Police say parents are not answering vital questions #3

[krimekat]

The child may have been found it Defense Attorneys were not there to impede police. These parents are hiding behind them. It is clear they are not interested in helping. If they wanted their daughter back, they would be at the station.

If LE could have had them for a whole week w/o attorneys, Lisa may be home.

I personally would never speak to LE without legal representation if I was missing a child or if I was robbed or raped or if I was accused of anything. It's just smart to have legal representation when interrogated by LE.

When did Lisa's parents retain representation? IIRC DB & JI spoke with LE without representation at first, then . . . they got smart! :seeya:

 

[melissasmom]

I personally would never speak to LE without legal representation if I was missing a child or if I was robbed or raped or if I was accused of anything. It's just smart to have legal representation when interrogated by LE.

When did Lisa's parents retain representation? IIRC DB & JI spoke with LE without representation at first, then . . . they got smart! :seeya:

Just off the top of my head, I think it was 4 days after Lisa went missing? I am going to bed now or I would try to find a link. I am sure someone here knows the exact day though. They had been questioned a couple of days at least, I know, before they had a lawyer.

 

[RANCH]

I thought is was only for arrest also, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. yeah, I don't really like Wiki, they are sometimes wrong, but the info there seems correct

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote from article:

The Miranda warning (also referred to as Miranda rights) is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. In other words, a Miranda warning is a prophylactic criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer in order to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination

This actually confuses me more though, because it says in police custody or a custodial interrogation. So this still applies to people who give statements of their own volition? Can anyone clarify? Thanks

Thanks to Sherbie who helped me remember about custodial interrogation in regards to Miranda. Basically if a person reasonably feels able to leave while being questioned by police, then it is not a custodial interrogation. Your not entitled to a Miranda warning. You can just walk away and not answer any questions. If you decide to stay it doesn't mean you can't have a lawyer to help you decide what questions you should or shouldn't answer. This doesn't mean your rights are any different, you just don't get a verbal warning telling you what your rights are.

I didn't watch the video that Expectingunicorns linked were John Picerno said that Debbie waived her Miranda rights, so I'm not exactly sure what he meant. If she wasn't in custody, she wouldn't get the Miranda warning. At least LE didn't have to.

 

[DeAnn]

Just off the top of my head, I think it was 4 days after Lisa went missing? I am going to bed now or I would try to find a link. I am sure someone here knows the exact day though. They had been questioned a couple of days at least, I know, before they had a lawyer.

I think Ashley Irwin, who I believe was/is a paralegal and a UMKC law student, was advising them all along. A UMKC law professor was definitely present on Oct. 8 for those interviews.

I don't think there was any official legal representation before Oct. 8 but honestly I think it's a gray area that we've received contradictory info about.

 

[hambirg]

BBM
Police probably do have some questions to ask. Do bad they alienated the people that they wish to ask these questions. MOO.

I"m still catching up, but had to respond to this.

I just don't understand this attitude. Too bad for who?!! LE goes to work and at the end of the day they go home to their families. I'm sure they'd like to solve this case, but when all is said and done, they aren't out anything. Their lives go on, their jobs will continue with new cases. Only DB and JI are out anything. Do they want to find their BL or not?

I used to teach 4th grade, so I have a dummed down analogy for everything. . .here's this one. My car breaks down on the freeway and I call a mechanic to help. The mechanic shows up and he's not very nice to me, so I tell him to get lost. The mechanic gets in his truck and drives away. I'm still on the freeway with a broken down car!!! So I can piss and moan about how mean that mechanic was, but it doesn't help me solve my problem of getting my car fixed. Sooooo. . .too bad for who? Do the Bradley/Irwin's really want to solve their problem? It doesn't look like it.

MOO and all that.

 

[hambirg]

If there was evidence to be seized in the first 3 days of only LE being in the house, we would have seen a search warrant obtained then. The house was turned back over to the parents after this. What good would a search warrant be after this and why let the parents back in?

This actually hurts DB/JI. It implies there is no evidence of a crime. . .

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Are the ones who are here to protect DB's rights saying there is no evidence? When a cadaver dog hits, they want more cadaver dogs, when the dogs don't bark, they say, they were in the back, when the mother fails a poly, they say she was nervous; when they refuse to speak to Le after four days, they say that is their constitutional right. When the same clothing describe she was wearing was found on the premises, we are told she had two of the same outfits.

They say LE was just to mean to them and it is LE's fault that Lisa is not found. IF ONLY LE had been nicer, maybe they would get somewhere.

When told that the chances of a stranger taken a baby, they balk and say it's possible in this case that it could happen. When said no noise was heard on the monitor, they refer to be her being drunk and there is no harm in that. And the final explanation is she may be a drunk but that doesn't mean she harmed her baby.

At what point does it become a point of contention for some people to start questioning and wondering how all the pieces came together and the father was absent for the first time that a stranger found this home and took a ten month old baby? When all these things are put together, it sure makes a pretty good case for the parents having kge.

It appears to me that it is nothing but excuses made for every single thing observed that leans in the direction of parental involvement. It is my opinion and the opinion of people a whole lot smarter than me that this child's demise occurred in that house and the parents both know what happened.

The parents don't want local media in this case. They don't want to talk to LE about their daughter. They have High Profile Defense Attorneys and yet a small faction of people still want to believe they are innocent. It is their right, however, I don't see very much investigation going on to back up the theory of innocence. All I see is constant balking at anyone who suggest the parents are guilty.

This will go forever and it just gets worse. I've been to this rodeo before and have seen this play out before also. It doesn't get better, but can get worse..especially if no resolution happens. That is where it can get ugly. I feel sorry for the mods.

I would suggest that if you have a problem with any of my posts, you use that little alert button up in the corner.

BBM: You can choose to believe what you want, I'm still on the fence. but I think misrepresenting the facts (such as the one I bolded in your very first paragraph) gets us nowhere. For the record AGAIN, DB said baby Lisa was wearing s shirt with kittens on it, NOWHERE in the inventory list does it describe a shirt with kittens on it, it only states a Disney style shirt, multi colored, no mention of kittens. If you want to Assume it is the same shirt, that's your right, just as others have a right to their opinions. AGAIN, I'm not defending DB, I'm basing anything I say on my opinion based on fFACTS.

 

[Whisperer]

I have never had a problem with your posts. It appears that you are thinking I do...and you have decided to call me out. I am not taking the bait.

thanks for the advice on how to complain about posters. I don't do that. I see that some posters here have decided to use it and call in a referee or two . I prefer to let the poster do and say what they want. It is not my style to tattletale. I prefer utilizing "the ignore" button.

....and it is time to update my list.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

People keep saying I am hung up on the Anthony Case...WRONG! I am hung up on the verdict of the jury and how they came to it. There was no "Reasonable Doubt" except in the tunnels and caves inside their brains.
This is where emotion gives way to verdicts such as this. When jurors reason with emotion and refute logic, we get verdicts of not guilty. They also said "no evidence" and they didn't know how she died. The fact that she had duct tape around her head meant nothing to them.

It is the verdict and how people reach that verdict that is disturbing. It was not rooted in logic...but was formed by emotion.

BBM: I think that is a poor excuse to lead DB and / or JI off to slaughter b/c you are not happy with the verdict in another case. Few people are happy with that verdict, but it should NOT mean that every mother of a missing child should be deemed guilty b/c of it. MOO

 

[hambirg]

Miranda rights are not only for those who have been arrested but also for those being interrogated by LE to REMIND them of their Constitutional rights of 1) the right to remain silent, 2) the right to have an attorney present during questioning, 3) the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, and 4) the fact that any statements made by the suspect can be used against him in court.

This doesn't mean the person/suspect had to be arrested, just interrogated by LE -- and yes, you can waive these rights & answer LEs questions with or without representation (premise behind Miranda v Arizona). So if LE is interrogating you for whatever reason you have rights as specified under Miranda v AZ as a suspect. . . if you are providing information to LE on your own accord, there is no need for Miranda rights to be read to you & you are not covered by these rights.

