Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[Nixie]

I think the issue here is the factoid (if it is indeed fact) is coming in a second hand nature to the public. Yes, DB did say she failed, but she said LE told her she failed. I guess in a court of law that would be hearsay. I'm not sure if DB was lying that LE told her, LE was lying when they told her, or it's the truth.

Is LE under obligation to tell her the truth about a poly result?

No they can lie during interrogations. I am not sure whats fact with the poly but I don't think LE is confirming anything to the attorney so his statement was to the fact the the host said LE and FBI stated DB failed a ploy and the cadaver dog hit. LE has never stated anything about the poly, DB herself said she failed. I hope that made sense lol its confusing.

 

[Karmaa]

I think the issue here is the factoid (if it is indeed fact) is coming in a second hand nature to the public. Yes, DB did say she failed, but she said LE told her she failed. I guess in a court of law that would be hearsay. I'm not sure if DB was lying that LE told her, LE was lying when they told her, or it's the truth.

Is LE under obligation to tell her the truth about a poly result?

Absolutely not, and that exact situation has been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Basically LE has a lot of leeway in questioning suspects, according to the SC. They can lie, they can mislead, they can use duplicity and deceit during the investigation process. So long as they do not FORCE or COERCE a suspect, they can pretty much say whatever they think will extract a confession.

 

[natsound]

I think the issue here is the factoid (if it is indeed fact) is coming in a second hand nature to the public. Yes, DB did say she failed, but she said LE told her she failed. I guess in a court of law that would be hearsay. I'm not sure if DB was lying that LE told her, LE was lying when they told her, or it's the truth.

Is LE under obligation to tell her the truth about a poly result?

My guess is that LE did tell her, and it's the truth. But this polygraph thing is pretty muddy.

 

[yllek]

It looks bad for Debbi when Tacopina tries to down play the poly by assuring us that LE never said that Debbi failed it. Does he not realize that by believing LE never said it, he is calling his client a liar? She told us all in mutiple MSM interviews that LE told her she failed it and that they were pushing her in interviews because she couldn't fill in the gaps in her timeline.

It looks bad for Debbi when Picerno says that LE told her that she was a suspect and LE immediately denies it and firmly announces that she was never told such a thing. Does he not realize he is calling her honesty into question, again?

I realize that they want Debbi to look like a victim of LE. Easy to grasp the concept. But, these are two top notch lawyers. Whether Debbi is guilty or innocent, I think they are doing her a real disservice if she is never charged. If she is charged, then maybe the lawyers are doing the right things; these statements may continue to convince some that Debbi is just a bad decision-making victim of LE. The drunk admission media blitz (yeah it's an excuse for why you can't fill in gaps, but many of us expected a custody suit in wake of the admission, did Debbi fail to consider it?) and the two statements by the attorneys above lead me to believe that her lawyers either believe Debbi is guilty, or they aren't sure and they think there is a lot to incriminate her. The only way I can see their statements helping Debbi is in preparation for a trial where they attempt to malign LE, push a drunk excuse/alibi, and get a change of venue.

If Debbi is innocent, she really needs to rethink these attorneys. If she is guilty, they may be just the right team.

JMO...

 

[Sherbie]

My guess is that LE did tell her, and it's the truth. But this polygraph thing is pretty muddy.

My guess is that LE did tell her she failed (I believe she said it was a question about having knowledge of where Lisa was?), but that it wasn't necessarily true that she failed. They can use that tactic as a means of trying to pressure someone to give up info, even if they pass with flying colors.

 

[Karmaa]

My vital unanswered question for the day is, why is Tacopina saying that DB said she checked on the baby at 6:40 and then after a lot of questioning her recollection was refreshed and she remembered looking in her room when going to bed?

"So, so far, your client the mom, she admitted that she was drunk that night, she changed the last time she saw the baby..."
JT: She did not change the last time.
"From 640, she originally said 10:30"
JT: No, that's not accurate.
"Okay, what's accurate?"
JT: "What's accurate is, she went in there and gave a rendition of events. She went in there don't forget five times, over about 40 hours. At one point her recollection was refreshed that she might have stopped in the baby's room on her way to bed herself and maybe seen the baby for the last time at 10:30, as opposed to 6:40. She didn't say she put the baby in bed two different times."

JT says it's not accurate that she changed her story about the last time she saw the baby and then goes on to explain exactly how she changed her story about the last time she saw the baby :crazy:

What's more, that's not the order of the events as how it came out in the media. At first it was said that she saw the baby at 10:30 and later her memory was refreshed that she might not have seen her at 10:30 but last saw her at 6:40.

I'm not sure JT knows jack about this case.

We do not know what Debbie told LE. You can either believe JT or not, but LE has not denied it. If LE tells us what she said and when she said it, and it's different than what JT says, then it becomes a matter of who should we believe.

JT is saying that Debbie did not lie to LE. I don't know if he believes this because he believes in the parents, or because he has asked LE point-blank. (Which he may have - he claims that he asked them point-blank if Debbie failed her poly, so he certainly could have asked them a whole bunch of questions at the same time.)

That's all we have to go on at this point. Personally, I will believe him because he has not shown me any reason to NOT believe him in this case, AND because LE has not denied it.

 

[natsound]

My guess is that LE did tell her she failed (I believe she said it was a question about having knowledge of where Lisa was?), but that it wasn't necessarily true that she failed. They can use that tactic as a means of trying to pressure someone to give up info, even if they pass with flying colors.

But Tacopina would be all over it, if that were the case. "They lied to her! They outright lied!"

Instead, he seems to be quickly dismissing it. "Nothing to see here, folks."

 

[Donjeta]

We do not know what Debbie told LE. You can either believe JT or not, but LE has not denied it. If LE tells us what she said and when she said it, and it's different than what JT says, then it becomes a matter of who should we believe.

JT is saying that Debbie did not lie to LE. I don't know if he believes this because he believes in the parents, or because he has asked LE point-blank. (Which he may have - he claims that he asked them point-blank if Debbie failed her poly, so he certainly could have asked them a whole bunch of questions at the same time.)

That's all we have to go on at this point. Personally, I will believe him because he has not shown me any reason to NOT believe him in this case, AND because LE has not denied it.

I didn't say anything about Debbie lying. I am wondering why JT's account doesn't jive with the order of the information as it came out in the media. FWIW, I think he's confused about what's been going on, not lying as such, because it would be a nonsensical lie imo.

We do know that the police were saying the last sighting was at 10:30 by the first day.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amber-aler...ng-kansas-city/story?id=14663097#.TtaC2dWrTmY

Lisa's mother put her down to sleep at approximately 10:30 p.m. Monday night, according to police.

This was published October 4th, the day she was reported missing.

The 6:40 time surfaced in an interview of DB much later.

There is no way she could have been interviewed for over 40 hours at that point the Amber alert was issued on Oct 4 to refresh her memory, and if she already had refreshed her memory on October 4th there would have been no need for saying she might have seen Lisa for the last time at 6:40 on October 17th.

MK: “When you went in at 10:30, after the neighbor left, what did you do?”
DB: “Probably went right to my room.”
MK: “Why do you say probably?”
BD: “Because, um, sometimes, I check on her. Well, most of the time, I check on her. And then the boys, their room is right next to each other. And I sneak in and make sure, you know. And the boys had been awake, and I had went, um, in there, and told them they could come sleep in my bed. And, um, so, I’m assuming that I went and checked on her too, but, I don’t really know.”
MK: “You don’t remember?”
DB: “No.”
MK: “So, it’s possible you did not check on her before you went to bed at 10:30?”
DB: “Yeah. Yeah. But there’s no way that anybody could have got in.”
MK: “So the last time that you saw your alive, in your home, was when you put her down at 6:40?”
DB: “Right. When I put her down, yeah.”

http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/...e-asks-if-they-sold-or-killed-their-daughter/
Transcript by the wonderful not-my-kids.

You're right, we don't know what DB told the police but IMO we can assume that the information that the police put out on October 4th was what she had told them by then. We also know what she said in her interviews that we've seen several times.

JT's account does not fit either of those things. Fact. This assessment is in no way dependent on whether DB was truthful or not when talking to the police.

And IMO it's one reason not to believe everything he says about this case.

 

[Sherbie]

I agree, yllek. If LE never told her she failed, then her statement was false. I can't imagine anyone would say something like that if it weren't true - that would really be unusual, IMO.

I think LE told her she failed at least a particular question. Whether she really did is another issue. Now her attorneys are trying to clean that up and making her out to be a liar in the process. Maybe they will later say that she was told she failed one question, not the entire exam...something along those lines.

 

[highflyer]

There are two extra pages that don't load now! hoh:

 

[yllek]

Donjeta Posted;7395779
My vital unanswered question for the day is, why is Tacopina saying that DB said she checked on the baby at 6:40 and then after a lot of questioning her recollection was refreshed and she remembered looking in her room when going to bed?

"So, so far, your client the mom, she admitted that she was drunk that night, she changed the last time she saw the baby..."
JT: She did not change the last time.
"From 640, she originally said 10:30"
JT: No, that's not accurate.
"Okay, what's accurate?"
JT: "What's accurate is, she went in there and gave a rendition of events. She went in there don't forget five times, over about 40 hours. At one point her recollection was refreshed that she might have stopped in the baby's room on her way to bed herself and maybe seen the baby for the last time at 10:30, as opposed to 6:40. She didn't say she put the baby in bed two different times."

JT says it's not accurate that she changed her story about the last time she saw the baby and then goes on to explain exactly how she changed her story about the last time she saw the baby :crazy:

What's more, that's not the order of the events as how it came out in the media. At first it was said that she saw the baby at 10:30 and later her memory was refreshed that she might not have seen her at 10:30 but last saw her at 6:40.

I'm not sure JT knows jack about this case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBM

I so agree. I don't think that the 10:30 pm time that was issued within hours of the baby being reported missing is the second story; it's what Debbi gave them for the ambert alert. She never said it was wrong publicly until the drunk media blitz. How is Tacopina saying that this original 10:30 time came into play after hours and hours of questioning over 5 interviews? That amber alert was issued almost immediately. Makes no sense. If he wants to claim Debbi's recollection was refreshed rather than she lied, he should be saying she remembered that the time in her original on-the-spot statement may have been wrong. He's confused, imo.

Plus, if Tacopina admits that recollections can be refreshed over the course of interviews and with repeated questioning about the same things, why doesn't he encourage his clients to be questioned, with lawyers, separately. LE still wants to know about gaps and comings and goings that weren't answered to their satisfaction in the first 4 days of the investigation. Maybe something previously missed by the parents before will be recollected now?

JMO..

 

[Sherbie]

But Tacopina would be all over it, if that were the case. "They lied to her! They outright lied!"

Instead, he seems to be quickly dismissing it. "Nothing to see here, folks."

I don't think he can make that claim since he doesn't have access to the exam results or interview tape. What he could say is that it's not uncommon for LE to tell someone they've failed the exam or some portion thereof in order to put pressure on them, and he believes that is what happened here. If I were he, that's the route I'd go.

 

[stephen40]

BBM = She said that she was TOLD she failed.

Deborah said she was told she failed the LDT. It was Deborah that announced that tidbit to the news media -NOT LE.

 

[GoodGurl]

That 10:30 time is important, IMO.

 

[stephen40]

As far as JT goes, he's a defense lawyer who has represented rather unsavory characters. For some reason him stretching the truth doesn't seem such a far fetched idea. mo

 

[cityslick]

It looks bad for Debbi when Tacopina tries to down play the poly by assuring us that LE never said that Debbi failed it. Does he not realize that by believing LE never said it, he is calling his client a liar? She told us all in mutiple MSM interviews that LE told her she failed it and that they were pushing her in interviews because she couldn't fill in the gaps in her timeline.

It looks bad for Debbi when Picerno says that LE told her that she was a suspect and LE immediately denies it and firmly announces that she was never told such a thing. Does he not realize he is calling her honesty into questions, again?

I realize that they want Debbi to look like a victim of LE. Easy to grasp the concept. But, these are two top notch lawyers. Whether Debbi is guilty or innocent, I think they are doing her a real disservice if she is never charged. If she is charged, then maybe the lawyers are doing the right things; these statements may continue to convince some that Debbi is just a bad decision-making victim of LE. The drunk admission media blitz (yeah it's an excuse for why you can't fill in gaps, but many of us expected a custody suit in wake of the admission, did Debbi fail to consider it?) and the two statements by the attorneys above lead me to believe that her lawyers either believe Debbi is guilty, or they aren't sure and they think there is a lot to incriminate her. The only way I can see their statements helping Debbi is in preparation for a trial where they attempt to malign LE, push a drunk excuse/alibi, and get a change of venue.

If Debbi is innocent, she really needs to rethink these attorneys. If she is guilty, they may be just the right team.

JMO...

I agree that the lawyers are doing more harm than good at this stage. The problem is every lawyer they had has done more harm than good for them. I don't know the reason for that. I don't know if they think they are guilty, but it almost feels like they are prepping for that 'just in case'. Like one of those situations where you say 'this might not happen, but lets cover our bases in the off chance it does happen, that way we're not caught unprepared'.

JT honestly talks like he has done no research on this case. More and more I believe he's only around so that his name is attached to the case. He acts more like a event promoter than an attorney.

 

[cityslick]

That 10:30 time is important, IMO.

In the sense that we have someone other than DB saying she went into her house at that time. Unless the neighbor is lying.

 

[KathrynL]

As to LE confirmation about DB's polygraph, I recall Megyn Kelly reported that LE confirmed to her that DB did fail...there are links to that around here somewhere and I'm too lazy to look. fwiw and moo

 

[cityslick]

As to LE confirmation about DB's polygraph, I recall Megyn Kelly reported that LE confirmed to her that DB did fail...there are links to that around here somewhere and I'm too lazy to look. fwiw and moo

Consider it came for MK, I'm not sure how much credibility I'd put into that. Why would LE only confirm it to MK?

 

[Sherbie]

As to LE confirmation about DB's polygraph, I recall Megyn Kelly reported that LE confirmed to her that DB did fail...there are links to that around here somewhere and I'm too lazy to look. fwiw and moo

I had forgotten about that, Kathryn. I believe you're right - thanks for the reminder!