Police say parents are not answering vital questions #3

[MyBelle]

If that's the case, they would have gotten those forensic results of that by now, either by having cadaver dogs hit all over it or something else. They should of been arrested by now if that's the case.

It's up to the prosecutor to decide when to indict or issue an arrest warrant.

I don't assume just because they haven't been arrested by now, they won't be.


JMO

 

[cityslick]

Judges usually hand out the penalty/sentence.

I doubt a conviction will be against anyone other than the parents in this case.

JMO

This is what I don't get. How can you say that, with conviction, when the only evidence you have is a one dog hit. You have them convicted simply because they won't talk to LE seperately, not due to any evidence that actually ties either one of them to some sort of crime. Even the dog hit, by itself, doesn't link them directly to any crime. Can you tell me what actual evidence makes you believe they are guilty of wrongdoing?

 

[MyBelle]

LE isn't even searching anymore and haven't been for a long time. Even before the last time the parents and LE are filmed together.

LE can't search if they don't have a lead as to where to search. There isn't an unlimited bucket of taxpayer money to support blind searches.

I think if Lisa's body is found it will be by someone randomly finding her.

JMO

 

[Jacie Estes]

Making comments to a talk show host after making incriminating comments to LE would pretty much seal the deal for most jurors. Cooperation with LE is usually taken into consideration in the penalty phase.

JMO

Is there a link for these incriminating comments?

 

[In da Middle]

If that's the case, they would have gotten those forensic results of that by now, either by having cadaver dogs hit all over it or something else. They should of been arrested by now if that's the case.

Key word dogs, as in plural.

It's up to the prosecutor to decide when to indict or issue an arrest warrant.

I don't assume just because they haven't been arrested by now, they won't be.


JMO

And I dont assume just because they wont be interviewed separately that they are guilty. That is the only thing LE says that they are not doing. Now if they were just not cooperating at all, I might see it differently. They did everything right before LE's tactic failed.

 

[MyBelle]

This is what I don't get. How can you say that, with conviction, when the only evidence you have is a one dog hit. You have them convicted simply because they won't talk to LE seperately, not due to any evidence that actually ties either one of them to some sort of crime. Even the dog hit, by itself, doesn't link them directly to any crime. Can you tell me what actual evidence makes you believe they are guilty of wrongdoing?

My opinion isn't based on just one thing.

JMO

 

[Jacie Estes]

What is the hurry? I think LE will give it a few more weeks or months until they locate Lisa's whereabouts.

JMO

WHERE is the evidence of a dead baby Lisa in the house?

 

[MyBelle]

Is there a link for these incriminating comments?

yes, it is in the post I replied to.

 

[cityslick]

My opinion isn't based on just one thing.

JMO

Is it based on any evidence that shows either DB/JI are responsible for BL's disappearance? Or is it just based on behavior?

 

[MyBelle]

WHERE is the evidence of a dead baby Lisa in the house?

I don't believe Lisa is still in the house.



JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Is it based on any evidence that shows either DB/JI are responsible for BL's disappearance? Or is it just based on behavior?

Behavior IS evidence.

JMO

 

[cityslick]

Behavior IS evidence.

JMO

No it is not. I can show you cases where parents pleaded and begged for their child, only to be found guilty of harming them.

 

[MyBelle]

No it is not. I can show you cases where parents pleaded and begged for their child, only to be found guilty of harming them.

Anything a person says or does can be used against them. It is the basis of the Miranda warning.

JMO

 

[cityslick]

Anything a person says or does can be used against them. It is the basis of the Miranda warning.

JMO

My point is that judging guilt/innocence off of behavior is a faulty test, due to the fact there are people would would act and behave as the most loving parent in the world. It doesn't mean they are innocent.

 

[In da Middle]

Anything a person says or does can be used against them. It is the basis of the Miranda warning.

JMO

But Miranda is for people that have been ARRESTED. No arrests here. No Miranda warning to be had.

 

[In da Middle]

I don't believe Lisa is still in the house.



JMO

Well I think that is obvious. The question was what actual evidence is there to say a dead baby was EVER in the house. As far as we know, only 1 dog hit on something. What did it hit on and did the dogs on the 17 hour search hit on ANYTHING? We know what none of them hit on. And depending on what the one dog hit on, it might not have even been the baby.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

My point is that judging guilt/innocence off of behavior is a faulty test, due to the fact there are people would would act and behave as the most loving parent in the world. It doesn't mean they are innocent.

I think some people are using their emotions to decide that DB/JI are guilty of something and will not just be arrested but found guilty. A personal dislike of someone should not be used against them in my opinion. Evidence alone should be used.

 

[MyBelle]

My point is that judging guilt/innocence off of behavior is a faulty test, due to the fact there are people would would act and behave as the most loving parent in the world. It doesn't mean they are innocent.

Jurors form an opinion about behavior every day across this great land. It is allowed. And, I don't know about you, but I don't hold the opinion a loving parent would get wasted outside, leaving four young children to fend for themselves for hours on end. When one of those children disappears, it sure isn't a sign their parent is innocent or loving. Not to me.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Well I think that is obvious. The question was what actual evidence is there to say a dead baby was EVER in the house. As far as we know, only 1 dog hit on something. What did it hit on and did the dogs on the 17 hour search hit on ANYTHING? We know what none of them hit on. And depending on what the one dog hit on, it might not have even been the baby.

One dog hit is plenty for me. That, along with a missing baby is pretty compelling evidence.

JMO

 

[In da Middle]

One dog hit is plenty for me. That, along with a missing baby is pretty compelling evidence.

JMO

That should not ever be enough for anybody. WHAT did it hit on then? And even dog handlers will tell you one hit is NOT enough.
Just as finding blood at a crime scene is not evidence itself. It needs to be tested to see if it is even human and then it needs to be matched to a specific person. Where it is found and what it is found on is also important. It might have nothing to do with the crime that is being investigated.
In this case, what was it found on? Where exactly was it found? What, if any, cross training did the dog have (it matters)? What did the testing come back say if anything that was collected happened to be what the dog hit on?
Ok, say something bad happened at my house and they found your fingerprint on something in my house. Does that mean that you committed the crime? Does it even mean that you were ever in my house even? NO, it could mean that you touched something at the store that I brought home. Now, what if everybody was saying that your print had no business being in my home so you surely must have something to do with it and LE kept insisting that you come in and explain why your print was in my house but you had no answer as to why.