Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Originally posted by OneisOne

Originally posted by Dav1d
What do you hear in this?

"You can speculate on (whether) she was taken and abducted and whatever, but you concentrate on what is probable, what most likely happened here, and see where that takes you," Bernard said.  Read more: www.kmbc.com...

That is an acknowledgement by a lead  investigator that KCPD is NOT following where the case leads, but rather concentrating (focusing their effort) on the most probable, (what they believe happen). When you acknowledge a willingness to focus on the most probable, you are simultaneously acknowledging a willingness to ignore less probable things for a time. Dane comes to mind, as just one example. It is most probable that the parents did it, so KCPD ignores the connection to Dane when Dane first surfaces. Now KCPD decides to go back once again to pursue Dane, but Dane has had ample time to flee...this is the mindset of one who has limited resources, and is willing to roll the dice! What evidence has been lost, compromised, and destroyed, because someone made the choice not to pursue now? We can go back to the beginning and wonder where we might be now, if the choice had not been made to check sewers, and landfills during those precious first 48 hours that can never be recovered! 

While I appreciate the point you are making David, that was not spoken by a lead investigator on this case.

From your link:

A recently retired Kansas City police officer knows what investigators are facing. As a sergeant in the department's homicide unit, Dave Bernard dealt with a major case of his own.

Bernard retired from the Kansas City Police Department in September, just days before Lisa Irwin vanished. He doesn't have inside information on the case, but he said he knows from experience how police and FBI agents are approaching the case.

Like I said, I understand your point, but he has not been involved with this case.
OiO

I never stated he was involved with this case, I simply stated he was a lead investigator, which he was.

Bernard was the lead investigator in the Precious Doe murder case. The case, which began with the discovery of a headless child's body in 2001, remained unsolved for four years until the girl was identified as Erica Green and her parents were held responsible. Read more: www.kmbc.com...

Precious Doe was another child murder case, one that took years for KCPD to solve. There are similarities between the cases, we can hope that this case does not take years to solve, but sadly the DA doesn't believe this is likely. There has been talk of stats in this thread. And how the stats point to the involvement of Deborah and Jeremy, well other stats can be pointed to as well. In the last half of 2011 there has been the death of at least 3 very young children, it took how long to solve the case of Tyler Dasher, by another MO Police department? Hours... We know that Precious Doe took years, and we are being told this case is likely to as well! Perhaps it's time to question why KCPD takes so many years to resolve this type of case? Just why statistically speaking KCPD takes such a sigificantly longer time to resolve these types of cases. On average what is the chance that in any given decade a city will have an infant murder by their parent and claim it was abducted?

Originally posted by Dav1d





The baby was sold and the abduction story is the cover story. The Irwins were desperate for money, figured they could always have "another" and didn't want to deal with legal adoption and family/friends' criticism.

Originally posted by Dav1d
This is a popular theory, but one I find incredibly flawed.

But what is the text-book way to act in black-market baby selling then?
I mean, unless the parent(s) live in a remote part of the country where a baby wouldn't be noticed missing then, waving your hands and calling in the cops would be expected. You HAVE to at least pretend you didn't actually sell your baby!

I guess I like this one the best because in my intuitive nature, I just don't feel this baby is dead. I just don't get that vibe. In fact, I feel she's in warm climate. But I can't crack a case based on my feelings. I know that.

I think Ma and Pa are at minimum, acting disingenuous! And I further feel LE are playing tactful mind games with them in an attempt to make them say something contradictory. Deborah and Jeremy aren't the sharpest people on this planet so they're bond to mess up sooner or later.
Again, just my hunch!

What's the latest?

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Dav1d

 

David, I did not say , imply or even think that we HANG the parents every time. This is you putting words into my mouth.

Parents do it most of the time which is why parents must be looked at . If you think the stats are false, that's fine. Just look at the last 10 years how many missing children were found to be parental involvement. Thats your own memory. Trust it if you won't trust the stats.

Where did I state that you said hang them? Where did I state you think we should hang them?

Schmae is English perhaps a second language for you? Do you not understand the sigificants of a question mark? This is becoming rather old, your accusation that someone is putting words in your mouth! To put words in your mouth, I would need to misquote you! Please provide where I have misquoted you. Or retract your statement that I have! You wish to presume that parents are guilty, great! My question, mine ~ not yours, is just what form this presumption will take?

No one here has suggested that the KCPD ignore the possibility that Deborah or Jeremy are guilty. Simply that until the KCPD has enough evidence, (real evidence, not just hopeful assumptions) don't treat them as if they are guilty, don't accuse a person of a crime, until you have enough evidence to arrest them. Think about, your child is missing, and the KCPD tells you that they KNOW you've killed your child.

You accuse me of "...putting words into my mouth." (that is a quote, those are your words) I go out of my way to quote your entire thought, unlike some here that selectively pull a sentence out of context. My impression is you are upset with me; I can but imagine how upset you would be with the KCPD if they had accused you of killing your child!

Originally posted by Human_Alien


But what is the text-book way to act in black-market baby selling then?

Please list the names, and towns/dates of missing toddlers or younger who it is alledged have been taken by persons unknown from their home this year?

Do you recall Jahessye Shockley yet another little girl missing...

Not everyone gets on TV. not everyone has endless photos of their child that they want to publish. Yes report the missing child to the police, but it doesn't need to go further than that. One doesn't need to create a $100,000 reward.

I mean, unless the parent(s) live in a remote part of the country where a baby wouldn't be noticed missing then, waving your hands and calling in the cops would be expected. You HAVE to at least pretend you didn't actually sell your baby!

Move from one area to another, if you are moving accross the country, there are many areas where no one would know how many children you should have. If question it can always be claimed the other parent has full custody of the child, and you don't know where they are.

Certainly sigificantly cheaper than this circus. For $100,000 one could buy a home in many areas, a home where no one would really know how many children one should have with blended families now days.

So let's say for purpose of argument that 95% of the time it is a parent. Do we automatically take all parents in missing kid cases and hang them on the assumption they did it?

If by this, you meant should we as a nation hang them, then absolutely not. My apologies for assuming you were not speaking hypothetically. A lot of folks have said that because someone is pointing the finger at mom, that we've got her ' convicted' ,even way earlier someone said 'executed' . I think convict, execute and hang are way strong terms when someone is just SUSPECTING the parent.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Second language, yes.

Jeremy's ex...and mother to his son is making more demands above and beyond the custody battle

Mom of missing KC baby's half-brother says photos of him should be removed from websites

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — The mother of the half-brother of a missing Kansas City baby wants photos of her 8-year-old son removed from websites during the investigation.

Another one I forgot to add:

Prosecutor mum on grand jury in baby's disappearance

I cannot count on my laptop to watch streaming videos anymore...for some reason all streaming (youtube etc) vids have really poor sound...so I don't know if the video differs from the text below

An edit to add....looks like a possibility Dane is back in town!! There was a link posted a while ago that didn't seem on the up and up so I didn't post it...but now there is another post on facebook from Ron Rugen. (who I hate but I don't see him lying about it) Here's the link and the quote from Rugen on FB(posted about an hour ago according to FB (it's 9:53pm here)

Rugen Team Investigations, LLC Missouri Private Investigator Dane, the man who was using Megan Wright's phone much of the evening the night Baby Lisa Irwin disappeared, was in Kansas City today. He returned to his former home and said he had been away on a hunting trip. The house member gave him the phone number of a KCPD detective telling him they wanted to ask him questions. He left. I then received a text advising me of this. On the way over to check on the ladies there to make sure everybody was okay, I called KCPD. Upon arrival, I suggested they call KCPD and they did.

Link to Dane back in KC story

Michelle

Originally posted by schmae
So let's say for purpose of argument that 95% of the time it is a parent. Do we automatically take all parents in missing kid cases and hang them on the assumption they did it?

If by this, you meant should we as a nation hang them, then absolutely not. My apologies for assuming you were not speaking hypothetically. A lot of folks have said that because someone is pointing the finger at mom, that we've got her ' convicted' ,even way earlier someone said 'executed' . I think convict, execute and hang are way strong terms when someone is just SUSPECTING the parent.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Second language, yes.

I apologize then. Somethings are less clear in English than in other languages.

There is a difference between suspicion, and accusation that difference is often distinguish by behavior or tone, in this means of communication it is hard to perceive that tone, or intent. From my perspective I don't have an issue with KCPD perceiving Deborah or Jeremy as suspicious, (they are and should remain so until Lisa is found) watch them, follow them, investigate them, pull the records of their cellphones, look at their credit card expendures, look at their bank withdrawals, build a case against them if you can. What I object to is assuming they are the only one that could have possibly have done this, or the choice to not concurrently investigate other possibilities simply because they (Deborah and Jeremy) are the most likely to have done it.
I've heard so many times on this thread how Deborah and Jeremy are poor parents, and they should do any and everything to get Lisa back. Yet Deborah and Jeremy, have two other children, and they can not forget that fact. They need to think how their actions today may effect their other children tomorrow. My perecption is KCPD is out to convict Deborah and Jeremy of a crime, that KCPD is no longer actively seeking to find Lisa, but rather KCPD sees Lisa as a means to convict Deborah of a crime. Nothing that Deborah does, will change that perception at this point in time. At best nothing she says changes their mindset at all. Or they simply hear in her words, the things that convinces them all the more that they are right. I think, (from the link I posted tonight, that KCPD DOES NOT approach these kinds of cases with an open mind), willing to go where the leads/clues take them, but rather with a closed mind, searching for the things that prove what they assume. That kind of attitude becomes self fulfilling over time, given enough time this attitude will result in only parents committing these types of crimes, because the police ignore all clues that don't point to the parents. This is NOT justice, just a witch hunt, where yes sadly a number are actually witches, but that doesn't make everyone a witch! There is an old saying that none are so blind as those who will not see. The police here are unwilling to see, anything but the most probable, and they see that as good! They police are actually proud of their blindness. Yes we can sit around and theorize they proclaim but when it's time to do real police work we go out and play the odds...
With that attitude, if you can't afford your own investigators you'll have no chance of justice, because the police don't have their eyes open, are NOT looking where the evidence leads/points, but rather where the odds point. Over time people learn the system, they KNOW the attitude, what KPCD wants. And so they get caught for something else, and cut a deal. They claim they helped Deborah, in exchange for immunity. They testify against Deborah, and the DA tells Deborah, we have witness that will swear they saw/help you get rid of Lisa. Here are your two options, confess and do five years, or deny it and I'll put you in a hellhold for the next thirty years, you'll be an old woman before you ever wall the streets again. You've got 5 minutes decide, now. What will it be? You want to go the court route you'll get an overwork public defender, or you'll go so deep in debt paying your lawyer, you'll be a slave the rest of your life.

How many will actually choose to fight?
How many will get a public defender with the time and resources to really fight?
And how many will choose to take the easy way out?
How many with the DA telling them this is your only chance to have a life again, and a public defender telling them it's a good deal, there are no guarantees if you role the dice and go to court. Will choose court?
Something to think about.

The mother of the half-brother of a missing Kansas City baby wants photos of her 8-year-old son removed from websites during the investigation.

Regardless if this is an opinion from a mother who's relationship with her son is 'questionable' at best - she's right. I've never believed under age children should have their faces plastered all over the news. Lisa, of course, we've no choice - she's the one missing. But there's no reason for those boys pics to be 'out there'. It wouldn't happen here that's for sure.

peace

Prosecutor mum on grand jury in baby's disappearance

Clay County's prosecutor declined to discuss the investigation into the disappearance of then 10-month-old Lisa Irwin.

Prosecutor Dan White had asked Clay County grand jurors to meet on the case in October. He subpoenaed local media outlets for raw materials, which the media outlets fought. The request was stayed.

White said Tuesday that he could not discuss specifics of the case, but he said Clay County does not call special grand juries.

I’m glad we’re beginning to hear more about the Grand Jury. I’ve no idea how it ‘works’ and admit to being pretty ignorant about the judicial system in this case. I can’t wait to learn more.

