Why have Lisa's parents stopped talking to the media?

melissasmom said:

What, exactly? I have read about the dog hit, but what other evidence is there that points to DB and/or JI?

Click to expand...

Sorry, melissasmom, not getting into that mess that I apparently missed last night (thankfully). There are a number of things that have been laid out in many different threads. Inconsistencies in statements, cadaver dog hit, bizarre behavior for parents of missing child, etc. You know what I am referring to...we've been through it all before. The biggest red flag to me besides statistics is that there is absolutely not only no evidence of an intruder, there isn't even the slightest shred of anything that points to someone coming through a door or window and taking Lisa.

norest4thewicked said:

Sorry, melissasmom, not getting into that mess that I apparently missed last night (thankfully). There are a number of things that have been laid out in many different threads. Inconsistencies in statements, cadaver dog hit, bizarre behavior for parents of missing child, etc. You know what I am referring to...we've been through it all before. The biggest red flag to me besides statistics is that there is absolutely not only no evidence of an intruder, there isn't even the slightest shred of anything that points to someone coming through a door or window and taking Lisa.

Click to expand...

BBM

I am not sure what that response has to do with the question I just asked.

I am not seeing any evidence listed in what you just posted other than the dog hit (which, by the way, we still do not know if this hit was even confirmed by another dog). The way the parents are acting? No, I am talking about evidence that can be considered probable cause to arrest someone. Does LE have more evidence? Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it appears that as of today they do not, as no one has yet been charged.

fftopic:

norest4thewicked said:

Sorry, melissasmom, not getting into that mess that I apparently missed last night (thankfully). There are a number of things that have been laid out in many different threads. Inconsistencies in statements, cadaver dog hit, bizarre behavior for parents of missing child, etc. You know what I am referring to...we've been through it all before. The biggest red flag to me besides statistics is that there is absolutely not only no evidence of an intruder, there isn't even the slightest shred of anything that points to someone coming through a door or window and taking Lisa.

Click to expand...

I think that when you think abstractly about all the little bits of the case we have, it's easy (IMO) to see that those bits point away from an intruder and by deduction towards the parents. More concrete thinkers are probably not going to agree as they require facts and evidence to entertain any validity in an assesment, and at this point, it's not easy to lay it out in a manner that works for them. It's kind of interesting to see the abstract vs. concrete thinking at play here.

On topic, in a way, I have always thought that the parents have eschewed local media as a tactic to taint the widest jury pool possible. Since they are airing on national media, it's much easier to claim they can't get a fair trial anywhere as a stall tactic.

norest4thewicked said:

Simple...to protect their children. That's what good parents do. That's part of the problem with these parents. THEIR inconvenience seems to be more important than the children. They SHOULDN'T have to leave their home, but they do what they have to to protect their boys. This doesn't seem complicated at all to me.

I think that this is a big part of where our differences are. Some believe in the rights of the parents. Others believe that when it comes to the missing baby, we believe that the parents should give up some rights for the good of their child/children.

Click to expand...

Where does that end though, as far as protecting the boys in an instance like this? If on some random day a group of people get together and stand outside the house with signs, are the parents just supposed to pick up the kids and get out of the house? And it's not just about the boys. What about the neighbors, do they deserve to be inconvenienced when a bunch of folks come on their block protesting? What if yesterday a neighbor was having company over and they were having a cookout or something, is it their fault their get together is being disrupted because a few folks want to stand on DB's lawn?

I don't even think it's about rights, it's about common courtesy and not to the parents but everyone else.

cityslick said:

I don't even think it's about rights, it's about common courtesy and not to the parents but everyone else.

Click to expand...

i wouldn't think that such a small group of people standing on the side of a road are going to bother neighbours. i don't believe anyone was impeding traffic. i don't believe anyone was being loud and obnoxious and bothersome. yes, police came out... but we don't know they were called by neighbours. if this event did come about through a social media page, any of the people who support the parents could've been the person who called LE. until evidence is brought forth that this was any sort of problem for the neighbours (and as the news report did not show or mention anything to corroborate this conclusion of "inconvenience"), i believe the point is moot.

and as for the boys, if they were home i'm fairly certain they could be kept occupied inside the house or in the backyard where they wouldn't even notice a few people outside on the street. if they did see the group peacefully gathered and weren't told why the people were there (and i would hope the parents would not share the "why" information with the children but if they did, then only the parents could be faulted), i wouldn't think any "harm" was or could be done to the boys. maybe a child psychologist could weigh in to give us their expert opinion though ??

