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: 136
41
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
This appears OT but it's not. Please for everyone who believes there were 3 sightings of baby lisa taken by a stranger that nigth wandering around KC, please watch this and then think about MEMORY and how it's just POSSIBLE these witnesses MIGHT have not seen what they 'remember' they saw. Only 3 minutes long.

video.nationalgeographic.com...

This is from NAT GEO channela nd is in no way connected ( that i know of anyway ) the KCPD or the defnse team of the Irwins, LOL. It's just a random show I watched around the time I heard of the sightings of a baby and it makes you think ..........hmmmmmmmmmm.

If the video does not say the SWITCHEROO please select switcheroo vid from below.
edit on 20-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





In my experience (yeah, I've been interviewed on camera a couple times for various local issues like school closures and parks built on Indian burial grounds).. you have the right to say NO. And they can't use your image or follow you around without your written consent.


Really?.. so anyone filmed on camera has to give consent before their image is used on tv?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   


Interesting she even says 'a new twist...'...



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
This appears OT but it's not. Please for everyone who believes there were 3 sightings of baby lisa taken by a stranger that nigth wandering around KC, please watch this and then think about MEMORY and how it's just POSSIBLE these witnesses MIGHT have not seen what they 'remember' they saw. Only 3 minutes long.

video.nationalgeographic.com...

This is from NAT GEO channela nd is in no way connected ( that i know of anyway ) the KCPD or the defnse team of the Irwins, LOL. It's just a random show I watched around the time I heard of the sightings of a baby and it makes you think ..........hmmmmmmmmmm.

If the video does not say the SWITCHEROO please select switcheroo vid from below.
edit on 20-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)


Schmae.. these two whiteness were together, and made a comment on how odd what they saw seemed at that time of the morning.. now you want to discredit both of them as "mixing up" what they saw.

Please... don't go there on this one.. these two have been interviewed extensively.. and to try and discredit what they BOTH saw, and commented on.. is total disrespect for them..in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


If it is a them-only film, yes. If it's a crowd scene, or a news-shot, no. But remember, the family let the cameras film them GETTING READY, INSIDE the house where they were staying.

Even if the paparazzi were dogging them outside, they certainly could have told them NO YOU WILL NOT COME INTO MY HOME and WATCH my kids having a "normal" dress-up session for Halloween.

Absolutely no way the cameras could have done that without explicit permission.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by gabby2011
 



As far as the irwin's not stopping the cameras.. do they even have right to go up and tell them to stop filming them?..and if they did ask.. and were told ..NO.. would the media even show us that footage?


In my experience (yeah, I've been interviewed on camera a couple times for various local issues like school closures and parks built on Indian burial grounds)..
you have the right to say NO. And they can't use your image or follow you around without your written consent.

?..well that could come back to haunt them, if a jury feels they coached their kids in any way.. do you understand what I mean?

Yes, I do understand what you mean.

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



I have a question. Let's say the parents said no. Since they are walking on public streets for trick or treating and there are other people around, could the media get away with doing it anyway and if pressed just say they weren't specifically following them? I know that most of our local news outlets have some type of footage for Halloween along those lines.
edit on 11/20/2011 by TXTriker because: clarification



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Oh BOOO is Bill Stanton the one who made this outrageous comment about jersey and the 300? If so , I'll take back my comments that he could be a good guy

Disappointed.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TXTriker
 


see above. Paparazzi vs being invited into the home.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Gabby I IMPLORE you watch the video. I'm not calling any of the witnesses liars and I don't think any of them had anything to gain or lose by coming forward. I just think memory is a very VERY difficult thing to rely on,,,,,,,,in the dark,,,,,,,,,down the street,,,,,,,,,, middle of the night,,,,,,,,,,,,,etc.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Before the police said they discounted the sightings and before the motorcycle guy's statemetn was 'tainted' by aABYEYTO.. I was never feeling they were valid. .


