Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[yllek]

If LE can't clear those that may be the victimizers of these three children, they can't hand over information. I don't think it's a game. LE wants answers from the parents; the parents say "sorry, run it by our attorneys". The parents are in defense mode; have been since week 1. They are acting like they are suspects with things to hide by not answering questions separately, even though they have dedicated attorneys to protect their rights during questioning.

Debbi's dad said there were inconsistencies between Debbi and Jeremy's accounts during the first few days of interviews. LE needs to talk to these parents again, separately, with their lawyers. These parents are declining and telling LE to figure it out themselves; claiming it's because they got their feelings hurt when LE pushed them too hard and were accusatory when gaps and inconsistencies in a 12 hour time line could not be explained by Debbi. That's just pitiful if true, and a poor excuse if false. JMO...

LE is not going to chase down answers from other sources because the parents won't cooperate fully, only to turn around and hand the information to the defense. It's a reciprocal relationship that has been shut down by one side who tried to create the image that LE's lack of cooperation statement meant without lawyers - not true, as verified by LE. It's extremely incriminating that these parents aren't willing to answer questions about their baby's disappearance together or separately while fully lawyered-up, unnamed as suspects, and not charged with any crime whatsoever. 5th amendment rights fully understood, they can choose to speak and assist in finding their baby - there is a reason that they choose not to do so. Tacopina said just yesterday that's Debbi's recollection was refreshed about the last time she saw Lisa as a result of repeat questioning. Way past time for the parents to meet separately with lawyers and address LE's new question and let LE try to jog improved recollection about some of the original gaps and inconsistencies.

If the parents will address LE's questions so LE can help find their baby, LE can share more information with the parents. Until LE knows more about why Debbi can't/won't answer key questions about that night, giving the parents information is potentially handing those that harmed Lisa vital information that could prevent LE from getting proper justice for Lisa down the road. LE doesn't want Lisa victimized twice, by anyone.

JMO...

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

If LE can't clear those that may be the victimizers of these three children, they can't hand over information. I don't think it's a game. LE wants answers from the parents; the parents say "sorry, run it by our attorneys". The parents are in defense mode; have been since week 1. They are acting like they are suspects with things to hide by not answering questions separately, even though they have dedicated attorneys to protect their rights during questioning.

Debbi's dad said there were inconsistencies between Debbi and Jeremy's accounts during the first few days of interviews. LE needs to talk to these parents again, separately, with their lawyers. These parents are declining and telling LE to figure it out themselves; claiming it's because they got their feelings hurt when LE pushed them too hard and were accusatory when gaps and inconsistencies in a 12 hour time line could not be explained by Debbi. That's just pitiful if true, and a poor excuse if false. JMO...

LE is not going to chase down answers from other sources because the parents won't cooperate fully, only to turn around and hand the information to the defense. It's a reciprocal relationship that has been shut down by one side who tried to create the image that LE's lack of cooperation statement meant without lawyers - not true, as verified by LE. It's extremely incriminating that these parents aren't willing to answer questions about their baby's disappearance together or separately while fully lawyered-up, unnamed as suspects, and not charged with any crime whatsoever. 5th amendment rights fully understood, they can choose to speak and assist in finding their baby - there is a reason that they choose not to do so. Tacopina said just yesterday that's Debbi's recollection was refreshed about the last time she saw Lisa as a result of repeat questioning. Way past time for the parents to meet separately with lawyers and address LE's new question and let LE try to jog improved recollection about some of the original gaps and inconsistencies.

If the parents will address LE's questions so LE can help find their baby, LE can share more information with the parents. Until LE knows more about why Debbi can't/won't answer key questions about that night, giving the parents information is potentially handing those that harmed Lisa vital information that could prevent LE from getting proper justice for Lisa down the road. LE doesn't want Lisa victimized twice, by anyone.

JMO...

Seriously Excellent post!!!!!!Thanks wasn't enough!

 

[yllek]

Advised to sue??? For what??? LE trying to investigate their missing baby???
DB and JI are not cooperating, how would the above statement be grounds for a lawsuit? While it may be the parents constitutional right to remain silent, they are not required to do so and could, at anytime, pick up the phone, make an appointment to meet with LE but they choose not to, they choose to remain silent while the whereabouts and well being of their 12 month old baby lies in the balance of their constitutional rights.....Sue LE?, that is laughable.

BBM

I agree. Just as the parents have a right not to cooperate to LE's satsifaction, the police have a right not to show their cards and hold things close to the vest in an investigation. Not illegal, certainly not means for a successful law suit against LE.

As for "stopped cooperating" being a statement that exposed the parents, that is not slanderous or libelous in any way shape, or form. It is a fact as perceived by LE when the parents stopped questioning. It was later expanded on and clarified, but not before Debbi and Ashely Irwin immediately went to the press to announce Debbi was planning to be arrested (because LE falsely pins things on people, according to Ashley). It is in fact true that the parents stopped cooperating to LE's satisfaction. No separate (over even joint) interviews will be given to LE by Lisa's parents, even with attorneys welcome. All questions must go through the defense attorneys.

LE has made zero comments about the parents' truthfulness, their lifestyles, their activities, their demeanors, their judgments, their fitness as parents - nada. Not a derrogatory word that I can find anywhere. It still puzzles the hell outta me how some can claim LE has persecuted these parents to the public. The only negative information has come from Debbi herself: drunk to the possible point of black out, can't remember when last saw her baby, told she failed a poly, gaps in timeline... All from Debbi, reported by the media (sometimes with less than professional style, but these are facts according to Debb herself). None of this was released by LE nor invented by the media. Just Debbi positioning and releasing it before any other source could do so. JMO...

 

[cityslick]

If LE can't clear those that may be the victimizers of these three children, they can't hand over information. I don't think it's a game. LE wants answers from the parents; the parents say "sorry, run it by our attorneys". The parents are in defense mode; have been since week 1. They are acting like they are suspects with things to hide by not answering questions separately, even though they have dedicated attorneys to protect their rights during questioning.

Debbi's dad said there were inconsistencies between Debbi and Jeremy's accounts during the first few days of interviews. LE needs to talk to these parents again, separately, with their lawyers. These parents are declining and telling LE to figure it out themselves; claiming it's because they got their feelings hurt when LE pushed them too hard and were accusatory when gaps and inconsistencies in a 12 hour time line could not be explained by Debbi. That's just pitiful if true, and a poor excuse if false. JMO...

LE is not going to chase down answers from other sources because the parents won't cooperate fully, only to turn around and hand the information to the defense. It's a reciprocal relationship that has been shut down by one side who tried to create the image that LE's lack of cooperation statement meant without lawyers - not true, as verified by LE. It's extremely incriminating that these parents aren't willing to answer questions about their baby's disappearance together or separately while fully lawyered-up, unnamed as suspects, and not charged with any crime whatsoever. 5th amendment rights fully understood, they can choose to speak and assist in finding their baby - there is a reason that they choose not to do so. Tacopina said just yesterday that's Debbi's recollection was refreshed about the last time she saw Lisa as a result of repeat questioning. Way past time for the parents to meet separately with lawyers and address LE's new question and let LE try to jog improved recollection about some of the original gaps and inconsistencies.

If the parents will address LE's questions so LE can help find their baby, LE can share more information with the parents. Until LE knows more about why Debbi can't/won't answer key questions about that night, giving the parents information is potentially handing those that harmed Lisa vital information that could prevent LE from getting proper justice for Lisa down the road. LE doesn't want Lisa victimized twice, by anyone.

JMO...

BBM

I'm confused, wasn't the initial comments by LE was there were no holes in the parents story?

 

[josie1986]

If LE can't clear those that may be the victimizers of these three children, they can't hand over information. I don't think it's a game. LE wants answers from the parents; the parents say "sorry, run it by our attorneys". The parents are in defense mode; have been since week 1. They are acting like they are suspects with things to hide by not answering questions separately, even though they have dedicated attorneys to protect their rights during questioning.

Debbi's dad said there were inconsistencies between Debbi and Jeremy's accounts during the first few days of interviews. LE needs to talk to these parents again, separately, with their lawyers. These parents are declining and telling LE to figure it out themselves; claiming it's because they got their feelings hurt when LE pushed them too hard and were accusatory when gaps and inconsistencies in a 12 hour time line could not be explained by Debbi. That's just pitiful if true, and a poor excuse if false. JMO...

LE is not going to chase down answers from other sources because the parents won't cooperate fully, only to turn around and hand the information to the defense. It's a reciprocal relationship that has been shut down by one side who tried to create the image that LE's lack of cooperation statement meant without lawyers - not true, as verified by LE. It's extremely incriminating that these parents aren't willing to answer questions about their baby's disappearance together or separately while fully lawyered-up, unnamed as suspects, and not charged with any crime whatsoever. 5th amendment rights fully understood, they can choose to speak and assist in finding their baby - there is a reason that they choose not to do so. Tacopina said just yesterday that's Debbi's recollection was refreshed about the last time she saw Lisa as a result of repeat questioning. Way past time for the parents to meet separately with lawyers and address LE's new question and let LE try to jog improved recollection about some of the original gaps and inconsistencies.

If the parents will address LE's questions so LE can help find their baby, LE can share more information with the parents. Until LE knows more about why Debbi can't/won't answer key questions about that night, giving the parents information is potentially handing those that harmed Lisa vital information that could prevent LE from getting proper justice for Lisa down the road. LE doesn't want Lisa victimized twice, by anyone.

JMO...

:applause: thanks isn't enough, great post!!!

 

[Karmaa]

Advised to sue??? For what??? LE trying to investigate their missing baby???
DB and JI are not cooperating, how would the above statement be grounds for a lawsuit? While it may be the parents constitutional right to remain silent, they are not required to do so and could, at anytime, pick up the phone, make an appointment to meet with LE but they choose not to, they choose to remain silent while the whereabouts and well being of their 12 month old baby lies in the balance of their constitutional rights.....Sue LE?, that is laughable.

If the parents are innocent, the statement that LE gave saying the family was no longer cooperating could be seen as extremely defamatory. And, if LE has actually told the parents that they must give up their constitutional rights to get information, I am sure that a civil case could be made.

Feel free to laugh, but it's hardly a far out idea. There are a LOT of lawyers who would love to bring a case like that. (Note: for the record, I am not a fan of tort actions - I wouldn't AGREE with a lawsuit like that - but I sure as heck believe it could happen.)

 

[jacy]

If LE can't clear those that may be the victimizers of these three children, they can't hand over information. I don't think it's a game. LE wants answers from the parents; the parents say "sorry, run it by our attorneys". The parents are in defense mode; have been since week 1. They are acting like they are suspects with things to hide by not answering questions separately, even though they have dedicated attorneys to protect their rights during questioning.

Debbi's dad said there were inconsistencies between Debbi and Jeremy's accounts during the first few days of interviews. LE needs to talk to these parents again, separately, with their lawyers. These parents are declining and telling LE to figure it out themselves; claiming it's because they got their feelings hurt when LE pushed them too hard and were accusatory when gaps and inconsistencies in a 12 hour time line could not be explained by Debbi. That's just pitiful if true, and a poor excuse if false. JMO...

LE is not going to chase down answers from other sources because the parents won't cooperate fully, only to turn around and hand the information to the defense. It's a reciprocal relationship that has been shut down by one side who tried to create the image that LE's lack of cooperation statement meant without lawyers - not true, as verified by LE. It's extremely incriminating that these parents aren't willing to answer questions about their baby's disappearance together or separately while fully lawyered-up, unnamed as suspects, and not charged with any crime whatsoever. 5th amendment rights fully understood, they can choose to speak and assist in finding their baby - there is a reason that they choose not to do so. Tacopina said just yesterday that's Debbi's recollection was refreshed about the last time she saw Lisa as a result of repeat questioning. Way past time for the parents to meet separately with lawyers and address LE's new question and let LE try to jog improved recollection about some of the original gaps and inconsistencies.

If the parents will address LE's questions so LE can help find their baby, LE can share more information with the parents. Until LE knows more about why Debbi can't/won't answer key questions about that night, giving the parents information is potentially handing those that harmed Lisa vital information that could prevent LE from getting proper justice for Lisa down the road. LE doesn't want Lisa victimized twice, by anyone.

JMO...

Bravo! :gthanks:

 

[Karmaa]

BBM

I'm confused, wasn't the initial comments by LE was there were no holes in the parents story?

First Day:

10/4/11 http://www.kctv5.com/story/15611288/police-10-month-old-girl-abducted-from-bedroom
"The family is being cooperative with detectives," Young said. "If there were any holes in their story, we would know by now. There are no holes in their stories.

10/4/11 http://abcnews.go.com/US/amber-aler...-abducted-crib/story?id=14663097#.TtjOhlb11P0
[Young] also said that there have been no indications at this point that the parents' story is "hinky" or problematic”

 

[yllek]

BBM

I'm confused, wasn't the initial comments by LE was there were no holes in the parents story?

Yes, in the first couple of days after Lisa went missing. That changed as the questioning and investigation progressed, imo. Perhaps as LE had called in other witnesses like the neighbors, and when the 4 hour change in the "last check on Lisa" was introduced by Debbi. That's what repeat questioning is all about, getting to the truth. LE gets a story from the witness who answers all of their questions. No holes at this point. They go to verify, and either the story checks out or there are holes. In this case, there were holes, imo. So, LE went back to requestion the witness about the same event. They got a new story/time, gaps, "I don't remember", etc... so they kept on questioning and investigating to get to the accurate/true version of events. Questioning was then stopped by the parents. JMO...

Investigation is not stagnant. What is unverifed and uncontested (and therefore presumed to be true on day 2) may well be proven false or unconfirmed upon investigation. JMO...

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

First Day:

10/4/11 http://www.kctv5.com/story/15611288/police-10-month-old-girl-abducted-from-bedroom
"The family is being cooperative with detectives," Young said. "If there were any holes in their story, we would know by now. There are no holes in their stories.

10/4/11 http://abcnews.go.com/US/amber-aler...-abducted-crib/story?id=14663097#.TtjOhlb11P0
[Young] also said that there have been no indications at this point that the parents' story is "hinky" or problematic”

BRBM-If these quotes were from the first day of the investigation, they may have been accurate. 2 months later, with more information and players involved, not so much, hence the request by LE for more interviews.

 

[Karmaa]

If LE can't clear those that may be the victimizers of these three children, they can't hand over information. I don't think it's a game. LE wants answers from the parents; the parents say "sorry, run it by our attorneys". The parents are in defense mode; have been since week 1. They are acting like they are suspects with things to hide by not answering questions separately, even though they have dedicated attorneys to protect their rights during questioning.

Debbi's dad said there were inconsistencies between Debbi and Jeremy's accounts during the first few days of interviews. LE needs to talk to these parents again, separately, with their lawyers. These parents are declining and telling LE to figure it out themselves; claiming it's because they got their feelings hurt when LE pushed them too hard and were accusatory when gaps and inconsistencies in a 12 hour time line could not be explained by Debbi. That's just pitiful if true, and a poor excuse if false. JMO...

LE is not going to chase down answers from other sources because the parents won't cooperate fully, only to turn around and hand the information to the defense. It's a reciprocal relationship that has been shut down by one side who tried to create the image that LE's lack of cooperation statement meant without lawyers - not true, as verified by LE. It's extremely incriminating that these parents aren't willing to answer questions about their baby's disappearance together or separately while fully lawyered-up, unnamed as suspects, and not charged with any crime whatsoever. 5th amendment rights fully understood, they can choose to speak and assist in finding their baby - there is a reason that they choose not to do so. Tacopina said just yesterday that's Debbi's recollection was refreshed about the last time she saw Lisa as a result of repeat questioning. Way past time for the parents to meet separately with lawyers and address LE's new question and let LE try to jog improved recollection about some of the original gaps and inconsistencies.

If the parents will address LE's questions so LE can help find their baby, LE can share more information with the parents. Until LE knows more about why Debbi can't/won't answer key questions about that night, giving the parents information is potentially handing those that harmed Lisa vital information that could prevent LE from getting proper justice for Lisa down the road. LE doesn't want Lisa victimized twice, by anyone.

JMO...

The things that you are saying (bolded above) have NOT been said by LE and have been crushed by the attorneys. Much of what was written in the OP is rumor, innuendo and guesses. It has NOT been said by LE. An individual can choose to believe what they think is the truth, but it is NOT confirmed.

On the other hand, what has been actually SAID by the attorneys is below. Direct quotes. Most of it are specifics which are easily verifiable. If LE disagrees they have not stepped forward to counter any of it.

We are all free to believe what we want, but personally, I want something that comes from the horse's mouth, not just "gut feelings" or innuendo.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/11/3260417/baby-lisas-attorney-explains-parents.html#ixzz1fO3XJD5H
[Picerno] said the idea that the parents have not been cooperative “is just fantasy.”

Bradley and Irwin have been interviewed separately twice without attorneys, he said.

The third time they were interviewed, with an attorney present, “it got nasty,” according to Picerno.

The attorney called off those interviews, he said.

“He had enough, and that’s enough for us,” Picerno said.

That attorney, Sean O’Brien, confirmed Friday that he had stopped those interviews because of the “accusatory” nature of police questioning.

“It was clear to me it was not going to produce any relevant information,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien said that Bradley and Irwin consented to that interview even though previous interviews also had involved accusatory tactics.

“They still wanted to give information because they know the police are the best hope of finding their baby,” he said.

Picerno said he believes that police are “absolutely” focusing too much on the parents, and he said his clients have indicated that police are treating them like suspects.

“They told them as much, Debbie in particular,” he said.

But a Kansas City police spokeswoman on Friday disputed that anyone had been singled out as a suspect.

“We have no suspects in this case,” said Police Sgt. Stacey Graves.

Picerno said Friday that if police have questions they want answered, the questions can be relayed to him or co-counsel Joe Tacopina of New York, and they will get answers.

“What we’re not going to do is let our clients be subjected to interrogation techniques,” Picerno said.

 

[Karmaa]

BRBM-If these quotes were from the first day of the investigation, they may have been accurate. 2 months later, with more information and players involved, not so much, hence the request by LE for more interviews.

LE has never said that these things are no longer correct.

 

[cityslick]

Yes, in the first couple of days after Lisa went missing. That changed as the questioning and investigation progressed, imo. Perhaps as LE had called in other witnesses like the neighbors, and when the 4 hour change in the "last check on Lisa" was introduced by Debbi. That's what repeat questioning is all about, getting to the truth. LE gets a story from the witness who answers all of their questions. No holes at this point. They go to verify, and either the story checks out or there are holes. In this case, there were holes, imo. So, LE went back to requestion the witness about the same event. They got a new story/time, gaps, "I don't remember", etc... so they kept on questioning and investigating to get to the accurate/true version of events. Questioning was then stopped by the parents. JMO...

Investigation is not stagnant. What is unverifed and uncontested (and therefore presumed to be true on day 2) may well be proven false or unconfirmed upon investigation. JMO...

So in other words, it's just a guess that LE thinks there are holes in the parents story?

The 4 hour time change, that's due to discrepancies of what was said to the media, correct? Not LE (since we actually don't know what times DB told LE)?

 

[cityslick]

Here is my dilemma. If we are to say it's not really accurate when LE says there are no suspects in this case and it's no longer accurate that LE believes there are no holes in the parents story, what can we believe anymore? If certain things said by LE are not totally accurate and of course what the attorneys say is not accurate, when does something become accurate?

 

[yllek]

The things that you are saying (bolded above) have NOT been said by LE and have been crushed by the attorneys. Much of what was written in the OP is rumor, innuendo and guesses. It has NOT been said by LE. An individual can choose to believe what they think is the truth, but it is NOT confirmed.

On the other hand, what has been actually SAID by the attorneys is below. Direct quotes. Most of it are specifics which are easily verifiable. If LE disagrees they have not stepped forward to counter any of it.

We are all free to believe what we want, but personally, I want something that comes from the horse's mouth, not just "gut feelings" or innuendo.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/11/3260417/baby-lisas-attorney-explains-parents.html#ixzz1fO3XJD5H
[Picerno] said the idea that the parents have not been cooperative “is just fantasy.”

Bradley and Irwin have been interviewed separately twice without attorneys, he said.

The third time they were interviewed, with an attorney present, “it got nasty,” according to Picerno.

The attorney called off those interviews, he said.

“He had enough, and that’s enough for us,” Picerno said.

That attorney, Sean O’Brien, confirmed Friday that he had stopped those interviews because of the “accusatory” nature of police questioning.

“It was clear to me it was not going to produce any relevant information,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien said that Bradley and Irwin consented to that interview even though previous interviews also had involved accusatory tactics.

“They still wanted to give information because they know the police are the best hope of finding their baby,” he said.

Picerno said he believes that police are “absolutely” focusing too much on the parents, and he said his clients have indicated that police are treating them like suspects.

“They told them as much, Debbie in particular,” he said.

But a Kansas City police spokeswoman on Friday disputed that anyone had been singled out as a suspect.

“We have no suspects in this case,” said Police Sgt. Stacey Graves.

Picerno said Friday that if police have questions they want answered, the questions can be relayed to him or co-counsel Joe Tacopina of New York, and they will get answers.

“What we’re not going to do is let our clients be subjected to interrogation techniques,” Picerno said.

I am not operating on gut feeling. I am analyzing what has been made available by all sources. Some I consider more reliable than others, the attorneys are lower on my list because they have a job to do: defend the parents. I don't hold that against them, but I consider they have their mission. LE has a job to do as well: find the baby and bring the perps to justice. They are not worried about responding to every statement made by the lawyers, the parents, or anyone else in the media. So, your analysis may render a different opinion than mine and you may lend more credence to certain sources than do I (and vice versa), and I fully respect that. But, all opinions based on what is available to us at this time are equally valid. JMO. Diversity is good.

FWIW, Debbi is the one that told us she couldn't fill in gaps as the questioning continued. Each of us can choose to believe her or not.

'From the start when they've questioned me, once I couldn't fill in gaps, it turned into "you did it, you did it,' Bradley, 25, told Good Morning America on Friday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...parents-Deborah-Jeremy-cooperating-again.html

 

[Karmaa]

So in other words, it's just a guess that LE thinks there are holes in the parents story?

The 4 hour time change, that's due to discrepancies of what was said to the media, correct? Not LE (since we actually don't know what times DB told LE)?

I have been looking back over some stuff in the first few days, and EVERYTHING I see from LE says the baby was last SEEN at 10:30 pm. Reporters started saying that the baby was "put to bed" at 10:30 without using direct quotes. It is very likely that DB told LE the correct times.

10/4/11 http://www.kmbc.com/video/29386705/detail.html

Young confirms that the mom “last saw the baby at 10:30”. <-- direct quote


10/4/11 http://videos.kansascity.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=114425451
Stacy Graves: "The family last saw her asleep in her crib at about 10:30 last night” <-- direct quote

The same day, reporters reporting on those two specific updates said "the mother PUT HER TO BED" at 10:30. It took off from there.
For example:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/amber-aler...-abducted-crib/story?id=14663097#.TtjOhlb11P0
Lisa's mother put her down to sleep at approximately 10:30 p.m. Monday night, according to police. <--- not a direct quote

I have YET to see anything confirming that Debbie lied to LE.

 

[cityslick]

I have been looking back over some stuff in the first few days, and EVERYTHING I see from LE says the baby was last SEEN at 10:30 pm. Reporters started saying that the baby was "put to bed" at 10:30 without using direct quotes. It is very likely that DB told LE the correct times.

10/4/11 http://www.kmbc.com/video/29386705/detail.html

Young confirms that the mom “last saw the baby at 10:30”. <-- direct quote


10/4/11 http://videos.kansascity.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=114425451
Stacy Graves: "The family last saw her asleep in her crib at about 10:30 last night” <-- direct quote

The same day, reporters reporting on those two specific updates said "the mother PUT HER TO BED" at 10:30. It took off from there.
For example:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/amber-aler...-abducted-crib/story?id=14663097#.TtjOhlb11P0
Lisa's mother put her down to sleep at approximately 10:30 p.m. Monday night, according to police. <--- not a direct quote

I have YET to see anything confirming that Debbie lied to LE.

I think the discrepancy comes from the media report where DB says she changed it to 6:40pm. IMO that probably came because DB thought about it and couldn't 100% remember if she looked in on BL (because she says she was drunk). Other than that I'm not aware of any other 'gaps' and I don't even know if I qualify that as a gap if LE has other witnesses that can collaborate that she was outside until 10:30pm.

 

[Donjeta]

BBM

I'm confused, wasn't the initial comments by LE was there were no holes in the parents story?

Well, IMO, quite obviously that's not true. We still don't know, for instance, whether Lisa was last seen at 6:40 or 10:30 or some other time because DB says she's not sure, she may or may not have checked on her before going to bed.

That's a four hour hole.

 

[Donjeta]

So in other words, it's just a guess that LE thinks there are holes in the parents story?

The 4 hour time change, that's due to discrepancies of what was said to the media, correct? Not LE (since we actually don't know what times DB told LE)?

JMO, even if DB has only said 10:30 to LE, ever, they do pay attention to what is being said in the media interviews and notice if she says something different than what's on their records .

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

LE has never said that these things are no longer correct.

LE hasn't said that they are.