Melon said:

I think that when you think abstractly about all the little bits of the case we have, it's easy (IMO) to see that those bits point away from an intruder and by deduction towards the parents. More concrete thinkers are probably not going to agree as they require facts and evidence to entertain any validity in an assesment, and at this point, it's not easy to lay it out in a manner that works for them. It's kind of interesting to see the abstract vs. concrete thinking at play here.

On topic, in a way, I have always thought that the parents have eschewed local media as a tactic to taint the widest jury pool possible. Since they are airing on national media, it's much easier to claim they can't get a fair trial anywhere as a stall tactic.

Click to expand...

But the parents aren't doing any national media either (last time being the Dr. Phil show, and that was after a long stretch of nothing). And tainting a jury pool only goes so far. The entire state of Florida most likely knew about the Casey Anthony case, yet they still chose a jury from FL, just a neighboring county. Can a trial even be moved to a different state? Probably not, except possibly under extreme circumstances.

And I agree with the concrete vs. abstract thinking. I definitely am more of a person who needs to see evidence, proof, hard facts, etc. Some are led more by emotions and "gut feelings" or what have you. I certainly have emotions, but I try not to make most decisions based on them. Life experience has taught me that is often a bad idea. Not always, sometimes you have to go with your gut, but often it is the wrong path to go down. JMO However, I do have to say, the lack of "face time" on tv or other outlets by these parents is pretty much the only thing that makes me think there is something hinky there. The drinking, the lights, the phones, etc. in my opinion can all be explained away by other things, whether we like those explanations or not. The not talking, not so much. It is disturbing to say the least, and very, very frustrating.

redheadedgal said:

i wouldn't think that such a small group of people standing on the side of a road are going to bother neighbours. i don't believe anyone was impeding traffic. i don't believe anyone was being loud and obnoxious and bothersome. yes, police came out... but we don't know they were called by neighbours. if this event did come about through a social media page, any of the people who support the parents could've been the person who called LE. until evidence is brought forth that this was any sort of problem for the neighbours (and as the news report did not show or mention anything to corroborate this conclusion of "inconvenience"), i believe the point is moot.

and as for the boys, if they were home i'm fairly certain they could be kept occupied inside the house or in the backyard where they wouldn't even notice a few people outside on the street. if they did see the group peacefully gathered and weren't told why the people were there (and i would hope the parents would not share the "why" information with the children but if they did, then only the parents could be faulted), i wouldn't think any "harm" was or could be done to the boys. maybe a child psychologist could weigh in to give us their expert opinion though ??

Click to expand...

The point is protests in general in residential neighborhoods is a bad idea to me, for the reasons I laid out. Yesterday it was 6 people, the next time it could be 30. There are plenty of public areas to do this at. You must also ask what the point of the protest is, to make the parents aware they are protesting or to make the public aware?

cityslick said:

The point is protests in general in residential neighborhoods is a bad idea to me, for the reasons I laid out. Yesterday it was 6 people, the next time it could be 30. There are plenty of public areas to do this at. You must also ask what the point of the protest is, to make the parents aware they are protesting or to make the public aware?

Click to expand...

I agree. I would think it is more about the public. If you just want to try to convince the parents, send them a letter or an email or something. Talk your friends into doing it also, start a letter writing campaign or something. Then you don't have to subject the boys to it.

JMO

And that is all I am saying, as we are off topic for this thread again. :blushing:

I guess another thread could be made about the protest? Not sure. I am kinda done with it, but others may not be.

melissasmom said:

But the parents aren't doing any national media either (last time being the Dr. Phil show, and that was after a long stretch of nothing). And tainting a jury pool only goes so far. The entire state of Florida most likely knew about the Casey Anthony case, yet they still chose a jury from FL, just a neighboring county. Can a trial even be moved to a different state? Probably not, except possibly under extreme circumstances.

And I agree with the concrete vs. abstract thinking. I definitely am more of a person who needs to see evidence, proof, hard facts, etc. Some are led more by emotions and "gut feelings" or what have you. I certainly have emotions, but I try not to make most decisions based on them. Life experience has taught me that is often a bad idea. Not always, sometimes you have to go with your gut, but often it is the wrong path to go down. JMO However, I do have to say, the lack of "face time" on tv or other outlets by these parents is pretty much the only thing that makes me think there is something hinky there. The drinking, the lights, the phones, etc. in my opinion can all be explained away by other things, whether we like those explanations or not. The not talking, not so much. It is disturbing to say the least, and very, very frustrating.

Click to expand...

In re: to your first paragraph, I think you missed the point of my post in regards to the media. The last two words of my statement are the most important out of the entire statement. It's a stall tactic. If push comes to shove, it's a pre-planted ace up their sleeve and they can use it to stall the legal process. I am sure there are other stall tactics peppered into their defense strategy, we just haven't seen them.


When I speak of abstract thinking, I am not speaking of emotional or gut responses. My meaning is looking looking at things from a logical perspective, using deduction, analyzing the facts we know with the actions we know of by the officers and coming up with conclusions. It's not emotion based in the least. Perhaps analytical would be more apropos than abstract.

Melon said:

In re: to your first paragraph, I think you missed the point of my post in regards to the media. The last two words of my statement are the most important out of the entire statement. It's a stall tactic. If push comes to shove, it's a pre-planted ace up their sleeve and they can use it to stall the legal process. I am sure there are other stall tactics peppered into their defense strategy, we just haven't seen them.


When I speak of abstract thinking, I am not speaking of emotional or gut responses. My meaning is looking looking at things from a logical perspective, using deduction, analyzing the facts we know with the actions we know of by the officers and coming up with conclusions. It's not emotion based in the least. Perhaps analytical would be more apropos than abstract.

Click to expand...

I think I understand what you mean (maybe, LOL, you are not dealing with an educated person so you have to kind of dumb things down ) By analytical or abstract, you are speaking of taking EVERYTHING into account, i.e. evidence, behaviors, statistics, actions, etc. and not JUST physical evidence (which would be concrete or simplistic thinking). As far as actions by LE, there are obviously some "clues" as to what they suspect, but to me, just not enough to be 100%. By the very nature of their job, they are going to suspect the parents. And who is to say they don't have tunnel vision? They are only human, after all, and just as infallible as the rest of us. This is not a disparagement of LE, just the way it is.

And I just don't see enough here to set this in my mind 100%. If LE came forward and said there was more than one dog hit, or some type of blood evidence, or something concrete with the phones, etc., then I would say "Ooooooh, d#$@!"

But anyways, what I am trying to say is, in regards to this thread topic, is that while the parents not speaking to media is bothersome to me, it is not enough to scream "They did it!" I have to see more in regards to concrete, physical evidence. And some may think that abduction is completely impossible, I can't rule it out.

And as far as a stall tactic, I guess I don't see the point. If law enforcement is building a case against these parents and they just need more time, then why would the defense be stalling? Seems like they would want LE to charge them right now before they have time to make a strong case against them.

JMO

cityslick said:

Where does that end though, as far as protecting the boys in an instance like this? If on some random day a group of people get together and stand outside the house with signs, are the parents just supposed to pick up the kids and get out of the house? And it's not just about the boys. What about the neighbors, do they deserve to be inconvenienced when a bunch of folks come on their block protesting? What if yesterday a neighbor was having company over and they were having a cookout or something, is it their fault their get together is being disrupted because a few folks want to stand on DB's lawn?

I don't even think it's about rights, it's about common courtesy and not to the parents but everyone else.

Click to expand...

I have to agree here. This was disturbing to me on many levels.

Maybe the money could of been used to pay for searchers costs as I don't believe that what they did helped with respect to getting the parents and LE talking.

The parents use the "boys" for every excuse they can. They tell us they never even questioned them about what happened that night for "Fear" of upsetting them..GMAB! Then they tell us they didn't want LE talking to them for "fear" of upsetting them. It took a month, threat of a court order, a high proifle attorney and people having to fly in from the East Coast to grant an interview which, BTW, was too distant from the night of the crme and too many parameters put on to do good at all for the case...at least for now.

THEN, we have the parents protecting the "Boys" from the prayer vigils. Funny thing, we don't have them protected from the public when the media offered up money and walked around with them on Halloween...

IMO, they just use the "Boys" as their excuse for avoiding the tough questions. They use them to hide behind when people say or accuse them of not talking to LE or the media about Lisa. It is my opinion that these two do not give a darn about prayer, media or church, though, they like people to think they pray, go to church, etc. I certainly don't think the "Boys" are the reason they don't talk. It is their fear of getting caught in another lie that keeps them mute. These boys have a darn good idea what happened to Lisa and the parents are doing their best to keep them away from anything that reminds them of Lisa.

Can you really imagine yourself not asking your children about what they saw or heard when their sister went missing? Of course not. That would be the first thing you do. These parents do not want anyone asking about them or their "boys" about Lisa. Irwin's son is old enough to completely remember and explain every detail of anything he heard or saw. Jeremy will never let him be around people that may question him...imo. These two are tied at the hip with money bags dangling from the rope.

Allusonz said:

I have to agree here. This was disturbing to me on many levels.

Maybe the money could of been used to pay for searchers costs as I don't believe that what they did helped with respect to getting the parents and LE talking.

Click to expand...

Disturbing on many levels? a few peaceful protestors? You state that these strangers should put the money towards a search? What's disturbing are the parents who refused to fund searches. They have not kept Lisa's story out there. IF they were innocent, that is what they would do. The fact is they know what happened and they hid Lisa and are getting away w/murder. Now, that is disturbing on many levels.

Yeah, why aren't the parents and their rich benefactor giving up some money to help find Lisa? These two deserve whatever they get...I don't think these peaceful protestors were bothering anyone, least of all these two pathetic parents.

Just FYI, for anyone who wants to discuss the picketers and stay on topic, here is the thread for it:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167672"]Picketing in front of baby Lisa's house - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

This way we can stay out of hot water with the mods...:wave:

Melon said:

I think that when you think abstractly about all the little bits of the case we have, it's easy (IMO) to see that those bits point away from an intruder and by deduction towards the parents. More concrete thinkers are probably not going to agree as they require facts and evidence to entertain any validity in an assesment, and at this point, it's not easy to lay it out in a manner that works for them. It's kind of interesting to see the abstract vs. concrete thinking at play here.

On topic, in a way, I have always thought that the parents have eschewed local media as a tactic to taint the widest jury pool possible. Since they are airing on national media, it's much easier to claim they can't get a fair trial anywhere as a stall tactic.

Click to expand...

This case hasn't gotten anywhere near enough national coverage to ever make a claim that Deborah and/or Jeremy couldn't get a fair trial anywhere. They even managed to put OJ on trial in the same county.

melissasmom said:

I think I understand what you mean (maybe, LOL, you are not dealing with an educated person so you have to kind of dumb things down ) By analytical or abstract, you are speaking of taking EVERYTHING into account, i.e. evidence, behaviors, statistics, actions, etc. and not JUST physical evidence (which would be concrete or simplistic thinking). As far as actions by LE, there are obviously some "clues" as to what they suspect, but to me, just not enough to be 100%. By the very nature of their job, they are going to suspect the parents. And who is to say they don't have tunnel vision? They are only human, after all, and just as infallible as the rest of us. This is not a disparagement of LE, just the way it is.

And I just don't see enough here to set this in my mind 100%. If LE came forward and said there was more than one dog hit, or some type of blood evidence, or something concrete with the phones, etc., then I would say "Ooooooh, d#$@!"

But anyways, what I am trying to say is, in regards to this thread topic, is that while the parents not speaking to media is bothersome to me, it is not enough to scream "They did it!" I have to see more in regards to concrete, physical evidence. And some may think that abduction is completely impossible, I can't rule it out.

And as far as a stall tactic, I guess I don't see the point. If law enforcement is building a case against these parents and they just need more time, then why would the defense be stalling? Seems like they would want LE to charge them right now before they have time to make a strong case against them.

JMO

Click to expand...

Yes, you got it. Many police departments use aptitude tests to gauge abstract thinking (among other things) for their applicants.

Whisperer said:

Disturbing on many levels? a few peaceful protestors? You state that these strangers should put the money towards a search? What's disturbing are the parents who refused to fund searches. They have not kept Lisa's story out there. IF they were innocent, that is what they would do. The fact is they know what happened and they hid Lisa and are getting away w/murder. Now, that is disturbing on many levels.

Yeah, why aren't the parents and their rich benefactor giving up some money to help find Lisa? These two deserve whatever they get...I don't think these peaceful protestors were bothering anyone, least of all these two pathetic parents.

Click to expand...

Please I would ask that everyone look at the context of the post I was replying to.

I stand by my opinion that protesters in front of the home will not force these parents to talk. It does complicate things for people living in the area.

This case is a circus as it is. It does not need anymore help in that area.

JMO MOO

eileenhawkeye said:

This case hasn't gotten anywhere near enough national coverage to ever make a claim that Deborah and/or Jeremy couldn't get a fair trial anywhere. They even managed to put OJ on trial in the same county.

Click to expand...

You are most certainly entitled to whatever opinion you arrive at. This case has plenty of internet discussion from people all over the United States and beyond. A simple internet search of LI's name alone returns results with discussions from all manner of sites. From small blogs, to national news sites, to conspiracy sites, to justice and crime sites, just to name a few. You run the gamut from a comment or two to thousands of comments. If you add in different search terms to LI's names, you will find different boards and different discussions to those topics. Then internet is endless and boundary-less.

I find your OJ analogy an apples to oranges comparison. If the OJ case were to take place today, there is no way to say his trial would be able to be held in the same county, with the advent of the internet as a daily staple for many and social media evolving to what it has today, it's a possibility the trial would be conducted differently. Given the celebrity status of that case, I would imagine it would be even bigger on discussion boards and news sites than this case, by far. YMMV.

too many darn topics....

This entire case could use one thread...