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: 134
41
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
IT IS ABOUT BABY LISA ! I think some days she's almost lost in the shuffly and I'm pretty sure that is by DESIGN of the legal team. A teen comment here, a strange sighting there, a phone call timeline change every 3 days and what were we doing here again?
Given how passionately we all feel about it and how tempers can get really raised through the roof, we can only imagine how magnified that passion is on the inside with the actual particpants, family , LE, etc.


Any comment that might warrant a lead into where baby Lisa is now is worth investigating....I don't care how out of context it is.. or even misinfo.

If the Irwin's are actually innocent of this crime.. there has to be more than one person who knows what happened to Lisa...and any possible leads to that need to be investigated..and hopefully LE has their antennae out , and are monitoring things closely..none of which we would know about.

I will assume they are.. and it wouldn't hurt if a couple of PI's were independently looking into things as well...as long as they don't do anything that would hamper the evidence.

I'm starting to smell a cover up here..and not by the Irwin's..


I really hope and pray I am wrong about that .




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Silo, during voir dire, the jury selection, both sides State of Missouri and DEFENSE of ,,,, oh let's just say Irwins will interview every potential juror. They bring in about 100 or 150 potential jurors. They speak to each one and then eliminate them all the way down until they have 12 jurors. IF the defense asks a juror,, ' do you have a pre concieved notion about the irwins guilt'? and the juror replies well YES i think they are guilty because megan wrights' boyfriend jersey says he stole the baby for 300 usd, then that juror is eliminated and sent home and not able to SERVE during the trial. See? So you throw out enough of these little errors in the press and NOT ONE JUROR can be found who does not already believe something about the case, then they can ask the judge to MOVE the case acoss the state far far away from Kansas City. They'll want to move to a little small place where people ahve been busy working their farms or some such and have not had time to watch tv and hear every little tidbit that 's been dropped in the media. The prosecutor for State could have the same thing........... like with the mistake the MEDIA says about the DA taking years to solve the case, etc.
I guess it will boil down to which side, DA or DEFENSE, has greater pull witht he media to get their little tidbits out there and into the ears of potential jurors.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


I know you ddn't ask me..but no, I think it's more like poisoning the jury pool....if everyone knows about the case, it's harder to find jurors who haven't been persuaded by the likes of NG and JVM and other vile shouting heads.

Especially locally. That's why they had to move Casey A's case to another county -- too many people had already condemned her in her own town, thanks to the media.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


But what about this week the defense basically LYING about what teen said about Jersey taking money to steal the baby ? That's GROSS manipulation of the truth if not an outright lie. To say someone seems like the sort who would steal a baby for money vs. someone DID steal a baby for money are very VERY far apart.
And if KCPD and the legal team are both manipulating every word and covering up things, then what for? I can't see why both sides would be. ONE side KNOWS what happened to the baby! Now if only we could figure out which side.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



I started watching that trial on the first day -- saw the opening remarks....and I avoided media. I watched it via cctv on CNN. And only once or twice did I tune in to Nancy G (of whom I had never even HEARD before that), and I thought "what a vile loudmouth." And she infuriated me so much with her derogatory remarks, even the "handle" she gave the defendant, I became nauseated. That reaction to her remains my immediate response to this day. Vile, poisonous, immoral beast. Should be shut down, IMO.


I'm happy to see we agree on Nancy ,wildtimes..She is the most unprofessional lawyer I have ever seen on TV..and she has her own show to spew out hatred and derogatory remarks..and it really does taint the public opinion.

I would love to see that show cancelled.. she needs a female version of the Jerry Springer show.. if she gets one at all..There is absolutely no "grace" to her in every sense of the word.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


But what about this week the defense basically LYING about what teen said about Jersey taking money to steal the baby ? That's GROSS manipulation of the truth if not an outright lie. To say someone seems like the sort who would steal a baby for money vs. someone DID steal a baby for money are very VERY far apart.
And if KCPD and the legal team are both manipulating every word and covering up things, then what for? I can't see why both sides would be. ONE side KNOWS what happened to the baby! Now if only we could figure out which side.


