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.
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.
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.
We were surprised the attorney was not there, but if she doesn't object to the motion, there is no requirement to participate.
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?
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!
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 .
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by gabby2011
Could it not be possible that a mother who has been interrogated very harshly
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?
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 ..
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?
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.
Why would you arrest her and what would you charge her with?