Police say parents are not answering vital questions

[Marshmallow]

It was in an interview with Cyndy Short, it's posted here somewhere but I don't remember exactly which day.

that was never stated by LE only stated by Debbie and she's known to change her stories up on whim.

 

[Marshmallow]

I don't see that it means without a lawyer present.

To me it means that the parents want to dictate ahead of time what questions they will and won't answer, and LE wants to be able to ask them all questions that they deem necessary.

JMHO

that is also how I took it. You said it much better!

 

[JeannaT]

I don't see that it means without a lawyer present.

To me it means that the parents want to dictate ahead of time what questions they will and won't answer, and LE wants to be able to ask them all questions that they deem necessary.

JMHO

You're certainly entitled to guess that with no evidence or information backing it up, but Cyndy Short stated it was because they wanted to interview them without an attorney present.

No one close to the case, as far as I know, has stated they want to prescreen questions.

 

[Karmaa]

no, it's just a rumor. LE has never stated they want interviews without attys present. People have decided to assume and it took off on the message boards but was never a fact.

But the attorneys have said that is what they understand it to mean. Surely if the attorneys were misunderstanding the situation, the whole thing would have been cleared up by now and the parents would have had their interview with their lawyers by their side.

I think that it is very clear that LE doesn't want the lawyers, and the parents won't cave in.

 

[justamommy]

Can you provide a link to where it says LE wanted them to not have a lawyer present? I recall them asking for unrestricted which has many definitions but since LE hasn't spoken I wondered if JT said this in an interview somewhere.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15925815/deborahs-brother-leaves-with-detectives

Police say they still want to re-interview Irwin and Bradley. Police last interviewed them on Oct. 8 and restrictions have been placed on all interviews since Oct. 5, authorities told KCTV5.

Do we have an answer to the restricted/unrestricted question? It has been argued that Oct 8 interview was not unrestricted because the professor was providing legal advice in that interview w/ police. This article states, "Police say they still want to re-interview Irwin and Bradley. Police last interviewed them on Oct. 8 and restrictions have been placed on all interviews since Oct. 5, authorities told KCTV5."

The couple's attorney disputed the police account and said Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley, parents of 11-month-old Lisa Irwin, are not opposed to separate interviews. But they will not do what police requested, an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present, the attorney said.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ave-refused-separate-interviews#ixzz1bzHsmS27

 

[Marshmallow]

The ATTORNEYS said that unrestricted meant "without an attorney". I know a lot of people would not believe defense attorneys if they said the sky was blue, but this was THEIR understanding. So, even if it could, possibly, perhaps mean something else, it's pretty clear that in this case unrestricted means "without a lawyer.) JMO because I don't want to go back and look it up.

I guess I'm not as intellegent as a defense atty because to me it means that LE wants to be able to ask and question without restrictions placed, by the parents and their defense teams, on them. To me it meant the LE does not want to be given a list of what is allowable for them to ask. I in no way saw that it was an attempt by LE to violate rights, especially after they'd already accepted the rights were invoked.

 

[Marshmallow]

No, that's not true. Cyndy Short stated it. And LE at that time acknowledged they had been working with the Irwin attorneys to come to terms with interviewing the Irwins.

It's not a "rumor" when an attorney for the client states it. And it's probably more reliable than statements that LE makes to the press during an active investigation.

I do not assume that whatever a defense atty says must be accepted as true and whatever a LE says is false.

 

[JeannaT]

I guess I'm not as intellegent as a defense atty because to me it means that LE wants to be able to ask and question without restrictions placed, by the parents and their defense teams, on them. To me it meant the LE does not want to be given a list of what is allowable for them to ask. I in no way saw that it was an attempt by LE to violate rights, especially after they'd already accepted the rights were invoked.

<modsnip> though. The person who WAS negotiating with LE for an interview of her clients has said otherwise.

That's like they said we found a pudding stain, and the attorney states it was a vanilla pudding stain and you say well when I talk about pudding I mean chocolate, so I think it was a chocolate pudding stain.

Exactly what they mean by "unrestricted" is unclear until the attorney stepped in and cleared it up.

BTW, it isn't a violation of rights for LE to ask to be interviewed with out an attorney present, just like it isn't a violation for them to ask the witness to take a poly, or ask to search someone's property without a warrant. It is only a violation of rights to insist on it, or do it without their permission.

 

[Jaxson]

The parents agree to being questioned. There is something they don't like about how they are being interviewed. Previously they walked away and have refused an 'unrestricted' interview since that day. I think they don't like having fingers pointed, accusations and yelling in their face type interviews. Police don't really want to interview, they want to interrogate. Having a layer there would be more comfortable for the parents and in their eyes keep questions focused on finding Punkin Pie and stop the accusatory parts.

 

[Marshmallow]

The couple's attorney disputed the police account and said Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley, parents of 11-month-old Lisa Irwin, are not opposed to separate interviews. But they will not do what police requested, an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present, the attorney said.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ave-refused-separate-interviews#ixzz1bzHsmS27

this tells me that the whole LE wants no attys came only from the two parent's lips. to me that is not truth. if their atty takes their words as truth that is fine but it does not mean the LE ever stated this, it just means that the mother in this case said so and as we already know, she tends to change her versions of truth often.

but rather than get too cuaght up in this disagreement I'm going to stand by my thoughts and not discuss this further. I am certainly allowed my own opinion on LE, it may not be popular but I trust LE over these parents based only on these parents revolving stories. I can respect people who see it differently

 

[EllaMae]

I don't see that it means without a lawyer present.

To me it means that the parents want to dictate ahead of time what questions they will and won't answer, and LE wants to be able to ask them all questions that they deem necessary.

JMHO

I disagree. The lawyers are the ones who set the guidelines on what questions will be asked and answered. It's part of their job after they have been hired to guide their clients through police interviews.

DB and JI did not have lawyers with them in their initial interviews with LE. There were no restrictions on questions at that time.
After they became upset with LE, obviously someone told them to postpone any further questioning until they hired an attorney. I suspect it was AI.

 

[Karmaa]

I guess I'm not as intellegent as a defense atty because to me it means that LE wants to be able to ask and question without restrictions placed, by the parents and their defense teams, on them. To me it meant the LE does not want to be given a list of what is allowable for them to ask. I in no way saw that it was an attempt by LE to violate rights, especially after they'd already accepted the rights were invoked.

Submit a list of questions that LE can't ask? In a criminal investigation? That's not even a "thing". Maybe in a civil case, but not in a criminal case.

This is why: No one is ever obligated to answer any or all questions in an interview. So if someone even tried to define the "allowable" questions, LE would say no way, just invoke your right if you don't want to answer specific questions.

That's exactly why you want your lawyer there. So he can tell you which questions are not in YOUR best interest to answer.

 

[luckyme]

Qaudrille RT @JHoltFox4KC: Breaking: John Picerno confirms to me he will represent family of missing Baby #LisaIrwin. Selected by NY firm led by Joseph Tacopina. 25 seconds ago · reply · retweet · favorite


Read more: http://www.nbcactionnews.com/generic/news/Lisa-Irwin-AMBER-Alert#ixzz1cTxlHpv3

 

[justamommy]

this tells me that the whole LE wants no attys came only from the two parent's lips. to me that is not truth. if their atty takes their words as truth that is fine but it does not mean the LE ever stated this, it just means that the mother in this case said so and as we already know, she tends to change her versions of truth often.

but rather than get too cuaght up in this disagreement I'm going to stand by my thoughts and not discuss this further. I am certainly allowed my own opinion on LE, it may not be popular but I trust LE over these parents based only on these parents revolving stories. I can respect people who see it differently

This was stated after LE and attys were communicating with each other. So I will stand by what CS said. Why would parents dictate questions, when they can just choose not to answer the question w/ atty present?

 

[Jacie Estes]

Why does ANYONE need an attn if they are all innocent? I dont think JT can represent EVRYONE.. can he??:banghead:

That depends on how it falls out; who is charged with what IF anyone from the family would be charged.

 

[JeannaT]

AH!!!! that very well could be Dr. and its was BS or JT or "their people" that dropped the bro off.

Either way - bro is back "home" so that means all this was was information gathering. Interesting - the heat is getting turned WAY UP!!!

If it was one of the lawyers/employees of the lawyers for the Irwin family who was involved in transporting the GSB, it doesn't sound like the "heat is being turned WAY up" on the Irwins. MOO.

 

[epiphany]

no, it's just a rumor. LE has never stated they want interviews without attys present. People have decided to assume and it took off on the message boards but was never a fact.

There are many links available to support the fact that LE wants unrestricted and separate interviews:

the police say the parents have not agreed to an unrestricted interview for 11 days after deborah became uncomfortable with the questions and ended their conversation.

See transcript beneath video @ link:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45051152/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TrBCZnFGz5I

"The bottom line is detectives need to sit down with them unrestricted and they need to answer questions that we need answered," he said. Young claims that police have not had an unrestricted conversation with Bradley and Irwin since Oct. 8.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/237...er-disappearance-yougn-tacopina-short-dia.htm

The couple's attorney disputed the police account and said Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley, parents of 11-month-old Lisa Irwin, are not opposed to separate interviews. But they will not do what police requested, an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present, the attorney said.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ave-refused-separate-interviews#ixzz1cTvVDS3s

 

[ladonna]

JHoltFox4KC John Holt
Breaking: John Picerno confirms to me he will represent family of missing Baby #LisaIrwin. Selected by NY firm led by Joseph Tacopina.
2 minutes ago



http://www.johnpicerno.com/

 

[KathrynL]

The entire family has lawyered up?

I don't think we know this. There is speculation that since store/wine brother was returned home in a rental, it meant lawyers. Grandma pointed out that feds also use rental cars. Either way it's just guessing at this point. moo

 

[vlpate]

The ATTORNEYS said that unrestricted meant "without an attorney". I know a lot of people would not believe defense attorneys if they said the sky was blue, but this was THEIR understanding. So, even if it could, possibly, perhaps mean something else, it's pretty clear that in this case unrestricted means "without a lawyer.) JMO because I don't want to go back and look it up.

BEM: Not exactly:

http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_n44/lisa-police-irwin.html
They will not do what police requested, an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present, the attorney said.
_______________
Back OT - Does anyone know if DB's brother was represented?