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: 124
41
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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 bug huge game of telephone.


PRECISELY!! ^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, it's frustrating for people who want to know what happened...but it's all just...yeah. That.

I don't know if you read my thoughts on the parents being interviewed...If this were my child missing, and the police said okay, Mom, we want to talk to you again about some questions -- I'd be there instantly.




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





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.)


Even if they were interviewed separately, and they found out that Jeremy does have suspicions that Debbie may have been involved.. it that reason enough for the police to concur that Debbie was most likely responsible?

Having doubts does in no way prove guilt..

I honestly think because the police have chosen to lie, and try to force a confession..and did most likely pit these two against each other with lies.. they have lost the trust of this family.. which is very sad indeed ..considering they are the ones that need the help from police the most.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
I've got another question - two actually, lol.

lol ask away...


Originally posted by silo13
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?


Yes - RSMo 575.70 - Tampering with a witness--tampering with a victim.

Anyone who has been involved in a decent size event - multi car accident, fatality accident, robbery, fight in the middle of the street. You will notice police will take those witnesses and secure them. They ask them not to discuss what they saw with each otehr etc.

Thats done to avoid contaminating what a witness saw. You and the person next to you will see different details. You may notice the person had a blue baseball hat on and the other person mayb notice he had a backpack with him. If witnesses talk about that info, it pollutes the memory. If you hear the other personsay backpack, there is a really good chance that when you are interviewed, you will also point out the backpack, even though you never saw it.

If a person asks you to repeat the same information as them is also witnss tampering. Any action that could influence, coerce, change etc a witnesses view causes consitutional issues of fair trial and a bunch of other legal issues.



Originally posted by silo13
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.

There really isnt a defintion on what makes a witness reliable. For the most part in our legal system a reliable witness is one who comes forward with relevenat information, will maje a statement / write a statement, and make themselves available should there be any court proceedings.

Any lies / omissions / deceptions would result in perjury charges against the witness. Our legal system is designed to accept a persons word as legitimate and valid unless the witeness does something to undermine that view. The thought process is if you observed a crime what possible motive would you have to lie about it on the stand if in fact you are nothing more than just an eye witness?



Originally posted by silo13
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).

Thank you for your service..


Originally posted by silo13
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'.


If other people have already identified the indiviudal a line up wont be needed. The lineup laws for missouri changed some time back. I will have to look it up and see for the specifics reference the lineups needing to be similar etc. During your time as a paramedic in Missouri? Other states will have different standards unless a federal appeals court ruling is established.

The other issue I could see would be law enforcement erroring on the side of caution due to HIPPA and its idiotic legal landmines.



Originally posted by silo13
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?

It can have an affect. Depending on the circumstances ( we are back to that case by case disclaimer) any type of reliability issues are raised in court with motions to excluded tesitmony / supress statements etc. It possible the motions arent due to witness reliability but some other legal issue. As with everything caution is errord to the person who is accused.



Originally posted by silo13
Thanks tons!

peace

edit on 18-11-2011 by silo13 because: removed a word


Your welcome.. Since its been a few pages since ive said this. People need to keep in mind my comments / posts etc are general in terms and based on my experience and training. Always do research and verify information. There are so many legal variables that come into play that each case is unique.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I wouldnt say its hearsay. As we have seen the police are looking at all possibilities, and since they have not ruled the parents out, I dont blame them for using the lawyer in that manner. All its going to take is for one coment that is made by mom or dad that is out of context that could allow for a circumstantial case.

As far as legal questions go I will ask one from a great british tv show -

Would loud, fast music prevent you from beating your spouse?

Question seems simple enough, but if you think about it, there is no answer you can give that doesnt incriminate yourself.

If you answer no - then it can be assumed you beat your spouse.
If you answer yes - then it can be assumed you beat your spouse.

Rule of thumb when testifying is to answer the questions asked in measured responses. Another example on how that works would be me asking you the question - Do you know what time it is? Most if not all people will look at the clock and give you the time, however that was not the question asked.

