Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[DeAnn]

Link please.

Too tired to look up link but John Picerno claimed that during his most recent interview with Fox News' MK. Hope this helps.

 

[Amster]

Too tired to look up link but John Picerno claimed that during his most recent interview with Fox News' MK. Hope this helps.

Thanks! Since I don't believe a word the attorneys for DB and JI say, I'll file that story away under spin. lol

 

[hambirg]

I just want to see justice and the longer the LE wastes on the parents (if they are innocent) the more the case goes cold IMO.. That's what I'm wanting. I want them to find out what happened to Lisa ASAP And its just frustrating to me that all we hear is they wanna talk to the parents. Cause it's time wasting IMO again. When I think that neither parent has any info that will help solve this case because A. The father was working during this period and. B. the mother was more than likely unable to remember anything of the night due to her drinking..I wanna see Lisa found..but I wanna see them do it before its to late to help her or to late to find evidence that's needed to find her..just beating a dead horse for weeks isnt doing Lisa justice IMO.

But LE has cleared thousands of leads in this case. What if none of those leads and none of the evidence ever lead anywhere? What if everything leads them right back to where they started? What if there is NO evidence pointing to a SODDI? Wouldn't that explain why they want to talk to the parents some more?

I don't believe for a second that LE is beating a dead horse. I actually think they are the ones spending endless hours out there, late nights away from their families to try to uncover the truth. . .to try to find some justice for Lisa.

My Dad was a personal friend of Bob Keppel (Ted Bundy detective). One of my high school friends is a detective in Lakewood (The Lakewood Four). I know that these guys live, breath, sleep and eat these cases. They want to know the TRUTH and they live to see justice served. I don't think they are just sitting around saying. .. "Hey, how can we pin this on the parents and all go home?" No way, no how!

So, if all of their whiteboards that are covered with all kinds of various theories and leads, turn out to be dead ends after investigating them, except for the parents as perps, what the heck are they suppose to do? Make something up?

 

[Dr. Know?]

But LE has cleared thousands of leads in this case. What if none of those leads and none of the evidence ever lead anywhere? What if everything leads them right back to where they started? What if there is NO evidence pointing to a SODDI? Wouldn't that explain why they want to talk to the parents some more?

I don't believe for a second that LE is beating a dead horse. I actually think they are the ones spending endless hours out there, late nights away from their families to try to uncover the truth. . .to try to find some justice for Lisa.

My Dad was a personal friend of Bob Keppel (Ted Bundy detective). One of my high school friends is a detective in Lakewood (The Lakewood Four). I know that these guys live, breath, sleep and eat these cases. They want to know the TRUTH and they live to see justice served. I don't think they are just sitting around saying. .. "Hey, how can we pin this on the parents and all go home?" No way, no how!

So, if all of their whiteboards that are covered with all kinds of various theories and leads, turn out to be dead ends after investigating them, except for the parents as perps, what the heck are they suppose to do? Make something up?

Very good post. Wish I had said it! It should hit home with the fact that they have investigated over 900 tips and they still need to talk with the parents. Obviously. That's pretty much what needs to happen. I just doubt they will speak up. I watched Josh Powell just shut up, Terri Horman, you name it. Shut up and wait it out. Gah! It's a shame.

 

[hambirg]

Can someone please explain to me for why Debbie and Jeremy should subject themselves to separate interrogation? Unless LE are looking for them incriminate themselves. ~I really want to know this.
And I can't see why they shouldn't answer question together if LE just wants information.

The Constitution states that no one has to incriminate themselves. God knows which Amendment, but I know that it is there somewhere.
Brits don't have a Constitution as such, but we do have a right to remain Silent. This does not presuppose Guilt.

So really, what LE is suggesting and what some people are supposing is that if Debbie and Jeremy don't relinquish their given Rights then they are guilty.
I somewhat doubt that this is what The Constitution meant when first it was written.

And don't you all hate a smart arse who isn't an American, and still knows what The Constitution stands for. This is meant as a joke, by the way. Well, almost.
I can only thank you all for my present understanding. I sincerely hope that you are all very proud of what you have. It might be you one day.

Gee. . .maybe because they actually want to find their innocent, defenseless daughter?

No where are they being asked to relinquish their right to incriminate themselves. If they don't have anything incriminating to say, then how does that apply? They aren't in court on the stand where they would be sworn to tell the truth. That is not what the 5th amendment is about at all. LE is not asking them to be questioned without an attorney. They would have an attorney present that would prevent them from doing anything foolish. . .like signing a false confession. LE is simply asking them to be interviewed separately. As an unmarried couple they have no right not to be.

MOO

 

[hambirg]

I think coming in for interviews. whether any new information is revealed or any unresolved issues are cleared might make LE feel that the parents are on their side, that they have the same goal, to find Lisa. If the parents were coming on tv, thanking the investigators for all their hard work, thanking the public for their interest and support, appealing to local citizens to come forth if they think they might have pertinent information, noticed usual behavior, etc., LE would be more inclined to pursue alternative theories of the crime, (although I do think they are conducting parallel investigations anyway). The parents having an antagonistic relationship with LE is not furthering the investigation or doing anything to improve LE's or the public's perception of their truthfulness which would seem unwise if the parents are innocent. If the parents do have something to hide, it is probably in their best interests to lie low, ride out the public's interest in this case and wait until all leads dry up and this case goes cold. All MOO

See Solomon Metalwala. . nothing to hide.

See Julia Biryukova. . .lawyering up and laying low.

You be the judge.

 

[hambirg]

I didn't take it exactly the same way. I thought that she was trying to be excruciatingly honest, and could not say absolutely that she couldn't have possibly blacked out. (After all, how would you remember if you blacked out? That's the whole problem with blacking out - you do things that you later have no memory of.) I also took it the same way about her checking on the baby at 10:30. I "read" her answer as being that she may not remember doing it specifically, but knows that she normally does. If she did, then surely she would have seen IF Lisa was missing at that time. But since she doesn't specifically remember looking in, it's possible she didn't.

That was just my own impression when I first saw it, and honestly, I was really confused when people started picking that to pieces. It just seemed so understandable, lol. I know NOW why everyone didn't see it that way but it still seems like maybe half of us interpreted it that way and the other half saw it completely differently.

By the way It's not just alcohol that can make people "forget" doing things, especially things that we do out of habit. Most people would not be able to say exactly what they did the night before. They would remember much of it, but like EXACTLY what time did you start cooking dinner? Do you remember putting a specific paper towel in the trash? Do you remember brushing your teeth? You know you did it because you always do, but do you recall the actual act of it? I have said goodnight to my daughter before, and then been surprised to find that she went to bed. Even when my hubby reminds me that I said goodnight to her, I can't really remember it. I believe that is normal, so I never thought it was particularly weird that DB didn't remember the actual act of looking at her baby. The brain can't remember every single detail, and once something leaves the working memory, if it doesn't go into LTM, it's gone. And no amount of thinking will get it back. IF she is innocent, and IF she is telling the truth, she would have had no reason for remembering that act (looking at Lisa), if there was nothing wrong at that time.

If her explanation for not remembering whether she checked on Lisa at 10:30 or not, was because she had an alcohol induced blackout, then maybe she doesn't remember if she killed Lisa and disposed of her body. It's a possibility. You can't have it both ways.

 

[hambirg]

We don't really have any choice about what mundane things are remembered and which are lost. Normally we DO tend to remember unusual situations, even minor ones. The brain says "ohhh that's different - I'll stash that away." Maybe one of the boys said something funny that she remembered. Maybe one was wearing his new pajamas. Maybe they were bickering. Or maybe it's just plain random.

If she poked open the door and saw Lisa sleeping and all was well, it might have stuck in her mind, or maybe not. If Lisa was NOT in the crib Debbie would have absolutely remembered that moment. So the fact that she didn't freak out at 10:30 means either she checked and everything was fine, or she didn't check. And she honestly doesn't know which one it is.

JMO of course.