Are you so sure they lied.. or just got the story mixed up? They have done nothing compared to what the media has done here.. and they could have legitimately thought they had the source quoted properly. Anyone who makes a big deal about this misconstruing of what was said.. needs to understand why it was put out there...and that is to help find baby lisa, and to shed some light on the characters that were in that vicinity at the time.




edit on 20-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimesreply to post by schmae
 

Thank you both - it's becoming clearer now.

Also what's becoming clearer is I've this sinking feeling the Anthony Case set a horrible precedent. Meaning - that case had so much hype, so much muddle, so many names and characters and gawdddd it was just NUTS. And that little girl did NOT get JUSTICE.

I'm so afraid that's what we're seeing here. Total manipulation even before it goes to court to frig things up before anyone's even charged.

peace

Oh shoot I has another question but my cut paste blew it. BRB.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


You know, gabby, I almost replied to your previous, regarding the cover up.
And yes, I, too am glad we agree!!

There are a couple more things we agree on...that we hope the worst is NOT the case. That Deborah was negligent, and I respect your willingness to acknowledge that. Before, it seemed you were dead set against holding her responsible for anything.

Perhaps we're just both too excitable about this to always hear each other accurately.

On other matters, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

peace
--WT

ETA:

she needs a female version of the Jerry Springer show

Ha!! Yeah, exactly. In fact, I suggested to my husband that she should be a guest on his show....disgusting. They should team up. Except that he KNOWS its all scripted and he plays the part...
and you know what they offer to "guests" to come on their show??
Women get a free makeover. Men get a carton of cigarettes. Oh, and they fly you out there and put you up in a hotel. I know this, because I called and asked them.
edit on 20-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


If anyone wants the real story on nancy grace, google trenton duckett, and nancy grace. SILO, there is another baby who's never been found. In fact, very close facts to some of the baby Lisa facts. Mom's home , entertaining friends, while someone comes and takes him from his bed. Her story was even less believable. She was indoors the whole time watching a movie right beside his bedroom and says after the movie he was gone. Anyway, he s never been found that I know of.
But Nancy Grace had MUCH to do with that case and the way it ended. At least the part not related to little Trenton



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

But what about this week the defense basically LYING about what teen said about Jersey taking money to steal the baby ? That's GROSS manipulation of the truth if not an outright lie. To say someone seems like the sort who would steal a baby for money vs. someone DID steal a baby for money are very VERY far apart.

Thus my conclussion (along with many other instances) of mudding the waters.

Then on to:


And if KCPD and the legal team are both manipulating every word and covering up things, then what for? I can't see why both sides would be. ONE side KNOWS what happened to the baby! Now if only we could figure out which side.


There's a good question. Do you think Tacopina knows. I mean really knows the truth?

Do you think KCPD knows the truth?

I'd love to hear what you all would answer to those two questions.


peace



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 






And that little girl did NOT get JUSTICE.


I would assume that innocent children who are with Jesus, are not concerned so much about justice as they are forgiveness..

I really can't see children in heaven crying out for revenge and justice.. but I do see them praying and hoping that their killers would seek repentance.. and ask for forgiveness..which they know that jesus is ready to give..to anyone who is truly repentant.

Thats just my take on what these little souls are about..when they get to heaven..



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


I think at this time both sides KNOW and that's why the standoff. Kcpd does not want to 'tip their hand' ( that means show what they have by way of proof) and TACOPINO doesn't want his client to do anything that appears one inch guiltier than already percieved. So yea, I'll change my statement to BOTH SIDES KNOW. And both sides KNOW the other side knows. But what JOE T knows is Deb can look guilty and even be guilty all day long and taht does not mean that she'll get convicted as long as he can keep the spin doctors spinning it all and throwing doubt all over the place .



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


GABBY ! I LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS POST. Thank you .
Thinking of Lisa and Tyler and all the other babies and the many times we've discussed their lives and what it must be like once they are stolen ........... it is nice to remember that once their suffering ends, they are in GOOD HANDS INDEED !


I'd star and flag but I don't know how !

edit on 20-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


If anyone wants the real story on nancy grace, google trenton duckett, and nancy grace. SILO, there is another baby who's never been found. In fact, very close facts to some of the baby Lisa facts. Mom's home , entertaining friends, while someone comes and takes him from his bed. Her story was even less believable. She was indoors the whole time watching a movie right beside his bedroom and says after the movie he was gone. Anyway, he s never been found that I know of. But Nancy Grace had MUCH to do with that case and the way it ended. At least the part not related to little Trenton

I just started listening to Nancy Grace via the Lisa case. I'd never 'heard' her before. I can tell you I hope to NEVER hear her again! What a foul individual. And though I know I'll go and look anyway (about poor Trenton) I know I'll regret it!

Another baby never found. *Shaking my head* - I can't even imagine being here years from now still wondering where Lisa is. Wow... That poor baby!

peace



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


I'd star and flag but I don't know how !

The clear looking star above Gabby's and everyone's posts? Just click on it and it will turn to a gold star. Flags are for the thread on the front page and we can't 'flag' people's posts only the thread which is too bad too cause some posts deserve flags too!

And yes, I think both sides know - and as you said that's why the 'stalemate'. I also believe each side knows the other knows and again, as you said, that's why there so much 'muddying' going on!

peace



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
The word 'seem' can be used when referring to something without fact. Like a belief. Beliefs don't require facts only faith but they 'seem' to be real. You claimed there's no preference to a child’s color when reporting or not reporting they’ve gone missing but admitted to having no statistics to back up your claim. My point was this ‘claim’ of yours would have been better presented as something that ‘seems’ to be so. Seem to, believe it to be, but without statistics or fact - as you admitted you don't have - is a baseless claim - though no less a belief.



Oops, I did get your name wrong, I really did think it was Silage13. Just a habit of reading too fast. My apologies (again).

Look, it's an upsetting case, and I can see it's having an effect on you, but I feel you're still trying to get into an argument with me. Why do you keep writing "seems" all the time, directly at me? I don't think I even used that word.

I actually wonder if you really believe coloured children don't get coverage over little blue-eyed white children or if it's really your other thread you're worried about. Why don't you start bumping it for a few pages and I'm sure it'll gain momentum? This one was slow to begin with till me and Gabby and a couple of others joined in. (Even though you asked me to leave.)

I'm gone this time (you'll be glad) I'll come back when they find Lisa Irwin and discuss that. I think they will find her.

Great thread, I made some nice friends on here. Thanks for that.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 



There's a good question. Do you think Tacopina knows. I mean really knows the truth?

Do you think KCPD knows the truth?


I think KCPD has nearly all the evidence they need, but if they slip up even a TINY bit, it could easily cause a mistrial. I think Joe knows what happened, too, and he's keeping the parents away from interrogators (who are highly trained specialists in the Reid and other techniques) so they (Deborah and Jeremy) don't slip up and give the police that one piece they need to get an indictment.

That's what I think. I have no idea, really, what actually happened. Only the person responsible for her vanishing knows how she wound up missing, and may not even themselves know ALL of it.

edit on 20-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
And I have wondered why that is allowed to go on. Why are there not stringent rules against defense scumbags tainting the jury pool??

Because the same Constitution that guarantees that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty also gaurantees freedom of speech and media. As much as I dislike media and lawyers, when I see their faces on tv doing their spin it serves as a reminder that if they can get in front of a camera and say what they say without government stormtroopers breaking in mid news cast and dragging them out the door, that the constitution is still working.

Secondly I would never ever want any type of restrictions placed on defendants, regardless of how annyoing an action it may be. I prefer to leave it to the judge to see through all the BS and make an appropriate ruling. Keep in mind right now there is no one in custody and no charged pending on anyone. It still irritates me to no end though.

As I said in an earlier post, the job of a defense attorney is to represent their clients with zeal and bravado in order to secure the best possible outcome for their client. If that means playing dirty on their part, they will do it. When I refer to the media spin affecting jury / trial, its in the sense that they can get the location of the trial moved to a different county.

Look at it like this. Most defense attorneys / prosecuting attorneys and judges for a judicial circuit all know each other since they deal with each other on a daily basis. The judge knows how the PA / defense attorney argue their points and how well they use case law or law interpreations to make their argument.

When a trial is moved to a different location, the tactics of the lawyers arent well known, if they are known at all. The people in that county where the trial gets moved to arent familiar with the ins and out of the case since it doesnt dominate their local media.

Knowing that, its easier for a defense attorney to paint an image of their client that is believable to those jurors than it would be to the jurors in their home city. People in the KC area hear all about the possibility of drug use, shady friends, etc. That info may not be as prevailent in another county.


Originally posted by wildtimes
I started watching that trial on the first day -- saw the opening remarks....and I avoided media. I watched it via cctv on CNN. And only once or twice did I tune in to Nancy G (of whom I had never even HEARD before that), and I thought "what a vile loudmouth." And she infuriated me so much with her derogatory remarks, even the "handle" she gave the defendant, I became nauseated. That reaction to her remains my immediate response to this day. Vile, poisonous, immoral beast. Should be shut down, IMO.

Nancy Grace used to be a prosecuting attorney and on a few occasions she got popped by the judge for allowing media to accompany her on execution of a search warrant (this is a whole topic in and of itself).

She seems to have brought the "Jerry Springer" methods into the legal realm.



Originally posted by wildtimes
And you know, I watched that trial devotedly. I avoided any media POV on it. and at the end, I was convinced that she was innocent, and her father was the culprit. I still believe that.

I still think we should put micrscopic lowjack gps tracking on kids.


Originally posted by wildtimes
So, yeah....WHY is the press allowed to "pick sides" like the Inquirer gone mad??
It's jury tainting. It could even be witness tampering! And it's certainly NOT unbiased presentation of facts only. Ugghh.. Makes me sick.

Because we cant just punish one outlet. The moment any type of legislation comes up with regards to restricting rights, its a slippery slope and once you go over the edge, its almost impossible to fix it till you hit the bottom, and even then there is no guarantee you will sirvive the fall.

Ensuring that the National Enquirer cant print whatever it wants means legitimate media outlets can print whatever they want. We dont need a law restricting, we need people to not buy or support the outlet.


Quote of the Day -

.............America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest..........

President Andrew Shepherd (The American President)

edit on 20-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


OFF TOPIC: schmae, on my computer they turn blue. just in case you get blue instead of gold...don't think it means anything.

BACK ON TOPIC:
I do agree that SOMEONE knows what happened. And it might be the brothers know part; and perhaps the parents know part; and definitely someone, somewhere is hiding SOMETHING.

Which brings up something that bugged me the day they finally got to interview the boys...Picerno told the press, and claims he told Lisa's parents, NOT to question the boys about the interview. That seemed really, really suspicious to me.

Those boys are not mentally retarded. Who knows who has been coaching them? If my kids were questioned by the authorities for ANY REASON AT ALL, I would be available for them to talk to about it. How they felt, were they upset, was it fun or scary...?

Because those boys DEFinietly know something awful has happened. The way to help kids through trauma is not by NOT ASKING them how a meeting went. Or by having cameras follow them around on Halloween...to me, again, that shows poor parenting.

And if the parents did not WANT to talk to them, why not? And if it was just Picerno telling them not to ask the boys anything...WHY NOT?? Is he wanting Deborah and Jeremy to remain unaware of something the boys have told the police, hoping a judge will find it inadmissable since they were just kids?? Or perhaps the boys recalled something that Deborah can not (due to her memory disruption because of the wine, or because she was deeply asleep?) and he doesn't want them "reminding" her. That way she can still claim she doesn't know.

Just SPECULATING, ladies and gents. Just my imagination running with it.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yea, despite many cries of improper conduct by LE, it seems to me LE has been actually very quiet and much of the hoopla has come from MEDIA spins and now LEGAL team spins. Also the family themselves havent' spoken in ages, so all info comes through the carefully filtered mouthpiece legal team.
Poor baby Lisa ........


Its not in the best interest for the family to speak to the media. The media, just like lawyers, know how to ask leading / manipulative questions. In addition statements given to the media directly by the family is fair game when it comes to using that information against them in court on the off chance they are charged.

You know the saying - Never engage in a public argument with people who buy ink by the barrel.
The goal - The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Legal - The truth, the half truth and whatever helps my client out.
Media - The truth, the full gossip and whatever brings in ratings.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join