Here’s something I find pretty important thought:

"There's no case," CNN quoted spokesman Jim Roberts as saying. "If it gets solved, it'll get solved years from now."

White said it was an offhand remark taken out of context by the reporter.

"That was a mischaracterization of what Mr. Roberts said," White said. "It was an offhanded comment he probably regrets at this time and wishes he hadn't made."

White said "no comment" when asked specific questions about the investigation and whether he believes an arrest will be made in connection with Lisa's disappearance.

So, not only was it a misquote, but this ‘clearing up’ of information gives the strong impression there’s a lot more to this case ‘known’ than ‘not’...

We can only hope!

peace

Statement Analysis

Well, here's someone who tells it like they feel it without pulling punches. Ouch.

I don’t agree - on all points - but I do believe it’s a pretty good representation of public opinion of the time.
Regardless we have to remember this is just another opinion.

I’ll not post the meat of the opinion - the author used words like ‘selfish, neglectful mother and a weak, effeminate, abdicating father.’ But it’s there for you to read at the link.

The below? There’s a lot of evidential truth in what the author’s posting. Meaning - the truth we gain off what evidence we have. It ultimately might not be the ‘absolute truth’ - but for now?...

Bradley invented the "stranger abduction" story. Police know it, the lawyers know it, and America knows it. Her deception was not difficult to discern, even before her story started to change.

She has good reason to not want Lisa's remains recovered and has done everything possible, including stalling interviews for the boys, right to refusing to allow her bedroom to be searched, to keep America from finding Lisa.

We will find Lisa, and technology is such that we will learn what fate befell her, but America's guesses are not too far off the mark.

Though the author chooses words much harsher than I’d like to use - the thought process is still the same.

IF (a BIG IF) the parents are guilty? Time is in fact on Lisa’s side.

Your conscience will eat away at you, through to the marrow, and weaken every joint in your body until you no longer know where it hurts because it will hurt everywhere.

You will go mad keeping this secret. You will slowly, steadily, but without fail, lose your mind and your health from this one secret.

Again, IF, the parents are guilty - time will solve the case that no reporter, no police dept., no ‘arm chair’ detectives can.

So unless the Grand Jury has some surprises up their judicial sleeves - It’s all up to time. And time can’t hold a secret for forever.

The author of the pieces accuses Jeremy of being a co-conspirator - asking in the same breath how long that will last. How long will he be able to live with ‘that’.

Ugly stuff all the way around. Most of the anger, it seems, from this opinion sparks off the death of the little boy recovered in the vicinity of the ‘Brad-Win’ home.

I’m surprised, and not a little disappointed ‘Statement Analysis’ isn’t opening up the thought process to any other possibility (an abductor) but instead returns to pounding the nails in the parents cross. The author must really be under conviction they 'did it'.

peace

VERY INTERESTING INFO!

B iological Mother Wants Custody of Baby Lisa's Brother

But that's not the interesting part in full: Keep reading.

The info is all on video - a must listen. Here's some highlights:

- The mother wants ‘her’ boy back/removed.

- Legal analyst and prosecuting attorneys giving the below (rough) opinions:

- Focusing on the Irwin family - Lisa is still missing - the mother changed the time line repeatedly and was so drunk she couldn’t tell what happened. (Blah blah blah we’ve all heard this.)

- Off of this info is where the bio-mom will make a case for her child. BUT. The bio-mom is NOT a good mother. You have to be a terrible mother to loose your child and get no custody/visitation rights at all.

It makes no sense and it isn’t going to work.

Until you think of the twist!!!

So what does that mean? It’s going to go to family court.

Family court isn’t going to give that boy back to the bio-mom. But what family court could do? Family court could FORCE supervision in the home...(!!!) instead of removing the child.

AND! (Here’s the great part!)

The judge in this case could COMPEL TESTIMONY BY THE PARENTS and have a FULL HEARING about LISA'S DISAPPEARANCE in the family court. It could go full hearing - THAT WAY!

