I don't understand. You're saying there were multiple "interviews", at multiple locations. Are there links to this info? I do know there was the interview where Db claimed she was called white trash. And that is why she refuses to do any more. There were several more than that?
http://fox4kc.com/2011/11/11/exclusive-irwin-family-attorney-john-picerno-talks-to-fox-4s-john-holt/
Q: She's not been charged, he's not been charged. The perception out there is: Why lawyer up? Why do you need a lawyer if you haven't been charged and are supposedly cooperating?
JP: Sure. I have this discussion all the time with my father, and with other people. It's a common question, and I think it's a good question. Generally speaking, someone who is going to be interrogated by the police should have a lawyer to give them advice on what their rights are, when they can refuse to answer questions and when they should answer questions. In this case, JI and DB subjected
themselves to 5 different interviews/interrogations. Two without attorneys, where they agreed to waive their Miranda rights, or at least Debbie did, and speak to LE on their own, the first time was 8 hours for JI and 11 hours for DB, they did so. And then they went back a second time, and they did so again without a lawyer. It wasn't until the third time that a family member who is also a law student suggested to them "hey, next time you talk to the police, it would be a good idea to have a lawyer go with you."
Q: I want to talk about that
third interview, because I think there are some interesting developments there and how the case perhaps turned. But, again, public perception. You've said that the family is cooperating, the public perception is you know what? If it's my baby, I'll talk to the police any time, any day, 24/7. You're not allowing them to talk to police right now. Why?
JP: Well, first of all, I don't think an attorney can allow or not allow somebody to do anything. What our role is is to give them advice about what is in their best interest. My advice is not to talk- so is Joe's, I mean, our advice is for them not to talk because there is nothing beneficial to be gained from it. Like I said,
30 hours of interviews. Everything that they have wanted to get, by way of information, they already have. And it's the tone and the nature of the interviews. They have turned into interrogations, and they have been in the accusatory fashion. That is really why we have advised our clients that no further interrogation is advisable to them. As far as the questions they want answered - they obviously love their child and want their child to be returned to them, they want to help the police. Joe and I are free any time. Any questions that any LE official has, they should send it our way, we will get an answer for them.
Q: Do you forsee a time when they might sit down with police again?
JP: It's possible. Yes, I wouldn't rule anything out.
Q: Let's talk about the Oct.8th interview, because I think you've explained that was where the tone changed. Sean O'brien, a local attorney went with them. What happened there? Were they told at that point that they were suspects?
JP: Well I don't know necassarily that they've ever been told that they were suspects, and the accusations, it is my understanding, specifically from KCPD detectives, began in the
first interrogation of DB, hours after in began. But, what specifically happened in that
third interrogation that Mr.Obrien attended, was that, they went down there with the understanding that they were going to see some new evidence, some new leads that might help them find their child. And what happened was, they were shown photographs from the home, and they were shown photographs of the window specifically, and they were told that basically- no one went in through the window, that it couldn't have happened the way that Debbie in particular had said that it happened. They didn't buy that there was a person that entered the home. It began down the path of "we know that you are a good mom, it may have been an accident, or the boys may have been too rough with the child, but now is the time and you need to tell us now." and it got quite heated. It is my understanding at that point, Debbie just lost it and broke down because she was expecting to hear some good, positive news and instead they are back to the same thing that ended the other interrogations, in that they were accusing her.
Q: Your view is that they were lured down there under false pretenses?
JP: Absolutely.
Q: And then, the accusation-
JP: Exactly.
Q: We know you did something, something happened.
JP: Exactly.
Q: Was that the last time they talked to police?
JP:
No, there were two other occasions that they then cooperated, I think they went down there a fourth and fifth time, for very short amounts of time, to give prints -fingerprints, one time and then one additional time.
HTH
