Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by Xcathdra


No sorry, I read Jersey was inside a working casino that night. Some were speculating he might have gone for the soul purpose of being seen on video to say he was at said casino that night.

reply to post by wildtimes


I read on wikipedia that cerner was usiong parts of the campus, but it didnt detail how much of it. People have in the past used methods like that to establish an alabi. When an alabi is checked, especially when its on video, the general view so to see if the person was present at the time they stated. The key is to follow that identified person in the video for as long as possible to see if the remainder of the alibi is accurate.

Lots of times people will see the person cars in the parking lot and assume since he is present at the time stated, everything is valid. If the perosn states they were at the location for 7 hours, and video has the perosn leaving after only 3 hours, then ther eis a problem that needs to be resolved.

As far as psychics go - Most psychics dont want any information provided to them by law enforcement. They choose that method so they arent influenced by whats already knwon (or known to the police but not the public). Of course the mindset will be to wonder how they know this information, and like above, alabis are checked. I the case of pyshics though its rarely been an issue as far as them being invovled in any related criminal activity (although its possible, but not common at all).

From what i have seen Psychics report their info to the police via tip lines or contacts from previous cases etc. The police follow up as if its a tip submitted by anyone else and go from there. Actually inviting a psychic in on a case and opening up invesitgative case files is a bit more extreme, and usually occurs when all invesitgative roads have been completely exhausted.

The reason for that is to look at aspects that arent normally available to the bulk of the population. If all leads are exhausted, there is no harm in allowing a different perspective, namely a psychis. As we have seen in this case thus far, once a brick wall was hit, the police went back to square one and used different invesitgators to review all evidence.

Fresh eyes never hurts and often times can pick up on missed information that the origional detectives missed because of working conditions (24_ hours straight work, following up on leads at all hours of day and night). Also keep in mind a persons background.

My background is Law Enforcement, however aside from patrol activities I have additional training in interdiction and computers. Factor in personal hobbies and interests, and a piece of information one person finds trivial and non material to the case, another may find it as a potential breakthrough - going back to behavioral analysis etc etc etc.

its a tough job, and until a person actually is on the law enforcement end of an investigation like this, you dont completely understand all that is involved and considered.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Why bother to ask these questions now, since you have made it very clear you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Actually that would be more a more accurate description of you

Have I said ..this is the most likely scenario like you have?

I am merely fighting for the right to innocence before proven guilty....and since you yourself have made that claim.. I find it odd that you have already decided on the MOST likely scenario..

You really have a great way of exaggerating things.. I have NEVER said I was RIGHT.. and implying that I said everyone else is wrong..when in fact there are some on this thread ..that have totally said what they have said is speculation and possibility..as well as some who think Debbie is not guilty.. where do you get EVERYONE from?

I'm really starting to question your ability to read things accurately...

Once again..you show us what you're all about..false accusations.. and exaggerations...

well done officer So much for your innocent until proven guilty theory..

reply to post by silo13

Sorry to reply so late to this remark....I'm waayyyy behind on catching up on posts. I don't remember the Uncle's exact wording, but when he said she had contacted family to dispose of the body, I took it to mean more than one person (and/or more than just him). I guess that I was jumping to conclusions on that as I took "family" to mean multiple persons.

I'm wondering (speculating in a general way) what happens if more than one person comes forward and says that she had called them to dispose of the body, does that holds more weight for a potential arrest or is it still considered hearsay?

reply to post by schmae

Don't you think we would have heard something about this though, if family members had come forward to say they knew something? I mean, it would definitely be in the police's best interest (in solving the case, assuming Deborah was the guilty party) to leak this info in order to turn up the heat on Deborah, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by gabby2011
well done officer

I appreciate that very much.. Thank you.

Its always nice to get recognition of a job well done from someone of your caliber and expertise.

reply to post by Xcathdra

If gabby annoys you so much, why don't you just stop replying to her and ignore her? It would make reading this thread so much better to read.

Originally posted by Redux
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

If gabby annoys you so much, why don't you just stop replying to her and ignore her? It would make reading this thread so much better to read.

Amen!!!

reply to post by TXTriker

Originally posted by Redux
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

If gabby annoys you so much, why don't you just stop replying to her and ignore her? It would make reading this thread so much better to read.

Fair enough - That is a 2 way road though.

Simply annoying me is not the issue though. The issue is when she makes comments that are untrue when it comes to how law enforcement works. She doesnt understand how investigations work among many other facets of law enforcement.

Why should I ignore those lies / misstatements she likes to make and allow them to go unchallenged? Since she has absolutely no comprehencion / understanding / knowledge on how this profession works, dont you think any claims she makes should be corrected for those who are looking for more than an emotional argument / debate?

People seek information, from both sides, on whats going on. I would be remiss if I allowed comments to be made and passed off as fact by her (or others) when they are anything but fact.

Why should I be the one forced to keep quiet in order for her to post misinformation and lies? Shouldnt we request she stop making false allegations?

Is that fair to the other people looking for information? The simple fact both of you noticed the issue, and have approached me and not her, is telling.

REspects

reply to post by Xcathdra

Simply annoying me is not the issue though. The issue is when she makes comments that are untrue when it comes to how law enforcement works. She doesnt understand how investigations work among many other facets of law enforcement.

The information I posted on how police questioned debbie is something I found on a link.. there have been many links posted on here with information that was untrue..and been shown to be untrue. What the police told debbie in interviews has yet to be PROVEN untrue..so..

Is that fair to the other people looking for information? The simple fact both of you noticed the issue, and have approached me and not her, is telling.

Many of us have looked for information on this thread..and much of it has been untrue..or speculative at the least..

Because I have questioned tactics used by the police..you have been gunning for me..and have made false accusations about me..

I'm sorry.. but I have a right to question how police do things.. just as many have..on many threads.

You insist I'm some cop basher..when I know I am not..though I do find their tactics questionable at times.

Attention.................

Please post on topic, discussing other members detracts from the discussion...it ends now.
If you have nothing to add to the discussion, other than barbs directed at others, please refrain from posting.

You are responsible for your own posts.

Originally posted by schmae
This is posted on mega's fb page.......

m.ibtimes.com...


Totally different story than Megan was telling uh.......the last time she spoke. Is any of it true of false?
you be the judge !

Oh my gosh, after a while it makes you wonder if anything you read is true! Gives me a headache after a while trying to figure out who said what about whom and whether each statement is a result of some "pass it down the lane" distortion or not.

reply to post by Redux


Right Redux,, the only ones NOT talking are the police. Maybe they are the ONLY ones with the actual truth? We'll have to wait and see, but you know that old saying the guilty dog barks loudest? There's a reason for that saying to have been around all these years.

reply to post by schmae

Right Redux,, the only ones NOT talking are the police. Maybe they are the ONLY ones with the actual truth? We'll have to wait and see, but you know that old saying the guilty dog barks loudest? There's a reason for that saying to have been around all these years

Same conclusion I keep going back to. The police know. They reallly know and it's got them in fits they can't do anything about it. So it's a waiting game. 'Hurry up and wait' as *X* reminded us.
Whatever the outcome? I believe time will be the messenger.

peace

reply to post by Redux

I'm wondering (speculating in a general way) what happens if more than one person comes forward and says that she had called them to dispose of the body, does that holds more weight for a potential arrest or is it still considered hearsay?

You'll have to ask *X* - I believe hearsay is hearsay no matter how many voices sing the same tune, but, I could be wrong. If nothing else though it does give the police something to go on for the future. If she used the telephone as her outlet once? Creatures of habit that we are? She'll use it again.

peace

reply to post by schmae

We'll have to wait and see, but you know that old saying the guilty dog barks loudest? There's a reason for that saying to have been around all these years

That's very true.. and that could be said for parents or parent who is actually guilty of hurting their child..they will be the ones forever "looking" for their missing child.. or "attempting" to find it..loudly proclaiming their innocence...and keeping up the charade for years.

If the police actually have evidence against Debbie..such as recorded phone conversations..confessing her guilt to family members..or family member..and asking for help..I would hope they would press charges.

If they don't press charges.. I would assume its because they have no concrete evidence..

Lisa Irwin Update -- Psychic Addresses Media Reports

Lisa Irwin wasn't found during the volunteer-led search of an old casino property this weekend, initiated by a Dallas-based psychic.

Sadly, no, she wasn't found.

Including the article to continue timeline and answer any questions asked about the result of Saturday's search.

peace

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by schmae

 

Right Redux,, the only ones NOT talking are the police. Maybe they are the ONLY ones with the actual truth? We'll have to wait and see, but you know that old saying the guilty dog barks loudest? There's a reason for that saying to have been around all these years

Same conclusion I keep going back to. The police know. They reallly know and it's got them in fits they can't do anything about it. So it's a waiting game. 'Hurry up and wait' as *X* reminded us.
Whatever the outcome? I believe time will be the messenger.

peace

What people tend to over look is how charges are filed. Filing criminal charges is not the job of law enforcement, but the prosecuting attorney. Even if law enforcement has a confession in writing and on tape, so long as the prosecuting attorney wants more, charges will not be filed.

It does no good for law enforcement to effect an arrest if the end result is decline to file / prosecute from the Prosecuting Attorney.

Im not syaing this is whats occuring, but explaining how that part of the process works.

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Redux

 

I'm wondering (speculating in a general way) what happens if more than one person comes forward and says that she had called them to dispose of the body, does that holds more weight for a potential arrest or is it still considered hearsay?

You'll have to ask *X* - I believe hearsay is hearsay no matter how many voices sing the same tune, but, I could be wrong. If nothing else though it does give the police something to go on for the future. If she used the telephone as her outlet once? Creatures of habit that we are? She'll use it again.

peace

A direct conversation between 2 people, where one person reports what the conversation is about, is not hearsay so to speak. What you would have is one half of the story that is open to interpretation.

True hearsay would be a conversation between 2 people, which is then relayed to a 3rd party who was not present for the initial back and forth. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule in court.

Also Missouri is a one party consent state when it comes to recording conversations. One party consent means so long as one party to a conversation knows about the recording, its legal.