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.

 

Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

page: 107
41
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Is Sky the 2 year old boy left in the car while mom went for gas? That's a mess for sure


GABBY ! I get you . I just got you ! LOL
See that you would feel the other baby could be the mother's doing is the opposite of what you believe in the Lisa case. This means a great deal about you actually. I had you pegged as one who presumes no parent would do this but you are actually taking different parts of the case facts to draw your opinion. Wow that really sounded like .......... I didnt' mean it to sound that way. But you are not BIASED toward maternal innocence. That is what I mean. I think it validates your points more to me.
I think both mothers are responsible, but I've only head a smidge of the Sky story though. But that the parents left that baby in the car while they shopped for a long while makes me think they are just careless and negligence, not the same as violent.
edit on 14-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Is Sky the 2 year old boy left in the car while mom went for gas? That's a mess for sure


GABBY ! I get you . I just got you ! LOL
See that you would feel the other baby could be the mother's doing is the opposite of what you believe in the Lisa case. This means a great deal about you actually. I had you pegged as one who presumes no parent would do this but you are actually taking different parts of the case facts to draw your opinion. Wow that really sounded like .......... I didnt' mean it to sound that way. But you are not BIASED toward maternal innocence. That is what I mean. I think it validates your points more to me.
I think both mothers are responsible, but I've only head a smidge of the Sky story though. But that the parents left that baby in the car while they shopped for a long while makes me think they are just careless and negligence, not the same as violent.
edit on 14-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)


There is much more to the story then a child left in the car while shopping..

I also apologize if I have ever given the impression that I don't believe mothers or fathers would not be a part of missing children..and I'm fairly certain I would never have said that.

To me the Irwin's seem like a fairly simple type family.. and not perfect either.. ( how many families are?)

I would think that the father would never be able to hold up this long in covering up for Debbie, and I think Debbie would have cracked by now if she actually was involved with the disappearance of her child.

Was she guilty of making some really stupid and selfish choices... you bet..but that does not make her guilty of manslaughter, murder..

I really think that if she was guilty, the police would have the evidence they needed..she was drunk.. how could she possibly cover things up so well.


edit on 14-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
The cellphones are important in this case, for what they show us.
Now we know that KCPD search the home, that the KCPD came back and search the home with dogs, that the KCPD came back and search the home with metal detectors, that KCPD got a search warrant, and came back to the home yet again and searched with x-rays... We even know that KCPD pulled up the sewer lids and search the sewers, (checking to see if the cellphones had been flushed??)

And after all that searching they haven't found the phones. That strongly suggest that the family doesn't have the phones in their possession. What else do we know? That the last time there was activity on the cellphones appears to be around 3:30 am, before the police was aware that baby Lisa was missing. Now when you look at the home, and it grounds, one thing missing in a cell tower. I would suggest, that Verizon Wireless would have no need, or reason to track these phones at this time. That indicates to me that the cellphones location would be determine, based on it's signal to the cell tower. Now without knowing just where that cell tower location is, the information we have, suggest to me that the phones where NOT located within a third of a mile circle around there home. The map produced by one of our members the other day. But rather they are located around a point that is a third of a mile from the home. Or going back to our map from the other day, the cellphones where outside that circle. We don't really know how far outside that circle, but that they where. Now there are people who claim to have seen a man and a baby, but no one that I'm aware of claims to have seen a drunk Deborah running through the woods, or on the road that night? Now Deborah doesn't drive, and doesn't seem all that smart, either. But for this to work, after finding her baby dead, Deborah needs to go for a stroll that night, and risk being seen, so that she can get on her phone and attempt to surf, on a phone she knows has no Internet connection! Yes she's dumb, but who here is really ready to claim that she is THAT dumb? Not only did she decide to take her cellphones for a pointless stroll in the middle of the night, but she would have needed to cover a third of a miles in what 15 minutes or so to get back home in time for Jeremy, all without being noticed by anyone... Somehow Deborah just doesn't look like she is in that good of shape to me.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


'''To me the Irwin's seem like a fairly simple type family.. and not perfect either.. ( how many families are?)

I would think that the father would never be able to hold up this long in covering up for Debbie, and I think Debbie would have cracked by now if she actually was involved with the disappearance of her child. '''

I agree with much of this. But let's look from another way. If Jeremy truly came home and Lisa' s gone he would out of love devotion and shock almost HAVE to believe anything Deborah told him. I think he could be turning a blind eye to anything other than Deb is innocent. Therefore he's not really covering her just believing in her and that is not a crime and actually from a human perspective, it's an admirable trait.
I agree most mothers would crack under the pressure IF they were responsible, but not all. Look at her family background and it's clear she's a fractured soul. Those kinds of traumas came manifest in lots of ways as adults. It's possible shes' got a great mask on and that's how she survives all the traumas of her life by putting on a brave face ( fake, mask) and going forward. It got her through losing her mother and all the alcoholism in the family etc etc and it'll get her through this. See?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 





I agree most mothers would crack under the pressure IF they were responsible, but not all. Look at her family background and it's clear she's a fractured soul. Those kinds of traumas came manifest in lots of ways as adults. It's possible shes' got a great mask on and that's how she survives all the traumas of her life by putting on a brave face ( fake, mask) and going forward. It got her through losing her mother and all the alcoholism in the family etc etc and it'll get her through this. See?


It still doesn't explain the evidence pointing away from her..read Davids last post to see how logic just doesn't fit in with the accusation she covered something up.

There are too many dots that just don't seem logical to that possibility.

I have to say David has presented us what lots of FACTS and details..that need to be considered..

I have to admit ..I have only a gut instinct from the beginning that there were more players in this story than originally believed.. and that hunch has proven correct so far...given the recent information that has unfolded with this story.

I agree Debbie has had a very tough life... but I don't see that as a valid reason to say she has severe psychopathic tendencies, and would be willing and clever enough to cover up such a horrendous accident of her child dying.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I never said severe phsyco. tendencies. I'm just saying that you never know what impact that kind of childhood has on the psyche. Agreed?
As for David post, I keep thinking the only PROOF of Deborahs' drunkenness , again, is her OWN mouth. Police would surly have known upon entering the home if they were dealing with a drunk person or not. Maybe they did , maybe they don't. Police are so tight lipped, who knows what may be the case. So if you remove drunkenness from the equation, all those things are possible.
Equalling explaining the cell pings are that a friend or family member was asked to do that before disposing of phones to make it appear someone had them.
edit on 14-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Are you talking to me? I got confused over your post. My penn state comment is to demonstrate how the powerful and rich child abusers hide behind and protect each other. So if Lisa were taken by any sort of child traffic ring and sold / traded to someone else within that ring, it's possible. Since those type of kids almost never show back up, it's impossible to get a number . Say 10 or 30 or 70 % of babies who are NEVER found go into a ring like that? or have been disposed of post mortem to never be found. It would be an interesting statistic for sure, but the powerful folks who run those kind of rings make sure they never come to light. So it's impossible to know.


I was just sharing my thoughts, here.

I do believe, and I seems to hear you agreeing with me here (but don't wish to put words in your mouth) that simply based on what has/is unfolding in Penn State, we can not simply deny the possibility of this child being abducted for the purpose of sex/porn? And I agree with you that there are a percentage of children that simply disappear and are never seen or heard of again. Sadly in such cases, some of us can understand how LE could see an advantage to pointing the finger (if you will, at the parents) rather than to formally acknowledge the possibility of a vast underground network, where the rich and powerful use and abuse children! Should an acknowledgement might just require resources being spent on ending it! Rather than on fancy new command centers, and new 911 centers... At the very least, it starts the process of fighting it.

And yes, if one were a member of a child porn ring, or a child sex slave ring, I could well understand how they would feel invested in protecting such an organization. How they might want to attack anyone suggesting the possibility of such an endeavor! After all what better protection for your abuse, than everyone laughing at the possibility of such a thing....

It seems that all who would attack one for simply suggesting the possibility of such a thing, are working hand in hand with those who abuse, if such an organization exist! I'm sure in part it is that very mindset, that permitted things that happen in Penn State, to continue for so very long...

Hope that helps.
And not suggesting you are such a member, if that needs to be stated?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Sadly most of us will never have our curiosity satisfied. Without absolute proof of something, it will stay speculation. I've thought about this though , say Jersey or this Dane or someone like thsi comes out and accuses Deb...... would it be to cover their own butt? To get a lessor charge? So we could not fully trust their word. If Deb's brother or husband comes out and says she did it........then would we believe them more? Because a brother woudlnt throw you under the bus for nothing, would he? Or would he?
Unless Deb herself actually breaks down and admits involvement, I don't see how we would ever know.
The neighbor / folks have everything to gain and nothing to lose by implicating DEB at this point.
I hope baby Lisa is as peace .



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I never said severe phsyco. tendencies. I'm just saying that you never know what impact that kind of childhood has on the psyche. Agreed?
As for David post, I keep thinking the only PROOF of Deborahs' drunkenness , again, is her OWN mouth. Police would surly have known upon entering the home if they were dealing with a drunk person or not. Maybe they did , maybe they don't. Police are so tight lipped, who knows what may be the case. So if you remove drunkenness from the equation, all those things are possible.


Yes..I agree.. you never know what kind of impact is left from a childhood..and I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth.

As far as proof.. maybe we will have to wait for a trial to get more police evidence.. or maybe some players in this story will write their own books..telling their version of events that night...which still is not proof of what actually happened.

I really can't see Debbie making up the drinking wine story..just as a cover...if she really wanted to lie and coverup what she did.. it would be far more beneficial to say she was drugged by someone there that evening.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I didnt think she was making it up at first. But then I wondered why bring it up all this time later? Why not from day one, OMG i ws drunk and don't know what happened. I thought after folks started to be suspicious and maybe cops questioning her too much with her having no good answers, she plays the drunk card. That explains it all and why I can't make sense of what happened that night.
Note several times shes claimed, i got this boy into the bed with me, and that boy was there and this and that kinda of 'details' like kitty in bed, etc... that a black out person would have no recollection of. I HAVE BEEN BLACK OUT DRUNK. Trust me, there is no way to recall details like that . Shes' making one part up,, either the drunk part or the boys into the bed with me and kitty etc, part.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I never said severe phsyco. tendencies. I'm just saying that you never know what impact that kind of childhood has on the psyche. Agreed?


Actually it would appear that your intention is to suggest that her history, has wounded her enough, to see turning an accident into a crime!! Or am I hearing you suggest that "NORMAL" mothers, find it "REASONABLE" to dispose of their child, and call attention to that missing child?


As for David post, I keep thinking the only PROOF of Deborahs' drunkenness , again, is her OWN mouth.

So you discount the brother's and the next door neighbor, and the "new" to the neighborhood, guy from a few doors down that have said she was drinking?


Police would surly have known upon entering the home if they were dealing with a drunk person or not. Maybe they did , maybe they don't. Police are so tight lipped, who knows what may be the case. So if you remove drunkenness from the equation, all those things are possible.


All of what things? Are you telling us you live in a neighborhood where you could call up a neighbor, a friend, or a family member and say, help me dispose of my child, and they would? That having helped, they sit quietly by while you go on TV and tell the world how much pain you are in?

I can't speak for where you live, and who you know, and I will acknowledge that I have friends that could dispose of such a body, their is certainly nothing I could intice them with to accomplish such a thing.


Equalling explaining the cell pings are that a friend or family member was asked to do that before disposing of phones to make it appear someone had them.
edit on 14-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)
No friend or family member of mind, is going to allow/permit themselves to become involved in such a crime! I must live a very sheltered life!!



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I didnt think she was making it up at first. But then I wondered why bring it up all this time later? Why not from day one, OMG i ws drunk and don't know what happened. I thought after folks started to be suspicious and maybe cops questioning her too much with her having no good answers, she plays the drunk card. That explains it all and why I can't make sense of what happened that night.
Note several times shes claimed, i got this boy into the bed with me, and that boy was there and this and that kinda of 'details' like kitty in bed, etc... that a black out person would have no recollection of. I HAVE BEEN BLACK OUT DRUNK. Trust me, there is no way to recall details like that . Shes' making one part up,, either the drunk part or the boys into the bed with me and kitty etc, part.


To be honest..I think she was terrified of telling about other activities that night.. such as maybe a drug exchange..etc.

Just because she may have lied perhaps about a few things..does not in my mind make her guilty of purposely harming her child...or covering up an accident...and like someone earlier in this thread stated..how many of us can claim to remember every detail of an evening, even if we are stone cold sober?

Someone else was involved with taking that child out of the home..and to me the evidence strongly points towards other possibilities.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


david.. you have the most common sense on this thread..and you have no idea how much I appreciate your thoughts , and how well you lay them out to explain your reasoning.

I only can hope there are detectives on this case that have reasoning similar to yours.. and are connecting all the dots to all the possibilities.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Ok David '''Actually it would appear that your intention is to suggest that her history, has wounded her enough, to see turning an accident into a crime!! Or am I hearing you suggest that "NORMAL" mothers, find it "REASONABLE" to dispose of their child, and call attention to that missing child?'''' You are totally 100% putting words into my mouth.

The neighbors saw her drinking. DEB said 5 to 10 glasses of wine and likely blacked out. I don't know that a neighbor said that she was so drunk she was not making sense etc. They were all drinking together. Did Samanth said she was blacked out and cant' remember?

Again ""All of what things? Are you telling us you live in a neighborhood where you could call up a neighbor, a friend, or a family member and say, help me dispose of my child, and they would? That having helped, they sit quietly by while you go on TV and tell the world how much pain you are in?'''' You're putting words into my mouth.

ALL OF WHAT THINGS? her running around franticly trying to dispose of a body and the weird pings on the phone etc, can all be explained if she were NOT drunk. You said you didnt' think anyone drunk could be doing such things, so do you think a SOBER person could be doing such things?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I thought that too Gabby, 20 or 70 pages ago that maybe Deb was covering something else like an affair, possibly even an affair of the neighbor and someone , not even herself. But if she were covering for an affair , let's say, or a drug deal, let's say , and at this point realizing the cops are looking at her for this crime big time, would she continue to lie about a drug deal? Maybe if the drug dealer threatened her life.

