Guilty Proclaim Innocence on TV: Video of Drew P, Scott P, Susan Smith, Mark Hacking

[askfornina]

Just to give a glimpse of the other side of the story, here are two cases where innocent parents proclaimed their innocence and weren't believed...

Julie Rae Has Been Wrongly Convicted - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I haven't read much about the Riley Fox case, I've been meaning to for a while. But, since you mentioned the case- this is interesting- Kathleen Zellner, a lawyer involved in the Fox case, was interviewed a few times by various media back in October after she spoke with Lisa's parents.


http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/region_missouri/northland/lisa's-parents-speak-to-attorney

"They're very distraught. I found them though to want so badly to try to assist in finding their daughter to do whatever they could. I mean they're in the most vulnerable position that a parent would ever be in," Zellner said.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/13/joy.01.html

KATHLEEN ZELLNER, ATTORNEY: Well, I had a very similar case in Illinois, and the father was wrongly accused and arrested and incarcerated for the murder of his daughter. And it turned out it wasn`t him. It was a perpetrator who got in the house, very similar situation, front door left open, door unlocked. The police just couldn`t imagine, since there was no signs of forced entry, that there had been a perpetrator. Finally the FBI got involved in the case, it took six years to solve it after the father had been cleared and filed a civil rights suit and all of that.

It turned out to be a sexual, you know, perpetrator who had gotten in the house, tiny house, come in through the door. Came in to rob the house, so the police realized they should have been checking out the burglary reports.

(CROSSTALK)

Ash: So did you reach out then to the Kansas City family because of your experience with -- I think that was --

ZELLNER: No, they already -- yes, they already knew about that, someone had contacted them, and they had my phone number and called. My purpose in talking to them was to tell them not to be intimidated by public opinion or guided by it.

Ash: And what about police?

Zellner: That, you know I had been through it -- also with the police, to be extremely careful.

You know, the police -- it`s fine to look at the parents, but to be interrogating the parents and accusing them of murder as the mother said within the first 11 or 12 hours isn`t the best way to get cooperation. But you know, I think the problem with police departments in these situations is a lot of times they haven`t had a lot of experience, and they`re under tremendous pressure. And we saw that in the Fox case. I mean there were so many mistakes made --

 

[Cappuccino]

So Lisa's parents were aware of the Kevin Fox debacle as far back as October? That's interesting, because that would answer the question to me about why they won't agree to be interviewed by LE without an attorney present.

 

[Melon]

So Lisa's parents were aware of the Kevin Fox debacle as far back as October? That's interesting, because that would answer the question to me about why they won't agree to be interviewed by LE without an attorney present.

BBM I see people make comments about questioning w/o counsel present from time to time and I don't think I have ever seen LE request that in this case. I just cannot see LE jeopardizing their case once the Irwin clan lawyered up and insisting they come for questioning without their counsel present. Not with as many officers and the FBI in on the case. Too many checks and balances in place to allow someone slip up and not cover all their bases in the event this case goes to trial. :moo:

The Irwin clan has had representation for a good long while and it doesn't appear they are going to be questioned any further. Why is that? JT is not assigned pro bono, he is a seasoned attorney. Do they not have faith that he can protect their rights adequately during any interviews? If so, why is he still their attorney? If they are truly innocent, and they have adequate representation, I am baffled as to why they don't agree to be interviewed. Having pondered that, to me, it's easy to conclude just why they are hiding behind their atty and keeping their mouths closed.:moo:

 

[Cappuccino]

I think alot of people have jumped to the same conclusion. People forget that they've spoken to the police several times. Maybe they just have nothing further to tell them.

Btw...

I just cannot see LE jeopardizing their case once the Irwin clan lawyered up and insisting they come for questioning without their counsel present

LE don't have any right to insist that anyone come in for questioning without an attorney present, but we all know that's what they'd really like.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I think alot of people have jumped to the same conclusion. People forget that they've spoken to the police several times. Maybe they just have nothing further to tell them.

Btw...



LE don't have any right to insist that anyone come in for questioning without an attorney present, but we all know that's what they'd really like.

They don't want to tell LE more in detail about the stolen debit card?! :what::what::what: They've only talked to LE on THREE occasions; that's definitely not what I would classify as "several". The last time was October 8, why is it so far-fetched to think LE might have more questions for them since then? Don't they want to LE about the cell phones, Megan, Jersey Joe, the blob? :dunno:

And their attorney referencing the Fox case doesn't prove to me that D&J knew about that whole debacle. That's just for PR. I doubt D&J have made any decisions regarding this case since their team signed on.

 

[Cappuccino]

They haven't spoken to LE since October 8th? Are you quite sure? They may not have been questioned in the police station since then, but I've seen it said in several MSM articles that they've had contact with the police by telephone.

(Oh, and three would indeed be classified as several).

Their attorney didn't "reference" the Fox case, she specifically said that DB and JI were already aware of it before they contacted her.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

They haven't spoken to LE since October 8th? Are you quite sure? They may not have been questioned in the police station since then, but I've seen it said in several MSM articles that they've had contact with the police by telephone.

(Oh, and three would indeed be classified as several).

