LE wants to interview the parents separately

[Gardenlady]

Why do people think the defense attorney is lying? Does she have a history of lying that leads folks to believe she is lying about this? Or is it just because she is a defense attorney?

 

[Wendy101]

This is really making me sick. I can understand them wanting their atty present, I really can and i am not on the fence about this at all, but why will they not do separate interviews is beyond me. I dont get it. Which one of them doesnt want the other one to talk.. You know its fishy when they dont have separate lawyers. If they did, I can guarantee that JI's lawyer would be telling him to talk. JMO but I am sticking with it.

I bet it is Deborah that doesn't want Jeremy to talk.

 

[stilettos]

Apparently from what I have been reading, LE isnt opposed to them having their lawyer present but they asked and suggested they wanted to question them without their lawyer. Of course the answer is no, so they have no choice but to do it with the atty present. Hey you can ask.. I posted a link above to one of the stories but it is on every single news thing out there, literally if you google just the words "unrestricted police interview" it comes up with story after story about DB and JI. MSM sources as well.

IMO it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that LE would prefer to question every suspect individually and without counsel. Having Counsel present at interviews limits the type and scope of the questions. However, at this point...I would imagine that LE would sit down at the interview table with the parents seperately w/their attny. I still firmly come down on the side of LE...in this case they have pursued all other leads not related to the parents and I do not see LE as trying to railroad the parents.

 

[In da Middle]

I thought October 4th would have been a perfect day to do this, or whenever the children were interviewed the first time. I don't understand the delay.

But maybe LE were out of cotton swabs or something. I wonder if the parents have been swabbed yet or if they're waiting for a perfect day to do it.

I don't know why it wasn't done that day either. The parents, attys and LE all have said they had permission to do so that day.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't know why it wasn't done that day either. The parents, attys and LE all have said they had permission to do so that day.

Where did they specify which day the permission was given? I have missed that.

 

[amymarie]

If they are innocent, I can sort of understand why they wouldn't want to do an interview. Anything they say can be used against them as circumstantial evidence. Or it can be used to open a child neglect case against them.

If I was in their position, however, I would be MORE concerned with finding my daughter and LESS concerned with what may happen tome.

I do believe there was a lot of bad parenting going on that night. Did they kill Lisa? I don't know but they sure do act guilty. They seem so angry in their interviews.

 

[In da Middle]

Where did they specify which day the permission was given? I have missed that.

The very first press conference by LE, I believe. If not that one within the first couple of days.

 

[Gardenlady]

If they are innocent, I can sort of understand why they wouldn't want to do an interview. Anything they say can be used against them as circumstantial evidence. Or it can be used to open a child neglect case against them.

If I was in their position, however, I would be MORE concerned with finding my daughter and LESS concerned with what may happen tome.

I do believe there was a lot of bad parenting going on that night. Did they kill Lisa? I don't know but they sure do act guilty. They seem so angry in their interviews.

BBM -

I guess this is proof of how everyone sees things differently. I watch the interviews and I see a grief stricken mother, not an angry one.

 

[Donjeta]

The very first press conference by LE, I believe. If not that one within the first couple of days.

Thank you, I have not seen the pressers from the very first days.

 

[amymarie]

I thought October 4th would have been a perfect day to do this, or whenever the children were interviewed the first time. I don't understand the delay.

But maybe LE were out of cotton swabs or something. I wonder if the parents have been swabbed yet or if they're waiting for a perfect day to do it.

I think that day was probably traumatic enough for the boys without some police officer coming up to the boys and saying, "hey, can I stick this big quip in your mouth?" LE thought the parents were cooperating at that time so they probably didn't think it would be so hard to get the family up to the police station to get DNA later.

 

[amymarie]

*supposed to say Qtip, not quip

 

[CharlestonGal]

IMO it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that LE would prefer to question every suspect individually and without counsel. Having Counsel present at interviews limits the type and scope of the questions. However, at this point...I would imagine that LE would sit down at the interview table with the parents seperately w/their attny. I still firmly come down on the side of LE...in this case they have pursued all other leads not related to the parents and I do not see LE as trying to railroad the parents.

