What questions would you ask LE?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why, do you think, LE is still wanting to "interrogate" the parents at this late date? I have read or heard nothing that says LE has a restriction about whether or not the interview would be with or without any lawyers. Have you? I just have the distinct impression they want to hear from the parents and the parents are not complying.

Do you have a different impression? Why would the parents change their minds "after the lawyers?"

If LE interviews Lisa's parents with their lawyers present they won't get any incriminating information from them. The lawyers will prevent that from happening. LE want's to sit down "one on one" with Deborah Bradley for a reason. Lawyers will hinder LE in their goals. MOO.
 
If LE interviews Lisa's parents with their lawyers present they won't get any incriminating information from them. The lawyers will prevent that from happening. LE want's to sit down "one on one" with Deborah Bradley for a reason. Lawyers will hinder LE in their goals. MOO.
LOL, I am such a putz, I thought that maybe LE would interview them anyway, in case they could find some small toe hold. And, I thought one of the issues at point was whether or not they agreed to be interviewed. Or even if LE wanted to interview them.
Why would Deborah Bradley's lawyers want to prevent that from happening?
OMGosh, RANCH! We are not on the same page ~ Are we? LOL at that thought!
 
Again, what about the kitten. What did she tell LE?!
 
i would ask KCMOPD to show where exactly they ever stated or even implied they wanted to speak to DB without her lawyer present... to prevent an attorney from being present should one be accompanying the interviewee or requested by the interviewee flies in the face of the 6th amendment of the bill of rights in the US constitution. when they said they wanted to speak to the parents separately, and later with DB "one on one", they merely meant without jeremy being present. and, by asking for an "unrestricted" interview what they meant was that they could ask whatever questions and follow up questions they wanted. to continue to perpetrate the idea that these phrases meant anything else is ridiculous considering that if the KCMOPD did restrict a lawyer from being present the entire interview would be rendered inadmissible. does anyone really believe the KCMPOD would want or allow that to happen?
 
i would ask KCMOPD to show where exactly they ever stated or even implied they wanted to speak to DB without her lawyer present... to prevent an attorney from being present should one be accompanying the interviewee or requested by the interviewee flies in the face of the 6th amendment of the bill of rights in the US constitution. when they said they wanted to speak to the parents separately, and later with DB "one on one", they merely meant without jeremy being present. and, by asking for an "unrestricted" interview what they meant was that they could ask whatever questions and follow up questions they wanted. to continue to perpetrate the idea that these phrases meant anything else is ridiculous considering that if the KCMOPD did restrict a lawyer from being present the entire interview would be rendered inadmissible. does anyone really believe the KCMPOD would want or allow that to happen?
I don't recall LE ever saying to the public that they want to talk to Lisa's parents without a lawyer present. One thing that you left out was that DB and JI could voluntarily speak to LE without a lawyer present. Anything that they would say would be admissible. The 5th amendment right against self-incrimination is what is relevant here. The 6th amendment is about the right to have assistance of counsel at trial.
This right to counsel, however, can be waived or given up by someone suspected of or actually charged with committing a crime. As an added protection, however, to your basic right to legal counsel, your waiver has to be knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.

The point that I was trying to make was that LE's only hope in getting Lisa's parents to make any incriminating statements would be for their lawyers to be left out of the picture. What LE would like to get and what is realistic are two different things. MOO.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Waiving-Your-Right-to-Counsel-in-Criminal-Cases.html
 
DeAnn, have you heard anything at all about the case?
 
These are some statistics I am curious about:

How many tips have you received since the first anniversary? In total?
How many people have you interviewed?
What is the cost of the investigation for 2012 and for 2013 (so far)?
How many people are working on the case? Full-time?
How many pages is the case file?
How many pieces of evidence do you have?
Number of outside experts consulted?
 
are you (LE) still even investigating this case or are you so sure there is parental involvement which you obviously can't prove that you have simply given up following any other line of investigation in hopes that someday you will find that elusive proof that your main suspect is responsible?

It appears to me that once you decided who you thought did it and that person stopped speaking to you without representation you sort of just closed the case. :(
 
are you (LE) still even investigating this case or are you so sure there is parental involvement which you obviously can't prove that you have simply given up following any other line of investigation in hopes that someday you will find that elusive proof that your main suspect is responsible?

It appears to me that once you decided who you thought did it and that person stopped speaking to you without representation you sort of just closed the case. :(

I does appear that way, doesn't it? Last thing I saw on the news from LE is that they still want to talk to Bradley. Nothing at all on the local news since last year.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/19667428/police-baby-lisa-irwins-mom-only-one-who-can-provide-answers
 
Questions I would ask LE?

When was the last time you asked them to come in for further questioning and what did they say?
 
Does anyone remember why DB said she was afraid to go out in the back yard to search for her "missing" baby? tia
 
;) I believe her words were "I was afraid of what I might find"


I understand that reaction. I'm fairly certain I would have reacted the same way.
At 3:30 am, finding my 10 month old, not in her crib, not in the house, I'd be more than afraid of what I might find. I could not deal with finding my baby injured or worse. I just couldn't.
I would have my husband look. Jeremy was there, and I'm sure he looked in the back yard.
 
I understand that reaction. I'm fairly certain I would have reacted the same way.
At 3:30 am, finding my 10 month old, not in her crib, not in the house, I'd be more than afraid of what I might find. I could not deal with finding my baby injured or worse. I just couldn't.
I would have my husband look. Jeremy was there, and I'm sure he looked in the back yard.

Exactly, I dread to see our furbabies in pain or worse, I think her reaction was totally valid.
 
But what was she afraid of? tia


well, she's obviously not afraid of a contradiction: from interview with judge J:

DB: “Him coming in the bedroom, um, I didn’t know what time it was until he, he later on had said it, because we didn’t, I didn’t check, but he came in and he said, um, you know, why are all the lights on, um, you know, why is the, uh, the screen popped out of the window? Part of the corner of it was popped out, or something and, um, and I s, um, I, I got up, ‘I don’t, I don’t know what you’re talking about,’ um, and, um, my son was sleeping with me, and, um, you know, sometimes I, I like to, right, my kids have always, when they’re younger, little, slept in bed with me. So, I like to do that when I can. And, um, he asked why, why Michael was there, and I just, you know, he’s just sleeping next to me, and, um, I guess, with everything he was saying out loud to me, you know, he thought, you know, wait a minute, Lisa’s bedroom door’s open, and we always, we always close it when she goes to sleep at night and he run back and checked and said, he came in the room and he said, ‘Where’s Lisa, where’s she at?’ and I said, ‘She, she’s in her crib. What do you?’ You know, and he’s said, ‘She’s not there,’ and we just got up and started screaming for her and looking everywhere and she wasn’t there

so deb is okay with admittedly "looking everywhere" for lisa except for the backyard? huh?

a child that has (hypothetically) possibly managed to get out of her crib (or wherever she was hypothetically sleeping) could potentially be found 1) alive and well 2) injured or 3) deceased anywhere in the house or on the property (especially if doors were unlocked), so, if she was truly "afraid of what she might find", why did she (hypothetically) search at all?

doesn't make any sense to me.
 
well, she's obviously not afraid of a contradiction: from interview with judge J:



so deb is okay with admittedly "looking everywhere" for lisa except for the backyard? huh?

a child that has (hypothetically) possibly managed to get out of her crib (or wherever she was hypothetically sleeping) could potentially be found 1) alive and well 2) injured or 3) deceased anywhere in the house or on the property (especially if doors were unlocked), so, if she was truly "afraid of what she might find", why did she (hypothetically) search at all?

doesn't make any sense to me.

As always, thank you rhg,

I don't give a flying ....... whatever she was afraid of. Damn it all to hell an back, if my child, (and yours , I am sure), we would have searched EVERYWHERE, WITH NO COCERN FOR OURSELVES OR OUR OW SAFETY!!

They will have to live with this for the rest of their lives. I just hope both brothers have/are getting professionally help. But, I would bet you anything they are not!

Too late for Baby Lisa, but my heart goes out to those sweet little boys!
 
well, she's obviously not afraid of a contradiction: from interview with judge J:



so deb is okay with admittedly "looking everywhere" for lisa except for the backyard? huh?

a child that has (hypothetically) possibly managed to get out of her crib (or wherever she was hypothetically sleeping) could potentially be found 1) alive and well 2) injured or 3) deceased anywhere in the house or on the property (especially if doors were unlocked), so, if she was truly "afraid of what she might find", why did she (hypothetically) search at all?

doesn't make any sense to me.

It could easily be that she never thought the worst until they did not find her in the home. To me that makes perfect sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
4,186
Total visitors
4,339

Forum statistics

Threads
593,082
Messages
17,980,974
Members
229,021
Latest member
Cdawn
Back
Top