Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[Whisperer]

They had an attorney with them on the 6th of OCT. That is the second day, not counting the 4th.

EDITED:

I was wrong, they had an attorney on the 8th. They were interviewed about nine hours on the 6th. Nothing about the 5th was reported. They must have got the attorney on the 6th and went to the next interview with him on the 8th. Anyway pretty darn quick..

 

[In da Middle]

Oh wow, I didn't know that. I wonder why the fixation on the computer room window which DB says she left open.

I would like to know when the locks were last changed and who could have got the key.

I think the fixation on that window is because of the jacked up screen, which may/may not be a red herring of itself. Somebody could have easily entered from either basement entrance or deck door and could have been laying low for a while if any of these entrances were available with people in the front non the wiser.

 

[jus sayin]

Some people don't respond to LE question well at all. Especially when in a highly emotionally charged state. I've been that way twice, when the lives of loved ones were in jeopardy. I could only remember little flashes of pictures, and they were in the wrong sequence. I was sure of what I saw, but it frustrated LE that I couldn't just lay out the whole thing in a nice narrative form. I can see now, why they want to keep going back and asking over and over again. In the start (Oct early) they kept referring to a "teenager who had the combination to the lock on the garage which was in back, or to the basement which was in back." Did that ever come up again?

 

[Whisperer]

Wrong order. Mouthpiece came first. HE had to hire local because he is too busy mouthpiecing and he has to have an attorney with a Missouri license on record. Both local attorneys were put in place by JT.

Thank you for pointing that out. Where is the mouthpiece, BTW? How many witnesses has he interviewed?

 

[cityslick]

EDITED:

I was wrong, they had an attorney on the 8th. They were interviewed about nine hours on the 6th. Nothing about the 5th was reported. They must have got the attorney on the 6th and went to the next interview with him on the 8th. Anyway pretty darn quick..

Going back to your original point that LE has the best chance to find flaws in stories in the very beginning, I agree that LE had the perfect opportunity to find inconsistencies in this case since they had open, unfiltered access to both parents in the beginning.

 

[annalia]

Going back to your original point that LE has the best chance to find flaws in stories in the very beginning, I agree that LE had the perfect opportunity to find inconsistencies in this case since they had open, unfiltered access to both parents in the beginning.

my bolding

Not necessarily, LE didn't have much to go on in the very beginning. Oftentimes it's when more information becomes available that inconsitencies appear.

 

[In da Middle]

Some people don't respond to LE question well at all. Especially when in a highly emotionally charged state. I've been that way twice, when the lives of loved ones were in jeopardy. I could only remember little flashes of pictures, and they were in the wrong sequence. I was sure of what I saw, but it frustrated LE that I couldn't just lay out the whole thing in a nice narrative form. I can see now, why they want to keep going back and asking over and over again. In the start (Oct early) they kept referring to a "teenager who had the combination to the lock on the garage which was in back, or to the basement which was in back." Did that ever come up again?

Yes, and stress can really muddy the mental waters. During stressful situations, people talking to you can start to sound like the teacher on the Peanuts cartoons - waaaah waah waaah so your answers may become disjointed because your thinking is disjointed.

I think the garage code mentioned is for the garage door opener code for the garage that is under the house with a back entrance.

 

[In da Middle]

Thank you for pointing that out. Where is the mouthpiece, BTW? How many witnesses has he interviewed?

I have not heard of one person around here that has talked to BS nor anybody that says they work for BS. I have heard people saying they have talked to investigators from CS office, and LE detectives. I am thinking his job is just as his initials imply.

 

[cityslick]

my bolding

Not necessarily, LE didn't have much to go on in the very beginning. Oftentimes it's when more information becomes available that inconsitencies appear.

My point was usually when someone concocts a story, especially if it's more than one person in on it, it's easier to find flaws in that story in the very beginning. We know they had separate interviews in the beginning and assuming neither of them are very well versed in interrogation techniques, you may be able to find inconsistencies right away.

This very well may have happened in this case, there is just nothing to indicate it as far as LE is concerned.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

To me that means the media settled so they wouldn't have to admit guilt. The fact that they settled, to me, means the Ramsey's won.

Actually, a few media outlets said that they wanted the case to go to court because the Ramseys would have to testify, and then they could question them about the case.

Libel and slander cases have a one year statue of limitations. So unless this case gets media coverage for years, the Irwins will have until Fall of 2012 to file a suit.

 

[In da Middle]

Actually, a few media outlets said that they wanted the case to go to court because the Ramseys would have to testify, and then they could question them about the case.

Libel and slander cases have a one year statue of limitations. So unless this case gets media coverage for years, the Irwins will have until Fall of 2012 to file a suit.

If they, in fact, wanted it to go to court, then why didn't they do just that? They were the ones that held that key. They didn't HAVE to settle out of court, especially if they thought they were in the right.

 

[natsound]

Why does it always have to be for a nefarious reason (that she changed the time)? Why can't it just be that after the initial hysteria of that evening in talking to police, she calmed down and thought through the details of that night. Because she's not 100% sure, she says 'probably'.

That's is what bothers me when the 'liar' tag gets thrown around, which equated to 'well, she must be guilty, she lied about the time'. IMO, if DB did something to that child, why would she say one time to LE and then purposely days later create that 4 hour 'hole' that makes her look suspecious? If she knows for a fact that BL wasn't alive at 10:30pm, why wouldn't she keep the same 'check on 10:30pm' story?

Because they have lawyered up. Because they're not working as a team with police. Because phones are missing but a call was made out and voice mail was checked twice. Because a cadaver dog hit in the bedroom.

Because we have never seen them hit the ground to search.

