LE wants to interview the parents separately

[tehcloser]

I guess we'll see. Maybe hell will freeze over and LE will make a statement.

They have been making plenty of statements...........

 

[Wise Old Owl]

Naw, I didn't speculate that...and I'm not buying that attorney's spin either.

ITA - LE is quite aware of people's right and their right to have counsel present. So, I don't think any LE would even ask that the parents not have their attorney present.

But, again, neither parent has been charged nor arrested - so a "right to counsel" doesn't have a whole lot of teeth here. People are interviewed all the time by LE with or without their attorney present.

Yes, an attorney is going to "gum up" the interview by interjecting "don't answer that" on certain questions.

The BIG question here is:

If these parents are innocent and had absolutely nothing to do with this, why are they making demands, refusing to be questioned separately, etc. etc. ?

THE TRUTH DOESN'T CHANGE!

JMHO

 

[gliving]

Yep. I think pretty much all of us speculated that's what LE wanted when they said "unrestricted" - they want the couple to waive their right to counsel.

What I don't understand is how LE can make public statements about Lisa's parents and minor brothers, but not much about any other avenues they are pursuing. I do hope they are considering all possibilities.

"Kansas City Police Capt. Steve Young said he can’t comment on what media outlets are reporting or discuss what’s going on in the investigation.

“I really cannot comment on what the detectives know and have done,” Young said Sunday"



http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/23/3225517/irwin-cases-frustrations-continue.html#ixzz1buoDS9JC


MOO

 

[JeannaT]

ITA - LE is quite aware of people's right and their right to have counsel present. So, I don't think any LE would even ask that the parents not have their attorney present.

But, again, neither parent has been charged nor arrested - so a "right to counsel" doesn't have a whole lot of teeth here. People are interviewed all the time by LE with or without their attorney present.

Yes, an attorney is going to "gum up" the interview by interjecting "don't answer that" on certain questions.

The BIG question here is:

If these parents are innocent and had absolutely nothing to do with this, why are they making demands, refusing to be questioned separately, etc. etc. ?

THE TRUTH DOESN'T CHANGE!

JMHO

People do often not exercise their right to counsel, but in fact you have the right to have one present at any time LE questions you about anything. Maybe it's just me, but the term "unrestricted" means without your lawyer present.

BTW, I think what you're referring to is, the right to have an attorney appointed to your case if you are indigent, and yes, that only kicks in if there are criminal charges. You don't have the right to a public defender if you're being questioned without being charged. But you have the right to hire one and have them present.


Edited to add: Attorneys are not just useful in "don't answer that" type of things, they are also very valuable with saying things like "you need to understand that although he is telling you this, he is not bound to be telling you the truth. He is free to make this up, and you should consider maybe that last statement is made up to fool you into thinking they have something they don't." and "if you don't mind, my client would appreciate not being touched, and a chance to get a drink of water would be great."

 

[Wise Old Owl]

I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't think any LE (much less FBI) would actually tell the parents they want to interview them, spearately and without an attorney present. LE knows what they are doing and pretty much knows that they don't have the authority to do this. I think this was CS' spin on the "unrestricted" interview with LE request.

JMHO

 

[JeannaT]

I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't think any LE (much less FBI) would actually tell the parents they want to interview them, spearately and without an attorney present. LE knows what they are doing and pretty much knows that they don't have the authority to do this. I think this was CS' spin on the "unrestricted" interview with LE request.

JMHO

They don't have the right to demand it, but they certainly have the chance to request it. Like, requesting without a warrant to search your property. That happens all the time and sometimes it's granted and sometimes not.

I really wish they'd just clear this up, but I guess it's not my business. : (

 

[believe09]

What I don't understand is how LE can make public statements about Lisa's parents and minor brothers, but not much about any other avenues they are pursuing. I do hope they are considering all possibilities.

"Kansas City Police Capt. Steve Young said he can’t comment on what media outlets are reporting or discuss what’s going on in the investigation.

“I really cannot comment on what the detectives know and have done,” Young said Sunday"



http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/23/3225517/irwin-cases-frustrations-continue.html#ixzz1buoDS9JC


MOO

Young said Sunday. Yet he is quoted on Wednesday, directly quoted I might add, giving away a major piece of the investigation involving some minor children.

I am not bashing-I am very very LE focused and typically always fall on their side. But he cannot have his cake and eat it too.

 

[CharlestonGal]

I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't think any LE (much less FBI) would actually tell the parents they want to interview them, spearately and without an attorney present. LE knows what they are doing and pretty much knows that they don't have the authority to do this. I think this was CS' spin on the "unrestricted" interview with LE request.

