LE wants to interview the parents separately

[redheadedgal]

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.

thank you. ITA. no way did LE mean "no lawyers" when they said "unrestricted"... all DT spin. hey JT, are you dizzy yet?! :what:

 

[norest4thewicked]

There probably are dozens of things that LE needs to ask the parents that have come up since they last talked. FGS...it's been SIX MONTHS!!!

 

[Little Ol Me]

There probably are dozens of things that LE needs to ask the parents that have come up since they last talked. FGS...it's been SIX MONTHS!!!

I believe it has actually been 2 months since the parents have talked to LE, At least that the public is aware of.
They did have a meeting in Feb.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I believe it has actually been 2 months since the parents have talked to LE, At least that the public is aware of.
They did have a meeting in Feb.

They haven't gotten to sit down with the parents separately like they want to. Unless they do that and are able to ask the parents questions that they need to ask them, it's my opinion that they aren't cooperating.

 

[lil momma]

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.

Hello Stilettos

DB and JI are not under arrest, so even if they did interview with LE without their attys, they could walk out at any moment. IMO, no matter what if your child is missing and you don't know why, you don't stop talking to the people who are suppose to help you find your baby.

all JMO

 

[4Jacy]

Hello Stilettos

DB and JI are not under arrest, so even if they did interview with LE without their attys, they could walk out at any moment. IMO, no matter what if your child is missing and you don't know why, you don't stop talking to the people who are suppose to help you find your baby.

all JMO

GREAT POST, lill momma. However, these parents KNOW what happened to Baby Lisa, where she, and why she will never be found.


Up thread somewhere, I believe Whisp said, the rules have to be changed for missing children. I agreed with her. Something has to change, and I don't care how they have to interview the parents. This has to CHANGE!! If the parents don't care, we sure as he// do!!

 

[redheadedgal]

brilliant video of exactly why LE needs those separate interviews

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvIKqil6jJY&feature=player_embedded#"]Discrepancies in the Lisa Irwin case. Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin interviews. - YouTube[/ame]!

 

[impatientredhead]

Unrestricted equals don't put contingency clauses in your agreement to talk to LE. Don't give a list of topics you won't discuss. What I keep seeing jump out is she won't be questioned if they are going to be accusatory. If the terms that they are willing to appear under completely tie the hands of LE behind their back (non accusatory tone, restricted lines of questioning) the interview will be useless

IMO if you are truly innocent and your child is missing you can take some uncomfortable prying into your behavior because you KNOW that they are not going to be looking down other avenues until they are convinced that the mother who put down, by her own account, a fussy baby on the night she drank until she blacked out isn't the one that hurt the baby.

It is not LEs fault that those are the facts of the case. You as a mother put those obstacles in their way and you are the only one that can clear them out of the way.

As far as LE being able to lie to you, if you are innocent that is not going to be an issue. If someone truly came into your house and took the baby LE telling you they have you on security video tossing bags in the dumpster you are going to know that isn't possible. It is only going to trip you up if it is a plausible scenario.

The simple answer is usually the right answer. The baby was fussy, mom was frustrated and under the influence. Wouldn't be the first and won't be the last that died after having their head slammed into the crib by their angry care giver. My guess is that she did put her down at 6:40 and hours later realized the baby was injured. moo

 

[nivogirl]

This is the reason why I don't believe in anything that she says.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Here's a timeline of when the parents have talked to LE. Correct me if I missed anything:

October 4
October 6
October 8
November 10: Lisa's brothers ONLY
February 2

 

[Whisperer]

Here's a timeline of when the parents have talked to LE. Correct me if I missed anything:

October 4
October 6
October 8
November 10: Lisa's brothers ONLY
February 2

Sure is. and on the 8th, they had a Law Professor with them. IMO, I bet they were conferring with one by the 5th. As far as the brothers, IMO,they were carefully watched by Tacopina and hired psychologists to make sure they were not questioned specifically about the crime and were ready to call out LE if they didn't go along with their guidelines.

What was discussed on Feb 2, 2012? I say that was a hook-up or a phone call to tell LE they were appearing on the Dr. Phil Show, thus being able to share with the nation that they are cooperatin. There was nothing seriously discussed, you can bet on that!

So, basically, as you can see the time shared with LE isn't much. I know when my dd was robbed she spent more time with LE than these two did when their child was allegedly kidnapped.

I think we can all pretty much say there was no kidnapping. This was a homicide. They have somebody with lots of money to help them avoid prosecution. This person needs to be interviewed to see why she is willing to back these parents and pay for their security and attorneys. If Kristi Hoss Schiller really cared about finding Lisa, she would be forcing the parents to go to the police station and talk...not paying for Bill Stanton to protect them.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Even though it irritates some of our posters when cases are compared, and even though I understand some posters are opposed to quoting statistics:

I am very curious if anyone is aware of any other set of parents who were innocent in a missing child case who refused to interview separately with LE? Or might this be a first on all counts?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Even though it irritates some of our posters when cases are compared, and even though I understand some posters are opposed to quoting statistics:

I am very curious if anyone is aware of any other set of parents who were innocent in a missing child case who refused to interview separately with LE? Or might this be a first on all counts?

Okay, I don't think they are innocent, but I know there are some people who do: John and Patsy Ramsey. The first time they were interviewed separately was in June 1998. JonBenet was killed on December 26, 1996. But if we're talking about parents, where the actual killer was later arrested, then no, I can't think of any.

Around October 7, Lisa's parents announced they weren't going to do the media circuit anymore because they wanted to focus on finding Lisa. They didn't talk again until October 17. That was the day that Tacopina was introduced to everyone in a press conference, and the day that Deborah told everyone she was drinking that night. I believe that JT reached the family around October 7 and told them to stop talking to media and LE. Now, Tacopina has said a few times in this case that his clients are under the "umbrella of suspicion". This term was coined during the JonBenet case, and if you do a Google search for it, almost every link on the first page is about that case. Now, when I think about a case where the parents didn't cooperate with LE and got away with it, I think of the Ramsey case. It has definitely made me wonder if their team has used that case, and others, for "inspiration".

 

[Deleted member 39678]

They don't want to tell LE more in detail about the stolen debit card?! :what::what::what: They've only talked to LE on THREE occasions; that's definitely not what I would classify as "several". The last time was October 8, why is it so far-fetched to think LE might have more questions for them since then? Don't they want to LE about the cell phones, Megan, Jersey Joe, the blob? :dunno:

And their attorney referencing the Fox case doesn't prove to me that D&J knew about that whole debacle. That's just for PR. I doubt D&J have made any decisions regarding this case since their team signed on.

Here's a timeline of when the parents have talked to LE. Correct me if I missed anything:

October 4
October 6
October 8
November 10: Lisa's brothers ONLY
February 2

I think that the list of dates that you made last month is closer to what really happened. Debbie and Jeremy were interviewed separately early on so the interview count could be 5 or more. I would say that would be considered several interviews.
JMO.

 

[Whisperer]

Didn't Jeremy walk out?

I imagine some are actually counting the initial questioning when the case was reported to LE. That shouldn't count, but these two need all the help they can get to show good stats. My guess is after or on the first day, jeremy had his sister on the phone asking for help. She had a Law Professor advise them.

 

[Meri]

Didn't Jeremy walk out?

I imagine some are actually counting the initial questioning when the case was reported to LE. That shouldn't count, but these two need all the help they can get to show good stats. My guess is after or on the first day, jeremy had his sister on the phone asking for help. She had a Law Professor advise them.

Walk out? I remember it differently. He had been there for hours, after being up all night long, and said he needed a break, couldn't go on anymore at that time.

 

[Whisperer]

Walk out? I remember it differently. He had been there for hours, after being up all night long, and said he needed a break, couldn't go on anymore at that time.

:boohoo:

 

[hambirg]

Walk out? I remember it differently. He had been there for hours, after being up all night long, and said he needed a break, couldn't go on anymore at that time.

I remember we talked about this before. I'll have to look back. . .but that is not the case. I know it played that way. But the time he was up all night and there for hours WAS NOT the same time he walked out. The day he walked out he had been there a few hours.

 

[Meri]

I remember we talked about this before. I'll have to look back. . .but that is not the case. I know it played that way. But the time he was up all night and there for hours WAS NOT the same time he walked out. The day he walked out he had been there a few hours.

Sorry - I had thought he was only there the one time.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Walk out? I remember it differently. He had been there for hours, after being up all night long, and said he needed a break, couldn't go on anymore at that time.

I remember we talked about this before. I'll have to look back. . .but that is not the case. I know it played that way. But the time he was up all night and there for hours WAS NOT the same time he walked out. The day he walked out he had been there a few hours.

Sorry - I had thought he was only there the one time.

Bless your hearts for trying to be so accurate! To me it doesn't really make that much difference. One, two, five, twenty, one hundred? When would anyone who puts their child's life and safety above their own say they wouldn't talk with LE (even separately) any more?

What does this say about these parent's priorities?