Bug bite or ear infection?

[hambirg]

But you see that is the issue with a lot of this. Folks say what they would say and do and thus judge DB accordingly based on what their own reactions would be. This thing with the ear infection, we don't know anything about that. Who's to say it's not something as simple as BL having an ear infection a week and half before she went missing and that's what she meant when she said 'clearing' an ear infection. I find it extremely hard to believe that if BL was in the middle of an ear infection, on prescription meds and everything, that wasn't communicated to LE by either DB or JI. Even if you go ahead and say DB is trying to cover for something, why wouldn't JI say she had an ear infection to LE? How about SB? or PN? None of these people knew that BL had an ear infection?

A couple of things. . .we now know that DB wasn't forthcoming about her drinking that night. Were JI, SB or PN? We don't know the answer, but it seems to me that if LE had to go looking for the receipt that maybe they weren't. So we really can't say that DB told LE about the ear infection. And we've already heard the same argument about her drinking and that turned out to be a false assumption. It's also totally plausible that there was no ear infection and hence none of them said anything about it.

Lastly, BBM. I really tire of this argument. My background is in behavior, so I know I bring it up a lot, BUT there are absolutely behavioral norms. In fact, most people are pretty damn predictable. Yes, most parents would check on there sick baby some time during the night. Yes, most parents saying they would do that and expecting that most other parents would do the same is completely reasonable. Now, if there is some reason to believe that DB is somehow outside of the Bell curve then fine, say that. And actually I think her alcohol use might put her outside of it. . .there might even be more issues that do too. But to simply say that people can't reasonably predict "normal" behavior is a fallacy. I actually agree with Whisperer here about profiling, because most people can actually predict "abnormal" behavior given the abnormalities as well. . . meaning that there are norms for alcoholics, adults that were abused as children, people that exhibit certain other behaviors etc. All totally predictable!

If somebody pointed a gun at me, I can tell you how I would react and I can reasonably tell you how most "normal" people would react. If somebody has an abnormal reaction. . .we better be able to explain why. . .maybe they are blind and can't see the gun. .. maybe they are high on drugs. . .maybe they are mentally disabled, etc. So unless there is some explainable reason why DB acts outside of the norm it is well within somebody's judgement to point out that it is abnormal behavior.

MOO

 

[highflyer]

A couple of things. . .we now know that DB wasn't forthcoming about her drinking that night. Were JI, SB or PN? We don't know the answer, but it seems to me that if LE had to go looking for the receipt that maybe they weren't. So we really can't say that DB told LE about the ear infection. And we've already heard the same argument about her drinking and that turned out to be a false assumption. It's also totally plausible that there was no ear infection and hence none of them said anything about it.

Lastly, BBM. I really tire of this argument. My background is in behavior, so I know I bring it up a lot, BUT there are absolutely behavioral norms. In fact, most people are pretty damn predictable. Yes, most parents would check on there sick baby some time during the night. Yes, most parents saying they would do that and expecting that most other parents would do the same is completely reasonable. Now, if there is some reason to believe that DB is somehow outside of the Bell curve then fine, say that. And actually I think her alcohol use might put her outside of it. . .there might even be more issues that do too. But to simply say that people can't reasonably predict "normal" behavior is a fallacy. I actually agree with Whisperer here about profiling, because most people can actually predict "abnormal" behavior given the abnormalities as well. . . meaning that there are norms for alcoholics, adults that were abused as children, people that exhibit certain other behaviors etc. All totally predictable!

If somebody pointed a gun at me, I can tell you how I would react and I can reasonably tell you how most "normal" people would react. If somebody has an abnormal reaction. . .we better be able to explain why. . .maybe they are blind and can't see the gun. .. maybe they are high on drugs. . .maybe they are mentally disabled, etc. So unless there is some explainable reason why DB acts outside of the norm it is well within somebody's judgement to point out that it is abnormal behavior.

MOO

Have no background whatsoever in behavioral science but agree that it is possible to ascertain how most people will react to any given situation. Still nothing is totally predictable.

 

[4Jacy]

Was Deb given a prescription for Baby Lisa's ear infection? If so was the bottle checked to see how much of the medication had been used, and was their a prior prescription? If this was asked before sorry, otherwise, thanks for any information.

 

[cityslick]

BEM: Then LE should have mentioned it. If someone did/does have her they may find a way to get her medical attention, without being caught.

