MSM coverage of Baby Lisa, 11/9/11

[Magnifying Glass]

You can paint it any color you want but until those parents themselves go in and/or allow the boys to go back in to answer whatever questions LE have (with the proper legal representation if preferred) there is no reason to believe they are any more innocent than any of the other clown....players in this case.

Even moreso; they can't keep a straight story about that night and they are the first in line when it comes to daily responsibility of Lisa. So yeah, they remain on LE's radar and there is NO reason why they shouldn't be.

If they can (and hopefully will) send the boys back in, surely they are "man enough" to go back and face some questions themselves.

I'm tired of hearing about parent rights. This is about Lisa. The parents should suck it up. They have decent legal representation so if LE are truly a-holes and they are truly innocent I'm sure they could file a complaint with LE at some point (I'm not from the US - so no sure how that works) IMO it's all about crying wolf and not about finding their baby.

All my opinion :twocents:

 

[raeann]

Well apparently those few minuted were not sufficient. They need to be questioned by professionals trained in this type of questioning. They also need counseling, imo. But I guess it's more important for them to be shown on GMA trick or treating.

I probably missed it somewhere....but is there a LINK to the statement that they have NOT been receiving counseling? I doubt that a counselor would either recommend nor ALLOW the filming of that sort of thing. If their own school is not providing that service quietly and privately WHILE THEY ARE AT SCHOOL....then the school is being highly negligent in that aspect. Having worked for many years providing special services in public and private schools and working for that entire time with school counselors -- I can almost guarantee that it IS BEING DONE. However, it is none of my business nor anyone else's where, when and how that is occurring.

jmo

 

[curvecuti]

I probably missed it somewhere....but is there a LINK to the statement that they have NOT been receiving counseling? I doubt that a counselor would either recommend nor ALLOW the filming of that sort of thing. If their own school is not providing that service quietly and privately WHILE THEY ARE AT SCHOOL....then the school is being highly negligent in that aspect. Having worked for many years providing special services in public and private schools and working for that entire time with school counselors -- I can almost guarantee that it IS BEING DONE. However, it is none of my business nor anyone else's where, when and how that is occurring.

jmo

I didn't say they weren't receiving counseling, I said imo, they will need counseling.
I don't have a link for my opinion. Although I don't see how their school would be responsible for providing the counseling. It would be nice if they did, but I don't think it could be called highly negligent if they didn't. The schools here can't even afford teaching assistants for k-3, I know they couldn't afford to provide (non-school related) counseling for every student that needed it.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I hope this is okay to post -- for those who are still "catching up" -- and CONFUSED -- from yesterday's "bombshells" ...

Transcript of JVM Show.
I could not find a transcript for Vinnie Politan's Show.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1111/08/ijvm.01.html

snippets:

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN HOST: Tonight, an exclusive for you in the missing Baby Lisa case. The child`s parents, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, say Baby Lisa was snatched from her crib in the dead of night more than a month ago. The night Baby Lisa vanished, three of the family`s cell phones also disappeared.

But one of those phones made a call to a woman named Megan Wright. She`s the ex-girlfriend of Jersey, the local handyman who was allegedly working nearby that night. We now have a clue about that mystery phone call.

...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And what`s really fascinating about all of this, Levi Page, and you`re a crime blogger Internet radio host is the call. Let me get my cell phone out so you can visualize it, the call that came from a phone belonging to the mother of the missing child, that was supposedly taken at the time that the missing child was taken, and went to Megan, who we`re going to talk to in a second, exclusively. This call was made between 8:00 and 8:30, according to published reports, which is before the mother says that she passed out while the child was still there. What does that tell you, Levi?

LEVI PAGE, CRIME BLOGGER AND INTERNET RADIO HOST: Well, it`s interesting, because Megan says that the person who had her phone that night was a man by the name of Dane Digler (ph). And I looked up this guy`s MySpace account and he said he`s a party boy. He says that his occupation is a "street chemist", and it says his expertise, he says, quote, "I wish it was being a dad. All I`m really good at is being a cracker. Damn right. And my name is Dane and I do drugs to deal with my problems. Anyways, later."

So this is not a very savory individual here, and there`s a lot of cast of characters in this case. And I think the two people that could sort this all out for us would be Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, and they are not cooperating with the police. They refused to sit down for separate interviews. They refused to sit down together. And they have yet to allow their children to be interviewed by a child specialist in the police department. So why are they not clearing all of this up? That`s the big question.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you, Levi.

And now we have our exclusive guest, Megan Wright. Now, Megan, thank you so much for joining us. We know that it`s got to be difficult for you to be in the center of this storm. And I assume you`re speaking out because you want to do whatever you can to help find this child.



:great: It was nice to see Levi Page on the Show !

:seeya: Maybe he can update us here.

:great:

 

[Abby Normal]

I'd never give them free reign, but I can't imagine any reason I wouldn't allow a cheek swab in my presence.

As far as interviews, I certainly wouldn't want to cause any trauma to my children, but I'd have to weigh that possibility against the cold hard fact that the life of another of my children is in danger. So long as the interviews were conducted by professionals - a psychologist or specially trained LE child interviewer - I think I'd allow it. I don't see how I could live with myself if I denied my missing child the opportunity for the discovery of information that might lead to her safe return.

Agreed.

What possible rights of theirs are more important than the rights of their child? They know that LE can't fully clear them and move on without their cooperation.

We're not talking about a stranger or a stolen car, it is their child. If they think their rights not to answer what LE needs answered are more important than furthering the case to find their child, I just don't know what to say.

JMHO

None. Agreed.

We all know the "guilty scenario" reason they would care about their rights.

I think the "innocent scenario" reasoning would be that as long a LE is focused on them, they won't be investigating all options. If a big lawyer deemed "best" by many tells you that LE won't look for your child as long as they are focused on you, you might believe them if it lined up with what you felt you were experiencing.

And you can't say they didn't try to get cleared, poly, hours of interrogation. (And we've only had indication that their interrogation was honest, "no holes" per Young early on.) If interrogations were getting repetitive and without progress (like these convos in here, lol), it would explain why they would ask for someone new who wasn't convinced of their guilt- so that discussions could be "full scope" discussion rather than LE *lying to them to get them to crack.

At some point they (theoretically) reached a conclusion that LE simply couldn't clear them and if they wanted them to investigate full scope, they had to pull back and make it their only option. Even if the investigation began in the home, it's certainly also spread out.

*note, this is being said with their possible perspective in mind, why they might feel like pulling back is ideal within their bubble, and without the ability to be "outside looking in" and not with my own personal opinion or perception. I would consider this the worst possible action to take, myself. I'm just looking outside of myself to understand another person's logic.

Fear for their other kids?? Why would being questioned by a professional trained to work with kids cause them fear? If it were me, my fear would be that I'd never see my baby again. That would take precedence over anything else at this point.

I didn't mean just their interrogation of the boys, I meant just "pulling back" and listening to their attorney all together could be done in fear. I explained above why they might "believe" that's in the best interest of Lisa. I disagree, but I can see why someone's mind would go there.

As for the boys, they've already lost one child. Risk of losing another, or having them lose their parent would be enough to make most of us think we need to heed the counsel of a very intelligent attorney who is among the most "effective" in the country.

IOW- I don't think it's right, but I see possible logic of shutting up and doing whatever your attorney says is best.

 

[In da Middle]

ARG - the only comments I want to read right now is that somebody saw DB with that baby on Mon - somebody at the school or bus stop? walking in the neighborhood? outside playing in the yard? @Jim Spellman FIND somebody who saw DB with that baby!

There is an article (I have to leave for a while and don't have time to find link) That states that SB saw the baby around 4:30 and appeared fineand her kid saw her at 6:30.

 

[somewhereinkansas]

I have a question. Why do they need a cheek swab of the boys?

 

[askfornina]

There is an article (I have to leave for a while and don't have time to find link) That states that SB saw the baby around 4:30 and appeared fineand her kid saw her at 6:30.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ls-timeline-of-day-and-night-of-disappearance

4:30 p.m.
-Neighbor checks in on Baby Lisa’s crib and finds her apparently fine.
-Deborah Bradley and her brother go to a supermarket to purchase baby food and a box of wine. Jeremy Irwin stayed home with children.

6:30 p.m.
-Neighbor returns and neighbor’s daughter sees Baby Lisa apparently safe.
-Deborah Bradley puts Lisa in crib.

 

[In da Middle]

I didn't say they weren't receiving counseling, I said imo, they will need counseling.
I don't have a link for my opinion. Although I don't see how their school would be responsible for providing the counseling. It would be nice if they did, but I don't think it could be called highly negligent if they didn't. The schools here can't even afford teaching assistants for k-3, I know they couldn't afford to provide (non-school related) counseling for every student that needed it.

The school that these kids go to does have an on-site counsellor and a very competent principal that I am sure will do what they feel is best for these kids. Whether the kids are receiving these services is unknown to us as it should be.

 

[raeann]

I didn't say they weren't receiving counseling, I said imo, they will need counseling.
I don't have a link for my opinion. Although I don't see how their school would be responsible for providing the counseling. It would be nice if they did, but I don't think it could be called highly negligent if they didn't. The schools here can't even afford teaching assistants for k-3, I know they couldn't afford to provide (non-school related) counseling for every student that needed it.

This is really not on topic for the msm thread, but I don't know how to explain or respond with this information in a more appropriate place.

I have worked in schools in a number of different states and districts. Every one of them had a certified counselor AND a psychologist assigned to each school. These support staff members may have more than one school that they cover, depending on the size of the schools. The counselor and/or a psychologist are REQUIRED to do an evaluation of almost every child that is placed on an IEP that involves special services. They provide counseling to MANY students on both a temporary and continuing basis for any number of reasons. That could be for example, being victims of bullying, or a death of a parent, or for aggressive classroom behavior. They do this kind of thing DAILY, that is their job. Few, if ANY, problems that a child encounters are ONLY school related. This is why you will see in a multitude of news articles when a traffic accident death occurs that involves a student---not while they are at school---the school will say that they are "bringing in counselors" to be available to the students and staff. These are counselors that are already employed by the school system and based at other schools.....not random volunteers from the community. In fact....TODAY.....there is a school not far from KC that is dealing with the death a beloved teacher and counselors/psychologists are available to ANY student who wants to speak with them. I can give many other examples of when a school has provided counseling for "out of school" issues from my own experiences, such as the suicide of a parent, the sudden death of a young sibling from a heart condition, a fire that destroyed the home of several students, even children having difficulty with a divorce and custody dispute. These are the reasons that school counselors exist.....they are needed for exactly these kind of situations that effect the children's lives and learning abilities.

Granted, these counselors do not see EVERY student that might benefit from their services. Some parents prefer private counseling, others have personal or religious beliefs that preclude counseling, some children who need it are so quiet and compliant that no one KNOWS that they need help. However, in this case, there is no way the school is NOT aware of the stress, conflict, and trauma that these boys have experienced.


jmo

 

[yllek]

Perhaps someone should refresh Mr. Tabman's memory as to the definition of the word "infinite".

I think Mr. Tabman said or meant "finite", limited, opposite of infinite. Either he or the reporter does need a refresher; total change in the intended meaning of this important statement.

Where the heck is Lisa?

 

[Dr. Know?]

once they have an attorney (which they do) I do not believe the police can bring them in and question them (probable cause or not). According to LE they still are not cooperating in answering questions.

probable cause has to do with search warrants
jmhoo:twocents:

BBM

While probable cause is about search warrants, it's also about arrests, warrants, affidavits, hearings etc..



In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:


I know wiki..


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause"]Probable cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Sparklin]

ARG - the only comments I want to read right now is that somebody saw DB with that baby on Mon - somebody at the school or bus stop? walking in the neighborhood? outside playing in the yard? @Jim Spellman FIND somebody who saw DB with that baby!

he's working on it

 

[neese]

It's true. I'm just throwing around attitude and talking about cabbage worms today. Time for me to get some fresh air.

Call me if anything develops, I'll be out on the porch snuggling kittens.

You have a porch MK??? In New York?? :crazy:

 

[GoodGurl]

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ls-timeline-of-day-and-night-of-disappearance

Thanks for that...and I had read that before, and I read it again. Unless I've missed something, in my mind "an unnamed source..." doesn't cut it. That could be the defense attorney for all I know. I want to hear from someone directly that has no agenda. I know...shooting for the stars.

But I appreciate you taking the time to dig up that for me.

 

[Patty G]

There is an article (I have to leave for a while and don't have time to find link) That states that SB saw the baby around 4:30 and appeared fineand her kid saw her at 6:30.

I have just one problem with SB's 4 year old claiming she saw Baby Lisa at 6:30 PM since most children at that age can NOT tell time, IMO.

 

[askfornina]

jimspellmancnn jim spellman
Heading out to chase more #babylisa news. I'll check in here later.
http://twitter.com/#!/jimspellmancnn

 

[Turnadot]

jimspellmancnn jim spellman
Heading out to chase more #babylisa news. I'll check in here later.
http://twitter.com/#!/jimspellmancnn

So basically he tweeted that he has nothing to say? How strange, IMO. Why not just tweet when there is something pertinent to say.

 

[askfornina]

So basically he tweeted that he has nothing to say? How strange, IMO. Why not just tweet when there is something pertinent to say.

eh, i think he just likes keeping people informed. i can respect Jim Spellman, a lot more than other journalists in the case. (*cough*megynkelly*cough*) so far i haven't found anything too big to complain about with him. i think he tweets teasers rather than actual news because his bosses tell him he can't reveal things.

eta: he seems dedicated to fact-checking and getting the story as right as he can. he also answers questions on his twitter account, which is very nice of him.

 

[Magnifying Glass]

Not sure how I feel about Jim Spellman and his "stay tuned" type tweets. But at least he's doing some "old fashioned" journo-digging/fact checking to get a story. It may feel like a freakshow at times but for now it also keeps Lisa's name out there.

All my opinion :twocents: