Parents of missing baby girl hire Van Der Sloot's attorney

http://a.abcnews.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-top-defense-attorney-representing-parents/story?id=14752818


Of course the question is if they're innocent, why do they need a lawyer, what more why do they need a famous lawyer who defended a famous murderer?


You can tell he's a lawyer, it's okay if you can't get your story straight, that's not important, the facts aren't important to the case if you're upset.


AND, if her being drunk has nothing to do with the baby's disappearance, why did she wait weeks to tell the police that? Hmmmmmm? Oh she FINALLY told the alleged truth, big deal, no points for hiding it to this point.

You need a lawyer regardless. Innocent people can be railroaded without some kind of defense. It's actually smart to NOT talk to the police without representation. Sometimes famous lawyers just come forward to defend people. I imagine some do it for self serving reasons others may actually want to help. And if I were in a situation where I'm innocent I'd appreciate a good attorney who would give me a fair rate. Some of them probably do it pro bono as well.

I think this case is highly suspicious but it's missing a huge chunk of facts right now. My senses tell me the drunk thing was made up after the fact. But I could just as easily be wrong. I would rather they find this baby alive somewhere but I'm not expecting that to happen. But for now I don't have any idea what happened to her. Just that the story doesn't piece together very well in my opinion.

Sure it's smart not to talk to them without a lawyer, BUT, you get a guy who defends one of the most famous murderers of the decade, people are NOT going to look at you and go 'oh the poor innocent dears, they're being so unjustly ridiculed here, the police are being so mean to them.' You do not hide things or make up stories weeks after the fact when you're innocent.

In their defense, the guy probably approached them. It is not as if they could afford him if he isn't doing it free or at a reduced rate. This case is very puzzling, that's for sure.

RedBedroom wrote:In their defense, the guy probably approached them. It is not as if they could afford him if he isn't doing it free or at a reduced rate. This case is very puzzling, that's for sure.

That might be and it hasn't been said yet WHO is footing this bill, but if it were me, and my child missing, and this lizard came up offering to defend me, I'd tell him to get the hell out of my sight; a guy like that isn't going to do innocent people any favors, especially where the court of public opinion is concerned, and that can be a deadlier one than the legal one.

Supernova wrote:


That might be and it hasn't been said yet WHO is footing this bill, but if it were me, and my child missing, and this lizard came up offering to defend me, I'd tell him to get the hell out of my sight; a guy like that isn't going to do innocent people any favors, especially where the court of public opinion is concerned, and that can be a deadlier one than the legal one.

The problem is when something like this happens to parents without a lot of money to spend on legal representation, lawyers in their area may not be willing to offer up pro bono services. They don't want to risk their credibility in the local area should the parents be found guilty.

It is a scary thought for people who have a child abducted that are being tried in the media when they are innocent. Not saying that is for sure the case here, but if I wasn't able to pay for a lawyer and needed help, I would take who would have me if that lawyer was famous. Lawyers who have handled highly public cases know how to speak to the media.

RedBedroom wrote:

The problem is when something like this happens to parents without a lot of money to spend on legal representation, lawyers in their area may not be willing to offer up pro bono services. They don't want to risk their credibility in the local area should the parents be found guilty.

It is a scary thought for people who have a child abducted that are being tried in the media when they are innocent. Not saying that is for sure the case here, but if I wasn't able to pay for a lawyer and needed help, I would take who would have me if that lawyer was famous. Lawyers who have handled highly public cases know how to speak to the media.

Yeah but once again it goes back to people know the kind of bastards these people represent, Van Der Sloot who admitted to killing one girl and was found guilty of murdering another, and this is his mouthpiece? I'd take my chances throwing darts in the phone book for an attorney, or if I was arrested I would take my chances with a public defender. In my opinion it does NOT look good when you get all defensive and go 'we have nothing to hide, this doesn't have anything to do with the disappearance' but THEN because you're so innocent you get one of the most notorious murder defenders of the decade to speak for you. I don't buy it, and if I was in her shoes, I wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

I am not going to say that you are off base because I have no way of knowing if you are or are not.

But I do know financial desperation with legal battles that pale in comparison of being falsely speculated to have killed my child, and I would have been more than happy for any attny. to help me, especially one with media manipulation experience.

The thing to remember is that she has not been arrested...she needs an attny. for damage control. Throwing darts at phonebooks names of attnys who won't represent her does no good.

I am just sayin'. I tend to lean toward this mom being innocent. I could be very, very wrong. I think she feels like she is sinking in speculation when her daughter is missing and she feels like she isn't being heard in the media.

