Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[Sherbie]

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?

My guess is that IF it's true that LE confirmed it, it might've come secondhand from a contact made by that former judge who was doing a lot of reporting on the case early on (Pirro?).

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

BBM = She said that she was TOLD she failed.

Of course. How else could she have known?

I'm apparently not processing all this unfamiliar back and forth quibbling well. I'm getting the impression that I'm not following some new (at least to me) posting rules. Can anyone clarify this new format for me? I'm a rules person by nature and dearly love to play by them . . . hdear: :tos: :thud: . . . and yes, I've read the TOS several times.

 

[highflyer]

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.

Yes, he does. Bet there is a social media coordinator too.

 

[KathrynL]

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?

Which is why I qualified with "fwiw".

 

[cityslick]

Which is why I qualified with "fwiw".

It's really to the point now that unless it comes directly from LE, maybe every quote/news article needs to be prefaced with 'FWIW'. :great:

 

[stephen40]

Please send me a pm if my post are showing up. tia

 

[Nixie]

I really wish LE would release a fact sheet or something, even if they don't put everything in it at least then people would know whats true and what is crappy reporting.

 

[stephen40]

if anyone can see my post, please send me a pm stating or respectfully tell me here.

 

[menmo]

OT

Can anyone tell me why I can't see the last two pages? It says it's showing me up to #700 of #746. Could it be because some posts have possibly been removed by mods?

 

[mck16]

OT

Can anyone tell me why I can't see the last two pages? It says it's showing me up to #700 of #746. Could it be because some posts have possibly been removed by mods?

I have wondered the same. I think you are right, it is the only explanation I can come up with.

 

[deoneta]

I think lie detector tests can be useful tools in investigations, but they are certainly not infallible, nor are the results proof of anything. I can easily imagine an innocent parent showing deception on a question such as "Are you responsible for the disappearance of your child?" A deceptive response to "Do you know where your child is?" is more troubling, but who knows at this point if that is what happened.

DB says she was told she failed. Fox's MK says "police sources" tell her that DB "failed and failed miserably." Tacopina says LE never said she failed. LE says nothing.

I wonder if the attorneys arranged private lie detector tests for the parents. This is a common tactic. If the clients pass, attorneys are all over the news with the results. If they fail, of course nothing is said. I kind of doubt any private tests were arranged, simply because in high profile cases, unfavorable results always seem to get leaked or rumored.

What I find interesting is how the attorneys' seem to be telling whatever version of "the truth" fits the situation. When Picerno wants to paint the parents as unfairly targeted, they are suspects. When Tacopina wants to infer that police have moved on from the parents and are stalled in the investigation, the parents are not suspects. The attorneys' interviews are as confusing as DB's. The phones were restricted, they could receive incoming calls, but JI called home and was redirected to the Verizon service center.

Now Tacopina says DB has never changed her story although he has her "reflecting" (not remembering more details, but forgetting them instead) which says to me her story has changed. The Ambert alert info coupled with DB's subsequent media statements make me believe that her story has changed. Then there's the check up after 6:40 which is never mentioned anymore and bugs the heck out of me. The check up was either a "little bit later" or at 7:30, and if Shane's account is true, it couldn't have been 7:30. All MOO

 

[cityslick]

I think lie detector tests can be useful tools in investigations, but they are certainly not infallible, nor are the results proof of anything. I can easily imagine an innocent parent showing deception on a question such as "Are you responsible for the disappearance of your child?" A deceptive response to "Do you know where your child is?" is more troubling, but who knows at this point if that is what happened.

DB says she was told she failed. Fox's MK says "police sources" tell her that DB "failed and failed miserably." Tacopina says LE never said she failed. LE says nothing.

I wonder if the attorneys arranged private lie detector tests for the parents. This is a common tactic. If the clients pass, attorneys are all over the news with the results. If they fail, of course nothing is said. I kind of doubt any private tests were arranged, simply because in high profile cases, unfavorable results always seem to get leaked or rumored.

What I find interesting is how the attorneys' seem to be telling whatever version of "the truth" fits the situation. When Picerno wants to paint the parents as unfairly targeted, they are suspects. When Tacopina wants to infer that police have moved on from the parents and are stalled in the investigation, the parents are not suspects. The attorneys' interviews are as confusing as DB's. The phones were restricted, they could receive incoming calls, but JI called home and was redirected to the Verizon service center.

Now Tacopina says DB has never changed her story although he has her "reflecting" (not remembering more details, but forgetting them instead) which says to me her story has changed. The Ambert alert info coupled with DB's subsequent media statements make me believe that her story has changed. Then there's the check up after 6:40 which is never mentioned anymore and bugs the heck out of me. The check up was either a "little bit later" or at 7:30, and if Shane's account is true, it couldn't have been 7:30. All MOO

I think your post illustrates how much little 'facts' there are in this case. Even if it came out of DB herself, it doesn't make it a fact because (and this has been the case with everyone talking, not just DB) there has been nothing to back anything up. LE not divulging anything, sources not really collaborating facts, etc. Shane says something, but there is nothing that verifies what he says. MW says something, but it's vague. DB says something, but it's secondhand (according to her) information.

