Police say parents are not answering vital questions

[Donjeta]

JMO but I believe LE would primarily prefer to solve this case instead of getting someone imprisoned on the basis of a deliberately misunderstood answer.

I don't understand why the parents need to be given the benefit of doubt for everything and LE for nothing.

LE are not the bad guys here, IMO. Maybe the parents aren't either. But I don't believe LE is determined to fabricate evidence in order to persecute innocent parents.

 

[Kavya01]

4. They are worried about being psychologically manipulated into a false confession.

Isn't this why a lawyer will also be present? So that this will NOT happen??

 

[Karmaa]

SBM
How can we see that?

We have a rough timeline.
-We know that until at least 10:30pm DB was accounted for.
-We know that until 11:30pm her house was dark and people were standing outside.
-We know that Lisa was gone at 3:30am

That leaves four hours.

In that 3 hours, DB would have had to

-Wake up
-Kill the baby
-Find someone to help her (with no working phone)
-Dispose of the baby somewhere where 2 months later she wouldn't be found
-Dispose of the cell phones
-Clean up all traces of the crime
-Go back to bed and (probably) fall asleep

Logic says that this would be very, very difficult. NOT impossible (which is why I personally am still on the fence), but really hard to fit in four hours.

That is assuming that there is confirmation that Lisa was alive at the time that the neighbor came over, and we have gotten snippets of information that she was.

That's just based on what we KNOW. There are possibly many other things that we do not know. When those things are discovered, they may support either guilt or innocence.

 

[Kavya01]

We have a rough timeline.
-We know that until at least 10:30pm DB was accounted for.
-We know that until 11:30pm her house was dark and people were standing outside.
-We know that Lisa was gone at 3:30am

That leaves four hours.

In that 3 hours, DB would have had to

-Wake up
-Kill the baby
-Find someone to help her (with no working phone)
-Dispose of the baby somewhere where 2 months later she wouldn't be found
-Dispose of the cell phones
-Clean up all traces of the crime
-Go back to bed and (probably) fall asleep

Logic says that this would be very, very difficult. NOT impossible (which is why I personally am still on the fence), but really hard to fit in four hours.

That is assuming that there is confirmation that Lisa was alive at the time that the neighbor came over, and we have gotten snippets of information that she was.

That's just based on what we KNOW. There are possibly many other things that we do not know. When those things are discovered, they may support either guilt or innocence.

See and I am just of the opposite notion. I think it would be three times as much time as required for even an accident to happen, followed by a hurried, knee-jerk, panicky cover up. So, I guess I'll agree to disagree and know that at least we are all united in that we feel very sad about the victim, Lisa.

 

[Sabot]

BBM.
Call me naive. But am I reading right that police ON purpose rather trip people into giving answers that are lies rather than getting to the truth?

Why on earth would that benefit anything?

No you are not reading right. I didn't say anything about Lies. But answers tosome carefully worded questions can be twisted, especially if there is no definite Yes or No answer.

And it is a fact that some members of LE do have tunnel vision. They fixate on a suspect and then twist the evidence to suit their concept. This is why innocent people sometimes get convicted of crimes they didn't commit. And even you must know that this happens

 

[Donjeta]

We have a rough timeline.
-We know that until at least 10:30pm DB was accounted for.
-We know that until 11:30pm her house was dark and people were standing outside.
-We know that Lisa was gone at 3:30am

That leaves four hours.

In that 3 hours, DB would have had to

-Wake up
-Kill the baby
-Find someone to help her (with no working phone)
-Dispose of the baby somewhere where 2 months later she wouldn't be found
-Dispose of the cell phones
-Clean up all traces of the crime
-Go back to bed and (probably) fall asleep

Logic says that this would be very, very difficult. NOT impossible (which is why I personally am still on the fence), but really hard to fit in four hours.

That is assuming that there is confirmation that Lisa was alive at the time that the neighbor came over, and we have gotten snippets of information that she was.

That's just based on what we KNOW. There are possibly many other things that we do not know. When those things are discovered, they may support either guilt or innocence.

None of that sounds logically impossible or even very difficult to me. *shrug* If the timeline is from 10.30 or 11.30 to 3.45 that's several hours, more than enough imo. A person can wake up in a matter of seconds and even so I don't think that the lights being out are confirmation that she was ever asleep. A baby can be killed in a split second and if there is no bleeding there is not going to be a lot of evidence to clean up. The river is pretty near and it probably wouldn't take several hours to throw both the phones and the baby in there, or maybe there is another tank nearby that the police haven't found yet. Whether or not she was asleep when Jeremy came I have no idea. It could very well be that the lights were on because she had been up just moments before but pretended to be asleep when JI arrived.

