Interviews 10/17/2011 All interviews #2

[BetteDavisEyes]

“I don't know if that's entertainment or people with gas issues or what it would be, but I'm not concerned about it at this point.”
Susan Hayward

Goodnight Bette

"Fasten your seatbelts... It's going to be a bumpy night." All About Eve
"Let's don't ask for the moon... We have the stars." Now, Voyager

"Oh! The Susan Hayward of it all!" My Best Friend's Wedding

 

[katydid23]

I can't imagine why JI who fought so hard to have custody of his son from his ex, would get involved with someone as spacey & brainless as DB ,to form another family unit. Clearly someone you get together with , to have take care of your child & produce another offspring ,is someone whose brain & morals have something in common with you & your children. People don't form family units as casually as you do a wild night escapade!!! I just don't know how JI could fight for custody of the 8 year old & expect to have a mother's care , morals & example from DB who is not even divorced from her husband. She clearly has needs that do not make her an ideal parent. Perhaps I am missing something & they have a solid & loving relationship. I find their body language "HINKY":truce:

I used to think the same thing. But today when I heard what he said, when asked about how he felt about her getting drunk that night, I lost respect for him. He said [parapahrasing] :" getting drunk does not change who you are as a person. " and he also said this has brought them CLOSER together as a couple.

I have to tell you that if I got drunk and passed out, leaving the front door unlocked and the window open, and neglecting to check on our kids, and one of them went missing, my husband would not feel it was bringing us closer. He would be devastated and angry as he!!.

 

[Cuoco7]

I don't think it's a hoax at all. A fake kidnapping is extraordinarily difficult to pull off, even for the smartest of people, IMO. No offense to DB and JI, but I don't see them capable of pulling off a hoax of this scale, to the FBI, no less.

Of course, if it's a hoax, I'll just be happy Lisa is OK! Sadly though, I'm confident it's no hoax.


My opinions...

To add to this... I'm really wondering what type of accident there could've been? We always tend to lean towards that choice, but as humans we are so resilient, kids too. I'm having such a hard time with the "accident" scenario. I think there's another secret yet to be revealed. I said earlier today, maybe JI isn't the father and there is another person yet to be revealed. JMOO
JI is extremely passive, but why?

 

[Curious Me]

My opinion only:

1. There is absolutely no reason for us to believe she was actually drunk. She might have been, or not.

2. The cell phones remain a critical part of this investigation. Who did mom call?

3. There is no reason to believe that the boys heard anything other than mom and likely Lisa crying.

4. It seems extremely unlikely that a drunk mom accidentally poisoned Lisa. If she had, it's not like she would have known -- the baby would be dead and quiet, and mom never checked on her anyway. Nor did mom crush her... mom didn't give a crap about her.

5. The whole stolen cell phones thing tells you everything you need to know about what happened and who killed this child.

Mom in this case reminds me a MANY parents I see. In public and pictures they are the most loving people imaginable, but it's nothing but a show.

BBM #1

I think you have a point there. Why does she want us to believe she was drunk? Sure, maybe it's part of her defense, but of course now, she can say she doesn't know, doesn't know, doesn't know.

Buys baby products, but then forgets all about her sick baby and decides to get drunk. Is it more than a bad decision, but more like a plan?

 

[katydid23]

To add to this... I'm really wondering what type of accident there could've been? We always tend to lean towards that choice, but we are so resilient, kids too. I'm having such a hard time with the "accident" scenario. I think there's another secret yet to be revealed. I said earlier today, maybe JI isn't the father and there is another person yet to be revealed. JMOO
He's extremely passive, but why?

I have been wondering the same thing. I saw a side by side of Lisa and her father. You see her big huge blue eyes and then his little beady brown eyes, and it really struck me as odd.

 

[MyBelle]

Not to me, not more than the one time. I do not for one moment trust anyone affiliated with LE to question my 5 year old. That said, I would take him to a child psychologist who could work with him and pass on every single scrap of information he remembered to LE.

The fact that she won't allow trhe boys to talk with anyone at all is what set off my alarms.

Again, that's just me. I respect others feel differently.

I think both the KCPD and the FBI have highly trained interviewers and if I were innocent and wanted my child found, I would have no trouble with such an interview. I find it very odd that the parents allowed LE back to search their home without a search warrant but are now refusing access to the children. If this couple still has custody of those children by the end of the week, I'll be shocked.

JMO

 

[jjenny]

I have been wondering the same thing. I saw a side by side of Lisa and her father. You see her big huge blue eyes and then his little beady brown eyes, and it really struck me as odd.

In my opinion Lisa resembles JI. The blue eyes is a recessive gene, so a person with brown eyes can have a blue eyed child.

 

[katydid23]

To add to this... I'm really wondering what type of accident there could've been? We always tend to lean towards that choice, but we are so resilient, kids too. I'm having such a hard time with the "accident" scenario. I think there's another secret yet to be revealed. I said earlier today, maybe JI isn't the father and there is another person yet to be revealed. JMOO
He's extremely passive, but why?

