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: 140
41
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


You didn't answer my question? Would you feel worse after having some false hope and then finding out they were actually too drunk to remembe accurately?

How about this,,, there's a fork in the road and one sober person points left and one drunk person points right and says that's the way they took your child.........what do you do? You can only RUN down one path at a time, so who's word do you take?


You really have a way of stretching things beyond reasonable.. and totally taking the point I make out of context..so I won't indulge you in this game.




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by wildtimes
 


yes Jerssey has a record and this guy in my neighborhood may very well I have no idea. But the neighbors around Jersey don't know about his record likely. When a baby comes uip missing they just think here's this suspicious looking fellow, he's SURELY involved.


again you take things out of context... he was known in the neighborhood.. AND he was meagan wrights ex... which happens to be the number called that evening from one of the missing cell phones... what don't you get about that making him be someone of suspicion???



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 




anyway....neighborhood weirdos are par for the course in any city, I think.


actually they are not..




Jersey has a criminal record. So, he's not such an innocent as far as I can tell.....lots of car break-ins....squatting (supposedly, according to a local neighbor) in vacant houses.... anyway, who knows. I kinda lean toward the guy is icky. I've seen mug shots of him, too. Just kind of icky.


Its not the icky factor alone.. but the fact that he definitely had a strong link to meagan wright..he could have been over that night or walked by.. and seen them visiting in the front, and went through the back.. or came by later.. but he was very familiar with the area...so all those factors do make him more of a suspect in my mind.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Hiring a local defense attorney has its merits, namely being they have experience with the local prosecutors and judges. However, chances are they might not have the experience dealing with a high profile case that involves lots of media coverage on a sustained basis with mainstream 24/7 news channel coverage.

We both are aware of what can happen when a comment is taken out of context, and we both know its compounded when the comment is made to the media.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


''Yes I'm sure you have "pondered" it.. and the reason why I brought it into this thread was because you implied that these child rings wouldn't want a child lisa's age.. so obviously you haven't read all that much about it.. and you're not taking accountability for why I chose to bring it up in this thread..

Soley because of your skeptisim.. ''

What are you talking about ? My skepticism about.................?
I implied and said that was a GUESS, correct? That i was strictly guessing?
I'm not taking accountability for why YOU CHOSE to bring it up ? I don't understand this statement. How can I take accountability for something you choose to discuss?
I'm lost.



You said that you didn't understand why they would want a young child lisa's age..and you're "guessing' they would want someone older..

so...

I gave you references as to how young they start with children.. and why they would want a young child..

to which you respond by saying.. "thats Mk ultra stuff.. I've read about it..and even thought debbie could be involved..blah blah .. but thats another topic for another thread" implying that I was off topic with posting the Mk ultra stuff..or thats how I took it..

when in actuality ..I was addressing your "guess" as to why they wouldn't want lisa... only addressed your "guessing" at why they wouldn't want her.. as skepticism that they may..

get it now?..or should I give up trying to make you understand?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
First off..I never said that it was a cover up by the whole police department..

Respectfully that is irrelevant.... Whether its a department of 40k officers like the New York City Police Department, or 2 part time police officers who work in a village of 200 people. There is nothing at all to suggest any type of coverup.



Originally posted by gabby2011
but there does seem to be evidence that they have not looked at other possibilities enough.. using the line up for mark as an example.. they only did that after.. it was made known to them who he ID'd..when looking at pics that someone showed him.

As I have pointed out before there is a difference in facts and procedure when the police have a person look at a lineup as opposed to one single picture. When Law Enforcement has a circumstantial case against a person who has never been positively identified, a lineup is used.

When a person has been positively identified by a witness / person, a lineup is not needed. Showing the person the single photo doesnt prejudice the case or the facts since a person has already positively identified the individual. Secondly we are still in the investigation stage, so its also possible for people to be shown photos in order to identify persons of interest, lurking / seen in the area etc.

Its used to define the scope investigation. Remeber the job of law enforcement is to rule out people as suspects as much as it is to identify a suspect.



Originally posted by gabby2011
I am giving the police the benefit of the doubt..but none of us know who exactly could...

Emphesis added by me. Those words are very true, however it applies to all sides and not just the police. You have no information to to support the accusation / suggestion that the police are acting improperly. As I have stated before there is always a possibility of wrong doing, and that also includes the Erwins.

Speculation and theory is fine. However, when that topic keeps coming up over and over and over again, its no longer a possibility, but people accusing / blaming. Making an accusation when one does not know all of the facts / laws regarding law enforcement, its a problem.

