Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Originally posted by Xcathdra


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.

It is always of interest, when a court "forces" one to testify to what the court already knows. It's a tried and true concept. That notion/belief that we can take a prisoner and beat the truth out of them. Just apply enough force/pressure/coercion and they'll break/comply and tell us what we already know. They use to call that a witch hunt.

Yep those kinds of cases often get turned over in time....

It is in many ways the equilvant in a debate of turning to ad hominem attacks, a sign of a lack of supporting evidence.

reply to post by Xcathdra

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.

Wow, the possibilities that opens up!

So, let's say the prosecutor believes either Bradley or Irwin is guilty of disposing of Lisa.
In this case it seems - the prosecutors could use one - against the other.

Wow...

reply to post by Xcathdra



I agree in your analysis regarding the police and parents. And how parents might feel if too much attention is on them then how can they be concentrating on finding their child.
I get it.

Now, I hate laws for the most part. I really do. Because many should be instinctual anyway (like killing someone all the way down to, just littering) but I propose something to the effect where: if a parent refuses to answer any and all questions then some sort of repercussion should be in place. I liken it to refusing to take a breathalyzer test after swerving all over the road and being stopped.
If you refuse a test then you're found and fined, guilty. There would be no reason to not want to show your innocence especially after 'looking' guilty, right?

Same here. Parents have the obligation to cooperate with authorities (and I hate them too but...) in order to clear themselves so the investigation can continue forward. The more speed bumps these parents lay down, the more attention they called to themselves and the slower (part of) the investigation goes.

I just find it perplexing that some parents fear dealing with law enforcement MORE than they care about finding their child.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I agree in your analysis regarding the police and parents. And how parents might feel if too much attention is on them then how can they be concentrating on finding their child.
I get it.

Now, I hate laws for the most part. I really do. Because many should be instinctual anyway (like killing someone all the way down to, just littering) but I propose something to the effect where: if a parent refuses to answer any and all questions then some sort of repercussion should be in place. I liken it to refusing to take a breathalyzer test after swerving all over the road and being stopped.
If you refuse a test then you're found and fined, guilty. There would be no reason to not want to show your innocence especially after 'looking' guilty, right?

Same here. Parents have the obligation to cooperate with authorities (and I hate them too but...) in order to clear themselves so the investigation can continue forward. The more speed bumps these parents lay down, the more attention they called to themselves and the slower (part of) the investigation goes.

I just find it perplexing that some parents fear dealing with law enforcement MORE than they care about finding their child.

Now Sir, yes or no, have you quit using drugs?

Sometimes there are simply no acceptable answers.
You are told, we know you killed "X", tell us how you did it.
Either you comply and supply details, or you are NOT complying with the request for details.

This is guilt by innuendo, guilt by rumor....

Originally posted by silo13
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!

Originally posted by silo13
So obviously we wouldn’t see Blake’s mother’s lawyer standing up and asking - ’Did you kill Lisa?’

Lol - A person doing that in court would not get their answer. What they would get by doing something like that would most likely be a contempt citation from the judge. If the person is lucky they will only get a fine and if they torque the judge off bad they can be locked up until the judge decides to resolve the issue.

The type of questions asked will be based on the status of the person being questioned - Defendant who is charged or witness.Usually speaking the lawyers handle all court communications. Self representation is permissible, however there is a saying - A person who represents themsevles in court has a fool for a client.

Originally posted by silo13
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?

If a person is charged with a crime they have the option of not taking the stand or taking the stand. If the defendant takes the stand the prosecuting attorney can ask that question along with a bunch more.

Originally posted by silo13
You are saying all parties understand the ‘issue’. I would think this would be the prime issue.

By all parties I mean the defense lawyer, PA, gaurdian ad litem and the Judge. The issue comment was meant as the lawyers / judge understanding the overall situation (2 courts involved / testimony / 5th and 6th amendment issues as well). It is a prime issue as you said and how that issue is dealt with is a coin toss on what a judges ruling may be - case by case.

Originally posted by silo13
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?

When it comes to removing a child from the parents, a strict set of guidelines / laws come into play. Law enforcement / Doctors can "seize" a child and place them in protective custody (for 12 hours/24hrs depending) , for lack of a better term. The moment the paper work is done ( a 1 page document) LE / DFS have 12 hours to notify the court of the seizure as well as the reason for it. In MO all attempts are made to place children with relatives / friends first, which usually works out. Its designed to lessen the strees on the children involved as well as respecting the fact that while the parents are under suspicion, they arent guilty of any crime.



[

Originally posted by silo13
This makes certain points much clearer - thank you!

