Police say parents are not answering vital questions #3

[highflyer]

Post 37

Ah, fly fishing.

 

[kantoo]

bottom line, to me, is that we won't know what is truth and what is not, unless/until charges are filed.

i find the ever changing time line (and that is from DB and JI, not LE) the most suspicious.

 

[Oriah]

Would a HRD dog alert to a tooth?

That's something IMO that very possibly could decompose unnoticed in a bedroom if there are children in tooth-losing age.

More so than a poopy diaper, anyway. I wouldn't keep those in my bedroom.

Possibly.

 

[Oriah]

Respectfully snipped to answer question:

<What about vomit >


They shouldn't. Not unless the vomit contains human remains. (That's not sarcasm, btw. It's happened.)

 

[Oriah]

The search warrant states that for IT, the search warrant search, all possible points of entry were being processed. My question is were they processed in the very first hours on the first day? If they only did it during the search warrant search, it's a bit too late for it then as many people had been in and out of that house by then.View attachment 19962
This makes me believe that they did not process ALL points of entry in the initial searches. Or is it just me? It really makes it sound like LE made the decision to only process a couple of areas and not all areas of egress.

I just wonder if it was ALL possible points of entry and why not all of the switch plates of the lights that were on or the counter where the phones were at? That all seems like basic stuff to me.

It states 'extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints', and 'possible points of entry.'

To me that means everything was intially processed in a cursury manner, in order to determine what may need further processing- and then further processing was done in areas of interest- and then there was a need for a SW to continue to process in more depth, the areas of interest found in intial processing.

I guess I don't understand the debate?

There are many levels to criminal investigations, and they generally go in stages. It seems to me that this one progressed in a very controlled manner. :waitasec:

 

[Karmaa]

[/B]
Thanks for the offer about the books and I may take you up on that. I might need to get a better feel for some of these cases. However, since you have read them, maybe you could provide us with a profile of the type of person that may have stolen Lisa. There were only about 13 or so that have stolen babies under one year.

Let me see if I understand what you just said.. You don't know anyone that believes they're innocent You say you will only say they are guilty if there is evidence. Nothing has been shown to you that leans you in the direction of guilt.

Well then, what has led you in the direction of them not being innocent?

Nothing.

I don't understand what you are asking. There is nothing that has led me to believe they they are not innocent.

There is also nothing that has led me to believe that they are not guilty.

It is impossible to make an informed decision based on what we have had so far:
~snippets of information - not necessarily in context (LE)
~statements from highly emotional people (Parents/friends/family/other people involved)
~statements from people who make their livings saying things in certain ways (lawyers and journalists)
~assumptions from people watching the case

But, when there is such a strong doubt, I follow the advice of our great and wise forefathers, and give the presumption of innocence to the person under suspicion. That's not the same as believing they are innocent. That just means that they have the right to be TREATED as though they are innocent, until such time as there is evidence to the contrary. And, in this particular case, there is no evidence (that we know of).

 

[natsound]

I am only basing this myself by the way the search warrant was worded. To me it sounds that way. I would think that no matter what, they would have processed EVERY point of egress to know if anybody else had possibly entered or exited in that manner. Whether they did or not, I don't know. If they didn't then how could they know if it was possible or not? It was called in as a kidnapping, they should treat it as such until that possibility is eliminated. I don't see how that could be eliminated that fast if no arrest has been made. I am just saying they SHOULD have, not that they didn't.

I completely agree with that. I felt the same way when I read that on the search warrant. It's as if they did not cover all of their bases that first day. Another strange part of the wording is when they suggest they were proceeding according to what DB and JI said exclusively on that first day. They only processed point A and point B based on what the parents told them initially. Goodness, they're experienced investigators, not kids off the street. I hope we're just getting hung up on the wording and things aren't what they seem.

 

[natsound]

The cadaver dog hit doesn't have Lisa's name in it so even if they were very confident that it was a real hit by several dogs who only alert to cadaver smell and nothing else it could have been somebody else who died there or just partial remains that happened to decompose there or even a transferred smell from a death that happened somewhere else. If I'm understanding correctly the dogs can't tell if it's a dead body or a lost fingertip or another body part that one could live without.

respectfully snipped

I'm wondering if this is true. I've never asked our experts this directly, but I'm led to believe that a dog could pick out the remains of a certain person. Oriah? I see you're up this morning! :seeya: What's your take?

 

[Karmaa]

[/B]
Thanks for the offer about the books and I may take you up on that. I might need to get a better feel for some of these cases. However, since you have read them, maybe you could provide us with a profile of the type of person that may have stolen Lisa. There were only about 13 or so that have stolen babies under one year.