The correct answer would be a simple - Yes.

I had a defense attorney cross examining me. The defense attorney went back to the answers I gave the prosecuting attorney. The defense asked me - so you were a couple hundred yards away. I corrected the defense stating I said I was a few hundred feet, not yards, away.

If you dont catch the stupid word games, they can get you confused, at which point they start asking you so which is it, you said meters here, and yards there. In reality the lawyer is just being an ass, however, what it does is shows the jury that if the person doesnt remeber the baiscs, how reliable are they as a witness?
edit on 18-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 



Even if they were interviewed separately, and they found out that Jeremy does have suspicions that Debbie may have been involved.. it that reason enough for the police to concur that Debbie was most likely responsible?

Having doubts does in no way prove guilt..

Okay, gabby, I'm willing to answer you, to see if we can find some common ground here, and communicate respectfully toward one another.

If they found out that Jeremy does have suspicions about Deborah's involvement, the only thing it indicates is that Jeremy has suspicions. Jeremy's thoughts and suspicions are valid only insofar as he is the father and partner of this child's mother. He is considered an inside "informant", which in clinical terms means someone who is intimately familiar with the situation. Interviewing family members is often an important part of discovering the neutral truth. No, his thoughts and suspicions as related to an investigator do not mean she is responsible. It means Jeremy, who is close and invested in this case, wonders if she is.

Correct, having doubts does NOT prove guilt. I agree.

The next step, IF Jeremy said something indicating his doubts, would be to add that information to what is already known, and add everything up regarding how each party has behaved. It would not be to automatically accuse her. So, no, it does not mean they will by virtue of his statements alone do that.



I honestly think because the police have chosen to lie, and try to force a confession..and did most likely pit these two against each other with lies.. they have lost the trust of this family.. which is very sad indeed ..considering they are the ones that need the help from police the most.


Well, it has been established here that there are statistics -- derived from resolved, closed cases -- indicating why the police may have chosen to become heavy-handed. It is also established that they are allowed to do this, in an effort to shake up a person of interest enough to 'fess up.

Yes, it is sad that the parents have lost trust in the police, and it is true that they DO need their help.

Which brings us back to the circular argument. If a person is innocent, NO AMOUNT of browbeating or accusing is going to make them guilty. They either are, or they are not guilty.

For my part, (and this is only MY PERCEPTION, and MY thoughts on how I would respond), I would be calling the police every day, on my own, and offering to answer questions, and to find out what they have come up with. Heck, knowing myself, I would ask if I could sit in the back and observe their investigative team meetings, so that I could know what they know, and contribute to helping solve it.

Unless, that is, I was guilty! Then, I would get an attorney and not want to talk to them anymore.

I hope that clarifies for you.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Sorry I was being sarcastic when I typed that out - hence the film at 11 bit at the bottom. I try to interject some humor now and then to break up the seriousness of the topic.

My bad...



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



There really isnt a defintion on what makes a witness reliable. For the most part in our legal system a reliable witness is one who comes forward with relevenat information, will maje a statement / write a statement, and make themselves available should there be any court proceedings.


Therefore, am I accurate in deducing that a witness who "lawyers up" and is NOT making themselves available (whether by their own choice or via counsel's advice) is considered "unreliable" and possibly "suspicious"?

I am finding your insights and answers SO fascinating. Thanks again for all you've contributed!!



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

Your answer makes me cringe - only because of the number of times it seems procedure was not followed to the letter (in my past) - but - working in civic service? (Regretfully) Things happen.

So it brings me back to Gil and again thanking Michelle for bringing the questions to the board.

If in fact he was 'showing pictures out of school' as they say - what in the HELL was he doing??? HE KNOWS BETTER!

I've got o go back and delve into info. I've already sent an email to Gil but so far it's gone unanswered. We'll see.

Unreal stuff this.

Thank you again to you, and Michelle.

peace

edit on 18-11-2011 by silo13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
I honestly think because the police have chosen to lie, and try to force a confession..and did most likely pit these two against each other with lies.. they have lost the trust of this family.. which is very sad indeed ..considering they are the ones that need the help from police the most.


Is there ever such a thing as a justifiable lie?

Hypothetical -
What if mom did something that resulted in the death of her child. She alone cleans it all up and never tells her other half what happened. As we all know, when police make an accusation or suggest illegal activity, who is the boyfriend / husband going to beleive? The cops or their signifiact other?

Sometimes the only way to draw information out is to seperate or "lie" in such a manner that mom might think she has been caught and spill the beans or "lie" to him which results in a wtf moment between him and her.

I understand people will have issues with law enforcement being less than honest at times, so I leave you with this. The Surpeme Court has ruled that law enforcement is able to lie in certain situations, knowing full well the people we are dealing with may not be completely honest with the officer. Its not a blanket we can lie about anything, and when we do "lie" it goes into the report with justification.

I just wanted to add that to better place the tactic into a little better context.

As far as trust being lost because of police actions, please remember its a 2 way street.
edit on 18-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

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 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



I understand people will have issues with law enforcement being less than honest at times, so I leve you with this. The Surpeme Court has ruled that law enforcement ios able to lie in certain situations, knowing full well the people we are dealing with may not be completely honest with the officer. Its not a blanket we can lie about anything, and when we do "lie" it goes into the report with jsutification.


APPLAUSE!! (from me. it's the best I can offer besides one tiny blue star)

THANK YOU for pointing this out!!!



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 




For my part, (and this is only MY PERCEPTION, and MY thoughts on how I would respond), I would be calling the police every day, on my own, and offering to answer questions, and to find out what they have come up with. Heck, knowing myself, I would ask if I could sit in the back and observe their investigative team meetings, so that I could know what they know, and contribute to helping solve it. Unless, that is, I was guilty! Then, I would get an attorney and not want to talk to them anymore. I hope that clarifies for you.


It does clarify things to an extent..and I understand that a parent who is not guilty would try to do anything they could to help with an investigation...I know I would..

BUT.. if I had been lied to, and told my spouse said this.. and insinuated that when it wasn't true.. and made to feel guilty when I am not.. I think I would want my spouse there next time they interviewed me.

The Irwin's could very well be going on advice from other parents who have been in the similar situation.. and were made to feel and look guilty when in fact they were innocent.

We don't really know why the Irwin's haven't agreed to interview separately, but my hunch is they have lost trust in the police , and the tactics they use to get information. It does not imply they do not care about their child.. or that they are hiding guilt.

We need to look at the case at the Jaycee Lee Dugard case , to see how the focus on parents can be very misleading, and damaging to the family.

Also..the parents may well be phoning in information everyday.. or have at some points.. When debbie picked up cigarette butts to give to the police she was chastised in here by some for doing that..apparently that wasn't good enough for some..and not in the "correct' time frame ,

The parents have also said they are willing to answer any questions.. together.. that seems to me a fair cooperation.. considering what they have most likely been through separately.

When your child goes missing it only seems fair to me that grieving parents want to be together.. and have each others support.. instead of having police rip that apart, because it is "legal" for them to lie to you..

I hope that clarifies a bit how I feel .. and I hope that the Irwin's continue to be available with information, and that KCPD would be care enough about baby Lisa to be willing to get information from both of them together.

If they are not willing to do that..what does it say about KCPD ?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Therefore, am I accurate in deducing that a witness who "lawyers up" and is NOT making themselves available (whether by their own choice or via counsel's advice) is considered "unreliable" and possibly "suspicious"?

I am finding your insights and answers SO fascinating. Thanks again for all you've contributed!!


I think first and foremost we should try to get out of the habit of assuming a person is hiding someting by wanting a lawyer present. The request for a lawyer is valid and justified, regardless if the person is arrested for murder or asked to answer questions as a witness.

Being a witness to a crime and being a witness to just part of a crime can cause issues if their is a misunderstanding of the question being asked.

