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: 156
41
<< 153  154  155    157  158  159 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Radio - Lisa Irwin -

Listen here

After about tic 20 minutes. Interesting opinion's of psychics. Very interesting replies and interview with the psychic with the missing persons blog, sorry I forgot her name.

On another note - SAD - note.

As per Deborah Bradley's request - no more vigils. This last one, will be THE LAST VIGIL FOR BABY LISA! Again, per Lisa's Mother's request.


Want to let everyone know tomorrows prayer vigil will be the last one. At 7 pm at Baby Lisa House 3620 N Lister KCMO Requested by Deborah Bradley Baby Lisa Mom to be the last one. Thank you everyone that has come to the many we have had! the words of Edith Fine
link

Best I leave my post at that. I add my opinion of Deborah at this point and I'll get banned.

peace


edit on 29-11-2011 by silo13 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Custody Battle for Jeremy Irwin’s Son Moves Forward

With Video


KANSAS CITY, Mo.–Since October 4th, Jeremy Irwin’s life has been in the spotlight as investigators search for his missing baby girl, Lisa. Among those caught in the glare of media coverage is his eight-year-old son, Lisa’s half brother.

The boy’s biological mother, Rasleen Raim, has gone to court,, saying she’s concerned for her son’s safety, comfort and peace of mind. She’s asked the court to give her custody of the child. Irwin’s attorney says, that would be a difficult case to make.

“They have to prove that there are changed circumstances of a continuing and substantial nature,” John Picerno says.

Picerno says the boy and his other half brother have been kept out of the spotlight, and he says Deborah and Jeremy are good parents, the only strike against them he says was October 4th.

“The one night where someone came into the home, and the baby was kidnapped, Jeremy and Debbie, according to the KCPD and the FBI are not suspects,” Picerno explains.


I still hope the custody case will do something for Lisa. I don't know why but I have a lot of hope for this. I probably am wrong, but, I've defiantly got hope.

peace



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Here is some video / audio for those who dont get the local news updates.

Also, regarding the cell phones not being active. I am curious if maybe someone cloned the phone? For those who arent familiar - Phone Cloning

Here is the 911 phone call reporting lisa missing. It also contains the radio traffic from dispatch sending the fire department to the dumpster fire. It contains the radio traffic to police regarding the missing child. - 911 call / Amber Alert broadcast / 911 dispatch for dumpster fire

Search at Casino




Man contacts police over sighting - He waited a week before reporting to police
Video of convienent store - buying alcohol

Video of man near woods / sighting timeline with map



Parents take reporters questions



Parents address cooperation claims (admits failing lie detector)



Coverage of new lawyer
Search of Casino based on psychics tip
Neighbors talk about the situation

Search warrant specifics



National Gaurd used in search



Uncle questioned by Police


Media walk through of house - Also front door of house was unlocked.



Lawyer gives tour of parents house



Police search well behind vacant house underneath back deck



Family hires private investigator (investigator was not hired by family)



Some interesting information. The videos above are just a sampling of whats out there. I did find the information about him coming home after work to find the front door unlocked and all the lights in the house on.

Anways, figured id put this together for some visual references.



edit on 29-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


I would think, regardless of RAIM"S suitability, that the fact her son's primary cargiver admits to being drunk to the point of falling asleep ( like everyone who drinks) a few times a week would be enough concern for the judge to at least look at it with a new set of eyes. Let's assume Deb's all the way innocent. She still is negligent in her child caring skills , at least a few nights a week. If someone were watching the house and waiting to steal a child, that child might have been RAIMs' child, right? Seriously Jeremy has some explaining to do to the mother of this boy. He needs to be able to assure her the child will be left in competent care when he's not home. And truly , this brings up another point. Deb says she does all this drinking. We don't know if Jeremy does or not. We know he has aDWI in the past, so maybe he does not drink anymore. Or maybe on most of the drinking nights, he's drinking until he passes out too . Not a HUGE problem , but if there is a sober parent around willing to take on the burden, you have to consider it at least. Also we have no idea why she's in a ' group home' and who even used the term 'group home'? The media? Who has already used a lot of twisted inaccurate descriptions? A group home can mean a lot of things. I tend to think of something like a half way house for struggling addicts , but it could mean many things.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Did anyone ever ask Deborah why there is a black trash bag covering the window of the baby's room? Was it ALWAYS there? Or was it put there the evening of "adult time" so Lisa would find it easier to go to sleep? Or was it put there later that night? Or the next day?