 

[juliebellebean]

I came across this video from our local NBC station. I don't remember seeing it when it aired but it must have been in the last few days as the anchor says "Lisa's been missing for two months..." What is very interesting is that it states that police have asked Deb's aunt and uncle to come in for a briefing on the case. Picerno is then interviewed and says that they asked if DB and JI could be in the briefing and police said no, not unless they agree to come in and be questioned separately.

My question is, who is the aunt and uncle (Johnny C?) and are police using this as an attempt to pressure DB and JI to answer some more questions (e.g. they are nervous that police have info they are going to share with the aunt and uncle)? Please watch the video (only about 45 seconds) and let me know what you think!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqS8xEVHGn0"]Police want to talk to Lisa' family - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Karmaa]

I came across this video from our local NBC station. I don't remember seeing it when it aired but it must have been in the last few days as the anchor says "Lisa's been missing for two months..." What is very interesting is that it states that police have asked Deb's aunt and uncle to come in for a briefing on the case. Picerno is then interviewed and says that they asked if DB and JI could be in the briefing and police said no, not unless they agree to come in and be questioned separately.

My question is, who is the aunt and uncle (Johnny C?) and are police using this as an attempt to pressure DB and JI to answer some more questions (e.g. they are nervous that police have info they are going to share with the aunt and uncle)? Please watch the video (only about 45 seconds) and let me know what you think!

Police want to talk to Lisa' family - YouTube

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that either. I have to say that it seems absolutely shameful that LE is withholding information from these parents about their missing baby.

Like it or not, the parents have the legal right to not answer any questions at all. For LE to use information about their baby as a bargaining chip to make them give up their constitutional rights is pretty chilling.

The parents are not suspects (according to LE) so how can they possibly justify this?

 

[Marshmallow]

I came across this video from our local NBC station. I don't remember seeing it when it aired but it must have been in the last few days as the anchor says "Lisa's been missing for two months..." What is very interesting is that it states that police have asked Deb's aunt and uncle to come in for a briefing on the case. Picerno is then interviewed and says that they asked if DB and JI could be in the briefing and police said no, not unless they agree to come in and be questioned separately.

My question is, who is the aunt and uncle (Johnny C?) and are police using this as an attempt to pressure DB and JI to answer some more questions (e.g. they are nervous that police have info they are going to share with the aunt and uncle)? Please watch the video (only about 45 seconds) and let me know what you think!

Police want to talk to Lisa' family - YouTube

very interesting. thank you for finding thisd, I must've missed it.

my only issue witrh it is only the defense is spinning this story and I find it difficult to take anything Mr Picerno or the family says as truth.

 

[Detective Klimpt]

Well, I'm confused.

First off, I don't understand what a 'briefing' is. Would that mean bringing someone up to date with the case, including all 'facts' that LE has? If so, why on earth would they share them with DB's aunt and uncle and not with DB's father, brother, and other immediate family? My understanding is that DB's relationship with her uncle (Johnny) is not good and he has been on the web saying some awful things and coming across as a big jerk (moo).

I'm suspecting that Johnny has contacted LE saying that he has pertinent information to help them and that is why they brought him in. Johnny has written that he has called and even spoken with JT and that JT is now refusing his calls. Johnny has nothing to offer to help this case except to air more dirty laundry about the family.

 

[Donjeta]

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that either. I have to say that it seems absolutely shameful that LE is withholding information from these parents about their missing baby.

Like it or not, the parents have the legal right to not answer any questions at all. For LE to use information about their baby as a bargaining chip to make them give up their constitutional rights is pretty chilling.

The parents are not suspects (according to LE) so how can they possibly justify this?

IMO, if you decline to cooperate with what LE asks you should be able to expect that they may be a little less cooperative with you.

LE have the legal right not to share any information about the investigation with anyone, let alone parents who don't want to answer questions.

FWIW, I don't believe LE are going to share much info with the aunt and uncle either. They may have some questions for them.

 

[cityslick]

IMO, if you decline to cooperate with what LE asks you should be able to expect that they may be a little less cooperative with you.

LE have the legal right not to share any information about the investigation with anyone, let alone parents who don't want to answer questions.

FWIW, I don't believe LE are going to share much info with the aunt and uncle either. They may have some questions for them.

That was my thought, this 'briefing' may be nothing of the sort, just lip service when it's really an information gathering session.

 

[vlpate]

Anyone local hearing there are LE cars gathered about a mile from the brad/irwin house? (not sure where else to ask this)

 

[josie1986]

Anyone local hearing there are LE cars gathered about a mile from the brad/irwin house? (not sure where else to ask this)

Indempo posted in the search thread,think he/she is going to update when/if there is anything to report so best checking that thread out.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk