Baby Lisa's brothers to be questioned and DNA tested

[raeann]

I can see them interviewing the boys (and maybe should have demanded it sooner, as they supposedly were the only other ones home) but taking DNA samples. Somethings up with that. Could one of the brothers have harmed the baby??

The police statement posted above in this thread states clearly that both of the boys WERE INTERVIEWED at the very beginning of this case. This will now be a second set of interviews.

 

[Donjeta]

Why is the DNA swab thing news now?

http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552279.pdf

The October 21 press release by CS already said: "They have consented to buccal swabs for themselves and their kids."

Have DB and JI not been swabbed yet either? :waitasec:

 

[Geralyn]

"We are expecting to collect DNA samples," Snapp said. "It will be very non-intrusive, pretty much just a Q-tip swab." Snapp said some DNA samples, currently in a lab, that were collected from the house are labeled "unknown" and they want to use the boys' DNA to eliminate some of the unknown samples.'

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-irwin-infants-brothers-submit-dna/story?id=14817602

Wow, so there are some unidentified samples. Thanks for this.
I am still surprised this is being done (swabbing the children) so long after the fact. Gosh, seems like the kind of thing that would be done very early on, sampling all who live there. :waitasec:

 

[Geralyn]

This report says the parents are only *considering* the childrens interview?

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-pol...m_campaign=Feed:+wdaf-news+(FOX4KC+Local+News)

 

[Donjeta]

I can see them interviewing the boys (and maybe should have demanded it sooner, as they supposedly were the only other ones home) but taking DNA samples. Somethings up with that. Could one of the brothers have harmed the baby??

They wouldn't be able to prove it from DNA samples imo, not without the baby.

I think it's just standard operating procedure to have the DNA for everybody at the home for elimination purposes. You can't say something is an intruder's DNA if you don't know it doesn't belong to anybody whose DNA has legitimate reason to be at the home.

Also, if they don't have Lisa's own DNA they would have to identify her body with relative's DNA and on the UID forum it was said that there is a better chance to get a Codis hit the more relatives have given samples.

 

[mck16]

TY-here is the article I was referencing and a snip:
http://www.kmbc.com/news/29590466/detail.html#ixzz1bu2n0abk

(CNN) -- The half-brothers of a missing Missouri girl, who were in the family's home the night the 11-month-old disappeared, will be re-interviewed by authorities on Friday, Kansas City police said Wednesday.​

Lisa Irwin's brothers, who reportedly are ages 8 and 5, will be interviewed by a "child services specialist trained to interview kids," Kansas City police Capt. Steve Young said. The interview will be non-confrontational, he said, and a police officer won't even be in the room. ​

"Not an interrogation," he said. "They are kids, after all." ​

The boys were interviewed just after Lisa disappeared, both for under an hour, Young said.​

Did anyone ever reveal who interviewed them then? tia

 

[Wendy101]

I can see them interviewing the boys (and maybe should have demanded it sooner, as they supposedly were the only other ones home) but taking DNA samples. Somethings up with that. Could one of the brothers have harmed the baby??

This certainly makes sense when watching these parents in action - seems to me they are fiercely protectiving someone. I feel Dehrahs feeling are true, she is heartbroken ...BUT.. I think she knows what happened, after the fact.
The way they butt heads (especially Debrah) with the LE makes me think they want LE to just walk way and not look for Lisa for some reason....

IMO: This was an accident that happend & was covered up.

I also think the parents had no choice but comply with the LE in regards to interviewing and DNA samples of the boys.

 

[tehcloser]

From GERA'S link:


She says that the parents have been reluctant to talk to police after they said that the questioning turned into accusations.

But Short did say that the family was currently considering the idea that the child's two brothers will be interviewed about the case on Friday by a non-law enforcement specialist, not by detectives. The boys were last interviewed the day after their sister disappeared.

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-pol...m_campaign=Feed:+wdaf-news+(FOX4KC+Local+News

 

[Geralyn]

They wouldn't be able to prove it from DNA samples imo, not without the baby.

I think it's just standard operating procedure to have the DNA for everybody at the home for elimination purposes. You can't say something is an intruder's DNA if you don't know it doesn't belong to anybody whose DNA has legitimate reason to be at the home.

Also, if they don't have Lisa's own DNA they would have to identify her body with relative's DNA and on the UID forum it was said that there is a better chance to get a Codis hit the more relatives have given samples.

If they have a used baby bottle, pacifier or soiled diaper, could they get the DNA from that?

 

[Donjeta]

Did anyone ever reveal who interviewed them then? tia

As a general rule, police do not interview children who are witnesses. Instead, they refer them to a child protection center, where social workers talk to the children. Police are not allowed in the room.

In the Irwin case, social workers talked to one boy for 30 minutes and the other boy for 50 minutes the day Lisa vanished. Police have not been able to send the boys back to the center.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/25/3229412/legal-dance-with-police-is-part.html#ixzz1buUrJV5w

 

[Geralyn]

From GERA'S link:


She says that the parents have been reluctant to talk to police after they said that the questioning turned into accusations.

But Short did say that the family was currently considering the idea that the child's two brothers will be interviewed about the case on Friday by a non-law enforcement specialist, not by detectives. The boys were last interviewed the day after their sister disappeared.

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-pol...m_campaign=Feed:+wdaf-news+(FOX4KC+Local+News

Thank you..I should have quoted it.
I'm stumped. I don't know which report to lean on. Concerned that someone was misquoted by media in one of those reports.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Originally Posted by katshep View Post
I agree. I think the police have found some unidentified DNA at the house and they want to question the parents separately about who was at the house that night. This whole business of DB sneak buying alcohol with her brother when she's on anti-anxiety meds combined with the across the street neighbor who has set up a system with DB to know when he can come over makes one suspect DB might be up to stuff that JI isn't supposed to know about.

Respectfully...where has it been proven that DB "snuck" to buy alcohol with her brother?

And, also, the neighbor who drank with DB that night was a "she" and did not live across the street, but next door.

But I totally agree with you that DB is up to something that JI most likely is unaware of.

 

[belleyes]

Opening a case does not equate to temporary removal of children. I work as a mentor with a few women who have open cases, but have not had "enough" to have their kids removed.

IMO, DHS would not take the kids away as a leverage technique. They have to maintain the dignity of their office as well. LE could indicate this as a strategy though, you are correct there.

IME (as a foster child/foster parent/child advocate/mentor) they are going to have to see evidence of more than just getting drunk to remove their kids. Emergency removal (most common form of removal, where removal precedes a hearing) requires justifiable indication of "imminent danger". Yes, Lisa went missing- but there is nothing public to indicate the other children are in imminent danger. Getting drunk in your home with kids is not illegal. They will need reason to believe that (sober or drunk) an action she made directly caused harm to come to Lisa, or could cause harm to her boys. Being drunk isn't enough. I do believe it will have to be more than not locking the door.

I know these statements makes me unpopular, but we don't have enough homes to provide perfect homes to all. Especially in this region with the massive meth problem, we are forced to concentrate on situations far more dire than getting drunk with your kids at home. JMO.

I think most people are very shocked at the extreme cases DHS works with.

ITA
My experience has been the same. People have no idea how horrific some situations have to be before the kids are removed. (not enough foster parents) A family can be getting "services" from CPS without an open case or their children being removed. Often times CPS will make referrals for other agencies (ie: food banks, counseling, parenting) when they get reports that are not "ranked high enough" to be opened for onging services. (which can still be in home monitoring---then if the situation worsen's they can remove the children) In my area CPS investigates any criminal acts commited by adult in a caretaker role to the child (ie: molested by a coach, daycare abuse, etc) The wrong impression a lot of people have is that CPS only steps in to remove and place kids. Most states do try their best to keep families intact, while still keeping kids safe. JMO and Experience

 

[wvjules]

I know this is O/T but that white outfit reminds me of a coverall that painters wear... like the ones the forensic techs wore.

If is this night video dark items will appear light. If that is the case then what the 'walker' is wearing is actually dark clothing.

ETA: It appears that this is a regular camera and not a night vision camera so my point is pointless now. lol

 

[mck16]

As a general rule, police do not interview children who are witnesses. Instead, they refer them to a child protection center, where social workers talk to the children. Police are not allowed in the room.

In the Irwin case, social workers talked to one boy for 30 minutes and the other boy for 50 minutes the day Lisa vanished. Police have not been able to send the boys back to the center.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/25/3229412/legal-dance-with-police-is-part.html#ixzz1buUrJV5w

Thank you. I guess what I am wondering is why all the chatter and speculation on the board about who is going to interview them. I would think they would follow the same protocol they did with the first interview. jmo

 

[norest4thewicked]

If is this night video dark items will appear light. If that is the case then what the 'walker' is wearing is actually dark clothing.

Can you please explain how this happens (unless it is infrared camera?) Thanks!

 

[~n/t~]

Why is the DNA swab thing news now?

http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552279.pdf

The October 21 press release by CS already said: "They have consented to buccal swabs for themselves and their kids."

Have DB and JI not been swabbed yet either? :waitasec:

Told you they were doing things backwards. :floorlaugh:

 

[Donjeta]

If they have a used baby bottle, pacifier or soiled diaper, could they get the DNA from that?

There should certainly be something with her DNA on it IMO.

 

[wvjules]

Can you please explain how this happens (unless it is infrared camera?) Thanks!

It is not a night vision camera so it is irrelevant now.

 

[norest4thewicked]

It is not a night vision camera so it is irrelevant now.

With all due respect, it might be irrelevant to you, but I still would like to know. Thank you.