Respectfully -
I dont know what your education / background is. I do know what mine is though, and speaking from that position -

* - I know how criminal investigations are conducted.
* - I understand the laws that govern how commissioned law enforcement must act when doing an investigation, from evidence collection, to interviews, to interrogations / questioing of suspects.
* - I understand how search warrants are drafted as well as the information required to even put one together.

* - I understand that defense lawyers goal is to represent their client in a zealous manner to achieve the best possible outcome.
* - I understand the police have nothing at all to do with determing a persons guilt or innocence.

* - I understand the difference between the laws / constitutional rights that protect a civilian.
* - I understand the additional requirements / restrictions placed on law enforcement.
* - I understand the ins and outs of conducting an independant investigation into officer behavior, up to and including the fact that not only does the departments Internal Affairs investigate, its possible for the Highway Patrol as well as the FBI to do their own investigations into officer wrong doing.

Some basic info people might not know -
* - A person can commit murder, be investigated, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death without ever being mirandize.
* - Civilians are protected by the 5th amendment from self incrimination.
* - Police Officers are protected by the 5th amendment, just as a civilian.

* - However, police also read their Garrity Rights (LEO only) - Since Law Enforcement is quasi military in its setup (established chain of command, required to follow the commands of those above us) we can actually be ordered to answer guilt seeking questions.

* - If we comply, any information given in that circumstance cannot be used against us in court. However, it can be used against an officer during an internal affairs / outside agency investigation.
* - If we refuse, again that cant be used against us in a court of law, however it can be used against us in an internal affairs / outside agency investigation.

Refusal to answer questions can and is taken as the police officer being dishonest. That action goes in our permanent records and affects promotions / pay raises / our cintinued employment etc etc etc.
* - Police are also required to comply with: 42 USC 1983 - Federal Civil Rights Legislation

People constantly state we should be held to a higher standard. The problem is we are held to a higher standard, however people dont take the time to do the research to know that.

Ironic - People condemning / acccusing / suggesting / insinuating that the Police arent conducting a
properinvestigation, while at the same time those very same people didnt take the time to
investigate the laws / rules / policies / procedures / etc that govern law enforcement actions.

Can you please explain to me how a person that does not have the knowledge / background regarding
this topic, that they can suggest improper actions by the police?

Respectfully



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



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


According to the political boundary maps the Erwin household is just outside of North Kansas City City limits. Their address lists them inside Kansas City.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Missing Baby Lisa Irwin: Is Case Similar to Precious Doe?


"You can speculate on (whether) she was taken and abducted and whatever, but you concentrate on what is probable, what most likely happened here, and see where that takes you," Bernard said.

Bernard was lead investigator in the 2001 Precious Doe murder.


I’m adding this to the thread only because it’s ‘out there’. I’m not going to ‘paste’ the gruesome parts into the thread and/or the speculation the parents who were responsible for ‘Baby Doe’ are similar to the ‘Brad-Wins’. I’ll leave that up to you to speculate over after reading the information.

The sole redeeming quality I can find in the article I’ve pasted above. If you find something else - bring it to the boards, but I’ll not.

peace



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by wigit
 


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

Then I suppose the 'chewing the cud' in your location was a slip a the typewriter too? Here's a hint. If you're going to insult someone and you get caught out? At least have the sack not to 'twist' about it - especially when everyone can see the truth.



Why are you wrong so often about stuff? My mood on my avatar has been CHEWING THE CUD for probably LONGER THAN A YEAR.
It's definitely not a "slip of the typewriter".

If you don't know what that is just picture a cow in a field, staring and chewing.

I changed it to -tongue-tied- for a bit when I got banned for calling someone an idiot on this very thread.

I joined the conversation in the first place to try and help prevent a lynching of the parents without proof of any crime, but it eventually did get as low as someone (I wont say idiot again) calling Deborah Irwin a FAT DRUNKEN P.O.S, (edited minutes after my ban). And others for thinking she killed her baby because it was "creepy" and not a boy.

I'll keep chewing the cud, but please don't confuse people by insinuating it has anything remotely to do with insulting you. I haven't insulted you at all.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Gab, he was suspicious and his name being thrown around for days and days PRIOR to Megan ever coming up. So , initially, his was looking suspicious because he was known as the weird homeless guy who wandered around the neighborhood. It wasn't until 3 weeks or so after the fact that there was any connection made to him about Megan and her phone. We heard his name almost from day one.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


We gotta agree to disagree then because I really do not understand your point I guess. But I do think there is a difference in a child selling ring for children, which MAY take older children vs. a mkultra/illuminati esque type of thing where they want an infant to break from the word go. I have read on it, clearly not as m uch as you , but I have and I didn't say I've read extensively on it, just that I'm familiar with what you're talking about. I've seen shows on these child selling rings in asia, etc, and they are generally older girls, 8 or 10 and up. I do NOT think these type of rings are in cahoots with the type of rings that might take babies for life time mind control type situations. I COULD be wrong and I totally admit that.
Do you see what I mean? I mean, rather, do you think there are 2 different sorts?