Here are some possible reasons:
-light obstruction
-draft protection
-privacy
-covering construction / remodeling underway

Actually, those are the ONLY possible reasons I can come up with.
And by whom was it put there? Note that it would have been quite difficult for two kids to afix it. And it wouldn't look like a job somewhat smoothly done.

I wonder if it's still there now?

So yes, I agree that Ms Raim's attorneys might have enough reason for the judge to listen. Add in the lack of supervision, with or without the simultaneous drinking (although I imagine Deb has quit doing that by now), the "dangers" of the neighborhood (a baby vanished from there, homeless handymen 'squat' in nearby abandoned houses, dumpsters that catch fire), the fact that Deborah is still married to someone else......

(and btw, why can't that wealthy benefactor -- or even her own family -- pitch in to get that handled?....on second thought, Picerno and friends are probably taking care of that quietly on the side. You know, just to tie up what loose ends are there to grasp at.)

.......now, I know these are pretty sketchy reasons; I'm just thinking of what some lawyer will come up with to justify Ms Raim's position.

Does the boy know his mom is seeking custody? He's eight, he's not a baby! Does the boy know what happened to Lisa? I mean, besides the fact that she's gone?

Does he know why his own mom lost custody of him in the first place? Does he WANT to go live with her? Has she redeemed herself in the eyes of whatever authorities, who previously felt she was not fit? I can see a mom who has lost custody taking a good, long, hard look at her own behaviors that resulted in such a sad situation. I can see it as a consequence so horrendous that -- unless she has uncontrolled seizures that render her completely helpless -- a woman would do whatever it took to regain access to her child.

At the very least, we know that some time has past since Ms Raim lost custodial rights. VERY LITTLE time has passed since the boy's baby sister was neglected and then disappeared.

Time, consequences, life experience, and circumstances CAN and DO change people.



edit on 29-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



your link.."neighbors talk about the situation " is from another case..



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 




Did anyone ever ask Deborah why there is a black trash bag covering the window of the baby's room? Was it ALWAYS there? Or was it put there the evening of "adult time" so Lisa would find it easier to go to sleep? Or was it put there later that night? Or the next day?


I believe it was put there by the police.. or after the night in question.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Good points ! I also wonder if a group home is possibly for a learning disbled person. Someone who can function pretty well but needs a little more guidance than living alone. In that case, if she's got a very low IQ or something like that, then she would not be getting the boy back. But if that's the case, then why would a lawyer even take on the case?

And you're right,, she may have totally cleaned up her act if she had a drug problem or something like that in the past and now be a much better mother than she was in the past.

Also, in one of the interviews when the Irwins were at a 'friends' house I thought there was some wine glasses and box of wine on the counter. It could have been anyone's , but I woudlnt assume she has quit drinking. If she had a drinking problem before, it's probably quite a bit more severe now just trying to cope ( guilty or innocent)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I believe it was put there by the police.. or after the night in question.


Can you provide a link that states that, please? I haven't seen anything about it (not saying they did or did not; I honestly don't know)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Did anyone ever ask Deborah why there is a black trash bag covering the window of the baby's room?

I've been looking for the answer to that question since this all began.
I've heard the police did it. The Media did it. Regardless it was there the 'first ever' 'film' of the room.
Something that STILL bothers me.

*Grumbles*



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Maybe to keep media and their cameras from peeking inside? Or when I first saw it I thought maybe a broken window or poor man's curtain !



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


There is PLENTY that still bothers me. And I think some of us here are doing a good job of revisiting things that might shed some light on the truth.

Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever be privileged to the details of many of these questions. Oh, how I wish I could "observe" those detectives still on the case!!

Perhaps agent X can tell us if the black bag is standard procedure by LE/FBI . Obviously the black residue from latent fingerprint dusting was still there; so certainly the police didn't "tidy up" after they were done.

Has anyone ever seen or heard any testimony as to what DB's housekeeping standards are? I know when I had little kids, the house was CLEAN...because a baby of Lisa's age would be crawling and/or walking, putting things in their mouth, exploring and experimenting with everything they can get their hands on...

Sadly, now she is no longer an infant....and would have been toddling around her first birthday. The pic of her at the glass door indicates she was def capable of pulling up to a stand.

