Parents of baby Lisa Press Release 10/21/11

[Sigh Sister]

You know, I gave them the benefit of the doubt at the beginning. Its their own actions that scream somethings not right. Sorry! After i saw a couple of the interviews i changed my mind. Who in the heck Lawyers up with a high profile attorney from New York when u have a missing child? Didnt see them out searching once. timeline changing. No local media, come on! I would be knocking down every door in Kansas city and driving the highways looking for my child. I would probally be in a mental institution because of grief not on national tv. moo !!The article yesterday on kctv5 said they are putting up billboards! What day is this for the missing baby? That came out right when the search warrant was released. How convenient. The lawyers have been spinning their defense for a whiile now. moo :twocents:

I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt. They didn't lawyer up immediately. Their family encouraged them to do so when it became obvious that LE was focusing on them. They would be crazy not to get lawyer, innocent or not. And I'm sure that they didn't have the money to immediately put up billboards so I can't fault them for just doing it now.

There is a lot that we don't know, so I'm not ready to convict them yet. JMHO

 

[natsound]

It really makes me wonder why in the he!! These parents would have willingly signed off and fully consented to these searches in knowing that baby Lisa died in the home?? Many have made reference to Deb's comment about following missing children's cases, and even without having followed a single case both would be more than aware what search those searches would infact yield with Lisa having died in the home. It is common knowledge not just people who follow true crime forums know this info along with tons of other forensic knowledge when dealing with crimes, investigations, and LE..

I might could buy that they just fearfully felt they must consent to the very early on searches.. But their having signed their full consent just this past Monday, October 17 with major counsel now in the picture and officially retained as both of their counsel??? I just find it difficult to believe if they were in any way involved and there was even the slightest chance of forensics in the home that would point to their involvement.. That now having experienced and knowledgable counsel at their sides that this willingness to consent to "unfettered" access(don't ya just love that word?) to an area that would yield condemning evidence against them would have been highly counseled against..
*shrugs* .. I just don't know???

The press release is rhetorical spin. What would guilty parents do? Refuse the searches? To look even more guilty? IMO they're guilty and trying to look innocent. DB, anyway. JI, IMO, is in shock and sticking by his wife's side for now.

 

[natsound]

Actually that's not necessarily correct. LE needs probable cause and they did not have it.

Until they had the "hit" by the search dog, there was not PC for a warrant (as proven by the fact that no search warrant existed before. LE would have gotten it as soon as they possibly could if they had the PC.) So the family actually gave them the opportunity to search the house, which led to the search warrant. Had they refused to allow LE to search, LE would not have had probable cause.

If they were guilty of something bad, they would certainly have refused to allow LE to search on Monday 10/17. Since they now have legal counsel, they would absolutely have been told to not allow the search if there was any teeny, remote possibility that they are guilty.

The fact that they allowed this search indicates to me that they are either innocent, or incredibly arrogant. And there is no evidence of the latter.

BBM... if they refused they would have looked guilty. They don't want to look guilty. By consenting, they're attempting to pull the wool over our eyes.

 

[frankie069]

Actually that's not necessarily correct. LE needs probable cause and they did not have it.

Until they had the "hit" by the search dog, there was not PC for a warrant (as proven by the fact that no search warrant existed before. LE would have gotten it as soon as they possibly could if they had the PC.) So the family actually gave them the opportunity to search the house, which led to the search warrant. Had they refused to allow LE to search, LE would not have had probable cause.

If they were guilty of something bad, they would certainly have refused to allow LE to search on Monday 10/17. Since they now have legal counsel, they would absolutely have been told to not allow the search if there was any teeny, remote possibility that they are guilty.

The fact that they allowed this search indicates to me that they are either innocent, or incredibly arrogant. And there is no evidence of the latter.

I called a family friend who is a lawyer and a refusal to search is probable cause in these types of cases. LE would have gotten that warrant no matter what.

 

[frankie069]

What could an innocent person say to convince you that they are innocent?

IMO this family is doing everything that an innocent family would do.

And yes, that includes getting lawyers, only talking to national media, telling the world all of the possible suspicious things around the case. If these people are "psyching us out" then they are diabolically brilliant. So far, there is nothing that can't be explained with an innocent explanation, if one chooses to look in that direction. Especially since most of what we know is speculation, and we do not know most of what LE knows. (Even the info released in the search warrant was fairly cryptic, obviously in case it was not sealed.) If one is only looking for the worst-case scenario they will view this case in one way, and unless that baby is found in the arms of some crazy person, they will never believe that the parents are innocent. (And even if she were found under those conditions, some people would STILL believe that the parents sold her, traded her for drugs or something equally evil.)

