Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Originally posted by gabby2011
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..

As I pointed out, the Police have absolutely nothing to do with what a person is charged with. Law Enforcement does the investigation and submits the reports to the Prosecuting Attorney, who decides what, if any charges, are filed.

reply to post by Xcathdra

As I pointed out, the Police have absolutely nothing to do with what a person is charged with. Law Enforcement does the investigation and submits the reports to the Prosecuting Attorney, who decides what, if any charges, are filed.

What would prevent the prosecuting attorney from filing charges ..if they have sufficient evidence.. such as phone conversations of Debbie asking family for help in covering up the accidental death of lisa?

I would think they could pull phone records on family...just as they have done with meagan ?

My gut feel is that the mother (who admitted drinking the night of "disappearance") beat or shook the baby to death for crying and then, not wanting to face the consequences of her actions, had a family friend walk to the house from approximately 1/4 mile away and walk off with the corpse and take her away to be buried at a remote location. The person was seen carrying what appeared to be a baby in diapers but it was probably already dead. I think that the person who received a phone call from one of the "stolen" cell phones has an idea who it is. Someone feeling guilty that the baby didn't have a proper funeral will talk with time.

reply to post by gabby2011


Gab, I think this is where casey anthony case comes in. They KNEW what happened there and had a load of 'circumstantial' evidence but nothing more. They went to trial, cost taxpayers $$$$$$$$ and lost the case and she walks free. So they may " KNOW" that deb had something to do with it, but are looking for anything MORE concrete than circumstantial evidence to file the charge !

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011

 

Gab, I think this is where casey anthony case comes in. They KNEW what happened there and had a load of 'circumstantial' evidence but nothing more. They went to trial, cost taxpayers $$$$$$$$ and lost the case and she walks free. So they may " KNOW" that deb had something to do with it, but are looking for anything MORE concrete than circumstantial evidence to file the charge !

I never watched that trial.. and for all I know she could be innocent and the father guilty..from what I have heard...but I really don't know enough about the case.

Did they have evidence of her talking to family on phone records asking for help to get rid of the body?

Were there allegations made about her from an uncle who said that family members had told him she had admitted to being guilty..?

I can understand the police waiting to make sure they have good evidence.. but.. if what her uncle says is true..I can't see why they wouldn't have phone records of conversations stating so.

Its all very mixed up.. to me.. and quite sad.. and I really hope that if Debbie is guilty she comes forward..like she should have done from the beginning...or they have enough evidence to prove it...or will at some point obtain it.

If she isn't guilty....my deepest sympathies for everyone in that family...and hopefully she is not falsely convicted of a crime she did not commit.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen
I've had the same gut feeling about the man carrying the baby. One witness said it looked like the baby was snoozing. I always thought if it were a live Lisa she would've been more animated. Why parade around with a baby, dead or alive, in plain sight at that hour? There were plenty of wooded areas, easements etc. where one could easily walk without being seen...nothing makes sense.

At this point everyone involved seems guilty of something. I'm guessing LE knows what happened and are just trying to fit the pieces together without scaring off any guilty parties. This reminds me of the Haley Cummings case, so many suspicious people all doing something they shouldn't and still no Haley. It would be tough seeing through the lies to get at those who are covering up murder and not just hiding other illegal activity.

The positive hit by the cadaver dog doesn't give me much hope for Lisa but that alone doesn't point to a guilty party, although it does look bad for both parents imo. Whether it was an accident or abuse if it happened on Deborah's watch I don't think she was capable of acting alone after the fact.

Those little boys might know something. Kids can be the eyes and ears of the world not too much gets past them. How horrible would that be if their testimony proved a family member's guilt. I would think LE would use that only as a last resort. Certainly finding other evidence would be preferred. Isn't that just typical a whole gathering of adults telling lies and it takes a child to stand up to do the adult thing. It's an upside down world.

reply to post by gabby2011


I didn't watch the trial either, but I did hear the JURORS speak after it was over. Their general feeling.... SHE DID IT,, WE KNOW IT, but following the LAW of 'guilt beyond a reasonable doubt', there was not enough real hard evidence to convict her. So they let her go, knowing she did it, but because they were TRUE to the law *( as they SHOULD BE) they had to acquit her. So I'm thinking it sent a real loud message to other prosecutors around the country. BRING the evidence or don't bring it to trial ! And truly that's a great message. Without real hard evidence, you would always wonder. Truly if they took Deb to trial today only on what we know so far, I would not be able to convict her in good conscious. Whether or not I believe she did something is NOT how the law is written. So while casey anthony walking free may seem like a travesty of justice, if it makes prosecutors work harder to put together SOLID cases so jurors KNOW when they are acquitting OR convciting that they feel they've got it right, then the casey anthony trial will have been a good thing..

Rambling sentence, sorry all

reply to post by gabby2011


Having evidence a call was made is a far cry from evidence of what was said though. I cannot imagine anyone would have been recording the calls that night when they were just asleep and had no clue anything was going on. Now if , after the fact, her cousin called her and recorded it say "' remember you called me that night and wanted me to help you hide the body after you said she fell out of her crib and i told you to call police etc, no you should confess deborah'' and deb responding something like ' i know, i feel so bad but i cant confess' , THEN you've got something the prosecutor can act on. Until Deb says something that incriminates her, the words of several family members swearing she called with same story is just a story until they can back it up.

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011

 

Having evidence a call was made is a far cry from evidence of what was said though. I cannot imagine anyone would have been recording the calls that night when they were just asleep and had no clue anything was going on. Now if , after the fact, her cousin called her and recorded it say "' remember you called me that night and wanted me to help you hide the body after you said she fell out of her crib and i told you to call police etc, no you should confess deborah'' and deb responding something like ' i know, i feel so bad but i cant confess' , THEN you've got something the prosecutor can act on. Until Deb says something that incriminates her, the words of several family members swearing she called with same story is just a story until they can back it up.

Schmae.. they can dig up old phone conversations if they feel its evidence to this case..You keep missing what I am trying to say.. They could and would have obtained the phone records and exactly what was said to who and when, of family members from that early morning as well as previous evening..do you understand what I am saying?

www.ibtimes.com...

Found this interesting ..a statement by the chief of police found in the above link.

Forte stressed that in the case of Lisa Irwin, the police have good reasons to not suspect the child's parents. With many unanswered questions in the matter, however, a lot of mystery surrounds the case. And, even as the investigations continue and new details emerge, the most important of those questions have yet to be answered.

Originally posted by gabby2011
What would prevent the prosecuting attorney from filing charges ..if they have sufficient evidence.. such as phone conversations of Debbie asking family for help in covering up the accidental death of lisa?

I would think they could pull phone records on family...just as they have done with meagan ?

edit on 27-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

A few things come to mind.
* - Circumstantial case - They have evidence that a crime was committed but they are not sure if the evidence is strong enough to survive charging a person let alone it standing up in court. Keep in mind the State must prove its accusations. All the defense has to do is make an argument that would cause the jurors or judge to see reasonable doubt.

* - They have solid evidence that could have been obtained in such a manner that it would not survive a defense challenge. Just because evidence is obtained there is no guarantee it would be allowed in court. As an example moms history - Prior bad acts cant be introduced as evidence since it would taint the trial.

The only way it could be used is if defense or the suspect (in court proceedings) accidentally open the door that would allow the prosecution to impeach testimony.

* - Possibility of more than one suspect
* - No way to link any evidence to any of the key players
* - inconclusive test results on evidence.

In cases that have the potential to be Capital (murder / manslaughter) they must cross all the T's and dot the lower case j's. If they charge and go forward the moment a witness is sworn in or a jury seated, jeopardy applies to the case. If they go forward and evidence is supressed, and that evidence was key to the proescutions case, then there is no case. That would result in dismissal of charges which means they cant charge her for the same crime again. There are a few exceptions but they are rare and specifically involve new evidence being located.

Its on thing to rush to find the missing child. However, rushing to charge a person is a bad idea and bad legal practice, which usually result in no person being chagred / held accountible.

As far as the phone question - A subpoena could be issued to pull the phone log as well as text messages, provided they have PC to request the warrant for the info.

Secondly I would be interested to see how she could have called anyone since the phone was without service. Canceled phones aside, there is nothing stopping her from using a nieghbors phone, public pay phone (a few still exist), a friends cell phone (friend who happened to stop by that no one knows about), etc.

Last week, two young boys were interviewed by an FBI child specialist. Afterwards, police said the conversations with the boys went well, but they did not make any significant discoveries from it.

digitaljournal.com...

Some interesting stuff from Gil Abetayo..the PI from colorado taken from the link below
www.examiner.com...

Abeyta had one short meeting with Baby Lisa’s family and said that of all the families of missing children he's worked with over the past 25 years he had never encountered a situation like this, he had never encountered parents who were virtually silenced. Before finally being allowed in the door he was told the family had been ‘ordered’ not to speak to anyone. He was baffled.

Wondering who put the gag order on them..must have been the lawyer..because I don't think the police would do that?

Following numerous interviews and research he and his team put together a potential suspect profile that was provided to the FBI and KCPD. It is his hope, and the hope of his team, that authorities will continue to follow up on the report, following the person profiled to determine if he was in any way involved in the baby’s disappearance.

Wondering who the he is? Jersey? someone else?

The case of missing Baby Lisa has taken so many twists and turns that people have a tough time keeping up. As in other missing persons’ cases that aren’t quickly solved, rumors begin to evolve and take lives of their own. Eventually people have a tough time distinguishing fact from rumor. It’s a problem seen time and time again.

Numerous law enforcement officials across the country have said, over the past couple of years, that technology and social networking sites have proven to be a double-edged sword. While they can on the one hand be very helpful, they can also take up valuable time and resources following up on what turn out to be nothing more than rumors or speculation rather than hard tips or leads. This, they say, includes psychic tips that have led them nowhere

reply to post by schmae


To clarify the caycee anthony case - She was found not guilty of the death of her child. She was found guilty on 4 counts of lieing to the police.

In that case I think there was more than one person involved. They had the evidence but they couldnt connect all the dots.

reply to post by Xcathdra

* - They have solid evidence that could have been obtained in such a manner that it would not survive a defense challenge. Just because evidence is obtained there is no guarantee it would be allowed in court. As an example moms history - Prior bad acts cant be introduced as evidence since it would taint the trial.

I understand ....because prior bad acts do not make a person guilty of harming their child...and would only taint the minds of jurors much as it is used to taint the minds of the public.

What I do not understand is that if Debbie's uncle said that he had family members tell him that she called them that night asking for help in disposing of the body..the police would have sufficient reason to pull all phone records and conversations from family members that evening.

If she did ask for help disposing of the body..they would have sufficient evidence from those records..would they not?

Also why would the police chief say they have no reasons to suspect the Irwins? After all he did say this.

Forte stressed that in the case of Lisa Irwin, the police have good reasons to not suspect the child's parents.

Quote by X

As far as the phone question - A subpoena could be issued to pull the phone log as well as text messages, provided they have PC to request the warrant for the info.

this could be done as well with family members who were alleged to have spoken to her and said no..they would not help?

I would think a PC would request a warrant for that sort of info concerning this case.. If they have a witness telling them this..i would hope they would issue a warrant to have family phone records checked out.

reply to post by Morningglory


The sightings of the guy with a baby are weird.

First witness reports a man with a baby near the woods close to the house - 00:15 AM.
At the gas station, we have video footage of man with baby - 02:10 AM
Second witness reports seeing man with baby at an intersection 3 miles away walking - :04:00 AM

45 degrees out - child not appropriately dressed.

Guy comes home at 4am to missing child.

reply to post by gabby2011


I do understand what you are saying. But i don't know if it's possible. Are you saying all phone calls everywhere at everytime are recorded and kept somewhere for future use? So that if they needed to hear what was said they just go to the phone call vault and get the actual recording of the call? I know cell phone bills and their records only show what time calls were made and incoming/ outgoing. Now if Deb were previously involved in an investigation, say drugs or something and they had been watching her house and tapping her phones, maybe so. But is there any reason to think that was happening?

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011

 

I do understand what you are saying. But i don't know if it's possible. Are you saying all phone calls everywhere at everytime are recorded and kept somewhere for future use? So that if they needed to hear what was said they just go to the phone call vault and get the actual recording of the call? I know cell phone bills and their records only show what time calls were made and incoming/ outgoing. Now if Deb were previously involved in an investigation, say drugs or something and they had been watching her house and tapping her phones, maybe so. But is there any reason to think that was happening?

I was under the impression that ALL phone conversations are kept by phone companies ..especially since 911..and police have access to them if they feel the need is there.

I could be wrong.. but they would still be able to have access to to the family phone records in so much as when they got a call and from where..maybe not conversations.

That would give them clues..I would think.. and I can't see family lying about something like that..can you?

reply to post by gabby2011


I have no clue. It's pretty horrifying to think ANY conversation is kept . If that is the case, then wouldn't it come up ina lot of trials? Or maybe they would only access those in cases of extreme national security ( eye roll) or other such cases? That's a really scary thought Gab. I hope you're mistaken, but I woudln't put it past phone companies to do it.

Originally posted by gabby2011
I understand ....because prior bad acts do not make a person guilty of harming their child...and would only taint the minds of jurors much as it is used to taint the minds of the public.

Correct - there are exceptions and those almost always are court related.

Originally posted by gabby2011
What I do not understand is that if Debbie's uncle said that he had family members tell him that she called them that night asking for help in disposing of the body..the police would have sufficient reason to pull all phone records and conversations from family members that evening.

If she never called the uncle directly and had that conversation, then we are looking at a classic text book definition of hearsay. Law enforcement would need to find one of those family members and interview them to confirm what the uncle claims.

All phone logs show is incoming and outgoing calls / the phone numbers / duration of call. What was actually said in those conversation falls back to the people who had the conversation.

Originally posted by gabby2011
If she did ask for help disposing of the body..they would have sufficient evidence from those records..would they not?

Its dependent on if they can confirm the calls took place. Law Enforcement needs to obtain a warrant in order to get those phone records = requires probable cause.

Originally posted by gabby2011
Also why would the police chief say they have no reasons to suspect the Irwins? After all he did say this.

When did he say it? By that question I mean early on in the investigation? Mid invesitgation? recently?

As I said before police arent required to discuss the case with the media. Answering a question using those words could very well be one of those statements to clam things down some. Also, the Chief is not directly involved in the investigation so he may not have had all the info at the time of the comment.

Originally posted by gabby2011
this could be done as well with family members who were alleged to have spoken to her and said no..they would not help?

Sure, but again investigators would be required to submit a PC to the Prosecuting Attorney requesting the search warrant. In that PC they have to establish probable cuase to justify the request for the information. Family members talking to each other is not new nor out of the oridinary, which means they need something direct and confirmable.

The other option is for police to request those family members voluntarily submit their phone records.

Originally posted by gabby2011
I would think a PC would request a warrant for that sort of info concerning this case.. If they have a witness telling them this..i would hope they would issue a warrant to have family phone records checked out.

edit on 27-11-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

They have an uncle, not a witness. From what I have read the uncle was not a part of the conversation where she supposedly ask for family help on the child.

That was relayed to him by family members who had the conversation - If no one can confirm it occured, then technically it didnt happen.

When it comes to warrants there are 2 terms to be familiar with -
Reasonable suspicion
Probable cause

An officer running radar on the highway clocks a car doing 15mph over. The officer can initiate a traffic stop because he has reasonable suspicion a crime took place = speeding.

During contact with the driver, the driver admits he was speeding because he was late = probable cause established.

Citation issued / warning given.

The claims by the uncle is reasonable suspicion = investigators need to follow up with the claims. That investigation into the claim is to build probable cause.

Originally posted by gabby2011
I was under the impression that ALL phone conversations are kept by phone companies ..especially since 911..and police have access to them if they feel the need is there.

I could be wrong.. but they would still be able to have access to to the family phone records in so much as when they got a call and from where..maybe not conversations.

That would give them clues..I would think.. and I can't see family lying about something like that..can you?

I think you might be confusing 911 calls and cell phone records.

All calls into 911 are recorded and are kept for so many years since they are / can be considered evidence. 911 phone logs also are subject to sunshine laws in missouri, which means they can be requested and pulished / audio released by newspapers etc.

Cell phone companies only keep the text messages (usually about only 7 days give or take worth) and phone logs (outgoing incoming and length of call and longer than just 7 days). The actual conversation is not recorded by cell phone companies.

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011

 

I have no clue. It's pretty horrifying to think ANY conversation is kept . If that is the case, then wouldn't it come up ina lot of trials? Or maybe they would only access those in cases of extreme national security ( eye roll) or other such cases? That's a really scary thought Gab. I hope you're mistaken, but I woudln't put it past phone companies to do it.

well.. I'm not sure..but I have read some stuff awhile back..here is some info on the topic..but not exactly what i am looking for ..from Wikipedia..

In early 2006, USA Today reported that several major telephone companies were cooperating illegally with the National Security Agency to monitor the phone records of U.S. citizens, and storing them in a large database known as the NSA call database. This report came on the heels of allegations that the U.S. government had been conducting electronic surveillance of domestic telephone calls without warrants.[42] Law enforcement and intelligence services in the United States possess technology to remotely activate the microphones in cell phones in order to listen to conversations that take place nearby the person who holds the phone.[43][44] U.S. federal agents regularly use mobile phones to collect location data. The geographical location of a mobile phone (and thus the person carrying it) can be determined easily (whether it is being used or not), using a technique known multilateration to calculate the differences in time for a signal to travel from the cell phone to each of several cell towers near the owner of the phone

I'll try to find more.. but I clearly remember reading somewhere that phone companies kept all records of phone conversations..but..that doesn't mean its true..