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by wildtimes
 


According to the political boundary maps the Erwin household is just outside of North Kansas City City limits. Their address lists them inside Kansas City.


Hmmm!! You know, thanks, I never bothered to look that up. my bad!! So, given that's the case, are the 40 sworn officers in the North KC PD (I actually was shooting my mouth off under the impression they didn't have a police force at all...doy!!)
working in conjunction with KCPD? How does that work when there are two or more PDs for the same neighborhood .... I think I read you stated earlier that the police on each side of the state line work together....
is that so for the municipalities as well??
You know, come to think about it, I was broadsided many years ago by a senior driving a crown vic who failed to stop at a sign in a residential area ...and it happened right on the city boundary -- so the cop who came first had to wait for the cop "next door" to get there....the wreck was in one 'city' and the stop sign in the other.

Can you give us some info on how these big cases work ... for example, the case in Aurora, IL, a suburb of Chicago, but there was evidence/activity in other cities...
is it routine for metro area PD to assist one another, or is it forbidden/difficult?



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Morning/Afternoon all!!!

I got up this morning and did my typical internet search to see if there was any new info. The first thing I came across is an article from Examiner.com that has a run down of the timeline with links to the sources (i.e. the media outlet that reported it) Two things I want to note about it, it really needed a proof reader & some of the items are sourced to websleuths.

Reading through that article one thing jumped out at me. (bolding mine)

8:30 to 9 p.m. - Shane claims he left the two women on the porch and noted he saw Samantha at her home at around 10:30 p.m. but did not see Deborah; CNN Correspondent Jim Spellman said Shane told him several law enforcement agencies, including the Secret Service, questioned him and swabbed his mouth for DNA; he claims he never saw or heard Baby Lisa. - Baby Lisa’s disappearance: Tightening the timeline
I will admit I had missed that part about the Secret Service up until now. To me, that brings a whole other element to this.


The mission of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation's financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the integrity of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events. www.secretservice.gov/

Wikipedia has a good breakdown of the financial part:

These include crimes that involve financial institution fraud, computer and telecommunications fraud, false identification documents, access device fraud, advance fee fraud, electronic funds transfers and money laundering as it relates to the agency's core violations. wikipedia.org


So now I'm wondering what kind of fraud is suspected to have happened to warrant the Secret Service to be in on the investigation.

OiO



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Emphesis added by me. Those words are very true, however it applies to all sides and not just the police. You have no information to to support the accusation / suggestion that the police are acting improperly. As I have stated before there is always a possibility of wrong doing, and that also includes the Erwins.


True enough, and my sincerest apologies for suggesting something without any proof... I certainly do not have a good knowledge of how LE works, and I do hope they have done their best to gather valuable evidence , and are pursuing this case with a focus on finding baby Lisa and looking at all possible clues.

There has been a lot of heresay on this thread... and many have discussed theories and speculations without much proof of why.

I will say this though, I do believe that there does exist an "illuminati" type organizations in this world , and I do believe that they have key figures and representatives within politics, law, military, banking, etc.

There have been big coverups as well by people in postilions of power concerning sexual abuse of children....and it isn't unfathomable to think that this case has some people behind the scenes in the know of what happened and are stopping the truth from being revealed.

Once again my apologies for looking at the police for either screwing up a bit, or having a few on the force that have reason to not seek the real truth...though I still think it could be a possibility.

If the police did make some serious errors on how they handled this case.. would they ever really fess up and say so to the public?? nope.

If there was someone within that force that was covering something up and working to protect a ring of criminals...would we ever really have proof..unless another officer wrote about it..? NOPE ...

So finding proof to substantiate theories or speculations..is sometimes very difficult... especially involving cover ups.





edit on 21-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Gab, he was suspicious and his name being thrown around for days and days PRIOR to Megan ever coming up. So , initially, his was looking suspicious because he was known as the weird homeless guy who wandered around the neighborhood. It wasn't until 3 weeks or so after the fact that there was any connection made to him about Megan and her phone. We heard his name almost from day one.


We heard his name from day one because he was someone who had actually been in that house and made repairs..from what I remember reading.. I recall even reading that he could have been there earlier on in the day for some reason.. but so much info at the beginning was false...especially in this thread.

I don't think it was 3 weeks later that we found he was connected to Meagan .. but you could be right..but the fact that he was someone that had entered the Irwin household and was familiar with the place..(maybe even how windows worked, etc).. is reason enough for me to investigate him... after all a child is missing.
edit on 21-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 



I came across is an article from Examiner.com that has a run down of the timeline with links to the sources (i.e. the media outlet that reported it) Two things I want to note about it, it really needed a proof reader & some of the items are sourced to websleuths.

examiner articles have been posted numerous times in this thread. Just wanted to point out that it's really easy to become a writer for them (I tried it VERY briefly about a year ago)...

all you need to do is choose a category that they have open for writers, send them a sample of your writing, some kind of credentials/experience that show you know the subject well, they review it...
and then...poof....you are an Examiner writer.
They did NOT proof or copy edit articles -- they specifically said (at the time), we do not check for accuracy, typos, etc. -- so make sure your writing is up to snuff...(just checked my old emails, I deleted all the ones I got from the assigned "editor"...which person changed often! ...for the topic I had chosen)

You don't even have to write very often -- they suggest once per month, but some people write dozens a day...and they keep your account "active" for months even if you submit nothing...
then, they "pay" you based on the number of hits your articles get.
I wrote three or four, I think. When I went to look at my "account"...I had earned....
$.02
TWO CENTS
Yup.
LOL!!! Yeah, so, I stopped wasting my energy on them.
anyway -- point is, those who write for Examiner are not necessarily "reporters" on a Bloomberg, or WSJ or even KC Star level.

It's really just a blog thing that pays a pittance.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 


HOLY COW ONE ! Good find and yes, what the HECK is the secret service doing involved in this? I thought the secret service does 2 things, protect presidents and other politicals uppitys and control the flow and crime around counterfiet currency. I always thought those 2 were strange bedfellows anyway,, presidents and fake money?? What could they have in common??
But this is odd that they were there. More things to make you go hmmmm.

oops counterfeit**

edit on 21-11-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


We gotta agree to disagree then because I really do not understand your point I guess. But I do think there is a difference in a child selling ring for children, which MAY take older children vs. a mkultra/illuminati esque type of thing where they want an infant to break from the word go. I have read on it, clearly not as m uch as you , but I have and I didn't say I've read extensively on it, just that I'm familiar with what you're talking about. I've seen shows on these child selling rings in asia, etc, and they are generally older girls, 8 or 10 and up. I do NOT think these type of rings are in cahoots with the type of rings that might take babies for life time mind control type situations. I COULD be wrong and I totally admit that.
Do you see what I mean? I mean, rather, do you think there are 2 different sorts?


I think there are people who want children for different reasons, and they are not all part of the same organizations.

I think there could be some who have nothing to do with the illumanti type circles...and want children from any age for nefarious purposes.

I believe the illuminati type circles have many levels working underneath them , as well as controlled victims to do their dirty work..and also want children ...the younger the better..for varying reasons..


Pornography: The Illuminati are linked in many cities with pornography/prostitution/child prostitution/ and white slavery sales. Again, several layers are present, as a buffer, between the true "management" and those either engaged in the activities, or in paying for/funding and eventually being paid for the activities.



Children are often supplied from the local cult groups, and taught to be child prostitutes (and later, adult prostitutes); are photographed and filmed in every type of pornography available, including "snuff films" and violent films.


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Again I'm not saying this is the case here... but I am saying that there is a possibility...and if it is true.. the chances of ever getting to the truth and having proof are slim to none..in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Ok PHONES,,, the phone thing has really got me bothered. Were the phones on or off? I can't tell from what people to say to what they say next. If the phones were off, no call could have been made to megan wright's phone. So if that call was made to megan's phone, then the phones were on. Right? Now is Megan the only person who has said a call came in to her phone? She says the cops have had her phone since, but I don't recall the actual KCPD saying they took her phone and that the calls were made. Could Megan be making up every bit of it? I'm also thinking it's been insinuated many places that Jeremy was a bit of a stickler on the finances, a bit of a hardnose on keeping the bills under control, lights out etc. So could Deb, like a lot of girls , gotten real chatty with the phone, continued running up the bill and Jeremy getting upset about it just told her the phone is off . " i coudlnt pay the bill so there is no phone service''---- a little white lie, just to keep her from running up more phone charges?? So Deb THOUGHT the phones were off but it wasn't the case? Anyone who knew them closely would know their phones were off and so why would they steal them when they left with the baby see? I just cannot see clear to this phone situation. Were they on restricted calling or not and who KNEW if they were on or off?



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


If ten years go by and never a trace of baby Lisa and in that time it's shown that her parents probably had nothing to do with it, I would be much more inclined to think along the lines of illum. baby stealing story. I do not discount it totally. I just think of all the possibiliites, it's low on the list right now. But I won't discount it totally. I cannot until she's found discount anything that's possible. But you know as well as I if that is what happened, she has in essence vanished for good.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join