Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by Xcathdra

I pointed out 4 different times that the government said the explosion was an accident, yet there they are, talking about how the CIA / Mossad carried it out. You can lead a horse to water......

You need to understand that there could very well be a valid reason for people not believing what the government says about what is an accident..

We have been lied to and manipulated so much ..that it has come to the point where many people refuse to believe what the government tells us.. and automatically assume its a lie to cover something up.

You can lead a horse to water... but its understandable if he sees the water as dirty sludge,and refuses to drink.

reply to post by Xcathdra



Most definitely A

I need to edit to say that I find A to be the better course of action.. not the worse..

reply to post by Xcathdra


You raise an interesting question. When i hear ' exhausted all leads' to me it means they looked into them and they didn't pan out to mean anything. But are you saying that exhausted all leads , from a police point, means they've looked into all leads......... whether or not they are fruitful or not is irrelevant? Hope that makes sense. Does an exhausted lead mean a dead end? That's what I want to ask ,, tks

reply to post by Michelle129th

No, leave it be, it's GREAT and an absolute must for the thread, thank you again.

It will be good to be able to look back (in time) and see allllll those things we/the media/everyone else = forgot.
One of the main reasons I started the thread - to try and document as the story unfolds, changes, as we find out who's the masters, villains, etc.

I hope you get an APPLAUSE for your posts - great stuff that.

peace

reply to post by silo13


Silo I think we should try to come up with all of the KNOWN misinformation that has come from MEDIA. I wonder what would happen to this GIANT story if we removed everything except info that comes straight from IRWINS and POLICE mouth. I bet it's only 10% of what we currently are dealing with.
Like now I am wondering aboutt he source for the LE saying this motorcycle witness has been tainted due to GIL ABEYTA's mistake. is that accurate or just media spin ?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Regarding the actions of law enforcement and the pressure deal - let me ask you guys a question.

Whats worse -
A - Law Enforcement taking the time needed do to a thorough investigation, with an end result of finding baby lisa alive / finding the body of baby lisa and sending an abductor / murderer to jail?
or

B - Pressuring the police to run full speed ahead into a wall, cutting corners, only to find baby lisa alive / find the body of baby lisa and be unable to prosecute the suspect because evidence was handled incorrectly / requried paperwork is not valid, etc etc etc.

This seems to me a no-brainer, but here's my answer:
B - Pressuring the police to run full speed ahead into a wall, cutting corners, only to find baby lisa alive / find the body of baby lisa and be unable to prosecute the suspect because evidence was handled incorrectly / requried paperwork is not valid, etc etc etc.
Way, way worse. Way worse.

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You have provided so much insight Xcathdra , and I must admit my faith in LE has been boosted by your postings.

The only problem is that there are corrupt cops.. where they work, and who they cover for and why is another story..

I can only hope that all LEO's in this case are totally honest and wanting to find baby Lisa...and if they are indeed using the best methods possible within the law.. that is all we can ask of them.. as well as to be grateful for their hard work and dedication to serving justice.

Law Enforcement is a goofy pofession when it comes to media coverage. When we screw up, we make the news, when we dont, no one pays attention. To an extent that should be law enforcements goal, to be present but blended into the surroundings, out of the way and not be over powering.

All careers will have those who are suited for that job, as well as those people whose only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others. One of the larges disconnects I see between law enforcement and the people we serve is a general distrust of each other. As you have seen law enforcement is not exactly whats portrayed on tv. The amount of info we are required to know about goes well beyond what most citizens are familar with.

When we do something people arent familiar with, it causes confusion which is usually followed up with the cops breaking the law / violating the constitution comments. If a person is not familiar with those aspects of law enforcement, I can certainly see how they can arrive at that conclusion.

One of the examples I use to explain this part is this:
You are at the Hospital oin the Emergency room. You witness a doctor in a room, both of his hands put togehter, creating one large fist. You thensee the doctor bring thoe joined hands above his head and watch as the doctor slams the "fist" down onto the chest of the patient.

To people who arent familiar with what the doctor is doing, it could be taken as an assault / innapropriate behavior etc. To those who are familiar with it would recognize is as an old school medical technique called a cardio thump.

The people must get invovled with government They must take the time to understand the issue and understand them (informed is a better word). People need to go to city council meetings, keep up with whats going on in the city. If a representative isnt doing their job, vote them out and replace them with a person who will do the job.

As far as law enforcement goes, one major way to help improve things is with open discussion and dialogue. Never be afraid to ask law enforcement questions (time and place for everything though). Understand that law enforcement is not part of the judicial branch, but the executive, which means we have nothing to do with punishment / fines etc.

Most police agencies allow citizens to do "ride alongs". This is where a citizen comes in and is paired up with an officer. They go with the officer for a few hours of the shift, and some places allow a citizen to ride the entire shift. You get to see things from this side of the coin and it gives clarity, I beleive, to some people who dont understand why law enforcement reacts / acts / behaves in the manner they do.

When communitcation between the police and the people we serve breakdown, it fosters an us verse them mentality, leading to the sterotyping some people have about law enforcement. Just like law enforcement has the bad habit of stereotyping everyone as a criminal, regardless if that person paid his debt to society or not.

Law Enforcement in Missouri is.. different. On average a police officer makes about $9 - $11 dollars an hour, unless your employed in one of the larger cities / counties (KC / STL). We knew going into this profession we would never be rich, and we accept the fact we are going to be below the poverty line.

As with any business, quality costs. Since law enforcement is a non revenue producing entity, its difficult to justify a decent salary since there is only so much to go around.In those cases you always run the risk of hiring an individual that could not make it in a larger city for one reason or another.

Communication is whats needed, between the police and the people we serve.

reply to post by schmae

ike now I am wondering aboutt he source for the LE saying this motorcycle witness has been tainted due to GIL ABEYTA's mistake. is that accurate or just media spin ?

I've only just started looking into the info - the links for me before didn't work, and honestly I couldn't find anything the police reported implicating Gil had 'fouled' a suspect. After 25 years in the 'business' (so to speak) I found that really hard to believe. I'm not saying it isn't true, I just found it hard to believe. So, I really have to take the time to go through the info Michelle posted. And I will.

Going back? It was my understanding the police discounted ALL witnesses of the 'baby sighting' (There's links here in the thread). Also, I was under the impression 'Mike the motorcycle man' was 'out' because one, he didn't report the sighting for ages, and two, (most important to me) he reported the first time seeing a 'baby in a diaper' and many days and only after many interviews and the passage of time did he then change his 'sighting' to a 'baby in a diaper and a shirt.' (There are links to this story specifically here in the thread).

To me, that seemed important - the shirt part. If there was any doubt about him before, that nailed it for me.

Again - I want to go through what Michelle posted - I'd like to hear what the POLICE said. That will be most important as honestly they're the ones that count at this point, or, in regards to this point I mean.

peace

reply to post by gabby2011


Sorry I should have given more info.. Didnt want to derail the topic / flow of conversation.

It dealt with the recent explosion at the military base in Iran. The IRanian government went on record and said the explosion was caused by mishandeling of ammunition.

Some of the editorials in US papers specualted the CIA or Mossad was behind it. I would think if the CIA / Mossad were behind it and Iran knew that, they wouldnt keep it quiet.

Since its the in thing lately in foriegn policy to put the US down, its jus sems anything that occurs somehow turns into a CIA / Mossad conspiracy


........back on topic

reply to post by schmae


schmae, I think that is a good idea....but how do we prove "misinformation"? Unless someone protests and says "That was an off-hand remark taken out of context", we just don't know.

Here are a couple of quoted remarks from current and veteran KCPD officers:

“We are not doing any physical field searching just to do it,” Kansas City Police Capt. Steve Young said earlier this week. “If we have another idea, thought or piece of information on where to do that, we will do it before you can blink. But we aren’t going to do it just to do it. We’re not going to close our eyes and start throwing darts.”

www.washingtonpost.com... 11/10/gIQAVKhD9M_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop

and

John Hamilton, a criminal law professor at Park University and 26-year veteran of the Kansas City Police Department, said the case has reached a stage in which investigators are spending much of their time going over evidence to see if they have missed anything.

“Right now what you have to do is revisit what you have and pretty thoroughly analyze it, then read back to see if there’s a connection that dawns on you,” he said. “You’re always waiting for that next tip or phone call, but that’s out of your control.”

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You raise an interesting question. When i hear ' exhausted all leads' to me it means they looked into them and they didn't pan out to mean anything. But are you saying that exhausted all leads , from a police point, means they've looked into all leads......... whether or not they are fruitful or not is irrelevant? Hope that makes sense. Does an exhausted lead mean a dead end? That's what I want to ask ,, tks

I am going to make a comment, and I dont want people trying to read into it.

It is not illegal for law enforcement to lie / emploly other tactics in a manner to gain information, and done in a legal way that makes the information admissible in court. What I mean by this, again a hypothetical is:

KCPD could very well have a suspect pinpointed. Its possible that suspect covered his tracks to the extent that law enforcement cant completely state in court he did it (mising one key piece of evidence to tie it all together). Its also possible they know the suspect, but haeve not determined the status or location of the abuducted child.When that occurs the appearence of backing off the investigaton / slowing it down occurs and is reported to the public in that manner.

In reality its not the case....

The person of intrest / suspect, seeing the media coverage about the police exhausting all leads, scaling things back, might assume he is scott free. With new found confidence he decides to throw stuff away that could link him to the crime, and since the police arent concentrating on it, there is no need to take precautions. He bags items up in a trash bag and takes it to the curb.

That night police get the garbage, go through it, find the items they need and go from there.

Im not saying this is the case in KC, but its one side of the picture I dont think most people know about or completely understand.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I've got another question - two actually, lol.

It's being said an individual showed a picture of a 'possible suspect' to a man who claimed to witness a man carrying a baby. The witness was already (in my mind) dubious at best. But that's beside the point.

Anyway, - could someone outside law enforcement possibly 'taint' a witness by showing them a picture of a suspect before the police did?

I ask for two reasons.

One - If the man is a reliable witness? He saw what he saw and it makes no difference WHO showed him WHAT. If he is reliable he'll not change his story. It either was the same man, or it was not. Punto.

Two - I've been involved in numerous situations where I was called to be a 'witness.' (I was a paramedic for 6 years until an accident during a 'call' caused me bodily harm and prevented me from continuing).

In that capacity I was shown pictures and asked 'is this the guy/girl' many times.
For me? Either it was, or it wasn't'. And never was I shown more than one picture besides once when a suspect was fleeing the scene of a rape and I had to go through a few books - but I was not on duty at the time I saw the person 'fleeing'.

So, from the standpoint of LE - could seeing a 'suspects' picture - before the police showed possibly the same picture - have an impact on the witnesses reliability - or rather - the ability to use that witnesses testimony?

Thanks tons!

peace

reply to post by silo13


Since you are looking to archive and what not, I can tone down my posts and info and instead use links to off site sources instead of me explaining them.

I can do whatever is needed for you to get all of this without taking up an entire hard drive of my explanations and responses.

Let me know.

reply to post by schmae


She went to the convience store, got some items, returned home.
Between returning home and say 11pm that night sh ewas drinking and hanging out with her husband and some neighbor guy.

She went into the kids room, child is gone, she calls the police...

film at 11

reply to post by Xcathdra

If you're willing to continue on as you're doing I'm sure we're all in agreement and give a resounding - KEEP UP THE FANTASTIC WORK!

No, please, don't change a thing.

peace

The quote by Bob Hamilton indicates that they are reviewing and revisiting all info they have.
This seems valid reason to want to talk to the parents INDIVIDUALLY. Remember, according to Xcathdra, since they are NOT MARRIED, they do not enjoy "spousal privelege", that is, they are not protected from having to "tell on" each other.

Suppose the police have come up with NEW ideas from OLD information...and now they want to ask Deborah some questions. Or they want to ask Jeremy some questions. A professional attempting to unravel a he-said/she-said story needs to talk to each person individually to get a clear picture of what the neutral "truth" is (speaking as a retired clinical counsellor who has had "couples" as the client.)

It doesn't necessarily mean they wll try to pit one against the other, or browbeat one to implicate the other. It just means they have an opportunity to hear what each individual's thoughts and knowledge are, without the other partner being there to shush or to corroborate them.

In this case, the neutral truth about what happened to Lisa is the client.

Giving the defense attorneys the power to "screen" their answers is from one POV obviously an assist to the people being interviewed. But it also effectively changes the "voice" of that individual from their OWN, spontaneous responses to a "censored" version, which makes it hearsay. No better than the media.

reply to post by wildtimes


You see the dilema law enforcement runs into. If we go to fast and miss something, it comes back on us. If we move slower and then end result is a death, it comes back on us.

Im not using them as an excuse, but simply pointing out that for every action, there is a reaction.

Personally speaking I thin we should tag and release children using the same technology science uses to track animal migration patterns.

once the kid turns 18 they can choose to keep the tag or remove themselvs from the grid.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Most police agencies allow citizens to do "ride alongs". This is where a citizen comes in and is paired up with an officer. They go with the officer for a few hours of the shift, and some places allow a citizen to ride the entire shift. You get to see things from this side of the coin and it gives clarity, I beleive, to some people who dont understand why law enforcement reacts / acts / behaves in the manner they do.

Thank you for bringing this up. I did a ride along with an officer 15 years ago and it really helped me understand the various things police respond to. The officer I rode with was something like a shift leader and my ride along was from roughly 10p-2a. During that time he responded to an overdose at a vacant house, an incident at a car dealership (unhappy customer making threats), a suspected shooting in a neighborhood, help "capturing" someone wanted by the sheriff's department and an attempted break-in at a Sears store.

That opportunity really gave me insight/knowledge & I am thankful of not only having the opportunity, but also the amazing officers I met that night.

OiO

Originally posted by wildtimes
schmae, I think that is a good idea....but how do we prove "misinformation"?

You will have to wait for this case to be resolved. If a person is arrested and charged, you will have to wait for the entire process (all appeals etc) at which point you can obtain the info under a freedom of information request.

Absent that, its one big huge game of telephone.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by schmae

 

She went to the convience store, got some items, returned home.
Between returning home and say 11pm that night sh ewas drinking and hanging out with her husband and some neighbor guy.

She went into the kids room, child is gone, she calls the police...

film at 11

I hope you are not talking about this case..??

If you are.. I guess part of me wonders where you got this info..and the other part of me is sort of happy I'm not the only one who has had confused the players

From my understanding.. Debbie went to convenience store.. came back put baby lisa down at 6:30, and visited with neighbor Samantha for most of the evening on outside stoop....with a drop by visit from a neighbor for a short period of time.. went in at approximately 10:30 ..but cannot remember if she checked on Lisa. dad comes home at approximately 3: 30 am and finds lisa missing..