Police say parents are not answering vital questions

[Whisperer]

I'd have lawyers because I could not stand all of the misinformation the cops give while interviewing.

I know I couldn't stand it if my baby were missing. I'd want to know what was real and what wasn't Could you imagine being told that they have your child's body, and that's a lie? I couldn't take it. I'd probably be committed. I know I'd seem angry as a hornet

....and how are your lawyers going to help you find your child?

 

[flipflop]

....and how are your lawyers going to help you find your child?

Exactly...lawyers are delaying the investigation and are there to help the parents avoid charges, not find BL.

 

[partyuv5]

My question may have already been answered previously, sorry but I have not been able to read all threads...you know work, kids, etc.

But if LE wants to interview the parents again, why won't the attorneys let it happen? They could be right there and instruct their clients "yes you may answer that" or "no don't answer that"

There are two attorneys...the parents could be separated and each have an attorney to instruct them. At least it would show that there is some cooperation.

No "bullying" no "BS"

Just wondering

 

[partyuv5]

Wow! sorry friends...I just read a few pages back and you all are asking the same question I am.:great:

Come on now! If it were my child....you could not shut me up..I would be Natalie Hollaway's mom..Lacy Peterson's mom...I would give my last breath to find my child....but that's just me.

 

[Jacie Estes]

I'd have lawyers because I could not stand all of the misinformation the cops give while interviewing.

I know I couldn't stand it if my baby were missing. I'd want to know what was real and what wasn't Could you imagine being told that they have your child's body, and that's a lie? I couldn't take it. I'd probably be committed. I know I'd seem angry as a hornet

The Miranda warnings originated in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, which set forth the following warning and accompanying rights:
•You have the right to remain silent;
•Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law;
•You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during the interrogation;
•If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you;
•You can invoke your right to be silent before or during an interrogation, and if you do so, the interrogation must stop.
•You can invoke your right to have an attorney present, and until your attorney is present, the interrogation must stop.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-miranda/when-miranda-required.html


If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

DB and JI both spoke with, were questioned by LE for many hours. They both CHOSE to speak to LE to help in the investigation of their daughter's disappearance.

DB, as has been stated by various sources, was shown burnt clothes and told she killed her daughter. As stated, she took a polygraph and, as per her statement, was told she failed. When anyone's child goes missing, according to missingkids.com "The actions of parents and of law enforcement in the first 48 hours are critical to the safe recovery of a missing child, but the rawness of emotion can seriously hinder the ability of parents to make rational decisions at this crucial time."

Some may not like the way the Irwin/Bradley's are reacting to Lisa being missing but it is what is right for them. It does not mean they are guilty. They CHOSE to follow LE's lead until they were led down a path that presumed them guilty. There was a blowup and LE stated that the parents were no longer working with them. We know that is not true; the boys have been reinterviewed, the offer has been made, through their attorney[ies], to meet with police. The ball is in LE's court. I like the phrase 'you don't know what you don't know'; they have cooperated and that is what they are required to do. Coulda/shoulda/woulda doesn't ever work and it won't here.

"It is important to note that there is no right or wrong way to respond to the disappearance of a child, nor is there a right or wrong way to feel." http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/pub...s/fam_surv.pdf




There are certain safeguards and standards in place in this country because we are not Iran; I'm hoping it stays that way.

 

[Nixie]

If LE would have been more careful in they're questioning (good cop instead of bad cop) does anyone else think they would have found out more? I mean all the accusing really didn't do them any good, the parents went on TV at first, but were picked apart so now they chose not to and they are still picked apart. I personally think they should do the separate interview but I also can see why they wouldn't want to go through the same thing over and over. I don't think that LE took the right strategy when they first questioned them. I also think that LE is picked apart because what they say is interpreted differently by everyone and they don't put a lot out there. Parents are cooperating, just not being interviewed because they felt that the last interviews didn't get them any where. Would I let them interview me? I think I would but I would also have gotten a lawyer and would follow they're advice. The media has turned this story into a way to get headlines throwing out all sorts of misinformation, the lawyers are they're for they're clients because that is their job. The parents if innocent are having every aspect of their life scrutinized by strangers and the media. No matter what they do it will be wrong because in most peoples eyes they are already guilty. If they are guilty then they should be treated has such, but there is no proof of guilt or they would have been arrested. Maybe if they were treated better ,even if they are guilty, it might have made them more comfortable and they would have slipped up.Now that they are on the defensive they will be more likely to not talk or do anything to help LE. They don't seem to be enjoying the media they have done interviews on they're terms and to me that is normal. I would be out there in front of every news camera saying find my daughter, but I would not help the media get headlines by letting some reporter drag me through the mud. I remember the mother pleading for her child's return, and I also remember seeing everything she has said ripped apart and maybe they think talking to the media is taking the focus off they're child and putting the focus on them.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Some may not like the way the Irwin/Bradley's are reacting to Lisa being missing but it is what is right for them. It does not mean they are guilty. They CHOSE to follow LE's lead until they were led down a path that presumed them guilty. There was a blowup and LE stated that the parents were no longer working with them. We know that is not true; the boys have been reinterviewed, the offer has been made, through their attorney[ies], to meet with police. The ball is in LE's court. I like the phrase 'you don't know what you don't know'; they have cooperated and that is what they are required to do. Coulda/shoulda/woulda doesn't ever work and it won't here.

~snip~

There are certain safeguards and standards in place in this country because we are not Iran; I'm hoping it stays that way.

RSABBM. Re first bold: I don't know that this is "not true." As I recall, the parents were offended by "nasty" LE interrogation tactics and refused to answer the questions that LE considered "vital." I would consider this refusal to qualify as "not working with them."

Re second bold: Do you have a link for this? The last I heard was that they will only agree to be interviewed together. Their attorneys don't have to profit an offer for the parents to be interviewed; the LE has an open door policy and, I feel certain, would drop everything else to accommodate interviews with DB and JI. The ball in not is LE's court! It is the parents and their team that is putting up the roadblocks and doing the stalling.

And please, don't intimate that because the parents have decided to assert their Miranda Rights (formally or not) and their motives for doing so are being questioned, that we are in danger of falling into Iran's lap on personal freedom issues. I don't believe any posts here have necessitated such a dramatic warning.

 

[Jacie Estes]

ExpectingUnicorns: RSABBM. Re first bold: I don't know that this is "not true." As I recall, the parents were offended by "nasty" LE interrogation tactics and refused to answer the questions that LE considered "vital." I would consider this refusal to qualify as "not working with them."

That is an opinion out there.
Picerno: The business about the children not being allowed to interview is not true
by Brian Foster - KMBC.com 11:07 AM

Picerno: The message I want to get out is the level of cooperation from Jeremy and Debbie has been there from day 1
by Brian Foster - KMBC.com 11:07 AM

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7340743&postcount=13"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 1100 presser 11/11/11[/ame]

Re second bold: Do you have a link for this? The last I heard was that they will only agree to be interviewed together. Their attorneys don't have to profit an offer for the parents to be interviewed; the LE has an open door policy and, I feel certain, would drop everything else to accommodate interviews with DB and JI. The ball in not is LE's court! It is the parents and their team that is putting up the roadblocks and doing the stalling.

It is not stalling, again that is an opinion that has been put forth. An offer is an offer; the ball is in LE's court to accept that offer or decline it. IF there is a need for more information then LE should accept the offer. I not sure of the word 'profit', I think it is proffer.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7340756&postcount=19"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 1100 presser 11/11/11[/ame]

And please, don't intimate that because the parents have decided to attach their Miranda Rights (formally or not) and their motives for doing so are being questioned, that we are in danger of falling into Iran's lap on personal freedom issues. I don't believe any posts here have necessitated such a dramatic warning.

Abrogation of rights, in a legal court or a court of public opinion is just that, an abrogation. In this country people are PRESUMED innocent; slippery slopes are just that, slippery. IMHO

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

ExpectingUnicorns: RSABBM. Re first bold: I don't know that this is "not true." As I recall, the parents were offended by "nasty" LE interrogation tactics and refused to answer the questions that LE considered "vital." I would consider this refusal to qualify as "not working with them."

That is an opinion out there.
Picerno: The business about the children not being allowed to interview is not true
by Brian Foster - KMBC.com 11:07 AM

Picerno: The message I want to get out is the level of cooperation from Jeremy and Debbie has been there from day 1
by Brian Foster - KMBC.com 11:07 AM

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 1100 presser 11/11/11

Re second bold: Do you have a link for this? The last I heard was that they will only agree to be interviewed together. Their attorneys don't have to profit an offer for the parents to be interviewed; the LE has an open door policy and, I feel certain, would drop everything else to accommodate interviews with DB and JI. The ball in not is LE's court! It is the parents and their team that is putting up the roadblocks and doing the stalling.

It is not stalling, again that is an opinion that has been put forth. An offer is an offer; the ball is in LE's court to accept that offer or decline it. IF there is a need for more information then LE should accept the offer. I not sure of the word 'profit', I think it is proffer.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 1100 presser 11/11/11

And please, don't intimate that because the parents have decided to attach their Miranda Rights (formally or not) and their motives for doing so are being questioned, that we are in danger of falling into Iran's lap on personal freedom issues. I don't believe any posts here have necessitated such a dramatic warning.

Abrogation of rights, in a legal court or a court of public opinion is just that, an abrogation. In this country people are PRESUMED innocent; slippery slopes are just that, slippery. IMHO

In the same presser you have linked Picerno is also quoted as saying, "Picerno: At this point, there's nothing more for the parents to say (Picerno answering a question about whether Debbie and Jeremy will be interviewed again)"

Could I please have the link to your statement: "the offer has been made, through their attorney[ies], to meet with police." Because, as I see it, the police have asked for a meeting and the couple's reply was that they wouldn't be interviewed individually. To me that sounds like a restriction rather than an offer. Otherwise, they're free to walk right in the door and "meet" with police anytime it is convenient for them.

Lol, yes! Proffer. :giggle: Sorry, made me sound like one of the Anthonys talking, didn't it? :floorlaugh: hdear:

Abrogation of rights are certainly not in jeopardy here; can't imagine where you got that from!

 

[flipflop]

The Miranda warnings originated in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, which set forth the following warning and accompanying rights:
•You have the right to remain silent;
•Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law;
•You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during the interrogation;
•If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you;
•You can invoke your right to be silent before or during an interrogation, and if you do so, the interrogation must stop.
•You can invoke your right to have an attorney present, and until your attorney is present, the interrogation must stop.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/c...-required.html


I snipped this from Jacie's post

Yes they have these rights, but is it helping. Remaining silent when your daughter is missing is ludachris. Let LE accuse me, let them call me names...MY DAUGHTER IS MISSING, ...the faster they move over this speedbump the sooner LE can move on to find out where she is. I would be screaming from the roof top to anyone who would listen, I would tell my story a million times to whoever needed to hear it. My story would be the truth, therefore, I would not have conflicting stories when I retold it. The truth is easy to remember, lies are difficult to keep up with and retell. Having a lawyer say that DB and JI have told their story and having nothing else to say.....really??????

 

[Tuffy]

If LE would have been more careful in they're questioning (good cop instead of bad cop) does anyone else think they would have found out more? I mean all the accusing really didn't do them any good, the parents went on TV at first, but were picked apart so now they chose not to and they are still picked apart. I personally think they should do the separate interview but I also can see why they wouldn't want to go through the same thing over and over. I don't think that LE took the right strategy when they first questioned them. I also think that LE is picked apart because what they say is interpreted differently by everyone and they don't put a lot out there. Parents are cooperating, just not being interviewed because they felt that the last interviews didn't get them any where. Would I let them interview me? I think I would but I would also have gotten a lawyer and would follow they're advice. The media has turned this story into a way to get headlines throwing out all sorts of misinformation, the lawyers are they're for they're clients because that is their job. The parents if innocent are having every aspect of their life scrutinized by strangers and the media. No matter what they do it will be wrong because in most peoples eyes they are already guilty. If they are guilty then they should be treated has such, but there is no proof of guilt or they would have been arrested. Maybe if they were treated better ,even if they are guilty, it might have made them more comfortable and they would have slipped up.Now that they are on the defensive they will be more likely to not talk or do anything to help LE. They don't seem to be enjoying the media they have done interviews on they're terms and to me that is normal. I would be out there in front of every news camera saying find my daughter, but I would not help the media get headlines by letting some reporter drag me through the mud. I remember the mother pleading for her child's return, and I also remember seeing everything she has said ripped apart and maybe they think talking to the media is taking the focus off they're child and putting the focus on them.

BBM: The only ones saying that they only used the bad cop tactic is DB and the defense. I'm not so sure that they didn't use "good cop." Good cop/bad cop is usually used in tandem though. One interrogator is good cop, and one is bad. Working in tandem, they try to get the witness to confide in the good cop.

 

[matou]

Maybe this is not on topic but shouldn't the rights of a minor (in this case a baby) who cannot communicate for themselves supersede the rights of a caretaker adult? I believe this should be so but it's JMO.

 

[katydid23]

Do we wonder why LE has been focused on DB? Her original story was a lie. She made up a phony timeline and phony story and told the cops that she put the baby to bed at 7:30 and checked on her again at 10:30. Only LATER ON did she admit that was a lie. She was also pretty drunk that night. The cops knew this from the start, and they also knew those phones were used during the time they were supposedly stolen. So any wonder why they were interrogating her so harshly? They also knew that no one climbed in that window.

 

[cluciano63]

Maybe this is not on topic but shouldn't the rights of a minor (in this case a baby) who cannot communicate for themselves supersede the rights of a caretaker adult? I believe this should be so but it's JMO.

My feelings exactly...
These parents are down to two children from three, but hooray, they have their rights and are guarding those pretty darn well, at least.

 

[Marshmallow]

BBM: The only ones saying that they only used the bad cop tactic is DB and the defense. I'm not so sure that they didn't use "good cop." Good cop/bad cop is usually used in tandem though. One interrogator is good cop, and one is bad. Working in tandem, they try to get the witness to confide in the good cop.

agreed, and I'm glad I am not the only one to see this.
it was only stated by DB that the LE were mean to poor her. No one else stated that, unless they got it from her. In a rush to blame LE for anything and everything it seems to be overlooked that only DB says they were mean to her.

 

[mamamia54]

Do we wonder why LE has been focused on DB? Her original story was a lie. She made up a phony timeline and phony story and told the cops that she put the baby to bed at 7:30 and checked on her again at 10:30. Only LATER ON did she admit that was a lie. She was also pretty drunk that night. The cops knew this from the start, and they also knew those phones were used during the time they were supposedly stolen. So any wonder why they were interrogating her so harshly? They also knew that no one climbed in that window.

So, they interrogated her harshly, she knows that she is guilty of not only lying but also guilty of drinking so much that she never checked on her most vulnerable child who already wasn't feeling well, but that doesn't make her a killer or someone who could be capable of disposing of her baby girls body and still not break during all the intense questioning. JMO

 

[DeAnn]

agreed, and I'm glad I am not the only one to see this.
it was only stated by DB that the LE were mean to poor her. No one else stated that, unless they got it from her. In a rush to blame LE for anything and everything it seems to be overlooked that only DB says they were mean to her.

That's not actually the case. Sean O' Brien, the attorney with UMKC who at Ashley Irwin's request, sat in on the Oct. 8 interviews and has characterized them as much worse than "mean." The local newspaper has interviewed him a couple of times. He observed interviews with both parents. And he ended them on Oct. 8.

 

[tehcloser]

According to JP, "at least Debbie did"......agreed to wave Miranda rights, so why didn't JI? I find that VERY odd, even more so that THEIR attorney would point out that he didn't.

http://fox4kc.com/2011/11/11/exclusive-irwin-family-attorney-john-picerno-talks-to-fox-4s-john-holt/

First video, at approx. 1:40ish............

 

[OneLove]

So, they interrogated her harshly, she knows that she is guilty of not only lying but also guilty of drinking so much that she never checked on her most vulnerable child who already wasn't feeling well, but that doesn't make her a killer or someone who could be capable of disposing of her baby girls body and still not break during all the intense questioning. JMO

But it DOES make her much more LIKELY to be capable of such than the parent who is responsible, loving, nurturing, and caring towards their children.

 

[Nixie]

But it DOES make her much more LIKELY to be capable of such than the parent who is responsible, loving, nurturing, and caring towards their children.

She was irresponsible yes but I have not heard one person say she wasn't loving, nurturing and caring.