 

[Kavya01]

No you are not reading right. I didn't say anything about Lies. But answers tosome carefully worded questions can be twisted, especially if there is no definite Yes or No answer.

And it is a fact that some members of LE do have tunnel vision. They fixate on a suspect and then twist the evidence to suit their concept. This is why innocent people sometimes get convicted of crimes they didn't commit. And even you must know that this happens

Semantics I suppose. To me an answer elicited ON purpose to be misconstrued is eliciting an answer that is an UN-truth. An untruth is a lie, in my book.

 

[Karmaa]

BBM.
Call me naive. But am I reading right that police ON purpose rather trip people into giving answers that are lies rather than getting to the truth?

Why on earth would that benefit anything?

LE does not set out to "frame" people. BUT they know how to manipulate people into confessing their crimes. That manipulation involves psychological techniques that are designed to trip people up, and if a person is guilty, that gives LE a foothold into getting them to confess.

The problem is that sometimes innocent people will get so confused that they begin to believe that maybe they did do something and forgot or blocked it out. This is a very well documented and researched phenomenon. It's very related to "false memory syndrome" (which you may want to look up on Google. It's really interesting.)

Anyway, the process involves deliberate psychological intimidation, deliberately making the subject feel uncomfortable and vulnerable, and suggesting scenarios that allow the subject to admit guilt without confessing to more lurid details. (Look up the Reid Technique - there are 9 steps to the process, and MOST LE interrogators used this system, or something really similar.) This is great if the subject is guilty. If they are innocent - not so much.

So NO. Cops are not the BAD GUYS. But sometimes innocent people get caught up in the process. And chances are, if they are being interviewed, LE already suspects them. If they confess, LE will stop looking towards other scenarios.

 

[Sabot]

Semantics I suppose. To me an answer elicited ON purpose to be misconstrued is eliciting an answer that is an UN-truth. An untruth is a lie, in my book.

I wish it were that simple, but it isn't I'm afraid. The question is often more suspect than the answer.

 

[Sabot]

LE does not set out to "frame" people. BUT they know how to manipulate people into confessing their crimes. That manipulation involves psychological techniques that are designed to trip people up, and if a person is guilty, that gives LE a foothold into getting them to confess.

The problem is that sometimes innocent people will get so confused that they begin to believe that maybe they did do something and forgot or blocked it out. This is a very well documented and researched phenomenon. It's very related to "false memory syndrome" (which you may want to look up on Google. It's really interesting.)

Anyway, the process involves deliberate psychological intimidation, deliberately making the subject feel uncomfortable and vulnerable, and suggesting scenarios that allow the subject to admit guilt without confessing to more lurid details. (Look up the Reid Technique - there are 9 steps to the process, and MOST LE interrogators used this system, or something really similar.) This is great if the subject is guilty. If they are innocent - not so much.

So NO. Cops are not the BAD GUYS. But sometimes innocent people get caught up in the process. And chances are, if they are being interviewed, LE already suspects them. If they confess, LE will stop looking towards other scenarios.

This is so true. I was once accused of shop lifting in London when I lived in Devon. The Police did this because they forgot to take my finger prints in an entirely unrelated matter. I spent days trying to remember if I had been in London when I knew without doubt that I hadn't been. But my mind told me that I might have blocked it or something, because The Police don't tell lies.
This was such a spurious reason for doing this to me. And I will never trust another policeman as long as I live.

 

[Tuffy]

4. They are worried about being psychologically manipulated into a false confession.

I don't think their attorney would let that happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karmaa]

None of that sounds logically impossible or even very difficult to me. *shrug* If the timeline is from 10.30 or 11.30 to 3.45 that's several hours, more than enough imo. A person can wake up in a matter of seconds and even so I don't think that the lights being out are confirmation that she was ever asleep. A baby can be killed in a split second and if there is no bleeding there is not going to be a lot of evidence to clean up. The river is pretty near and it probably wouldn't take several hours to throw both the phones and the baby in there, or maybe there is another tank nearby that the police haven't found yet. Whether or not she was asleep when Jeremy came I have no idea. It could very well be that the lights were on because she had been up just moments before but pretended to be asleep when JI arrived.

I just noticed - I said 3 hours. I MEANT 4 hours. I don't know why the 3 and the 4 have to be so close together on my keyboard!:dunno: lol.

Anyway, that's why I said it was not impossible. BUT, think about yourself and the people you know closely, maybe a mother or sister or your best friend.