You are more than welcome.. As you can see from all of this its easy for people to draw wrong conclusions or misinterpret something. Personally speaking I looked at being a lawyer or a police officer going through college. After I took some classes I decided I would rather be shot at, punched by drunks, bitten by kids and being lynched by the Johansens family for shooting their dog who was attacking me that spend my time in court arguing the finer points of the law - To me I am a firm believer in the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth as opposed to lawyers want the truth, the half truth, and whatever gets their client free.

Sitting on the witness stand while listening to the defense lawyer ask a 5 minute long indepth question and only wanting a Yes or No answer is enough to make me want to switch sides and go criminal on him.


[

Originally posted by silo13
You reiterate the 'case by case basis.' So, instead of me posting a lot of ignorant ‘what ifs’ - how about I ask you.

Your more than welcome to ask what if questions.

[

Originally posted by silo13
Since the Grand Jury hasn’t met over this case ..snipped for room..

I would say no. Since there are no charges pending, the juvenile hearing would only look at the established reasons for the custody issue. Juvenile court will place the welfare of the child over almost all else. An arguemnt could be made though that the missing child issue has left mom / dad in such a distraught and emotional situation, that they are unable to adequately provide for the kids.


[

Originally posted by silo13
Heartfelt thanks.

Anytime...

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra I would also like to give my thanks for what you have posted! It is good to read your insights and knowledge. It is very kind of you to share!

OiO

Originally posted by Dav1d
It is always of interest, when a court "forces" one to testify to what the court already knows. It's a tried and true concept. That notion/belief that we can take a prisoner and beat the truth out of them. Just apply enough force/pressure/coercion and they'll break/comply and tell us what we already know. They use to call that a witch hunt.

Im not referring to forcing a defendant to take the stand and answer questions. I am referring to people who have first hand knowledge / witnesses. The concept behind material witness warrant is to protect the defendant. If a person has information that could clear the defendant, then it should be turned over in the interest of a fair trial.

Originally posted by Dav1d
Yep those kinds of cases often get turned over in time....

Not for material witness warrants.

Originally posted by Dav1d
It is in many ways the equilvant in a debate of turning to ad hominem attacks, a sign of a lack of supporting evidence.

uhm ok.

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

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.

Wow, the possibilities that opens up!

So, let's say the prosecutor believes either Bradley or Irwin is guilty of disposing of Lisa.
In this case it seems - the prosecutors could use one - against the other.

Wow...

Technically yes. It depends on whether or not the person cooperates with the PA. Witnessing a crime makes you a witness. Failing to report that crime / identify as a witness can land a person in hot water. Like I said, our judicial system is complex and is designed to error on the side of the defendant.

The concept is it its better to let a criminal go rather than convict the wrong person.

reply to post by Human_Alien

I agree in your analysis regarding the police and parents. And how parents might feel if too much attention is on them then how can they be concentrating on finding their child.

Exactly - but you can’t have both. Either cooperate with them so they can stop focusing on you and start focusing more on finding your child or stop complaining!

As you say:

Parents have the obligation to cooperate with authorities (and I hate them too but...) in order to clear themselves so the investigation can continue forward. The more speed bumps these parents lay down, the more attention they called to themselves and the slower (part of) the investigation goes.

If you could only see my smiles! Absolutely spot on!

...if a parent refuses to answer any and all questions then some sort of repercussion should be in place. I liken it to refusing to take a breathalyzer test after swerving all over the road and being stopped.

My gawd if that isn’t the truth. Surely I believe in our rights - but how is it we can’t refuse a breathalyzer - but without rebuke and without repercussion we can refuse to answer questions when little children have only just gone missing???

I just find it perplexing that some parents fear dealing with law enforcement MORE than they care about finding their child.

I repeat. Fabulous points.

So, where does this fear come from? Basic fear of authority? Fear of guilt being exposed? Fear of...

peace

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I agree in your analysis regarding the police and parents. And how parents might feel if too much attention is on them then how can they be concentrating on finding their child.
I get it.

Its a difficult position to be in thats for sure. A child is missing and that reality is compounded by the police doing their thing.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Now, I hate laws for the most part. I really do. Because many should be instinctual anyway (like killing someone all the way down to, just littering) but I propose something to the effect where: if a parent refuses to answer any and all questions then some sort of repercussion should be in place. I liken it to refusing to take a breathalyzer test after swerving all over the road and being stopped.
If you refuse a test then you're found and fined, guilty. There would be no reason to not want to show your innocence especially after 'looking' guilty, right?

You want goofy law check this one out.
In Missouri if you get drunk, drive and get caught and its your first time, you are charged with DWI - which is a class B misdemeanor.

If you are driving drunk and a cop goes to pull you over, and right before you stop the car you roll down your window and throw out a beer can, you can be charged with littering - A class A misdemeanor.

Yup, littering is a more egregious crime that dwi. As far as the breathalyzer comment are you referring to the ones in jails, or the portable ones used at road side?

If its the small portable at roadside, you can refuse to take it with no consequence. They arent considered a calibrated instrument so any number that shows up is inadmissable in court. On our DWI paperwork reference the portable breath test there is a question asking if it was used - a yes or no check box.

If your referring to the ones at the jail those are calibrated. When you got your drivers license you agreed to a term called implied consent with regards to the tests. You can refuse the tests however it does make a court challenge difficult, but not impossible.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Same here. Parents have the obligation to cooperate with authorities (and I hate them too but...) in order to clear themselves so the investigation can continue forward. The more speed bumps these parents lay down, the more attention they called to themselves and the slower (part of) the investigation goes.

Lack of cooperation raises red flags and should be looked at..

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I just find it perplexing that some parents fear dealing with law enforcement MORE than they care about finding their child.

It doesnt make sense to me at all..

Originally posted by Dav1d



Now Sir, yes or no, have you quit using drugs?

Ummmmm, what does-
How would-
Ah, nevermind.

Sometimes there are simply no acceptable answers.

We're not looking for answers per se. We're looking for a child.

You are told, we know you killed "X", tell us how you did it.
Either you comply and supply details, or you are NOT complying with the request for details.

I think you watch too much television.

This is guilt by innuendo, guilt by rumor....

No one is saying they're guilty. Most of us think they're not innocent. (I can play with semantics too)


First, if my infant, toddler or even adult child went missing, I would stand in front of a firing squad if need be. Secondly, if I was completely devoid involvement, I can't imagine why they'd suspect me anyway.

True, some LE personnel are down-right dumb. Some LE are even unfair. Some LE are gossly corrupt. But I doubt any of them are completely blind though.

These parents know something they're not telling LE. And LE isn't under contract to inform the public so, I have a feeling we know very little of the bigger picture right now.

But I will say, my gut tells me this child is alive somewhere.

Originally posted by OneisOne
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Xcathdra I would also like to give my thanks for what you have posted! It is good to read your insights and knowledge. It is very kind of you to share!

OiO

Any time.. I would rather have people ask questions and explain how it works rather than engage in a back and forth on who is in the wrong / in the right / etc.

Communication is key between the police and the citizens we serve. Without it, it create an us verse them mentality and only gets worse from there.

Also - the info I am posting is in general terms and are based on my experience. Other officers might see it differently and lawyers might flat out disagree with the info I posted. As with anything, I encourage people to do some research on these topics, since laws are going to vary from state to state.

With that being said Ive been awake for about 24 hours now so im gonna go crawl under the sheets and wait for the voices to come. Ill check back in later on tonight to see if anyone had any other questions / comments / complaints. To those in the thread following this case I commend you. It is nice to see people not only taking an interest in the abduction, but the law enforcement / court side as well.

I leave you with this important message and your chuckle of the day -

reply to post by Xcathdra

So is it really too far off track - (I'm just asking your opinion now) that the PA might be using this custody hearing as a means to an end?

If so, it's mighty crafty and a hats off accomplishment if it goes through. Do I necessarily think it's correct? No, but, sometimes the world just isn't fare and it shouldn't be fare when there's a tiny baby out there who's parents refuse to cooperate with the police. I asked for you opinion. That's mine.

Thank you again!

peace

reply to post by Xcathdra


Thanks for your words. You seem highly intelligent.
About driver's license. There's not even a law requiring one to be licensed to drive (or so I haven't found one yet) so........if we go down the rabbit hole deep enough, we'll see we're living in very bizarre times.

Here's the thing about driving drunk or speeding. Most of the time when we get pulled over we really are guilty. We just keep looking for loop holes. Very few (but it DOES exist) are harassed, i.e, pulled over for no good reason.
So we can throw in the 'calibration' defense/threat into the equation if we want to. But if you're honest with yourself (not necessarily out loud) I think you'll agree that you either had too much to drink and/or you really were going over the posted speed limit.

But back to this Jerry Springer clan.
Much like the events on 9-11, there are far too many 'first times' involved this evening to be ignored. And like I said earlier, I doubt very much we know half of what's going on behind the scenes.

One big give-away for me (of course, not from a legal standpoint. More like a human observation) was when Deborah got 'fixed up' to do her television interview. Really? Vanity actually enters the innocent minds of a parent when their prime focus is to find their child? I didn't even know that was possible.
It's like finding out your child is dead but you want to brush your teeth before you identify the body! It's insane behavior!

reply to post by silo13

If so, it's mighty crafty and a hats off accomplishment if it goes through. Do I necessarily think it's correct? No, but, sometimes the world just isn't fare and it shouldn't be fare when there's a tiny baby out there who's parents refuse to cooperate with the police. I asked for you opinion. That's mine.

According to some they have cooperated with the police.. 30 hours of interviews is a substantial amount of time.. and any other questions they have could easily be asked with both parents there..

