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: 129
41
<< 126  127  128    130  131  132 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


David , I didnt mention LE in this post. This is about if the lawyers are making the family look worse with their statements. It's not a post about LE being the bad guy or the good guy. It's not about the LE at all. If you're zeroing in on LE being at fault for all things here, then that is saying that the lawyers have made no mistakes or made no silly statements? Is taht how you feel? That LE is bad so everyone else is good?
That's as close minded as your repetitive statements that LE is looking at nothing ELSE besides the family.
Iget that you're down on LE, but there may be other parties in this story that are NOT acting honestly or with integrity. Do you agree?




posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
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.




I would suggest that those who are NOT interested in justice, have no need to understand, indeed may have no desire to understand, are only interesting in portraying Deborah and Jeremy in the worest possible light.....



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


True,, did anyone see a film called " shallow grave" ? Three best friends and roomies are suddenly left with a suitcase full of money. Immediately they become suspicious of each other and which one is trying to keep it all for himself. By movies' end they've all nearly killed off each other for a pile of money they were perfectly happy without and were perfectly good friends without. Point is you never do know what someone is capable of until the right set of circumstances present themself.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 





David , I didnt mention LE in this post. This is about if the lawyers are making the family look worse with their statements. It's not a post about LE being the bad guy or the good guy. It's not about the LE at all. If you're zeroing in on LE being at fault for all things here, then that is saying that the lawyers have made no mistakes or made no silly statements? Is taht how you feel? That LE is bad so everyone else is good? That's as close minded as your repetitive statements that LE is looking at nothing ELSE besides the family. Iget that you're down on LE, but there may be other parties in this story that are NOT acting honestly or with integrity. Do you agree?


yes it is about the LE as well schmae..

If you can consider the lawyer saying stuff that sheds bad light on the parents.. you also have to consider what the police DON"T tell the media in regards to shedding bad light on the parents.

I don't see David as hammering on the police, only asking valid questions.. and caring about their accountability in the fact that Lisa has not yet been found , and why other cases such as this in their jurisdiction have not been solved till much too late or not solved at all?.. Seems fair to me..

Why couldn't the police say they have put of interviewing the children? why couldn't they help in taking off the obvious heat the media and public were giving these parents for not allowing their boys to be interviewed when in fact it was their choice to prolong it?



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Dav1d
 


David , I didnt mention LE in this post. This is about if the lawyers are making the family look worse with their statements. It's not a post about LE being the bad guy or the good guy. It's not about the LE at all. If you're zeroing in on LE being at fault for all things here, then that is saying that the lawyers have made no mistakes or made no silly statements? Is taht how you feel? That LE is bad so everyone else is good?
That's as close minded as your repetitive statements that LE is looking at nothing ELSE besides the family.
Iget that you're down on LE, but there may be other parties in this story that are NOT acting honestly or with integrity. Do you agree?


Once again, this is NOT occurring in a vacuum, are we trying, (are you trying) to understand what happen here, or spin things? The Lawyers don't have unlimited power here, can't make the FBI dance to their tune. I have never said that LE is at fault for everything. That is a fallacy a straw dog argument, it's not my position.

There is way too much bad here. Enough for everyone. However if you want to take Deborah and Jeremy actions out of context, to prove your point go ahead.

Curious your failure to mention LE, forbids me from mentioning LE when it is relevant? Is that your position? And yet I not only did not state that LE takes "all" fault for the delay, but I have never stated that LE is at fault for EVERYTHING! Yet there is that desire to attack me by that claim....


edit on 19-11-2011 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


But my post was NOT ABOUT LE. It was specifically about the lawyers and are they helping or hurting the case of the irwins or at the very least, the public image of the irwins.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


I wont' reply i n kind like your accusing me of not knowing the english language and not understanding what words mean. If you do NOT want to read my post and understand what it is about, then just don't reply to it.
I said nothing about the irwins . I'm talking about their lawyers.
Do words have meanings? Do names mean anything? Can yuo understand the difference between the family and their lawyers or are they now ONE entity in your mind?



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 



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.

