Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Aisenbergs agree to meet with sheriff

With a few stipulations, Steve and Marlene Aisenberg say they'll discuss the investigation of their daughter's disappearance.

By JENNIFER LIBERTO
Published July 5, 2005

TAMPA - Steve and Marlene Aisenberg have accepted Sheriff David Gee's invitation to sit down and talk.

Sort of.

The Aisenberg's Tampa attorney, Barry Cohen, fired off a two-page note to Gee on Tuesday agreeing to a meeting under several conditions, including that "investigators are not preoccupied with trying to set a trap."

The invitation to discuss the criminal investigation followed a recent news conference, during which Cohen and Steve Aisenberg had accused the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office of not doing enough to find the Aisenbergs' daughter.

Sabrina Aisenberg disappeared from her family's Valrico home in November 1997, when she was 5 months old. Her parents were indicted in 1999, accused of lying about her disappearance.

But federal prosecutors dropped the charges in 2001 after a magistrate judge said audiotapes secretly recorded in the couple's home were mostly unintelligible. The Aisenbergs were also awarded $1.29 million to pay their attorneys.

The girl has not been found.

The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office had not received Cohen's letter Tuesday afternoon, and a spokesman declined to comment until Gee had read it.

Cohen wrote that the Aisenbergs were willing to talk about the case without demanding immunity, which means their statements could be used in court. He also said the Aisenbergs don't need to know the specifics of the Sheriff's Office investigation, contrary to recent court filings.

But Cohen also sought assurance that investigators would not use the discussion as a basis for "fabricated evidence."

The letter accused the Sheriff's Office of yielding to political pressure in the case and faulted Gee for promoting two employees who directed the Aisenberg investigation.

The Aisenbergs have a lawsuit pending against the Sheriff's Office, alleging their civil rights were violated through unfair prosecution. Recently, a Circuit Court judge denied them access to Sheriff's Office files for the civil case, agreeing that the investigation was still open.

[Last modified July 5, 2005, 19:17:02]