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: 158
41
<< 155  156  157    159  160  161 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
Question for X if you're still here. A week or so back the kcpd said words to the effect of ' the irwins are not suspects in this case'. I thought it odd since there had been little feedback from LE in a while. It's in a link I put up a few pages back I might go try to find. So from an LE point of view,, could THAT have been a lie? A lie to lull the defense attorneys and the family into a false sense of security that they'd gotten away with it? That they have no reason to fear talking to LE, etc? I understand enough evidence could change anyone into an official suspect, but I'm wondering about the wording of calling them NOT suspects.


Law enforcement is not prohibited from misleading / lieing to a person, however there are some basic ground rules going down that road. Stating a person is not a suspect is routine, especially in situations like this. Whether or not police actually mean that is another story entirely.

Victim....Witness...Suspect...Person of Interest...Mother....Father.

To be honest the labels mean jack since a person can be one or all of the above at various points. When there are no new leads and the investigation comes to a slow down stand still like this case with no arrests, why continue to create issues by constantly refering to the parents as such?

Calling a person a suspect does not mean they are guilty.




posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


The window is an intersting side story... The front door was unlocked. So if a person came in, did they come through the front window and walk out the front door? Or was the window tampered with to make it look that way?



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I was just scanning the reporters Facebook page for NBC and he has an update on it with the Custody case. The lawyer for Jeremy showed up but it would seem the mother, nor her attorney, were there. His text is:


BABY LISA UPDATE: Hearing at Clay Co Circuit Ct. Gag order case in child custody battle postponed until Dec. 7th. Neither mother nor Jeremy Irwin in court. Irwin's attorney was there. Attorney for mother of missing child's half brother doesn't show.


His Facebook page is here:

NBC Reporters Facebook page

He went on to comment:


We were surprised the attorney was not there, but if she doesn't object to the motion, there is no requirement to participate.


The comment above was addressing the attorney for the mother.

IWOH


edit on 29-11-2011 by IwasOnceHappy because: Clarification



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Truly if you look at the word suspect it and suspicious came from the same root, whatever that is. So to say someone is a 'suspect' is no more than calling them suspicious, right? And we have noticed about 10 folks or so who are SUSPICIOUS .



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by IwasOnceHappy
 


Oh boy ! You know what it sounds like? Sounds like maybe MOM doesn't really care if she gets the boy back and someone else ( a lawyer who wants to insert their name into the big story ? ) is pushing for this. Or maybe someone in her family is pushing for this and she's unaffected by it all and said 'whatever'.
Or in the early stages there are tons of hearings that have little to do with anything other than 'housecleaning' and they may just show up at the later more important hearings.
Weird though. Tks IOWH! Wb



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by silo13
 


The window is an intersting side story... The front door was unlocked. So if a person came in, did they come through the front window and walk out the front door? Or was the window tampered with to make it look that way?



I know I am being judgmental but I don't have to sit on a jury to decide this so I am free to 'judge' and....this entire case stinks of being staged.
Right down to her drinking (to forget. So she can 'honestly' say she doesn't know). And I don't think the father, Jeremy is any less innocent here either.

I know most of the details to this case have been kept from public and rightly so. Look at the debacle with Casey Anthony so, there is much left to speculation. And I'll start here: What father comes home, in the wee early morning hours, finds his daughter missing and runs next door??????????? Why the hell would the baby be there unless........Debbie was there! Doing the 'dirty' with someone else. Or the brother was 'doing' the neighbor. Something ain't kosher as far as adults play-time. That's just my gut feeling. And I still feel Lisa is alive.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 

What father comes home, in the wee early morning hours, finds his daughter missing and runs next door??????????? Why the hell would the baby be there unless........Debbie was there!

I agree I thought that was an odd thing to do. If he thought Lisa was next door why not just wake Deborah and ask her? Something is going on with Samantha/hubby. Then there's the new neighbor guy, Shane, he was hanging around both houses.

That motorcycle guy lived 90 miles away and picked the neighbor out of a photo lineup...is that just dumb luck or what? Still don't know what to make of Jeremy's comment about "a woman who cheats on her husband." Idk that sounded a wee bit too specific when asked, generally, who would do such a thing.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Truly if you look at the word suspect it and suspicious came from the same root, whatever that is. So to say someone is a 'suspect' is no more than calling them suspicious, right? And we have noticed about 10 folks or so who are SUSPICIOUS .


Suspect is just that - In law enforcement its a person who is connected to the investigation who has not been ruled out. An investigation rules people out as much as it rules people to be further looked at. Until a person is ruled out or confirmed to be involved in a criminal act, all we have is suspicion based on evidence to date - suspect.