But what exactly CAN a lawyer do until she's arrested? Basically all he's doing is telling the cops that they're not doing their job and that it's okay that she can't get her story straight because she's upset, so he's saying facts aren't important. And it was the family who quit cooperating with the police, I would be very interested to know why, if your child was missing and you had the police investigating it, WHY would you stop cooperating with the people whose job it is to find your baby?

The investigation will happen with or without her having legal representation. Things he tells the cops are moot points. They should be conducting proper investigation regardless of what he says. He is there to try to reel in what the news reports are stating.

It is my understanding that she was worried that focus on her would take police from finding the real culprit. Granted that could all be a ploy by a guilty mom. But I just think this may be one case where the parents are not at fault, other that her poor judgement for not saying she drank that night to the point of intoxication.

Actually, her intoxication from the boxed wine is what makes me lean toward her innocence. She did not reveal it right away, but what really is the difference between an innocent parent who is a sound sleeper and one that is sleeping sound due to being drunk? She probably did not admit the alcohol until things got to the point that she knew the market footage would tell the story that she purchased alcohol that day.

She has admitted to five glasses of boxed wine. If she was a chronic alcoholic, she wouldn't have been smashed off that amount of alcohol.

And if it wasn't enough for her to be drunk, I don't see why she felt a need to hide it, especially since she had to know the truth would come out sooner or later and the police and the public are not as quick to think someone innocent when they hide things until a later point.

Fear could have compelled her to hide the drinking. She drank boxed wine...she didn't do meth.

She may be guilty, I don't know. But I won't run a mom down the river for not admitting to drinking to police. If she is innocent, she may have had the forethought to know that if she admitted to not only drinking, but intoxication, they would not have concentrated on an intruder, but rather her and who she drank with. I would have done the same thing. She has admitted to being drunk from five glasses of boxed wine. She was not a drunk if the admitted amount is true. Boxed wine is low content.

Granted I reside in the most intoxicated state in the nation, but this Wisconsin gal will not drive after a beer, but will drive after one glass of boxed wine. It isn't a high content. She isn't an alcoholic if she isn't lying about how much she drank. I think she was just afraid to admit drinking at all.

On a side note...how does that work that boxed wine has less booze than beer? A while back I was checking on how much goes into each drink and it said beer has like 3-5% alcohol per volume, champagne has 7% per volume, wine coolers have like 15%, etc. Of course wine CAN be watered down so I suppose that would explain it, but I don't know, I only drink champagne and even there I'm overdue for a new bottle.

I can't debate her intake or how it would have impaired her. I am just trying to get you to see that if she is innocent her actions are not that off the wall.

If her glasses of the boxed wine were in 24 oz glasses, then she may have been messed up from the bottom up, but that does not mean she killed her baby. When my son was 11 months old, I did have drinks in my home. Granted, I was not wasted, but I had drinks.

I don't see a problem with that, most people DO drink, and providing you aren't nursing, I shouldn't think anybody would think it negligent to have drinks with a baby in the house so long as it's not to the point of impairment or plain drunkenness. Hell, a couple generations back women drank all the time while they were pregnant, look how far we come in a few decades, seems we went from one extreme to the other. We've gotten to a point that NOW it seems you must live a puritanical life or else something's wrong with you, you're a bad parent, etc., and that's just not the case.

Well that is the case in the public eye.

Supernova, I am not saying I have a superior pulse on this case than you do....I am just thinking she is innocent and is scared as hell right now.

She may be as guilty as a rabbit in the carrot patch. All any of us can do is speculate at this point.

Supernova wrote:But what exactly CAN a lawyer do until she's arrested? Basically all he's doing is telling the cops that they're not doing their job and that it's okay that she can't get her story straight because she's upset, so he's saying facts aren't important. And it was the family who quit cooperating with the police, I would be very interested to know why, if your child was missing and you had the police investigating it, WHY would you stop cooperating with the people whose job it is to find your baby?

Just one of the things he can do is keep her from being railroaded into a confession. It happens. The attorney can also help prevent statements from being twisted into something different. As far as the cooperating, I don't know. If the police are only asking what they did with the baby there's no real reason to continue cooperating. And I don't know if that's what they're doing. But if "where is she?" is the extent of what investigators want from the parents I can see why they might stop. Repetition is almost a form of torture to break someone down. There are some quirks in the case. The cell phone thing makes no sense to me but stranger things have happened & until proven otherwise she should have the same assumption of innocence as anyone else.