Police say parents are not answering vital questions

[NotSoSherlock]

I've been going back over this case from the beginning and I'm a little troubled by a statement made by SY on the night of October 4.

I don't have the exact quote but kmbc.com has this little blurb on their Live Wire page:

Capt. Young says Tuesday finished without a single solid tip on Lisa Irwin's disappearance.

by cliffjudy via twitter October 4 at 8:27 PM
​

Really? We know that LP's husband (as well as LP?) reported--that morning--seeing a man carrying a baby. And yet there were no solid leads? It seems they have dismissed this sighting from day one.

You might argue that "they were just playing their cards close to their vest." But then you have the very public, very deliberate beat down of the parents by SY on the 6th when LE claimed they were no longer cooperating.

I guess there are a couple of things we can take from this. Perhaps the sighting really was accounted for. They identified the person and the sighting had nothing to do with BL's disappearance.

Or maybe they have hard evidence on DB and/or JI.

Or maybe--and this is what troubles me--LE developed tunnel vision very early-on and simply couldn't entertain the notion that the parents weren't responsible.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Aargh, this is killing me! I find myself agreeing with people on both sides of the fence! The only good thing about this case is that there is a place with so many smart, informed people with whom to discuss it.

:rose: to my fellow Web Sleuthers!

P.S. I used to work for a cell phone company 10 years ago (anyone remember Nextel?) and I have no idea about the current technology--it changes so quickly!

BBM As it should be, it shows you have an open mind, you aren't jumping to conclusions. You would make a great juror. Kudos to you.

 

[josie1986]

i've read a few posts that have basically said there is no point interviewing JI and DB again after their initial interviews because they have nothing new to ask them and they would just be going over the same questions again.....that maybe so but IMO they have plenty new info that they need to question these 2 about.

as far as i am aware they haven't been interviewed by LE since the first few days now since then we have the HRD hit in the bedroom and the cell phone activity and im sure LE have plenty more info that we don't.

so i wholeheartedly agree that they NEED to be interviewed again like a month ago :furious: and you know what, if this was a case of SODDI i don't see why they wouldn't be willing to be re-interviewed....they were accused of killing lisa BOOHOO what a shame my heart bleeds for them (i am of course being sarcastic :floorlaugh if you want to find your daughter u will walk over hot coals and to hell and back to find her :furious:

the last 2days have taken it right out of me with the tyler dasher case,if i seem blunt apologies but after SAD i am just furious

 

[cindysue]

I've been going back over this case from the beginning and I'm a little troubled by a statement made by SY on the night of October 4.

I don't have the exact quote but kmbc.com has this little blurb on their Live Wire page:

Capt. Young says Tuesday finished without a single solid tip on Lisa Irwin's disappearance.

by cliffjudy via twitter October 4 at 8:27 PM
​

Really? We know that LP's husband (as well as LP?) reported--that morning--seeing a man carrying a baby. And yet there were no solid leads? It seems they have dismissed this sighting from day one.

You might argue that "they were just playing their cards close to their vest." But then you have the very public, very deliberate beat down of the parents by SY on the 6th when LE claimed they were no longer cooperating.

I guess there are a couple of things we can take from this. Perhaps the sighting really was accounted for. They identified the person and the sighting had nothing to do with BL's disappearance.

Or maybe they have hard evidence on DB and/or JI.

Or maybe--and this is what troubles me--LE developed tunnel vision very early-on and simply couldn't entertain the notion that the parents weren't responsible.

exactly!!! They know the statistics and they rely on them to heavily imo..
Statistics are fine in most situations..and if you look at other statistics there was crime around them ..the car breakin...car theft down the street..and useing statistics a criminal steals things close to where he is atm...take a look around ..plenty of suspicous people and stuff going around them to take into consideration...its not hard..
and really what can the parents say about that night ..the dad work...knows nothing..the mom possibly passed out ..knows nothing either...if they cant work past the parents ..then they arent going to be able to solve this crime imo...how many crimes go unsolved..is it that the method is if its not obvious then we cant solve it??

 

[tink92]

I've been going back over this case from the beginning and I'm a little troubled by a statement made by SY on the night of October 4.

I don't have the exact quote but kmbc.com has this little blurb on their Live Wire page:

Capt. Young says Tuesday finished without a single solid tip on Lisa Irwin's disappearance.

by cliffjudy via twitter October 4 at 8:27 PM
​

Really? We know that LP's husband (as well as LP?) reported--that morning--seeing a man carrying a baby. And yet there were no solid leads? It seems they have dismissed this sighting from day one.

You might argue that "they were just playing their cards close to their vest." But then you have the very public, very deliberate beat down of the parents by SY on the 6th when LE claimed they were no longer cooperating.

I guess there are a couple of things we can take from this. Perhaps the sighting really was accounted for. They identified the person and the sighting had nothing to do with BL's disappearance.

Or maybe they have hard evidence on DB and/or JI.

Or maybe--and this is what troubles me--LE developed tunnel vision very early-on and simply couldn't entertain the notion that the parents weren't responsible.

I agree Sherlock,...It was very strange that seemed to dismiss what does apperar to be a very credible sighting...especially with what we now know...that the sprinkler house is connected to the last phonecall made from the cell phone..At the time..day one...we all knew nothing of cell phones or phone calls...so this witness is very very credible.

Could it be that LE already knew of the connection and were hunting for Jersey from day one...but needed to keep it on the downlow and get him in custody?

 

[tink92]

Oh..i just thought as well....It was very strange that no E fit was released of the bald man carrying a baby?...we only heard about it at all through the witness herself. LE said nothing. Very strange..no description released..nothing..(unless i missed it?)
I think LE were already hunting him...they knew who this man was likely to be.

 

[curvecuti]

As has been said here countless times, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. There was a sighting of a man carrying a baby in the Tyler Dasher case too. And come to find out, the baby was dead, killed by his Mother. I don't put much stock in what the eyewitnesses saw, moo.

 

[cityslick]

Although I'm sure they certainly want to check for inconsistencies (that's why LE always separates potential witnesses - it helps get to the truth), I think it's also possible they feel one or the other of the parents may feel like they can speak more freely about certain things without the other present. So, not just to see if their stories match up, but to see if the parents might offer something individually that they wouldn't in the presence of the other.



I honestly don't know whether they did something or know anything more than they've already told LE. But this "standoff" with LE needs to be put in perspective.

It is the parents whose precious baby is missing and needs to be brought home. They don't "win" anything by being stubborn about the interviews. There is nothing to gain by stonewalling LE (certainly doesn't help convince LE to redirect the investigation), but potentially everything to lose. The parents have the vested interest here - far more than LE ever could - it's their child's life at stake. Being petulant because they're pissed at the way LE has treated them doesn't help Lisa one tiny bit.

I agree with Katshep upthread that JT is giving fairly standard defense attorney advice, but that's all it is - advice intended to protect the legal interests of the parents. He is doing his job. But it's not mandatory the parents follow that advice. In any other situation, it'd be pretty clear cut, but when your own child is the victim, protecting yourself comes a distant second to protecting your child.

If the parents are uninvolved in Lisa's disappearance, how in the world could they possibly know that they have nothing else to offer that might help? Why not give an innocent, helpless baby every chance, do all humanly possible to assist LE in finding her? If innocent (and they may well be), it sure seems mighty selfish to put their interests ahead of the baby's.

I realize that different people react differently in crisis situations; however, it's fairly universal that parents would lay down their lives in a heartbeat for their children. So it's difficult to understand that protecting themselves seems to be the priority.

I can't imagine passing up any opportunity to find my child, no matter how remote the possibility seems. You just never know what memory might be triggered, what we might think unimportant that to LE helps piece something together. In addition, if both are innocent, they may be able to redirect LE's focus by their honest responses to new questions.

I don't expect what we or anyone else think of the parents to influence their decisions, but I do expect them to get back in there and do anything they possibly can to help. This sweet baby deserves at least that much from her parents, regardless the cost to them.

I'm looking at it from a completely innocent standpoint (which they may or may not be). From their point of view, they have subjected themselves to interviews and interrogations, together and seperate. They've been answering questions from LE (that's the biggest misconception about this case, is that the parents have not that a word to LE since those initial interviews. I do not believe that is the case and will continue not to believe until LE says that specifically the parents aren't talking them anymore).