To kind of drive home the point about labels in law enforcement and the judicial system. Law Enforcement uses the term suspect. However, if the investigation makes it all the way to an arrest and charges, in court we cant use the term suspect. That side requires the use of defendant.

* - 911 gets a call from a citizen who is reporting an event that doesn't look / sound right - caller is suspicious.
* - 911 dispatches an officer / fire / ems to the area because of the call. There was enough evidence for 911 to be suspicious about the events reported - hence the dispatch.
* - PD / EMS / FIRE respond, looking for anything suspicious along the way as well as upon arrival.
* - They do their thing on scene and from there the issues are resolved and no longer suspect, or the issues at hand aren't making sense, making it suspicious..

You get the idea... There is a disconnect between Law Enforcement and the people we serve. In our minds, the term suspect doesn't mean guilty but simply something is not right and the info we have doesn't adequately explain away the situation.

TV drama (law and order / CSI / etc) use the term in a manner to create the drama in those shows.

We will always start out with suspicious / suspect since we don't have all the information going into the situation.
edit on 30-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by IwasOnceHappy
 


Oh boy ! You know what it sounds like? Sounds like maybe MOM doesn't really care if she gets the boy back and someone else ( a lawyer who wants to insert their name into the big story ? ) is pushing for this. Or maybe someone in her family is pushing for this and she's unaffected by it all and said 'whatever'.
Or in the early stages there are tons of hearings that have little to do with anything other than 'housecleaning' and they may just show up at the later more important hearings.
Weird though. Tks IOWH! Wb


If thats the case the guardian ad litem is gonna be pissed.

Followed a close second by the court.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


You and I are of the same mindset. Ive done my best to refrain from dissecting this case, instead trying to provide information for the people in the thread who aren't familiar with the law or law enforcement functions. Based on the info available this is what I think happened -

Accident in the home that resulted in the unintentional death of baby Lisa - as to what the accident is we would need to see the body first. The bathtub theory is plausible as is the accidental death by suffocation from mom being intoxicated, being in bed with the child and rolling over on her or sheets / blanket / pillow being shifted resulting in lack of oxygen.

I think when she came to, she panicked, and created a scenario to explain it away. People have suggested that if it was an accident, why not call the police? Because of her intoxication, based on her own statements, it can be argued her actions resulted in the death of the child. Even though she most likely would not be charged with murder, she could be charged with a range of other felonies that would put her in jail for a long time if convicted.

Thee are discrepancies in her time line and statements.

The other red flags is the refusal to allow the other children to be interviewed. The refusal to be interviewed separately. The statements about wanting this to all go away.

She is innocent until proven guilty - no arguments from me there. However, her behavior in this matter does not portray an image of a mother wanting her child back.

I think the massive media attention was not factored into her plan. We have discussed it in here where we comment about the media covering one case in depth while ignoring other cases. I think had it not been for the media attention, this case would have taken a completely different direction.

just my 2 cents.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The other red flags is the refusal to allow the other children to be interviewed. The refusal to be interviewed separately. The statements about wanting this to all go away.


Could it not be possible that a mother who has been interrogated very harshly would want to protect her children form persons who try to lie to them to gain the truth.. or trick them into saying things they didn't mean?

We don't know what Debbie and Jeremy went through during their "interviews", and its quite possible they have lost trust in the police ..

Also.. from my understanding.. it was the police who put off interviews.. and I think it was a good idea..that it was NOT the KCPD who conducted these interviews.. maybe there was a reason for this?



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Based on the info available this is what I think happened -

Accident in the home that resulted in the unintentional death of baby Lisa - as to what the accident is we would need to see the body first. The bathtub theory is plausible as is the accidental death by suffocation from mom being intoxicated, being in bed with the child and rolling over on her or sheets / blanket / pillow being shifted resulting in lack of oxygen.

I think when she came to, she panicked, and created a scenario to explain it away. People have suggested that if it was an accident, why not call the police? Because of her intoxication, based on her own statements, it can be argued her actions resulted in the death of the child. Even though she most likely would not be charged with murder, she could be charged with a range of other felonies that would put her in jail for a long time if convicted.


I am completely with you on this thinking. I keep coming back to the fact Lisa had a cold that night, which to me makes accidental death a more likely scenario. Even if it was something like SIDS, I could see someone panicking because of the intoxication factor and not being sure what exactly happened.

OiO



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Because of her intoxication, based on her own statements, it can be argued her actions resulted in the death of the child. Even though she most likely would not be charged with murder, she could be charged with a range of other felonies that would put her in jail for a long time if convicted.


Exactly....and even if the child is NOT dead, she is GONE...so, why do you think they have not (or DO you think they have not) opened an investigation as to child endangerment, neglect, that sort of thing yet?



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
Could it not be possible that a mother who has been interrogated very harshly

Define harshly please



Originally posted by gabby2011
would want to protect her children form persons who try to lie to them to gain the truth.. or trick them into saying things they didn't mean?