First: what would you do if there was an accident? Call 911 or someone FAST, right? I believe MOST people would. Maybe not someone with a history of child abuse and CPS visits and stuff, but I see DB as being a basically "normal" person in this regard.

Second: just suppose that you flipped out and (God forbid) threw the baby against the wall or something. How long do you think it would take you to pull yourself together to even THINK about covering it up? (Again, someone with a history of impulse problems might be faster due to experience at making really bad choices and covering up, but we are talking about a relatively "normal" person.)

I am real close to getting my psychology doc, so I know that there are some really whacko people out there, and that you can NEVER predict what anyone is capable of doing. But there are things called "schemas", that tell us if people are LIKELY to do certain things, based on things they have done in the past.

What that means is that people with a history of having impulse issues are more likely to have experienced punishment or attention for those problems. If DB had a history of child neglect or abuse, that would be a tally in the probably guilty column. But she doesn't. And aside from some rumors of behavioral stuff as a young person, there is nothing else to indicate it. (O/T but when you compare this to the OCD mom of Sky, in Washington - you can see what I am talking about. She had been accused of having mental issues, she had been accused of threatening to kill her children - true? or not?, and she has a mental illness. I would NOT use the same "schema" parameters on her as I would for DB.)

None of that is PROOF, of course. It is just one more piece of the puzzle.

 

[Detective Klimpt]

The river is pretty near and it probably wouldn't take several hours to throw both the phones and the baby in there, or maybe there is another tank nearby that the police haven't found yet.

Refer me to the distance from the house to the river. I know it was stated somewhere on here early on. Your logic and mine are very different. I suppose it has to do with whether or not we think DB is responsible.

BL was around 30 pounds and DB does not look all that 'fit' to me. Carrying 30 pounds of dead weight to the river while in a panic and afraid of getting caught raises some serious reasonable doubt to me. I don't know what the river bank in Kansas City looks like or if there is a bridge or something where someone could stand and toss a baby, but I don't think so from what I've read. If DB was down near the water, she would have evidence on her shoes (mud/sand?) and likely other tell-tale signs of being near the water.

Also, DB acting alone means leaving the boys alone for a while and assumes that during the time she was gone, neither boy woke up and noticed her gone.

Nope, I'm not buying into this theory at all. I could believe a theory where DB did something and had another person put the body in the river (or somewhere), but in order for me to believe that, I would need to know how she contacted her assistant. Everybody that believes DB did it, cannot come up with how she contacted her assistant. No working phone, and even she had a phone that did work, LE has probably looked at incoming calls to the phones of all connected people and POI's.

I am very much in agreement with what poster KARMAA wrote, and posted similarly on a recent thread.

One thing Wild Bill said early on is "tell me how she did it". I have yet to hear a believable theory of how she did it.

 

[cityslick]

Refer me to the distance from the house to the river. I know it was stated somewhere on here early on. Your logic and mine are very different. I suppose it has to do with whether or not we think DB is responsible.

BL was around 30 pounds and DB does not look all that 'fit' to me. Carrying 30 pounds of dead weight to the river while in a panic and afraid of getting caught raises some serious reasonable doubt to me. I don't know what the river bank in Kansas City looks like or if there is a bridge or something where someone could stand and toss a baby, but I don't think so from what I've read. If DB was down near the water, she would have evidence on her shoes (mud/sand?) and likely other tell-tale signs of being near the water.

Also, DB acting alone means leaving the boys alone for a while and assumes that during the time she was gone, neither boy woke up and noticed her gone.

Nope, I'm not buying into this theory at all. I could believe a theory where DB did something and had another person put the body in the river (or somewhere), but in order for me to believe that, I would need to know how she contacted her assistant. Everybody that believes DB did it, cannot come up with how she contacted her assistant. No working phone, and even she had a phone that did work, LE has probably looked at incoming calls to the phones of all connected people and POI's.

I am very much in agreement with what poster KARMAA wrote, and posted similarly on a recent thread.

One thing Wild Bill said early on is "tell me how she did it". I have yet to hear a believable theory of how she did it.

Excellent post.

In regards to what I bolded, I can respect that people have their opinion that they believe DB is responsible. But like you said, I haven't seen a whole lot of theories that explain exactly how it was done and motive. And I think that is because there really isn't a whole lot of evidence that points to DB. Everyone who believes that DB is responsible is putting all their eggs in the basket based on the dog hit, which isn't a 100% guarantee of anything, DB not wanting to subject herself to another seperate interview and 'statistics'. There is nothing that points to the how. There is nothing that even points to a possible reason as to why she would do this.

I think there is something to be said that it's because of those 'statistics' that DB doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. It's because this case happened in the shadow of the FCA verdict that DB doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. I don't think either of those are fair. I think each case should stand on it's own. Whenever someone goes off on statistics, I bring up the 'dying in a plane crash' correlation. Which is, everyone says flying is the safest form of travel, but yet people still die in plane accidents.

Why can't it be, most abductions are usually by a parent, yet stranger abductions happen?

 

[Donjeta]

I just noticed - I said 3 hours. I MEANT 4 hours. I don't know why the 3 and the 4 have to be so close together on my keyboard!:dunno: lol.

Anyway, that's why I said it was not impossible. BUT, think about yourself and the people you know closely, maybe a mother or sister or your best friend.

First: what would you do if there was an accident? Call 911 or someone FAST, right? I believe MOST people would. Maybe not someone with a history of child abuse and CPS visits and stuff, but I see DB as being a basically "normal" person in this regard.

Second: just suppose that you flipped out and (God forbid) threw the baby against the wall or something. How long do you think it would take you to pull yourself together to even THINK about covering it up? (Again, someone with a history of impulse problems might be faster due to experience at making really bad choices and covering up, but we are talking about a relatively "normal" person.)

I am real close to getting my psychology doc, so I know that there are some really whacko people out there, and that you can NEVER predict what anyone is capable of doing. But there are things called "schemas", that tell us if people are LIKELY to do certain things, based on things they have done in the past.

What that means is that people with a history of having impulse issues are more likely to have experienced punishment or attention for those problems. If DB had a history of child neglect or abuse, that would be a tally in the probably guilty column. But she doesn't. And aside from some rumors of behavioral stuff as a young person, there is nothing else to indicate it. (O/T but when you compare this to the OCD mom of Sky, in Washington - you can see what I am talking about. She had been accused of having mental issues, she had been accused of threatening to kill her children - true? or not?, and she has a mental illness. I would NOT use the same "schema" parameters on her as I would for DB.)

None of that is PROOF, of course. It is just one more piece of the puzzle.

I don't have any idea if DB has had impulse control issues or child abuse in her past. I haven't heard about anything but there might be things that I don't know. Her family would be the most likely to know but they might be the least likely to tell. Many people have impulse control issues when they're drunk.


As far as being accused of having mental issues, I do not think that I would use the word "accuse" as having mental issues is not a crime and mental issues do not mean that you are going to hurt your children but she did say she is on anxiety medication, and it's imo probable that she got the prescription because she's got some issues. Plenty of people who never hurt their children are on anxiety medication, so it doesn't mean that much. But there could be something going on.

Schemas are patterns of normal behavior but IMO patterns of normal behavior do not necessarily apply in an extreme, abnormal situation such as killing a baby.

Based on the cases we have seen here I do not think that it takes ages to decide to cover up a crime because for every recent cases in which the parents have waited for weeks to report their child missing some other people have come up with lies rather fast. Sometimes more or less successfully.

 

[curvecuti]

No you are not reading right. I didn't say anything about Lies. But answers tosome carefully worded questions can be twisted, especially if there is no definite Yes or No answer.

And it is a fact that some members of LE do have tunnel vision. They fixate on a suspect and then twist the evidence to suit their concept. This is why innocent people sometimes get convicted of crimes they didn't commit. And even you must know that this happens

The police don't decide the fate of the accused. They collect the evidence and then it is presented in a court of law. LE is not in the habit of "twisting" evidence. The overwhelming majority of people convicted in this country are guilty.

 

[Donjeta]

Refer me to the distance from the house to the river. I know it was stated somewhere on here early on. Your logic and mine are very different. I suppose it has to do with whether or not we think DB is responsible.

BL was around 30 pounds and DB does not look all that 'fit' to me. Carrying 30 pounds of dead weight to the river while in a panic and afraid of getting caught raises some serious reasonable doubt to me. I don't know what the river bank in Kansas City looks like or if there is a bridge or something where someone could stand and toss a baby, but I don't think so from what I've read. If DB was down near the water, she would have evidence on her shoes (mud/sand?) and likely other tell-tale signs of being near the water.

Also, DB acting alone means leaving the boys alone for a while and assumes that during the time she was gone, neither boy woke up and noticed her gone.

Nope, I'm not buying into this theory at all. I could believe a theory where DB did something and had another person put the body in the river (or somewhere), but in order for me to believe that, I would need to know how she contacted her assistant. Everybody that believes DB did it, cannot come up with how she contacted her assistant. No working phone, and even she had a phone that did work, LE has probably looked at incoming calls to the phones of all connected people and POI's.

I am very much in agreement with what poster KARMAA wrote, and posted similarly on a recent thread.