Making an observation and judging are two different things. Judging would be me saying she is a horrible mother and I am a great mother because I do things the right way. That's not what I said. Deborah has proven herself to be a liar by omission. She tells the truth when she's caught. There may be nothing at all to the ear infection, but I choose to look at the omission as a clue until I'm convinced it just slipped her mind initially.

Then again, as you state, wouldn't someone besides DB know Lisa had an ear infection? They wouldn't if she were lying....and what would we make of that?

Here's what I don't get. If she did in fact have an ear infection, what is the purpose that JI (forget DB for a minute) wouldn't tell LE that? I can't speak for LE as far as what they disclose, they haven't disclosed a whole lot in this case. In fact, outside of the amber alert, can you determine when LE has gone into great detail about BL, what they believe she had as far as sickness, what she was wearing, etc?

 

[vlpate]

Here's what I don't get. If she did in fact have an ear infection, what is the purpose that JI (forget DB for a minute) wouldn't tell LE that? I can't speak for LE as far as what they disclose, they haven't disclosed a whole lot in this case. In fact, outside of the amber alert, can you determine when LE has gone into great detail about BL, what they believe she had as far as sickness, what she was wearing, etc?

As far as LE, it's not up to them to beg for DB's baby to be returned safely. It's something the parents do. Depending on their desperation, it's something they do OFTEN.

I don't see much desperation at all in these two. I see bizarre behavior - by anyone's standards, bizarre.

 

[hambirg]

Have no background whatsoever in behavioral science but agree that it is possible to ascertain how most people will react to any given situation. Still nothing is totally predictable.

Well, most behavior is predictable whether normal or abnormal. Somebody can't just say, well everybody is different so we can't judge behavior. That's not true. For example if a man has child on his computer, most people will say, "Woah, abnormal behavior." And it is for a "normal" person. But it is totally within the norm for a pedophile. So that abnormal behavior tells us something about the person that exhibits it. That's why I think it is important that people are allowed to point out the behavior that they find to be abnormal about DB. Now the task is figuring out what abnormality would that behavior be within the norm for. Not checking on a sick child for several hours during the evening might be normal for an alcoholic. . .or it might be seen as deceitful behavior, which would be normal for somebody that has committed a crime and tried to cover it up. There might be other reasons as well, but it is important IMHO to look at behavior, especially abnormal behavior and try to figure out what abnormality would be responsible for that behavior.

I hope that made sense.

 

[Sherbie]

I think hambirg makes a good point. We shouldn't condemn people who react/behave outside the norm without evidence to support wrongdoing. But it's worth keeping an aberration in behavior in mind since, together with actual evidence, that might eventually turn out to mean something.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Well, most behavior is predictable whether normal or abnormal. Somebody can't just say, well everybody is different so we can't judge behavior. That's not true. For example if a man has child on his computer, most people will say, "Woah, abnormal behavior." And it is for a "normal" person. But it is totally within the norm for a pedophile. So that abnormal behavior tells us something about the person that exhibits it. That's why I think it is important that people are allowed to point out the behavior that they find to be abnormal about DB. Now the task is figuring out what abnormality would that behavior be within the norm for. Not checking on a sick child for several hours during the evening might be normal for an alcoholic. . .or it might be seen as deceitful behavior, which would be normal for somebody that has committed a crime and tried to cover it up. There might be other reasons as well, but it is important IMHO to look at behavior, especially abnormal behavior and try to figure out what abnormality would be responsible for that behavior.

I hope that made sense.

Who defines what is normal and what is abnormal behavior? Is it a one size fits all definition?

 

[cityslick]

As far as LE, it's not up to them to beg for DB's baby to be returned safely. It's something the parents do. Depending on their desperation, it's something they do OFTEN.

I don't see much desperation at all in these two. I see bizarre behavior - by anyone's standards, bizarre.

This really didn't answer my question. A post of you said that if DB did in fact tell LE about the ear infection, LE should have told the media about that. My question was has LE gone in great detail on BL as far as anything is concerned?

I know LE shouldn't be begging for the parents. I think my point is just because DB told LE about an ear infection doesn't mean that information would have come out from LE if it wasn't relevant to finding her.

 

[cityslick]

I think hambirg makes a good point. We shouldn't condemn people who react/behave outside the norm without evidence to support wrongdoing. But it's worth keeping an aberration in behavior in mind since, together with actual evidence, that might eventually turn out to mean something.

BBM

Sherbie, that is the basis of the entire case. DB has been condemned by a number of people for behaving outside the norm (what is parent of a missing child would do) and yet there is very little evidence outside of that behavior to support wrongdoing.

 

[hambirg]

Who defines what is normal and what is abnormal behavior? Is it a one size fits all definition?

The Bell curve for the population you are looking at defines what is within the norm.

In my example above, say if you are plotting the behavior of having child on the computer for men ages 30-40. You will find that behavior falls outside of the norm on that Bell curve. BUT if you plot that same behavior for male pedophiles between the ages of 30-40 years old, you will find that the behavior would fall within the norm for that population. So the question is, if we find DB's behavior to be outside of the norm for her demographic, then we need to figure out which Bell curve we should be looking at. Because that behavior does fall within the norm on some other subset demographic. Did that make any sense?

 

[melissasmom]

The Bell curve for the population you are looking at defines what is within the norm.

In my example above, say if you are plotting the behavior of having child on the computer for men ages 30-40. You will find that behavior falls outside of the norm on that Bell curve. BUT if you plot that same behavior for male pedophiles between the ages of 30-40 years old, you will find that the behavior would fall within the norm for that population. So the question is, if we find DB's behavior to be outside of the norm for her demographic, then we need to figure out which Bell curve we should be looking at. Because that behavior does fall within the norm on some other subset demographic. Did that make any sense?

But would parents who have a missing child even HAVE a norm? Because the whole event is out of the scope of normal, I would say. Not that I think pedophiles are normal, but they are unfortunately so many instances of child that I think it is something that could reliably be studied. And the missing child instance has so many variables. I'm probably not making any sense, but I think you are most likely MUCH smarter than I am, so I may need more explanation.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The Bell curve for the population you are looking at defines what is within the norm.

In my example above, say if you are plotting the behavior of having child on the computer for men ages 30-40. You will find that behavior falls outside of the norm on that Bell curve. BUT if you plot that same behavior for male pedophiles between the ages of 30-40 years old, you will find that the behavior would fall within the norm for that population. So the question is, if we find DB's behavior to be outside of the norm for her demographic, then we need to figure out which Bell curve we should be looking at. Because that behavior does fall within the norm on some other subset demographic. Did that make any sense?

Sorry, but you lost me with this bell curve stuff.

 

[Sherbie]

BBM

Sherbie, that is the basis of the entire case. DB has been condemned by a number of people for behaving outside the norm (what is parent of a missing child would do) and yet there is very little evidence outside of that behavior to support wrongdoing.

This happens in every case (and the opposite is true as well - that there will also be a handful who will never concede guilt, even with a mountain of evidence or a guilty verdict). We all process how valuable certain things are in different ways and have our own comfort levels in assigning meaning or blame or denying it.

But I think the majority of us who wonder about a behavior or statement do so simply because it seems so far from what we would expect that it sounds an alarm for us. We try to work out the "why" of the behavior, whether it might mean something - or we might cite it as an explanation for why there is a concern.

At any rate, I like reading what people think and why (especially when I disagree) and the fact that we can respectfully debate, sort of work out the kinks sometimes. I've certainly changed my mind at times after reading arguments for/against various points.

 

[Donjeta]

But would parents who have a missing child even HAVE a norm? Because the whole event is out of the scope of normal, I would say. Not that I think pedophiles are normal, but they are unfortunately so many instances of child that I think it is something that could reliably be studied. And the missing child instance has so many variables. I'm probably not making any sense, but I think you are most likely MUCH smarter than I am, so I may need more explanation.

I think even in extraordinary crisis situations there are some things and behaviors that occur more often than some other things. It's hard to define what an individual's normal behavior in a crisis situation is because it is a rare occurrence in the individual's life but if you take a larger number of individuals in a similar situation some patterns will emerge.

However, while most of the people fall into the usual behavior that's within the Bell, some outliers are expected.

 

[hambirg]

But would parents who have a missing child even HAVE a norm? Because the whole event is out of the scope of normal, I would say. Not that I think pedophiles are normal, but they are unfortunately so many instances of child that I think it is something that could reliably be studied. And the missing child instance has so many variables. I'm probably not making any sense, but I think you are most likely MUCH smarter than I am, so I may need more explanation.

Yes, they would. If you just look at the demographic of parents who have a missing child and a particular behavior, there will be a norm. Remember we are looking at one specific behavior. What that curve might tell you is there is a different norm for parents who are culpable and parents who are not. And each of those subsets will have their own norm. There are norms for any population you wish to look at, even a small demographic like serial killers. Behavioral analysis is how they determine things like the ugly trifecta of most serial killers have a history of bed wetting, fire starting and hurting animals.

I think we kind of got off on a tangent, but my point was that it is ok for people to find the behavior of not checking on a sick baby for many hours to be weird for mothers in DB's age group. Now the question is to explain what demographic it would be normal for. Alcoholic mothers in DB's age group? Probably. Is she lying about checking on BL? Lying would be a normal behavior for mothers in DB's age group who committed and crime and are trying to cover it up. Is it normal for woman in DB's age group who lost their mothers at a young age to be neglectful of their young children? Idk, but it would explain the behavior if that is the case.

 

[melissasmom]

Yes, they would. If you just look at the demographic of parents who have a missing child and a particular behavior, there will be a norm. Remember we are looking at one specific behavior. What that curve might tell you is there is a different norm for parents who are culpable and parents who are not. And each of those subsets will have their own norm. There are norms for any population you wish to look at, even a small demographic like serial killers. Behavioral analysis is how they determine things like the ugly trifecta of most serial killers have a history of bed wetting, fire starting and hurting animals.

I think we kind of got off on a tangent, but my point was that it is ok for people to find the behavior of not checking on a sick baby for many hours to be weird for mothers in DB's age group. Now the question is to explain what demographic it would be normal for. Alcoholic mothers in DB's age group? Probably. Is she lying about checking on BL? Lying would be a normal behavior for mothers in DB's age group who committed and crime and are trying to cover it up. Is it normal for woman in DB's age group who lost their mothers at a young age to be neglectful of their young children? Idk, but it would explain the behavior if that is the case.

But, what demographic would you use? ALL parents of any missing child? Or just children missing from their own homes? Children under 5, or under one year? Parents under the influence of alcohol/drugs at the time? Parents under 30? Over 45? Do you factor in the parents intelligence, education, socioeconomic status, etc.? Not trying to be argumentative, because I think you have an EXCELLENT point. People always bring up Marc Klaas as an example of how parents should act. But Marc Klaas is not DB/JI. He did everything "right", but maybe he is more intelligent than these two, or better educated. He is definitley more articulate.
And also as far as checking on Lisa. I have to say, a LOT of people, in my opinion, are NOT going to be honest when it comes to the checking on the baby thing. Why? Because they don't want to look like a "bad" parent to others. Some people will be, of course, but I really don't belive people who make it sound like every single day of their children's lives, they were the perfect parent. Nope, I sure don't. I said before somewhere in this forum, I rarely checked on my 2 youngest when they were babies. If I would have opened the door they would have woken up, they were light sleepers. And yes, that includes when they were sick. If they woke up in the night and had discomfort of any kind (coughing, stuffed up nose, etc.) then they CRIED. AS I stated before, a baby is not going to lay there silently suffering. If they need mommy, they are gonna let you know. Some people here will think I'm a bad mom for that, and that's ok. other people may have done the same as me and not admit it, because they think it makes them look bad.
Also, none of the above talk about checking has anything to do with the drinking. That is an entirely different subject.

 

[hambirg]

But, what demographic would you use? ALL parents of any missing child? Or just children missing from their own homes? Children under 5, or under one year? Parents under the influence of alcohol/drugs at the time? Parents under 30? Over 45? Do you factor in the parents intelligence, education, socioeconomic status, etc.? Not trying to be argumentative, because I think you have an EXCELLENT point. People always bring up Marc Klaas as an example of how parents should act. But Marc Klaas is not DB/JI. He did everything "right", but maybe he is more intelligent than these two, or better educated. He is definitley more articulate.
And also as far as checking on Lisa. I have to say, a LOT of people, in my opinion, are NOT going to be honest when it comes to the checking on the baby thing. Why? Because they don't want to look like a "bad" parent to others. Some people will be, of course, but I really don't belive people who make it sound like every single day of their children's lives, they were the perfect parent. Nope, I sure don't. I said before somewhere in this forum, I rarely checked on my 2 youngest when they were babies. If I would have opened the door they would have woken up, they were light sleepers. And yes, that includes when they were sick. If they woke up in the night and had discomfort of any kind (coughing, stuffed up nose, etc.) then they CRIED. AS I stated before, a baby is not going to lay there silently suffering. If they need mommy, they are gonna let you know. Some people here will think I'm a bad mom for that, and that's ok. other people may have done the same as me and not admit it, because they think it makes them look bad.
Also, none of the above talk about checking has anything to do with the drinking. That is an entirely different subject.

