Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[Sparklin]

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

Well, since they are the only ones giving us info, unless you include MW - then there really isn't anything to tell.

 

[Karmaa]

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:

That's the thing! They probably didn't HAVE to be lured. They seemed perfectly willing to go there and to cooperate. But if they were led to believe that some important lead or evidence had been discovered, and rushed there to find out what had been found - only to find out that it wasn't really true, but that LE simply wanted to interrogate them, I can absolutely understand the distrust.

Under circumstances like that I would personally start to think that maybe LE's PRIORITY wasn't actually to find my baby, but rather to accuse me. And, if I was innocent, that would increase my distrust and my shock even more. Why would I continue to help a source that I didn't believe was making my baby's location and recovery their number 1 priority? I don't know if the FBI had been called in at that point, but if they had, that would seal the deal. No more "interviews" with LE.

We do not know what went on that day, or how it all went down. We know what DB/JI and their representatives have said. We have no denial that this is how it happened, from LE. There is NO REASON to not believe the parents, especially since what they say happened falls right into the standard techniques used by almost every LE agency in the US. (The Reid Technique or something similar).

So - the idea that LE lured the parents in order to deliberately put them off guard and to confuse them rings true. That would be a very useful thing to do, to start the process of getting a confession. It seems to me that if that really happened, it was a really bad technical decision on LE's part in this case. The family has alternatives (FBI) and LE has a legal OBLIGATION to discover what happened to LE, regardless of the parent's willingness to be interrogated again. So yeah, under those circumstances I would not go out of my way to help LE point the finger at ME.

 

[Cazzie]

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

However, isn't it illegal to lie to an LEO, IINM? Maybe that's one reason that they don't want to speak directly to them anymore? Even if it's weren't illegal, it wouldn't be a good idea to do so, IMO.

 

[In da Middle]

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).

BBM
I am not in any way, shape or form implying that either SB had anything to do with it. The post I was responding to was implying that the person that did this was probably under the influence and I was responding that there are FAR more people than just the mom that was drinking. Not including any of those 3 specifically, just in general. The fact is that more than 3 people in the entire area were probably under the influence that night.

 

[Donjeta]

That's the thing! They probably didn't HAVE to be lured. They seemed perfectly willing to go there and to cooperate. But if they were led to believe that some important lead or evidence had been discovered, and rushed there to find out what had been found - only to find out that it wasn't really true, but that LE simply wanted to interrogate them, I can absolutely understand the distrust.

sbm
You could be right but the impression I got from how it was brought up was that DB wouldn't have gone if she hadn't been thinking there was some news. That's not perfectly willing imo.

 

[Donjeta]

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.

It's a matter of personal perception. I saw her in that interview as anything but excruciatingly honest. I may have been prejudiced because IMO if you lie about the last time you see your missing child you may lie about everything else too and if you get caught doing the first I am apt to be suspicious of anything that comes after.

IMO if she had wanted to be excruciatingly honest about not remembering there would have been none of that "I checked on her at 10.30", "no, it was 6.40", she'd have said "I don't know, I was plastered, I'm so sorry I don't remember". I perceived her more flippant and defiant, with a so-what tone making excuses for being negligent with a baby and giving a false story at first, rather than a person who is excruciatingly honest about painful details. (But that's strictly a personal impression and not a fact. )

I am not sure I believe the claims that she didn't remember because she seems to have a selective memory and some details she remembers very well. It's just that anything to do with Lisa is a blur, and I take note. For example, she remembers going to bed and asking the boys to sleep with her at about the same time she doesn't remember checking on Lisa.

 

[Karmaa]

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.

Lisa wouldn't cry. She loved strangers. = Lisa rarely cried
Lisa had two sets of identical clothing = Nothing indicates that two sets of IDENTICAL clothing existed. Possibly two similar outfits.
Cadaver dog did not smell cadaver in the home - We do not know WHAT the dogs hit on. The dogs can't tell us what they smelled, and LE has not said.
LE is badgering the poor parents = LE claimed that family stopped cooperating. LE later had to backtrack about that comment and admit family is in fact cooperating.
baby monitor not used or heard = Not evidence. In a small house, parents may not deem it necessary.
dog didn't bark or wake anyone in neighborhood = This is unusual, but only suggests someone known in the area, not necessarily parents. A clue, but not evidence
All lights left on in the house by the kidnapper = is a clue, but not evidence
Cell phones stole so parents couldn't call 911 = is a clue, but not evidence
Mother fails a poly = LE has not confirmed this. It may or may not have happened. Regardless, poly's are at best clues, and not evidence.

 

[Karmaa]

sbm
You could be right but the impression I got from how it was brought up was that DB wouldn't have gone if she hadn't been thinking there was some news. That's not perfectly willing imo.

Well, Debbie said [paraphrased] that she knew that they would be suspected at first, that they would be questioned and then eliminated, and they would all move on and find the baby. That sounds to me like she was willing to talk, and even to be interviewed at first. In my theory, it's only after they realized that LE was more interested in getting a confession from them than in finding the baby, that they became distrustful. But even then, they claimed to be willing to answer any questions - just not in an interrogation room.

 

[Cazzie]

It's a matter of personal perception. I saw her in that interview as anything but excruciatingly honest. I may have been prejudiced because IMO if you lie about the last time you see your missing child you may lie about everything else too and if you get caught doing the first I am apt to be suspicious of anything that comes after.

IMO if she had wanted to be excruciatingly honest about not remembering there would have been none of that "I checked on her at 10.30", "no, it was 6.40", she'd have said "I don't know, I was plastered, I'm so sorry I don't remember". I perceived her more flippant and defiant, with a so-what tone making excuses for being negligent with a baby and giving a false story at first, rather than a person who is excruciatingly honest about painful details. (But that's strictly a personal impression and not a fact. )

I am not sure I believe the claims that she didn't remember because she seems to have a selective memory and some details she remembers very well. It's just that anything to do with Lisa is a blur, and I take note. For example, she remembers going to bed and asking the boys to sleep with her at about the same time she doesn't remember checking on Lisa.

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...

 

[NotSoSherlock]

However, isn't it illegal to lie to an LEO, IINM? Maybe that's one reason that they don't want to speak directly to them anymore? Even if it's weren't illegal, it wouldn't be a good idea to do so, IMO.

:clap:

BBM

I have been waiting forever for someone to point this out.

Yes, obstruction of justice is illegal. From what we know it is likely that DB lied to LE. She has painted herself into a corner because of it. This doesn't mean she had anything to do with BL's disappearance, however.

The ball is in LE's court. If they want to interview the parents then they better take them up on the offer now. Remember, at one time they offered to do interviews just so long as certain detectives weren't present. Later, the terms were changed to "no separate" interviews. Soon, they'll likely just flat-out refuse.

In fact, I bet if LE called the parent's bluff and agreed to their terms they would refuse.

Don't get me wrong. I think there are other reasons that they are refusing to be interviewed. Consider the fact that this is what their pro bono (yet normally $750 per hour) lawyer is advising them to do. They probably don't want to look that particular gift horse in the mouth and go against his wishes. Especially if they know they have nothing to do with BL's disappearance and have told LE all that they know.

All JMO.

 

[scmom]

I wonder if JI and DB gave LE written statements the first day they were interviewed. If so, it's still a secret to the public.

 

[Whisperer]

I wonder if JI and DB gave LE written statements the first day they were interviewed. If so, it's still a secret to the public.

Darn shame they are keeping these private.

They had to give info to responding officers (Incident Report) Wanna bet that is what the attorneys are calling their first interview. When LE arrives the responding officer does an incident report. Later the investigators will take a statement. After that they do an investigative report. I would love to read them, right after I listen to the 911 call....:innocent:

 

[Whisperer]

I want to clarify that it is not true that polys are not admitted in a Court of Law. They are allowed, if both parties agree...Fat chance with that!

If a Defense Attorney has any evidence of their client passing a Poly, they will put it out to the media, in spades. Most lawyers in high profile cases will test the suspect. If they fail, you will never hear about it.

...But they are allowed in a Court of Law..when both parties agree.

 

[DeAnn]

Darn shame they are keeping these private.

They had to give info to responding officers (Incident Report) Wanna bet that is what the attorneys are calling their first interview. When LE arrives the responding officer does an incident report. Later the investigators will take a statement. After that they do an investigative report. I would love to read them, right after I listen to the 911 call....:innocent:

I would rather see the dash cam video than hear the 911 call.

 

[Karmaa]

It's a matter of personal perception. I saw her in that interview as anything but excruciatingly honest. I may have been prejudiced because IMO if you lie about the last time you see your missing child you may lie about everything else too and if you get caught doing the first I am apt to be suspicious of anything that comes after.

IMO if she had wanted to be excruciatingly honest about not remembering there would have been none of that "I checked on her at 10.30", "no, it was 6.40", she'd have said "I don't know, I was plastered, I'm so sorry I don't remember". I perceived her more flippant and defiant, with a so-what tone making excuses for being negligent with a baby and giving a false story at first, rather than a person who is excruciatingly honest about painful details. (But that's strictly a personal impression and not a fact. )

I am not sure I believe the claims that she didn't remember because she seems to have a selective memory and some details she remembers very well. It's just that anything to do with Lisa is a blur, and I take note. For example, she remembers going to bed and asking the boys to sleep with her at about the same time she doesn't remember checking on Lisa.

It is a perceptual difference. I never saw that her changing the "story" from 10:30 to 6:30 as a lie, or really that she even CHANGED the story. I saw it as clarification of her memory and clarification of what she had possibly inadvertently agreed to during previous media interviews.

I have posted this before, but I never saw DB actually say, point blank, that she had seen Lisa at 10:30. On a few occasions, interviewers asked her if that was the last time, and she said "yeah" but continued with [paraphrased] I put her to bed at 6:40 and gave her a bottle at 7:30. In hindsight the "yeah" may sound like a lie, but I can see that initial "yeah" response as an acknowledgement of the question, not a lie. Remember that we have had weeks to play, replay and interpret everything said - but she only had a split second to answer the question. Add to that the reports that the neighbor was there till 10:30, and that DB normally looks in on the baby before bed (though in this case, she maybe can't actually remember doing it) and I could see why 10:30 was the time to work with during an interview. She would not necessarily have thought that it was worth the time to correct every detail during the interview, if she was concerned with getting the main information out there. Particularly if she was pretty confident that the baby was not kidnapped before that time.

I also never heard anyone OFFICIALLY say that LE confirmed that DB told them a different story. It has been implied by media and accepted as fact by some posters, but no one has ever said that LE says that DB changed her story. If LE confirmed that she did, in fact, LIE to them, I would have a bit more of a prod off the fence.

As for the selective memory, that is normal. A few pages back, people were talking about their own experiences with selective memory, and I posted some research findings about how it works. I read something just recently (no clue where) that said that guilty people usually have extremely good memory for details, but that innocent don't always.

 

[Donjeta]

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.

 

[DeAnn]

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

 

[cluciano63]

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

 

[Whisperer]

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

: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.

 

[stephen40]

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.

Thousands of infants and children disappear every year. Most are likely killed- the killer is never found and or charged.