Hope that helps

So does that mean DB's attorney claiming she waived her Miranda rights, mean DB was a suspect?

 

[Whisperer]

BBM: I think that is a poor excuse to lead DB and / or JI off to slaughter b/c you are not happy with the verdict in another case. Few people are happy with that verdict, but it should NOT mean that every mother of a missing child should be deemed guilty b/c of it. MOO

:waiting:

 

[askfornina]

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I"m still catching up, but had to respond to this.

I just don't understand this attitude. Too bad for who?!! LE goes to work and at the end of the day they go home to their families. I'm sure they'd like to solve this case, but when all is said and done, they aren't out anything. Their lives go on, their jobs will continue with new cases. Only DB and JI are out anything. Do they want to find their BL or not?

I used to teach 4th grade, so I have a dummed down analogy for everything. . .here's this one. My car breaks down on the freeway and I call a mechanic to help. The mechanic shows up and he's not very nice to me, so I tell him to get lost. The mechanic gets in his truck and drives away. I'm still on the freeway with a broken down car!!! So I can piss and moan about how mean that mechanic was, but it doesn't help me solve my problem of getting my car fixed. Sooooo. . .too bad for who? Do the Bradley/Irwin's really want to solve their problem? It doesn't look like it.

MOO and all that.

I can see and agree with what you have said here, but I can also see the other side of the coin. using your same analogy, I was a mechanic for many years so i relate to the one you gave above. By the same token if the mechanic keeps insisting on changing a certain engine part over and over and not getting results, and failing to attempt any other cure for the non-starting vehicle, I would send him on his way as well. It reminds me of watching children squabbling with "Did NOT!" ... "Did Too". Catch my drift? I wasn't there for the interview / interrogation, so I don't know what went on, but IF LE kept insisting on getting DB or JI to admit to something that was not truthful, and refusing to look elsewhere, the interview would go nowhere.

It would be nice if we had transcripts of the interview / interrogation so we could make an educated guess as to what happened, who said what etc.

 

[Whisperer]

I have deleted my last comment. This case is too emotionally charged. Many who say they are not convinced the family is guilty are upset by those that think they are. Therefore no logical discussion can take place. All is comes down to is back and forth posting and demanding a fact only board.
'
Since many cases don't have facts, behavior and speech are analyzed and some don't think that is fair either...because it is not a fact. Some demand hard evidence and will accept nothing less. One cadaver dog is not enough, etc.

My conclusion is that nothing will convince those "with no opinion one way or the other" except hard evidence of a body or blood...and sometimes that won't be enough, as we know.

We have watched Kyron and many other cases go unsolved because it is almost impossible to convict a perp w/o a body or confession. And it the body is out in the elements the "people with no opinion" will never be convinced the party is guilty because the evidence is destroyed.

We have reached a new era in this country where if you hide a body well enough and leave no DNA,..hire a criminal defense attorney in the beginning (ala Teri Horman) you can literally get away with murder.

 

[hambirg]

I can see and agree with what you have said here, but I can also see the other side of the coin. using your same analogy, I was a mechanic for many years so i relate to the one you gave above. By the same token if the mechanic keeps insisting on changing a certain engine part over and over and not getting results, and failing to attempt any other cure for the non-starting vehicle, I would send him on his way as well. It reminds me of watching children squabbling with "Did NOT!" ... "Did Too". Catch my drift? I wasn't there for the interview / interrogation, so I don't know what went on, but IF LE kept insisting on getting DB or JI to admit to something that was not truthful, and refusing to look elsewhere, the interview would go nowhere.

It would be nice if we had transcripts of the interview / interrogation so we could make an educated guess as to what happened, who said what etc.

