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: 128
41
<< 125  126  127    129  130  131 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by silo13
 


I have a very hard time believing Deb killed her outright. I do not believe she did. I believe an accidental death occurred and maybe no one even realized it was a death at the time..........like too much cough syrup or a tumble from the bed, etc. Possibly someone, Deb, maybe, thought OH NO she fell out of bed, but looked at her and she appeared ok but then later on succumbed to swelling or something. I mean, I don't know. There's loads of possible things, but I do not believe an INTENTIONAL murder occurred . I've never believed it and will not unless mom confesses out right. Possibly rolling over on baby, but I don't buy that . It's a big baby to roll over on and she would squeal and struggle to get free. An innocent enough accident that got out of control in the cover up phase possibly because they were drinking and worried about that.


I think that could be a possibility as well schmae..but I will tell you if that is actually the case...Debbie should be forced to pay all costs incurred to the KCPD in trying to find a her child..because there is no excuse for it to go on this long without putting a stop to all the false leads, etc.

The only thing that prevents me from thinking this is that I can't see a mother going this long with that kind truth weighing inside her and NOT breaking down at some point.

But.. I can't understand any mother who would willfully harm her child to an extent of killing them either, and obviously there are mothers who do..(as in other cases)




posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 





I still think Jeremy had nothing to do with it, expect POSSIBLY in cover up only, but not there at the time Lisa became ' lost' . I dont' even really think he had much to do with a cover up.


If she have something to do with the childs death, I don't think Jeremy could cover it up this long..I actually have a hard time believing she could as well.

I agree Debbie was guilty of neglecting her children that night..by drinking on the front stoop...but I tend to lean towards there being more players in this.. and someone either took advantage of a situation.. or it was slightly set up..so the child could be taken..

I am someone who could never lie to that magnitude.. and am a terrible liar in any situation.. so it makes it difficult for me to think that a parent could lie about something like this , especially when there are that many LEO's and others looking for a child that you lied about.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


What does going back to 100% normal mean to a family who's lost a baby ? I just find it odd wording and again I don't necessarily think it's from the irwins mouths. Just remember the crack cyndy short was talking? I just wonder if a LOT of the family's image problem is from the IDIOTS around them opening their mouth. Like the lawyer's using past tense of Lisa, etc.


I agree the lawyers are putting in words that make no sense.. and I highly doubt the Irwin's said this or even implied it..

There is no possibility that life will ever be 100 % normal again..even if the child is recovered.. this will stay with them for the remainder of their lives.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Earlier I said let's try to see all the untruths the media has said and it was mentioned there is no way to know. SO how about if we ONLY take what has come from deb and jeremys' MOUTH. It was the lawyers for irwins who said 'we'll do a press conference daily' and then did not and the lawyers who said ' the boys will interview next week' and then did not and again the next week and then did not. See where I'm going with this? Deb 's own statements were confusing and contradictory but if we remove all her lawyers, past and present , said since that , it's made it seem MUCH worse. It's the media and the family's own LAWYERS who are making them appear so guilty? Yes Deb did herself no favors with her statements about drinking, timeline, black out etc, but that really only makes her look careless and negligent. Isn't it the lawyers going back and forth and issuing lots of NON statmenents that have made her look more GUILTY?

And if so , is that accidental? Won't JOE T look like that much more skilled and awesome an attorney if he can get her acquitted from the edge of the abyss, where he may have put her himself?
edit on 19-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


You gotta admit if Deb said we are doing better every day and cant wait to be back to 100% normal, it would be a statement akin to Lisa will never be found and we know this ! That's why I hope she didn't say that and someone with some sense needs to screen what these lawyers say before they jsut start spewing.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


And if so , is that accidental? Won't JOE T look like that much more skilled and awesome an attorney if he can get her acquitted from the edge of the abyss, where he may have put her himself?

Regardless if the "Brad-Wins' are guilty of murder, misrepresentation or nothing at all I think it's time to realize Tacopina has another agenda.

His agenda is not to make it look easy. Not at $750 an hour. Not with his name - once again - in the limelight.
His agenda is not to 'save anyone' - at-least not YET.
If it was he wouldn't have gone to Rome right after taking on the case. I mean think about that. There's a tiny baby missing and the 'big city lawyer' - goes to Rome. The 'parents' stay mum...

What does that say? Many things.

But what it reinforces is Tacopina is in this for the 'long run' (long being the key word in the phrase). Taco's in it for the 'long run' and I don't see him saying, doing, issuing one statement to prove otherwise. Not one.

It's all about the money.

For the moment Taco's still at milking the cash cow. At first it gave pure sweet cream. Now it's down to plane old milk. Soon, when it starts to thin? You'll see him change. But not...quite....yet...

Sickening isn't it.

peace

edit on 19-11-2011 by silo13 because: bbc



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 



For the moment Taco's still at milking the cash cow. At first it gave pure sweet cream. Now it's down to plane old milk. Soon, when it starts to thin? You'll see him change. But not...quite....yet...

Sickening isn't it.


Yeah. Talk about "unsavory." I was ridiculed/mocked for saying this before, but...."you are known by the company you keep." Looking at Deborah's and Bradley's 'company', both socially, and in this situation, is, well, to me glaringly indicative of what "we the public" are not privy to. The cast of characters (excluding the children) is pretty uh...colorful.
But it's all speculation on my part.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


You gotta admit if Deb said we are doing better every day and cant wait to be back to 100% normal, it would be a statement akin to Lisa will never be found and we know this ! That's why I hope she didn't say that and someone with some sense needs to screen what these lawyers say before they jsut start spewing.


yes I totally agree.. the lawyers need to start using some common sense in what they spew to the public.

Its a sad day if the parents have to defend what they have said to a lawyer..and how he has misquoted them.

I don't know what this lawyers agenda is, but I do think that parents such as Debbie and Jeremy who are being attacked by the public as well as the media.. would be easy to manipulate into accepting a high profile lawyer to help them with this case.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
First off the lawyer's agenda is to make money and a big name for himself so cases like this keep coming in. Then the paying customers will want him, seeing the miracle he pulled off for the irwins.

As for the company they keep I think they probably thought they are in great hands and feel blessed to have sucha big name lawyer that they don't have to pay for. They probably trust him to do what's right and feel like, even if it seems odd, he knows what he's doing.
I feel a little sorry for them if the lawyer is being fishy here.

What's more fun to watch , a movie that you know how it ends?or one that has so many twists and has an impossible outcome?
edit on 19-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
Earlier I said let's try to see all the untruths the media has said and it was mentioned there is no way to know. SO how about if we ONLY take what has come from deb and jeremys' MOUTH. It was the lawyers for irwins who said 'we'll do a press conference daily' and then did not and the lawyers who said ' the boys will interview next week' and then did not and again the next week and then did not. See where I'm going with this?


So where is the acknowledgment that LE requested at least one delay in the interview, so that they could fly in their specialist questioner? On one hand we are to believe everything LE tells us. We are NOT to question what they present to us. It is acknowledge that LE can and does lie to us, that LE can selectively withhold information from us, and yet we are to believe them? The question becomes one of whom does one give the benefit of doubt to?



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Yeah. Talk about "unsavory." I was ridiculed/mocked for saying this before, but...."you are known by the company you keep." Looking at Deborah's and Bradley's 'company', both socially, and in this situation, is, well, to me glaringly indicative of what "we the public" are not privy to. The cast of characters (excluding the children) is pretty uh...colorful. But it's all speculation on my part.


Sorry..but I can't recall you being mocked and ridiculed for saying those words?? did I miss a post.. or my memory is bad?

But I will say this.. as far as "being known for the company you keep".. does that also take into account all those who keep company with the politicians who lie and abuse drugs..the lawyers and judges who have secret illegal fetishes...the directors of child welfare programs who in secret abuse children sexually...along with some of their coworkers.

There are many sick people out there in positions of power.. and can keep much of their secret life.. secret.

If you are going out to lunch with a coworker everyday for years, and find out at some point hes a sick creep involved with things you were never aware of..does that make you "known by the company you keep" by all those who saw you dine together everyday at lunch for the last 10 years?



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


You gotta admit if Deb said we are doing better every day and cant wait to be back to 100% normal, it would be a statement akin to Lisa will never be found and we know this ! That's why I hope she didn't say that and someone with some sense needs to screen what these lawyers say before they jsut start spewing.


yes I totally agree.. the lawyers need to start using some common sense in what they spew to the public.

Its a sad day if the parents have to defend what they have said to a lawyer..and how he has misquoted them.

I don't know what this lawyers agenda is, but I do think that parents such as Debbie and Jeremy who are being attacked by the public as well as the media.. would be easy to manipulate into accepting a high profile lawyer to help them with this case.



Might there be a chance they're on to something behind the scenes and are hopeful of getting Lisa back? It sounds like that, or what a peculiar thing to say. If that really did come from Deborah's mouth then it's the only thing I can think of.

I also still think if the mum had anything to do with causing the baby harm and this is all a cover up by her, then she must be a master at covering her tracks.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d

Originally posted by schmae
Earlier I said let's try to see all the untruths the media has said and it was mentioned there is no way to know. SO how about if we ONLY take what has come from deb and jeremys' MOUTH. It was the lawyers for irwins who said 'we'll do a press conference daily' and then did not and the lawyers who said ' the boys will interview next week' and then did not and again the next week and then did not. See where I'm going with this?


So where is the acknowledgment that LE requested at least one delay in the interview, so that they could fly in their specialist questioner? On one hand we are to believe everything LE tells us. We are NOT to question what they present to us. It is acknowledge that LE can and does lie to us, that LE can selectively withhold information from us, and yet we are to believe them? The question becomes one of whom does one give the benefit of doubt to?




very good point David.... you have to question what the police have actually informed the public of.. and it is very unfair to point the finger of blame on the parents, when it is in fact their decision to postpone the interview.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by wigit
 





I also still think if the mum had anything to do with causing the baby harm and this is all a cover up by her, then she must be a master at covering her tracks.



