LE wants to interview the parents separately

[HatesSociopaths]

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

Can someone clarify that part (bolded/underlined) please? Thanks.

 

[cluciano63]

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..

I'm pretty sure that LE has had the phone info for a while, although perhaps not the actual phones. Whatever is on them probably contributes to their seeming focus on the family home and the parents, IMO.

 

[GEORGIAGIRL69]

Absolutely not! What the police want is the unfettered/unrestricted opportunity to get a signed confession from DB or JI. The parents have been their primary suspects since the initial interview.

The cops do not really believe this baby is alive. I don't believe the parents, if innocent, have much hope that their child is alive.

Yes, there is great suspicion swirling around Lisa's house. The other tips haven't panned out. There is unidentified DNA according to Capt. Young. The parents have been inconsistent. DB concealed her trip to buy wine and changed the timeline. She is admittedly the last person to see the child. The police are operating on the ready assumptions that she either killed the child or knows who took the child. They are hellbent on getting a confession as they probably don't have the evidence at this time to get a grand jury indictment. They are not offering either of these parties use immunity, by that, I mean, that whatever they say in the interview cannot be used against them, but must be proved by evidence obtained independent of the suspect's statements.

No. I absolutely would not sit down with detectives without an attorney present even if I wanted to sign a confession.

BBM - I don't think they are hellbent on getting a confession at all - I just think they are trying to find out what the heck happened to this baby girl, and the parents have not been forthcoming and have changed their stories more than once.

How do you know they haven't offered one of the parents immunity?

We will just have to agree to disagree because I would do anything to find my missing child, including talking with LE. Sorry, my missing child's rights trump my rights in a situation like this. Period. MOO.

 

[nursebeeme]

Can someone clarify that part (bolded/underlined) please? Thanks.

why is LE so reticent (which is silent or uncommunicative in speech)?

to keep down the number of subpoenas that may be issued in the future in the case

((a subpoena is a writ requiring a person to attend court))

hope that helps



(((translation of this)))

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/entries...#ixzz1bzqsDA65

 

[KC Mom]

why is LE so reticent (which is silent or uncommunicative in speech)?

to keep down the number of subpoenas that may be issued in the future in the case

((a subpoena is a writ requiring a person to attend court))

hope that helps

To maintain an unbiased jury pool?

 

[jstwondering]

Scrapple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds suspiciously like the McRib!!!:great:

 

[jstwondering]

I guess because we're not seeing them doing any interviews at all them saying they would consent doesn't mean that much to me. They gave out a press release on the 21st saying that they had consented to having the children swabbed for DNA and then we found out almost a week later yesterday that it hadn't been done yet. Their consent does not seem to mean that anything will happen shortly.

Consent to an interview with atty present -> drive to the station with atty-> have interview with atty present. It seems simple enough to me. Instead we get press releases and excuses.

BBM

I think you have a point here that is, unfortunately, getting lost. IMO
I'm trying to put myself in a serious situation... not this one, of course, because I don't think anyone could imagine something so terrible as having their child go missing, but some very serious situation...

In such a case, I would find myself tearing my hair out trying to get more information from someone that could help me, i.e. LE. Probably complaining to anyone who would listen that I need more information. If someone told me to be patient, I would go nuts. But here we have their attorney saying that everyone has to be patient. That seems totally ludicrous to me. I get wanting to have my privacy, or being so depressed that I couldn't move, but I don't get wanting to take a break. It's way odd to me. :banghead:
IMHO

 

[jstwondering]

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

I see defiance... the same defiance I see in my 17 year old daughter when she insists that she is right. (Which is all the time, I may add.) I even see the attempted effort of sarcastic disbelief and almost eye rolling.
(This would be in the Megan Kelly FOX interview.) IMO

 

[stilettos]

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.

CharlestonGal - :truce: I would be there answering questions without an attny..consequences to myself be dam*ed..if it were my child. Was just posting re: the reason LEO's might prefer the interview without counsel...you see, an attny can pull the plug at any moment, instruct his client not to answer a particular question...many reasons that LE would prefer them to be without counsel during questioning. I know they are entitled to representation, that should not preclude them from going in an answering all LE questions.

 

[kgeaux]

Why would LE even think that DB & JI would consent to an interview without their lawyer? Is that not one of the reasons people "lawyer up" to put that barrier between them and LE?

I am convinced (IMO) that LE----every member, every district!----wishes they could conduct all of their interviews and interrogations without defense attorneys present. The very fact that they term the hiring of a defense lawyer as "lawyering up" tells you how negatively they feel about it! However, the right to council was not included in our civil rights as a whim. There is a vast history that defines WHY we are entitled to have representation with us during such times. It acts as a balance, for sure, to keep LE from overstepping the bounds.

I'm wondering. By now I think family knows or suspects what happened. I think LE should paper an interrogation room with Lisa's photos. Baby pics, pics from right before she died. Everything.

Then one by one bring in the grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins and all the supporting family. Gently asking them questions about what they know, about what happened. Surely there is at least one who wouldn't be able to cover when faced with the pics of the baby.

I don't believe that the family (outside of perhaps the parents) have a clue what happened to this child. Surely if they knew, they'd volunteer the info? While they may "suspect" something in particular, that isn't evidence.

Actually, the "get-out-of-jail" card wasn't free at all for the WM3. It cost them 18 years each of false imprisonment and the hardships that go along with that, character assassinations that are obviously still having to be overcome, one has a son who is now just about the same age as the time in prison so they were separated for all that time except for one or a couple brief visits, to say nothing of living every day for 18 years thinking that you might never be free again (and for Damien, death row and solitary confinement while also thinking that you might be put to death any day).

And it wasn't just foreign DNA at the crime scene that helped their cause, it was the *complete lack* of *any* of the 3's DNA at said crime scene, along with a bunch of miscarriages of justice during the investigation and trial.

Just some facts (check them) for those who are reading. There is a West Memphis 3 forum here at WS.

But we're off-topic. :angel: Sorry, mods, that needed to be said.

Thank you! Clicking the button just wasn't enough. The WM3 are a pretty good example of what happens when LE goes into an "interview" with a pre-determined point of view. And the fact that one of the interviewees had a lower than average IQ and submitted to a longer-than-usual interview comes into play, too.

I was taking this as unrestricted to mean, do not put rules on LE.. They can ask what they want and if they have to keep you there for 6 hours they can. But further investigation as shown that LE did want to question them without their atty. They wanted DB and JI to agree to this. Cant say I blame them and I guess it was worth a try but not gonna happen.
Here is the link to the story..

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/justice/missouri-missing-girl/

We probably all have our subjective opinions as to what "unrestricted" means. I think both statements--by the lawyers and by LE--contain some truth. My take is that LE wants simultaneous separate interviews, and the parents will not submit to that because they are represented by the same council---if the defense attorney is present with one parent, s/he cannot be present at the same time with the other parent. Once a detective has flat out told you that he believes you did something to the baby, it would be pure foolishness to submit to any questions without your council present.

I also believe the parents have asked that interviews be conducted by detectives who have not accused them of wrong doing, and I totally understand that!

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

Poor guy. He is saying he won't comment on the case even while he is commenting!

 

[katydid23]

I see defiance... the same defiance I see in my 17 year old daughter when she insists that she is right. (Which is all the time, I may add.) I even see the attempted effort of sarcastic disbelief and almost eye rolling.
(This would be in the Megan Kelly FOX interview.) IMO

Ah, 17. I remember when my lovely daughter was that age. My heart goes out to you. She is 19 now and much less combative and arrogant, thank goodness. So hang in there.

DB does remind me of an angry defiant teen when she is questioned about her drinking, for example.

 

[roseofsharon]

I see a lot of attitude and loving the spotlight -- just like her friend said -- attention hound!!

And please stop saying where she's AT!! So the A's.

IMO

 

[cluciano63]

I am just so stunned that almost a month has passed and LE can't get answers to questions they have for the parents. Are these the Ramseys? How could any ordinary parents allow lawyers to tell them not to cooperate with police, if that is what is happening, when they are no closer to finding their BABY? At least with the Ramseys, they knew where Jon Benet was and what had happened to her; maybe they suspected one another, who knows, but they had a resolution, so less incentive to talk. But this baby allegedly could be anywhere, if they are not hiding something. How could even a defense lawyer stomach the idea of telling parents of a MISSING BABY to keep quiet? Aren't they at least a little bit human? JMO

 

[CharlestonGal]

I am just so stunned that almost a month has passed and LE can't get answers to questions they have for the parents. Are these the Ramseys? How could any ordinary parents allow lawyers to tell them not to cooperate with police, if that is what is happening, when they are no closer to finding their BABY? At least with the Ramseys, they knew where Jon Benet was and what had happened to her; maybe they suspected one another, who knows, but they had a resolution, so less incentive to talk. But this baby allegedly could be anywhere, if they are not hiding something. How could even a defense lawyer stomach the idea of telling parents of a MISSING BABY to keep quiet? Aren't they at least a little bit human? JMO

Err.....most defense attornies I've worked with don't give a crap about their clients or the victim of the crime. They care about their "wins" and "losses". It's a game to them. Like a chess game using real people as pawns on the board. They like going up against LE and the DA and coming out on top.

Work for the criminal justice system for awhile and you'll see exactly what I mean. They don't have any personal investment in their pawns. It's really a strange kind of mentality.

 

[cluciano63]

Err.....most defense attornies I've worked with don't give a crap about their clients or the victim of the crime. They care about their "wins" and "losses". It's a game to them. Like a chess game using real people as pawns on the board. They like going up against LE and the DA and coming out on top.

Work for the criminal justice system for awhile and you'll see exactly what I mean. They don't have any personal investment in their pawns. It's really a strange kind of mentality.

Well I know that, logically...but I still imagine some of these people must also be parents...it boggles my mind.

 

[Aedrys]

Err.....most defense attornies I've worked with don't give a crap about their clients or the victim of the crime. They care about their "wins" and "losses". It's a game to them. Like a chess game using real people as pawns on the board. They like going up against LE and the DA and coming out on top.

Work for the criminal justice system for awhile and you'll see exactly what I mean. They don't have any personal investment in their pawns. It's really a strange kind of mentality.

I wouldn't classify all defense attorneys like this. The more unscrupulous ones usually get the spotlight. That doesn't mean that there aren't hardworking defense attorneys doing a good job of defending people they believe in. They just don't get the press that the bad ones do. I learned the hard way not to make such a hasty generalization of all defense attorneys when one came out and corrected me here at WS in another case. They're not all bad people who don't care. There are a lot of cases that shaped the world the way it is today and hard working defense attorneys were at the center of those cases.

And honestly, after the Casey Anthony case, I have to believe that are better attorneys out there than her defense team, or this world as we know it is so very much in deep trouble.

 

[mysteriew]

CharlestonGal - :truce: I would be there answering questions without an attny..consequences to myself be dam*ed..if it were my child. Was just posting re: the reason LEO's might prefer the interview without counsel...you see, an attny can pull the plug at any moment, instruct his client not to answer a particular question...many reasons that LE would prefer them to be without counsel during questioning. I know they are entitled to representation, that should not preclude them from going in an answering all LE questions.

I find it really hard to believe that LE is insisting on an interview without attorney. Here is why. If LE is believing that one or both parents are involved in Lisa's disappearance and the parents have lawyered up I don't think they can request an interview alone. And if they managed to get an interview alone, the court would most likely throw out any info learned during that interview, and throw out any evidence they found as a result of that interview. It is called fruit of the poisonous tree.

So let's say the parents did go to the station, they can claim under duress as they want to find out info about the search. LE interviews the parents and one of them confesses and tells them where to find the body.

Most likely the court will throw that out. All of it, the confession as well as the body. Then there is a large chunk of necessary evidence that cannot be discussed in court. Their case is dead.

Prosecution would try to keep from losing the evidence. But the defense will claim parents were there under duress, previous interviews with the clients LE accused them of harming the baby. Defense will claim that the parents were being treated like suspects, and were deprived of counsel that they were entitled to. They would also most likely claim that the parents felt intimidated by the LE.

Now I do believe LE has said they want to interview the parents without restrictions. Other restrictions that have been mentioned are who will do the interviews and whether or not the couple would be separated. I also wonder if perhaps there aren't some restrictions as far as limits to what questions can be asked of parents. And I think those are the restrictions that LE referred to.

But it is spin to say they are trying to interview the parents without attorneys. That is a way to give the public a 'reasonable' explanation for the parents refusal to speak with LE. A way to gain sympathy for the client, as well as to try to convince the public that LE is bad. But for LE, they have way too much to lose to take that risk.

 

[cachmo]

I find it really hard to believe that LE is insisting on an interview without attorney. Here is why. If LE is believing that one or both parents are involved in Lisa's disappearance and the parents have lawyered up I don't think they can request an interview alone. And if they managed to get an interview alone, the court would most likely throw out any info learned during that interview, and throw out any evidence they found as a result of that interview. It is called fruit of the poisonous tree.

So let's say the parents did go to the station, they can claim under duress as they want to find out info about the search. LE interviews the parents and one of them confesses and tells them where to find the body.

Most likely the court will throw that out. All of it, the confession as well as the body. Then there is a large chunk of necessary evidence that cannot be discussed in court. Their case is dead.

Prosecution would try to keep from losing the evidence. But the defense will claim parents were there under duress, previous interviews with the clients LE accused them of harming the baby. Defense will claim that the parents were being treated like suspects, and were deprived of counsel that they were entitled to. They would also most likely claim that the parents felt intimidated by the LE.

