.

JMO

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a seemingly "good" mother killed her child. In fact, I think in the case of filicide that it is the norm.

 

[Sparklin]

I disagree. If he knows anything. . he is going to talk. He's already in jail for something else and looking at time. If he didn't kill Lisa but knows something why wouldn't he be spilling it? The first to talk is the first to walk. I think he has been telling what he knows. I don't think he killed Lisa, but he knows some things. So he is talking. It serves him. JMHO

If he is talking, why hasn't anyone been brought in for questioning do you think?

 

[hambirg]

If he is talking, why hasn't anyone been brought in for questioning do you think?

Ummm . .because they are exercising their 5th amendment right. :doh:

 

[crimecurious]

First of all, they could not "question DB all they want". Our 5th amendment rights do not go away when we are suspected, charged, confined or even on trial.

Second, in the other case, the aunt deliberately placed the child into a dangerous environment. In Lisa's case, as far as we know, the baby was in her crib, which is generally not a dangerous environment. Being drunk, in and of itself is not illegal and it is not considered negligent, so long as the child is cared for. Driving a car drunk with a baby in it is negligent, but putting the baby in the crib while drunk is not.

Thanks for the input Karmaa. To clarify myself, "all they want" kind of meant away from JI. Of course she would have an attorney present and would not have to answer their questions.

As for the child endangerment, or possibly neglect (?), I am unsure of the exact laws. It just seems to me that there was something wrong going on there. Illegal? I dunno.

IIRC, some of the news photos showed a couple of rifles leaning against a wall in the parent's bedroom. That in itself seems endangering...

 

[Sparklin]

Ummm . .because they are exercising their 5th amendment right. :doh:

'they'? Meaning the parents? Do you think Jersey is spilling to LE that Deb and/or Jeremy did something to Lisa? And the police are still just 'asking' for them to come in and answer questions? Or do you think he's pointing the finger at someone else that LE is not talking to? Or do we just not know that they are?

 

[Sparklin]

Thanks for the input Karmaa. To clarify myself, "all they want" kind of meant away from JI. Of course she would have an attorney present and would not have to answer their questions.

As for the child endangerment, or possibly neglect (?), I am unsure of the exact laws. It just seems to me that there was something wrong going on there. Illegal? I dunno.

IIRC, some of the news photos showed a couple of rifles leaning against a wall in the parent's bedroom. That in itself seems endangering...

I didn't see any ammo for those guns though. We don't know if there was any or if there was, where it was. The photo was also taken after the search, so very well could have been left there by LE.

 

[hambirg]

'they'? Meaning the parents? Do you think Jersey is spilling to LE that Deb and/or Jeremy did something to Lisa? And the police are still just 'asking' for them to come in and answer questions? Or do you think he's pointing the finger at someone else that LE is not talking to? Or do we just not know that they are?

I think he is spilling and it involves DB. She isn't talking.

 

[Sparklin]

I think he is spilling and it involves DB. She isn't talking.

hmmm...then my opinion would be he's not telling them anything too damning.

 

[hambirg]

hmmm...then my opinion would be he's not telling them anything too damning.

He may not know anything that is damning. He can only spill what he knows.