Good point.. and to me she doesn't seem to have that capability.. especially considering the circumstances.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


You gotta admit if Deb said we are doing better every day and cant wait to be back to 100% normal, it would be a statement akin to Lisa will never be found and we know this ! That's why I hope she didn't say that and someone with some sense needs to screen what these lawyers say before they jsut start spewing.


This is not happening in a void! They are being attacked on many fronts. If they stated that this was incredibly upsetting and it was all they could do to get through the day. This would be used against them in the up coming custody battle. Yes they have lost one child, and they have a person unable to care for their self wanting custody, of one of their children, willing to take advantage of anything to get that custody...



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 



If you are going out to lunch with a coworker everyday for years, and find out at some point hes a sick creep involved with things you were never aware of..does that make you "known by the company you keep" by all those who saw you dine together everyday at lunch for the last 10 years?

Only if you continue to keep their company AFTER you have found out. And that is certainly NOT the case with these folks based on what we do know about their socializing (which isn't much except for the porch-party, and the reports of former Ft Bragg acquaintances who knew Deborah)

I have myself been surprised -- shocked -- to discover someone I trusted was a complete psycho. It happens to the best of us; the most skilled professionals down to the trusting neighbor can be manipulated by psychopaths.

Again, this brings up their choice (or rather "acceptance" and "dismissal") of "help". Of the myriad options they had, they went with some NYC sleazy defense attorney (my adjective -- my opinion) rather than a local, respected, and proven upstanding attorney.

Just my opinion.

Oh, and btw, the ridicule came from someone who briefly stepped in weeks ago, immediately got very nasty, and has long since stopped posting.


edit on 19-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
In the interest of disabusing those of you interested in this case of the media hysteria and out-of-context declarations regarding Lisa's hometown, for the beneft of her, her family, and the city's reputation in general, I want to urge everyone interested in this case to do their own, independent research into Greater Kansas City, and in particular the difference between Kansas City MO, and North Kansas City, MO.

Much of the disinformation being spewed in this thread is egregiously and spectacularly inaccurate. One of my biggest frustrations with ATS is that there are members who, rather than denying ignorance, SPREAD IT, and refuse to become educated about it or acknowledge when they are proven mistaken. This thread, regarding the life of a child, should NOT be one in which that occurs.

These points in particular I want to make clear:

North Kansas City, MO lies in Clay County, MO. This is where Lisa's family lives.

Kansas City MO proper is in Jackson County. THIS is where there are some very dicey and dangerous neighborhoods that are overrun by gangs, plagued by murders and drugs and all those despicable acts of gangbangers and their ilk, and where the population (in those blighted areas) refuse to provide witnesses of homicide to police due to their fear of retaliation -- that is, being murdered by the murderers against whom they testify or depose. Included in this urban-core, problem-ridden group are some parts of the Northeast Area (NOT near "North Kansas City")...Independence...the East Side...the Upper Westside, and Lower Midtown.


I believe your words speak for themselves. 


Kansas City Police spokesman Steve Young said early on that he believes people in the community know what happened to Baby Lisa and hopes someone will come forward.

www.wptv.com...




 Bob Lowery of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children told the AP he believes that "someone out there knows what happened to baby Lisa.

"Someone could have seen something and is reluctant to call police," Lowery said. "That person needs to come forward and share that with the Kansas City Police Department. Hardly ever has there been a scenario like this where someone doesn't know."

www.radaronline.com...



 "If you have a homicide and you had 50 witnesses and not one witness wants to cooperate, we have to look at what we're doing," said Forté.

www.kctv5.com...


Just how many times have we seen Steve Young say that? Just what are we to assume he means by community here?



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Fact of the matter is - no one ever knows anyone like they think they do.

Doesn't matter how long you've been together, if it's a friend, a family member or a relation.

That's fact.

And it applies to Lisa's parents just like it applies to everyone else. Something I'm sure they're learning even as I type.

peace



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Again, this brings up their choice (or rather "acceptance" and "dismissal") of "help". Of the myriad options they had, they went with some NYC sleazy defense attorney (my adjective -- my opinion) rather than a local, respected, and proven upstanding attorney.


You have to understand that these people are not in a position to really know which lawyers are upstanding in the community, unless they have had previous reasons to acquire a lawyer.

Also..they are very vulnerable emotionally , and could be easily manipulated into thinking the NY lawyer had their best interests in mind...especially considering if they were told that the local lawyer had too many ties to the police department..and could even be working within the system to help secretly convict them.

I hope the Irwin's someday write a book about their experiences, and explain the reasons behind some of the decisions they made... including the ones they may regret having made.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes


Just my opinion.

Oh, and btw, the ridicule came from someone who briefly stepped in weeks ago, immediately got very nasty, and has long since stopped posting.


edit on 19-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


That could not possibly be do to their perception of injustice on this thread, could it? The common tactic here of attacking a person, in an attempt to invalidate their argument?




top topics



 
41
<< 125  126  127    129  130  131 >>

log in

join