10/28/11 Private Investigator Returns, Baby Lisas Family Leaves

[Karmaa]

LE is not asking to have the parents be interviewed without representation. If you have a link to state that they are insisting on this, please provide it. I have never heard of a person, who has an attorney, be asked to come in without their lawyer. Just because DB's hired guns are stating this as fact, doesn't mean it's so. DB has been inconsistent in the media, who knows whether or not she was with LE, only her and LE know. Maybe that is what LE wants to clear up? Lisa's parents are not suspects, have fine representation, what in the world could be the hold up on finding their daughter?

Wonder what the excuse de jour, will be tomorrow? Poor little Lisa. :furious:

"But the attorney representing Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley, parents of 11-month-old Lisa Irwin, said the couple is not opposed to separate interviews, but do not want what police requested -- an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present" http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-26/...ansas-city-police-missouri-girl?_s=PM:JUSTICE

This is what unrestricted MEANS. Lawyers know it. LE knows it. There is absolutely no other meaning of the term.

 

[Melanie]

There are lots of them. In fact, many people are not aware that Mark Lunsford was the primary suspect in Jessica's murder before Coohey was found.

Public sentiment back then was that there was no doubt that he did it, and hang him! Hang him High! It was even worse than what these parents are going through towards the end. Now, of course, Mark is a respected child advocate, but ask HIM what it feels like to be the target of a virtual lynch mob.

Not only was Mark torn apart, but the parents of Danielle Van Dam as well.

Soon after Danielle's disappearance on Feb. 2, the local media began to report on a tantalizing angle to the story: adulterous sex in upscale suburbs.

One radio talk-show host has turned his show for six months into an open forum for callers to offer theories about the couple's parental skills, permissive sex lives, drug use and possible culpability in the murder of their daughter.

Danielle's parents never went to jail, but they might as well have. The media treated them as if it was THEIR fault that creeper came in and stole their daughter.

I had the opportunity to work alonside Damon and was horrified at what he went through.

I don't wish that on anybody!

MOO

Mel

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/aug/09/local/me-girl9

 

[Amster]

Marc Klaas was NEVER a suspect. There were 2 witnesses (Polly's little friends on a sleepover) and they clearly saw Richard Davis, the kidnapper. Within minutes LE knew that it was Marc Klaas was not the man.

Of course they looked at him, then they checked his story, verified his info and cleared him, but he was never a suspect.

That's what I said...:waitasec:

 

[Abby Normal]

In Deoneta's post it said LE had stated that they are not demanding interviews without the presence of attorneys. You replied to that post saying you had heard or saw that too. I am just trying to find out if that is a fact. I can't find anything that shows LE has come out and said that. I am very curious to know if they did. In response to your google question yes I have googled this subject and have had no luck finding that statement from LE. Thanks

I saw the one where Young replied to the accusation that cooperation=confession. http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html

But I haven't seen the one where he specifically discounts that unrestricted=no attorney.

However, it is my impression that Young does not mean "without an attorney" because he says that the couple have not had an unrestricted interview since Oct 8, and at the Oct 8 interview O'Brien (a professor of law) was there with them acting as temporary counsel. So the last unrestricted interview had an attorney present. I think they want to be able to interrogate them.
http://m.ibtimes.com/missing-baby-l...pearance-yougn-tacopina-short-dia-237490.html

JMO

 

[grandmaj]

I have never seen one report that LE wanted the parents interviewed without attorney representation except from Cyndi Short. When LE says it I will believe it.

The only one saying it was Cyndi Short and she is no longer an attorney on this case. It became very apparant to many of us by Thursday night that something was amiss in the Legal Team and sure enough we saw that play out.

Tacopina in his interviews talks about other points of unrestricted. Those being that they can't accuse the parents and the investigators had to be different. In his interview Friday morning he never mentioned any condition of no lawyer.

And then he went on to claim LE isn't checking out the blob enough.

 

[EarlyT79]

Marc Klaas was most certainly a suspect.(no, LE didn't officially name him) Parents always are. There is nothing special about DB or JI that gives them a pass. Maybe, if they had got their "story" straight the 1st time, there would be no need to talk to them again.

Seasoned cops often have a 6th sense about situations. Let's say that was true for cops who 1st responded to D and J's home. The mother of the missing child was inebriated. Hours were unaccounted for, stories were changing. A PI is hired by some ' rich person', the PI leaves, well know defense lawyer is hired, PI comes back, local lawyer leaves, parents leave for weekend now the local lawyer is back.
:waitasec:
There is a pattern here. A pattern to keep the focus off a missing child. A pattern to keep the focus off highly suspicious parents.

 

[Amster]

Maybe unrestricted means not allowing DB and JI decide who will do the interview...nicer detectives?......what questions will be asked....and, interviewed separately. This blame LE game is nothing more than gorilla dust. I bet most guilty people play it.

 

[EarlyT79]

BBM
That's the bottom line . There's a missing baby ,yet no urgency by anyone to find her,save her from a predator or from harm.If she's still alive,every minute could be torture for her,or be taking her farther away from home,even out of the country.There's not a moment to spare to save her.

When a family attorney says he plans to schedule interviews for the siblings next week, that speaks volumes to me. If the family believed baby Lisa was with someone else they would be scheduling interviews for NOW,not "maybe next week".JMO

The parents of Lisa are too nonchalant. I agree with your post, especially the part that states there is no urgency to find Lisa. That family knows Lisa is dead.
bbm

 

[EarlyT79]

I think they are answering all the questions. That's what they have been saying all along, and LE (pretty much) confirms it. I think LE is torqued because the parents said "enough" of the accusations, and they want another chance at them.

I would not let them interview me in the same situation, even if I was 100% innocent. I would be frantic about my baby, and I would be willing to answer any questions, but I would not agree to an interview without my lawyer. That is a constitutional right for a reason.

Is that anything like Cindy A, her comments and her actions? CA said nearly the same as what you said, " Leave us alone, my daughter is innocent, yakity yak."

 

[EarlyT79]

DB and JI have not been named suspects in this case. DB is making claims as to what happened in the interview.

Mark Klaas was the first person LE looked at when Polly went missing. He immediately told them every single detail, never lied, and took a polygraph that he passed! He cleared his name from the get go, to allow LE to seek the truth regarding his missing child.

Mark Klaas is a prime example of what all parents should do if, God forbid, their child goes missing. DB and JI, not so much. :maddening:

Mark Klaas such an example of a loving, worried parent of a missing child.

 

[EarlyT79]

Marc Klaas was NEVER a suspect. There were 2 witnesses (Polly's little friends on a sleepover) and they clearly saw Richard Davis, the kidnapper. Within minutes LE knew that it was Marc Klaas was not the man.

Of course they looked at him, then they checked his story, verified his info and cleared him, but he was never a suspect.

HE WAS suspected and told LE to question him, give him a LDT and clear him so the real perp could be found.

Really, my neighbor showed more remorse when her dog was lost then these parents.

 

[dovebar]

The Danielle Van Dam case has eerie similarities here, in that the neighbor who did it knew about their family's sexual lifestyle and took advantage of that. It made them very unsympathetic victims but they genuinely did not kill their daughter - someone who took advantage of what he saw did.

IMHO, in this case, it's going to be someone who was casing the place, first burglarizing the car, then taking advantage of witnessing DB and the neighbor woman drinking heavily, nice night, open windows, and even luckier, open door. Observing dad heading out for work in the evening. Perhaps even overhearing DB tell someone that he was beginning to work an evening job.

Another thread is from the Madeline McCann case, where the parents told the maitre'd that their kids would be alone, which is why they wanted a table with a view of the apartment. He wrote that on the restaurant seating chart, where it could be viewed by anyone who worked in the restaurant. So when DB and her brother were out shopping, who did she tell about JI working late? Who overheard her discussing it? Did she show her license for the wine? Did it have her home address on it? These would be questions I would hope their PI would be asking.

 

[justamommy]

Five years in prison and you might as well have been convicted.

Aside from the fact that if wrongly convicted/jailed the real criminal is running free.:seeya:

 

[vlpate]

Grieving means "to have great sorrow". Of course the parents are grieving. Their baby has been kidnapped.

Yes, usually great sorrow over the death of a loved one....as opposed to grieving a kidnapped child.

Deborah said herself, they were grieving. No matter how you slice it, weird choice of words at this juncture, IMO

 

[AngelWings444]

"But the attorney representing Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley, parents of 11-month-old Lisa Irwin, said the couple is not opposed to separate interviews, but do not want what police requested -- an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present" http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-26/...ansas-city-police-missouri-girl?_s=PM:JUSTICE

This is what unrestricted MEANS. Lawyers know it. LE knows it. There is absolutely no other meaning of the term.

Are we to believe this because a defense attorney is stating it as fact? Unrestricted could mean, LE wants to ask them, what they want to ask them, in person. I believe LE wants to get the parents on record, whether or not they answer the questions. For pete's sake, these parents have only been interviewed for 11 hours! Things have been discovered, released by the parents in the media, there have been blobs on tape, interviews with other people, etc. There has to be follow up. I don't believe for one second, LE has asked them to be interviewed without their hired guns present.

Personally, I don't believe anything a defense attorney is claiming, especially since their client isn't a suspect, there is a "mystery" benefactor, and nobody is doing a darn thing in their camp to find the missing baby!

 

[vlpate]

I saw the one where Young replied to the accusation that cooperation=confession. http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html

But I haven't seen the one where he specifically discounts that unrestricted=no attorney.

However, it is my impression that Young does not mean "without an attorney" because he says that the couple have not had an unrestricted interview since Oct 8, and at the Oct 8 interview O'Brien (a professor of law) was there with them acting as temporary counsel. So the last unrestricted interview had an attorney present. I think they want to be able to interrogate them.
http://m.ibtimes.com/missing-baby-l...pearance-yougn-tacopina-short-dia-237490.html

JMO

It was on one of the morning shows, I thnk....one of the anchors said it as an aside.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Let's say hypothetically, either or both DB and / or JI did as LE asked, and they were beat down to where they made a false confession, were charged and sentenced to prison for murdering Lisa. Do you think LE would still go out looking for the real perp. Heck No! Case solved, move on to the next. So no, I don't see why they should endure more accusations by LE, if that was the case. It would not do a bit of good for Lisa, in fact, just the opposite. And why didn't these highly trained professionals ask these questions of them before when they were there to answer questions? Maybe they did and it wasn't the answers LE wanted to hear to fit their "gut instinct".
As outsiders looking in, we can only guess what happened behind closed doors until we see or hear the entire interview / interrogation for ourselves.

 

[1&2&3]

To me, setting up a meeting with the tempers, feelings, ego out in front, this is how I would structure it. Deborah & Jeremy would know they are free to leave at any time if they feel we have broken our word on how the questioning is to be handledl

All right, lets make it simple for both sides. The meeting will be held in the board room at the local lawyers office with DB, JI, their lawyer or 2, 2 new detectives, 2old detective familiar with the case, BS, and the transcriber for LE.
Questions will be an informative gathering basis on situations learned since last sit down discussion. No accusations of murder, accident, harm to Lisa from parents will be discussed or blamed. Issues that LE have uncovered may be discussed and questioned as to how the situation may fit unto the kidnapp of Lisa.. Anything that the parents can add to thse discussions is welcomed to be offered.

The first meeting will be for 90 miutes. A 20 minute break will follow. At this time, depending on where the meeting left off, the meeting will contine for 30 more minutes with all the same parties in the room. After 30 minutes, the meeting will stop, and the two participants, DB & JI will be interviewed in separate rooms with lawyers and a new detective and an old detective with them. This meeting will continue for up to 90 minutes at which time we will break for the morning. Lunch will be served.

Deciesion will be made if the detectives will switch partners and meet with DB & JI for 90 min in the afternoon. Lawyers will do follow up with clients in office.

We believe this will offer our Clients Deborah and Jeremy a more relaxed and comfortable
occassion to sit down wth LE to go over questions and answers. You will have your lawyer with you, a new detective and an old detective to do the questioning. We appreciate your feelings and emotions at this difficult time, and believe these two professionals will gently guide you and the meeting will have a pleasant air to it. Thank you for your time.





Flind & Bring Lisa Home

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I vote to put 1&2&3 in charge.

 

[Melanie]

To me, setting up a meeting with the tempers, feelings, ego out in front, this is how I would structure it. Deborah & Jeremy would know they are free to leave at any time if they feel we have broken our word on how the questioning is to be handledlAll right, lets make it simple for both sides. The meeting will be held in the board room at the local lawyers office with DB, JI, their lawyer or 2, 2 new detectives, 2old detective familiar with the case, BS, and the transcriber for LE.
Questions will be an informative gathering basis on situations learned since last sit down discussion. No accusations of murder, accident, harm to Lisa from parents will be discussed or blamed. Issues that LE have uncovered may be discussed and questioned as to how the situation may fit unto the kidnapp of Lisa.. Anything that the parents can add to thse discussions is welcomed to be offered.

The first meeting will be for 90 miutes. A 20 minute break will follow. At this time, depending on where the meeting left off, the meeting will contine for 30 more minutes with all the same parties in the room. After 30 minutes, the meeting will stop, and the two participants, DB & JI will be interviewed in separate rooms with lawyers and a new detective and an old detective with them. This meeting will continue for up to 90 minutes at which time we will break for the morning. Lunch will be served.

Deciesion will be made if the detectives will switch partners and meet with DB & JI for 90 min in the afternoon. Lawyers will do follow up with clients in office.

We believe this will offer our Clients Deborah and Jeremy a more relaxed and comfortable
occassion to sit down wth LE to go over questions and answers. You will have your lawyer with you, a new detective and an old detective to do the questioning. We appreciate your feelings and emotions at this difficult time, and believe these two professionals will gently guide you and the meeting will have a pleasant air to it. Thank you for your time.

Please accept my apologies because I don't understand this post at all. Is it a letter to D&J?

Who's we?

:waitasec:

Thx.

Mel