Do we know how mobile she actually was when she was last seen?



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


The photos of mom's bedroom didn't indicate a neat freak. It wasn't horrible at all, but could have been much tidier. Did she say she fed neighbors and kids dinner and THEN did the dishes? I think she did say that. It's my opinion that folks who wash their dishes right after a meal are pretty clean.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by wildtimes
 


The photos of mom's bedroom didn't indicate a neat freak. It wasn't horrible at all, but could have been much tidier. Did she say she fed neighbors and kids dinner and THEN did the dishes? I think she did say that. It's my opinion that folks who wash their dishes right after a meal are pretty clean.


Yes, the photo of the bedroom with the clothes hanger on the floor, and the lack of "decor" did indicate that DB was not as meticulous as some. I totally agree it was not "horrible" -- at all -- but, If she would interrupt a social occasion to do the dishes immediately after a meal, would she leave clothes hangers strewn about, or have boxes of stuff lying around so full they are overflowing?

How much dissembling did the police do?

I thought it was weird that there were the framed hand and footprints on the wall...but a black trash bag on the window. If she was a right-now dish-doer, she would not have stood for a black bag as a curtain. I dunno. Curious inconsistencies, I sure would like to know how much of the house's disarray was usual, and how much is clearly done by LE searching.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Found a couple of sites that discuss crime scene investigation protocols.
www.ncjrs.gov...

Section B: Preliminary Documentation and Evaluation of
the Scene ......................................................................................... 19
1. Conduct Scene Assessment ....................................................... 19
2. Conduct Scene “Walk-Through” and Initial Documentation ... 20
Section C: Processing the Scene .......................................................... 23
1. Determine Team Composition .................................................. 23
2. Contamination Control ............................................................. 24
3. Documentation .......................................................................... 24
4. Prioritize Collection of Evidence .............................................. 26
Contents
xii
5. Collect, Preserve, Inventory, Package, Transport, and Submit
Evidence ................................................................................ 27
Section D: Completing and Recording the Crime
Scene Investigation ........................................................................ 29
1. Establish Crime Scene Debriefing Team .................................. 29
2. Perform Final Survey of the Crime Scene ................................ 30
3. Documentation of the Crime Scene .......................................... 31
Section E: Crime Scene Equipment .................................................... 33
1. Initial Responding Officer(s) .................................................... 33
2. Crime Scene Investigator/Evidence Technician ........................ 33
3. Evidence Collection Kits (Examples) ....................................... 35


Just in case anyone wants to "study" along with me. Looks interesting!
Bear in mind, this paper was developed over 10 years ago, and was put together by 44 different experts on an assembled team. It is not THE LAW, it is their "best practice" and suggestions.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Okay, here's some info on that....
following, I have QUESTIONS FOR AGENT X!! Paging Agent X!! HallooOOooo???


Procedure: The initial responding officer(s) should document:
a. Observations of the crime scene, including the location of
persons and items within the crime scene and the appearance and
condition of the scene upon arrival.
A
18
7. Document Actions and Observations
b. Conditions upon arrival (e.g., lights on/off; shades up/down,
open/closed; doors, windows, open/closed; smells; ice, liquids;
movable furniture; weather; temperature; and personal items.)


So, there WOULD BE a written description of the home's interior BEFORE they started the search.

This means the answer is recorded -- is it public info yet? Like the search warrant?

Reminding me of a prior question I still wonder about:
The investigators MUST give all evidence to the DEFENSE team, as part of "discovery." Now, is the defense team held to that same standard? If not, WHY NOT? Obviously part of it would be client/attorney privilege, and part of it so that the defense knows what charges and evidence they are facing, i.e. what the state is going to use in court to try to prove their theories.

Suppose, though that Picerno, the local guy, knows some things about Deborah's husband, or Jeremy's ex, or the neighbors, families, etc etc....
how much does he have to disclose? Like, if Deborah gave him some details on the cell phone's activation status, or whereabouts? Would they have to tell? In the interest of trying to solve the mystery of a MISSING BABY?