To be honest in all of the stuff I have been involved in I have seen a witness want a lawyer present maybe a total of 5 times. For the most part witnesses understand that they tell the police what they saw, provide contact information, ask them to write their statement out and go from there. When the trial rolls around, the witness may or may not be called to testify.

When it comes to being a witness they will fall under a few statutes. If a witness has information relevant to the case in Missouri they are required by law to identify themselves. If they fail to or refuse to identify as a waitness they can actually be charged for it. If the person does the stupid hide and seek game regarding process servers getting a subpoena to the witness, a request can be made for the judge to issue a material witness arrest warrant.

Material Witness Warrant - Federal Statute
This is the federal statute on material witnesses. The state judicial system can also issue them, and the wording is a bit different but the intent is the same. It allows a witness who is refusing to make themselves available to the court to provide testimony to be arrested by law enforcement and transported to that court.

People may see that as an over reaction / violation, but again keep in mind the legal system errors on the side of the accused. If a witness refuses to provide information, one could make the argument that the info of that witeness could support the accused.

As far as the person being suspicious etc by wanting a lawyer etc, I wouldnt judge them in that manner. I would want to know the reason for their reluctance to testify / come forward.

* - was the witness threatened?
* - were any family members of the witness threatened?
* - Is the witness the person they claim to be?

etc etc etc. Lots of factors...

When it comes to law enforcement and the courts, I wouldnt try to read into peoples actions. As far as insight and answers, just keep in mind this is how I see things. Other officers / lawyers might have a completely diferent view point based on more experience / knowledge.I dont mind sharing, I just dont want people to take what im saying as fact with regards to this specific KC case.
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 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Thanks, gabby, sincerely, for engaging once again. This statement of yours I have a question about:

made to feel guilty when I am not.. I think I would want my spouse there next time they interviewed me.

The Irwin's could very well be going on advice from other parents who have been in the similar situation.. and were made to feel and look guilty when in fact they were innocent.


Note the first quoted phrase: "made to feel guilty"

I repeat. ... If someone is guilty, they are guilty. If they are innocent, they are innocent. No one could MAKE me feel guilty if I KNEW I was innocent. I guess it goes to the strength of the "person of interest".

now, the last phrase: "made to feel and look guilty when in fact they were innocent"

Repeating again, no one has the power to MAKE another person feel anything at all, only that person can decide how they feel. It is not uncommon for people to say "you made me feel..."

The bottom line is that NO ONE can MAKE a person do anything else. No one.

As for "and look guilty" ... that is question of being framed. And an innocent person who is being framed will protest. They will generally demand that they be heard, so they can clear themselves.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
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 ?


schmae I think that would be a great idea, but I don't know if anyone else is finding it harder and harder to find original articles on this case. I guess at the 7 week mark they have removed or moved some of them. Google is pretty much a bust so all we have is the previous pages in this thread to go on. I tried a few links and some of them are no longer available or the news outlets actually updated the articles making it seem as if the information was always there
IE: first interview with Deborah no mention of drinking and 10:30 last sighting (say Oct 4). The media updates the article to add that Deborah was drinking and 6:40 is last sighting of Lisa (maybe Oct 8). Then we learn about cell phones so they add that in (oct 10)....

By the time I read the article its not original and I can't figure out what dates the MSM was actually given the new info.

Also, I have to say that the info about Gil Abeyta hasn't been confirmed by LE (that I could ever find). I am trusting the fact that since Jim Spellman is a reporter he wouldn't be giving out false information. BUT...we are all on a conspiracy site and a lot of us don't trust the media as far as we can spit!!