Or maybe she did freak out, at say, anytime after 10:30. Maybe she even freaked out so much that she attempted a phone call on a phone that she forgot was restricted, and then tried to access her vm. :waitasec:

Maybe the boys sleeping with her was a normal mundane thing, as she stated it was normal. Maybe it was normal for her to get blitzed on a box-o-wine every third night. .. like she said. Maybe aliens abducted baby Lisa, maybe baby Lisa disappeared during a zombie apocalypse, maybe Zanny the Nanny took baby Lisa, maybe a dingo ate her baby. . .

You see where I'm going with these excuses. . .

 

[hambirg]

But the mom is not the ONLY person that consumed alcohol that night. I am sure there are many around that night that did.

I appreciate all of your input. I really do. There is something to be said about being there on the ground and feeling what is going on. I'm local to the Sky case and there are things that are blaringly obvious to me, that other people may not understand.

So. . .with the utmost respect to you. . .none of those other people are missing a baby. Are you implying that SB or SB#2 could have done something to Lisa? I'm not discounting them at all, but I don't see how or why DB would cover for them if they did do something to BL

I'm just not following you here (and that may not be your fault at all. . lol).

 

[hambirg]

double post

 

[hambirg]

OMG! I did the same thing. I think! I don't remember seeing the bag with all of my good jewelry in it (well, everything that's not in the safe deposit box - thank God for that!) since I got back from a trip to Canada. I know I had to have stuck it somewhere... in one of the suitcases or a bag, but darned if I know where. And that was like 3 years ago.

Luckily my hubby is a sweetie and has restocked my good jewelry supply, but he is always teasing me about it. I know it'll turn up some day. I hope. lol.

I'm speechless folks and that doesn't happen often!!!

Are we now comparing a bag of jewelry to a child?!

DB couldn't have possibly hurt BL because somebody can't remember where they put their jewelry? :yow:

I can't remember where yesterday's grocery receipt is , but I damn well know where my kids are and when I saw them last.

 

[Donjeta]

They were 'asked' (I agree with lured) to go to the station because there was news about Lisa - when they got there...no news, just more interrogation and accusation.

Well, ain't that a shame that the parents of a helpless little missing baby have to be lured to the police station because they wouldn't be willing to help in the investigation voluntarily. :maddening:

 

[Donjeta]

Mm hmm.

For me, things that are very routine (checking on a child before going to bed, starting the dishwasher, letting the dog out, getting the mail, etc.) I can easily not have a clear memory of. They're routine for me, but sometimes I don't do them and sometimes I do them but have no memory of it.

Especially if it is very very important that I try to remember. That's when my memory fuzzes.

For her, if he thinks she may have checked on Lisa but she's not sure, best to say 6:40 was the last time she's SURE - it's best to go with that time so it doesn't rule out possibilities of what happened to Lisa during the 6:40 - 10:30 time frame. Even if she's almost NEARLY sure she remembers checking on her, best to widen up the time frame to allow for the chance she's remembering wrong.

JMO, honesty is the better option. Just tell us what you remember and what you don't remember and don't go widening up the timeframe or anything based on fuzzy reasoning, if you don't have a clue what time something happened or if something happened at all just say so.

You can get in some trouble if you let them understand that you remember such and such things happening at a certain time if it's possible it didn't happen that way and they can show it.

 

[hambirg]

It broadens the time frame for all other possibilities.

BUT. Imagine this. What is the purpose of her saying that, if in fact, she's guilty of harming Lisa? What would be the purpose of openly admitting she doesn't have a clear memory, and that child was in bed at 6:40? That certainly doesn't "help" her. She basically admits to poor parenting there, and she knows it, you can see it on her face when she says it. It's poor parenting to put a one year old down at 6:40 in the late afternoon and not see her again all evening. But she's admitting it freely.

If she harmed Lisa and she knows what happened, much better to say "of course I checked on her, I'm certain she was in her bed at 10:30 when I went to bed". That helps her story if she's in fact lying.

Not really. .. if she is lying. . .being foggy on that time is going to help her A LOT if they find the body and determine that time of death is before 10:30pm.

Because if DB knows that TOD is before 10:30pm. . .being a poor parent is not near as bad as being a murderer. . .it's a lot less time too if you're convicted.