Law Enforcement can use deception / lies during an investigation as well as in interviews. Its all dependent on what the lie / deception is and the results gained.

As far as tricking people into saying something that is not true, it would never survive the review process by the PA and on the off chance it did the defense would file a motion to dismiss / suppress due to the nature of how the info was obtained. Using that type of extreme technique could also very well trigger a rights violation investigation into law enforcement as well as prosecutorial misconduct for the PA.




Originally posted by gabby2011
We don't know what Debbie and Jeremy went through during their "interviews", and its quite possible they have lost trust in the police ..

Correct - hence being suspects. Contrary to popular belief when something like this occurs there are expectations of behavior that we look for. Not behaving in a certain manner doesn't make the person guilty, but because the persons actions are inconsistent with how one should act in a similar situation it warrants a deeper look.

As far as losing trust in the police - You can give me example after example of and I can give you example after example to support both our arguments. Distrust of the police can come from their actions. Distrust of the police can also be attributed to a person(s) who has something to hide and the police are getting to close to the truth.



Originally posted by gabby2011
Also.. from my understanding.. it was the police who put off interviews.. and I think it was a good idea..that it was NOT the KCPD who conducted these interviews.. maybe there was a reason for this?

Sure - from wanting a person who has extensive training in interviewing children all the way up to the police obtaining information that allows them to forgo the interviews.

Long story short - a child is missing and the behavior of mom is inconsistent. In order for your theory on how the police treated her to be the factor, we would need to find out when they started to have issues with the police, which if we look its around the first couple of days of the incident.

That time frame leads to several possibilities -
* - They are distrusting of law enforcement / biased from contact with the police in the past.
* - The inconsistencies with mom started to appear very early in the investigation.

I think mom was pissed that she was being looked at by the police. Interviewing a neighbor and interviewing a mother, asking both the exact same questions, can result in 2 completely different reactions.

The neighbor has no connection so takes the questions as nothing more than the police looking for information.
The mother on the other hand can be offended they are even asking her questions. She takes it as the police are blaming her.

If she is so concerned about her missing baby, then why all the inconsistencies?




edit on 30-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
In another effort to deny ignorance regarding how Kansas City's PD is, and the new chief's results, and the community's point of view,
I am posting this video. The area in which the foot patrol is working is in midtown and the East side (several miles from Lisa's neighborhood) where problems have been plaguing the streets. This will at least explain the thoughts of the good people and the rookie police officers, if not the criminal element which has now either gone underground or moved to another area.




posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Because of her intoxication, based on her own statements, it can be argued her actions resulted in the death of the child. Even though she most likely would not be charged with murder, she could be charged with a range of other felonies that would put her in jail for a long time if convicted.


Exactly....and even if the child is NOT dead, she is GONE...so, why do you think they have not (or DO you think they have not) opened an investigation as to child endangerment, neglect, that sort of thing yet?


Its is all part of the same investigation. If I was dispatched to a motor vehicle accident, which by their very nature are civil and not criminal (until we arrive and investigate), and discovered one of the drivers is intoxicated (moving it to the criminal realm), opens up the ability to further investigate.

If during that investigation its discovered the drunk driver killed their family, got drunk and decided to flee,resulting in the accident, all charges are in the same investigation. Municipalities have their own set of ordinances / laws that are only enforceable by that cities officers. However since cities cannot have their own felony charges on the books, any misdemeanor charge would be moved to State law instead of the city law.

A Municipal officer by comparison has greater authority than the sheriffs department / highway patrol. Highway Patrol / Sheriff's deputies are not empowered to enforce municipal ordinances / laws. They are restricted to enforcing State law only.

Municipal officers can enforce all state laws as well, in addition to their municipal laws. If the murders occurred out in the county, and the dwi occurred in the city as in only a misdemeanor, we can send the case over to the county prosecutor who can then combine the 2 incidents since they are related.

Sorry for the extraneous info...



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


That is good to see actually. The term is called community orientated policing, and its just one of several styles police departments use. Going back to my comments about a breakdown in communications between the police and the people we serve -
The advances in police technology - computers in the cars, radio systems out the wazoo, having a patrol area that is to large requiring constant vehicle movements is a double edged sword.

Because of those issues (and some others) law enforcement no longer had the resources to do community orientated policing.

Walking a patrol beat and being out among the people I believe opens the lines of communication. People can talk to law enforcement, and vice versa, on whats going on in the city. At my old department we made it a point to drive through our neighborhoods slowly with windows down. If we came across a person who was outside we would stop and check in, ask about the neighborhood, and any issues they might be having. We did not limit the topic to just police related activities.

We talked about city management, planning and zoning, neighboring cities and the way they do things. If the person just wanted to vent we listened to them. If they wanted action done or a concern addressed, we would submit the info without identifiers unless the person didn't have an issue being named. We would follow up when we had info for them and what not.

It went a long way to reducing the us vs them mentality. It allowed us to investigate crimes in a cooperative manner with the citizens instead of the us vs them style.

I tell the citizens I come into contact with - This city belongs to both of us, and we both have a vested interest in making sure its a safe and positive environment for all. I follow up by saying we are there to serve the citizens, and if the bosses (citizens) don't give us feedback, we wont know if we are doing something wrong.

I wish more agencies would go back to a COP style method..



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Its is all part of the same investigation. If I was dispatched to a motor vehicle accident, which by their very nature are civil and not criminal (until we arrive and investigate), and discovered one of the drivers is intoxicated (moving it to the criminal realm), opens up the ability to further investigate.


Thanks for the info...but...can you address the reasons why DB has not been charged with anything at all? And what is your hunch on how authorities / LE would be viewing the fact that she was negligent that night?
Would they wait until the case is resolved to take any action at all? I know it is the DA's job to press charges, and not LE -- I'm puzzled as to why the DA , or the police/FBI, haven't arrested her for that alone. The Jahessye case had them arresting the mom for child abuse, for example.
I wonder what the differences were in the investigators' eyes.

Hope my question makes sense. Is it just dramatic myth that, for example, on Law & Order the lieutenant can tell the detectives to pick someone up on other charges in order to get them at least into the facility? The show does clearly portray how the DAs and the LEOs work together...am I mistaken in expecting that KCPD and the DA are also working together, ie brainstorming, to get justice for Lisa?



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Usually charges will come when the investigation runs it course, provided charges are warranted.

Because we are dealing with felonies, if an arrest is made the police are required to submit their probable cause statement that defines the crime and specifically links a person to those charges. Missouri law allows for a person to be held for 24 hours. At the end of those 24 hours, if the PA has not filed any charges, the person is released.

If the Pa files charges, the person will remain in custody and will appear before a judge at the earliest possible moment.

In cases like this its safer and responsible to not file charges until they are sure their ducks are in a row. Crimes have a time limit placed on them determining how long after an incident a person can be charged.

Statute of Limitations-
In Missouri for misdemeanor crimes we have up to 1 year to file charges.
Felonies will vary based on the crime itself and can go anywhere from 1 year after the incident up to 30 years or more to file charges for murders etc.

Contrary to popular belief the police are not required to effect an arrest in order to have a person charged with a crime.

All a PC arrest does is allows law enforcement to take a suspect into custody for 24 hours to allow the PA time to review the case. Higher the crime / situation, the more the PA are inclined to act quickly.

Now with all that being said let me ask you this -
Why would you arrest her and what would you charge her with?



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Why would you arrest her and what would you charge her with?



well, first of all, I wouldn't arrest her at all, because I'm not a LEO. ...
and second of all, I WOULD have called the child abuse/endangerment hotline on this woman, and if they did not follow up, I would call them every time I saw her "drunk" while in charge of the kids. Every Time.

I sure as hell would push hard and yell loudly to have Social Service investigators (CPS) breathing down her neck...EDIT TO ADD: Hell, knowing myself, if she were a neighbor or family member of mine I would be "all up in her face." And just so I make myself crystal clear -- if she had been my CLIENT at any point in any of the jobs I had, I would have professionally and politely brought it to her attention that her behavior was inappropriate and dangerous for the welfare of her child(ren), and that if she did not cease and desist, I would be reporting her because I was a "mandated reporter" and her child(ren) were in danger.

She is guilty of child endangerment, and negligence. I still believe -- and will go to my grave believing it, my vehement critics notwithstanding -- that this entire situation was at the VERY LEAST, indirectly caused by her being
*DRUNK while she was the adult in charge
*NOT even in the house while 4 children were inside, awake
*NOT checking on her sick baby,
*NOT hearing the dog bark (if it did) or the intruder intrude (if there was one)..

If a child care provider running a home-based business (which I did for 5 years, but not in Missouri) was caught drunk and absent by a parent whose child was in his or her care, that business would be shut down and the provider brought up on charges. Happens all the time.

I believe parents should be held to the same standards at a MINIMUM.
Deborah made the choice to sit on her porch and get drunk and leave those kids in the house unsupervised.. In MY experience and opinion, what happened afterward would likely have been completely preventable, not even a possilibity, if she had not made those choices, regardless of whether it was an accident, an abduction, an act of anger, or anything else!

And that is my argument -- that Lisa's disappearance was a consequence of Deborah's choices.

And that's all I have to say about that.
edit on 30-11-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 155  156  157    159  160  161 >>

log in

join