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: 121
41
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by IwasOnceHappy
 

I just checked that FB page for you - it's working again. Probably there was just some FB glitch. I read FB has had massive cyber attacks lately/virus/etc.

Point is - the page you were wondering about - Justice for Lisa, is up.

peace



Thanks for the update Silo, I will need to check it when I get home this afternoon. I also received a U2U from someone here with the address, I thank you also. I can get to the other linked accounts, just weird.

IWOH




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 

Thanks for bringing the opinion/information about this P.I to the threads. I'd ask only one thing for the future though.

You brought disparaging information about Gil to the thread - you know Gil, the poor father who lost his son in a like manner as Lisa 'went missing' 25 years ago and has dedicated his life to helping families find their children since? Anyway, the information you brought to the thread about that man was less than flattering if not outright accusatory. The link you provided? It was faulty (at least for me). The twitter page (your link) was blank, when I tried later there was nothing about Gil on the page.

Now you've disparaging information about this P.I to the thread - this time no link at all for any proof.

Don't get me wring - your opinion is enough for me - you're a great thinker and you rarely hit below the belt... But for the sake of the participants and readers of this thread and as is customary - if not obligatory on ATS - would you kindly supply links to back up info you bring in? That would be great!
Unless it's just purely your opinion of course.

Thanks tons

peace
edit on 18-11-2011 by silo13 because: didn't mean to hit edit - doen now, lol



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
As far as the parents re interviewing....... how do they know what the cops want to ask? A lot of new information has come to light. Maybe they want to ask about megan and her phone and dane etc. Maybe they want to go over forensic evidence that's come from teh dumpster or the things taken from the home. Any type cops get new info, then there are new questions needing answered. So Bradwins a month ago decide they've been asked all they need to but new people emerge daily.
I think the desire for separate interviews is to see what Jeremy really thinks happened. He's got to know or suspect or have a hunch about something and might not be able, willing, comfortable with talking about it in front of HER.

Sidenote... does anyone else think the change of timeline from 10:30 to 6:30 is basically not a big deal? the more I hear about it the more I think SO WHAT. The adults were out front of house u ntil 10:30, deb, neighbor, other neighbor , etc. There's no way an 'abductor' came through that front window while they were sitting there. So regardless of when is last time DEB saw Lisa,,,,,,,, it appears nothing happened to Lisa until after 10:30 anyway. So I find this dramatic change in her timeline is much ado about nothing.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Michelle129th
 

Thanks for bringing the opinion/information about this P.I to the threads. I'd ask only one thing for the future though.

You brought disparaging information about Gil to the thread - you know Gil, the poor father who lost his son in a like manner as Lisa 'went missing' 25 years ago and has dedicated his life to helping families find their children since? Anyway, the information you brought to the thread about that man was less than flattering if not outright accusatory. The link you provided? It was faulty (at least for me). The twitter page (your link) was blank, when I tried later there was nothing about Gil on the page.

Now you've disparaging information about this P.I to the thread - this time no link at all for any proof.

Don't get me wring - your opinion is enough for me - you're a great thinker and you rarely hit below the belt... But for the sake of the thread, and as is customary - if not obligatory on ATS - would you kindly supply links to back up info you bring in? That would be great!
Unless it's just purely your opinion of course.

Thanks tons

peace
edit on 18-11-2011 by silo13 because: didn't mean to hit edit


Silo I will go back and check the links and repost. I usually try all the links myself after I post to make sure they work but haven't the past few posts. sometimes I adjust the links because they stick "extra" stuff in there automatically and I wonder if I haven't messed up the links taking the extras out. I will repost with *hopefully* working links

Michelle



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 



I have to applaud your efforts at digging out the truth behind statements made Michelle...and your keen awareness of what the real motivations could be for many of those involved in looking for the "facts" behind this case.

I myself have not trusted much of what has been put out there, considering so much was false at the onset of this investigation...and so much has been retracted and corrected throughout the course of it. That alone has made me stop reading information, in fear that it will be retracted two days later.

You come across as a person who sincerely wants the truth, and is willing to wade through a lot of insinuations, accusations, and information to find it.

Once again ..thank you..and your efforts are appreciated.

If anyone was to be nominated for being an investigator of any kind..whether with law or news... I would nominate you



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Michelle129th

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


It appears posting false information, is acceptable here as long as the intention is to vilify/condemn Deborah and Jeremy and or those who appear to support them.

That aside, I asked this very question many pages back. That Deborah's and Jeremy's phones have not called Megan Wright's phone before in the past year may well be meaningless, if Megan Wright has not used that phone long. By its very nature a burner phone would NOT be one you retain for a sigificant period of time. Without knowing how many phone numbers, Megan has had over the last few years it is at best smoke and mirrors in my opinion. The other question is did Megan buy this phone or was it given to her? One further point here, does Megan claim to have "had" the phone for 3-4 months. Or does she claimed to have "used" the phone for 3-4 months? Megan could have bought 3-4 phones at a time, and had them sitting around for months waiting to be activated, not at all an uncommon practice for people who use burner phones, and never know when they may need a clean phone.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 

That would be great! I'd like to know if there's not another 'fame cling on' with this new P.I.
Talk about a bunch of muddlers!
Thanks tons.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Michelle129th
Just an FYI, Mike Thompson (whether lying or telling the truth), has been ruled out as being an eyewitness. Gil Abeyta, the father who's own child went missing many years ago....the man that approached the Irwin family wanting to help them has completely spoiled any possible chance of Mike Thompson's information being used in this case.

Gil Abeyta took it upon himself, without the aid of the FBI or kcpd to show Mike Thompson photos (including a photo of James Brando). Mike Thompson picked James Brando out and Gil Abeyta then took that information to Cyndy Short when she was still on board. Short took Mike Thompson down to kcpd where they did their own photo line up...again Mike picked out James Brando.

However, because Gil went and did what he did, the kcpd is now saying Mike is a "spoiled" witness and his testimony means nothing.

People wondered why in the beginning the Irwin family refused to accept help from these outsiders that "had been there" You'd think with Gil having "been there" and apparently having some sort of background in helping families of missing children he would have KNOWN BETTER.

I guess the family is smarter than all of us.....but unfortunately Gil has already tainted one witness. I hope he goes back home and leaves this case to be solved by the professionals

twitter

Michelle
edit on 14-11-2011 by Michelle129th because: (no reason given)


Silo, ok here's the first link I think you are talking about regarding Gil Abeyta. The twitter link at the bottom works for me? It is a link to Jim Spellman's twitter account that (at the time of my posting) was reporting the information about Gil. If you were to go to the twitter account now....the Gil Abeyta information is waaaay down there. I will quote from it here. I also will relink the podcast in which Jim Spellman talks about Gil doing this.

The twitter feed dates on the Gil information are from November 14th and are as follows:

@jimspellmancnn jim spellman And to add a bit of clarity about MT and the photos. Gil took him photos first and he IDed a man as being the person he saw. GA then...


..brough this to Cyndy SHorts attention and CS took MT to the KCPD. They interviewed him fro 2 hours and did their own photo array...


And he again IDed the same guy. I got all this from MT, GA and CS. So, he did ID the man to LE but after he IDed him to Gil.


We arent sure how Gil conducted his photo array, but KCPD tells me that since Gil had already seen pictures his testimony is ruined.

That is it in its entirety copy/pasted directly from his page. (but copied in proper order as they show up new to old in twitter feed)

Here's the blog. Jim talking about Gil Abeyta is at approx 29:00 mins.
Websleuths podcast

I will make a new post RE: Ron rugen with all of those links

Michelle



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Do words have meaning?

I think the word cooperate has many meanings depending on who you ask, like i demonstrated in my post . A child may think they've fully cooperated in cleaning their room and a parent may disagree. This is probably the case with the police vs irwins on WHO's cooperated in answering questions.

Let me ask you if you know what RAN means? Of course, right? " i ran to the store''----------- now did i put on my shoes and run there and back or did i hop in a vehicle and make the trip ??

I think we all know what beautiful means....... its' universally accepted to mean something that you want to look at, that brings pleasure to view . Is Lady Gaga beautiful? so think so , others STRONGLy disagree. My veterinarian thinks a colon can be beautiful. I disagree. A banker or a gangster probably thinks a pile of money is beautiful...........
So you see it's very closed minded to assume there is only one meaning for a word and in that regard you accept only the parent's meaning of the word.
It's absolutely as wrong to be fully close minded to the side of law enforcement here as others are accused of being closed minded to the irwins innocence.


I have a random question for everyone, just sort of a poll please.... who believese that a call, ANY CALL, was made to Megan's phone from an irwin/bradley phone at any point that evening? ( timing of call is irrelevant since we cannot get a straight answer from anyone on what time the call came in) Doesn't matter if you think anyone answered it or spoke or who that person is,, just was a call made from phone a to phone b or not? tks



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


I have the impression -- and am so far persuaded -- that yes, a call was made between the two phones.
No idea what person dialed, or what person answered, or where the two phones were at that time.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


This Gil has been doing this sort of ''help'' for a long time now. How could he not know he was compromising the witness with this? It makes me suspicious he did it on purpose for some reason OR he's got a giant ego and thinks he'll solve the case is careless with everything he does to get to that end.
I had respect for his actions at first and now think he's kind of a............. should have stayed home.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 





It's absolutely as wrong to be fully close minded to the side of law enforcement here as others are accused of being closed minded to the irwins innocence.