 

[Karmaa]

I'm speechless folks and that doesn't happen often!!!

Are we now comparing a bag of jewelry to a child?!

DB couldn't have possibly hurt BL because somebody can't remember where they put their jewelry? :yow:

I can't remember where yesterday's grocery receipt is , but I damn well know where my kids are and when I saw them last.

Where exactly was the "comparison" of a bag of jewelry to a child? Seriously. If you READ the post, I was comparing a bag of jewelery to someone else's jewelry.

And as far as I know, NO ONE even suggested that DB couldn't have hurt the baby for ANY REASON.

<modsnip>

 

[Whisperer]

I think that part can be ruled out. It was said that she was a very good baby, rarely cried, had no issue with strangers...

Perfect baby..why not? So that covers any issues of her possibly crying when lifted by a stranger who takes her out in the cold w/o a blanket and possibly no clothing.

Lisa wouldn't cry. She loved strangers. = check
Lisa had two sets of identical clothing = check
Cadaver dog did not smell cadaver in the home - check
LE is badgering the poor parents = check
baby monitor not used or heard = check
dog didn't bark or wake anyone in neighborhood = check
All lights left on in the house by the kidnapper = check
Cell phones stole so parents couldn't call 911 = check
Mother fails a poly = check

.....just checking to make sure I don't stop and draw the wrong conclusion in this case.

 

[Karmaa]

If her explanation for not remembering whether she checked on Lisa at 10:30 or not, was because she had an alcohol induced blackout, then maybe she doesn't remember if she killed Lisa and disposed of her body. It's a possibility. You can't have it both ways.

Please LINK to anywhere I have ever said that DB could not have killed Lisa. Anywhere. In fact, I have said repeatedly that DB could well of killed her. It would have required a whole lot of luck and/or foresight to not have been caught, but she sure COULD have.

If the evidence shows that DB harmed Lisa, I will come off the fence. Till then, I am doing what every person in this country has the right to - the presumption of innocence.

In the meantime, please stop misrepresenting my posts. Thank you.

 

[Elley Mae]

If her explanation for not remembering whether she checked on Lisa at 10:30 or not, was because she had an alcohol induced blackout, then maybe she doesn't remember if she killed Lisa and disposed of her body. It's a possibility. You can't have it both ways.

I wondered when I first heard/read that Deborah said she may have "blacked out" if that would be her excuse/defense. I call bs on the "blackout" she just wants an excuse for not remembering the whole night. I believe she remembers everything. But as long as she has "blackouts" and kidnapped phones she will remain free. And even if Baby Lisa's body is found surely you would find the parents dna all over her that doesn't prove they did it. So sad for baby Lisa jmo

 

[Karmaa]

Or maybe she did freak out, at say, anytime after 10:30. Maybe she even freaked out so much that she attempted a phone call on a phone that she forgot was restricted, and then tried to access her vm. :waitasec:

Maybe the boys sleeping with her was a normal mundane thing, as she stated it was normal. Maybe it was normal for her to get blitzed on a box-o-wine every third night. .. like she said. Maybe aliens abducted baby Lisa, maybe baby Lisa disappeared during a zombie apocalypse, maybe Zanny the Nanny took baby Lisa, maybe a dingo ate her baby. . .

You see where I'm going with these excuses. . .

No I don't see where you are going. I haven't got a clue. :waitasec:

You were replying to my comment about how people's brains select whether to remember or discard memories. That has nothing at all to do with aliens, zombies, dingoes or Zanny the Nanny.

If you (or anyone) personally think that any of those scenarios may have happened, you certainly have the right to believe that. But, I won't be convinced it until I see some evidence, any more than I will be convinced that DB killed her baby unless and until I see some evidence.

 

[Whisperer]

You many never see the evidence. It is hard to get evidence when parents are involved. That is why a confession is so important.

W/O a body and retaining a defense attorney means a slam dunk that they will walk...and if anyone cares to, they can say they are innocent but it may not be so. Not having the evidence does not equate with innocence. Having a defense attorney and not finding a body equals imperfect justice.