It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“We comply with all subpoenas,” McGruder said, “but we do not release raw material.”
Will everyone who has lost a child offer their advise? Or is this something the police have come up with to trick the parents?
Could it be that KCPD is using this as an excuse to fish? Are we to believe that the media filmed something in front of the police, that the police missed? There are also reports that the police used this as an excuse to search over 300 homes and countless cars...
Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d
Could it be that KCPD is using this as an excuse to fish? Are we to believe that the media filmed something in front of the police, that the police missed? There are also reports that the police used this as an excuse to search over 300 homes and countless cars...
The police gave their reasoning as this - A lot of what the news has filmed ends up on the cutting room floor. The police believe something important may inadvertently be 'snipped' and dumped - lost forever.
There's a link to an article with a quote back a ways in this thread.
There ya go. Good weekend to you.
peace
Yes I've seen that before, and my understanding is that qualifies as "fishing". The police are not after, "X" (a known thing) if you will but rather the right to turn the media into a form of police, they become in effect an agent for the police.
This has the effect of making all interviews by the media much more difficult to obtain, and interferes with the public right to know.
When it comes right down to it the media is the media, and one is not required to tell them the truth, one can lie to them.
Would you really want to give the police the right to search your home when ever they feel like it, but at least a couple times a year?
Yep I know some people claim they have nothing to hide so it wouldn't be a problem for them, to me it is giving up a right.
Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d
Will everyone who has lost a child offer their advise? Or is this something the police have come up with to trick the parents?
If we can believe the account of Gil and Tina - they went to help of their own accord and a their own expense. I can understand that. We can vilify the police - but in this case I don't think we need to vilify the parents who've already lost their babies - and one of them two children to a grisly death.
On the other hand I'd like to hear your opinion. How would (let's say) 'bringing in these people' - benefit your theory the police are trying to demonize the parents? Is it as simple as because the police 'knew' the 'Brad-Wins' wouldn't have anything to do with 'outside' help?
I am curious you know. I like the way your mind works.
peace
Originally posted by schmae
Ok today I'm devil's advocate for mom again. LOL
Silo, I might need some help since you've got an extensive pile of links somewhere. Very early on, within the first few days, Jeremy said he had given police a list of 9 names of people they knew that were bad and might have
taken Lisa ( apparently none of those have panned out ). Reporter asked what kind of bad things these people did and he said ' like woman cheating on her husb.........' He stopped short because Deborah cut him off somehow by saying something else. Did she cut him off on purpose? Hard to say because she speaks over him a lot. So does Jeremy think a cheating wife is as bad as a person who steals babies? Did Deborah cut him off because she's got something to hide in that area? So my thoughts today are what if all of D's inconsistencies and apparent lies are NOT because she did something to Lisa. Maybe they are because she is hiding an affair!!!!!!!!! So kidnappers come in and take baby....... Deborah is innocent of all wrong doing in this scene. But she is guilty of having her lover over that night and that's why all the freaky weird things are not adding up..... because she doesnt' want Jeremy to know the truth about that ! Maybe this neighbor was a 'lookout' for the 2 lovers and that's why she's being quiet. Any thoughts?
The only way I see that working is if they are already out of the country. Trust me as a single man, your not going to find it easy to get a blond 11 month old out of the country. You will not fly, unless you own your own plane.
Excellent point, Dav1d! Haven't got all the way caught up yet this morning, but if we add ^^^ this to the idea of the people paying Joe BigBucks are the same people who simply opened the door with their key, patted the dog on the head, and took Lisa because they thought Deborah was not a fit mom... They might just have enough dough to own their own plane, too...and now have Lisa in some private villa in, say, Tuscany, with a full staff including nanny, doctors, etc. ??? Maybe??
Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Dav1d
I don't know about all of your points, BUT as far as 1981 to today. I think in 81 the idea of a family member doing something to their own child was style relatively foreign to most people, police included. What we've learned in the last 30 years is parents often do bad things to their child. SO maybe that accounts for part of why Walsh's experience might have been different. Plus in that particular case I believe the son was taken in a MALL in public where lots of people saw mom with the son and then without the son and looked and looked, so the opportunity for the parent to have been involved was smaller.