Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Originally posted by schmae
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?

Until she is charged they are under no duty to share anything with her at all. Indeed they can and most likely have lied to her. The KCPD could at this point have DNA evidence that links the child molester up the street to Lisa's bed and they would not be required to tell Deborah, about it. Indeed I would be surprised if they did. The KCPD would never be required to inform her. If anyone would it would be the DA.

Originally posted by schmae
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.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was trying to understand your intent, by referring to her upbringing. But it appears you are not interested in clarifying your position. That's okay.

reply to post by Dav1d


Im not uninterested in clarifying my point. It's pretty well documented that a lot of murders/ serial killers and child molesters have highly abusive upbringings. That's just fact.

As for this ''Or am I hearing you suggest that "NORMAL" mothers, find it "REASONABLE" to dispose of their child, and call attention to that missing child?''

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)

What a poor idea.
At this point Deborah is committed.
Acknowledging that she was in a drug deal, that night isn't going to make the police look any harder, for little Lisa.
Nor will it help the police for Deborah to acknowledge she was having an affair.
The only possible help Deborah could give at this point, would be if she actuallys knows where or who has Lisa.
Nothing that Deborah can add other than the above, will make Deborah look any less guilty. Until they find little Lisa if you've made it on their suspect list, you'll remain there. Until they know what, who, when, and how, the job is not on removing people but rather finding them...

reply to post by Dav1d

What a poor idea. At this point Deborah is committed. Acknowledging that she was in a drug deal, that night isn't going to make the police look any harder, for little Lisa. Nor will it help the police for Deborah to acknowledge she was having an affair. The only possible help Deborah could give at this point, would be if she actuallys knows where or who has Lisa. Nothing that Deborah can add other than the above, will make Deborah look any less guilty. Until they find little Lisa if you've made it on their suspect list, you'll remain there. Until they know what, who, when, and how, the job is not on removing people but rather finding them...

So very true David, especially if the police seem to want to "paint' a portrait of Debbie , so they can justify thinking of her as the prime suspect.

It would be very understandable that she would want to hold that evidence back if she thought it would deter from them looking for her child...but I think she would want to make the police aware of all other people there that could be considered as suspects as well...and we have no evidence stating that she has not , at some point been upfront with police about everything that may have occurred that evening.

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Dav1d

 

Im not uninterested in clarifying my point. It's pretty well documented that a lot of murders/ serial killers and child molesters have highly abusive upbringings. That's just fact.

As for this ''Or am I hearing you suggest that "NORMAL" mothers, find it "REASONABLE" to dispose of their child, and call attention to that missing child?''

This post by Gabby """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. '''' Is what made me think that perhaps DEB's childhood could have produced a psychological condition ( unlike that of a normal mother) that would keep her from " CRACKING" about her involvement. That she may have a great wall put up or even be in denial about it and going about as if nothing happened. I don't know pyschologically if those would be termed ' severe' or not. I would think if she lived in SEVERE PSYCHOSIS she would have been HEAVILY monitored by doctors and likely not even raising 3 kids or certainly not left alone with them. It could be she has a condition that lay relatively dormant until a trauma brought it to the surface.
I hope this is clearing it up for you David. I went back a few pages to see how that line of discussion began.

I have a we'll call it 'acquaintance' that is so skilled a liar and so sskilled a manipulator that no one ever knows they've been had until it's too late. This person we don't allow in our inner circle anymore because of so much damage in the past that they inflict on others. But time and time again innocent folks call us and say OH WOW .... I had no idea until they've been victimized. I do not mean violent stuff, just thieving and using and manipulating and cheating, etc. This person has been to psyches and does not have a SERIOUS condition ..... but definitely has the ability to turn off anything unpleasant and just move on to the next victim. And yes a horrific childhood is likely at the root!

And to clear it up at this point in the word, who reallyd o we know has a 'normal ' life ? I think that went the way of Mayberry USA.

reply to post by Dav1d


'''Where you appear to object to Gabby's characterization (or lumping) of murders/serial rapiest /serial killers (bad people) as "severe phsyco" Or deny that you suggested that Deborah past may play a role in this. I was unsure of just what you where denying hence my questions? Is it your intention to suggest that people willing to dispose of their child, like week old trash are normal? That finding your child dead in an accident a "normal" person (mother in this case) response might be to dispose of the body? '''

reply to post by schmae

I did nowhere object to Gabby's saying those folks are severe psychos,, murderers, etc.

Excuse me..I did not say that !!!!!.. I was saying that you suggested that with her having a troubled past...

GET YOUR STUFF STRAIGHT before implying things that are not correct !!!!

Quit twisting things around to suit your agenda..you're starting to seem like others on here who play word games..

You need to take that statement down now schmae..because it sure looks like your trying to paint a picture of something I did not imply..when in fact I was saying something about what you implied..and you KNOW IT.

Thank you for showing me how manipulative you are.. and I'm going to assume that you have had some serious child issues to resort to a low ball lie like that.

Apologize and retract the statement..

reply to post by schmae


here is what I said.. and it was in response to your insinuations that she could be so psychologically damaged from childhood that she could easily lie about killing her child.

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.

I did agree that people with tough backgrounds can have problems.. but NEVER did I use the words psycho to address her .. only inferred that you were implying that about her.

reply to post by schmae

I do not deny, in fact I am SURE that ( IF ) deb is responsible for Lisa's death that OF COURSE her past had a role in this.

Very well true. We’re all products of our past no matter what we do to overcome the negative parts or embrace the good. If Deborah or Jeremy are responsible for the death of Lisa, there’s no doubt there’s a myriad of reasons ‘why’ - their past included.

It is not my intention to claim any normal person would dispose of their child if they found them dead.

Of course it isn’t and you and I both know better. We also agree there’s a great deal of unknown in the case of Lisa’s disappearance. It makes it tough for even the most rational of thinkers and (obviously) confounds the ones who are not.

I’m wondering something though. ‘If’ Deborah ‘accidentally’ killed Lisa and Jeremy found out after - (now remember) - he fought for his son. Knowing that - could it be possible he would act ‘wrongly’ by ‘disposing’ of the child he couldn’t help, to ‘save’ the son, he could help?

Does that make sense? Meaning - Jeremy gets home. Lisa is dead. He can’t help her. He can’t save his little girl (God help him). Now he has to look to his remaining family. The boy he fought for, the woman he loves. He believes Lisa’s death was an accident. He acts on it in pain, confusion, desperation, and love.

Do you think he could ‘justify’ his actions (’getting rid of‘ Lisa) in order to ‘save’ the rest of them?

Just curious what you think.

peace

reply to post by silo13

Do you think he could ‘justify’ his actions (’getting rid of‘ Lisa) in order to ‘save’ the rest of them? Just curious what you think.

I think you are grasping at straws.. to prove your theory.. and I think if he even initially did this.. he would have "broke" by now...and considered the implications that he could lose his child for good..if he indeed was part of a cover up.

I think that poor man is confused and shell shocked.. as any one of us would be in his shoes.

It would only make sense if Jeremy had a reason to believe that the mother of Blake, would want, and be capable of carring for Blake. That's not the case.

It's easily assumed that people from abusive homes grow up to become abusers. Some seem to think at the very least these people could be capable.

There are many criminals who have "claimed" to have been victims of such abuse. Not knowing their full story I really can't say whether an abusive upbringing = criminal but I've known people who've lived through such a nightmare childhood.

What I've personally observed is that some survivors lack the ability to protect themselves from bad people. They were too fearful to do it as children and without counseling they probably won't be too successful as adults.

It's possible Deborah's background could make her a violent person although I believe statistics show most victims of childhood abuse display self-abusive behaviors. I think it's likely that Deborah's background could make her too accepting of people she really doesn't know. She might see bad behavior in others and think it's normal.

There are so many suspicious people in this investigation developing tunnel vision where the parents are concerned is a bit suspect. Is it possible these parents harmed their child...yes but it's also just as possible, based on family background, that Deborah inadvertently let a monster or a monster's friend into her home.

I'm a physically active person yet I can't imagine running around trying to hide evidence, dispose of a body, clean up the crime scene and do it all with a certain amount of expertise so it's not detectable to LE. This is the one thing that keeps me leaning towards Deborah being innocent. It's possible Jeremy helped, although it would be hard to do it without leaving a trail.

Rasleen Raim is acknowledged to live in a group home by her family.

Residents of group homes usually have some type of chronic mental disorder that impairs their ability to live independently. Many residents also have physical disabilities such as impairments of vision communication, or ambulation. These individuals require continual assistance to complete daily living and self-care tasks. Some also require supervision due to behavior that may be dangerous to self or others, such as aggression or a tendency to run away. Read more: Group homes - children, therapy, adults, people, skills, health, Definition, Description www.minddisorders.com...

Rasleen was never married to Jeremy, and her own family does not apparently want her living with them. Jeremy went to court and won full custody of Blake. That suggest something. It doesn't suggest that he fears Rasleen will take Blake away from him. It's unlikely with Rasleen living in a group home setting, that she will have the resources to take care of an 8 year old.

Some new links

Police want to talk with new witness in Baby Lisa mystery phone case

"We’d like to talk to him. He’s not a suspect, just another person we believe might have some information we can use," said Kansas City Police Capt. Steven Young. "Nothing more, or different from the long list of people we’ve spoken to."

I had thought the police already questioned him in the beginning. As per Megan Wright he disappeared a few days after. But, I guess they have more questions


A video with Joe Tacopina (on the phone):
Family Attorney Joe Tacopina Says Cell Phone Call to Megan Wright Could Lead to Big Break in Baby Lisa Investigation
This is posted as today's date, but it seems to just be a bunch of old information, and the lawyer making the same claims as previously.



The first birthday cakes for Baby Lisa: Supporters post pictures of baked goodies online as parents hit out at 'nasty' police

Nice to see some really thoughtful people out there that made cakes for Lisa's birthday. An interesting paragraph in this report:

Kansas City Police have in the past said the couple has failed to be open with authorities because they haven't met separately with detectives since October 8. That interview was cut short by Sean O'Brien, a board member of the Midwestern Innocence Project who briefly helped the family. 'He told me about what went on in the third interview and he ended the third interview,' Picerno said. 'He had had enough. And that's enough for us.'

Lots of people saying the parents or lawyers were stopping the interviews with police, but there is a third option. Also many people saying the parents aren't talking to police because they were tired, but here it's telling us what really happened. And finally, Deborah's tale of police accusing her has been questioned. This is more proof she could be correct on that one.

Michelle

reply to post by Michelle129th

Thanks Michelle,
Based on your post I found this, that strongly suggest the police have been lying...

Speaking on the first birthday of the Northland girl, John Picerno said that Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin already have been “interviewed/interrogated” about their daughter’s Oct. 4 disappearance for more than 30 hours spread across five occasions. “At this point there’s nothing more to be said,” said Picerno, who joined the case two weeks ago. He said the idea that the parents have not been cooperative “is just fantasy.” Bradley and Irwin have been interviewed separately twice without attorneys, he said. The third time they were interviewed, with an attorney present, “it got nasty,” according to Picerno. The attorney called off those interviews, he said. “He had enough, and that’s enough for us,” Picerno said. That attorney, Sean O’Brien, confirmed Friday that he had stopped those interviews because of the “accusatory” nature of police questioning. “It was clear to me it was not going to produce any relevant information,” O’Brien said. O’Brien said that Bradley and Irwin consented to that interview even though previous interviews also had involved accusatory tactics. “They still wanted to give information because they know the police are the best hope of finding their baby,” he said. Picerno said he believes that police are “absolutely” focusing too much on the parents, and he said his clients have indicated that police are treating them like suspects. Read more: www.kansascity.com...

reply to post by Dav1d


wow..so it appears that Lisa and Jeremy have a very valid reason for not trusting the police, and their 'tunnel" vision,and accusatory tactics..

and all along we are lead to believe that they did not want to be interviewed..when in fact they did all they could to help their daughter.

Think its obvious to parents after that much questioning..that the police aren't interested in actually helping them find their daughter..

How absolutely devastating that must feel..knowing you are innocent.

reply to post by gabby2011


OMG Calm down! I didnt' say you called anyone severe psychos, regarding THIS CASE. I'm talking about murderers, rapists, etc, being severe psychos. AND YOU KNOW IT. You are so quick to judge and jump; and I 'm not being manipulativbe and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I had several heaaping mouthfuls of words put into my mouth by David and it took me a good f5 posts to straighten it up because of an exchange you and I had . In that exchange we were talking about murder/ rapists and psychos in GENERAL and NOT about the direct family involved in this case.
I welcomed you back, sincerely , and have enjoyed the talk with you and first instant you can , you come back roaring. Does anyone read ANYTHING anyone else writes here? If not it may as well come down because we've now spent 3 pages on he said, she said with nothing accomplished !
NOW , I will go find the posts and quote them !

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011

 

OMG Calm down! I didnt' say you called anyone severe psychos, regarding THIS CASE. I'm talking about murderers, rapists, etc, being severe psychos. AND YOU KNOW IT. You are so quick to judge and jump; and I 'm not being manipulativbe and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I had several heaaping mouthfuls of words put into my mouth by David and it took me a good f5 posts to straighten it up because of an exchange you and I had . In that exchange we were talking about murder/ rapists and psychos in GENERAL and NOT about the direct family involved in this case.
I welcomed you back, sincerely , and have enjoyed the talk with you and first instant you can , you come back roaring. Does anyone read ANYTHING anyone else writes here? If not it may as well come down because we've now spent 3 pages on he said, she said with nothing accomplished !
NOW , I will go find the posts and quote them !

ok..what does this mean?..below

quote by schmae

I did nowhere object to Gabby's saying those folks are severe psychos,, murderers, etc. I do not deny, in fact I am SURE that ( IF ) deb is responsible for Lisa's death that OF COURSE her past had a role in this.

Your implications with this text seem to suggest I called them psychos , murderers ,etc...does it not?

When in fact I was referring to what you implied by using the analogy that people with troubled childhoods have developed ways to lie and control those lies..

Again here is my text that you seemed to allude to..

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.

and here is your text on the matter..

Im not uninterested in clarifying my point. It's pretty well documented that a lot of murders/ serial killers and child molesters have highly abusive upbringings. That's just fact.

quote by schmae

OMG Calm down! I didnt' say you called anyone severe psychos, regarding THIS CASE.

when in fact you did just that.. try reading the quote again I posted of yours.. here it AGAIN just for clarification of what you indeed did say I said..

I did nowhere object to Gabby's saying those folks are severe psychos,, murderers, etc. I do not deny, in fact I am SURE that ( IF ) deb is responsible for Lisa's death that OF COURSE her past had a role in this.

Seems to me you are talking out both sides of your mouth here..can you not see clearly what I am referring to?