Maybe their mindset is that the seperate interviews only purpose it to intimidate them and perhaps even turn against each other. So they believe that does nothing to find Lisa, all it does is allow LE to have open season on the parents. And I don't think it's just them that have this mindset, I think it's everyone around them, lawyers/family/friends/etc. So everyone you know is telling you the LE is out to get you, that going in for seperate interviews does not help Lisa because LE thinks your guilty. I know everyone is going to say 'you do whatever it takes, even if you think that', but peer pressure is a strong thing. This isn't just about their daughter, it's about the grandparents granddaughter, brothers and sisters niece. All of these people could be telling them the same thing, don't do it. Answer questions, provide any info you have, but not in the setting that LE wants.

 

[NotSoSherlock]

exactly!!! They know the statistics and they rely on them to heavily imo..
Statistics are fine in most situations..and if you look at other statistics there was crime around them ..the car breakin...car theft down the street..and useing statistics a criminal steals things close to where he is atm...take a look around ..plenty of suspicous people and stuff going around them to take into consideration...its not hard..
and really what can the parents say about that night ..the dad work...knows nothing..the mom possibly passed out ..knows nothing either...if they cant work past the parents ..then they arent going to be able to solve this crime imo...how many crimes go unsolved..is it that the method is if its not obvious then we cant solve it??

The more I think about it the more I believe that, yes indeed, LE had tunnel vision. I do believe, however, that they had an epiphany on Oct. 8th and may have changed their focus.

MW was first interviewed on the 8th. She tells us that LE told her that DB had MW's phone number written on her hand. (This is likely a lie by LE.) If LE actually said that then that tells me that--at that point--LE is still focused on DB.

At some point during the interview LE learns that JT is MW's ex-boyfriend. MW describes the detectives as having what I might call a "eureka" moment. Which seems to indicate JT wasn't even on their radar until then.

It just seems to me that those first 4 days LE was focused on DB like a laser. If so then valuable time could have been lost because of it.

All JMO.

 

[tink92]

As has been said here countless times, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. There was a sighting of a man carrying a baby in the Tyler Dasher case too. And come to find out, the baby was dead, killed by his Mother. I don't put much stock in what the eyewitnesses saw, moo.

Iam normally sceptical myself....but I truly believe the 12.15am sighting at the sprinker house is very credible. This witness came forward straight away with a sighting thats fits in perfectly with other "evidence"..The owners being away..the dumpster fire behind the house..the homeless man who fits the description had been working on the house. He was wearing a white tee that day as per the descripition. And the biggie....the cell phone called his ex girlfriend just before the sighting.


This is not someone who just wanted their 15 minutes...this was a real sighting. All the hundreds of houses in the area and sighting just happens at the ONE house that has the connection to the last phonecall....a phonecall we knew nothing about at the time the sighting was reported.


Now the man on the motorbike...not sure about that one..:waitasec:

 

[curvecuti]

Iam normally sceptical myself....but I truly believe the 12.15am sighting at the sprinker house is very credible. This witness came forward straight away with a sighting thats fits in perfectly with other "evidence"..The owners being away..the dumpster fire behind the house..the homeless man who fits the description had been working on the house. He was wearing a white tee that day as per the descripition. And the biggie....the cell phone called his ex girlfriend just before the sighting.


This is not someone who just wanted their 15 minutes...this was a real sighting. All the hundreds of houses in the area and sighting just happens at the ONE house that has the connection to the last phonecall....a phonecall we knew nothing about at the time the sighting was reported.


Now the man on the motorbike...not sure about that one..:waitasec:

I just don't buy it. If I see a strange man carrying a naked baby in my neighborhood after midnight, near my house, I am going to at least say "Hey, can I help you, everything thing ok?" Depending on how that goes, I would call the police. Who doesn't bat an eye at the sight of a man carrying a naked baby after midnight? Makes no sense to me.

 

[cityslick]

I just don't buy it. If I see a strange man carrying a naked baby in my neighborhood after midnight, near my house, I am going to at least say "Hey, can I help you, everything thing ok?" Depending on how that goes, I would call the police. Who doesn't bat an eye at the sight of a man carrying a naked baby after midnight? Makes no sense to me.

Not everyone does what you would do though. Especially if the baby wasn't crying or carrying on that showed distress. What if the answer you got back was 'yea I'm fine'. You're going to start interrogating the person right then and there?

 

[tink92]

I just don't buy it. If I see a strange man carrying a naked baby in my neighborhood after midnight, near my house, I am going to at least say "Hey, can I help you, everything thing ok?" Depending on how that goes, I would call the police. Who doesn't bat an eye at the sight of a man carrying a naked baby after midnight? Makes no sense to me.

Well they did "bat an eye"...they both (man and wife) thought it was very strange. If I remember correctly the man who witnessed thought about saying something but then saw the bald man walking up to a house....(the sprinkler house)..so figured he was taking the baby inside.

They came forward with a description the very next morning as soon as they heard of baby lisas disapearence.

 

[curvecuti]

Well they did "bat an eye"...they both (man and wife) thought it was very strange. If I remember correctly the man who witnessed thought about saying something but then saw the bald man walking up to a house....(the sprinkler house)..so figured he was taking the baby inside.

They came forward with a description the very next morning as soon as they heard of baby lisas disapearence.

Yeah, unfortunately, that was a little too late. And I also found it strange that the man who actually saw this person would not even show his face on camera. Odd.

And just to be clear, yes it is what I would do. Yes, I would ask questions and like I said in my post, depending on the answers I got, I would call the police. And frankly, I don't know anyone that wouldn't question a strange man in the neighborhood after midnight with a naked baby. Glad I'm not neighbors with those people. Moo.

 

[Kavya01]

I just still DO not get how ANYTHING! ANYTHING! can feel worse than having your baby vanished!!!!

As parents!!! HOW in the HOT place can you hide behind:
"Oooh!! Oh, woe my poor sensibilities! I don't want to get interviewed singly, or interrogated, and go through pain because, ooooh ouchy my poor feelings!"

Sorry, but fourletterword that.

That could possibly feel worse than the knife through where once your heart was because you no longer have your baby HOW exactly!!???
You know what, D and J? You take it! You do it!
You beg on the police doorstep to be allowed inside right alongside the detectives investigating 24/7 and offer such embarrassing details as:

"oh and the underwear I wore that day was the green and pink plaid with the big hole in the seam and also I forgot to floss, and I picked at the calluses on my big toe and left the dead skin on the coffee table."

Because what else matters anymore!! What else about you but that your baby please come home so you can be whole again!

Fourletterword it all. I suppose a break for me is in order too much weeping about Tyler too
fftobed:

 

[Marshmallow]

I've never before seen a case where hatred for LE ruled out over concern for a missing baby.

 

[cindysue]

You can rack your brain over and over again and still get nothing...what really can the parents tell the LE...father gone to work..he knows nothing...mom when to bed..possibly passed out .if not drunk and sleeping heavy ...knows nothing ..its the perfect storm for this to happen...but i think thats all it is someone took advantage of a perfect situation...

 

[Kavya01]

I've never before seen a case where hatred for LE ruled out over concern for a missing baby.

:takeabow::goodpost:

Makes one think now, does it not.

Well, maybe Caylee's case. But yes, we all realize why THAT was.

 

[Marshmallow]

You can rack your brain over and over again and still get nothing...what really can the parents tell the LE...father gone to work..he knows nothing...mom when to bed..possibly passed out .if not drunk and sleeping heavy ...knows nothing ..its the perfect storm for this to happen...but i think thats all it is someone took advantage of a perfect situation...

then I hope both noncustodial parents yank those boys out of there quick before another perfect storm occurs.

 

[tink92]

Yeah, unfortunately, that was a little too late. And I also found it strange that the man who actually saw this person would not even show his face on camera. Odd.

And just to be clear, yes it is what I would do. Yes, I would ask questions and like I said in my post, depending on the answers I got, I would call the police. And frankly, I don't know anyone that wouldn't question a strange man in the neighborhood after midnight with a naked baby. Glad I'm not neighbors with those people. Moo.

i don't find that odd...to me it makes him even more credible. Maybe its just me..I don't know..but NO WAY would I be showing my face to MSM either!..I would be helping LE and that is IT.