Are WE to blame for being suspicious?

[Sedona722]

Well, okay, I will expand on this. Yes, we are all to blame for being very suspicious, but why not? Look at all we have been put through all these years. I want, very much, to think these parents are innocent, however, I feel very unconfortable with the entire situation....

When I first read the title of this thread, I interpreted in my mind as "who can blame us for being suspicious.

I mean, really, with the other cases previously and especially Caylee's case.

As an ER nurse, I saw plenty of baby abuse by either a parent or a SO of a parent. Therefore, from my own experience, my first thought is one of the parents could be the cause. Sometimes that makes it difficult to be objectional as opposed to subjectional.

 

[Chewy]

I don't think people rush to judgment all the time. A few cases. But generally it's because a parent lies about something. To me if you lie and your child is missing then something is really amiss because why would you not spill it?

In the recent Lisa Irwin case, I can believe 100 percent that the child was abducted by a stranger. However the mom changed her story, same with Casey Anthony so that's what it is for me.

 

[Chris_Texas]

bbm....what evidence? As far as I know the results from the items taken at the home are not back yet but I just logged on and hopped in this thread. Was there breaking news that the mom(parents)are now suspects? Were they arrested?

If you can point me to the evidence in this case, I'd appreciate it. Please don't include the one hit cadaver dog. I need more than one hit in one spot.

Off to read ...

The quote, through no fault of your own, is out of context in that it was not referencing this case specifically, but to the decision making process in general.

However, since you are asking about this case, there is plenty of evidence -- or data if you prefer -- upon which an opinion can be formed. Some examples include: missing cell phones, first night at a new job, door unlocked, lights on, changing stories, changing timelines, mom drinking, HRD dog hits in the home, the parent's conduct during interviews, the parent's refusal to cooperate with police, the parent's refusal to allow their children to be questioned despite admitting that their children HEARD something, etc.

If someone finds this insuffient that's okay. Each person must decide these things for themselves, applying their best judgement to to the decision. This would be rational regardless of the conclusion reached. It is only irrational if one refuses to weight the data before reaching a conclusion.

 

[Bemsmom]

Just go look at the "crimes against children" threads and you'll have your answer.

3-5 children A DAY are murdered by their mother or father. 200 a year by their mother. We act like its so rare and uncommon that this happens, but its not.

It happens all the time. The thing is not all parents have the ability to fabricate stories (like CA) and play the media. Some will just dump their kids in the river or in dumpsters and hope nobody finds them out. The news doesn't cover those stories the same way it does these sensational cases. Look at Jhessye Shockley. How much coverage has she gotten? Not much. They originally thought she just wandered away from home. Not very sensational.

So while there are legitimate stories of children being abducted/murdered by complete strangers that is the exception, not the norm. Now you're already pre-disposed to take a hard look at those closest to the child. And then when they (or the media) blast the inconsistencies our alarms go off. Especially with a mother that admits to being " black out drunk". You'd have to have some pretty low standards of parenthood to think that is acceptable and not suspicious of poor parenting at the very least.

There is a far leap from an alcoholic or parent to murderer, but the gap closes when you have a family not inclined to talk to LE (for whatever reason) and changing their story.

Plus I think there is a psychology present that if the parents did it, we don't have to worry for our own children's safety or fear the boogeyman because we are "better people and wouldn't do that". It makes it a little easier to sleep at night. If we admit that it CAN happen for no reason by strangers then our sense of safety is challenged.

Meh, I am rambling.

 

[Chris_Texas]

Last time I checked, Lisa's parents are not suspects in this case.

No one has been listed as an official suspect. This is not a requirement, and it really means nothing. Based on the apparent focus of LEs investigation, Lisa's parents are not only suspects, they are likely the lead suspects.

 

[JeannaT]

Hmm. "Are we to blame for being suspicious".

No. Everyone is entitled to their thought processes.

What posters ARE to blame for, are the words they actually express, not the ones they think silently in their heads. Since we don't know who is to blame here for Lisa's disappearance, it's quite possible the family is innocent and in terrible pain. Anyone who posts words on a public forum that add to their pain, is responsible for that. After the fact, it does no good to offer a humble apology, which doesn't even always appear when it becomes clear the parents were blamed erroneously.

"Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but words can break my heart".

So yes, that's my opinion. When the written word hurts someone who is innocent, the writer is to blame.

 

[BritsKate]

No one has been listed as an official suspect. This is not a requirement, and it really means nothing. Based on the apparent focus of LEs investigation, Lisa's parents are not only suspects, they are likely the lead suspects.

FYI the parents have been named suspects by LE as of today. I'll go look for the quote and link.

ACH! I'm sorry - it was misquoted in another thread by another poster. Apparently its generalised. So sorry! Another detective stating basically the parents are suspects until they're not suspects.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/25/3229412/legal-dance-with-police-is-part.html

 

[JeannaT]

FYI the parents have been named suspects by LE as of today. I'll go look for the quote and link.

That's news to me - please post it if you can find it in an MSM source. That's enormous news, and I believe it would create a red banner news alert across most MSM websites.

 

[Fyrecat]

I have come to believe that the Media has alot to do with it...how we percieve the parents of a missing child.

Unless I was there myself, knew family, friends, neighbors, etc, I have to rely on what the press is saying about a case. The media makes more money on sensationalism, and who doesn't like a good mystery? If they can paint the parents as either 'heros' or 'villians' and sell more commercial air time, they will. Regardless of the parents.

I think, depending on the parents, how they present, we may find ourselves thinking 'it could be them that did it', and it could be based on what the media feeds us...how they show the parents....

I hate to say it, but in many cases they sure do portray the parents as potential suspects.

 

[AnaTeresa]

"Are we to blame for being suspicious?"

I don't think there's any "blame" in being suspicious of the parents. (I am assuming that's the target of suspicion we're supposed to be discussing). Statistically, there's a high probability that the parents are involved. I don't think it's unreasonable to be suspicious, simply because logic would dictate to investigate that avenue heavily.

Instead of blame for suspicion, my alternative question would be "Are we too quick to discount alternative theories or avenues of investigation?"

I tend to be a fence sitter on a lot of cases, until there's some big, solid proof to push me one way or the other. Other posters tend to form opinions and theories early in the case (and often are correct - I mean no disrespect by this). I wonder, because we see this so often from parents, if we're too quick to form theories. There's no blame in having suspicions. It's logical. I just wonder if we're too quick to judge based upon those suspicions, forgetting that, although rare, there have to be stranger abductions some time for those statistics to exist.

 

[CharlestonGal]

There's a saying, "Suspicion starts at home." The whole suspicion issue is not about the parents just because they are the parents. Suspicion always begins with those closest to the victim, whether it be husband, wife, boyfriend, roommate, parents; in this case it happens to be the parents - not because they are the parents, but because they are the closest to home. Suspicion always starts there and then moves outward in wider and wider circles as the closest suspects are ruled out.

In many of the cases mentioned here, suspicion never moves beyond the "parents" because for one reason or another they cannot seem to be ruled out definitively (often because of conflicting stories or failure to fully cooperate). And those closest to the victim will continue to be suspected until....well, until they're not.

I don't think it's "we" who are being suspicious. "We" are behaving normally given the circumstances.

 

[CharlestonGal]

Just go look at the "crimes against children" threads and you'll have your answer.

3-5 children A DAY are murdered by their mother or father. 200 a year by their mother. We act like its so rare and uncommon that this happens, but its not.

It happens all the time. The thing is not all parents have the ability to fabricate stories (like CA) and play the media. Some will just dump their kids in the river or in dumpsters and hope nobody finds them out. The news doesn't cover those stories the same way it does these sensational cases. Look at Jhessye Shockley. How much coverage has she gotten? Not much. They originally thought she just wandered away from home. Not very sensational.

So while there are legitimate stories of children being abducted/murdered by complete strangers that is the exception, not the norm. Now you're already pre-disposed to take a hard look at those closest to the child. And then when they (or the media) blast the inconsistencies our alarms go off. Especially with a mother that admits to being " black out drunk". You'd have to have some pretty low standards of parenthood to think that is acceptable and not suspicious of poor parenting at the very least.

There is a far leap from an alcoholic or parent to murderer, but the gap closes when you have a family not inclined to talk to LE (for whatever reason) and changing their story.

Plus I think there is a psychology present that if the parents did it, we don't have to worry for our own children's safety or fear the boogeyman because we are "better people and wouldn't do that". It makes it a little easier to sleep at night. If we admit that it CAN happen for no reason by strangers then our sense of safety is challenged.

Meh, I am rambling.

I think that was an awesome ramble and one of the best posts I've read in a long time.

 

[CharlestonGal]

One other thing to add, the parents are not being looked at with suspicion simply because they are the parents. Had the parents been out of town and a friend, or aunt, or uncle, or grandparent been looking after Lisa and the other children that night, THEY would be the ones we are looking at with such suspicion. It's not the parents - it's the circumstances.

 

[JeannaT]

There's a saying, "Suspicion starts at home." The whole suspicion issue is not about the parents just because they are the parents. Suspicion always begins with those closest to the victim, whether it be husband, wife, boyfriend, roommate, parents; in this case it happens to be the parents - not because they are the parents, but because they are the closest to home. Suspicion always starts there and then moves outward in wider and wider circles as the closest suspects are ruled out.

In many of the cases mentioned here, suspicion never moves beyond the "parents" because for one reason or another they cannot seem to be ruled out definitively (often because of conflicting stories or failure to fully cooperate). And those closest to the victim will continue to be suspected until....well, until they're not.

I don't think it's "we" who are being suspicious. "We" are behaving normally given the circumstances.

That still doesn't hold those who have hurt families who were innocent, blameless for that hurt. Just saying everyone is doing it, everyone is acting in a hurtful manner with very very little to go on, doesn't absolve those who write the hurtful words.

If we were talking about a family who kept a child in a cage and starved and beat them and now the child is missing, let the words fly. We aren't here. We are talking about a woman who even her ex husband says she's a good mom, and there is no evidence to show otherwise.

Just because it's human nature, or because others are also feeling the same hinky suspicions, doesn't change the fact that everyone here is responsible for any hurt they might inflict, any damage they might do to reputations or family unity. Just because lots of people are throwing stones, it doesn't relieve the "blame" on the individual stone thrower.

IMHO, always.

 

[AnaTeresa]

That still doesn't hold those who have hurt families who were innocent, blameless for that hurt. Just saying everyone is doing it, everyone is acting in a hurtful manner with very very little to go on, doesn't absolve those who write the hurtful words.

If we were talking about a family who kept a child in a cage and starved and beat them and now the child is missing, let the words fly. We aren't here. We are talking about a woman who even her ex husband says she's a good mom, and there is no evidence to show otherwise.

Just because it's human nature, or because others are also feeling the same hinky suspicions, doesn't change the fact that everyone here is responsible for any hurt they might inflict, any damage they might do to reputations or family unity. Just because lots of people are throwing stones, it doesn't relieve the "blame" on the individual stone thrower.

IMHO, always.

I think there's a line. It's one thing to be suspicious - to say, "I'm suspicious of DB because it's mostly likely the caretaker at home with the child. She's also made inconsistent statements, and I think it's hinky that X, Y, and Z has happened." It's another thing entirely to bash her. I don't think it's throwing stones to say you're suspicious of someone because of something definable. It's when you take it beyond stating your suspicions into calling names and things like that, that's when you get into throwing stones.

 

[JeannaT]

I think there's a line. It's one thing to be suspicious - to say, "I'm suspicious of DB because it's mostly likely the caretaker at home with the child. She's also made inconsistent statements, and I think it's hinky that X, Y, and Z has happened." It's another thing entirely to bash her. I don't think it's throwing stones to say you're suspicious of someone because of something definable. It's when you take it beyond stating your suspicions into calling names and things like that, that's when you get into throwing stones.

I totally agree. Pointing out facts in the case isn't throwing stones. Twisting bits of evidence, though, or unrelated facts and making something of them, or as in this thread calling her obscene names, those are stones and the posters are responsible for the hurt and damage that may cause.

 

[stilettos]

That still doesn't hold those who have hurt families who were innocent, blameless for that hurt. Just saying everyone is doing it, everyone is acting in a hurtful manner with very very little to go on, doesn't absolve those who write the hurtful words.

If we were talking about a family who kept a child in a cage and starved and beat them and now the child is missing, let the words fly. We aren't here. We are talking about a woman who even her ex husband says she's a good mom, and there is no evidence to show otherwise.

Just because it's human nature, or because others are also feeling the same hinky suspicions, doesn't change the fact that everyone here is responsible for any hurt they might inflict, any damage they might do to reputations or family unity. Just because lots of people are throwing stones, it doesn't relieve the "blame" on the individual stone thrower.

IMHO, always.

I will take full responsibility for my words...Good Mom's do not get blackout drunk when caring for three children, one a sick infant. Sorry, sometimes it is black and white/right and wrong. It is IMO full out neglect to do so. Not Good mother of the year material.

 

[mrye4709]

When I first hear a baby was taken from her crib in the middle of the night, my mind went straight to the parents. When I seen them on tv the first time, I thought no way they had anything to do with it. When I seen the video tour, with plastic on the window and totes in the crib, I thought that baby wasn't in that bed. Once that was explained away, I was back to the parents had nothing to do with it. When DB admitted she was drunk, I was dizzy from all the spinning I had been doing.

I try to remember that time had passed, many people already knew she was drunk. She had probably already been chewed up and spit out by many near her and that may have something to do with her flippant attitude about it. I try to remember that what I see on tv has been snipped/slashed and edited and I may not be hearing everything in the proper context. It may even be possible that something is said in a forth interview that was said in the first, but it was edited out of the first. I'm not saying these things happened here, just that it is possible. I don't consider what a TH says to be evidence, they have made plenty of slips with this case and personally I think THEY are guilty....of using little Lisa for their own gain.

I am trying to rely on real evidence and so far I haven't seen alot in this case. There wasn't much in Breeanns case either. Those parents are so fortunate that LE stayed focused and found out what happened to her and even located her little body. I hope KCPD has more to go on than they are saying.

 

[matou]

I find this comment suspicious, even though DB started crying when she said it:

‘If they arrest me, people are going to stop looking for her’

Why would people stop looking for her, D? Why would you think that? If you are arrested, people and police will continue to look for her. You could even be cleared of all of this. Tell the truth, talk to police.

Who actually thinks people will stop looking for Baby Lisa if DB gets arrested? I see no public searches for her right now though, and maybe it has to do with DB not being straight up with police? maybe I'm wrong and there are public searches for Lisa.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44927...baby-lisas-mom-i-was-drunk-when-she-vanished/

 

[AnaTeresa]

I find this comment suspicious, even though DB started crying when she said it:

‘If they arrest me, people are going to stop looking for her’

Why would people stop looking for her, D? Why would you think that? If you are arrested, people and police will continue to look for her. You could even be cleared of all of this. Tell the truth, talk to police.

Who actually thinks people will stop looking for Baby Lisa if DB gets arrested? I see no public searches for her right now though, and maybe it has to do with DB not being straight up with police? maybe I'm wrong and there are public searches for Lisa.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44927...baby-lisas-mom-i-was-drunk-when-she-vanished/

I think she means that people will stop looking at babies and calling in tips about children that look like Lisa. For example, if Shasta Groene's father was arrested when she was missing, people would stop looking for a live Shasta, thinking that her father had killed her. I don't think it's really about boots on the ground searches that she's talking about (and this is an infant, so it's different than a missing older child in the woods where you need searchers looking over areas). I think she's talking about, nationwide, people keeping an eye out for infants that may be Lisa that people are presenting as their own.

If she IS innocent - that would be the scariest part. The tips are slowing down at this point. People aren't calling in as much. If she's arrested, and the general nationwide consensus is that she did it, people aren't going to be suspicious of that new baby their neighbor just "adopted" - because they think the police already have their perpetrator.