I am a psychology student - getting my degree this spring in fact, but I would never presume to be able to create a profile or to diagnose someone without knowing all the facts. There are all kinds of reasons a person might kidnap a baby, and without knowing what the police know, I couldn't begin to jump to any conclusions. (Not to mention that profiling is a very specialized field - it's totally different than forensic psychology.)

There is a REASON that criminal profilers work for LE. They NEED to know what's going on in a case to make informed opinions. They can't just say that "XXXXX kind of people commit XXXXX crimes." It doesn't work that way. They need to know stuff like: was there a ransom note? Was anything else taken? Were there any strange phone calls beforehand? And a hundred other things, before they can form a meaningful profile. Stuff that we don't know, and only a person with inside access would know.

 

[Oriah]

respectfully snipped

I'm wondering if this is true. I've never asked our experts this directly, but I'm led to believe that a dog could pick out the remains of a certain person. Oriah? I see you're up this morning! :seeya: What's your take?

I'm up every morning- gratefully may I add! We work odd hours.

Yes, there are dogs trained for DNA scent discrimination. It's a constantly emerging and expanding specialty in K9 scent work; one which is supported by many states, as well as federal forensic scientists.

But I don't know if that type of dog was used in Lisa's case.

 

[cityslick]

Nothing.

I don't understand what you are asking. There is nothing that has led me to believe they they are not innocent.

There is also nothing that has led me to believe that they are not guilty.

It is impossible to make an informed decision based on what we have had so far:
~snippets of information - not necessarily in context (LE)
~statements from highly emotional people (Parents/friends/family/other people involved)
~statements from people who make their livings saying things in certain ways (lawyers and journalists)
~assumptions from people watching the case

But, when there is such a strong doubt, I follow the advice of our great and wise forefathers, and give the presumption of innocence to the person under suspicion. That's not the same as believing they are innocent. That just means that they have the right to be TREATED as though they are innocent, until such time as there is evidence to the contrary. And, in this particular case, there is no evidence (that we know of).

This is a great post, thanks. The question you responded to goes off the assumption that one must start from guilty to arrive on 'the fence' and then from there to 'innocent'. It doesn't work like that (or at least doesn't for those that don't have that frame of mind). For example, my frame of mind always starts 'on the fence'. From that point, I need to see and understand enough that would make me lean one way or another. Because I have a high standard for what makes me lean one way or the other, it's extremely rare for me to either get back on the fence or go completely the opposite direction once I made a determination initially on guilt or innocence.

 

[In da Middle]

I completely agree with that. I felt the same way when I read that on the search warrant. It's as if they did not cover all of their bases that first day. Another strange part of the wording is when they suggest they were proceeding according to what DB and JI said exclusively on that first day. They only processed point A and point B based on what the parents told them initially. Goodness, they're experienced investigators, not kids off the street. I hope we're just getting hung up on the wording and things aren't what they seem.

BBM
I hope this is the case on many issues in this case

 

[natsound]

This is a great post, thanks. The question you responded to goes off the assumption that one must start from guilty to arrive on 'the fence' and then from there to 'innocent'. It doesn't work like that (or at least doesn't for those that don't have that frame of mind). For example, my frame of mind always starts 'on the fence'. From that point, I need to see and understand enough that would make me lean one way or another. Because I have a high standard for what makes me lean one way or the other, it's extremely rare for me to either get back on the fence or go completely the opposite direction once I made a determination initially on guilt or innocence.

city, was it you that pointed out in another post that the SW stated that the only areas "extensively" searched were those the parents pointed out? I was thinking for a minute that they didn't process any other area, but that's probably not the case.

 

[cityslick]

city, was it you that pointed out in another post that the SW stated that the only areas "extensively" searched were those the parents pointed out? I was thinking for a minute that they didn't process any other area, but that's probably not the case.

It was probably In Da Middle. I do agree with the thought though that if it is true that they didn't initially process stuff beyond what the parents story, that's not a good job by LE. But I don't know that.

 

[yllek]

It states 'extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints', and 'possible points of entry.'

To me that means everything was intially processed in a cursury manner, in order to determine what may need further processing- and then further processing was done in areas of interest- and then there was a need for a SW to continue to process in more depth, the areas of interest found in intial processing.

I guess I don't understand the debate?

There are many levels to criminal investigations, and they generally go in stages. It seems to me that this one progressed in a very controlled manner. :waitasec:

I agree. I don't understand why we are suggesting that things that are SOP for a crime involving an illegal entry may not have been done when there is nothing to indicate such. We know that in the early consensual search that the possible points of entry were processed, along with DNA processing in the area from which the baby is said to be abducted. That's good and what I'd expect/hope.

Some things will be done at the initial response, others will be done in later stages as the specific type of crime, investigation and findings from earlier evidence collection dictate. To expect to have every single thing done that could ever possibly be done by any CSI team, within hours, while initial investigators are still gathering information at the scene, is imprudent and unrealistic, imo. Some evidence collection processes can hinder other kinds of evidence collection as well. It needs to be done intelligently by professionals. I trust the CSI experts at the KCPD handled the initial consensual processing and later warrant-driven searches like professionals, unless/until evidence to suggest otherwise is produced. JMO...

 

[deoneta]

I am all for giving folks the benefit of doubt. That's why I'm not thinking LE has done anything unprofessional, unethical or dumb simply because nothing I've learned so far has led me to that conclusion. Others may interpret events differently. The presumption of innocence is intended to protect citizens in legal proceedings. If I were a juror, I would base my vote on evidence presented, not gut feelings or the likability of the defendant. Otherwise, I and everybody else have a right to our opinions and to voice those opinions, as much a constitutional right as the right that protects defendants against self incrimination. CA and OJ were found not guilty, but that doesn't stop most people from thinking they are guilty based on common sense. We're not jurors here and there aren't any charges in this case. The behavior and words of these parents may lead some to suspect the worse, but may not carry enough weight with others to make up their mind one way or another. Others might see the parents as genuinely heartbroken and feel their decision to refuse further interviews is only the result of their being unfarily the focus of the investigation.

The attorneys work to promote themselves and keep their clients out of jail. The parents are acting in their own self interest. LE seems to be the only ones thinking about Lisa, trying to figure out what happened and find her. All MOO.

 

[Whisperer]

...IF one believes LE is the only one looking out for Lisa, it is easy to assume the parents aren't as involved in the search. If the parents are involved in searching for their child, it is reasonable to assume they are not interested = guilty.

You don't need a boatload of evidence to announce a suspect if you are not in a court of law. Two sets of jurors have done that and have been unreasonable and unable to apply and understand REASONABLE doubt. This is not a court of law. People take what is given them and come to a reasonable assessment of what may have taken place.

I don't need the constitution to do this and neither does any body else who is posting on a message board. Sometimes there is no HARD evidence and one has to connect the dots.

The two juries referenced were more concerned with the person charged than with giving justice to the victim. Now I see Lisa is getting lost in this mess. These parents need to be interviewed ASAP. LE has stated they are crucial to finding Lisa. They are not interested in talking.

A reasonable person may assume they have guilty kge of what happened to their child.

 

[cityslick]

...IF one believes LE is the only one looking out for Lisa, it is easy to assume the parents aren't as involved in the search. If the parents are involved in searching for their child, it is reasonable to assume they are not interested = guilty.

You don't need a boatload of evidence to announce a suspect if you are not in a court of law. Two sets of jurors have done that and have been unreasonable and unable to apply and understand REASONABLE doubt. This is not a court of law. People take what is given them and come to a reasonable assessment of what may have taken place.

I don't need the constitution to do this and neither does any body else who is posting on a message board. Sometimes there is no HARD evidence and one has to connect the dots.

The two juries referenced were more concerned with the person charged than with giving justice to the victim. Lisa is getting lost in the mess. These parents need to be interviewed ASAP. LE has stated they are crucial to finding Lisa. They are not interested in talking.

A reasonable person may assume they have guilty kge of what happened to their child.

BBM

So are you saying it's unreasonable to think otherwise? Just because it's a difference of opinion doesn't mean it's unreasonable, it means it's a difference of opinion.

 

[Donjeta]

Reasonable people may assume several different things IMO, based on how they weigh the things they know.

 

[MissJames]

...IF one believes LE is the only one looking out for Lisa, it is easy to assume the parents aren't as involved in the search. If the parents are involved in searching for their child, it is reasonable to assume they are not interested = guilty.

You don't need a boatload of evidence to announce a suspect if you are not in a court of law. Two sets of jurors have done that and have been unreasonable and unable to apply and understand REASONABLE doubt. This is not a court of law. People take what is given them and come to a reasonable assessment of what may have taken place.

I don't need the constitution to do this and neither does any body else who is posting on a message board. Sometimes there is no HARD evidence and one has to connect the dots.

The two juries referenced were more concerned with the person charged than with giving justice to the victim. Now I see Lisa is getting lost in this mess. These parents need to be interviewed ASAP. LE has stated they are crucial to finding Lisa. They are not interested in talking.

A reasonable person may assume they have guilty kge of what happened to their child.

I agree. We may not have enough to convict them in a court of law,but I'm highly suspicious of the parents and believe they are involved in whatever happened to Lisa.
That's why they are not willing to meet LE on their terms to answer questions.
Baby Lisa should come first ,shouldn't she?