I see what you're saying. . .but to me that is what the defense attorney is for. . .to ensure you don't get screwed over. In this analogy the attorney would be your Uncle Bob. . .he knows everything about auto mechanics, but he doesn't have the tools to fix your car. You call him up and he can watch over the mechanic's shoulder to be sure he's not trying to pull one over on you. LE never asked them to be questioned without their attorney present. So why won't they open the hood? Don't they want to get their car fixed? :waitasec:

 

[leanaí]

IMO she is still guilty of child neglect and if anything it is her fault whatever happened to Lisa, be it she killed her, an accident or someone kidnapped her. Because she sat outside getting drunk, not once checking on her.

If it was any one I knew I would tell them to do everything in there power to get there child back, not to lawyer up in case the LE start pointing fingers at them. Honestly what person who just had there darling baby "stolen" from them thinks like this?

I do not give a **** about the rights of the parents, if a parent isn't talking they should be forced to talk and **** there rights. The safety and wellness of children should come before anything.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I see what you're saying. . .but to me that is what the defense attorney is for. . .to ensure you don't get screwed over. In this analogy the attorney would be your Uncle Bob. . .he knows everything about auto mechanics, but he doesn't have the tools to fix your car. You call him up and he can watch over the mechanic's shoulder to be sure he's not trying to pull one over on you. LE never asked them to be questioned without their attorney present. So why won't they open the hood? Don't they want to get their car fixed? :waitasec:

Again I clearly see your point and it does make good sense. I, as many others, would love to see the parents go in for another interview. I think a good many of us still on the fence will agree that their present lawyer has not always given them the best advice (take that for what it's worth, I'm no lawyer). Personally, I think they were much better off with the local female lawyer (name escapes me at the moment, long day today). And as for BS, someone really needs to kick his phoney rearend to the curb, if you want my honest opinion. He has done little as far as we've seen to further the investigation, or the public perception of the parents.

I think a fresh start with both parents, lawyers and LE is what is needed, regardless of who is responsible for Lisa's disappearance. And if they want to hire a PI, they really need to get someone that can get the job done, without bias, and without alternative motives. Of course the above is all MOO

 

[askfornina]

Again I clearly see your point and it does make good sense. I, as many others, would love to see the parents go in for another interview. I think a good many of us still on the fence will agree that their present lawyer has not always given them the best advice (take that for what it's worth, I'm no lawyer). Personally, I think they were much better off with the local female lawyer (name escapes me at the moment, long day today). And as for BS, someone really needs to kick his phoney rearend to the curb, if you want my honest opinion. He has done little as far as we've seen to further the investigation, or the public perception of the parents.

I think a fresh start with both parents, lawyers and LE is what is needed, regardless of who is responsible for Lisa's disappearance. And if they want to hire a PI, they really need to get someone that can get the job done, without bias, and without alternative motives. Of course the above is all MOO

bbm. Her name is Cyndy Short. She was GREAT, imo. She seemed to really care about this case and she seemed to really care about Lisa. She continued to work on this case even after she was no longer representing DB and JI. I watched the PC she gave when she left the case earlier today, and it was interesting to say the least. Definitely worth a re-watch. I don't want to get too off topic, but here is a link for every one:

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ents-will-hold-a-press-conference-mon-morning

It's two parts.

 

[Whisperer]

I agree with you Leanai about the ridiculousness of not being able to get information from the perps because they lawyered up. It is a sad day in this nation that perp's rights are more important than finding the child.

Almost every case involving children is getting more difficult to convict....due to LE hands being tied and attorneys willing to shut them down form interrogations...

This country is becoming soft along with its new "Progressive" Spin.

Something needs to be done about this. One suggestion is that Criminal Defense cannot step in the first month...or an established time in cases involving babies and children. The heck with this Constitutional Protection and hiding behind it while their babies' bodies are rotting somewhere.

 

[Whisperer]

It's too late now for the important interview. These cases need to be cracked in the beginning before attorneys shut them down. There oughta be a law, except I don't want any more laws, we have way to many now...for defense attorneys to play with.

JI needs to go alone w/o attorney at his side. He will crack. Bradley is seasoned and is tougher...they need to crack JI. Bradley knows he will crack and won't leave his side.