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
And here is an indication of policies regarding search tools or materials used during the procedure:

Principle: Final survey of the crime scene ensures that evidence has
been collected and the scene has been processed prior to
release. In addition, a systematic review of the scene
ensures that evidence, equipment, or materials generated
by the investigation are not inadvertently left behind and
any dangerous materials or conditions have been reported
and addressed.
Policy: The investigator(s) in charge shall direct a walkthrough
at the conclusion of the scene investigation
and ensure that the scene investigation is complete.
Procedure: The investigator(s) in charge should ensure that:
a. Each area identified as part of the crime scene is visually
inspected.
b. All evidence collected at the scene is accounted for.
c. All equipment and materials generated by the investigation are
removed.

d. Any dangerous materials or conditions are reported and
addressed.
31
e. The crime scene is released in accordance with jurisdictional
requirements.
Summary: Conducting a scene walk-through ensures that all
evidence has been collected, that materials are not
inadvertently left behind,
and that any dangerous materials
or conditions have been reported and addressed.


So, at least in the year 2000, it was considered standard procedure to REMOVE any materials that might have been ADDED in the investigation.

This indicates to me that the police/investigators would NOT have left that black bag if they were the ones who put it on there.
edit on 29-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Okay, here's some info on that....
following, I have QUESTIONS FOR AGENT X!! Paging Agent X!! HallooOOooo???

Yo



Originally posted by wildtimes

Procedure: The initial responding officer(s) should document:
a. Observations of the crime scene, including the location of
persons and items within the crime scene and the appearance and
condition of the scene upon arrival.
A
18
7. Document Actions and Observations
b. Conditions upon arrival (e.g., lights on/off; shades up/down,
open/closed; doors, windows, open/closed; smells; ice, liquids;
movable furniture; weather; temperature; and personal items.)


So, there WOULD BE a written description of the home's interior BEFORE they started the search.

Not sure what your asking me here. Are you asking about the initial officers response and search of the house? Or are you talking about the search warrant? The search for Lisa outside?

To clarify a point - We see a lot about search warrants. People should know that in this type of incident, the first responding officers do not need a search warrant to enter the house. I have yet to see a sitatuon where the intial officers are denied access to a location. I can explain further if anyone has questions / wants more info.



Originally posted by wildtimes
This means the answer is recorded -- is it public info yet? Like the search warrant?

Provided they used the standard you posted. All officers receive training in crime scene investigation and processing while going through the academy. After they graduate and are hired on by an agency, that agency may very well have their own in house standards - IE securing scene until detectives arrive etc. This is more prevalent in larger departments who have dedicated investigation detectives.

As far as being available to the public it depends on the investigation itself. Generally speaking reports become a matter of public record when the court case or lack of case is resolved. Its possible to release info however most of the times the report wil contain redacted material.

There must be a balance between the publics right to know and protecting a persons rights who are accused oi the crime. If there is a conflict, it errors to the suspect / defendent. Also if the report contains information about a juvenile then some additional procedures come into play.



Originally posted by wildtimes
Reminding me of a prior question I still wonder about:
The investigators MUST give all evidence to the DEFENSE team, as part of "discovery." Now, is the defense team held to that same standard? If not, WHY NOT? Obviously part of it would be client/attorney privilege, and part of it so that the defense knows what charges and evidence they are facing, i.e. what the state is going to use in court to try to prove their theories.

Defense must turn over a list of witnesses to the prosecution. As far as evidence goes trying to spring it at the last minute in court can get a lawyer in trouble. The State must be given prior warning of the evidence in order to investigate it or make a motion to exclude it.

Aside from that, your question about the defense and why not?
Its incumbent on the state, not the person charged, to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.



Originally posted by wildtimes
Suppose, though that Picerno, the local guy, knows some things about Deborah's husband, or Jeremy's ex, or the neighbors, families, etc etc....
how much does he have to disclose? Like, if Deborah gave him some details on the cell phone's activation status, or whereabouts? Would they have to tell? In the interest of trying to solve the mystery of a MISSING BABY?

He wouldnt need to disclose anything. His job is to get the best possible outcome for his client. What would happen is that family member / person would not be called as a witness by the defense. Again its the states job to make their case, not the defense.

If family members / people have info and refuse to disclose it then they can be charged with several crimes. Again though its up to the police / prosecuting attorny investigators to do their due dilligence and be thorough.

Hope this helps.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Hey!! Thanks for checking in!! yo lol

I was wondering about the black trash bag afixed to the baby's window in her room. We aren't sure who put it there, when, or why.
Someone said they believed the police put it there, but provided no links or sources for that belief.

So I looked for some procedural literature to see whether police would for any reason tape a black bag on the window, and if so, would they just LEAVE it there when they were done.