I agree its wrong to be close minded either way..

I also have to add that it is wrong for the law enforcement to be close minded as well.. They are doing their job in suspecting that it could be the parents..but their expertise in how they extract a confession from any guilty party is very important..not only concerning the parents but all other possible suspects as well.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


I would say a connection was attempted.
My guess is the wireless provider has a record of that.
Perhaps if we get lucky then a voice mail was left? Again I would assume there would be a record of that as well. That may justify some of the cops behavior.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


This Gil has been doing this sort of ''help'' for a long time now. How could he not know he was compromising the witness with this? It makes me suspicious he did it on purpose for some reason OR he's got a giant ego and thinks he'll solve the case is careless with everything he does to get to that end.
I had respect for his actions at first and now think he's kind of a............. should have stayed home.


I really don't think he realized the outcome of his efforts..

What I see is a man who took seriously what the eye witnesses had to say , and had a hunch there were some real possible clues to these sitings. Had he not tracked him down ,shown him pictures..then took it to the lawyer.. would the police have ever created a line up for the eye witness?

He did what the police seemed to have failed to do..up to that point..and that is try and get a concrete ID on the man who was seen.

I can't say for sure that the police haven't tried to find the identity of this man.. but it seems odd that they did not set up pics for identification very soon after having all possible suspects associated .

I would be very interested in hearing what the couple has to say about the man they saw carrying a child..these are important leads.. and are "key' factors to this investigation in my opinion.


edit on 18-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


This Gil has been doing this sort of ''help'' for a long time now. How could he not know he was compromising the witness with this? It makes me suspicious he did it on purpose for some reason OR he's got a giant ego and thinks he'll solve the case is careless with everything he does to get to that end.
I had respect for his actions at first and now think he's kind of a............. should have stayed home.


What is the most important thing here?
Gil clearly sees to believe locating Lisa is number 1, once we find Lisa we can worry about making a case. KCPD seems/appears to put other things first.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Honestly David, I was leaning more toward intentional obstruction by LE, which should have thrilled you . I just wonder since Gil has helped cops in the past and must KNOW the drill, why he would do this. Did someone from KCPD prompt him to or even give him the go ahead, knowing it would taint the witness. Then they discount the sightings and go back to square one ie: parents ! I'm not SAYING it is so, only suggesting it as apossibility. Or rather asking if that seems plausible ? It was just such an amateur move from a guy who one would think might know better.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011

I really don't think he realized the outcome of his efforts..

What I see is a man who took seriously what the eye witnesses had to say , and had a hunch there were some real possible clues to these sitings. Had he not tracked him down ,shown him pictures..then took it to the lawyer.. would the police have ever created a line up for the eye witness?

He did what the police seemed to have failed to do..up to that point..and that is try and get a concrete ID on the man who was seen.

I can't say for sure that the police haven't tried to find the identity of this man.. but it seems odd that they did not set up pics for identification very soon after having all possible suspects associated .

I would be very interested in hearing what the couple has to say about the man they saw carrying a child..these are important leads.. and are "key' factors to this investigation in my opinion.


edit on 18-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)


If you accept this, that he did what the police failed to do....
Which I accept.
The next logical questions are why did they fail, and have they failed to do other things as well?
It appears that the man identified had a close working relationship with detectives. Do we ignore that? Do we pretend it doesn't matter? If we assume for a minute that such a relationship exist can it suggest a reason for why the police might have failed to pursue a certain lead? At best that is an assumption it doesn't mean it's true, but it may give us a potential reason.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


'''It appears that the man identified had a close working relationship with detectives. Do we ignore that? Do we pretend it doesn't matter? '''

JamesBrando ^^^? Estranged husband of neighbor, correct? I saw you state something like this the other day. Do we KNOW he had a close working relationship with detectives? or is this speculation because of his job description/ ?? Sorry if you've already sourced on it, I forgot to ask at the time we talked about it before. tks



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
As far as the parents re interviewing....... how do they know what the cops want to ask? ...snip....I think the desire for separate interviews is to see what Jeremy really thinks happened. He's got to know or suspect or have a hunch about something and might not be able, willing, comfortable with talking about it in front of HER.


It depends on why the police are wanting to speak to them again. Aside from the reasons I listed there are a number of other possibilities I didnt bring up (I dont want to bog the conversation down with a wall of text). If I had to guess they want to speak to them seperately, and will run each person through the entire timeline of events, asking for more info / clarification etc. They could also use that time to ask each parent about the other.

In addition to asking about the basics, if they can seperate them the police could also ask about any criminal activity, are there any persons either hang out with that have not been mentioned, are there any people upset at the family that possibly could result in a kidnapping etc etc etc. There is also the possibility that either parent could have secrets and dont realize the other parent may know about it.

All speculation of course - just adding food for thought.


Originally posted by schmae
Sidenote... does anyone else ..snipped for response.


Lets play the what if game - it will give you an idea of how complex this can get.
* - What if the person came into the house earlier, unseen, and waited till night?
* - What if one of the people there let a friend in the house without the others knowing?
* - What if another door / window was discretely unlocked?
* - What if somone was able to get a copy made of the house keys?
* - What if freinds briefly stopped by, and when they left one visitor stayed behind without others knowing?
* - What if one of the people went outside to get something, and didnt see a person sneak in?
* - What if a freind stopped by and distracted the group enough where another person was able to sneak in undetected?
* - What if they were intoxicated to the level of being somewhat coherent / somewhat in a living dream sequence? Something they thought was a dream actually was not.
* - What if while intoxicated they forgot to close / lock the front door?
* - What if a person was able to sneak some type of drug into the drinks to cause confusion / passing out?
* - Is there an attic space to the house and is it accessible from outside / garage?
* - Is there a basement that can be accessed from the oustide.
* - If its a one level house with a crawlspace, are their any points of entry into the house from there?

I can keep going but you get the idea.

As far as time line is is extremely important, and discrepancies in the timeline are also of major importance. Most investigations dealing with this area need a timline for many reasons..

As an example the mom gave the police one timeline and gave megan kelley a different timeline. Timlines are used to establish sequence of events as well as to check the information given by the people involved - IE checking their alibi.

Hypothetically speaking
- if mom tells the police she went to the store at stateline and highway 70 at 5pm, with the drive to the store being say 15 miles. She says she spent a half hour in the store, bought some items and then headed back home.
She tells police she put her child to bed, herself, at 6:30pm.

All possible of course. However, if she changes the timeline, either shortening it, or making the longer, we would have to go back and take into account that time change. In Kansas City during rush hour it could take a person anywhere from 10-15 minutes if traffic is perfect all the way up to the trip to the store / back home 35 minutes if traffic is a nightmare.

If she canges her timeline, but doesnt change the timeline on when she put her child to bed, it causes a problem. Taking into account all of those x factors it would be unlikely she could make it to the store, shop for 30 mins, then make it home to put her child to bed at the time she stated.

If she tells the police she was with a friend from 4pm up until 6pm, and when the friend is interviewed they state she was hanging out from 4pm-5pm. There is an hour discrepancy. Normally in everyday life its not a big deal. However, a missing hour is enough time to clean up a small crime scene, establish an alabis, move a body etc etc etc.

Again, hypothetical scenarios but it gives you an idea of why timlines are important. Some of the stuff you see on CSI is accurate, but speeded up to make the 1 hour show. Babies who are still forming (cartlidge / bone conversion) its possible to look at any bone breaks / frctures and compare calcification at the injury site. This can give an approximation for timelines on injuries etc..

If an injury timline is determined and its during a change in story timline by mom - it raises questions. Sometimes all it takes is for one discrepancy in the timline given to make or break a case. The intent of an investigation is to rule people out as suspects as much as it is to find one.

When it comes to a timeline, where the timeline is changed several times by the parents you have to ask yourself the question -
Are they changing the timeline around beause they just didnt reme,ber?
Was the timeline changed because they forgot the origional times they stated?
Was the timeline changed in order to create a more solid alabis?
Was the timeline changed in order to hide a previsouly unknown person?

etc etc etc etc.... Its a tough call to make...
edit on 18-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Also re: separate interviews...let's say deb ws having an affair and/ or on drugs as has been suggested. Is it LE she doesnt' want to know this? or is it Jeremy she doesnt' want to know this?
I personally have stated and I stand by it, I do not think she was on drugs...but lets' say she was and her dealer she owed money and this was to do with that. If Jeremy doesnt' even know she ever USED drugs, then she's not about to tell it in front of him. That oh by the way my dealer did say if I don't come up with that 1k I owe him by Monday night, I will pay dearly, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join