I wonder about the accident scenario too, and I have a hard time believing any of them.
1. poisoning?
2. rolling over her in bed?
3. she falls out of crib?
4. someone drops her?
5. Forgotten in the bathtub?

Anything else?

 

[Turnadot]

I think both the KCPD and the FBI have highly trained interviewers and if I were innocent and wanted my child found, I would have no trouble with such an interview. I find it very odd that the parents allowed LE back to search their home without a search warrant but are now refusing access to the children. If this couple still has custody of those children by the end of the week, I'll be shocked.

JMO

I don't care.

No one affiliated with LE would interview my 5 year old more than once, no matter the circumstances. They'd get one interview, with a child advocate present. That's it. From that point on, LE would get any information my son may have from a privately retained child psychologist; LE & affiliates would not, however, be personally interviewing him more than once.

 

[Knox]

Two things that stuck out in my mind in that Today Show interview besides admitting to being drunk ...

• DB says she does not believe alcohol changes you like that.

If you blacked out, how would you know if you had unintentionally injured the baby? The question was not did you intentionally hurt her while under the influence of alcohol. Her unwillingness to even consider that she does not remember what happened gets to me.

• She will not allow the children to be questioned in order to spare them. Nor has she sat down and questioned them.

The children stated they heard noises but DB is not sure if it was before they went to sleep or after. I think it's weird that she has not talked to the boys herself. If a trained professional could question the boys and perhaps uncover a clue WHY would you not go there?

There's just something about DB that makes my hinky meter HUM!

 

[MyBelle]

I don't care.

No one affiliated with LE would interview my 5 year old more than once, no matter the circumstances. They'd get one interview, with a child advocate present. That's it. From that point on, LE would get any information my son may have from a privately retained child psychologist; LE & affiliates would not, however, be personally interviewing him more than once.

And that certainly is your choice as a parent but why would you make such a decision? LE's goal is to find Lisa.

JMO

 

[Turnadot]

Two things that stuck out in my mind in that Today Show interview besides admitting to being drunk ...

• DB says she does not believe alcohol changes you like that.

If you blacked out, how would you know if you had unintentionally injured the baby? The question was not did you intentionally hurt her while under the influence of alcohol. Her unwillingness to even consider that she does not remember what happened gets to me.

• She will not allow the children to be questioned in order to spare them. Nor has she sat down and questioned them.

The children stated they heard noises but DB is not sure if it was before they went to sleep or after. I think it's weird that she has not talked to the boys herself. If a trained professional could question the boys and perhaps uncover a clue WHY would you not go there?

There's just something about DB that makes my hinky meter HUM!

Bold & colour by me.

DB and the facts are strangers, IMO. It can change someone's personality dramatically. I've seen it myself.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

Two things that stuck out in my mind in that Today Show interview besides admitting to being drunk ...

• DB says she does not believe alcohol changes you like that.

If you blacked out, how would you know if you had unintentionally injured the baby? The question was not did you intentionally hurt her while under the influence of alcohol. Her unwillingness to even consider that she does not remember what happened gets to me.

• She will not allow the children to be questioned in order to spare them. Nor has she sat down and questioned them.

The children stated they heard noises but DB is not sure if it was before they went to sleep or after. I think it's weird that she has not talked to the boys herself. If a trained professional could question the boys and perhaps uncover a clue WHY would you not go there?

There's just something about DB that makes my hinky meter HUM!

About the boys,

That statement of she isn't sure they heard the noises before they went to sleep or after. Well, wouldn't one (adult or child) tend to NOT hear anything once asleep. How many times have you been woken up by a noise and at first not realized what you heard? And, if they were awake, well then, DUH! Of course they "heard" noises. Again, she doesn't qualify what NOISES she is talking about.

And, yes - makes no sense on why they aren't letting the boys be re-interviewed.


Here's another thought that's been bouncing around my brain after digesting all this today. The burnt clothes.

DB talks about LE showing her burnt clothes. She finishes that thought with LE must have been lying. Well, obviously they showed her burnt clothes. She admits that. But, once again, she doesn't qualify it. What kind of clothes? Could they have possibly been something that Lisa might have worn? What size were they? Were they little clothes - baby clothes? How burnt were they?

Its impossible to gauge DB's answers because she never qualifies them. She throws these tidbits out there and just leaves them hanging. Of course, it would help if the reporter interviewing her would ask the right follow up questions - but that doesn't happen either.

 

[MyBelle]

Two things that stuck out in my mind in that Today Show interview besides admitting to being drunk ...

• DB says she does not believe alcohol changes you like that.

If you blacked out, how would you know if you had unintentionally injured the baby? The question was not did you intentionally hurt her while under the influence of alcohol. Her unwillingness to even consider that she does not remember what happened gets to me.

• She will not allow the children to be questioned in order to spare them. Nor has she sat down and questioned them.

The children stated they heard noises but DB is not sure if it was before they went to sleep or after. I think it's weird that she has not talked to the boys herself. If a trained professional could question the boys and perhaps uncover a clue WHY would you not go there?

