Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by schmae

And if a child of mine is missing, I'd much MUCH rather KNOW that the persons' memory was fully INTACT when they relay information to LE than not. I would think anyone would ! Anyone who's not hoping to hide and distort the factst that is !

I call BS on that Schmae.. because if your child went missing.. and there were three eyewitnesses who said they saw something odd about someone carrying a child.. in the wee hours of the morning... I think you would be really really mad at the police if they said they are not credible witnesses.. ..and I'm sure you would beg and plead those witnesses to give you any information they thought they had..

Any loving parent would.. if they knew they were not guilty, and desperate to find their child.

Originally posted by wildtimes
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.

TY wildtimes. Thought I imagined watching 'the show' the Irwins put on Halloween..They did indeed let the cameras into the home..Hm...Wonder what they got paid for that 'clip'.

reply to post by gabby2011


wow, gabby. Calm down!
your buttons are showing....
if you got triggered and are now melting down because someone mentioned memories being questionable as evidence, maybe you've gotten too impassioned at this point today to continue.
We were doing a good job, the three of us, in keeping level heads and civil tongues. Which I saw as growth in our thread.

Back to topic...the "whole neighborhood" doesn't seem to ME to be "rallying" behind Lisa's family. Those vigils only showed maybe 6-10 folks, even at the beginnng, and then it was only Edith who was there, mostly by herself.

Most neighborhoods like theirs do have watchful residents. In my neighborhood, if we see a strange car go by (we live on a very short section of a residential street), we notice. We watch out for strange people walking in the night. We listen when the dogs bark.

There are signs on entrances to "subdivisions" that say "Neighborhood Watch. We Call the Police."
And that's all good. It's geat. It helps the police, it helps curb crime.

The fact that the witness couple was up late is not relevant, but the questions regarding their state of mind, and the fact that it was dark, certainly are.

Regarding international child selling rings... I want to GUESS and this is only a guess so no one bash ahoy on me for it, but I 'd guess that most of the children taken for that sort of life are older than an infant. If they are God forbid, being sold into sex slavery, I would think it would be more in the older age groups,, pre teenage, etc.
Again, ONLY A GUESS !

Originally posted by schmae
It's all MOOT because my point was not discrediting the witnesses by wondering why they were up. If you bothered to read my full post, you'd see I left an option for them to have great memories at that time. ! In fact I think wildtimes said the husband was a night time truck driver, in which case, the family's days are nights and at that time of day they are as competent as I am at noon. ITS RELEVANT !

Gabby is it relevant that they work overnight so are normally awake at night? yes or no

It relevant either way.. and still is relevant..

reply to post by gabby2011


And if a child of mine is missing, I'd much MUCH rather KNOW that the persons' memory was fully INTACT when they relay information to LE than not. I would think anyone would ! Anyone who's not hoping to hide and distort the factst that is !


Where did I say I wouldnlt want the info? I said I would rather KNOW they were relaying good info to me. I would rather know if they were drunk or high or half asleep at the time of the sighting. You wouldn't ? You'd take a stumbling drunks' word and run with it? Might that stumbling drunk be right, yes sure, and you look into it, but he might now. The cops have looked into the witnesses . Why do you think they are moving on from them? Must be a credibility issue or some kind, right? Why do you think it is?

reply to post by schmae

The cops have looked into the witnesses . Why do you think they are moving on from them? Must be a credibility issue or some kind, right?

Or maybe they have those witnesses statements safe and sound, pinned to a working bulletin board, and there wasn't anything else they could do with the sighting YET.

Maybe they're looking for someone (or found someone) who admitted to carrying around his baby in the middle of the night.

"Moving on" doesn't necessarily mean "ignoring" or that the witnesses are necessarily unreliable. They still have to have more than a wee-hours sighting to go on.
make sense?

Originally posted by schmae
Regarding international child selling rings... I want to GUESS and this is only a guess so no one bash ahoy on me for it, but I 'd guess that most of the children taken for that sort of life are older than an infant. If they are God forbid, being sold into sex slavery, I would think it would be more in the older age groups,, pre teenage, etc.
Again, ONLY A GUESS !

and a wrong guess... you have no idea what kind of scum exists out there..

back in 2006 I read an article that was written by a LEO who was part of an international task force looking for these children who had become sex and sadist toys for these scumbags..

It was a very disturbing article..and what these leo's had to view and go through to try and find these children was horrific.. and he said most of them could only do it for a short time..as it was very emotionally and psychologically damaging to see. 8 month old children being gang raped .. young girls being burned while in cages..

These people are not just about getting some sexual pleasure from prepubescent women.. there are levels to child porn.. just like in regular porn.. there are those who get the high from the very sadistic stuff.. the more sadistic it is.. the better.. and the higher price it will fetch in those markets.

Ever read "the hunting game" by Cathy O'Brian.. you may want to look into it.. as well as who some of the "players" allegedly are.. There are some very twisted people out there.. and some of them are in very high positions of power..making it much easier for them to get away with things.. and have evidence get covered up.

Also it brings to mind the club in vancouver where many children were witnessed to be seen brought into this club late at night.. Unfortunate for the lawyers who gathered the evidence and tried to prosecute..things didn't turn out as well as they hoped..heres a link.

itccs.org...

also need to add that some of these men were caught with the international task force.. and yes.. some were right here in canada.. with their own little secret hideaways for this type of garbage...and some in the US

reply to post by wildtimes

Or maybe they have those witnesses statements safe and sound, pinned to a working bulletin board, and there wasn't anything else they could do with the sighting YET.

really hoping that is the case.. and who knows they could be saying they have moved on.. so a suspect will feel like they can relax.. while they are still being watched or investigated..

There could be a few reasons.. and hopefully it will make more sense to us all some day.

reply to post by gabby2011

Ever read "the hunting game" by Cathy O'Brian.. you may want to look into it..

sounds interesting.
I think it's worth a look.
Having said that, is it possible for you to acknowledg the NATGEO memory piece might be something worth a look??


ETA:

and who knows they could be saying they have moved on.. so a suspect will feel like they can relax.. while they are still being watched or investigated..

Right, very possible.

Originally posted by gabby2011
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.

This is exactly it. Unless for some reason they completely ruled out Mike Thompson from day one....they should've shown him the lineup the very same day he came into the police station. By the one week mark when (I believe) he came into the police station or called the kcpd they knew all the players in the game.....jersey, jeremy, phil, james and even dane. I'm sure they could've come up with some sort of lineups using at least those main players. If they were concerned about covering all bases they would've/should've done a lineup in the beginning.

The only possible explanation is just what I said above..they had ruled him out from the beginning...if that were the case I can't see why they would bother with the lineup? Unless....can a defense attorney insist a lineup is done? Perhaps kcpd knew Mike Thompson was a fraud but were doing it to appease defense?

Michelle

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by gabby2011

 

Ever read "the hunting game" by Cathy O'Brian.. you may want to look into it..

sounds interesting.
I think it's worth a look.
Having said that, is it possible for you to acknowledg the NATGEO memory piece might be something worth a look??

yes...I will..

sorry .. its called A Most Dangerous Game.. and its an excerpt from her book on being a victim of child sexual slavery and mind control..heres a link.. there is much more as well.. hopefully have the right one..

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Heres another link covering more about the book which is called Trance Formation of America.

www.trance-formation.com...

I need to add that These are relevant to this case in the aspect that children that age do indeed get taken for nefarious reasons.. as well as an example of what type of people are involved with this type of sadistic pleasure..

reply to post by gabby2011


Thanks!

I was reading earlier today about LEO interrogation techniques, and what a really intense specialty it is, too -- let me know if you want to learn more about how they do what they do, and why...
based on established and proven methods of determining innonence OR guilt.

I'd be happy to post the link if anyone's interested.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by gabby2011

 

Thanks!

I was reading earlier today about LEO interrogation techniques, and what a really intense specialty it is, too -- let me know if you want to learn more about how they do what they do, and why...
based on established and proven methods of determining innonence OR guilt.

I'd be happy to post the link if anyone's interested.

sure.. I"ll look at it..and I'm sure they have reasons for why they do what they do.. but at the same time..did KCPD do it by the book?..

reply to post by gabby2011


So it IS relevant but me asking about it is attacking them? or smearing them or whatever word you used? C'mon Gab, I'm trying to have a civil conversation.
Picture two households with lights a blaze at 1 am on a monday night.
One household is a man and a wife pouring him coffee and getting his work clothes out for a work night.
The other household has music blaring and a pyramid of beer cans on the table.
Both households say they saw a suspicious something outdoors.
You don't think the 2 versions might be different? Or that LE would ask different questions to them?
State of mind t the time of a sighting is important.

And if the couple were up all night for some other reason, family emergency lets' say and they were awakened from a dead sleep at 1 am and then with all the other thoughts swirling through their head , wander over to window to see something,,,, you think that sighting is as accurate as a clear wide awake minds' sighting?

Xcathdra, I have a question for you. I don't know if you will know the answer, but you seem to be one of the more knowledgeable people in this thread regarding laws.

There is a person on another forum that says they are a parole officer in kansas city and local to Baby Lisa (lives in neighbourhood). This person, without saying the words outright, has been giving out bits of information regarding Jersey in particular (I assume they have access to his police file being a PO - IF they are to be believed)

The information specifically according to them is that Jersey has a rock solid alibi that we the public aren't hearing about. They claim Jersey was at a specific casino that evening and is shown on surveillance camera...I assume during the hours Baby Lisa went missing, so couldn't possibly have taken part (at least) first hand in the abduction.

This supposed PO said their supervisor is aware they post on the forum they are posting in, and has no problem with this person posting in the Lisa irwin forum specifically. This supposed PO hasn't directly said the above claims but has basically given a head nod or head shake and some clues for the rest of the posters in the forum to figure out not only that Jersey was at a casino but which one he was at and the cameras caught him there.
According to them, this information is all public knowledge if you know where to look....i don't know how true that can possibly be....

Now, pretending all the above is actual real truth....could this not cause a mistrial if it ever did go to court and involve Jersey somehow? For example....lets say Jersey did have a hand in this...maybe as a third party...but went to the casino to make sure he was seen publicly.

Lets say a prosecutor decides to press charges against Jersey based on circumstantial evidence.
Jersey's defense lawyer comes up with "no way.....because our client is shown here on video in the casino"
Could the prosecutor come back with the video being inadmissable (sp?) because some crazy PO leaked that information on an internet forum....or would it not matter because the video is not hearsay or circumstantial but an actual tangible real piece of evidence that can't be faked.

I hope this makes sense....I don't know for sure if this person really is who they say, but I find it disgraceful that if they indeed are a PO that they are taking chances at mucking up the case....and if they aren't....that they are leading people on pretending they're someone they're not.

Michelle

reply to post by silo13

And honestly? If you're going to believe the police are going to hold someone as credible who's doing drugs? Drugs are illegal. That negates credibility right there.

well.. I hope someone tells all the judges and lawyers and politicians who are on drugs.. not to mention all the other "professionals"..that they are now considered not credible..

As far as sherlock goes... I remember being told that character was actually based on a real one.. but I have been misinformed before..

reply to post by gabby2011

but at the same time..did KCPD do it by the book?..

Well, I wasn't there, of course,
but yes.
The techniques that Deborah described in her media interview are exactly the method that is standard. And legal. Like X said, though, it's only legal in certain circumstances.
Let me "history" those links to post...

reply to post by Michelle129th


Wow, Michelle! Very cool info! I've seen you on another forum that I check from time to time....this is very interesting!!
sorry, off topic that, but excellent questions!!

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011

 

So it IS relevant but me asking about it is attacking them? or smearing them or whatever word you used? C'mon Gab, I'm trying to have a civil conversation.
Picture two households with lights a blaze at 1 am on a monday night.
One household is a man and a wife pouring him coffee and getting his work clothes out for a work night.
The other household has music blaring and a pyramid of beer cans on the table.
Both households say they saw a suspicious something outdoors.
You don't think the 2 versions might be different? Or that LE would ask different questions to them?
State of mind t the time of a sighting is important.

And if the couple were up all night for some other reason, family emergency lets' say and they were awakened from a dead sleep at 1 am and then with all the other thoughts swirling through their head , wander over to window to see something,,,, you think that sighting is as accurate as a clear wide awake minds' sighting?

I think that if it was my child missing..any information that might lead to its whereabouts would be considered a godsend.. I don't care if they were drinking or not..