I just wondered if this is indeed the reason we haven't heard from Gil since this approx, would've taken place. Perhaps (and I know big perhaps) one of the reasons Cyndy Short was fired? I know the defense lawyers want to take every single solitary opportunity to remove the focus from their clients (DB and JI).....so now that shes brought to LE's attention a tainted witness that could possibly point away from DB and JI could that have really ticked off Tacopina? Given how most people say he is a bit of a shady character perhaps if Gil had approached him with this info, Tacopina would've "swayed" Mike Thompson to say he hadn't been shown a lineup. I also wonder why Mike Thompson wasn't show a lineup PRIOR to Gil showing him one? Would you not think an eyewitness should be shown possible figures in a case very early on when LE is interviewing you? And...if LE knew that with Gil having "tainting" him...why would they even bother to do their own lineup afterwards?

That is entirely my own opinion and wondering out loud. we would need to see a timeline of all the events which we unfortuantely don't have. Like another poster said we won't know ALL the details until trial and even afterwards

Michelle



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I used the wrong word.. obviously I should have said made to seem guilty.. instead of made to feel guilty..

I only hope none of us have to go through what the Irwin's have , and until we have experienced exactly what has gone on throughout those interviews.... we are nothing more than observers expecting people to behave like we would.. when we really don't know all the facts..




As for "and look guilty" ... that is question of being framed. And an innocent person who is being framed will protest. They will generally demand that they be heard, so they can clear themselves.


and what makes you so sure they haven't..? because they won't be interviewed separately ? Why won't the police take what they have to say together?

As far as the innocent demanding to be heard.. The Irwin's can't talk about the case to outsiders..and we don't know what they have said to police to try and prove their innocence.. and have seen that it is has lead to nothing.

How would you feel as a parent.. knowing that it had to be PI who showed the pics to Mike.. and who had to get that info to lawyer so they could at least get a line up..

Really wouldn't seem to me like the police are following all possible good leads to finding my baby.. and that would make me so sad and angry..








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

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



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



I think first and foremost we should try to get out of the habit of assuming a person is hiding someting by wanting a lawyer present. The request for a lawyer is valid and justified, regardless if the person is arrested for murder or asked to answer questions as a witness.


Fair enough. That is a very valid suggestion, and I will endeavor to overcome my feeling that in this case it is questionable as to what SORT of attorney, and from WHERE, the family has sought counsel.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 



and what makes you so sure they haven't..? because they won't be interviewed separately ? Why won't the police take what they have to say together?


I'm NOT sure. I never said I was sure. They may well have been framed!

And the police wanting them to talk separately is a question for the police, not for me.

All I am pointing out is that I would not protest being questioned separately. But that's just me, gabby. I don't know what the heck happened to Lisa. I don't think Deborah is guilty or innocent of anything except being negligent, in my opinion, on the evening in question. And that is a completely SUBJECTIVE judgment of her parenting choices on that one evening. That is all I think. Until the case is solved, I am reserving my opinion as to who is responsible for Lisa's disappearence.

ETA:

I only hope none of us have to go through what the Irwin's have , and until we have experienced exactly what has gone on throughout those interviews.... we are nothing more than observers expecting people to behave like we would.. when we really don't know all the facts..


I completely agree with both your sentiment and your point here.


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

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



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
If anyone is around and has the time (as I don't have the exact time it will be on)...there is supposed to be some more Baby Lisa information coming on the news. Here's the link: it's on in 3 mins 1:45 pm EST...something about Jersey getting paid to abduct the baby???? WHAT THE you know what???


sorry for late notice just found out myself

live feed
Michelle



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


Hey, that site made my computer upset and claim that its a trojan horse....
just so ya know.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
They are saying that jersey bragged that he had been paid $300 to abduct baby. This is as per the defense team...but it is triple hearsay.

So jersey is with a guy...apparently tells guy he was paid to take baby(the guy is part of the homeless population)...homeless guy then tells a young girl...young girl tells Picerno/Tacopina.

According to Picerno, this girl has told FBI and LE about this conversation.

REALLY?? really?! Come on now...I have a hard time believing this happened and/or that its a credible person...I guess weirder things have happened in this case, but I just don't know about this.


Sorry edit to add i will link to the video when it has been released (this one was live and i dont know how to record)
Michelle



edit on 18-11-2011 by Michelle129th because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join