Their attorney didn't "reference" the Fox case, she specifically said that DB and JI were already aware of it before they contacted her.

LE does not do questioning over the phone. If they've talked to LE over the phone, it was probably LE asking them to come in for an interview, D&J refusing, and then D&J hanging up on LE. 3 might be several, but it's not many. It's obvious that they don't give a darn about finding their daughter...I wonder why?

Well, if they know about the Fox case, then they definitely know about the Ramsey case, since that's a much more well-known case. Hmm, in that case, the parents also didn't talk to LE (although they talked a lot more than D&J...shocking) and never went on trial for murder, so that's more likely to be their "inspiration". I wonder what other cases D&J know about? I thought Deborah only meant Caylee's case, when she said she followed crime cases, but if she knows about Riley, then there's no reason to think she doesn't know about a lot of other high-profile cases.

 

[redheadedgal]

again--

THREAD TOPIC:

Guilty Proclaim Innocence on TV: Video of Drew P, Scott P, Susan Smith, Mark Hacking... Let's compare them with the parents

 

[Cappuccino]

LE does not do questioning over the phone.

Yes they do. In another case I follow the only interview with one of the two people whose DNA was found at the crime scene is a telephone interview, even though the man says in the transcript that he's willing to come into the police station and talk to them.

If they've talked to LE over the phone, it was probably LE asking them to come in for an interview, D&J refusing, and then D&J hanging up on LE.

Not according to what I've read. LE say they've spoken many times with the parents over the phone because they ring up with tips or questions, and that none of those have yet lead anywhere.

It's obvious that they don't give a darn about finding their daughter...I wonder why?

Its obvious that a lot of people have rushed to judgement about them. You'll see exactly the same rush to judgement if you click on the two links I posted above. In those two cases the parents turned out to be innocent, it remains to be seen what will happen in this one.

Well, if they know about the Fox case, then they definitely know about the Ramsey case, since that's a much more well-known case. Hmm, in that case, the parents also didn't talk to LE (although they talked a lot more than D&J...shocking) and never went on trial for murder, so that's more likely to be their "inspiration". I wonder what other cases D&J know about? I thought Deborah only meant Caylee's case, when she said she followed crime cases, but if she knows about Riley, then there's no reason to think she doesn't know about a lot of other high-profile cases.

Maybe she does. If so, that would explain why she had the sense not to allow LE to question her again and again. She has two other children to think about, getting herself locked up in prison for a crime she didn't commit is hardly going to help them.

 

[redheadedgal]

again--

THREAD TOPIC:

Guilty Proclaim Innocence on TV: Video of Drew P, Scott P, Susan Smith, Mark Hacking... Let's compare them with the parents

:banghead:

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

You cannot get away with murder when you haven't proven that the missing person is dead.

Perhaps this is true in the legal sense but not, imo, in the literal sense.

Baby Lisa could very well already be in Heaven, murdered but not yet proven.

Certainly we must all agree that in this point in time someone is guilty of something because Baby Lisa is not where she should be.

It would help if her parents would talk with LE; then maybe they wouldn't be compared to the cases in the thread title.

 

[hambirg]

Just to give a glimpse of the other side of the story, here are two cases where innocent parents proclaimed their innocence and weren't believed...

Julie Rae Has Been Wrongly Convicted - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

These cases are VERY different than this case!

Joel was much older than Lisa. If Lisa was 10yrs old, instead of 10mos old, I might entertain the thought that a stranger came in and took her for nefarious reasons. But she wasn't, so I don't.

There was a crime scene in Joel's case. . .not Lisa's, as far as we know. That implies a few different possibilities, several which could be a non-intentional soft crime, likely committed by somebody she knew.

In Riley's case, there were signs of forced entry. Not here.

Riley was taken elsewhere, so no dog hit in the house. That dog hit suggests Lisa died in that house.

Riley was "dumped," for a lack of a better word. She was quickly found, which profiling will tell you implies a stranger. Lisa has not been found after all this time and searching. This implies that someone took the time and forethought to hide her. This does not fit the stranger profile.

MOO

 

[Melon]

I think alot of people have jumped to the same conclusion. People forget that they've spoken to the police several times. Maybe they just have nothing further to tell them.
Btw...



LE don't have any right to insist that anyone come in for questioning without an attorney present, but we all know that's what they'd really like.

BBM: I don't equate talking on the phone and passing notes to a formal interview. Neither are adequate when someone could be brutalzing your child day in and day out. Their rights can be protected by their counsel, yet they still stonewall. If you want to do the best for your missing child, you allow LE to conduct their investigation on their terms, per their policies and procedures. You do not have to chuck your own rights out the window to do so. From the last statements by KCPD, there was still plenty of questions they needed answered, to say the Irwin camp has nothing left to say is a cop-out at best. If they are innocent, leaving LE hanging with unanswered questions is inexplicable. Not allowing yourselves to be cleared from the investigation so LE can focus somewhere else is baffling.


There is a distinct lack of desperation on the part of JI and DB. They try some window dressing here and there, it falls short. Despite their television appearances and the paltry few little public displays they have put on, they are roadblocking justice for their daughter.