My opinion:

There’s someone behind the bio-mother pushing her - and it isn’t for her son. The bio-mom can’t cash in on this. She doesn’t want her son which she’s proved repeatedly - family members said she didn’t even bother to go to the custody hearing!

Someone’s offering the bio-mom something to push for custody - and it isn't her son. I’ll bet'cha!

peace

reply to post by silo13


There is 2 ways a Prosecuting / Distric Attorney can bring charges against a person (well more but we wont go into it all).

* - 1.) If the PA/DA has enough information supported by facts and evidence / officer reports / eyewitness accounts etc the PA/DA issues the charges, takes the warrant to the judge for his review / signature to make it lawful. Suspect is arrested, case goes from there.


If the evidence is lacking / not concrete on linking someone conclusively to a crime (essentially a circumstantial case) they use a grand jury. The standard set by the courts for just about all laws is what would a reasonable person do. Due to the lack of Probable cause by the Police / PA/DA they can request a grand jury hear the information.


* -2.) Grand Jury- This description is FEderal but its pretty much the same at the State level.

A grand jury, which normally consists of 16 to 23 members, has a more specialized function. The United States attorney, the prosecutor in federal criminal cases, presents evidence to the grand jury for them to determine whether there is "probable cause" to believe that an individual has committed a crime and should be put on trial. If the grand jury decides there is enough evidence, it will issue an indictment against the defendant. Grand jury proceedings are not open for public observation.

Once all info is given the grand jury members will go to a room (much like jurys will do to determine guilt / innocent) and discuss all the information. They will then decide if the info they heard supports the argument to charge (indict), or decide not to charge (indict) if the information didnt sway them.

The saying A grand jury would indict a Ham sandwhich refers to this system. While it may look unfair, keep in mind that instead of the Police / Prosecuting Attorney trying to decide if the information is enough to warrant charges, it allows civilians to make the decision - based on the standard "what would a reasonable person do / believe:.

Hope this helps.

reply to post by silo13


Always try to keep in mind that media doesnt always report all of the info. they may have bits and pieces of it and have been known to connect the dots as they see them, which is problematic.

As far as the comments about America this and family lying about that - ignore it.

The judicial system we have in places presumes innocence. Its up to the PA to make the case on whatever charges are brought.

* - She is under no obligation to speak to anyone, including the police.
* - She has a right to have a lawyer present during any questionioning.
* - She has a right to refuse access to interviewing her children.
* - She is under absolutely no obligation to assist in the investigation in any way shape or form. While that action makes people beleive she is guilty, it doesnt mean she is.

Look at it like this -
Your child gets kidnapped, police are called, manhunt is on. The police, with no real leads, who always look at the family first as possible suspects which is a routine approach for stuff like this, causes issues.

The family will feel as is the police are concentrating on them and assume they have stopped looking for the child, which is not the case (however its a valid reaction). Any distraught parent wants the police to find the suspect, and any actions the police do that arent consistent with the way the family thinks it should be, creates the lack of cooperation.

Its a balancing act to try to keep the parents calm while trying to get as much information as possible, while also at the same time looking at the parents as suspects. One wrong comment to the family etc you get the idea.

Revised Statutes of Missouri - search function
RSMO 565.115- Kidnapping - Class A Felony
RSMO 565.165 - Assisting in child abduction or parental kidnapping

RSMO 565.021 - Second degree murder
RSMO 565.020 - First degree murder
RSMO 565.023 - Voluntary manslaughter, penalty--under influence of sudden passion, defendant's burden to inject

These are just some of the possible law violations. Since you seem interested in this topic the links above also describe what must occur in order for a person to be in violation of the law. There are a slew of other charges as well, like endangering the welfare of a child (Felony / Misdameanor charge depnding on circumstance).

reply to post by Xcathdra

Thank you so much for your posts. I've got a question between now and the time I can come back and read then in more depth.

If the Family Courts judge does decide to have a full hearing over the Blake Irwin custody case - wouldn't then Deborah and Jeremy be compelled to answer any and all questions by that judge?

If they plead the 5th - how would that effect a (possible) case in the future concerning Lisa? I can't imagine Jeremy taking the chance he'd loose his son by not answering questions, but, you never know.

If the parents don't plead the 5th and do reply - how would that effect a case the Grand Jury might bring?

Thank you SO MUCH for your time and effort. It's not often someone takes the time to 'spoon feed' me info and I truly appreciate it more than I can say. I will be back to re-read your post and visit the links directly.

peace

Originally posted by silo13
Thank you so much for your posts. I've got a question between now and the time I can come back and read then in more depth.

Your welcome.. Please keep in mind my responses are generic in nature. Judges have discretion when it comes to the case, and when a conflict comes up (custody hearing / criminal trial / etc) the judge will make a decision based on all the info. If the decision by a judge is not well received, either party (defense / prosecution) can appeal (which makes whats call case law / precedent) or file a motion.

Originally posted by silo13
If the Family Courts judge does decide to have a full hearing over the Blake Irwin custody case - wouldn't then Deborah and Jeremy be compelled to answer any and all questions by that judge?

The lawyers (defense / prosecuting attorney) and judge will make the case in juvenile court proceedings on what can be answered and what cant be answered. Usually in situations like this all parties understand the issue and reach a common consensus to resolve the custody issue without impacting the possible criminal charges.

Also anytime children are involved the child will be assigned, essentially, their own lawyer called a guardian ad litem. A guardian ad litem is a neutral representative who represents the childs interests. Its done to protect the childs rights as well as shield the child from potentially being used as leverage against one of the parties.

Dual court issues are handeled on a case by case basis so I cant really give you an exact answer on how this might play out..

Originally posted by silo13
If they plead the 5th - how would that effect a (possible) case in the future concerning Lisa? I can't imagine Jeremy taking the chance he'd loose his son by not answering questions, but, you never know.

Invoking the 5th amendment doesnt affect anything. If a person invokes the 5th during court proceedings, the judge will, just before the jury goes to deliberate, give instructions to the jury that they cannot infer anything from the refusal to answer questions / take the stand.

Also since the parents are married they cant be forced to testify against each other. In criminal proceedings a married couple is protected by whats called Spousal privilege. We are all familiar with Doctor - patient confidentiality and lawyer - client confidentiality etc.. Spousal privilege works the same way - married couples cant be forced to testify against each other.

It will be a case by case issue depending on whats going on.

Originally posted by silo13
If the parents don't plead the 5th and do reply - how would that effect a case the Grand Jury might bring?

It would depend on whats going on. The one thing you will find is no 2 cases are ever the same, which is why judges are forced to sometimes legislate from the bench when it comes to the law. A grand jurys purpose though is not to seek guilt / innocence, but to determine if the information presented can support the charges. Whether its brough up or not is again a case by case issue and will depend on whats going on.

Originally posted by silo13
Thank you SO MUCH for your time and effort. It's not often someone takes the time to 'spoon feed' me info and I truly appreciate it more than I can say. I will be back to re-read your post and visit the links directly.

You are welcome and feel free to ask questions and I will do my best to answer them for you.

Please keep in mind though all the info I am giving you is not exactly how this case will go, or any other cases for that matter. Hopefully the info will give you an understanding of how the system works (or doesnt work) in general terms.

One other thing - I am giving you a perspective from my point of view (law enforcement). If you ask a lawyer about this, its probable you will get a different answer from them since they are up to date on case law / court rulings that create a precedent.

I cant emphasize enough that all actions in this area will be a case by case basis. There are so many factors to take into account its not even funny.

Sorry for the wall of text. I wanted to get you as much info as possible.

There are two things you never want the public to see made - laws and sausage.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Ok, I'm hear and reading and have questions - but just in case it matters - Jeremy and Deborah are not married. I can see them doing so pretty quick if Tacopina has anything to say about it but at the moment Deborah is still married to her 'ex' that isn't an 'ex' Sean.

Back to reading!

And a huge thank you again.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Ok, I’ll take this question by question. I could study for hours and not come up with the right info - plus I’m SURE the information will be beneficial to so many others!

The lawyers (defense / prosecuting attorney) and judge will make the case in juvenile court proceedings on what can be answered and what cant be answered. Usually in situations like this all parties understand the issue and reach a common consensus to resolve the custody issue without impacting the possible criminal charges.

So obviously we wouldn’t see Blake’s mother’s lawyer standing up and asking - ’Did you kill Lisa?’

In MY mind it would be a most important question. Hey, leaving Blake with Jeremy means Deborah will be a co-caregiver. But I doubt that could happen. OR could it?

You are saying all parties understand the ‘issue’. I would think this would be the prime issue.

Also anytime children are involved the child will be assigned, essentially, their own lawyer called a guardian ad litem. A guardian ad litem is a neutral representative who represents the child's interests. Its done to protect the childs rights as well as shield the child from potentially being used as leverage against one of the parties.

This is something I know a little about. I looked into it way back when there was talk of the Grand Jury meeting and a possible arrest. How horrific for the boys! Sure, I want to know what happened to Lisa, but not at their expense. Then again, when I think their sole caregivers have not been cleared from suspicion? Maybe it’s better for a little trauma now compared to the possibility of a lot of trauma later?

It would depend on whats going on. The one thing you will find is no 2 cases are ever the same, which is why judges are forced to sometimes legislate from the bench when it comes to the law. A grand jurys purpose though is not to seek guilt / innocence, but to determine if the information presented can support the charges. Whether its brough up or not is again a case by case issue and will depend on whats going on.

This makes certain points much clearer - thank you!

You reiterate the 'case by case basis.' So, instead of me posting a lot of ignorant ‘what ifs’ - how about I ask you.

Since the Grand Jury hasn’t met over this case yet and take the case the parents still refuse to be interviewed separately - Is it possible (or just wishful thinking on my part) the prosecutors are going to try to use the family court hearings to get the information they’re looking for from the parents??? From there use the information to convene (is that the right word) the Grand Jury in order to begin the indicting process?

Heartfelt thanks.

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Ok, I'm hear and reading and have questions - but just in case it matters - Jeremy and Deborah are not married. I can see them doing so pretty quick if Tacopina has anything to say about it but at the moment Deborah is still married to her 'ex' that isn't an 'ex' Sean.

Back to reading!

And a huge thank you again.

Your welcome - I actually like it when people ask questions. Its nice to see people take an intrest and wanting to learn about it.

Not being married will matter - Unless there is case law im not familiar with they are not protected by spousal privilege. Missouri does not recognize comman law marriage either so that issue cant be raised.. On the off chance charges are filed and it goes to court, whichever person who was not charged, can be called to the stand to give testimony.

Its also possible for the court to compel testimony from whichever party is not charged with a crime. The person who is not charged with any crime cannot invoke the 5th amendment. Refusal to testify could bring hindering prosecution, obstruction, failure to identify as a witness etc etc. A judge can issue a material witness warrant, which is essentially an arrest warrant that allows law enforcement to essentially arrest the witness to force their appearence in court.

An interesting little video here;



And here is a report from KING 5 news, on Bellevue Police, where their attitude is explained....

by KING 5 News
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Updated Tuesday, Nov 15 at 5:46 PM

Bellevue Police Major Mike Johnson, at a morning press conference, said the investigation remains a missing persons case.
"Has the investigation switched from a missing persons investigation to a criminal investigation? I would say no," Johnson said. "I've talked several times about this notion of all theories being relevant. We have still yet to be able to cross out any viable options. Any and all options that relate to Sky's disappearance are still on the table."
Sky hasn’t been seen since November 6. That’s when his mother, Julia Biryukova, said she left her son alone in her car after she thought it ran out of gas. When she returned an hour later, the boy was gone.

Source:

Now if my child was missing, I'd much prefer to deal with the Bellevue Police, who acknowledge they aren't excluding things simply because they aren't as probable as other things... Of course they aren't talking about this case taking years to resolve either. Nor are they unwilling to submit questions through a lawyer, this case is about Sky Metalwala, not getting their egos stroked! It will be very interesting to see just wich case gets resolved first?