Are WE to blame for being suspicious?

Discussion in 'Lisa Irwin' started by 4Jacy, Oct 25, 2011.

  1. 4Jacy

    4Jacy New Member

    Messages:
    3,209
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are we to blame……let’s think about this. The Lindbergh baby, Susan Smith, Kyron, Zahra, Haleigh Cummings and many I have missed. I think the latest is the Caylee Anthony case. All of these children looked well fed, well dressed, very well taken care of. We look at these parents and say, “no, not them, they would never hurt their precious children.” But then we find out that they did. How are we, the public, supposed to react to little children who goes missing, who dies? I don’t thing we cannot help but be suspicious to these situations. It disturbs me immensely, but it is fact. We are only human.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Chris_Texas

    Chris_Texas New Member

    Messages:
    1,926
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if we are to blame for suspecting the parents?

    If so: it is the job of all men, as rational creatures, to think and reason, and to accept the conclusions of evidence irrespective of how we might wish things to be. It is our ability to THINK which allows us to survive, to provide for ourselves and our families, to recognize danger and react.

    We suspect parents, family, and friends first because, in about 90% of all cases, this is the correct answer. In this particular case we can also look at more than statistics. We can examine the facts as we know them and see that all of them, ALL of them, seem to point directly to one suspect, a suspect that the statistics also show to be the most likely culprit.

    Further, there is nothing to mitigate this. Mom, by her own admission, places her temporary pleasure ahead of the safety and welfare of her children. Again, by her own admission. She sees nothing even questionable about getting black-out drunk while leaving a sick infant alone, unwatched, and unloved. She even planned ahead to do it.

    So while she might cry and put on a show in public, we know that this is deception. As was her initial story, and the one after that, and the one after that. Just as you would be a fool to trust her with a child, you would be equally a fool to trust her to tell the truth or to behave in a responsible manner.
     
  4. mrye4709

    mrye4709 New Member

    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, even Breeanns parents were looked at as guilty by some and they had nothing to do with it. You never know how it will turn out in the end, but the players could help out alot by doing certain things. Staying cooperative with LE, stay active in the search even if it is behind the scenes and tell the truth no matter what else that my bring forward for all to see. We need to stay open minded and distance ourselves from the "if it were me i would" scenerios. We don't know how we would react unless we were in the situation.
     
  5. Melanie

    Melanie Inactive

    Messages:
    12,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of the 800,000 children that go missing each year, only about 115 of those are stereotypical kidnappings.

    That's an incredibly low percentage.

    So, no, I don't think it's my fault that when a parent says their child is kidnapped by a stranger that my thought goes immediately to the family.

    After all, if the child is not a run-a-way, then someone in the family or known to the family is most likely responsible.

    Stranger abductions as described by Deborah are very very rare. It makes perfect sense for my mind to focus on Deborah -- considering the bizarre circumstances. Add to the fact that Deborah was the last person to see Baby Lisa.

    Just my opinion.

    Mel


    800,000 children younger than 18 are missing each year, or an average of 2,000 children reported missing each day.
    200,000 children were were abducted by family members.
    58,000 children were abducted by nonfamily members, and
    115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. These crimes involve someone the child does not know, or knows only slightly, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.

    Source: http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2816
     
  6. smart blonde

    smart blonde Websleuths Member

    Messages:
    6,871
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BBM

    The Lindbergh baby? Charles and Ann Lindbergh were never even suspected of hurting their little boy. He was kidnapped by an intruder.

    I don't understand why the Lindbergh baby would be included in this opening post. Charles Lindbergh was an American hero to my grandparent's generation.
     
  7. RANCH

    RANCH Active Member

    Messages:
    9,792
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Is this what this thread is about? When a child is kidnapped we always look to the parents first?
     
  8. ThoughtFox

    ThoughtFox Expecting the Unexpected

    Messages:
    8,137
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't really understand the topic of this thread either, but I think Chris Texas meant that we as the human race have to use the large brain we have and separate appearance from reality.

    I sense that the implication here (and I may be wrong) is that somehow we need to be less suspicious, and not ask questions that people don't want to answer. Of course, we are only speculating here on the forum - we actually have no control over anything in this case. LE is in charge, not us, one way or another.

    ETA: I don't see how any of us could be a problem to this case, since we have nothing to do with it. Most of these cases are beyond imagination and thus need no embellishment - you can't make this stuff up.

    I look at it this way - there have always been stories of human beings killing children going back to the Bible and even further, Greek Mythology. And there always will be because humans are capable of evil, and often evil things happen to the most helpless, which are children.

    Being well-fed and well-clothed is in the eye of the beholder, but not very helpful when a child disappears mysteriously from their own home. Caylee had a room full of toys and pretty things - that doesn't tell us if she was always happy, felt secure, or was never afraid. It doesn't really tell us much of anything.

    Many parents raise children all over the world who don't have nice clothes, and don't have lots of material things, but they go to bed knowing they are loved, and they never disappear. In fact, some of them have very protective parents (kudos to my own parents in heaven!)

    I think most people here love children and feel protective when one of them goes missing. Statistics are pretty clear that most of the time these are not outside kidnappings, so we can't just ignore that fact and wear blinders.
     
  9. Dee10

    Dee10 New Member

    Messages:
    4,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I love Suzie Q's siggy ~ "Positive thinking doesn't solve crimes, suspicion does" or something to that effect :crazy: ITA with Chris's post and there is good reason to be suspicious in this case.
     
  10. Charlie09

    Charlie09 Former Member

    Messages:
    8,862
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Statistics bother me....who were the other nearly 600,000 missing kids each year - where they found? Were they not missing, were they runaways? are there 600,000*15 years - some percentage on the street? That just seems like a crazy number. (Not to take away from your general point...but man....that just sticks out to me)
     
  11. Salem

    Salem Former Member

    Messages:
    29,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And the mod is sitting right here with you trying to figure it out. LOL

    4Jacy - would you like to expand a bit on the thread title? Are we to blame for what? For being suspicious? When I read your post, I thought you were asking if we were to blame for NOT being suspicious enough - not suspecting that the well fed, clean happy baby might actually be in trouble.

    But I'm not sure, because no one else seemed to read it that way???

    Salem
     
  12. MarthaM

    MarthaM New Member

    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't really understand the initial question, either, especially since those who think that a parent couldn't have harmed a missing child nowadays are few and far-between. I think most of the general public are going to question whether the parents are involved right away, and that's okay; there are many completely logical, common-sense reasons to do so.

    If there's any place where 'blame' lies, IMO, it's taking that logical suspicion and turning into a conclusion of guilt way, way, way too soon. It's one thing to suspect a parent might be involved, and another to proclaim that they are the guilty party when there's really no solid evidence to back that up. There's also a fine line between sleuthing and gossiping; more and more, it seems like the two have become one and the same. That's a disappointment to me, because I like solving mysteries (or, more accurately and more often than not, watching others solve them), but I don't like wading through mountains of innuendo to try and find the real pieces of the puzzle. So I guess I'd say we (the public) are to blame for the way we handle these cases. A better choice of words might be that we're responsible for how we look at them and how we reach our conclusions.
     
  13. jadejazzkayla

    jadejazzkayla Active Member

    Messages:
    2,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    statistics. the case of a missing child can not be classified statistically until the case is solved. Sleuthing is not about being right or wrong about our guesses on who did it, we rely on facts to sleuth our cases.
     
  14. IWillDare

    IWillDare New Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I read the OP's question like "who can blame us for being suspicious". Maybe I'm way off base.
     
  15. MarthaM

    MarthaM New Member

    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I think you're right. Now that I reread it, I think the OP's saying something like 'we almost don't have any choice but to suspect the parents' in these cases.
     
  16. Chris_Texas

    Chris_Texas New Member

    Messages:
    1,926
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Respectfully, statistics are really nothing more than an indicator of probabilities expressed mathematically.

    It is our ability to think in these terms, to apply logic and history to a problem and from this determine probable outcomes, that allows us to survive and function in the world. Every problem we face, every task or challenge from insignificant to the epic, is addressed by weighting it against the information we have available. The insignifant task (for example, a closed door) is only insignificant because YOU know the probable solution (turn the round handle thingy)-- to an infant lacking your knowlege, this completely insignificant task can only be overcome through trial and error.

    In the case of a missing child it is proper to begin by reviewing what we know are the most likely solutions. We "turn the handle" first and see if this works, only if the door is locked do we then look for a key, window, or other way in.
     
  17. Meri

    Meri New Member

    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think what she is asking is if we, as a society, are to blame for not picking up on better clues that a child may be being harmed within the privacy of their own homes. We assume a child that looks well cared for is. At least that's how I took it.

    But, I don't see the answer to this if that is what was meant. How are we, as a society, to know? What options do we have?
     
  18. yllek

    yllek New Member

    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BBM

    I too thought 4Jacy's question was whether we, as a whole, are responsible for not looking deeper than the superficial public appearances and Facebook photos and recgonizing the signals of distressed children in need (figured Lindenberg was just a mistake).

    If that is indeed the context of opening post question, I don't think WE (society in genreral) are responsible for the fate of these precious and unfortunate children. However, I do think if we don't learn from case upon case upon case upon case that appearances can be deceiving and that many things we wish didn't happen do happen, then we can't help in the battle to educate against and help to prevent child abuse. Blinders don't help, imo.

    So, 4Jacy, c'mon back. Tell us what was the intent of this thread! Whatever it was, the responses have been intriguing! I hope it continues.
     
  19. cece5300

    cece5300 New Member

    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are we to blame for being suspicious of the parents? No! The PARENTS who harm their innocent babies are to blame for the public now being suspicious about every parent of missing children. In cases like the Caylee Anthony and maybe Haleigh Cummings cases, it's a likely possibility (I'm putting it nicely) that someone in the family was involved in killing their child and disposing of the body, and yet they waste everyone's valuable time and resources, all the while other children are ACTUALLY missing, yet their innocent parents receive little help because people like the Anthony's are taking up airtime.

    Can you blame us for being suspicious? It's so sad but it's unfortunately the case sometimes, and it's people like Casey Anthony and Susan Smith who are to blame.

    And also, I apologize if I'm off base, I kind of don't even understand the question.

    ETA: I'm not saying we SHOULD necessarily suspect the parents initially, but I'm saying you can't really blame us, what with all the unimaginably horrible things people do to their children these days.
     
  20. 4Jacy

    4Jacy New Member

    Messages:
    3,209
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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....
     
  21. azwriter

    azwriter Sister Mary Wanna

    Messages:
    4,217
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, the parents were at the time never suspected. But, for some interesting reading, there are books printed in the last decade that question the investigation of the kidnapping and how Linbergh ran the investigation instead of law enforcement. If you like sleuthing, this is a case that has many flaws and questions in whether or not the right person was arrested, tried, convicted and put to death. Check it out.

    just my O
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice