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: 120
41
<< 117  118  119    121  122  123 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
So is it really too far off track - (I'm just asking your opinion now) that the PA might be using this custody hearing as a means to an end?

I seriously doubt that would happen however Im not saying its impossible. When incidents like what you are describing (ising 1 court to gain an advantage in another court) it raises not only ethical issue, but constitutional issues - namely you cant be forced to provide testimony against yourself (there are exceptions however in your hypothetical I dont see any exceptions). The appeals courts dont like it when prosecutors get creative and attempt to find ways to bypass some of the rules / laws / rights.


Originally posted by silo13
If so, it's mighty crafty and a hats off accomplishment if it goes through. Do I necessarily think it's correct? No, but, sometimes the world just isn't fare and it shouldn't be fare when there's a tiny baby out there who's parents refuse to cooperate with the police. I asked for you opinion. That's mine.

As much as I want to see the child found and suspects punished, we need to find out what occured without doing it in a manner than can jeopradize any prosecution. All it takes is for one, at the time minor, mistep on the part of the police / prosecuting attorney to completely destroy any case. Yet another reason why it appears to people that our judicial system / police investigations run at the speed of smell.



Originally posted by silo13
Thank you again!

You are welcome.. As this mess goes forward and you have questions please ask and I will try to answer them. If something in the case breaks we will be able to look at some of the exceptions and what not i mentioned a few pages back.




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
BABY LISA UPDATE: Mystery Phone Call to Megan Wright Reveals New Twists and Turns That Could Hurt Family’s Defense


he call that was placed from Deborah Bradley’s phone at 11:57 p.m. to Megan Wright prompted the Irwin family’s defense attorney to claim the call could prove Lisa’s parents’ innocence.



However, revelations discovered by private investigator Ron Rugen may prove otherwise. After speaking to several eyewitnesses and people residing in Wright’s home at the time of Lisa’s disappearance, Wright had only had that particular phone and phone number for about a month before the baby vanished. Rugen says this could mean that her number changed when she got the new phone, in which case, phone records would fail to reflect whether or not Bradley or Irwin had correspondence with Wright on her preceding line.


With video explanation.

(I can’t get the video in this area) Not sure what the rest of this story is... Maybe someone here can fill us in?

peace



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Report: Dumpster near missing Baby Lisa Irwin's home confiscated by police

Kansas City, Mo. - A trash dumpster fire was reported in the area on the night that missing 11-month-old Lisa Irwin vanished and one report indicates authorities have now confiscated the large metal container for further examination.

HLN reported Tuesday that the dumpster is likely a significant piece of evidence because of where it sits in relation to Baby Lisa's home and the route where several sitings of a man carrying an infant took place.


I know this is old - from the 1st - but I hadn’t seen it reported here so I wanted to make sure it’s in the thread.

peace



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Worthwhile watch.

One thing I heard that I hadn't before? (tic 3.50 or so) - The cellphone 'pings', from the calls? They never went farther than a THIRD OF A MILE from the house - wooded area - near river. Painful to hear that.

Also - Yes, the children in the home now NEED counseling. It's like I was saying the other day - those boys might be terrified to sleep back in that home. I hope they get counseling.

Tacopina says the parents have answered every question 5 times. 'If the police don't like it? That's their problem.

NO Taco, that's BABY LISA'S PROBLEM. And the parents problem. It's time for them to sit down and talk INDIVIDUALLY with police. Without that? There's just no way - until the outcome of course - I'll ever be able to believe the 'Brad-Wins' don't know more than they're telling. And I retract that. Even AFTER the outcome of the case - I'll still never believe the parents didn't know more than they're telling.

Lots more in the video...

peace



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Thanks for your words. You seem highly intelligent.

Oh I dont know about that... The judicial side actually irritates me to know end because of all the exceptions, opinions, issues with PA / judges etc. Just once I would like to go a month without being subpoeaned for a case where my only involvement was checking out with the primary officer and leaving the scene within a minute since im not needed..


Originally posted by Human_Alien
About driver's license. There's not even a law requiring one to be licensed to drive (or so I haven't found one yet) so........if we go down the rabbit hole deep enough, we'll see we're living in very bizarre times.

There is no law that requires a person to have a DL or State issued ID. However, businesses can request ID's and if ones not available they can refuse to complete the sale (cash transactions excluded). You are required in Missouri to have a valid drivers license in order to operate a motor vehicle.



Originally posted by Human_Alien
Here's the thing about driving drunk or speeding. Most of the time when we get pulled over we really are guilty. We just keep looking for loop holes. Very few (but it DOES exist) are harassed, i.e, pulled over for no good reason.

Police cant randomly stop a person for no reason at all. At the very least we must have reasonable suspicion in order to stop a vehicle. From the moment of the stop it falls to the officer to justify every action taken from A to Z. The field sobriety tests (roadside olympics as I call them) consist of the 3 basic walk n turn, one leg stand and horizontal gaze nystagmus. The HGN is the test we do with the dirvers eyeballs, and there are 6 total clues (3 clues each eye, same). When we see the eyeball jump instead of track smoothly from left to right, there is an 80% to 90% probability the driver is intoxicated.



Originally posted by Human_Alien
So we can throw in the 'calibration' defense/threat into the equation if we want to. But if you're honest with yourself (not necessarily out loud) I think you'll agree that you either had too much to drink and/or you really were going over the posted speed limit.

Actually the calibration issue is a huge factor for DWI cases. If the breathalyzer at the jail is out of compliance, any result wont be admissable in court. The portable breath test (hand helf thing we sometimes use at roadside) is not a calibrated tool, which means any reading we get cannot be used at all. We just note on the DWI form that a PBT was used / declined, and the result positive for etoh / negative for etoh (etoh = alcohol).

Friving habits - lane swerving, failure to maintain lane control, driving on the left side when 2 or more lanes provided, failure to signal, wide right turns, over correcting left turns, speed fluctuation going below then above posted speed limits, inter lane weaving, fog line violations... Those are just some of what we look for that deals with just the vehicle operation.

Once we make contact with the driver there are a bunch more lcues - surred speech, intoxicating odor, asking for dl / insurance and being handed a credit card, inability for the person to consistently use fine motor function (pulling a card from his wallet etc), driver unable to multi task etc.. those are just from initial contact and there are more clues to look for.

Alcohol affects people in different ways. Alcohol effects on woman actually occur faster than on men because the female body has more water / fat content (boobies).



Originally posted by Human_Alien
But back to this Jerry Springer clan.
Much like the events on 9-11, there are far too many 'first times' involved this evening to be ignored. And like I said earlier, I doubt very much we know half of what's going on behind the scenes.

Speaking from experience we arent getting the whole story, and to be honest, we shouldnt. The rights of the suspects trump the rights of the public to be nosey.


Originally posted by Human_Alien
One big give-away for me (of course, not from a legal standpoint. More like a human observation) was when Deborah got 'fixed up' to do her television interview. Really? Vanity actually enters the innocent minds of a parent when their prime focus is to find their child? I didn't even know that was possible.
It's like finding out your child is dead but you want to brush your teeth before you identify the body! It's insane behavior!


When I saw that my mind went to this -
Münchausen syndrome by proxy

I think this case will have more twists and turns than a congressional junket to europe.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Go back and re-read my post in its entirety and stop seeing only what you want. I differentiated the parts your trying to blurr with compelled testimony.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I seriously doubt that would happen however Im not saying its impossible. When incidents like what you are describing (ising 1 court to gain an advantage in another court) it raises not only ethical issue, but constitutional issues - namely you cant be forced to provide testimony against yourself (there are exceptions however in your hypothetical I dont see any exceptions). The appeals courts dont like it when prosecutors get creative and attempt to find ways to bypass some of the rules / laws / rights.

Yes, I understand. Forgive me if I’m looking for someone to suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat that brings some closure to the case. I was in hopes this was it, but, after reading your input I can see there’s just too much at risk.


As much as I want to see the child found and suspects punished, we need to find out what occured without doing it in a manner than can jeopradize any prosecution. All it takes is for one, at the time minor, mistep on the part of the police / prosecuting attorney to completely destroy any case. Yet another reason why it appears to people that our judicial system / police investigations run at the speed of smell.

There’s that too. How horrible it would be for the desire to find Lisa to overrun the law and jeopardize the case. That’s an absolutely ‘can’t happen’ for sure.

And you bring up yet another great bit of info - that’s a comfort also. When those of us who so want Lisa found get frustrated we need to read what you’ve said here and really take it to heart. Be because beyond finding Lisa, there’s a need for justice. Real justice here.

Thanks so much for your help. Invaluable stuff that.

peace



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Morningglory
I'm having a problem with the "refuses to answer any and all questions." We live in a world where forced confessions do happen. If a confession is desired by LE and you don't deliver could that be considered a refusal? You're walking a fine line here.

Sure its a refusal. Also, if we mirandize a person and they refuse to respond, Supreme Court rulings has classified the non response as invoking their rights. If a person is asked to go "downtown" they are told whats going on, and usually if there is the chance your involved (and they ask guilt seeking questions) you will be mirandized. Other than that, any other contact is voluntary, and at any point in an interview thats voluntary the person can get up and leave.

The officers will then do one of 1 things -
Let the person go since they dont have enough evidence
Arrest the person based on evidence already collected that can be used in lieu of a confession.


Originally posted by Morningglory
My kids always come to mind when people say if you're innocent prove it. Just think about that for a minute it might be harder than you think. For example someone takes the last cookie from the cookie jar. Everyone knows you're a cookie monster. The family assumes you're guilty because of your past but you know you're innocent. How could you possibly prove you didn't take it? You couldn't that's why it's the state's "burden" to prove guilt not yours to prove innocence.


That comment irritates the piss out of me to no end. Its the responsibility of the police to investigate a crime and its the responsibility of the PA to prosecute the case if they choose. The suspect is innocent until a judge or jury says otherwise. end of argument.
As a side note guys, there is nothing wrong with cooperating with police and asking questions. However you should never be afraid to say no to protect your rights. A lot of what we do is based on consent, especially for vehicle stops.

If the officer asks to search something, and you dont like it, say no. Some officers will see contraband but not act completely on the observation. They will at times ask the driver for consent to search the vehicle. If the driver agrees the investigation moves forward.

If the driver refuses, then the officer can articulate what he saw, contraband in plain view, and move forward without consent (plain view is one of the exceptions to the 4th).

Learn your rights, how the law works, particiapte in government - get involved. The best defense against the police and government is when its citizens know whats going on.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

Fri, Nov. 11, 2011 08:11 PM - An attorney for the parents of missing baby Lisa Irwin said Friday that his clients will not sit down for separate interviews, as Kansas City police are requesting.

read more

Fri, Nov. 11, 2011 08:11 PM - An attorney for the parents of missing baby Lisa Irwin said Friday that his clients will not sit down for separate interviews, as Kansas City police are requesting.

peace
edit on 17-11-2011 by silo13 because: spacing


The reason for seperate interviews is to check facts against the events / statements. Its a common investigation technique and is a valuable tool, especailly when it comes to a complex explanation of events.

A person cant tell the same lie on the 5h interview that they did on the first interview. The more elaborate the lie, the more it becomes possible to start tripping over them.

Regardless of what people may infer though from the refusal to sit down seperately, again its their right to do so. Law enforcement will need to find information of another form to move the case forward, if thats even possible without parental cooperation.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
If they have already sat down and spoken to police and told them all they knew then sitting and talking with them again, when the police are only looking at them as suspects, is not going to find the baby. After all, is the baby at the police station? No? Then talking to them and relaying the same information is not going to accomplish anything.


Actually interviews occur more than just once. Long story short, we get the initial statements from those invovled. During the investigation the police, while looking for the suspect, also have the task of ruling people out as suspects.

When a traumatic incident occurs to a person, their memory at that moment is all goofed up from the emotion / adrennaline / panic etc. A follow up interview 2-3 days later is ideal since by then the memory has calmed and organized the info in a way they can remeber, where they couldnt before.

As an example if an officer (in my old department )is involved in an incident where they discharge their duty weapon, they are asked to do an initial summary of events that is not offical. They thn go back 3 days later with the summary, and write the report.

Follow up interviews also allow the investigation to address any issues - you said the call came in at 6:30 byt when we got the phone records it shows the only call was at 9:30, you said you got gas at the local station at 4pm but your credit card shows 3:00pm.

Discrepancies arent always sinister, and follow up interviews that can clarify information helps the investigation. Again though, its up to the parents and not the police for interviews.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d
So what's the opposit side of that coin?

good question - lets review


Originally posted by Dav1d
1) Not the family, but their lawyer stop that interview, because it was too antagonistic

How they perceive the request is not really a factor. Its up to them if they choose to cooperate or not.



Originally posted by Dav1d
2) That lawyer was fired.

For speaking to the media too much.



Originally posted by Dav1d
3) The new lawyer and the family have agreed to answer written questions, but that isn't good enough for KCPD! Why if it is about finding Lisa? If it is about gaining knowledge? It is however; a very reasonable position if the object is to break Deborah.

While we can use handwriting analysis its not exact. The reason for the face to face interview is not only to listen to the info directly from the horses mouth, but to also look at body language, either from being asked a specific questions or if one parent responds to a question.

People dont really realize the non verbal clues they give off in different situations and they dont even realize it.. Behavioral analysis is a great tool as it allows a look at whats beneath the surface so to speak.


Originally posted by Dav1d
4) I'm sure the family knows something that some will not accept here, namely this is no longer (indeed if it ever was) about finding little Lisa. It is about pinning this on someone, making someone appear guilty!

I dont agree. To date KCPD has not located the child, and have exhausted all leads that have come in. They have requestsed the assistance of the FBI, including agents who received special training dealing with children and how to interview them in a friendly non threatening enviornment.

In this case KCPD has exhausted all leads. The only option is to go back to the begining and look it all over a second time with fresh eyes to see if anything was missed.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Here's the wiggle-room, if you will, that I can extend to these parents if they are indeed, not-guilty. I think there might have been illegal drugs and untoward behavior involved between the adults. Perhaps there was cheating, sex and drugs which might help to account for some of the less-than-typical behavior from these hillbillies!



Ive seen some cases where mother and child are in bed sleeping and at some point mom rolls over and accidentally smother the child. One doesnt need to be drunk in order to do something like that and not feel it. Some people are such sound sleepers that you have to forcefully wake them up by shaking them.

If mom was intoxicated / under the influence, its possible something like the above occured. People panic, and instead of dealing with that situation they try to hide it to protect themselves as well as trying to hide the embarrassment.

They fix the issue, and then make a story up for the police to try to explain it away.

I am not saying this occured, but it is something to look at.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


You know what - you need to fix your rectal-cranial inversion and please educate yourself on how laws and investigations work. An incident by officers in one state have absolutely nothing to do with officers and actions in another state.

Contrary to popular belief if people dont like a law or thinks its illegal doesnt make the law invalid. Your attempt to portray all law enforcement as violating a persons rights on a daily basis gets old, and the info you use to support your rants are so far off base its not even funny.

Please consider this before posting / responding to people in this thread.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
What I don't understand is that, when an abduction like this happens (not proven yet) or your child goes missing, you call the police because you want their help in finding your child. So if you call for an organization to help you with the trauma you are going through, why are you then going to stop all contact with them. You have indicated you need their help but then you stop any form of help from them.
How can Deborah and Jeremy justify the intelligence behind the lack of cooperation?
How can they expect the organization to proceed with the help they need if they cannot speak or interview the parents again?
I'm just not convinced that the remarks by the police to Deborah warrants this amount of time without further discussion.
So is it bad counsel from their lawyers?
A fixed stubbornness from the parents?
A fear from guilt?

The police know the parents feelings about the comments made by them with regard to them being suspects. They know that their interview technique upset Deborah, but putting this aside, shouldn't the parents now reinforce contact to finalize their statements and
activities during the times leading up to and after Lisa disappeared?

Lisa's parents haven't complained about the detective work the police have done, or the searches, or the manpower. They haven't once pleaded with the police to find their baby.
They have gone through tough interview techniques which upset their sensibilities. Put fear into the consequences of how serious this matter is.
Why is there no mediator working to get the 2 parties working together again?

If the parents are not pro active in looking for their baby then why should the police, the community or even the world care for them or their feelings anymore?

Thankfully we care about a human being, a child that has no voice. If Lisa could talk to her parents, I'm sure she would be saying "Why Mum, Why Dad?"
They have let her down, they have contributed to her fate.
They and only THEY have to live with this for the rest of their lives.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
Yes, I understand. Forgive me if I’m looking for someone to suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat that brings some closure to the case. I was in hopes this was it, but, after reading your input I can see there’s just too much at risk.

It is better to proceed slowly to avoid any mistakes. Its better to get needed information through legal means and not questionable ones. While we all want to see baby lisa safely found, if this goes the other way and it comes back to the parents, any actions taken to "speed" up the investigation could in reality backfire, with the possibility of a murder walking free with absolutely no possibility of ever holding them accountible. I understand with a baby involved the situaion is worse than others, however.....



Originally posted by silo13
There’s that too. How horrible it would be for the desire to find Lisa to overrun the law and jeopardize the case. That’s an absolutely ‘can’t happen’ for sure.

Hence the apparent slow methodical approach KCPD has taken on it. I think it bares repeating that looking for a missing teenager or adult is easy when compared to trying to locate a baby.Aside from a birth mark or DNA sample / identifiable scar, all babies are going to look the same. Dress baby lisa up with boys clothes and it gets even harder.


Originally posted by silo13
And you bring up yet another great bit of info - that’s a comfort also. When those of us who so want Lisa found get frustrated we need to read what you’ve said here and really take it to heart. Be because beyond finding Lisa, there’s a need for justice. Real justice here.

Thanks so much for your help. Invaluable stuff that.

peace


Again you guys are welcome.

For what its worth - There is a general view within law enforcement where we have to accept the fact that we, the police, cant be concerned with outcome of a case we are working on. 95% of all court cases are handled by way of plea deals, which usually means some guy attacked a cop, guy was arrested, charged with a felony, and the PA drops the charge to common assault, the guy pays a fine and gets like 30 days in jail, and life continues on.

If we worried about everything we deal with, we wouldnt be able to do our jobs at all. I bring this up to highlight the view some may have about law enforcement and the perception they are cold / callous / uncaring etc etc etc. When law enforcement makes something personal (and it does happen) we have a tendancy to lose focus. We concentrate so much on what we are looking for that its possible to miss things. We also run the risk of jeopradizing a prosecution by innapropiate actions / choices.

If the police are the ones who collected evidence, and the police are the ones who went after suspect A, when in realuity they missed evidence and key witnesses so the suspect uis actually suspect J, it creates a problem, including credibility of officers.

When we graduate the academy for basic police operations we are considered expert witneeses in court. When we go over a line, its not viewed as a person made a mistake, its viewed as an expert witness, a police officer, a person who should know better, did this.

That action will not only affect that particular case, but will impact any and all cases that officer is involved with. It allows the defense to question the officers actions by arguing he was so quick to find a suspect he didnt review all the evidence. The cop was so quick to want to find a suspect, some evidence was missed.

It allows the defense to raise reasonable doubt in court, in addition to suggesting that maybe the evidence was mishandeled on purpose to support the charge against the defendant. The PA relies on law enforcement that the information they submit is accurate and verifiable. All of our reports are offical in the eyes of the court, and faslifing / misleading / lie of omission no matter how small, can have catastrophic repercussions -

Lost case
Murderer goes free
No justice for the victims family
Officers crediability is non existant
The department the officer worked is now under closer scrutiny from the PA for reports submitted.
Causes a breakdown in communication and trust between the public and law enforcement.

Just thought id add that.

As the saying goes sometimes its impossible to see the trees while standing in the middle of the forest.



edit on 18-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sussy
What I don't understand is that, ..snipped for room

Have a look at this from this angle -
Your child is kidnapped, you call the police and they show up. You give them all the info and they put the info out to surrounding agencies / states / feds. There comes a point when 1 of 2 things must occur -

The family is telling the truth and in reality, everythig the police have is all their is.
The family is not being truthful, which makes any more attempts a moot point.

Just because the Police are wanting clarification doesnt mean the answers mom and dad gave are incorrect / misleading / lies. From the families point of iew, they cooperated as much as they could. Just because they dont want to be interviewed seperately doesnt indicate anything other than a legal move by their lawyer.

If they are interviewed seperately one of 2 things can occur -
They both give the exact same story and we are still at square 1.
They both give a story with some minor discrepanices, which will be looked at but does not mean they are being untruthful.



Originally posted by sussy
How can Deborah and Jeremy justify the intelligence behind the lack of cooperation?
How can they expect the organization to proceed with the help they need if they cannot speak or interview the parents again?

What other info are they seeking? They know what the child looks like, they have collected evidence in the house, did the search throughout the area, exhausted all leads and still - square 1.
As time moves forward mom and dad will remember more info / details. Sometimes a smell or sound triggers the memory recall. Thats a matter of calling up the detective and saying heym, i just remembered this.

What is relevant and important to the police, might be completely goofy and stupid to everyone else. So its easy to feel targeted or view the police as doing nothing. Communication breakdown.


Originally posted by sussy
I'm just not convinced that the remarks by the police to Deborah warrants this amount of time without further discussion.
So is it bad counsel from their lawyers?
A fixed stubbornness from the parents?
A fear from guilt?

Innocent until proven guilty. If the cops think the parents are behind this, then they will have information / evidence that leads them in that direction. However as with anything in life, sometimes, right before you cross the finish line, you get served a curve ball and suddenly realize your in the wrong race..



Originally posted by sussy
The police know the parents feelings ..snipped for room

The 64k dollar question.



Originally posted by sussy
Lisa's parents haven't complained about the detective work the police have done, or the searches, or the manpower. They haven't once..snipped for room?

Actually they have complained about the police spending time looking at the parents and not enough time looking for the kidnapper.

As far as mediation, you could try but in the end its the right of the parents to refuse to cooperate / give statements etc. Also you run into the issues of the mediator possibly receiving privileged information. A lwayer cannot be forced to tell the court what their clients tell them. A 3rd party is not bound by that, which means if they accidentally hear info they arent suppsoed to, it coud bean issue.. .



Originally posted by sussy
If the parents are not pro active in looking for their baby then why should the police, the community or even the world care for them or their feelings anymore?

If the family goes to search for the child, and find evidence along the way, the evidence can be rendered inadmissable in court by virture of the parents finding it. The family finds the suspect and the suspect confesses to them before the cops show up, it can be viewed as the parents making it up. In cases like this the parents need to remain at home and out of the way. Any interaction they have could have consequences in the court room.



Originally posted by sussy
Thankfully we care about a human being, a child that has no voice. If Lisa could talk to her parents, I'm sure she would be saying "Why Mum, Why Dad?"
They have let her down, they have contributed to her fate.
They and only THEY have to live with this for the rest of their lives.

The parents are innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of how you or others view them or their actions, they are innocent and should be treated as such.

Any person can state what they would do if this incident or that incient occured. However, if that incident ever arises, we quikly find that the prior statement is not accurate. Its like the police going through the academy. A question they ask is - are you capable of using force, up to and including deadly force, should the situation warrant it?

We all say yes, but until that day actually comes, its nothing but a comment in history.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Dav1d
 


You know what - you need to fix your rectal-cranial inversion and please educate yourself on how laws and investigations work.


Interesting just how fast Law Enforcement, is ready to ditch the LAWS, (the rules of the forum ~ no ad hominem attacks). I thought better of you, I see I was wrong.


An incident by officers in one state have absolutely nothing to do with officers and actions in another state.

Crime is crime, unless it's criminal behavior by Law Enforcement. Cayley, Sky, Tyler, has nothing to do with Lisa? A lot of people would not agree with that! I suspect FBI profilers would not support that argument. We have a right to compare and contrast Law Enforcement in one area to another area. Their attitudes, their effectiveness and efficiency.


Contrary to popular belief if people dont like a law or thinks its illegal doesnt make the law invalid. Your attempt to portray all law enforcement as violating a persons rights on a daily basis gets old, and the info you use to support your rants are so far off base its not even funny.


Well we have found something we can agree on, it's not funny when a member of Law Enforcement holds you down, and another member of Law Enforcement kicks you in the head until you stop moving. We don't need a new law for that, we don't need to change a law for that, it's already illegal!

Where have I ever said ALL Law Enforcement is violating a persons rights? Or is attempting to violate people's rights? Or in its simplest form all Law Enforcement is bad? That is a straw dog fallacy based on the misrepresentation of my argument. But then I suspect I don't need to tell you that, do I?


Please consider this before posting / responding to people in this thread.

There are a lot of excellent officers out there, and I don't have an issue in acknowledging that. Sadly there are also a lot of criminals in uniform, that keep comming to light! There are a number of officers that believe they are above the laws, or the laws don't apply to them.

You've stated you are Law Enforcement.
You've agreed to the same rules we have.
Ad Hominem, know what it means?
Everyone is equal under the law, it's just that some are more equal than others.

edit on 18-11-2011 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2011 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


The reason for seperate interviews is to check facts against the events / statements. Its a common investigation technique and is a valuable tool, especailly when it comes to a complex explanation of events.

Exactly, I don't even have to be in law enforcement to see the need for such interviewing Thank you for reaffirming what for me, until this point was only a belief based on my gut - now that's based on fact...



A person cant tell the same lie on the 5h interview that they did on the first interview. The more elaborate the lie, the more it becomes possible to start tripping over them.

Especially when you don't have the 'stronger' of the two parents there to interrupt, glare, smile, blink, whatever that internal and external body language is the more submissive parent 'gives into' on a daily basis.


Regardless of what people may infer though from the refusal to sit down separately, again its their right to do so. Law enforcement will need to find information of another form to move the case forward, if that's even possible without parental cooperation.

Sure, I agree, it's their 'right' as citizen's. As parents? M Orally? No, I don't believe it's right. But we're talking law here aren't we.


Thanks for continuing my education. Again, I appreciate it to no end. As we all know - knowledge is power and also something no one can take away - ever.

In your debt,
gracie



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





The parents are innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of how you or others view them or their actions, they are innocent and should be treated as such.


Thank you for stating that again..

I appreciate the information you bring to the table as well.. and it does give us insight as to how the law operates and why.

What I appreciate the most is that you have not jumped on the "parents must be guilty " bandwagon.

The amount of trash and gossip thrown about surrounding this family is what really irked me, and got me into this thread.

It was very hard for me to see parents who are obviously going through a severely traumatic time.. having every little detail of their private life dragged threw the mud by the public and media, and accusations hurled at them by people who have very little of the real facts.

We all want baby Lisa to be found...and to make assumptions that the parents don't.. is a little too much for me at this stage of the game.

So once again thank you for some great unbiased info regarding how the law works...and the acknowledgement that law enforcement officers can make mistakes if they are focused to much in one particular possibility...as well as the VERY valid reasons why the Irwin's would not be out searching for their child physically, and how that could effect the case if they were.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
BABY LISA UPDATE: Mystery Phone Call to Megan Wright Reveals New Twists and Turns That Could Hurt Family’s Defense


he call that was placed from Deborah Bradley’s phone at 11:57 p.m. to Megan Wright prompted the Irwin family’s defense attorney to claim the call could prove Lisa’s parents’ innocence.



However, revelations discovered by private investigator Ron Rugen may prove otherwise. After speaking to several eyewitnesses and people residing in Wright’s home at the time of Lisa’s disappearance, Wright had only had that particular phone and phone number for about a month before the baby vanished. Rugen says this could mean that her number changed when she got the new phone, in which case, phone records would fail to reflect whether or not Bradley or Irwin had correspondence with Wright on her preceding line.


With video explanation.

(I can’t get the video in this area) Not sure what the rest of this story is... Maybe someone here can fill us in?

peace




I am going to state my opinion on this....but want everyone to do their own investigating (as I know you will). Ron Rugen has proven time and again to not be a good source of information in this case. I know I have linked to him myself a few times thinking he had just had an OOPS moment, but it is pretty much everytime he writes, posts or reports. He is working this case..i guess you can say 'pro bono' as he is not receiving money for it....but he also hasn't been asked to be involved in this case. He IS a licensed PI, but *I* believe he is trying to make a name for himself by inserting him into a high profile case.

He has repeatedly posted information online that is incorrect or untrue. He has then pulled those articles, then reposted, then pulled etc. He is reporting hearsay as being true "evidence or proof" in the case. His agenda seems to be PR for his new investigation firm (IMO). His facebook page is littered with "watch me on this channel..." "read my blog...." "interview at 5...." I honestly think he's been interviewed more than anyone else in this case! And each time, his interviews contain incorrect information. He then feels he's fine to post a retraction on his facebook page but never go on camera saying "sorry I was wrong..." How many people know about his facebook page and will check there for corrections?

That particular post above silo he posted a correction on his FB page. Megan herself told him she had had the phone for 3-4 months prior to Lisa going missing. The 1 month timeframe was what her roommates had told him and rather than verify that information with Megan herself, he went on national tv and reported it. He then posted links to the written article with the same incorrect information. Only after doing the interview and posting the article did he post on his FB page 'sorry it was actually 3 months as per Megan'

Again, I know everyone will do their own checking....nor do I feel everyone should or will share my opinion on this...it's just making so much white noise when we're getting all this distracting misinformation.

Michelle



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 117  118  119    121  122  123 >>

log in

join