My nonexpert search turned up the manual from which I pasted.

So, can you please tell us -- ?? Would the investigators cover a window and then leave the black plastic "screen" up? In Missouri?

And about the preliminary walk-through and photos to show how the house was BEFORE they went in. We were discussing Deborah's general housekeeping prior to the incident. Will there be photos of the home interior's condition before they began the actual search?


He wouldnt need to disclose anything. His job is to get the best possible outcome for his client. What would happen is that family member / person would not be called as a witness by the defense. Again its the states job to make their case, not the defense.


Yes, I totally understand the state must prove their case...and if it is permissible for an attorney -- who is a representative of the justice system is allowed to HIDE evidence, well that's just sickening. Really sickening. That's the job of criminals, and in my mind is insupportable behavior for "attorneys."

Now....having said that, iIFPicerno or Tacopina KNOW something that they and/or the parents are hiding (which seems evident relative to their refusal to be questioned indivdually and without their attorneys present), AND LATER that same something is revealed,

THEN would they be held accountable for obstruction of justice?? (Here in this life, not just when they meet their Maker). My best educated guess is NO. But I really hope I'm wrong.

edit on 29-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Hey!! Thanks for checking in!! yo lol

yup yup..



Originally posted by wildtimes
I was wondering about the black trash bag afixed to the baby's window in her room. We aren't sure who put it there when, or why.
Someone said they thought the police put it there.
I dont remember seeing anything about a broken windo, just the screen. As far as who and why - its possible the police ut it up to prevent people with top of the line cameras with zoom from seeing what, if anything is going on in the room. Its possible the parents did it to prevent media from coming onto property after people are alseep and taking photos of the room. Its possible it was done when law enforcement was processing the house for evidence which include fingerprinting the window, window sill etc etc etc

It could be smbolic on the part of the family. A black trash bag in the window = a black hole in their hearts for the missing child.

Many many possible reasons.



Originally posted by wildtimes
So I looked for some procedural literature to see whether police would for any reason tape a black bag on the window, and if so, would they just LEAVE it there when they were done.

My nonexpert search turned up the manual from which I pasted.

So, can you please tell us -- ??

There are many reasons as to why it was done. If law enforcement put it there to block the window from media, they wouldnt take it back down. I really do think it was done to prevent nosey media types from getting photos.



Originally posted by wildtimes
And about the preliminary walk-through and photos to show how the house was BEFORE they went in. We were discussing Deborah's general housekeeping prior to the incident. Will there be photos of the home interior's condition before they began the actual search?

It depends on proocedures. My department required it since we were technically documenting a crime scene. It also allowed us to go back and review the photos instead of trying to get permission to get back into the house. It also helps when detectives / investigators have that 3 oclock in the morning ah ha moment.


Originally posted by wildtimes
Yes, I totally understand the state must prove their case...and if it is permissible for an attorney -- who is a representative of the justice system is allowed to HIDE evidence, well that's just sickening. Really sickening. That's the job of criminals, and in my mind is insupportable behavior for "attorneys."

There is a fine line between not using a person and hiding evidence. If the lawyer interviews a person and their testimony is not in the defenses favor and they decide not to use the person thats fine.

Same scenario except this time they urge the person to head out of town / out of the country until the case is resovled is hiding evidence (among other things).




Originally posted by wildtimes
Now....having said that, iIFPicerno or Tacopina KNOW something that they and/or the parents are hiding (which seems evident relative to their refusal to be questioned indivdually and without their attorneys present), AND LATER that same something is revealed,

THEN would they be held accountable for obstruction of justice?? (Here in this life, not just when they meet their Maker). My best educated guess is NO. But I really hope I'm wrong.

edit on 29-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

If I killed 25 people and went to a lawyer, I retained that lawyer, and then tell him what I did he cannot divulge what I told him. There are exceptions to this rule, and usually they revolve around imminent danger to a person.

If I tell the lawyer im going to be killing some female to make the number 26, and i divulge the person name, address etc, then the lawyer can notify the police to immediately check the well being of that individual.

Again though if any issues arise its up to a judge to figure it out.


As a side note Fox News just ran some info that the KCPD is heading back to the casin property. Apparently a well has been located near there that went unnoticed.
edit on 29-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
41
<< 153  154  155    157  158  159 >>

log in

join