Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #821
I think this is where the idea that DB put Lisa to bed at 10:30 comes from.


First, LE says that she was last seen at 10:30.

Then, DB is asked about the last moments with Lisa and she describes putting her to bed.
-----


Reporter: “Do you remember your last moments with Lisa? I mean, what were you doing? What was it like?”

DB: “Just change her, you know, put fresh clothes on her, and get her ready for bed, and gave her her bottle, and made sure her binky was in her crib in case she needed it, and she sleeps with her Barney, and she sleeps with her GloWorm and her blanket and that was, that was it.”

10/6/2011 Interview with DB and JI from KMBC.
http://www.kmbc.com/r/29404237/detail.html

transcription by the awesome not-my-kids
 
  • #822
Yes, and the last thing LE said was, the family was not cooperating.
No, the last thing LE has said is that they ARE cooperating and had to rephrase it as the only thing they aren't cooperating with is sitting down individually.
 
  • #823
I think this is where the idea that DB put Lisa to bed at 10:30 comes from.


First, LE says that she was last seen at 10:30.

Then, DB is asked about the last moments with Lisa and she describes putting her to bed.
-----


Reporter: “Do you remember your last moments with Lisa? I mean, what were you doing? What was it like?”

DB: “Just change her, you know, put fresh clothes on her, and get her ready for bed, and gave her her bottle, and made sure her binky was in her crib in case she needed it, and she sleeps with her Barney, and she sleeps with her GloWorm and her blanket and that was, that was it.”

10/6/2011 Interview with DB and JI from KMBC.
http://www.kmbc.com/r/29404237/detail.html

transcription by the awesome not-my-kids
And that would be a description of what she last did WITH Lisa. This statement does not change a timeline at all. Checking on her would not be an activity WITH her.
 
  • #824
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.

It is laughable, it's ludicrous.

LE has not announced that the parents have been cleared of anything, it is still an ongoing investigation, LE has never said that they were moving past them the way they said they were moving past others.

The statement made by JP should be taken for what it's worth, he was talking about the custody case in that interview, of course then he needs to paint them in the best light possible so JI doesn't lose his son. Another interview he says that LE said they consider them suspects, especially DB.

They aren't cooperating, there's no denying that. Their attorneys even acknowleged that when they said if LE has any questions they can field it through them and they'll get back to them.

Who cares what was said in the first few days, things have changed since then, LE said they need them to sit down separately and answer some hard questions, they refuse. There's no reason to believe that LE already knows the answers to those questions and are just trying to berate the parents.

IF they turn out to be innocent it will be because LE was able to move past them, as of now they haven't. No different than anyone else that's a potential suspect, like Jersey or the neighbor.

I don't hold anyone to a higher standard than a parent's obligation to protect their child at all costs. LE is not obligated to the parents, especially if they decide that their rights are more important than their child's rights.

Any LE agency investigating a criminal case would be crazy to tip their hand to anyone who is a potential suspect, the parents are no different in that regard. LE has an obligation to find Lisa, that's it.

JMHO
 
  • #825
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.

LE has had to backtrack on that "not cooperating" statement several times, and admit that the parents are, in fact answering questions. Who knows? Maybe the city lawyers are trying to mitigate potential damage, and told LE to backtrack on that statement.

A civil case would hinge on what people would reasonably believe that "not cooperating" meant. And, I think we can all agree on how that sounded, when we first heard it. If either of the parents are guilty there would be no case, but if they are innocent? Honestly I could see a sharp lawyer claiming that the statement was deliberately malicious, and really up the ante.
 
  • #826
No, the last thing LE has said is that they ARE cooperating and had to rephrase it as the only thing they aren't cooperating with is sitting down individually.

What else have LE asked them to do lately and they've agreed with? Has there been something after the boys' interview?

What I mean is, it sounds a bit different to me if the parents are agreeing to cooperate with a number of demands and just refusing one tiny little part of it, or if they've been asked to do this one thing only, and they're refusing to do it.
 
  • #827
Why would LE need to come out and say whether something is still correct?

They don't. Common sense dictates that the statement made by LE the first day of this case, of this child being missing and trying to coordinate family and witness statements all the while trying to locate a 10 month old baby. It stands to reason after various interviews with various people that stories and statements have to be verified and clarified, this takes time, so what was said the first day of an investigation might not hold true on the 2nd day or in this case, 2 months later.
 
  • #828
What else have LE asked them to do lately and they've agreed with? Has there been something after the boys' interview?

What I mean is, it sounds a bit different to me if the parents are agreeing to cooperate with a number of demands and just refusing one tiny little part of it, or if they've been asked to do this one thing only, and they're refusing to do it.
I think when LE says they ARE cooperating tells me that they are, in fact, cooperating, meaning answering all questions, except not doing it alone.
 
  • #829
The parents can sue, but they don't know if they would win. At this point, I don't think they have enough examples of media defamation. There are a lot of people who the media has pointed the finger at, so unless the Irwins can prove that the defamation in their case went well beyond the standard 'media picking a villain', I don't think they have much of a case.

ETA: Also, LE in JonBenet's case said that her parents weren't cooperating, that they were under an umbrella of suspicion, etc and they were cleared in 2008. Now personally, I think the Ramseys are guilty too, but they had it a lot worse in the media than the Irwins have had it, and the fact that they sued many people and media outlets throughout the years makes me think that someone told that a lawsuit against LE wasn't worth it.
 
  • #830
And that would be a description of what she last did WITH Lisa. This statement does not change a timeline at all. Checking on her would not be an activity WITH her.

Maybe but if I was asked about the last moments with a missing person I would tend to mention the last time I saw her and the last time I know she was safe where she was supposed to be.
 
  • #831
What else have LE asked them to do lately and they've agreed with? Has there been something after the boys' interview?

What I mean is, it sounds a bit different to me if the parents are agreeing to cooperate with a number of demands and just refusing one tiny little part of it, or if they've been asked to do this one thing only, and they're refusing to do it.

But that's all we have to go on based on LE's own statement, that the parents will not submit to a specific request only. They have not said that there are a number of things they wish from the parents.
 
  • #832
Maybe but if I was asked about the last moments with a missing person I would tend to mention the last time I saw her and the last time I know she was safe where she was supposed to be.

And that may have very well been done with LE, I think it's assumption to think otherwise.
 
  • #833
I think when LE says they ARE cooperating tells me that they are, in fact, cooperating, meaning answering all questions, except not doing it alone.

So what did it mean then when they said that the parents weren't answering vital questions?

IDK...
When the lawyers that they didn't think there were unanswered questions but if you have questions you can submit them to us and we'll get back to you I kinda took it to mean that they weren't having any communication with LE about the unanswered questions at the moment. Otherwise they'd have known which questions were still lacking replies, and would probably have pointed out that we answered LE questions just the other day. But that's just MOO.
 
  • #834
Yes, and the last thing LE said was, the family was not cooperating.

Since that time, LE has said, at LEAST twice that the family is cooperating. On 10/20 and 11/11. I know there were a few more, but I only saved those two dates.

10/20/11 http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html
Sadly the link is broken, but my note says that there is a direct quote from Young that the family is cooperating. I am sure you can find it if you don't trust me.


11/11/11 http://www.news-leader.com/article/...lice-Hunt-Kansas-City-baby-Lisa-not-out-steam

"I'm not saying they're not cooperating," he [Young] said
 
  • #835
But that's all we have to go on based on LE's own statement, that the parents will not submit to a specific request only. They have not said that there are a number of things they wish from the parents.

Yes, I agree. And if the parents refuse the only thing the police ask it is imo not defamation to say they're not cooperating.
 
  • #836
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

respectfully snipped

Actually, the above is not a direct quote from what is linked. The direct quote is:

(Reporter) "Mom last saw the baby at 10:00 last night?"

(Young) "Roughly, yes. And then we got the call at 4 this morning".

Also in this interview:

(Reporter) "Was anything taken from the home?"

(Young) "Not that I'm aware of. If there was I probably wouldn't be able to address it."

Either DB and JI did not tell their interrogator that the phones were missing, or that information did not seep down to Young.

This information is neither here nor there, I understand. I just wanted y'all to see the direct quotes from the interview.
 
  • #837
Also, wouldn't the defamation lawsuit be against the media, not against LE, or against both of them?
 
  • #838
"I'm not saying they're not cooperating," he said. "They have met some of our needs. What I've been talking about specifically is sitting down, separate from each other, to be interviewed by detectives. In regard to that, no, that hasn't happen since the 8th of October."
http://www.news-leader.com/article/...lice-Hunt-Kansas-City-baby-Lisa-not-out-steam

That right there is not cooperating in my book. So, imo, while he says he's not saying that they're not cooperating he then in fact goes on to say they are not cooperating.

They're refusing the most important thing that the police asks them to do. JMO.

I wonder how they justified letting the boys be subjected to questions but themselves not.
 
  • #839
Why is it showing that there are two more pages to this thread but I keep getting returned to page 32?
 
  • #840
respectfully snipped

Actually, the above is not a direct quote from what is linked. The direct quote is:

(Reporter) "Mom last saw the baby at 10:00 last night?"

(Young) "Roughly, yes. And then we got the call at 4 this morning".

Also in this interview:

(Reporter) "Was anything taken from the home?"

(Young) "Not that I'm aware of. If there was I probably wouldn't be able to address it."

Either DB and JI did not tell their interrogator that the phones were missing, or that information did not seep down to Young.

This information is neither here nor there, I understand. I just wanted y'all to see the direct quotes from the interview.
BBM
I think this clarifies it for me. And Young is just a spokesman. He is not involved with the questioning so he very well might not have been aware of this information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
3,319
Total visitors
3,375

Forum statistics

Threads
632,606
Messages
18,628,893
Members
243,210
Latest member
griffinsteven661
Back
Top