If you want to find the norm for whatever behavior you are looking at you have to use a large sample size. So I would say yes, every parent of a missing child. The phenomenon of a standard distribution, or Bell curve, is that the larger the sample size, the more clearer the mean. . .or norm. If you want to end up with a normal distribution you can't just ask 3 parents. You will only have 3 dots on a graph. But if you ask, say 1000 parents, you will have a normal distribution where 68% of those parents will fall within 1 deviation of the norm. 95% of the parents will fall withing 2 standard deviations of the norm and 99% of all parents will fall within 3 standard deviations of the norm.

So as an example, you want to see if how many press conferences the parents hold is an indicator of guilt. You survey 1000 parents and plot the data. Let's just for simplicity sake the standard deviation turns out to be 1. So lets say you find that the norm is 8 press conferences. That would mean that 68% of all parents held 7-9 press conferences. 95% of all parents held 6-10. And 99% of all parents held 5-11. Now you want to see if press conferences is correlated in any way to guilt. So next you survey parents that we somehow know were guilty (confessed, etc) And you find that their norm is also 7-9 and mirrors the normal distribution. Then you could conclude that press conferences held is not a marker of guilt. But if you find that their norm is 5, then you could draw some conclusions as to the correlation between press conferences held and guilt.

And yes there are many possible variables, but each has to be looked at individually to determine if they have any significance.

An interesting thing about DB not checking on BL, is that both JI and DB said she probably wouldn't wake and cry if you picked her up (I think Db said she might but if you snuggled her she would go right back to sleep.) So I don't think the issue was that BL was a light sleeper and would wake up and cry if you opened the door to check on her. MOO

 

[melissasmom]

If you want to find the norm for whatever behavior you are looking at you have to use a large sample size. So I would say yes, every parent of a missing child. The phenomenon of a standard distribution, or Bell curve, is that the larger the sample size, the more clearer the mean. . .or norm. If you want to end up with a normal distribution you can't just ask 3 parents. You will only have 3 dots on a graph. But if you ask, say 1000 parents, you will have a normal distribution where 68% of those parents will fall within 1 deviation of the norm. 95% of the parents will fall withing 2 standard deviations of the norm and 99% of all parents will fall within 3 standard deviations of the norm.

So as an example, you want to see if how many press conferences the parents hold is an indicator of guilt. You survey 1000 parents and plot the data. Let's just for simplicity sake the standard deviation turns out to be 1. So lets say you find that the norm is 8 press conferences. That would mean that 68% of all parents held 7-9 press conferences. 95% of all parents held 6-10. And 99% of all parents held 5-11. Now you want to see if press conferences is correlated in any way to guilt. So next you survey parents that we somehow know were guilty (confessed, etc) And you find that their norm is also 7-9 and mirrors the normal distribution. Then you could conclude that press conferences held is not a marker of guilt. But if you find that their norm is 5, then you could draw some conclusions as to the correlation between press conferences held and guilt.

And yes there are many possible variables, but each has to be looked at individually to determine if they have any significance.

An interesting thing about DB not checking on BL, is that both JI and DB said she probably wouldn't wake and cry if you picked her up (I think Db said she might but if you snuggled her she would go right back to sleep.) So I don't think the issue was that BL was a light sleeper and would wake up and cry if you opened the door to check on her. MOO

Thanks for the information. It would be interesting to see how varied from the norm people in this case are. Your task now is to gather all the relevant data, chart the Bell curve, then report back with your findings. I will wait patiently for your return.

 

[hambirg]

Thanks for the information. It would be interesting to see how varied from the norm people in this case are. Your task now is to gather all the relevant data, chart the Bell curve, then report back with your findings. I will wait patiently for your return.

Yeah, I'm on it! :floorlaugh: