Baby Lisa's Mom Calls KMBC's Kris Ketz

[AnaTeresa]

A crack of lightning, maybe?

I mean, I know what a "cracker" is, but in my neck of the woods, it's usually not a polite term!

 

[Evan's Mom]

So, you know the inside thoughts of Kevin Fox? And, I never said that innocent people have no need of the Fifth Amendment. Where did that come from? If you are going to quote me, please do so factually.

And, lastly, and respectfully, I KNOW that I would never wrongfully be arrested.

BBM
Unless you have some intense sixth sense and can see into all future possibilities, there is no way you could KNOW that you would never be wrongfully arrested. You can think and be pretty sure it wouldn't happen, but nobody is beyond that kind of predictability.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I do think that LE is focused on BL's parents but I also think BL’s parents have put themselves in that position. We weren’t there when BL’s parents told their story to LE. And like cases we have seen in the past, the first impression of LE on the scene is closer to the truth than what LE is being told by the family. We can’t forget LE is trained for this type of crisis situation. They saw something in DB that first night that told them she wasn’t being honest. And she wasn’t. She was hiding the drinking! If it was innocent “adult time” and not related to the disappearance – then why hide it. IMO it told LE from the start of the investigation that DB 1st objective was to protect herself and not to find Lisa.

Maybe DB and JI are totally innocent in their daughter’s disappearance, I don’t know but I do know that they are making LE waste time and energy on them when LE should be able to clear them and focus totally on finding Lisa.

My message to BL’s parents:
Forget calling the media to cry and defend your self. Get your butt down to the police station and start answering questions. I don’t care how you feel about LE. Show up everyday and ask questions about the progress of the investigation. Make sure every person in that police station knows that you will NEVER give up on finding your child. Paper your town with flyers. Spend your weekends going to other cites and passing out flyers. Have vigils or other events to keep your child’s face and name in the news. Welcome any chance you get to speak publicly about your daughter.

Yes, I understand that every profession has corruption, even LE. I understand that you feel that you are being persecuted and victimized but no matter what you are going through right now it compares nothing to what Lisa is going through being away from her family. I'm not asking you to give up your rights or your freedom; I am only asking that you put your daughter’s best interest before your own. As a parent it is your responsibility to be a voice for your child! STAND UP AND BE THAT VOICE!!!!

If you are guilty then I agree you are doing the right thing by keeping quiet. Just sit back, keep your trap shut, and wait. If you’re lucky, one day it will all go away.

:goodpost:

 

[norest4thewicked]

BBM. Respectfully, that's something no one can know with any real certainty.

Respectfully, that is your opinion.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Should I, or shouldn't I? Should I, or shouldn't I?

OK...I'll ask.

What...is...a....cracker? Is it poisonous? Does it bite? Is it alive?!!! Is it indigenous to where ever you live? And do you live near me??

Haha...a bolt of lightning...like a firecracker. That's what it sounds like so I call it a cracker!

 

[norest4thewicked]

A crack of lightning, maybe?

I mean, I know what a "cracker" is, but in my neck of the woods, it's usually not a polite term!

Haha...yes, lightning! I've always called them crackers. Guess I need to be careful nowadays huh?

 

[norest4thewicked]

BBM
Unless you have some intense sixth sense and can see into all future possibilities, there is no way you could KNOW that you would never be wrongfully arrested. You can think and be pretty sure it wouldn't happen, but nobody is beyond that kind of predictability.

And, again, I will respectfully say that this is your opinion. There are many and various reasons why I know this and ESPECIALLY not because of something I did to one of my children.

 

[DeAnn]

Want to clear up something. There's a difference between an arrest and charges.

Some cops wanted to arrest George Zimmerman but he wasn't because the prosecutor at the time wasn't willing to press charges.

Same could be the case here. Some cops could have wanted to arrest DB for child abuse or whatever but Dan White wouldn't file charges. We don't know for sure.

We do know right now there is not enough evidence to charge anyone in connection with Lisa's disappearance or charges would have been filed.

I know that happened in the case of Shon Pernice. Cops wanted him arrested right after Renee Pernice went missing. Dan White (same county as Lisa's home) wanted a thorough case. He didn't take to grand jury for 18 months. Shon was charged with murder and recently admitted guilt.

Shon tossed Renee's body in a dumpster and her body will never be found

If Lisa is dead, I hear more and more the theory is the river or a dumpster. I hope and pray for a miracle.

Dan White has a good reputation in the Kansas City area and he's certainly not a "cowboy" prosecutor.

 

[Cappuccino]

I'm glad to hear that. I'd much rather have a prosecutor who takes his time and makes sure the case is solid than an egotist like Mike Nifong who simply wants another notch on his belt regardless of guilt or innocence.

If that means we have to wait a bit longer for the truth, then so be it. Justice for Lisa is what's important here, not satisfying public opinion.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Want to clear up something. There's a difference between an arrest and charges.

Some cops wanted to arrest George Zimmerman but he wasn't because the prosecutor at the time wasn't willing to press charges.

Same could be the case here. Some cops could have wanted to arrest DB for child abuse or whatever but Dan White wouldn't file charges. We don't know for sure.

We do know right now there is not enough evidence to charge anyone in connection with Lisa's disappearance or charges would have been filed.

I know that happened in the case of Shon Pernice. Cops wanted him arrested right after Renee Pernice went missing. Dan White (same county as Lisa's home) wanted a thorough case. He didn't take to grand jury for 18 months. Shon was charged with murder and recently admitted guilt.

Shon tossed Renee's body in a dumpster and her body will never be found

If Lisa is dead, I hear more and more the theory is the river or a dumpster. I hope and pray for a miracle.

Dan White has a good reputation in the Kansas City area and he's certainly not a "cowboy" prosecutor.

Thank you DeAnn! Certainly, there is a difference between having ANY evidence in a case and not having enough evidence for an arrest? Would you agree?

 

[liltexans]

I would like to see a solid case built against whomever disappeared Lisa before charges are filed.

In my opinion, one of the biggest errors in Casey Anthony's case was her early arrest for murder. LE easily could have kept Casey under surveillance and probably even wire tapped her phone legally if they had just left her free a little bit longer. She obviously didn't "crack" when they arrested her months before Caylee's body was found.

 

[highflyer]

BBM - This is so true and while bad apples appear in every walk of life, I have stated here that at least two of the investigators in this case are not ones who would go about questioning the way that some are accusing them of. Of course, when the clues lead to one thing, they are going to go in that direction, but there is so much more to it than just haphazardly deciding (for absolutely no reason) that one person is guilty. Why would they do this? Did they just want to go home for the day? Are they prejudiced against mothers of young babies? Are they lazy? Are they Christian zealots and feel it is wrong for two people to be living together so they decide to go after one of them? Do they hate women who are a bit overweight? Does the head investigator hate people who drink alcohol because his dad was an alcoholic? Did they see one of the children and assume that he was bi-racial, so they go after DB because they are racists?

I mean, SERIOUSLY!!! How ridiculous does this sound? :banghead:

There is no way to know how the investigators questioned them.

 

[norest4thewicked]

There is no way to know how the investigators questioned them.

Too tired to go back and get the link, but someone previously in the thread referred to the investigators as being bad guys who would frame someone, (not their words but similar) and I said that I knew two of them and know that they weren't these kind of people.

 

[beach]

The next snarky response I see will result in a LONG TO.

 

[Cappuccino]

Too tired to go back and get the link, but someone previously in the thread referred to the investigators as being bad guys who would frame someone, (not their words but similar) and I said that I knew two of them and know that they weren't these kind of people.

I don't think anybody should run with the idea that false confessions, or convictions, happen only when the police are bad, or in some other way wrong. The police are mostly honest, and not stupid. Therefore, when they develop tunnel vision about one suspect its usually for a perfectly understandable reason. I know I've mentioned Michael Crowe a few times in this thread, so to use him as an example, he was a very promising looking suspect in the wake of his sister's murder. He was in the house at the time, he admitted that he'd gotten out of bed at around 4am and walked around the house, while his sister's body was lying half in and half out of her bedroom, he collected knives and his sister was stabbed to death, he admitted to being angry at her for various reasons. There was nothing wrong with the police looking at him as a suspect. They just made a mistake by developing tunnel vision and pushing it too far in the interrogation process.

It happens, even when the police are honest, intelligent and trying to do the best job they possibly can. That's why checks and balances are needed in the system, and that's why innocent people need those protections.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I don't think anybody should run with the idea that false confessions, or convictions, happen only when the police are bad, or in some other way wrong. The police are mostly honest, and not stupid. Therefore, when they develop tunnel vision about one suspect its usually for a perfectly understandable reason. I know I've mentioned Michael Crowe a few times in this thread, so to use him as an example, he was a very promising looking suspect in the wake of his sister's murder. He was in the house at the time, he admitted that he'd gotten out of bed at around 4am and walked around the house, while his sister's body was lying half in and half out of her bedroom, he collected knives and his sister was stabbed to death, he admitted to being angry at her for various reasons. There was nothing wrong with the police looking at him as a suspect. They just made a mistake by developing tunnel vision and pushing it too far in the interrogation process.

It happens, even when the police are honest, intelligent and trying to do the best job they possibly can. That's why checks and balances are needed in the system, and that's why innocent people need those protections.

In general, I do agree with that. But, if you personally know a person and/or have worked with a person, you would know if they were the kind of person to jump to conclusions, etc. I know that it's always possible that a person can do most anything, but the point I was making was that I didn't believe at least 2 of the investigators were not dirty cops. (My words, not suggesting they are yours).

 

[Cappuccino]

In general, I do agree with that. But, if you personally know a person and/or have worked with a person, you would know if they were the kind of person to jump to conclusions, etc. I know that it's always possible that a person can do most anything, but the point I was making was that I didn't believe at least 2 of the investigators were not dirty cops. (My words, not suggesting they are yours).

Okay, I respect that. However, I have to say back that not all miscarriages of justice are caused by dirty cops. Or even stupid or incompetent cops. The two people you know could be the most honest, intelligent, skilled cops ever, but it doesn't make them infallible.

For example, I've read one case where a man sent threatening letters and phone calls to a female neighbour - specifically, he threatened to burn her house down. A few weeks after he made that threat the woman was brutally raped and murdered in her own home and her house was set on fire. Do you really blame the police investigating that crime for focussing on him as a suspect? They wouldn't have been doing their job properly if they hadn't looked at him as a suspect, IMO. However, he looked so guilty they made the same mistake as the police investigating Stephanie Crowe's murder and pushed him too hard in the interrogation room. So with a confession, and a history of threatening letters and phone calls, how long do you think it took a jury to convict him? Less than an hour.

After he'd spent seven years on Louisiana's death row, forensic science advanced enough to test the DNA in the rape kit, and it completely vindicated him. Not only did it not match him, it matched a convicted serial rapist who had a history of fire setting from childhood up. The moral of the story? Someone can look as guilty as all get out, and the police can be excellent and dedicated to doing the best job humanly possible, but a mistake can still be made.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Okay, I respect that. However, I have to say back that not all miscarriages of justice are caused by dirty cops. Or even stupid or incompetent cops. The two people you know could be the most honest, intelligent, skilled cops ever, but it doesn't make them infallible.

For example, I've read one case where a man sent threatening letters and phone calls to a female neighbour - specifically, he threatened to burn her house down. A few weeks after he made that threat the woman was brutally raped and murdered in her own home and her house was set on fire. Do you really blame the police investigating that crime for focussing on him as a suspect? They wouldn't have been doing their job properly if they hadn't looked at him as a suspect, IMO. However, he looked so guilty they made the same mistake as the police investigating Stephanie Crowe's murder and pushed him too hard in the interrogation room. So with a confession, and a history of threatening letters and phone calls, how long do you think it took a jury to convict him? Less than an hour.

After he'd spent seven years on Louisiana's death row, forensic science advanced enough to test the DNA in the rape kit, and it completely vindicated him. Not only did it not match him, it matched a convicted serial rapist who had a history of fire setting from childhood up. The moral of the story? Someone can look as guilty as all get out, and the police can be excellent and dedicated to doing the best job humanly possible, but a mistake can still be made.

That's one place where we disagree. I can't believe that a person who is honest and does their job with the utmost integrity is going to all of a sudden become a different person. And, you have forgotten what made me say that in the first place about these investigators. I was defending them as I will continue to do so. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

And, you can cite case after case of people done wrong by the legal system. I am completely aware of it and understand it. However, this is apples and oranges with what I am talking about. My belief that DB is guilty is on my own reasoning based on her lies, inconsistencies and cadaver dog hit, among other things. If I have these things to base my opinion on, then what more does LE have?

But, you've made your point and I've made mine, and I doubt that we are going to see each others side on many of these things. I'm not talking about ANY other case except Lisa's. That is what I am focused on.

 

[Cappuccino]

I'm focused on it too, I'm using examples of other cases purely to make the point that a completely honest police officer, who is intelligently following the existing trail of evidence, can still make a mistake.

And if that is true, then its even more true that members of the public who lack the same forensic training and knowledge of a police officer are even more likely to make mistakes. We need to be careful about who we accuse. We all care, we all have opinions, we just need to internalise the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I'm focused on it too, I'm using examples of other cases purely to make the point that a completely honest police officer, who is intelligently following the existing trail of evidence, can still make a mistake.

And if that is true, then its even more true that members of the public who lack the same forensic training and knowledge of a police officer are even more likely to make mistakes. We need to be careful about who we accuse. We all care, we all have opinions, we just need to internalise the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

A "mistake" is taking a drink out of your cup and finding that it is not your cup shortly after you take the drink. Yes, anyone can make a mistake. BUT, an honest police officer following a trail of evidence is doing just that, following evidence. And where do you take the jump that they will all of a sudden begin to forget everything that they have learned and start slamming their fists, yelling at a person, etc? I just don't go there. The difference in these cases is that YOU don't know the officers in the previous cases. You don't know if they were honest, good cops or what. In THIS case, I do know.

And, you keep repeating that "we have to be careful who we accuse". That is your opinion, feeling, etc. It isn't mine.