My thoughts pretty much follow yours other than one small piece....IF indeed the kcpd felt that Mike Thompson as an eyewitness wasn't valid...why would they bring him in and show him their own lineup? There's where the whole thing falls apart for me. I understand thinking that some guy is just wanting to jump on a bandwagon and get in the spotlight...they are professionals after all and can probably read when someone is being untruthful...or perhaps specific things they are looking for in a statement are not present. Fine then, rule him out as valid. But if you rule him out as valid why take the time to bring him into the station and show him their own lineup AFTER already knowing he was shown a lineup therefore making him a tainted witness. Makes no sense to me

Michelle



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by TXTriker
 


see above. Paparazzi vs being invited into the home.


Thanks. You were answering while I was typing.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 



memory is a very VERY difficult thing to rely on

Absolutely correct.
It is actually not considered reliable at all compared to hard evidence.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


How do we know when he came in for lineup vs. when Abeyto showed him the pic with brando? Is that something verified by LE or Irwin attorneys? Come to think of it what is the source even for the tainted witness account by Thompson? Did police say that ?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


But if you rule him out as valid why take the time to bring him into the station and show him their own lineup AFTER already knowing he was shown a lineup therefore making him a tainted witness. Makes no sense to me

Wouldn't they do this to be seen as 'thorough'? To 'go through the motions' anyway? I'm learning a lot about how the courts work in cases like this and how much all the 'pre-work' reflects in court - so really it's a question more than anything else.

peace



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 



But if you rule him out as valid why take the time to bring him into the station and show him their own lineup AFTER already knowing he was shown a lineup therefore making him a tainted witness. Makes no sense to me

I would think because the guy was a "lead", whether or not they could have used his testimony. They might have been able to link it up with something else.

EDIT: Also, what silo said. If they DIDN't, they could have been cast as "deliberately ignoring a possible sighting and a lead." They're already under pressure to do more than they can.
edit on 20-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


Come to think of it what is the source even for the tainted witness account by Thompson? Did police say that ?
There's a lot of scuttlebutt around about it but I haven't found a source that states this from the police - Michelle wrote something along the same lines a few - probably ten now - pages back.

But like Michelle pointed out and then our *X* did - for that to have happened definitely would have 'tainted the witness' - something I hadn't understood from my own experience.

peace



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Also for the husband and wife who simultaneously saw someone carrying baby. I believe , if my memory serves right,
that one saw it first , then called the other over to window to see it themself. Already you've got what could have TAINTED the memory. Spouse one says ' honey come and see this weird thing outside'. Spouse 2 comes over, already witht he SUGGESTION something weird is going on outside. If spouse 2 had not called them over and they had seen it independantly with their own eyes first, would they have thought it strange? Or would they have said oh the neighbor out carrying his dog back home after a walk. ? We have no idea. That is how suggestible the mind is. One person suggests something strange and the 2nd person is EXPECTING something strange!!!



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





EDIT: Also, what silo said. If they DIDN't, they could have been cast as "deliberately ignoring a possible sighting and a lead." They're already under pressure to do more than they can.


they already were aware of the sighting.. so they did nothing about getting an ID until someone else stepped in and did it for them..so they could be accused of ignoring the lead well before the PI came into the picture with photos for mark.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


'''I would think because the guy was a "lead", whether or not they could have used his testimony. They might have been able to link it up with something else. '''

Good point. Even if Mike's account is tainted and unusable, let's say all 3 witnesses picked out same face, jersey or brando or whoever. It gives much more ammo to look at jersey or brando or whoever, than just 1 account of his face being seen.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 





Also I wonder what these 2 people are doing up ?


OMG ..I can't believe you are trying to cast doubt on what two people saw..and then go ahead to sound accusatory for them still being up?

It was obviously enough for one to call the other to the window..

Ok.. if were starting to slander and discredit totally innocent witnesses now.. its really time for me to leave this thread before I blow a gasket..

It's pretty normal for some people to be up at 12 :30


You've just hit a new low for me schmae.. and I hope we get to hear from these witnesses one day.. either through someones book.. or in court.

Casting doubts on some very real leads that could lead to finding Lisa..does not in my mind seem to be in the BEST interest of the child !!!



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join