Because of these occurrences, I think mom has lied to try and find a story that fits and makes her look innocent, when she isn't.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

If they, in fact, wanted it to go to court, then why didn't they do just that? They were the ones that held that key. They didn't HAVE to settle out of court, especially if they thought they were in the right.

Since the Ramseys were the ones who were suing, wouldn't they be the ones who decided whether to settle or go to court?

 

[cityslick]

Because they have lawyered up. Because they're not working as a team with police. Because phones are missing but a call was made out and voice mail was checked twice. Because a cadaver dog hit in the bedroom.

Because we have never seen them hit the ground to search.

Because of these occurrences, I think mom has lied to try and find a story that fits and makes her look innocent, when she isn't.

Changing her story to an earlier time does not make her look innocent. It is actually to her detriment that she changes it to an earlier time. As mentioned upthread, changing the time back 4 hours doesn't do anything advantageous for her since the fact that she was outside until 10:30pm hasn't changed.

You really think she was trying to float the idea that someone walked in her house while she was sitting outside with the boys awake inside? I don't.

 

[cityslick]

Since the Ramseys were the ones who were suing, wouldn't they be the ones who decided whether to settle or go to court?

Well both parties have to agree to settle. I would think if you sue someone and then you settle on some sort of amount, obviously the person/company you were suing thought it was more advantageous to settle on something rather than take their chances and hope the court finds in their favor (where they would pay nothing).

 

[In da Middle]

Since the Ramseys were the ones who were suing, wouldn't they be the ones who decided whether to settle or go to court?

A settlement is an agreement between both parties. Maybe they felt that the media settling was a small victory for them without having to draw out a long trial. The media did not have to settle for any reason. They could have taken their chances and went to court with it.
ETA I see cityslick says virtually the same thing one post ahead!

 

[yllek]

Right. "Last seen". That is the point. The reason so many people think Debbie is lying is because they believe she told LE that she put the baby to BED at 10:30, and then changed it to 6:40.

In fact, there is nothing to suggest that Debbie ever told LE that she put the baby to bed at 10:30.

Personally, I haven't seen anybody being concerned or confused about being "put to bed at 10:30" vs. "last seen at 10:30". I can see that being media misinterpretation when all the info was first coming out, or a wrong interpretation of words by Debbi. The concern is about the time the 10 month old baby was "last seen" changing by nearly 4 hours. Doesn't matter if "putting her to bed" was the last reported sighting by the mom, or "checking in on her" after she'd been in bed for hours is the last reported sighting. The last reported sighting starts the window of opportunity for the abduction/event that lead to Lisa's disappearance. It is of major importance now matter how you slice it, in any missing person investigation.

The fact that Debbi was reportedly out on the stoop for almost 4 hours doesn't change the window of opportunity. If she last SAW Lisa at 10:30 and Lisa was fine, then the window is between 10:30 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. If she last SAW her around 6:40 p.m., then the window is between 6:40 pm and 4:00 a.m. If Debbi didn't do/arrange this, could someone have been hiding in the house and snuck out the back with Lisa? Could Debbi have gone to use the restroom when SB went for a liquor run and someone watching snuck in and took the baby? Who knows? All things that likely had to be checked out from a new perspective once the last sighting time was changed. New interviews with the neighbors needed; no longer was the question did they see/hear anything or anyone different or suspicious around 10:30 p.m., but now they needed to be asked the same questions and focus back as far as 6:40 p.m. Also, as Donjeta mentioned weeks back, 4 hours is over a 200 miles headstart for a driver.

It's a big deal that the mother changed the last time she saw a stationary baby by 4 hours. It doesn't have to be for nefarious reasons that it was changed, but there's no denying that it was changed imo. LE didn't pull 10:30ish out of a hat. Jeremy wasn't home. The "last sigthing" time was on the Amber Alert issued upon meeting with the parents at the home. Good thing it was corrected, if in fact 6:40 is more accurate. The last time anyone SAW Lisa is significant to the investigation because it's important in determining what happened to Lisa and when. All possibilities need to be considered, so if the window of opportunity is inaccurate and too small, the investigation is based on a false foundation. Hopefully, 6:40 pm is more accurate. JMO...

 

[natsound]

Changing her story to an earlier time does not make her look innocent. It is actually to her detriment that she changes it to an earlier time. As mentioned upthread, changing the time back 4 hours doesn't do anything advantageous for her since the fact that she was outside until 10:30pm hasn't changed.

You really think she was trying to float the idea that someone walked in her house while she was sitting outside with the boys awake inside? I don't.

I don't know what DB is trying to do, but it isn't working with me.

It doesn't matter to me if her new story appears to work in her favor or to her detriment. The fact is that she has given different versions, she's not searching, and as far as I'm concerned there was a dead body in the bedroom.

 

[madge]

Bradley: "Yeah, but there's no way anybody could have got in."


So DI said there was no way anybody got in!! So she was of enough mind to know that but she "claims" her daughter had to have been kidnapped. Mind blowing to me.

So if nobody could have got in where does that leave Lisa?? No wonder police have not cleared her.

If she found Baby Lisa standing up in the crib at some point while she was partying and smoking on the steps then surely she should have had enough common sense to know the baby was awake and could easily fall out of the floor on her head.

I just have a gut feeling like none I've ever had before that DI knows exactly what happened to her baby and that JI knows as well. I dont' know how they could live with themselves. But I guess if you drink enough you might do it.

 

[Donjeta]

I have been wondering if the 10:30 sighting was removed from the timeline and changed to "i don't remember" because there was some inconsistency about it. DB might have been describing seeing Lisa in different, mutually incompatible ways, or maybe the boys said they didn't see her checking on Lisa. Apparently they were awake at the time since she was talking to them.