Something does not make sense about the stories and events of that night. Does everyone agree? There is something amiss about Deb's story ? If it is a drug deal or an affair or something of that nature, for GOSH SAKES Deborah come clean and save your BUTT !
edit on 14-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 





ALL OF WHAT THINGS? her running around franticly trying to dispose of a body and the weird pings on the phone etc, can all be explained if she were NOT drunk. You said you didnt' think anyone drunk could be doing such things, so do you think a SOBER person could be doing such things?



I think if she had been running around a neighborhood sober..disposing of evidence there would be some witnesses..?

The only witnesses we seem to have that have come forward are those of seeing a man carrying a baby..and because they may have been confused as to whether that child was wearing a shirt or not.. is really not reason to suggest that they are lying, and DID NOT see a man with a baby.

edit on 14-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


But here is the thing whether or not there was a witness is not at issue. At issue is whether or not a drunken deborah could pull it off at all. SO if there is no drunken deborah, could she pull it off or not??



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I thought that too Gabby, 20 or 70 pages ago that maybe Deb was covering something else like an affair, possibly even an affair of the neighbor and someone , not even herself. But if she were covering for an affair , let's say, or a drug deal, let's say , and at this point realizing the cops are looking at her for this crime big time, would she continue to lie about a drug deal? Maybe if the drug dealer threatened her life.

Something does not make sense about the stories and events of that night. Does everyone agree? There is something amiss about Deb's story ? If it is a drug deal or an affair or something of that nature, for GOSH SAKES Deborah come clean and save your BUTT !
edit on 14-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)


I have a feeling debbie has at some point been honest with police about EVERYTHING that she is aware of that occurred that evening....we just aren't privy to that info..nor will she tell us..because her lawyers have advised her to be quiet..

so..we really DON"T know what she has told police in the 30 hours of interviewing..



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I hope so and agree she probably has. That may be why this guy Dane has hit the road for parts unknown. I got a question maybe someone can answer . Do the cops tell the lawyers anything l ike... test results? Would they say to lawyers, do your clients want to speak cuz we got this forensic test back and their prints, dna etc are on it, do they want to explain this? Or at this point are cops legally free to withhold that info until trial?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I didnt think she was making it up at first. But then I wondered why bring it up all this time later? Why not from day one, OMG i ws drunk and don't know what happened. I thought after folks started to be suspicious and maybe cops questioning her too much with her having no good answers, she plays the drunk card. That explains it all and why I can't make sense of what happened that night.
Note several times shes claimed, i got this boy into the bed with me, and that boy was there and this and that kinda of 'details' like kitty in bed, etc... that a black out person would have no recollection of. I HAVE BEEN BLACK OUT DRUNK. Trust me, there is no way to recall details like that . Shes' making one part up,, either the drunk part or the boys into the bed with me and kitty etc, part.


We that actually live in America understand the meaning of the police breaking one...
We don't like to think about it, but we know that the police will lie to us.
One assumes, that if you've lost your child, the police are not going to intentionally lie to you...

So I suggest this as a possibility...
Deborah was drinking that night, but not enough to be drunk.
She put Lisa to bed at about 6:30 just like she originally said.
She checked on Lisa at 10:30 just like she originally said.
Lisa is gone in the morning when Jeremy get's home.
The police begin to try an break Deborah story..
One of the things the police tell Deborah is the police have reason to believe that Lisa was taken before 10:30? How do you actually KNOW you check on her at 10:30 that night? Do you want us to ignore this possibility that Lisa was taken before 10:30, do you want us to only focus on possible sightings after 10:30 even if this one before 10:30 is what we believe is the most promising? So the police begin to turn up the pressure? Anything that one does as a regular thing, one can forget. Anyone ever go back into their home and check the stove? Or go back to your door and check the door because this time you're not sure you locked it? Some people can be very compulsive about somethings do to past psychological harms. Deborah could have been compulsive about Lisa, and wanting to believe the police, with the police telling her the only good lead, came before 10:30, and do you want us to work it? Then the police comeback and tell Deborah we NEED to explain how your time could be off. The police could have told Deborah tell us how you can be unsure about the time, or we're sorry but we can't work this one really good lead we have any longer. An so Deborah falls back on the wine, to keep the police hunting all possible leads.
Is it what happen, I don't know.
Could it have happen certainly.
We don't know at this point if Deborah smelled pine from the woods that night, because at the moment we don't think it is relevant but that doesn't mean Deborah didn't tell the police. And if she did, tell the police we don't know that they didn't note it because they didn't feel it was relevant. If next month it comes out that there was a strong smell of pine on the air, does that mean Deborah hid that knowledge? Have we heard from the police that Deborah hid from them that she had been drinking that night? That she attempted to hide the box of wine? That she hid the cash register receipt? The box of wine appears to still be there weeks later...



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join