Picketing in front of baby Lisa's house

[norest4thewicked]

Thanks for your reply, but with all due respect, no snark intended, I would never join their FB page to ask them. So, since we have a thread started here to discuss the protest, I put in my :twocents: worth. Of course that's just my opinion, which I realize now I should have stated as such. :seeya:

I knew it was your opinion Dewey! No worries...:wave:

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Which is why I question the motivations behind the protest. IMO I think they just wanted DB to hear them chant and walk with their signs or perhaps were doing it to try to get a reaction out of DB so that way it'll be on the news.

I have to wonder if people showed up with signs supporting the family, would they be accused of wanting to be on camera? Or would they be said to be "injecting themselves into the case"? Maybe both of these could also apply to this group. Yes? No? I guess it's all perspective when you get right down to it.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Was he fighting for Fifth Amendment rights too?

<modsnip> I will just say that of course, he was. But, government abuse and abuse of authority don't really seem to be a part of this thread, so don't know why you would ask.

 

[Cappuccino]

Sorry, not following you here...I don't know anything about a tabloid and don't know an Edith or JN...so lost on me.

And, I will say as I've said before...I didn't think the protesters would do anything to bring home Lisa, but I still believe that they have a right to do so. This is America.

The parents of this child have the right, under the Fifth Amendment, to remain silent. They have spoken to local law enforcement already and that has done nothing to bring Lisa home, nor has it uncovered any evidence that would lead to the parents being arrested. Enough already. If they are guilty the police haven't made a case, if they are innocent the police haven't made a case against anybody else either. Six nosy parkers exercising their First Amendment rights by parking their butts on the street outside will do nothing to change the Fifth Amendment rights of the family. It will do nothing to help find the child either.

If those parents are guilty, this is probably causing the local police to tear their hair out with frustration. These people are a tiresome nuisance, someone should tell them to go home and mind their own business.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Which is why I question the motivations behind the protest. IMO I think they just wanted DB to hear them chant and walk with their signs or perhaps were doing it to try to get a reaction out of DB so that way it'll be on the news.

You could be right. Perhaps they were trying to get media attention, which is definitely more than the parents are doing in trying to bring attention to this case. My point was that no matter what their intentions are, and no matter how much you or I disagree with them, they still have the right to free speech, no matter what their intentions as long as they are civil and don't break any laws.

 

[norest4thewicked]

The parents of this child have the right, under the Fifth Amendment, to remain silent. They have spoken to local law enforcement already and that has done nothing to bring Lisa home, nor has it uncovered any evidence that would lead to the parents being arrested. Enough already. If they are guilty the police haven't made a case, if they are innocent the police haven't made a case against anybody else either. Six nosy parkers exercising their First Amendment rights by parking their butts on the street outside will do nothing to change the Fifth Amendment rights of the family. It will do nothing to help find the child either.

If those parents are guilty, this is probably causing the local police to tear their hair out with frustration. These people are a tiresome nuisance, someone should tell them to go home and mind their own business.

Respectfully, this thread is about protesters in front of the parents home.

And, also respectfully, no one knows WHAT LE knows. Cases are not made in real life like they are on CSI.

And, my opinion is as valid as yours. These parents need to get off their backsides and answer WHATEVER questions LE has of them. Are we to think that LE has no new questions from the first few days? That would be ludicrous.

But, back to the topic of this thread. I feel that people have a right to free speech. I certainly don't agree with every protester out there, but as this is America, it is a right that we all enjoy equally.

 

[Cappuccino]

Its not the only right you enjoy though. The Constitution of the US does not begin and end with the First Amendment. There is a Fifth Amendment whose legal force is just as valid as that of the First.

So if you can justify the protestors actions under the right to free speech, I can tell them to go home and mind their own business on the grounds that they shouldn't be interfering with the Fifth Amendment rights of this family.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I do believe everyone here, including Cappuccino is expressing their right to freedom of speech here as well, we just don't all agree protesting in that place and time was the wisest choice the way I see it anyway. Hopefully we can continue to "agree to disagree" respectfully. JMHO!

 

[norest4thewicked]

Its not the only right you enjoy though. The Constitution of the US does not begin and end with the First Amendment. There is a Fifth Amendment whose legal force is just as valid as that of the First.

So if you can justify the protestors actions under the right to free speech, I can tell them to go home and mind their own business on the grounds that they shouldn't be interfering with the Fifth Amendment rights of this family.

Yep...you sure could! That's the beauty of America.

 

[Cappuccino]

And the parents of baby Lisa can refuse to talk to the police. That, also, is the beauty of America.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Not trying to throw this off topic, but since we're headed down that road anyway, my mind keeps going back to the video coverage of the Michael Crowe intterogation. Since I was not witness to any of the questioning / interrogation of DB or JI, I can't say if I fault them or not for refusing to speak alone or together with LE. I do know that it didn't have a positive outcome in the Crowe case. Is their refusal to co-operate valid, I have no idea, but I'd love to see that footage, I'm sure that may sway me one way or the other.

 

[norest4thewicked]

And the parents of baby Lisa can refuse to talk to the police. That, also, is the beauty of America.

It is their right, I would agree. But then they can't whine or complain that "people are saying bad things about them" if they do everything in their power to make themselves look guilty. It's not so beautiful for America to have parents murdering their children or covering up an accident. Unfortunately, these types of people do get away with it now and then. That is very sad to me.

 

[Cappuccino]

It is their right, I would agree. But then they can't whine or complain that "people are saying bad things about them" if they do everything in their power to make themselves look guilty. It's not so beautiful for America to have parents murdering their children or covering up an accident. Unfortunately, these types of people do get away with it now and then. That is very sad to me.

They are not doing everything in their power to make themselves look guilty, they are exercising their Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves. And yes they can whine as much as they like about people saying bad things, because they have the right to free speech too. As you so aptly put it, that is the beauty of America. (No snark here either, both those principles really are worth fighting for, IMO).

As some great man whose name I forget once said - better ten guilty go free than one innocent get convicted. Your constitution is designed to protect that principle, and that is the beauty of America.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Not trying to throw this off topic, but since we're headed down that road anyway, my mind keeps going back to the video coverage of the Michael Crowe intterogation. Since I was not witness to any of the questioning / interrogation of DB or JI, I can't say if I fault them or not for refusing to speak alone or together with LE. I do know that it didn't have a positive outcome in the Crowe case. Is their refusal to co-operate valid, I have no idea, but I'd love to see that footage, I'm sure that may sway me one way or the other.

Well, I can tell you from knowing some of the people involved in the case with KCPD that there wouldn't be any comparison to the detectives in the Michael Crowe case. As well, I sure don't consider DB and JI to be in any way comparable to 14 year old Michael Crowe.

I do agree with you that the questioning would be interesting to see, but if DB's inconsistencies and hinkiness on TV interviews are not enough to convince you that something is just not right here, I don't know that seeing them on a police interview would. Not trying to be snarky here, just saying that LE's job is to be tough on the most obvious people to have committed a crime. Innocent people might not like it, but they usually know that this is what has to happen to clear them AND to help find the missing child/whatever. DB admitted to watching these cases, so she knows very clearly that this is the procedure. She also knows that if LE smells something, they are not going to let it go. They smelled something in this case.

 

[Cappuccino]

LE's job is to be tough on the most obvious people to have committed a crime. Innocent people might not like it, but they usually know that this is what has to happen to clear them AND to help find the missing child/whatever.

But that's exactly what the Crowe family thought. That's why they didn't lawyer up or protest about the police interviewing their children without supervision, until it was too late.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Well, I can tell you from knowing some of the people involved in the case with KCPD that there wouldn't be any comparison to the detectives in the Michael Crowe case. As well, I sure don't consider DB and JI to be in any way comparable to 14 year old Michael Crowe.

I do agree with you that the questioning would be interesting to see, but if DB's inconsistencies and hinkiness on TV interviews are not enough to convince you that something is just not right here, I don't know that seeing them on a police interview would. Not trying to be snarky here, just saying that LE's job is to be tough on the most obvious people to have committed a crime. Innocent people might not like it, but they usually know that this is what has to happen to clear them AND to help find the missing child/whatever. DB admitted to watching these cases, so she knows very clearly that this is the procedure. She also knows that if LE smells something, they are not going to let it go. They smelled something in this case.

I agree to a point, but there is also a point that it needs to take a different direction b/c beating a dead horse in any situation goes nowhere. If DB and JI told them all they knew and LE is persistantly trying to extract something from them that isn't there, what's the use? Just as in Michael Crowe's case, they pushed and pushed until they got what they were after, a confession, although a false one. I don't care MC was only 14 years old, a false confession is just that.

 

[norest4thewicked]

But that's exactly what the Crowe family thought. That's why they didn't lawyer up or protest about the police interviewing their children without supervision, until it was too late.

DB and JI are not children and DB and JI's children are not accused of doing anything to make Lisa disappear.

 

[Cappuccino]

Riley Fox's father wasn't 14 years old, he was a grown man. The police got a false confession out of him too, and if it wasn't for DNA he could easily have ended up on Death Row as a result.

 

[Cappuccino]

DB and JI are not children and DB and JI's children are not accused of doing anything to make Lisa disappear.

That's missing my point, I'm afraid. You said that innocent people might not like being questioned hard by the police, but they know they have to do it for the good of the missing child/whatever. The point I'm trying to get across back is that no they don't have to, and nor should they. Look at what happened to the Crowe family, Kevin Fox, Jerry Hobbs, Martin Tanklieff, Peter O'Reilly, and many others. Innocent people need to exercise their right to remain silent too. I think public awareness of that is spreading, which is why I don't trust the assumption that a family exercising their Fifth Amendment rights is "hinky" or in any way evidence of guilt.

It might just be evidence that they've seen the movie about Michael Crowe.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I agree to a point, but there is also a point that it needs to take a different direction b/c beating a dead horse in any situation goes nowhere. If DB and JI told them all they knew and LE is persistantly trying to extract something from them that isn't there, what's the use? Just as in Michael Crowe's case, they pushed and pushed until they got what they were after, a confession, although a false one. I don't care MC was only 14 years old, a false confession is just that.

Okay...let's look at it this way, Dewey. This will be a weak comparison, but here it goes. If, say for instance, you had a car accident a week ago and at the time was shaken up, but you told the police/insurance/whoever, the information that you remembered, you would be done, right? But, what if PD or the insurance or whoever thought of another question that they hadn't asked. What if a witness or other person told them something different than what you had told them. Wouldn't you want to clear that up? What if the damage on the other car looked different than it should have for the type of accident you had and they wanted to understand it? Would you just stubbornly say "Nope...I've said what I've said and there is no more?" Now, if you were guilty of causing the accident, you might say that. But, if you were innocent you might say, "Darn right I will answer what questions they have"! It's NOT beating a dead horse because there are any number of scenarios that LE may now know about that they didn't know about those first few days. Did they even know about Megan Wright or Jersey then? Did they know about Brandos? What about the motorcycle driver, MT? Whether they have one more question to ask or a thousand more, HOW can it hurt in finding Lisa? It can't hurt Lisa in any way. Lisa is gone. The only possibility is that they might find out where Lisa is, and who took her. If it isn't the parents, maybe they have an answer that might lead them somewhere else.

I just don't see DB or JI giving a false confession. In this one case of a 14 year old boy and unscrupulous investigators it happened. DB and JI aren't a 14 year old boy and these are not unscrupulous investigators. There is absolutely no harm that can be done by them talking to LE again. And, for Lisa, there is everything to gain.