They've both had attorneys in the past. They've both been represented in court. So they are not just newbies to the system. Weeks ago the links to their court records were posted in this very thread, showing the names of the attorneys. Agent X posted the website again this morning. Casenet.

It is reasonable to expect they would contact those attorneys with whom they have had prior contracts, in order to get a recommendation (especially considering if this goes to trial, their court-room pasts can possibly be brought up, if for no other reason than to highlight their 'credibility') I know people from all walks of life, and have been priveleged with them sharing their legal problems with me. Either they had standing attorney relationships ('on-call' for them, if you will), or they knew people who could point them to an attorney who might be helpful for a particular situation or at least give them a recommendation.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


But my post was NOT ABOUT LE. It was specifically about the lawyers and are they helping or hurting the case of the irwins or at the very least, the public image of the irwins.


So apparently we are to assume you are only interested in appearances, and are more than willing to turn a bind eye to causes?



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
You know, again, we're havign a perfectly good conversation and the one who accuses everyone of attacking him comes out basically ignoring what I write in a post and twisting it and then accusing me of twisting something. Why is that ? Again, I'll try to ignore your future posts and appreciate if you do the same since clearly we do not speak the same language. Mine was taught in the southern tier so maybe that's the problem.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


But my post was NOT ABOUT LE. It was specifically about the lawyers and are they helping or hurting the case of the irwins or at the very least, the public image of the irwins.


ok..My apologies for bringing LE into it..

I just saw the point that LE is also hurting their public image by allowing false statements to be made that seem to protect LE..but then again they aren't required to protect the irwins like their lawyer is..so I see your point.
edit on 19-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


But my post was NOT ABOUT LE. It was specifically about the lawyers and are they helping or hurting the case of the irwins or at the very least, the public image of the irwins.


So apparently we are to assume you are only interested in appearances, and are more than willing to turn a bind eye to causes?



I took it as her being interested in part of what was going on in the case and trying to discuss how and what it could mean and how it could be taken.

We are on a discussion board.

IWOH



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IwasOnceHappy

Originally posted by Dav1d

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


But my post was NOT ABOUT LE. It was specifically about the lawyers and are they helping or hurting the case of the irwins or at the very least, the public image of the irwins.


So apparently we are to assume you are only interested in appearances, and are more than willing to turn a bind eye to causes?



I took it as her being interested in part of what was going on in the case and trying to discuss how and what it could mean and how it could be taken.

We are on a discussion board.

IWOH


Yes a discussion board...
Where discussion is unwelcome if you happen to have a different POV.
Where discussion is not about understanding what may have been happening
Where when you point out that you are being attributed with things you never said, you are told to stop contributing.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 





Yes a discussion board... Where discussion is unwelcome if you happen to have a different POV. Where discussion is not about understanding what may have been happening Where when you point out that you are being attributed with things you never said, you are told to stop contributing.


Please David.. for the sake of a missing child..and finding out exactly who is behind this and why..please don't stop contributing.

If her parents are indeed innocent of covering up any harm done to this child by them.. I'm sure baby Lisa would want your opinions and questions to be submitted here.. for her sake..as well as for the sake of her parents.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d

Originally posted by IwasOnceHappy

Originally posted by Dav1d

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


But my post was NOT ABOUT LE. It was specifically about the lawyers and are they helping or hurting the case of the irwins or at the very least, the public image of the irwins.


So apparently we are to assume you are only interested in appearances, and are more than willing to turn a bind eye to causes?



I took it as her being interested in part of what was going on in the case and trying to discuss how and what it could mean and how it could be taken.

We are on a discussion board.

IWOH


Yes a discussion board...
Where discussion is unwelcome if you happen to have a different POV.
Where discussion is not about understanding what may have been happening
Where when you point out that you are being attributed with things you never said, you are told to stop contributing.



There are many different facets to this case. I think discussion is welcome here on ATS if a person has a different point of view, that's why I said in the past this is why I like ATS. I look at some boards and sites and they ban you from posting if your point of view is not what theirs is. There have been many points of view in this thread.

Many, if not most, of the pages on this thread are about understanding what is happening in this case, looking at all things in the case. Different perspectives from different people located all over the world.

IWOH



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


''''Yes a discussion board...
Where discussion is unwelcome if you happen to have a different POV.
Where discussion is not about understanding what may have been happening
Where when you point out that you are being attributed with things you never said, you are told to stop contributing. ''''

Qualify these statements please? Because they are ridiculously untrue. I've discussed many times with you the LE discrpencies AD NAUSEUM without attacking you. So how is that unwelcome? When any one makes a post that is not about attacking LE, you insert LE attacks into it. It's clear you are very down on LE and then declare you're not down on LE, that's now what you said, etc etc.
When a post is about whether or not a lawyer might be mishandling some PR work for the parents, that's what the post is about. That particular thought had nothing to do with LE, but you think it did.

What was attributed to yuo that you didn't say? Who told you to stop contributing? You said ' are we to assume you don't care about what caused this' because I wanted to see what others thought about whether or not LAWYERS have some responsibility in the fiasco we are watching unfold.
Since everything I type makes you upset and want to throw barbs, then yea ignore it and post on something else. Thats not saying STOP contributing. If all you want to contribute are LE attacks, then that's fine. But when its' totally off topic to a post, maybe make it a new post instead of a ' reply' to a post about lawyers. See?



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





It is reasonable to expect they would contact those attorneys with whom they have had prior contracts, in order to get a recommendation (especially considering if this goes to trial, their court-room pasts can possibly be brought up, if for no other reason than to highlight their 'credibility') I know people from all walks of life, and have been priveleged with them sharing their legal problems with me. Either they had standing attorney relationships ('on-call' for them, if you will), or they knew people who could point them to an attorney who might be helpful for a particular situation or at least give them a recommendation.


Sounds like they had a lawyer who expressed a desire to work free for them.. and perhaps ..over time.. they had some sort of distrust for this lawyer who was willing to work for free, or they were told by another lawyer that this lawyer wasn't working in their best interest..

All speculation.. and like I said before..I hope someday we find out the reasons behind many of their choices and decisions concerning this case.

To expect people to make wise and discerning choices at such a tumultuous time in their lives , and not be swayed by people who seem to be having their best interest in mind, seems a little much to ask in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
There are 5 components or "PLAYERS" in this story.

Law enforcement

Irwin Family

Lawyers

Media

Public.

I think we have spent the first many pages critiquing and pulling apart everything we could find on the family. We absorbed every word from every source about them.

I think we all are distrustful of media from the word go but have come to realize more lately how very 'fast and loose' with the facts they are playing.

We've given a real discriminating look at Law Enforcement, and David, thank you ( not sarcasm) for pointing out a lot of the mistakes and/or inconsistencies with them. THAT HAS BEEN A VALID TOOL.

We are the public left scratching our heads about what the HECK all these other parties have been up to.

Lawyers : it's only just beginning to look like the lawyers may have some explaining to do with some of the statement they've made. I wanted to look into this and ponder it a bit more, with everyone's input.

The other groups, family, le and media have already been raked over the coals back and forth by all of us.
Maybe the lawyers of the family need the same scrutiny.

I hope this clears it up without offending anyone .


oops left out what may indeed be the most important group, the band of 8 ...........
edit on 19-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


'''they had some sort of distrust for this lawyer who was willing to work for free, or they were told by another lawyer that this lawyer wasn't working in their best interest..'''

This is what I think Gab. The big shot lawyer came in and got rid of little local lawyer lady so that he could call the shots. I also wonder if she was questioning some of his tactics or ideas and he just got rid of her. Irwin family looks and says H'es big time and famous etc, surely he's got to be a better lawyer. Could be HE even told them, 'they're going to try to hang you for this and this little cyndy short will NOT be able to save your a##'



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


In fairness to david..I think he has presented himself as someone who may not trust how this specific LE jurisdiction has handled some of these similar type cases.

I think he has a valid reason to do this.. and I'm sure he is not the only one who has questions on how this jurisdiction of police have handled this case as well as others.

He has expressed how other police in other areas have done a great job of tracking done children, and discovering the truth.

He does not come across as a cop hater at all to me.. only disappointed and concerned on how this case as well as others have taken so long to resolve in KC.






edit on 19-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 126  127  128    130  131  132 >>

log in

join