Police say parents are not answering vital questions #3

[Whisperer]

Of course it sounds reasonable to somebody...the question is rhetorical. It is just my opinion and I have already said enough. There won't be anything new till Friday. Let's see how that goes.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Where is baby Lisa?

 

[octobermoon]

That is a picture of Ayla.

This is Lisa

 

[cluciano63]

Won't talk to police, but will talk to Dr. Phil...

 

[Minette]

That is a picture of Ayla.

This is Lisa

Ayla, too, deserves our support & recognition. :rose:

 

[octobermoon]

Ayla, too, deserves our support & recognition. :rose:

So many missing.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

That is a picture of Ayla.

This is Lisa

Thanks octobermoon. I edited it. (Google and I are evidently not friends tonight.) :tyou:

 

[octobermoon]

Thanks octobermoon. I edited it. (Google and I are evidently not friends tonight.) :tyou:

Don't worry, Google is not friendly to me either??? Must be their new search thingy.

 

[Whisperer]

ON the previous page, it was stated that it is not possible for Lisa to have gone missing before Oct 3 evening because the boys would have seen her.

Well, the boys were in school all day. From what I can tell Lisa was also in bed from at least 4:00pm. So who is to say they saw her? They could have been told she was sleeping.

All we have are the words of a mother of a four year old girl that told her she saw her sleeping in her crib. This is the only sighting outside of Jeremy/DB

 

[krimekat]

Behavior IS evidence.

JMO

:waitasec:

what? Man, I have missed some stuff . . .

 

[melissasmom]

Are the ones who are here to protect DB's rights saying there is no evidence? When a cadaver dog hits, they want more cadaver dogs, when the dogs don't bark, they say, they were in the back, when the mother fails a poly, they say she was nervous; when they refuse to speak to Le after four days, they say that is their constitutional right. When the same clothing describe she was wearing was found on the premises, we are told she had two of the same outfits.

They say LE was just to mean to them and it is LE's fault that Lisa is not found. IF ONLY LE had been nicer, maybe they would get somewhere.

When told that the chances of a stranger taken a baby, they balk and say it's possible in this case that it could happen. When said no noise was heard on the monitor, they refer to be her being drunk and there is no harm in that. And the final explanation is she may be a drunk but that doesn't mean she harmed her baby.

At what point does it become a point of contention for some people to start questioning and wondering how all the pieces came together and the father was absent for the first time that a stranger found this home and took a ten month old baby? When all these things are put together, it sure makes a pretty good case for the parents having kge.

It appears to me that it is nothing but excuses made for every single thing observed that leans in the direction of parental involvement. It is my opinion and the opinion of people a whole lot smarter than me that this child's demise occurred in that house and the parents both know what happened.

The parents don't want local media in this case. They don't want to talk to LE about their daughter. They have High Profile Defense Attorneys and yet a small faction of people still want to believe they are innocent. It is their right, however, I don't see very much investigation going on to back up the theory of innocence. All I see is constant balking at anyone who suggest the parents are guilty.

This will go forever and it just gets worse. I've been to this rodeo before and have seen this play out before also. It doesn't get better, but can get worse..especially if no resolution happens. That is where it can get ugly. I feel sorry for the mods.

1. I am not here to protect DB's rights. None of us are, that is her lawyer's job.

2. LE has NOT said that DB failed her poly, that is what SHE said they told her. LE has never said this.

3. LE has also not said that the clothing Lisa was wearing was found on the premises. The warrant said a pair of purple shorts and a Disney character shirt was taken from the house. Lisa was said to be wearing purple shorts and a shirt with kittens on it.

4. I have never heard one poster on this forum say "it is LE's fault Lisa has not been found".

5. What does having a high profile defense attorney have to do with a person's guilt or innocence? If I was accused of a crime, I would get the best lawyer money can buy. Most people would. (note:this is not a defense of Tacopina)

Many of us here have been to this rodeo before, also. I believe this is one of the reasons some of us are not willing to "string up" these parents yet. I'm going to state again, EMOTIONS are what are driving many of the opinions on this case. CA fallout, personal issues, dislike of defense attorneys, dislike of the parents, etc. I am looking at facts. I am looking at lack of evidence. I want this child found as much as anybody else. And whoever is responsible needs to suffer the consequences. But as yet, there is no evidence indicating who that person is. There are no suspects, no POI's. And people can always twist facts and try to make them fit what they want.

 

[In da Middle]

Won't talk to police, but will talk to Dr. Phil...

They are being reported as they ARE talking, just not separate. They are not doing Dr Phil separately, are they?

 

[Whisperer]

People keep saying I am hung up on the Anthony Case...WRONG! I am hung up on the verdict of the jury and how they came to it. There was no "Reasonable Doubt" except in the tunnels and caves inside their brains.

This is where emotion gives way to verdicts such as this. When jurors reason with emotion and refute logic, we get verdicts of not guilty. They also said "no evidence" and they didn't know how she died. The fact that she had duct tape around her head meant nothing to them.

It is the verdict and how people reach that verdict that is disturbing. It was not rooted in logic...but was formed by emotion.

 

[In da Middle]

ON the previous page, it was stated that it is not possible for Lisa to have gone missing before Oct 3 evening because the boys would have seen her.

Well, the boys were in school all day. From what I can tell Lisa was also in bed from at least 4:00pm. So who is to say they saw her? They could have been told she was sleeping.

All we have are the words of a mother of a four year old girl that told her she saw her sleeping in her crib. This is the only sighting outside of Jeremy/DB

Is there anything listed by LE stating this? If LE was concerned about this, we would have heard a public outcry asking anybody if they had seen her after a certain period. We have not heard such an outcry so LE must be convinced of the time frame. Just because 'we' have not heard about it does not mean it isn't there. And again, anybody who would think that LE is not convinced about when she was last seen and have not asked about it, has to think this was bad police work.

 

[Whisperer]

The child may have been found it Defense Attorneys were not there to impede police. These parents are hiding behind them. It is clear they are not interested in helping. If they wanted their daughter back, they would be at the station.

If LE could have had them for a whole week w/o attorneys, Lisa may be home.

 

[krimekat]

I thought is was only for arrest also, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. yeah, I don't really like Wiki, they are sometimes wrong, but the info there seems correct

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote from article:

The Miranda warning (also referred to as Miranda rights) is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. In other words, a Miranda warning is a prophylactic criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer in order to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination

This actually confuses me more though, because it says in police custody or a custodial interrogation. So this still applies to people who give statements of their own volition? Can anyone clarify? Thanks

Miranda rights are not only for those who have been arrested but also for those being interrogated by LE to REMIND them of their Constitutional rights of 1) the right to remain silent, 2) the right to have an attorney present during questioning, 3) the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, and 4) the fact that any statements made by the suspect can be used against him in court.

This doesn't mean the person/suspect had to be arrested, just interrogated by LE -- and yes, you can waive these rights & answer LEs questions with or without representation (premise behind Miranda v Arizona). So if LE is interrogating you for whatever reason you have rights as specified under Miranda v AZ as a suspect. . . if you are providing information to LE on your own accord, there is no need for Miranda rights to be read to you & you are not covered by these rights.

Hope that helps

 

[alwaysonmymind]

If LE was convinced of a timeline, they wouldn't have wanted separate interviews with these parents.

Know what I mean?? What would they want to talk about??

 

[In da Middle]

The child may have been found it Defense Attorneys were not there to impede police. These parents are hiding behind them. It is clear they are not interested in helping. If they wanted their daughter back, they would be at the station.

If LE could have had them for a whole week w/o attorneys, Lisa may be home.

So now there is a specific time frame that people are supposed to not have representation? I am not following this logic. A couple of more days and the case would have been solved just because of this?

 

[krimekat]

Won't talk to police, but will talk to Dr. Phil...

Respectfully, they have talked with LE and FBI, so this is not a correct statement. Just the facts . . . please

 

[melissasmom]

If LE was convinced of a timeline, they wouldn't have wanted separate interviews with these parents.

Know what I mean?? What would they want to talk about??

I think that they don't so much want to talk to DB alone, but JI. If LE feels that DB knows something or did something, and JI is innocent of any involvement, then they might think that JI is protecting DB, after the fact. Maybe they see him as the weak link, and if they can get him alone, they can get him to turn on DB and reveal what he knows. All just my opinon and speculation on that question.