Let me ask you why are the police being so stubborn in insisting they need to do it separately? What is their agenda for doing so? Had they not lied to Debbie, and tried to paint her or both into a corner.. maybe she would be much more willing to interview separately.

Also..are they asking for separate interviews..or interviews without someone else in the room? remember it was the lawyer who put a stop to the last one because of what he perceived as harassing techniques.

I think its very unfair for people to blatantly say the parents are being uncooperative.. when in fact they have cooperated.. but were also lied to and apparently attempted to be trapped within that questioning.

To say the parents are being uncooperative is just gross exaggeration, and another bad attempt at vilifying the parents with false accusations.

Originally posted by Dav1d
It is always of interest, when a court "forces" one to testify to what the court already knows. It's a tried and true concept. That notion/belief that we can take a prisoner and beat the truth out of them. Just apply enough force/pressure/coercion and they'll break/comply and tell us what we already know. They use to call that a witch hunt.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
...Im not referring to forcing a defendant to take the stand and answer questions. I am referring to people who have first hand knowledge / witnesses. The concept behind material witness warrant is to protect the defendant. If a person has information that could clear the defendant, then it should be turned over in the interest of a fair trial.

Interesting, so in your words....

Originally posted by Xcathdra
...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.

COULD NOT be used to compel/force/coerce Jeremy to testify against Deborah? That Law enforcement would never use any type of threat, to prosecute Jeremy for obstruction, hindering, lying, in an attempt to compel/force/coerce Jeremy to testify against Deborah? That Jeremy would NEVER be offered a possibility of a reduction in time, (the carrot) or the threat of additional time, based on additional charges (the stick)?!?

That this **tool** is limited to the defense team?

We have a Chief of Police, whom is willing to go on the record, and use "...poor white trash..." who sees the Comunity as uncooperative. We've got a just retired lead investigator who has stated that one concentrates on just the most probable. Add all that up, and in my opinion one has the conditions that make witch hunts likely.

You've got a mindset in some that claims I'd stand in front of a firing squad, if it would help... That seems to me, to be a great way to abandon one's child, (hardly a means of locating the child, or supporting the child long term) or perhaps nothing more than meaningless hyperbole.

There are some rumours abound that Dane is indeed back in KC and has been talking with kcpd. The second part is that he will be speaking to media (via Fox I believe). I haven't been able to substantiate that yet with a link...but on Rugen's FB he is saying he will be on fox at 12:45 cst. So regardless if Dane is on or not, there will at least be some sort of news. I will tune in and see if anything new comes of it. Here is ron rugen's post regarding this interview:

Rugen Team Investigations, LLC Missouri Private Investigator

We will be discussing the Baby Lisa case and new a piece of new and important information I discovered yesterday (yes, law enforcement was aware of this weeks ago) today. I will be joining Megyn Kelly on America Live on the Fox News Channel today via satellite from Kansas City at 12:45pm central.

Here is the link he gives for Fox
Fox


Perhaps it is Dane..just found this from Russ Ptacek:

Russ Ptacek Major development with a #lisairwin witness soon. Follow @RussPtacek & like my Facebook to see it first: on.fb.me... #babylisa

Here's his facebook and twitter account
Russ Ptacek Facebook
Russ Ptacek Twitter




Michelle

reply to post by Human_Alien

I propose something to the effect where: if a parent refuses to answer any and all questions then some sort of repercussion should be in place. I liken it to refusing to take a breathalyzer test after swerving all over the road and being stopped.

I'm having a problem with the "refuses to answer any and all questions." We live in a world where forced confessions do happen. If a confession is desired by LE and you don't deliver could that be considered a refusal? You're walking a fine line here.

If you refuse a test then you're found and fined, guilty. There would be no reason to not want to show your innocence especially after 'looking' guilty, right?

My kids always come to mind when people say if you're innocent prove it. Just think about that for a minute it might be harder than you think. For example someone takes the last cookie from the cookie jar. Everyone knows you're a cookie monster. The family assumes you're guilty because of your past but you know you're innocent. How could you possibly prove you didn't take it? You couldn't that's why it's the state's "burden" to prove guilt not yours to prove innocence.

reply to post by Morningglory

For example someone takes the last cookie from the cookie jar. Everyone knows you're a cookie monster. The family assumes you're guilty because of your past but you know you're innocent.

Granted, but, saying nothing surely isn't going to help.

Have Lisa's parents sat down with the police for separate interviews?

No.

That's not helping either.

Not taking a swipe at you - just sayin'.

peace

reply to post by Morningglory


I agree. Has anyone here seen the "confessions" in movie - In The Name of The Father?

If there are new important questions I'm sure they can be relayed to the couple and the answers coming back. But if you've gone over the same stuff for 30 hours then it's just too much to do it all over again and it just seems like it would be a game to the police.