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: 149
41
<< 146  147  148    150  151  152 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 



Good questions, and yet you suggest that we should simply blindly accept these results, and if we don't you imply it's because of a desire to train our own dogs.

Dav1d, for Lisa's sake, will you just LAY OFF of putting words in my mouth!! I did not suggest we should "simply blindly accept" ANYTHING! Read the posts carefully dav1d, before replying. DID I NOT show BOTH SIDES of the debate? Did I say I didn't have time to read and weigh the issues surrounding the use of dogs?
YES, I DID. You even quoted me saying so!!

Did I say "well, this Grime guy must be competely right??"
Did I say "those dogs are never wrong?"
Did I say "the police could not possibly have done anything to coerce him?"
Did I say anything about your other woman who planted evidence being competent?
That it was she who trained Mr Grime, or he who trained her?
Or imply that there are no incompetent dogs?
Or that it is a fool-proof tool?
Or that the DA in England DID NOT try to coerce this witness?!

NO I DID NOT! I EVEN POSTED A LINK SHOWING POSSIBLE UNRELIABILITY!!! I presented BOTH SIDES, in a neutral manner!!

I'm so completely over your crap. Completely. It should have thrilled you that I posted info that clearly shows the police in that case were tampering with a WITNESS!! But no, now you'll turn around and say
"Why should it thrill me? I don't want it to be this way."


Can we add two and two?

First of all, I don't know if you can or not, and I don't care.
Secondly "WE" is condescending CRAP, and even if it were meant literally I wouldn't be caught anywhere NEAR you and your, irksome, circular, and frankly asinine pi$$ing contest. So don't EVER think you can include me in WE when you are also referring to yourself. Ever.
*deep breath*
And furthermore, there were cops here in the USA, in KC, years after the England case, and even more years after your Anderson woman's exposure, WITH Mr Grime and those dogs during their searches. LOTS OF THEM. There were aerial videos of the dogs, AND still shots of the dog in the raft on the water with SEVERAL LEO/FBI people.
They just didn't want the PUBLIC watching; and I said very clearly I didn't know why, and had yet to discover why.

You really are a piece of work, and worth not one more iota of my attention or thought.

And any law enforcement person who would take you seriously for one instant would HAVE to be a complete idiot. If you want to earn credibility and respect from me, you show me ONE; go and find ONE credentialed, experienced LEO that agrees with you, and invite THEM here. Bring references, AND present credentials of your own. You show me proof that ONE of the detectves or police or DA's people working on THIS CASE has PROVEN corruption records and incompetence write-ups, suspensions, fake credentials. Or hey, why don't you just solve the case yourself?

Until you have done that, do NOT expect ramming your outrageous corruption theories down my throat to accomplish anything except getting you busted for trolling and spreading libelous, defaming claims about police.
Be warned. Next time I will report you. I'm not above it.
Some of on here really DO intend to DENY IGNORANCE.
edit on 24-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

Thank you *X* - We'll see what they find this Saturday - Wouldn't it be great if there was finally closure.
Thank you for the new photo - I appreciate the effort - I'll go look again.
I don't celebrate Thanksgiving Day, but, hope all of you who do have a wonderful time!
peace



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Okay, found this story from today on CNN....
regarding corruption in the UK police and collusion with Murdoch's News Int'l Corp (who also owned Sky news during the McCann and Prout cases)

This, to me, shows that UK police have a history of colluding to debilitate investigations in some way connected to Murdoch's News Corp Int'l.
The vid does not apply to the Prout case (which is where SkyTV censored the dog stuff), but the Prout case is also indicative of police corruption in the UK with Murdoch's News corp from years past (the vid says the case they're talking about was in early 2000s)

So ---- apparently while Murdoch was doing the media (now stopped) he did have police criminal underworld cooperation.
www.cnn.com...#/video/world/2011/11/24/shubert-uk-murder-mystery.cnn
This link^^^ just leads to a video main page...you have to scroll to the options and choose the vid about

UK murder mystery and police corruption

at the moment it's about 8th or so in the lineup below the top of page.

edit on 25-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 



Anderson was profiled on the television show "Unsolved Mysteries"

Do you happen to have a link, or any info on this ONE TV show you are basing all of your information on?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


If you actually did more research instead of just cherry picking your arguments you would see the possession of drugs is illegal. However, it is allowed in a controlled enviorenemnt when training drug sniffing dogs. The same holds true for cadaver dogs as well.

There are cadaver dogs out there whose handlers are not part of law enforcement, yet they are allowed to also train their animals.

Your continued attempt to blanket lump all law enforcement into one groups is a fialure. Your attempts to discredit law enforcement as a whole by cherry picking incidents that occured in other states is a failure.

Out of curiosity was your intent in this thread to discuss teh case and debate it, or was it to use the topic as a pretext in order to contiunually attack law enforcement as well as anyone who doesnt agree with you?

Please let us know so we know which posts of yours to answer, and which posts of yours we can ignore.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Your continued attempt to blanket lump all law enforcement into one groups is a fialure. Your attempts to discredit law enforcement as a whole by cherry picking incidents that occured in other states is a failure.


If David was attempting to discredit law enforcement as a whole why would he bring up the successes law enforcement had had in other cities with other cases of missing children?

He has given law enforcement credit when they have done a great job.... and because of the success of other law enforcement groups in other areas.. he is wondering why the KCPD is having such a difficult time with their missing children.

I think its very unfair that because he is questioning the methods that KCPD have used.. does in noway implicate that he had lumped all law enforcement as failure.

You're insistence that he has "X" reveals to me something very narrow minded and stubborn about your outlook.

You have tried to implicate the same about me.. when it is not true at all..and I gave you just a few examples of my posts to verify.. and I could have given you many more.

Your constant accusations and attacks without looking at the facts of what he has written, or I.. show where ignorance really lays here..but don't worry..I don't think David or I will ever lump all law enforcement in the same category as what you have shown yourself to be.....and would never consider you as a fair representation for all law enforcement officers.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Can I get a care check on aisle 3 please.... care check - aisle 3.

You both have done nothing but complain and accuse law enforcement from the begining. Neither of you understand what you type because when you get called out on it, you change your story, as you have just done....again).

KCPD has gone above and beyond to locate the missing child. The same cannot be said for the parents. I have taken the time and then some to explain police operations and law, which you and dave ignore because it doesnt support your accusations.

As far as what type of Police Officer I am - people I respect get to make that argument, not you nor dave.

The body will be located -
The parents will be charged -
You and Dave will be wrong -

and you and dave will then scream coverup and conspiracy because in your minds, as well as posts, its evident thats all you guys are intrested in anyways - blaming / attacking the police.

Hypocrisy much?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


'''And cadaver dogs need to be trained weekly (or on going) that means they need a continuous source of dead bodies... In many states it is illegal to posses dead bodies, to chop them up and hide the bits and pieces... Just another example of where law enforcement turns a blind eye to certain laws being bent.... '''''

Are you honestly accusing LE of keeping and chopping up dead bodies, ILLEGALLY, to train dogs? Because if that is so then you are so biased against law enforcement, you hcan no longer claim you look at both sides. You've said time and again you're just trying to be fair and look at all sides, but if you honestly believe what you wrote, then you cannot see both sides . There are countless ways to LEGALLY have a body for uses like this. Unclaimed bodies, and donations for medical research just to name two. There are plenty of ways to get them without keeping them illegally to chop up and hide pieces of.
I'm actually surpised you would think this so I'm hoping it's a misunderstanding or you misspoke!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


Where do you supposed members of LE get weekly fresh bodies to train the dogs?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I keep clicking this thread for updates and news, but am tired of the bickering posts that are not contributing anything new. What a shame, in a case like this a continuous updated thread is wonderful, but I would have to say almost half the posts in this thread are bickering and in fighting, who has time to wade through it all? It is getting too hard to find the real nuggets of updates now. I bet I am not the only lurker to this thread who feels this way. I wish the fighting would stop. There is a missing child out there, and it is looking like something sinister happened to her.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





You both have done nothing but complain and accuse law enforcement from the begining. Neither of you understand what you type because when you get called out on it, you change your story, as you have just done....again).


Did you not read the examples of my posts early in this thread..I could go find more..why do you continue to lie, and falsely accuse..?




The body will be located - The parents will be charged - You and Dave will be wrong - and you and dave will then scream coverup and conspiracy because in your minds, as well as posts, its evident thats all you guys are intrested in anyways - blaming / attacking the police.


Time will tell..and like I have said a multitude of times on this thread..I just want the truth.. if the truth is that Debbie or Jeremy are responsible for this missing child.. then they need to be accountable for that.. have you not read any of my posts stating this?

The fact that you would consistently badger me with false accusations says so much about where the real ignorance lays in this thread.

Because I have not agreed with people attacking debbie as and calling her ignorant trash.. and decided to malign her character because she has pill bottles on her fridge, and got a new hairdo.. doesn't mean I don't want the truth.

Because I can understand why she may not want to be interviewed separately after one lawyer called off interviews.. (her first one) because of the harassing techniques used.. does not mean I do not want the real truth to come out.

Continue with the ignorant implications and bashing "x".. but I will say..you are giving a very bad example for other police officers..and thankfully not all police are judged by the actions of a few.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I keep clicking this thread for updates and news, but am tired of the bickering posts that are not contributing anything new. What a shame, in a case like this a continuous updated thread is wonderful, but I would have to say almost half the posts in this thread are bickering and in fighting, who has time to wade through it all? It is getting too hard to find the real nuggets of updates now. I bet I am not the only lurker to this thread who feels this way. I wish the fighting would stop. There is a missing child out there, and it is looking like something sinister happened to her.


I agree.. but it is difficult when you get personally attacked.. for having speculations or questions ..to not fight back.

I really wish I didn't have to defend myself and others who have been attacked for voicing our concerns.

besides the updates..which many have been wrong..this thread has been mostly about speculations..and personal attacks... and when david tries to present evidence for why he feels the way he does.. he is attacked.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by vogon42
reply to post by Dav1d
 



Anderson was profiled on the television show "Unsolved Mysteries"

Do you happen to have a link, or any info on this ONE TV show you are basing all of your information on?


Actually my "information" is based on a number of reports, that I've posted links to in the past, here is just one report by Daniel A. Smith > Fraudulent Use of Canines in Police Work.pdf < Who was a law enforcement office with Linkon Park for twenty years, 8 of which he served as a K9 handler. Just so we are clear ~ it doesn't come from a TV show protraying Police corruption.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Gab, last night was a show on CNN called..... Nepals Stolen Children,,, all about a child stealing/selling ring affecting 1000s of children. I thought of you . I did NOT watch it because I was almost asleep but I'm hoping to find it again and DVR it. You may have already seen it, if not try to catch it as well. Maybe it will shed some more light on these rings we've been discussing .

thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


Thanks for the link schmae..I will definitely read it.


But just to clarify.. I have never said that this is what happened to baby Lisa.. only that it is a possibility.. because it does indeed exist.

I hope for baby lisa's sake that it is not the case here..
as I have stated before..

For those who wish to make it seem like I only want to implicate the police as the "bad guys" here, and that bashing police is "front and center" of everyone of my posts.. just a few more examples of my what I have posted in this thread..



If either of the parents are found guilty, it would be reasonable to me that they be charged for all the expense the county has gone through in locating their daughter...as well as the crime. BUT...until that proof comes through, beyond a reasonable doubt.. I refuse to take part in the assassination of her character. Here's hoping baby Lisa will be found, and the REAL truth will be revealed.




Like you..I hope the truth eventually comes out.. ALL of it.. and justice is served...but until all the facts are made known, I will not jump to conclusions about where the child is now... or what happened to her.




I never ever said she WAS innocent.. but I do think if the baby died while in her care..it was NOT murder..and the result of an accident due to improper supervision. I think she could be innocent.. and until all the facts are presented.. I won't decide.


I know you haven't implicated me in the police bashing schmae.. and I think you do understand why I would speculate that it could be a possibility with the "child slavery" rings.

geez ..if people can speculate Debbie sold her child for cash.. I think I can speculate about other possibilities for those who could be interested in cash.. from the bottom layer of those who bring in the child.. for very little..to the upper layers that eventually take the child for their own gains.

For the sake of baby Lisa.. lets hope the truth is revealed soon..



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
No I think I know what you think. But definitely a child ring is a POSSIBLE. Emphasis on Possible. I'm still firmly in the belief it's more likely parental involvement than NOT. But until Lisa turns up, ALL possibles need to be looked at !



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I'm thinking about the uncle's fb posts. Let's PRETEND he's truthful. ( pretend because we have no way to know and he seems LESS than credible at this moment) He's saying she called a lot of family that night for help and they all declined. I've thought from the beginning the police acted as though they KNEW what happened to Lisa from very early on . So let's PRETEND this scenario happened : Accident happens, Deb calls family and gets hung up on basically. WHen morning comes and family sees that Lisa is indeed missing. These few to several family members call LE immediately. They report Deb' phone call from night before. Cops hear this info immediately and it's validated immediately. HOW? CELL PHONE RECORDS..... We only heard about ONE call from Deb's phone to MW's phone. Maybe this is NOT the only call. Maybe this is the only call that LE did n't KNOW the phone it went to. Maybe they got Deb's cell records the next day or two and saw a flurry of calls at 10:45 to 5 of Deb's relatives in quick succession. The same 5 relativese who called LE the day before to report the calls with t he times. It is a smoking gun? No, but it is clear 5 relatives are telling the same story backed up by phone records and Deb's denying them. Could be? Someone I'm sure is about to show me the err of my l ogic and that's ok
Because we are discussing and I started with LETS PRETEND .
It just struck me the other day after reading uncle johnnys' FB page that we only KNOW of one call made from Deb's phone. That does not mean it's t he ONLY call made. It only means its the call we were told about. ( or Jeremys' phone or whoever owns the phone in question)

Also I've seen more than one place that Jeremy actually did call home to tell her he would be MUCH later than he thought. Does anyone know what phone he used and what phone recieved that call? It seems to shoot holes in their own theory of phones were restricted. Is it time to throw the restricted phone story out ?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
I'm thinking about the uncle's fb posts. Let's PRETEND he's truthful. ( pretend because we have no way to know and he seems LESS than credible at this moment) He's saying she called a lot of family that night for help and they all declined. I've thought from the beginning the police acted as though they KNEW what happened to Lisa from very early on . So let's PRETEND this scenario happened : Accident happens, Deb calls family and gets hung up on basically. WHen morning comes and family sees that Lisa is indeed missing. These few to several family members call LE immediately. They report Deb' phone call from night before. Cops hear this info immediately and it's validated immediately. HOW? CELL PHONE RECORDS..... We only heard about ONE call from Deb's phone to MW's phone. Maybe this is NOT the only call. Maybe this is the only call that LE did n't KNOW the phone it went to. Maybe they got Deb's cell records the next day or two and saw a flurry of calls at 10:45 to 5 of Deb's relatives in quick succession. The same 5 relativese who called LE the day before to report the calls with t he times. It is a smoking gun? No, but it is clear 5 relatives are telling the same story backed up by phone records and Deb's denying them. Could be? Someone I'm sure is about to show me the err of my l ogic and that's ok
Because we are discussing and I started with LETS PRETEND .
It just struck me the other day after reading uncle johnnys' FB page that we only KNOW of one call made from Deb's phone. That does not mean it's t he ONLY call made. It only means its the call we were told about. ( or Jeremys' phone or whoever owns the phone in question)

Also I've seen more than one place that Jeremy actually did call home to tell her he would be MUCH later than he thought. Does anyone know what phone he used and what phone recieved that call? It seems to shoot holes in their own theory of phones were restricted. Is it time to throw the restricted phone story out ?


Ok..lets pretend the uncle is telling the truth...

If she actually called relatives for help.. and none would help her..you would think that they themselves would have called the police..??

I know if one of my relatives phoned for help concerning a child that was dead..I sure in hell wouldn't wait around to see what happens when I said noway.... I would tell them to call 911 pronto..or I would be doing it for them.

If the relatives can actually verify this..and are withholding very important facts.. they are indeed responsible for obstructing justice..

If relatives have indeed testified to police about this..I would think that police would have a very strong case..and would have made an arrest by now?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


That's why """"PRETEND this scenario happened : Accident happens, Deb calls family and gets hung up on basically. WHen morning comes and family sees that Lisa is indeed missing. These few to several family members call LE immediately. They report Deb' phone call from night before. Cops hear this info immediately and it's validated immediately'''''''
Maybe they thought she was drunk or full of it UNTIL they saw the news....... OR I guess for all we know some calls may have gone into 911 that night from her family. Who knows?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


That's why """"PRETEND this scenario happened : Accident happens, Deb calls family and gets hung up on basically. WHen morning comes and family sees that Lisa is indeed missing. These few to several family members call LE immediately. They report Deb' phone call from night before. Cops hear this info immediately and it's validated immediately'''''''
Maybe they thought she was drunk or full of it UNTIL they saw the news....... OR I guess for all we know some calls may have gone into 911 that night from her family. Who knows?


we don't know..that is correct.. but I think if those scenarios were indeed true..the police have their evidence to make a case and an arrest.. or to at least say to the public.. we do have a suspect, but are waiting for more information... or a confession.

Doesn't that seem probable to you?



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 146  147  148    150  151  152 >>

log in

join