Are WE to blame for being suspicious?

[MamaK]

I'm with AnaTeresa on this one. I don't think it's necessarily "wrong" per say to jump to the conclusion that the primary caregiver did something with the baby. I just think it's really sad. That kind of attitude may be why the parents in this case stopped freely talking to police and sought legal council so early on. After watching this case, I know if (god forbid) my kids should ever come up missing out of their cribs, I'm going to make sure I have legal council present ASAP... even if I have an ironclad allibi.

From what I've seen in this case, many individuals decided the DB's guilt early on. Then, every little thing turns into some kind of indicator of her sociopathy or narcissitic personality... and it's fueled by anger. Much of this anger, I honestly believe, is misplaced from the CA trial. The public is ready for a lynching after that trial IMO. MOO

 

[mrye4709]

I agree and I think she is right, too. I don't know if she is guilty, but if she is arrested than people will assume she killed her and the tips will stop. That's what I have been afraid of from the beginning when people started saying she is guilty, that with every person who believed she is guilty it is one less set of eyes looking for Lisa. With LE focusing on searching wooded areas (I know they have to) it made it seem like they were looking for a body and not a live baby.

 

[Taminator]

If you are an INNOCENT person, how long do you continue to allow yourself to be badgered into interrogation? Fourteen hours? Twenty hours? As long as it takes?

Really, I'm not trying to be snarky, but if I have told LE everything that I know that I thought could help them, why would I subject myself to their continuous questioning and accusing before I quit talking? Every minute that they would keep me there could be time I could use to find my child.

 

[Chris_Texas]

Ayn Rand, is that you??

Yes. It being Halloween season I am posting from beyond the grave.

Humans might be distinguished by their ability to reason, but we also are capable, and at times yes, hampered by, emotion, which often has nothing to do with logic and reason. Ask any seasoned detective what role a hunch often plays in breaking a case, and how often that hunch might be considered illogical or unreasonable by others.

A "hunch" is just another way of saying that you are considering an option based on questions or data that you are not consciously aware of or cannot quantify. A hunch would only rarely contradict available evidence.

Statistics might say that family is most often involved in cases like this, but there are those that don't fit the statistical norm.

And the statistics reflect this. They tell us nothing more than what you just said, except with greater precision. Further, assumning the data is available, they even tell us in which cases these exceptions are most likely to occur, broken down by the numbers.

If we wish to follow a case purely logically, as you say a man's job is, then evidence needs to be followed, and so far as we know, there is none to point to mom or dad. Drinking is not evidence of murder. Drinking after the kids are in bed, or while they're watching a movie in bed, isn't evidence of murder. I'd say it's not even evidence of neglect: otherwise many of us who grew up with older generation parents, for whom quite a few cocktails or beers and cigarettes were the staple of any social gathering, could consider ourselves products of abusive or neglectful childhoods.

I agree. Each of these things is evidence only of itself. Each of us must then decide for ourselves if this information leads to any conclusions about what likely occured.

Further, the lack of evidence against the parents means both parents, not just mom. I notice you reserve most of your suspicion for her alone, yet the circumstances of the evening that Lisa went missing could equally allow for a suspicion against dad.

I am absolutely open to Dad being involved.

Add me to the opinion that there's some evidence of sexism in your attitude. You were, after all, the one who earlier back in the case accused those of us who found it interesting that the teen was the only reported person to have had a DNA sample taken of being scared of men, teen men in particular.

I believe baseless accusations of this kind say more about the accuser then the accused.

I'm not impressed by implications that men are some sort of victim when it comes to looking at who commits a crime. After all, I think logic and statistics would bear out the fact tha the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by men.

No question. I might assume, based on this statement, that you then have no problem using statistics as a foundation for your opinion, but your earlier statement in this post seems to contradict this.

 

[Chris_Texas]

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.

Nice post. Responding to the bolded section specifically: The leap is not that far when you have a missing or dead child.

 

[Chris_Texas]

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.

Mom, by her own admission, placed a sick infant into her crib then went outside and drank so much wine she might have suffered a black out. Again, by her own admission, she never again checked on her child. And worse, by her own admission she sees nothing wrong or even questionable about this behavior. Hell, she PLANNED on getting that blasted.

Then, knowing her child was missing and in mortal danger (assuming she is innocent), she proceeded to decieve the police and media, inventing a fable in which she checked on her child at eleven that evening and saw the little cherub asleep in bed. This lie about the last time the baby was seen is significant, and might well spell the difference between catching an escaping bad guy or not.

Further, we have no idea when or why her boy was in bed with her -- assuming he ever was. And if her black out story is not also a lie, she also has no idea when and why her boy was there.

None of this automatically makes her a killer, but let's not pretend that this woman was mother of the year.

 

[Chris_Texas]

I'm with AnaTeresa on this one. I don't think it's necessarily "wrong" per say to jump to the conclusion that the primary caregiver did something with the baby. I just think it's really sad. That kind of attitude may be why the parents in this case stopped freely talking to police and sought legal council so early on. After watching this case, I know if (god forbid) my kids should ever come up missing out of their cribs, I'm going to make sure I have legal council present ASAP... even if I have an ironclad allibi.

From what I've seen in this case, many individuals decided the DB's guilt early on. Then, every little thing turns into some kind of indicator of her sociopathy or narcissitic personality... and it's fueled by anger. Much of this anger, I honestly believe, is misplaced from the CA trial. The public is ready for a lynching after that trial IMO. MOO

Good post.

 

[HMSHood]

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

It is horrible that a kid is kidnapped by someone they know. And no, we have no reason to be suspicious. The sad fact is most kidnappings are committed by family members or someone close to the family like a friend or relative. Those do not get much publicity unless that child is kidnapped by a parent and taken to another country where that parent is originally from.

2,000 missing child report per a day translates into 83 per an hour or 2 per a minute.

From the statistics, assuming 200,000 out of 800,000 are missing and kidnapped by family members, that is about 25 percent. As for the 58,000 out of 800,000, that is 7.25 percent. As for "stereotypical" kidnapping, that is 0.01 percent. I wonder where the other 600,000 are since it mentions 200,000, 58,000, and 115.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I know the statistics say that 115 children are victims of stereotypical kidnappings every year, but I feel we don't hear about anywhere near that number on WS. I would think that those cases would get at least one article by the local news and it would be posted here. We hear about cases of teenagers who runaway, so why wouldn't we hear about all (or almost) 115 cases of children kidnapped by a stranger? But I remember someone at the NCMEC said that Kyron was classified as a stereotypical kidnapping even though it's obvious the focus has been on his stepmom, Terri, so perhaps a lot of unsolved cases are put in the stereotypical kidnapping category when they really aren't? Like Lisa and Aliayah might be in that category even though it's not a confirmed stranger abduction? It just seems weird to me that the vast majority of those cases are being completely ignored by their local media even though they are very sensational and rare.

 

[Linda7NJ]

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.

Quite a few of those cases shouldn't be included. Hailee Cummings, Kyron

 

[MyBelle]

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.

GMAB. DB herself admitted on national television to getting drunk while 3 children were in her care and one of them disappeared. That's not good mothering. If she wants to clean up her public image, I suggest she get herself into rehab.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

If you are an INNOCENT person, how long do you continue to allow yourself to be badgered into interrogation? Fourteen hours? Twenty hours? As long as it takes?

Really, I'm not trying to be snarky, but if I have told LE everything that I know that I thought could help them, why would I subject myself to their continuous questioning and accusing before I quit talking? Every minute that they would keep me there could be time I could use to find my child.

If you are an INNOCENT person, the dumbest thing you can do is go on national television, make it all about yourself and whine about those trying to find your missing child.

I have yet to see a positive outcome in a missing person case when the parent or lawyer gets publicly nasty with the law enforcement agencies trying to find the missing person.

JMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

If you are an INNOCENT person, the dumbest thing you can do is go on national television, make it all about yourself and whine about those trying to find your missing child.

I have yet to see a positive outcome in a missing person case when the parent or lawyer gets publicly nasty with the law enforcement agencies trying to find the missing person.

JMO

IMO

Innocent people do NOT behave that way. There is no need to. Only the guilty make it all about themselves whine, complain and attack LE.

 

[LinasK]

GMAB. DB herself admitted on national television to getting drunk while 3 children were in her care and one of them disappeared. That's not good mothering. If she wants to clean up her public image, I suggest she get herself into rehab.

JMO

I totally agree, there is NO "adult time" to get drunk when you are the sole caretaker for kids- did it ever occur to her that they could wake up during the night???:doh: What if one of them got sick, was hungry/thirsty, injured, or had nightmares??? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[CharlestonGal]

I totally agree, there is NO "adult time" to get drunk when you are the sole caretaker for kids- did it ever occur to her that they could wake up during the night???:doh: What if one of them got sick, was hungry/thirsty, injured, or had nightmares??? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Or the house catches fire? Or an intruder comes in through a window or door left unlocked in your drunken stupor and maybe, oh, kidnaps your infant?

According to the interview, DB feels perfectly entitled to her "adult time" when the children are asleep and according to her she drinks like that a couple of times a week. She finds this all perfectly normal and justifiable. She even goes so far as to say that everyone who drinks has things they can't remember later, and doesn't even see THAT as a big deal.

I don't believe it has occured to her that it is her obligation and job to protect her children 24/7 and how is she supposed to do that if she is substance impaired?

Makes me wonder what other horrifying parenting practices she finds acceptable. I think this one night is just the tip of the iceberg of bad parenting going on in that house.

I mean really, would you hire a babysitter that thinks it's OK to have between 5 and 10 glasses of wine and then passes out with the window open and door unlocked and your children unsupervised? I think most parents would have a complete fit about it and would certainly never hire that sitter again and would warn others not to, either.

Why is this scenario OK just because it's the mother doing it? DB has some very strange ideas about appropriate parenting and responsible drinking.

 

[MamaK]

Or the house catches fire? Or an intruder comes in through a window or door left unlocked in your drunken stupor and maybe, oh, kidnaps your infant?

According to the interview, DB feels perfectly entitled to her "adult time" when the children are asleep and according to her she drinks like that a couple of times a week. She finds this all perfectly normal and justifiable. She even goes so far as to say that everyone who drinks has things they can't remember later, and doesn't even see THAT as a big deal.

I don't believe it has occured to her that it is her obligation and job to protect her children 24/7 and how is she supposed to do that if she is substance impaired?

Makes me wonder what other horrifying parenting practices she finds acceptable. I think this one night is just the tip of the iceberg of bad parenting going on in that house.

I mean really, would you hire a babysitter that thinks it's OK to have between 5 and 10 glasses of wine and then passes out with the window open and door unlocked and your children unsupervised? I think most parents would have a complete fit about it and would certainly never hire that sitter again and would warn others not to, either.

Why is this scenario OK just because it's the mother doing it? DB has some very strange ideas about appropriate parenting and responsible drinking.

But does it mean that she murdered her child?

 

[CharlestonGal]

But does it mean that she murdered her child?

I didn't say she did.

 

[Abby Normal]

No. Everyone bases their judgment on experience.

Personally I DO tend to fault people who don't remain objective, or who seem led by "feelings" on a case- but nobody should take that personally because my faulting someone for faulting someone is sorta pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Not if the facts point you in the direction of your suspicions, no.

But I do have issues (not just in this case ,but in MANY cases), with people who like to play psychologist and diagnose people, when they have never even met the person, nor had any formal training in the field of psychology or psychiatry. When I hear the words, "She's clearly a sociopath" or " Aha! Post natal psychosis!" , first I cringe, and then I laugh until I can't catch my breath. And then I cringe again.

Just something that bugs me personally. I don't even like it when professionals on TV try to diagnose people they have never spoken with in a professional capacity.

 

[NancyA]

Or the house catches fire? Or an intruder comes in through a window or door left unlocked in your drunken stupor and maybe, oh, kidnaps your infant?

According to the interview, DB feels perfectly entitled to her "adult time" when the children are asleep and according to her she drinks like that a couple of times a week. She finds this all perfectly normal and justifiable. She even goes so far as to say that everyone who drinks has things they can't remember later, and doesn't even see THAT as a big deal.

I don't believe it has occured to her that it is her obligation and job to protect her children 24/7 and how is she supposed to do that if she is substance impaired?

Makes me wonder what other horrifying parenting practices she finds acceptable. I think this one night is just the tip of the iceberg of bad parenting going on in that house.

I mean really, would you hire a babysitter that thinks it's OK to have between 5 and 10 glasses of wine and then passes out with the window open and door unlocked and your children unsupervised? I think most parents would have a complete fit about it and would certainly never hire that sitter again and would warn others not to, either.

Why is this scenario OK just because it's the mother doing it? DB has some very strange ideas about appropriate parenting and responsible drinking.

No I wouldn't, I doubt if anyone here would make a conscious decision to endanger their children but I have to ask ask how many would admit to hiring a babysitter, going on a night out, coming home after having a few drinks and sending the babysitter home ..... or has everyone else always been so perfectly far-sighted as to always have at least one adult always there as the 'designated in loco parentis' ?

I dunno, mea culpa, today I have two healthy, well-adjusted, happy, grown sons I probably don't deserve to have because, hand on heart, thinking back and going off today's standards I must have been one horribly inadequate parent. I didn't always think through EVERY possible scenario of what could go wrong if I did 'X' and 'Y' happened and then what if 'W'? I wish I had had ALL potential threats to my children's safety neatly mapped out on some flowchart to pin on my fridge and then they and I wouldn't have to go through any of the near misses and, yes, actual accidents that happened and scared the carp outta me. Those incidents were salutary warnings in the forefront of my mind ever after but only after they happened. There but for the grace of God and all that.