One thing Wild Bill said early on is "tell me how she did it". I have yet to hear a believable theory of how she did it.

The family has a car, she has a computer and could have access to email or skype, the phone may have had internet access, as a mom she is probably used to carrying the baby, we don't have any idea what if anything was found on her shoes, shoes can be cleaned, thrown away, mud on shoes can be explained away in an innocent fashion, there may be paved bridges and dry paths via which one can access the river that don't destroy your shoes.

I am not sold on her guilt as a 100 % thing but none of the reasons presented so far that she couldn't have done it seem convincing to me.
I am keeping my options open but I am certainly not going to be convinced that DB is too feeble and immobile to have had the physical strength or not smart enough to have hidden a ten month old baby. It's not reasonable doubt to me. It just seems like grasping at straws to prove her innocent.

She might be but this does not prove anything to me because I don't believe her to be as helpless and clueless as all that.


It's a few minutes drive to the river:
[ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=CHOUTEAU+BRIDGE&daddr=North+Lister+Avenue,+Kansas+City,+MO,+United+States&hl=en&ll=39.172393,-94.539757&spn=0.074525,0.118275&sll=39.165073,-94.540443&sspn=0.074533,0.118275&geocode=Fbp6VQId7IJd-imvHH8_j_nAhzELK4DRtZdLRA%3BFWTqVQIdda9d-imnh86DqfnAhzHDNxY9K87syw&vpsrc=6&mra=ls&t=m&z=13"]Chouteau Bridge, Kansas City, MO to N Lister Ave, Kansas City, MO - Google Maps[/ame]

 

[cityslick]

The family has a car, she has a computer and could have access to email or skype, the phone may have had internet access, as a mom she is probably used to carrying the baby, we don't have any idea what if anything was found on her shoes, shoes can be cleaned, thrown away, mud on shoes can be explained away in an innocent fashion, there may be paved bridges and dry paths via which one can access the river that don't destroy your shoes.

I am not sold on her guilt as a 100 % thing but none of the reasons presented so far that she couldn't have done it seem convincing to me.
I am keeping my options open but I am certainly not going to be convinced that DB is too feeble and immobile to have had the physical strength or not smart enough to have hidden a ten month old baby. It's not reasonable doubt to me. It just seems like grasping at straws to prove her innocent.

She might be but this does not prove anything to me because I don't believe her to be as helpless and clueless as all that.


It's a few minutes drive to the river:
Chouteau Bridge, Kansas City, MO to N Lister Ave, Kansas City, MO - Google Maps

Was the baby dead if she did use the car? Wouldn't the dogs have hit on the inside of that car?

 

[Donjeta]

Was the baby dead if she did use the car? Wouldn't the dogs have hit on the inside of that car?

I don't know. Are they able to detect an odor if the body was inside an airtight plastic container of some sort and it wasn't in the car for very long?

 

[Karmaa]

I don't have any idea if DB has had impulse control issues or child abuse in her past. I haven't heard about anything but there might be things that I don't know. Her family would be the most likely to know but they might be the least likely to tell.

As far as being accused of having mental issues, I do not think that I would use the word "accuse" as having mental issues is not a crime and mental issues do not mean that you are going to hurt your children but she did say she is on anxiety medication, and it's imo probable that she got the prescription because she's got some issues. Plenty of people who never hurt their children are on anxiety medication, so it doesn't mean that much. But there could be something going on.

Schemas are patterns of normal behavior but IMO patterns of normal behavior do not necessarily apply in an extreme, abnormal situation such as killing a baby.

Based on the cases we have seen here I do not think that it takes ages to decide to cover up a crime because for every recent cases in which the parents have waited for weeks to report their child missing some other people have come up with lies rather fast. Sometimes more or less successfully.

Please note that I was referring to SKY's mother as being accused of having mental issues, not Debbie! So far as I know, there is nothing to indicate that DEBBIE has serious mental issues. Also nothing to indicate that she has any criminal history. Sky's mom has a history of leaving a baby in a parked car.

One more note: schemata refers to "normal for that individual". Not "normal in general". So, we don't compare me to Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance. But to compare Ted Bundy to Jeffrey Dahmer might be more applicable. And even then, there are so many factors to consider that it can't be said that Bundy did THIS, so Dahmer would too. What you can say is "people LIKE Bundy often do this... so the chance is greater that Dahmer did as well.

So, it all hinges in this case on how you see Debbie. If you see her as a wild party animal, you will form a different opinion of her. If you see her as a young, middle class mother you will have a different opinion of her. My point is that there is no reason to think of her as a wild party animal. If there was, it might push my thoughts in a different direction