Most guilty people do everything an innocent person would do or we wouldnt have the problems we have today.. Gee, he is doing a guilty thing over there so he is guilty. Its not that easy. Even Jeffrey Dahmer helped the police out. Dont take the media's word on this, look at the parents themselves speaking, start from day one and go up until their last interview, these interview werent pieced together either. Just see how everything changes in their story. They are liars. And bad ones at that. And they should be working with local media, not just national media. IF this were a kidnapping like they claimed, most people stay in the area. They only talked to a network that made a "deal" with them.

 

[stilettos]

Neither do I n/t. Everything points to parents who loved their kids (drinking problem notwithstanding, yes alcoholics can love their kids).

If she killed her imo it was a snapping, or an accidental death that might legally be called murder but really was a lashing out with no intention to kill - thats what i mean by accidental or snapping.

A frantic and fast cover up, not a planned murder

Causing death while in the commission of aggravated child abuse is murder one, I believe.

 

[Karmaa]

BBM... if they refused they would have looked guilty. They don't want to look guilty. By consenting, they're attempting to pull the wool over our eyes.

I think that the family realizes by now that anything they do will make them look bad. And I promise you that their lawyers would have been pleading with them not to let the house be searched. Generally, when people defy their lawyers its for one of two reasons - either they are 100% innocent and believe that the system will not allow them to be railroaded, or they are so arrogant that they believe they are smarter than everyone. It is possible that it's the second reason, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that. I saw Debbie get defensive when she said that she had been drinking, but I can understand that. I think most people would be terribly embarrassed to admit something like that to the world, and that's how I interpreted her demeanor about it.

 

[Karmaa]

First part is a figure of speech. I didnt get warm fuzzys from mom. second part said they were researching billboards for highways. http://www.kctv5.com/story/15768295/family-of-lisa-irwin

We will have to agree to disagree! moo :seeya:

I see the mod snipped part of my response. I did NOT mean that to be baiting or offensive - I actually meant it more as a joke. Sorry if it seemed mean!

Take care =)

 

[stilettos]

I think it is very telling. If their child was really kidnapped they would have been begging for LE to issue an Amber alert, not graciously allowing it and then acting as if they did LE an extraordinary favor.

LE actually did them a favor with the AA, because it strengthened the abduction story.

A free hint for the lawyer's office: the next time you issue a press release saying you folks want Lisa found because she is alive with an abductor, cut and paste her PHOTO in it.

BBM Interesting that the Press Release is all about the parents! This attorney has one concern...criminal liability for her client (s). She is not retained to find Lisa. IMO

 

[Ronso]

I think most people would be terribly embarrassed to admit something like that to the world, and that's how I interpreted her demeanor about it.

I didn't interpret her demeanor to be embarassed at all... in fact, quite the contrary. She almost seems PROUD. She was snarky. She DEFENDS drinking. If I were embarassed about something I had done, and KNEW it were wrong, I would act apologetic. I would say, "I should not have done this, because now my child is missing." Instead, from DB we get, "Well it's MY adult time. It had NOTHING to do with my child's disappearance!" Defiance and attitude are not normal responses to embarassment and shame. However, they are normal responses to guilt....

 

[~n/t~]

BBM Interesting that the Press Release is all about the parents! This attorney has one concern...criminal liability for her client (s). She is not retained to find Lisa. IMO

With respect, finding Lisa is not her job. That's LE's job.

 

[natsound]

I think that the family realizes by now that anything they do will make them look bad. And I promise you that their lawyers would have been pleading with them not to let the house be searched. Generally, when people defy their lawyers its for one of two reasons - either they are 100% innocent and believe that the system will not allow them to be railroaded, or they are so arrogant that they believe they are smarter than everyone. It is possible that it's the second reason, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that. I saw Debbie get defensive when she said that she had been drinking, but I can understand that. I think most people would be terribly embarrassed to admit something like that to the world, and that's how I interpreted her demeanor about it.

I don't think the parents defied their lawyers. They didn't have a lawyer for the first search with consent. My guess is, DB feels like she covered her tracks pretty well, and consenting to the search is part of the act she's putting on. If she is guilty (which IMO she is), she doesn't want people to think she's guilty, so she's trying to act innocent.

 

[natsound]

BBM Interesting that the Press Release is all about the parents! This attorney has one concern...criminal liability for her client (s). She is not retained to find Lisa. IMO

Right! And you know, Marc Klaas recently said he never hired any lawyer when his daughter went missing. I know this is situational, and the fact that the parents hired a laywer doesn't MAKE them guilty, but IMO it fits in with every other hinky thing I've seen from DB.

 

[not_my_kids]

I don't see the hiring of a lawyer as being indicative of guilt. In today's world, I'd likely hire one myself if one of my kids went missing, whether I was guilty or not, because in either situation, I would want the focus off of me and back on the child. JMO.

 

[MissJames]

Wow. Thanks! If true, it makes it all the more confusing about the latest development, imo.

It seems they did what any parent would do when their child is missing but yet LE feels otherwise. I'm :waitasec:

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the results are from all the evidence taken and tested.

I'm just catching up this morning,but I have to respectfully disagree with you .
If my baby was taken I would be attached to LE like velcro. I would be at the headquarters ,setting up a command center at my home or the closest place to my home that I was allowed. I would be begging every media outlet to keep my baby's picture up. I would be hounding anyone and everyone until..........No one would have to hunt me down for an interview.They couldn't shut me up.And I wouldn't have to be paid for pictures. No exclusives,because I would want every network to have it all. I would want prayer vigils set up around the clock . Billboards,facebook,ads in the newspaper. Whatever it took to put the pressure on returning my child.
But that's just me. :maddening:

 

[Karmaa]

I called a family friend who is a lawyer and a refusal to search is probable cause in these types of cases. LE would have gotten that warrant no matter what.

Your lawyer must have misunderstood the question. Refusal to allow a search of your home is NEVER probable cause. This is a Constitutional protected right of Americans (fourth amendment), which has been very carefully scrutinized by the Supreme Court.

You are correct that LE would have probably gotten a search warrant anyway, but it could not have been on the basis of a refusal to allow a search. They would have had to come up with a darned good reason though, if they were to lie to get the SW, any evidence would have been excluded, and they know that.

 

[MissJames]

I don't see the hiring of a lawyer as being indicative of guilt. In today's world, I'd likely hire one myself if one of my kids went missing, whether I was guilty or not, because in either situation, I would want the focus off of me and back on the child. JMO.

It seems like hiring a lawyer concentrates even more focus on the parents. JMO

 

[JeannaT]

Right! And you know, Marc Klaas recently said he never hired any lawyer when his daughter went missing. I know this is situational, and the fact that the parents hired a laywer doesn't MAKE them guilty, but IMO it fits in with every other hinky thing I've seen from DB.

With all due respect, that was a different time. The nation wasn't transfixed daily on one or other missing child tv shows and internet websites accusing parents whenever a child goes missing.

And there were two 12 year old witnesses with a clear description of the kidnapper and an airtight story of what happened.

There was never any doubt what happened to Polly. None. The nation was fully behind the Klaas family in searching for the daughter the nation knew was kidnapped from her bedroom.

There was no reason for Marc to get a lawyer.

 

[not_my_kids]

It seems like hiring a lawyer concentrates even more focus on the parents. JMO

Only if you have a mouthy one. I'd hire a lawyer on the basis that they keep their mouth shut unless necessary (no unneeded media statements or press releases) and also focus on assisting LE in finding my child. Now in this case, the attorneys are doing their jobs and I can't fault them for that. But I can't fault the parents for hiring them either, I'd do the same.

 

[MissJames]

I didn't interpret her demeanor to be embarassed at all... in fact, quite the contrary. She almost seems PROUD. She was snarky. She DEFENDS drinking. If I were embarassed about something I had done, and KNEW it were wrong, I would act apologetic. I would say, "I should not have done this, because now my child is missing." Instead, from DB we get, "Well it's MY adult time. It had NOTHING to do with my child's disappearance!" Defiance and attitude are not normal responses to embarassment and shame. However, they are normal responses to guilt....

I saw it as defiant,also.The clipped tone,"yep!" . Not what I would expect from a mother who's child is missing.That interview and her tone knocked me off the fence before the dog hits,etc.