There's just something about DB that makes my hinky meter HUM!

A child who is harmed while the caregiver is intoxicated isn't a victim of an accident.

JMO

 

[Cuoco7]

:banghead::banghead:

I wonder about the accident scenario too, and I have a hard time believing any of them.
1. poisoning?
2. rolling over her in bed?
3. she falls out of crib?
4. someone drops her?

Anything else?

I can't think of anything else. Seriously. Maybe she just didn't want to deal anymore. Maybe she paid the unknown man/person that was spotted, to take her away. Really, nothing makes sense. It's not like they appear to be neglectful parents, where obvious partying and drug use and bad people are around. In that type of scenario, who knows what could happen, but this particular night her son was there along with JI's son (plus a kitty). If something happened early, one of the boys would've heard or seen something. But what kind of accident could happen once Lisa was in the crib at the original claimed hour of 730?
I can never get the right words out!

 

[Turnadot]

And that certainly is your choice as a parent but why would you make such a decision? LE's goal is to find Lisa.

JMO

Because children are easily confused and manipulated, and I've read about cases where a child began making up stuff to LE, because they got confused, or were tricked into saying something that wasn't true. The most recent case off the top of my head is the Fox case.

LE's goal is to find Lisa, absolutely, and they'd get any information my son had from his child psychologist. Just because it's not them personally questioning him doesn't mean they would not get the information my son may have ASAP. I just don't trust LE & affiliates to be ethical just because he's 5, based on what I know.

 

[MyBelle]

About the boys,

That statement of she isn't sure they heard the noises before they went to sleep or after. Well, wouldn't one (adult or child) tend to NOT hear anything once asleep. How many times have you been woken up by a noise and at first not realized what you heard? And, if they were awake, well then, DUH! Of course they "heard" noises. Again, she doesn't qualify what NOISES she is talking about.

And, yes - makes no sense on why they aren't letting the boys be re-interviewed.


Here's another thought that's been bouncing around my brain after digesting all this today. The burnt clothes.

DB talks about LE showing her burnt clothes. She finishes that thought with LE must have been lying. Well, obviously they showed her burnt clothes. She admits that. But, once again, she doesn't qualify it. What kind of clothes? Could they have possibly been something that Lisa might have worn? What size were they? Were they little clothes - baby clothes? How burnt were they?

Its impossible to gauge DB's answers because she never qualifies them. She throws these tidbits out there and just leaves them hanging. Of course, it would help if the reporter interviewing her would ask the right follow up questions - but that doesn't happen either.

The more DB talks, the bigger hole she digs for herself. I think this is why the prosecutor is trying to preserve all the unedited tapes. Today is the first day I've heard about burned clothes and yet again, that information came from DB. It's obvious she's trying to build a defense and the foundation is to discredit LE and call them liars. I think LE did find burned clothes.

JMO

 

[DairyGirl]

About the boys,

That statement of she isn't sure they heard the noises before they went to sleep or after. Well, wouldn't one (adult or child) tend to NOT hear anything once asleep. How many times have you been woken up by a noise and at first not realized what you heard? And, if they were awake, well then, DUH! Of course they "heard" noises. Again, she doesn't qualify what NOISES she is talking about.

And, yes - makes no sense on why they aren't letting the boys be re-interviewed.


Here's another thought that's been bouncing around my brain after digesting all this today. The burnt clothes.

DB talks about LE showing her burnt clothes. She finishes that thought with LE must have been lying. Well, obviously they showed her burnt clothes. She admits that. But, once again, she doesn't qualify it. What kind of clothes? Could they have possibly been something that Lisa might have worn? What size were they? Were they little clothes - baby clothes? How burnt were they?

Its impossible to gauge DB's answers because she never qualifies them. She throws these tidbits out there and just leaves them hanging. Of course, it would help if the reporter interviewing her would ask the right follow up questions - but that doesn't happen either.

That just made me think. What if she lied about what Lisa was wearing last? Then if LE found the real clothes they wouldn't link it to Lisa because they weren't as her mother described? And she could accuse LE of lying to her because they don't have the real clothes?

 

[MyBelle]

Because children are easily confused and manipulated, and I've read about cases where a child began making up stuff to LE, because they got confused, or were tricked into saying something that wasn't true. The most recent case off the top of my head is the Fox case.

LE's goal is to find Lisa, absolutely, and they'd get any information my son had from his child psychologist. Just because it's not them personally questioning him doesn't mean they would not get the information my son may have ASAP. I just don't trust LE & affiliates to be ethical just because he's 5, based on what I know.

I'm not that familiar with the Fox case. Was the FBI involved in interviewing the child?

JMO

 

[Lillith]

I wonder about the accident scenario too, and I have a hard time believing any of them.
1. poisoning?
2. rolling over her in bed?
3. she falls out of crib?
4. someone drops her?

Anything else?

The bath - Imagine how easily a drunk person could forget a baby in a bath. She may have done the unthinkable and left her for a second only to get totally distracted. It may have been some time before she remembered...