Parents of baby Lisa Press Release 10/21/11

SmoothOperator

Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that ther
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
5,591
Reaction score
73
Here is the 2 page Press Release(please merge if need be)
e43d62f2.jpg
7f3be227.jpg


**Oops sorry n/t.. Guess a link would be nice, huh?;).. I'm via mobile so nothing appears on my screen anything like what's seen on laptop screens and monitors..lol..here ya go..
http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552279.pdf
 
IMO this gives quite a different view of the parent's cooperation.. And contradicts much of what has been stated and reported in the media..
 
Today after hearing about the cadaver dog hitting in D and J's bedroom, it seems to me that it's the parents who are lying, not LE.

LE has no need to lie.

imo
 
Honestly- I don't want to hear anything more from these parents until they want to start being upfront and honest.
 
Is there a link, please? The print is too small for me to read. TIA
 
Since LE is saying they aren't cooperating and answering the pertinent questions regarding Baby Lisa's disappearance, I don't believe anything in the parents press release, especially from a DEFENSE attorney. Give it a minute and the parents will change their story again. :banghead:
 
It really makes me wonder why in the he!! These parents would have willingly signed off and fully consented to these searches in knowing that baby Lisa died in the home?? Many have made reference to Deb's comment about following missing children's cases, and even without having followed a single case both would be more than aware what search those searches would infact yield with Lisa having died in the home. It is common knowledge not just people who follow true crime forums know this info along with tons of other forensic knowledge when dealing with crimes, investigations, and LE..

I might could buy that they just fearfully felt they must consent to the very early on searches.. But their having signed their full consent just this past Monday, October 17 with major counsel now in the picture and officially retained as both of their counsel??? I just find it difficult to believe if they were in any way involved and there was even the slightest chance of forensics in the home that would point to their involvement.. That now having experienced and knowledgable counsel at their sides that this willingness to consent to "unfettered" access(don't ya just love that word?) to an area that would yield condemning evidence against them would have been highly counseled against..
*shrugs* .. I just don't know???
 
This Statement ...

Typical defense attorney "spin" ...

MOO ...
 
Well that certainly is two pages of nothing.

Funny though - when reciting the dates that the parents have met with LE - the last one is Oct 13. That is well over a week now. Why's that? JT didn't come on board until this past Monday - 10/17 - right? Also funny, the day JT comes on board is the same day the FBI dog got the hit in the house.

hhhmmmm..................:waitasec:
 
Is this new? I read this 6 hours ago. I thought there was a new one coming out?? Am I all sorts of confused??
 
It really makes me wonder why in the he!! These parents would have willingly signed off and fully consented to these searches in knowing that baby Lisa died in the home?? Many have made reference to Deb's comment about following missing children's cases, and even without having followed a single case both would be more than aware what search those searches would infact yield with Lisa having died in the home. It is common knowledge not just people who follow true crime forums know this info along with tons of other forensic knowledge when dealing with crimes, investigations, and LE..

I might could buy that they just fearfully felt they must consent to the very early on searches.. But their having signed their full consent just this past Monday, October 17 with major counsel now in the picture and officially retained as both of their counsel??? I just find it difficult to believe if they were in any way involved and there was even the slightest chance of forensics in the home that would point to their involvement.. That now having experienced and knowledgable counsel at their sides that this willingness to consent to "unfettered" access(don't ya just love that word?) to an area that would yield condemning evidence against them would have been highly counseled against..
*shrugs* .. I just don't know???

If they didnt sign off on those searches how would that have looked and maybe she didnt realize if she only had the baby on the floor for a short amount of time that the dogs wouldnt pick up the scent. A warrant would have been gotten either way so she was screwed no matter how you look at it.
 
It really makes me wonder why in the he!! These parents would have willingly signed off and fully consented to these searches in knowing that baby Lisa died in the home?? Many have made reference to Deb's comment about following missing children's cases, and even without having followed a single case both would be more than aware what search those searches would infact yield with Lisa having died in the home. It is common knowledge not just people who follow true crime forums know this info along with tons of other forensic knowledge when dealing with crimes, investigations, and LE..

I might could buy that they just fearfully felt they must consent to the very early on searches.. But their having signed their full consent just this past Monday, October 17 with major counsel now in the picture and officially retained as both of their counsel??? I just find it difficult to believe if they were in any way involved and there was even the slightest chance of forensics in the home that would point to their involvement.. That now having experienced and knowledgable counsel at their sides that this willingness to consent to "unfettered" access(don't ya just love that word?) to an area that would yield condemning evidence against them would have been highly counseled against..
*shrugs* .. I just don't know???
Even if they were counseled against it - LE got a search warrant signed by a judge. Not much you can do about that now is there?

I'm taking it as the "consented search" on Monday with the FBI dogs was consented to because: a) JT really did (or does) believe the parents and b) the parents didn't think the dogs would get a hit - or didn't think they would take the dogs into their bedroom.

Once they got that hit - that was all they needed to get to a judge and get a signed warrant. No consent needed anymore.

JMHO
 
Thanks n/t for pointing my failing to even post a link to the PDF..duh!? I edited and added in the OP.. Thanks:)
 
If they didnt sign off on those searches how would that have looked and maybe she didnt realize if she only had the baby on the floor for a short amount of time that the dogs wouldnt pick up the scent. A warrant would have been gotten either way so she was screwed no matter how you look at it.

Also, it has been pointed out that DB had no say in the matter. JI owns the house and property. It was his permission they needed.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
2,519
Total visitors
2,582

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,931
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top