Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[Donjeta]

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.)

Is there an actual example of a successful lawsuit based on LE not giving information to someone who is not agreeing to be interviewed because it's their constitutional right to stay silent in order not to incriminate themselves?

 

[Donjeta]

JMO, the fact that they're asking for JI and DB to come in for more interviews is a pretty clear hint that there is something problematic about their stories.

 

[cityslick]

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.

It's not a hole for DB if someone was with DB between 6:40pm and 10:30pm. That would pretty much rule out DB as having done anything to her child during that time.

Are there other holes that we are factually aware of?

 

[Donjeta]

It's not a hole for DB if someone was with DB between 6:40pm and 10:30pm. That would pretty much rule out DB as having done anything to her child during that time.

Are there other holes that we are factually aware of?

We must agree to disagree because imo it's a gaping hole. It appears she had witnesses to her activities during that time whether or not she saw Lisa at 10:30 but if there is inconsistency in the time of last contact with the victim it's always a hole imo.

There are other little discrepancies in the media interviews imo, nothing major but little things that make me go hmm.

 

[cityslick]

We must agree to disagree because imo it's a gaping hole. It appears she had witnesses to her activities during that time whether or not she saw Lisa at 10:30 but if there is inconsistency in the time of last contact with the victim it's always a hole imo.

There are other little discrepancies in the media interviews imo, nothing major but little things that make me go hmm.

Ok that's fine. IMO if she's sitting outside on the front steps all that time and people (probably more than one) can collaborate that, it's not as big of a hole than if nobody knew what she was doing for those 4 hours. This is not to say something couldn't have happened to BL during this time, just that DB's involvement during that time is minimized since she's accounted for elsewhere. It also wouldn't mean that DB still did not do something after the fact (like she came in, saw her baby was dead, and did something about it).

I agree with you that it's a hole as far as nailing down what happened to BL, I was speaking from a 'DB involvement with doing something to her child during that time' angle (if that makes sense)

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

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?

I would guess that is where logic and common sense have to play their parts.
Logically, LE is not going say or state publicly anything that might hinder their investigation and just because they have not named suspects, doesn't mean there are not any. Sometimes, what LE doesn't say or state says more than actual words.

As far as what the attorneys say, I consider any and everything they say questionable simply because they do have a dog in this fight and they are being paid to represent their clients in the best possible light. Truth is not a requirement.JMO

 

[cityslick]

I would guess that is where logic and common sense have to play their parts.
Logically, LE is not going say or state publicly anything that might hinder their investigation and just because they have not named suspects, doesn't mean there are not any. Sometimes, what LE doesn't say or state says more than actual words.

As far as what the attorneys say, I consider any and everything they say questionable simply because they do have a dog in this fight and they are being paid to represent their clients in the best possible light. Truth is not a requirement.JMO

I don't disagree about LE not wanting to hinder the investigation, I just think just because LE wants to question them separate, common sense and logic doesn't lend itself to mean that LE considers them suspects, despite what the lawyers say.

 

[Donjeta]

Ok that's fine. IMO if she's sitting outside on the front steps all that time and people (probably more than one) can collaborate that, it's not as big of a hole than if nobody knew what she was doing for those 4 hours. This is not to say something couldn't have happened to BL during this time, just that DB's involvement during that time is minimized since she's accounted for elsewhere. It also wouldn't mean that DB still did not do something after the fact (like she came in, saw her baby was dead, and did something about it).

I agree with you that it's a hole as far as nailing down what happened to BL, I was speaking from a 'DB involvement with doing something to her child during that time' angle (if that makes sense)

The way I see it, she was sitting on the porch with the neighbors regardless of which story about seeing Lisa is correct so it doesn't change anything in that respect, it's just very curious that the time changed.

 

[Karmaa]

LE hasn't said that they are.

All we have to go on is the last thing that LE said. Everything else is speculation.

 

[deoneta]

It's not a hole for DB if someone was with DB between 6:40pm and 10:30pm. That would pretty much rule out DB as having done anything to her child during that time.

Are there other holes that we are factually aware of?

If you go back to 10-04, and for many days thereafter, all the media reports (and I do believe the first statement by LE, but I will have to look for that) had the same bed time, put to bed at 7:30, checked on at 10:30. What happened to 7:30? Did that time get pushed back because of Shane saying he was there from 7:00 to 8:30? Next it's bedtime at 6:40 and 7:30 is back, the check up with Lisa standing up in her crib. Finally it was just 6:40.

Every time JI recounted his arrival the morning of 10-04, the order of events changed.

It's no mystery what gaps and inconsistencies LE would like to straight out. Most all of this is on video. There may be others we don't know about because the attorneys managed to keep the parents quiet after the drinking revelation interviews. All MOO.

 

[Karmaa]

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 .

Based on what LE said at the beginning, I would say that DB told them she put the baby down at 6:30, and not at 10:30.

The MEDIA jumped to the conclusion that she put the baby to bed at 10:30, so they THOUGHT she changed her story when she told them she actually put Lisa down at 6:30. Once one media source said it, others quoted them, until it became a "fact", when it actually isn't a fact.

That's what some of us have been saying all along: there is no proof that DB ever lied to LE.

 

[Donjeta]

Based on what LE said at the beginning, I would say that DB told them she put the baby down at 6:30, and not at 10:30.

The MEDIA jumped to the conclusion that she put the baby to bed at 10:30, so they THOUGHT she changed her story when she told them she actually put Lisa down at 6:30. Once one media source said it, others quoted them, until it became a "fact", when it actually isn't a fact.

That's what some of us have been saying all along: there is no proof that DB ever lied to LE.

I agree about the putting Lisa to bed part but I am not talking about that in the least when I say her story changed.

What I'm referring to is the way she said she checked in on Lisa before going to bed at 10:30 and then she didn't.

One or the other one of those stories is untrue.
Whether you want to put it down to lying or being too drunk to remember is up to you.

 

[cityslick]

If you go back to 10-04, and for many days thereafter, all the media reports (and I do believe the first statement by LE, but I will have to look for that) had the same bed time, put to bed at 7:30, checked on at 10:30. What happened to 7:30? Did that time get pushed back because of Shane saying he was there from 7:00 to 8:30? Next it's bedtime at 6:40 and 7:30 is back, the check up with Lisa standing up in her crib. Finally it was just 6:30.

Every time JI recounted his arrival the morning of 10-04, the order of events changed.

It's no mystery what gaps and inconsistencies LE would like to straight out. Most all of this is on video. There may be others we don't know about because the attorneys managed to keep the parents quiet after the drinking revelation interviews. All MOO.

I'm trying to look for a link where LE mentions the 7:30 time. Trying find where that was established.

 

[natsound]

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15611288/police-10-month-old-girl-abducted

This article says "She was last seen on Monday around 10:30 p.m. when her mother put her to bed in a crib, police said." Just sayin'.

 

[Karmaa]

Is there an actual example of a successful lawsuit based on LE not giving information to someone who is not agreeing to be interviewed because it's their constitutional right to stay silent in order not to incriminate themselves?

There doesn't have to be an exact case. The lawyers will find some applicable case law and try to convince the judge that it applies to their case. That's how tort law works.

The big one is the "no longer cooperating" statement. That could absolutely be defamatory if the parents are in fact innocent, and LE had enough information to reasonably believe that they were innocent at the time. There is absolutely no doubt that the family could claim pain and suffering from the public at large, based entirely on that one comment. Which, based on Young's statement about it, was not actually officially stated by the parents, but was assumed by LE.

I don't actually agree with those kinds of cases, but I can see it happening without a doubt. (But only if the parents are innocent).

 

[Evan's Mom]

LE hasn't said that they are.

Why would LE need to come out and say whether something is still correct?

 

[Karmaa]

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15611288/police-10-month-old-girl-abducted

This article says "She was last seen on Monday around 10:30 p.m. when her mother put her to bed in a crib, police said." Just sayin'.

That's the link that shows how the media interpreted it incorrectly (not a direct quote). As I showed in the other links, LE actually never said that - the direct quotes both said that Lisa was last SEEN at 10:30. The media decided that was when she was put to bed.

Normally that would not make any difference, but in this case, that little interpretation by the media has spawned a whole theory that Debbie's story changed. And there is no proof that her story ever changed.

 

[Donjeta]

There doesn't have to be an exact case. The lawyers will find some applicable case law and try to convince the judge that it applies to their case. That's how tort law works.

The big one is the "no longer cooperating" statement. That could absolutely be defamatory if the parents are in fact innocent, and LE had enough information to reasonably believe that they were innocent at the time. There is absolutely no doubt that the family could claim pain and suffering from the public at large, based entirely on that one comment. Which, based on Young's statement about it, was not actually officially stated by the parents, but was assumed by LE.

I don't actually agree with those kinds of cases, but I can see it happening without a doubt. (But only if the parents are innocent).

But don't you have to be able to show that the claim is false, if you sue for defamation? If they walked out from an interview and have since refused to go back I would think that LE has some basis for stating that they're not cooperating.

Not cooperating is not a statement of innocence or guilt.

 

[Karmaa]

I'm trying to look for a link where LE mentions the 7:30 time. Trying find where that was established.

I don't recall LE ever saying that.

What I do remember is that Debbie said that on the multiple "exclusives" weekend. She said she put Lisa down at 6:40, then checked on her at 7:30 (I think she was standing in her crib), and then she thinks she checked on the baby before she went to bed, since that's what she usually does, but can't actually remember doing it. [paraphrased]

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

All we have to go on is the last thing that LE said. Everything else is speculation.

Yes, and the last thing LE said was, the family was not cooperating.