JMHO

I think this attorney may want to consider her words very carefully. Using national media to accuse a police department of flagrant civil rights violations is a serious charge - and one that could find her in front of the bar if unfounded.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I think this attorney may want to consider her words very carefully. Using national media to accuse a police department of flagrant civil rights violations is a serious charge - and one that could find her in front of the bar if unfounded.

I don't think it's a civil rights violation. They aren't under arrest - this isn't a Miranda situation yet. It's not a civil rights violation to ask the parents to come in, sans attorney, for questioning. The parents have an opportunity to say no. It's different than DB being under arrest, in the interrogation room, and being denied an attorney.

 

[JeannaT]

I think this attorney may want to consider her words very carefully. Using national media to accuse a police department of flagrant civil rights violations is a serious charge - and one that could find her in front of the bar if unfounded.

It isn't a civil rights violation - they're asking the couple to appear without a lawyer, not demanding it and not refusing to stop an interview once a request for counsel is made.

My guess is, she's choosing her words V E R Y carefully and it's hard to believe she'd make that statement publicly if it weren't true.

Just MHO.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

We don't know that LE has requested they come in without the attorney. We don't know this. The only one who has said this is the attorney herself.

JMO

 

[gliving]

Young said Sunday. Yet he is quoted on Wednesday, directly quoted I might add, giving away a major piece of the investigation involving some minor children.

I am not bashing-I am very very LE focused and typically always fall on their side. But he cannot have his cake and eat it too.

Exactly! While I understand that LE can't tell us if they are seriously looking at someone in Oklahoma, example only, I don't feel comfortable when they release these seemingly negative tidbits about Lisa's family. There needs to be more balance.

 

[JeannaT]

We don't know that LE has requested they come in without the attorney. We don't know this. The only one who has said this is the attorney herself.

JMO

Right. In a case like this where LE is keeping so mum, there's a lot of stuff we don't know for fact.

I guess it's up to individuals to make up their minds by what LE means by "unrestricted", and then make up their minds whether this attorney would risk all her credibility lying to the media.

So, yes. You kind of have to follow a logic trail and fill in the blanks with your own experience and viewpoint.

 

[justamommy]

ITA - LE is quite aware of people's right and their right to have counsel present. So, I don't think any LE would even ask that the parents not have their attorney present.

But, again, neither parent has been charged nor arrested - so a "right to counsel" doesn't have a whole lot of teeth here. People are interviewed all the time by LE with or without their attorney present.

Yes, an attorney is going to "gum up" the interview by interjecting "don't answer that" on certain questions.

The BIG question here is:

If these parents are innocent and had absolutely nothing to do with this, why are they making demands, refusing to be questioned separately, etc. etc. ?

THE TRUTH DOESN'T CHANGE!

JMHO

I don't think they are refusing to be questioned separately. They are refusing to be questioned w/o attorney. I would too at this point, innocent or not.

 

[justamommy]

We don't know that LE has requested they come in without the attorney. We don't know this. The only one who has said this is the attorney herself.

JMO

Yet, LE hasn't denied it.

 

[SilkySifaka]

Young said Sunday. Yet he is quoted on Wednesday, directly quoted I might add, giving away a major piece of the investigation involving some minor children.

I am not bashing-I am very very LE focused and typically always fall on their side. But he cannot have his cake and eat it too.

IMO LE is guilty of using the media for spin as much as the defense or the parents.

Some may think it a good idea, I don't. I think LE needs to be above games like that jmo. .

imo

 

[Marshmallow]

It isn't a civil rights violation - they're asking the couple to appear without a lawyer, not demanding it and not refusing to stop an interview once a request for counsel is made.

My guess is, she's choosing her words V E R Y carefully and it's hard to believe she'd make that statement publicly if it weren't true.

Just MHO.

this whole issue of LE demanding/asking they interview without any atty present is just gossip. It has never been stated that LE asked specifically for these parents to be questioned without legal representation. It is merely speculation and in no way fact or truth.

 

[cluciano63]

I don't see LE as "playing games." Maybe they are calling the parents out in public; so what? If LE is not telling the truth about the parents refusing to sit down and answer specific questions, then they are welcome to prove LE wrong by doing so. JMO

 

[JeannaT]

this whole issue of LE demanding/asking they interview without any atty present is just gossip. It has never been stated that LE asked specifically for these parents to be questioned without legal representation. It is merely speculation and in no way fact or truth.

Her lawyer has said that. She strikes me as VERY professional and not some clowny quack who misspeaks.

 

[Marshmallow]

We don't know that LE has requested they come in without the attorney. We don't know this. The only one who has said this is the attorney herself.

JMO

my guess is that she did it on purpose because she knows there is a section of the public willing to assume anything negative against LE and she knew it would take off and grow into a full out outrageous rumor, as it has.