Police say parents are not answering vital questions

[Whisperer]

Stroud's is just a landmark to the property that was actually searched. I don't think Stroud's in and of itself is anything. Just that locals know exactly what area was searched at 35 and Vivion. If you have ever eaten at Stroud's, you know why! mmmmmmmmm

oh...okay. Thanks. It sure looked like a good place for the locals. Why would they be searching there? It is 16 miles away. Is there any connection of a family member nearby. Does Sean B live out that way? Or Anthony B? Anyone of the family. It just seems odd to go 16 miles out w/o a good reason.

 

[Whisperer]

Speaking of Sean B. What exactly is his mental condition. I read that there were problems since his return from war in 2007...yet he joined National Guard, IIRC..no? If accepted in Guard, I would think he is okay...does anyone have information?

 

[Whisperer]

Does anyone have the location of the Starbucks where JI worked that nite?

 

[In da Middle]

They have done several searches for Lisa behind this place. Somehow, some way, somebody in this case was seen there that day...or so it seems.

Only 1 search there that I know of. They were actually searching, from my info, the city-owned park property that runs along it, using Stroud's as the possible access point. Also around here if somebody just said they were searching at Vivion & I-35, we wouldn't know exactly where. But when they say behind Stroud's, we know it is the north west corner of that intersection and the woods behind it. They can't just say behind Stroud's because there used to be 2 of them so people around here would ask which one - north or south.

 

[Whisperer]

Only 1 search there that I know of. They were actually searching, from my info, the city-owned park property that runs along it, using Stroud's as the possible access point. Also around here if somebody just said they were searching at Vivion & I-35, we wouldn't know exactly where. But when they say behind Stroud's, we know it is the north west corner of that intersection and the woods behind it. They can't just say behind Stroud's because there used to be 2 of them so people around here would ask which one - north or south.

...just searched it again...

http://www.kctv5.com/story/16017789...hday-and-still-few-clues?clienttype=printable

 

[RANCH]

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. The question is why shouldn't police go through a third party (defense attorneys) to ask a question of a witness?.

Aside from the obvious being protocol and legal ramifications, there is technique. When interviewing, it is necessary to see the reaction and the immediate response, not filtered through the mouth of an attorney.

I guess I missed the obvious. I'm not sure what the protocol and legal ramifications are about asking questions to a party thru their attorney. Technique? Sure, of course LE would want an advantage while interrogating someone.

 

[Whisperer]

What is making LE look at this property? It is highly unusual to go that far out. They have a lead to have done this more than once...imo.

 

[In da Middle]

...just searched it again...

http://www.kctv5.com/story/16017789...hday-and-still-few-clues?clienttype=printable

Thanks. I don't know now if that is the time I was aware of or not. Kind of blending. That was dated the 11th. My point is just that I don't think the mentioning of Stroud's is anyting more than a landmark kind of thing. It's good that they are searching that area though. It's a large wooded area. Maybe Stroud's surveillance cameras had something of interest showing on them? Or maybe a possible susect works or has worked there and would be familiar with the woods around it?

 

[RANCH]

I will assume you are coming from a frame of reference other than custody.

Custody? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[In da Middle]

What is making LE look at this property? It is highly unusual to go that far out. They have a lead to have done this more than once...imo.

Almost everything they have looked at, they have looked at more than once in this case. I think it's a good thing myself. The more eyes the better.

 

[Whisperer]

Custody? I'm not sure what you mean.

Custody refers to the LE point of view..

 

[Whisperer]

Thanks. I don't know now if that is the time I was aware of or not. Kind of blending. That was dated the 11th. My point is just that I don't think the mentioning of Stroud's is anyting more than a landmark kind of thing. It's good that they are searching that area though. It's a large wooded area. Maybe Stroud's surveillance cameras had something of interest showing on them? Or maybe a possible susect works or has worked there and would be familiar with the woods around it?

Exactly...that is why I am asking about the family and its extended members. LE had to have received a tip or surveillance that led them there.

 

[RANCH]

Custody refers to the LE point of view..

The parents aren't in custody at this point. How would that affect LE asking questions thru their attorney?

 

[Whisperer]

Does anyone have the location of the Starbucks where JI worked that nite?

:waitasec:

Does anyone know where JI works during day?

 

[suzilight]

It is strange, but I think it's nothing more than DB, when faced with a camera on her, making an excuse for why she didn't. She didn't look in the backyard, in my opinion, because she knew BL wasn't there. But she can't say that in an interview, so she pulls this excuse out of her behind.

One thing that keeps coming up for me is the very candid moment, where I think, JI almost makes a Freudian slip when asked who would do something like this. He said something like. . .maybe someone who was cheating on her husband. I don't remember if he even finished the statement or cut himself off. But I think that was telling in some way.

I also think the 10:30pm time is going to end up being significant. DB's first story has her checking on BL at that time. It's also the time she supposedly went inside to go to sleep. But later, she changes that to she can't remember. . .she didn't see BL after 6:40pm. Idk, but I think that could be a CYA in case they do find BL and her TOD ends up being before 10:30pm.

All MOO

Does anyone have a link for the statement made by JI about someone cheating on her husband? I have seen it mentioned several times, but I never saw it. TIA.

 

[Jacie Estes]

The parents aren't in custody at this point. How would that affect LE asking questions thru their attorney?

BBM Fortunately, if they were then we have slid further into 'freedoms lost' in this country. From day one the parents spoke with police, on more than one occasion, DB took a lie detector test and was 'told' by LE she failed. We don't know that that is truth or LE tactic. She was shown burnt clothes and told she was white trash and that she killed her baby. At that point, as was her constitutionally guaranteed right, she did not have to say anymore. Then she got representation, as did Jeremy. A benefactor saw the way this case was going and that the parents were being button-holed into 'suspect' mode and stepped into the fray. I'm glad they did so.

 

[In da Middle]

[/b]

Exactly...that is why I am asking about the family and its extended members. LE had to have received a tip or surveillance that led them there.

Why does it necessarily have to be a family member?

 

[In da Middle]

:waitasec:

Does anyone know where JI works during day?

He works for the same company during the day as he worked for that one night.

 

[Whisperer]

The parents aren't in custody at this point. How would that affect LE asking questions thru their attorney?

When I refer to custody, I am not referring to anyone being held at the jail. I am referring to myself and people like myself who think and react more like LE than otherwise. My frame of reference is custodial. I see things more from a LE perspective than from a Defensive (legal) position.

Others see things from the point of view of protection of citizens rights at all costs and they usually aren't thinking like a police officer would when it comes to perps and their possible guilt.

 

[MissJames]

I guess I missed the obvious. I'm not sure what the protocol and legal ramifications are about asking questions to a party thru their attorney. Technique? Sure, of course LE would want an advantage while interrogating someone.

A back and forth conversation would be a more effective way of trying to figure out what happened to baby Lisa that night. As the questions come up and answers are given it may trigger a memory or the parents may view something in a different way.
A lot of info has been bandied about on this forum and in the media .LE continues to get tips.Wouldn't it be helpful if they could sit down with each parent and ask "did you happen to notice a silver Honda accord leave behind you as you left the grocery store?" " and a conversation flows from that ."Yes,I see that lady around there all the time.She's always been very friendly".................I completely made up that scenario ,but you can see how a discussion would make more sense than asking a question,waiting on a scripted ,sanitized reply ,then coming back with a follow up question.
LE is trying to find their baby ,after all.