Now I do believe LE has said they want to interview the parents without restrictions. Other restrictions that have been mentioned are who will do the interviews and whether or not the couple would be separated. I also wonder if perhaps there aren't some restrictions as far as limits to what questions can be asked of parents. And I think those are the restrictions that LE referred to.

But it is spin to say they are trying to interview the parents without attorneys. That is a way to give the public a 'reasonable' explanation for the parents refusal to speak with LE. A way to gain sympathy for the client, as well as to try to convince the public that LE is bad. But for LE, they have way too much to lose to take that risk.

:goodpost::goodpost::goodpost::tyou:

 

[mysteriew]

Using your post as a jumping point, not speaking to your directly

Personally, I suspect that "unrestricted" does not mean "without an attorney". I've read a few articles that state that the last "unrestricted" meeting was on October 8th. Well, on October 8th, they had an attorney with them. (O'brien)

O'brien is a professional. A professor of law. And he has implied that LE went too far during that meeting, and that he felt they would have been more "heavy handed" had he not been there. IMO the restrictions are basically not to yell in their face that they killed their baby, not to lie to them, not to lie to them about what the other said, etc. Basic LE tactics. I think LE needs those tactics to get a confession, and O'brien knows that too much of such tactics creates false confessions. And so, it's a stalemate with neither willing to budge.

IF the parents are innocent, I can totally understand how they got to this stalemate. If they are guilty, then I think they are being big ole modsnips, and will be deserving of every bit of justice that the law can place on them. I don't believe we can know without more evidence.

If you all can't tell, I'm going stir crazy for science/forensic reports :innocent:

BBM

Great post and very good points! LE has spoken of their last unrestricted interview and they did have representation in that interview!

And as far as the bolded part, you can speak to me. I don't bite and I am pretty much housetrained.

 

[Boytwnmom]

as, in this case the people they want to question are the PARENTS of the victim-the WM3 had no reason to cooperate and the police were trying to solve a murder and obviously picked the weird kids who had no relationship with the victims. This is supposedly a "kidnapping" and the parents, the people who reported the crime, won't help, nor do they appear to be mentally deficient and likely to make a false confession. Sure, they can enjoy and fully exercise their constitutional rights OR they can cooperate to find their missing infant. Perhaps people find their decision completely understandable. But, IMO, weighing your "rights" against finding your child, I'm thinking a very high percentage of people are going to choose their child, just not the people involved in this case.

I have also never heard any LE say they wouldn't agree to let them have their lawyer present. As far as I know, they had a lawyer present previously and they still stopped cooperating. But, honestly, I think in general it's not productive to have a lawyer present in this circumstance and I am a lawyer, not a criminal one, but I know that in a case like this I wouldn't dream of conditioning my cooperation on having an attorney present for many reasons.

Mostly, and most importantly, because it would not likely make a positive contribution to the investigatory effort. A lawyer is not interested in finding your child-the lawyer is interested in setting up your defense and to prevent you from answering any questions which could allow you to later claim he was inadequate as counsel. Thus, he's going to object, a lot, and instruct you not to answer and in general overwhelm and dominate the proceeding. If I were not the parent of a missing child and I was just asked to come in and talk about some random crime they think I might know about I would definitely have an attorney if there was any chance I could end up being a suspect. But not when it could jeopardize the chance of finding my missing child. In that case, my precious child wins over my precious "rights"

I am convinced (IMO) that LE----every member, every district!----wishes they could conduct all of their interviews and interrogations without defense attorneys present. The very fact that they term the hiring of a defense lawyer as "lawyering up" tells you how negatively they feel about it! However, the right to council was not included in our civil rights as a whim. There is a vast history that defines WHY we are entitled to have representation with us during such times. It acts as a balance, for sure, to keep LE from overstepping the bounds.



I don't believe that the family (outside of perhaps the parents) have a clue what happened to this child. Surely if they knew, they'd volunteer the info? While they may "suspect" something in particular, that isn't evidence.



Thank you! Clicking the button just wasn't enough. The WM3 are a pretty good example of what happens when LE goes into an "interview" with a pre-determined point of view. And the fact that one of the interviewees had a lower than average IQ and submitted to a longer-than-usual interview comes into play, too.



We probably all have our subjective opinions as to what "unrestricted" means. I think both statements--by the lawyers and by LE--contain some truth. My take is that LE wants simultaneous separate interviews, and the parents will not submit to that because they are represented by the same council---if the defense attorney is present with one parent, s/he cannot be present at the same time with the other parent. Once a detective has flat out told you that he believes you did something to the baby, it would be pure foolishness to submit to any questions without your council present.

I also believe the parents have asked that interviews be conducted by detectives who have not accused them of wrong doing, and I totally understand that!



Poor guy. He is saying he won't comment on the case even while he is commenting!