I don't see why that has to be so. I could have an attorney with me and still answer every question about what I did that day, the day before, the day before that, last month, last year, who was in my house, what they did, what I did, what time they left, what time I put my baby to bed, what time I checked on her, what my other kids were doing, what the neighbor was doing, what I was doing, other visitors, phone calls, text messages, what time and how many times I went to the bathroom, when I went to bed, when I woke up, what I did when I realized my baby was gone, what happened every minute between the time I last saw my baby until the moment I realized she was gone.

I see no reason for my attorney (or me) to limit the scope of questions about my missing baby. No reason at all. Heck, they probably would not be able to shut me up. Not only that, the smallest detail I might mention may connect the dots between other information they have gathered and something might click.

Sorry, I'm all for personal rights and all that but no lawyer would interfere with my efforts to find my baby. Period.

 

[amymarie]

BBM -

I guess this is proof of how everyone sees things differently. I watch the interviews and I see a grief stricken mother, not an angry one.

Sometimes I see grief but the rest of the time I see anger.

 

[Donjeta]

I think that day was probably traumatic enough for the boys without some police officer coming up to the boys and saying, "hey, can I stick this big quip in your mouth?" LE thought the parents were cooperating at that time so they probably didn't think it would be so hard to get the family up to the police station to get DNA later.

Good point, although I think if it's difficult for them to bring the children to the police station or the children are afraid of it someone very unthreatening and harmless looking person from LE would agree to come to the children with a Q-tip.

I suppose it doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things as long as they get there eventually; they probably need the samples more now after the grand search when they actually have things to compare the children's DNA to.

But I really want to know if the parents have given DNA or just consented to do so.

 

[justamommy]

Good point, although I think if it's difficult for them to bring the children to the police station or the children are afraid of it someone very unthreatening and harmless looking person from LE would agree to come to the children with a Q-tip.

I suppose it doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things as long as they get there eventually; they probably need the samples more now after the grand search when they actually have things to compare the children's DNA to.

But I really want to know if the parents have given DNA or just consented to do so.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html

This is taken from the above article:

Short, a veteran criminal defense lawyer, said Bradley and Irwin have continued to have regular and productive contact with investigators, have permitted numerous searches of their property and have willingly provided DNA, fingerprint and hair samples to investigators.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html#ixzz1bzlleMGm

 

[nursebeeme]

http://voices.kansascity.com/entrie...ing-vilify-lisa-irwins-parents/#ixzz1bzmV8ora

But on Wednesday, in a meeting with The Star’s Editorial Board, Forte said the police are “not trying to vilify the family.”

The police have good reasons for doing what they are doing, the chief added. That’s essentially a response to the attorneys, who have indicated the police have been overbearing in their treatment of the parents, implying they were involved in the disappearance of baby Lisa.

Forte said he wouldn’t comment further on the case, adding that the department has one spokesman - Steve Young - handling the crushing number of local and national media requests about this matter.



Read more: http://voices.kansascity.com/entrie...ing-vilify-lisa-irwins-parents/#ixzz1bznFfxKL

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Forte said he wouldn’t comment further on the case, adding that the department has one spokesman - Steve Young - handling the crushing number of local and national media requests about this matter.

Why so reticent?

Joking or not, Forte said this strategy was designed to hold down the number of subpenas that might be issued in the future regarding the case.

To me, this was a broad hint that, as many people expect, this case is not going to end well, either for baby Lisa Irwin or for her parents.
And let’s hope I’m wrong, wrong, wrong.


Read more: http://voices.kansascity.com/entrie...ing-vilify-lisa-irwins-parents/#ixzz1bzqsDA65

 

[nursebeeme]

I am glad that Chief Forte clarified that LE statements have been a response to the attorney's claims...

 

[Donjeta]

I guess this is all moot now that they're too tired to be interviewed in any form.

 

[Nannn]

My brain keeps going back to the cell phones and that they are THE KEY to all of this (imo)... if the LE has them, they are not required to tell anyone, are they? I have a feeling they need the parents to say something contradicting about them and bam.. arrest. Aren't there phone records? Would they have to have been subpoenaed and that would have been public record? Which is why I have a feeling they have the phones already? I am not knowledgeable about how all that works..if anyone can enlighten me I would so appreciate it! Also, the atty talking about Lisa in the past tense bothers me to NO END!!...I believe the parents know what happened to Lisa, fwiw, so I know I am biased in my thinking..