Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by schmae

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'.

I'm still gonna hang onto this like a pup with a bone.
I'm just sooooo in hopes the Prosecuting Attorney is 'helping her along' so Jeremy (at some point) has to go to court.
Put Jeremy in court, under oath, where the night of the 4th is the question and he knows he could loose his son?
We MIGHT finally hear something from him that's absolutely stunning important.
This is what I'm crossing my fingers for.

reply to post by gabby2011


This is a ' he said she said'. The suspicious acting mother is the ONLY one who says she was talked to harshly, called white trash, said we know you did it and you failed the polygraph. Police havent' verified one of these things. Only Deb has said these things happen. So you are putting 100% faith that shes' honest to just assume it is true.
It could absolutely be true that the police said all those things to her, but her honesty is in question, at BEST, so I don't necessarily believe the interview went that way. Of course police may say those kind of things but we do not know if they were said to Deb!

And imagine that NOTHING like that was said to Deb. Now what? If they spoke kindly to her and did not accuse then does that change your feeling at all ? about the interviewing i mean?

reply to post by schmae

And imagine that NOTHING like that was said to Deb. Now what? If they spoke kindly to her and did not accuse then does that change your feeling at all ? about the interviewing I mean?

If they approached them like in the manual that X linked into the thread.. Then they did the job correctly.. in the sense that they would have said.."hey.. mistakes can happen.. and children can sometimes die.. its ok to just be honest about it..instead of sending a lot of people that cost tax payers money on a wild goose chase"..

An empathetic approach to an accident would have been key..in my opinion..to start out with..

..and you're correct..Debbie could have lied about what they said.. but she could be telling the truth as well..or at least partial truth...and if they indeed did say even a few of those things to either Jeremy or Debbie.. I not only disagree with their tactics..but have little respect for how they do their work.

One thing I do know for sure schmae..is that all this gossiping and hashing what could have happened.. or what people think did happen.. isn't going to get us any closer to the real truth..and it won't find out where Lisa is.

I don't see where hating on a mother..that is scared to confess an accident (if that is the case)..is going to bring any justice to little Lisa..it just causes more self righteous judgement..

What makes me sad is the people who love to point at these mothers like they are some sort of terrible murderer, and the world needs justice..to an extent that is plastered all over the news.....when in fact there are many many much more terrible people out there, that do much worse things.. and get away with it..and cause damage willfully to many children.

These are the people that should have our attention.. not some scared mother who gets raked over the coals by the public and media, and only makes it more difficult for parents who actually did have their child abducted.

What gives me piece..is that God knows the truth here.. whether it was debbie who had an accident.. or.. the plot of something much more sinister.. time will reveal.

Whoever may think they got away with this if it was connected to an abduction will have to face judgement day like the rest of us.. and their crimes will be exposed..as well as the motivation behind it.

reply to post by IwasOnceHappy


Okay, a little clarity on the custody issue for Jeremy Irwin's and Rasleen Raim's son:

LIBERTY, Mo. - A hearing regarding a gag order in the custody battle over one of Lisa Irwin’s half-brothers has been delayed until Dec. 7....
...
Earlier this month, Raim, Irwin's ex-girlfriend, filed for temporary custody of their 8-year-old son. She said it was for his "safety, comfort and peace of mind."
....
Picerno said his clients will not go through another round of separate interviews with police regarding Lisa, despite the standing request from KCPD.

Picerno said his clients were interrogated during the meetings and that it wouldn't be "productive" or in "their best interest" to go through it again.

KCPD spokesperson Capt. Steve Young said, "Some of the questions may have made Deborah and Jeremy uncomfortable but we are trying to find a missing child."

Read more: www.nbcactionnews.com...

That hearing was delayed, but it doesn't say why -- so, one more week before anything else comes of it. Also I don't know what a gag order entails beyond certain things being kept quiet. The article doesn't specify who or what info is being considered for "gagging".

Second point I notice is that Ms Raim only wants "temporary custody". I think that's fairly reasonable, and reflects that she is not bucking to get the child away from Jeremy/Deborah completely, but rather just until things are more stable...but I am only speculating about that.

Third, Picerno states again that JI/DB will NOT be going in to talk to KCPD, on grounds that

"it wouldn't be "productive" or in "their best interest" to go through it again."

The police acknowledge their questions might be uncomfortable, but stresses the fact that they are looking for Lisa, and not that concerned with how the parents "feel" during their investigation.

I think that is also reasonable.

For Picerno to say it wouldn't be "productive" is his spin on it -- he can't know what they would say if asked questions without an attorney there to "screen" the questions. And as for it being "not in their best interest" -- why is that? Does he know something they might say that would jeopardize their status as either suspects or not suspects?

Isn't it everyone's best interest, especially Lisa's, to hear the parents' answers to questions connected to the investigation of what happened to her??

Puzzling.

(Not that I think anyone can answer these questions....just more thinking fuel)

What the Kidnapper of Lisa Irwin Had to Know-Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin Pay Attention

Some interesting points - some not so interesting.

) He would have had to known that Jeremy was not there that night. If not, why take the chance of having a confrontation and why double that chance by turning on all the lights?

2) He would have to had known Deborah was drunk and passed out in her room. Same reason as #1

3) He would have had to known the window was opened that night, he did not come through the door, or he would not have had to open window. He either knew or was again very lucky to have planned this on the night Bradley left the window open

Problem with this point? The police RULED OUT an intruder through the window for scores of reasons.

4) He would have had to have known where the lights were or the first light was so close that he could not miss it.

5) He would have had to known that all of the lights on would not have awaken up Blake Irwin who was in his room with the door open.

But was Blake in the room with the door open? The story has changed too many times to know that for fact.

6) He would have had to have known that it would be no problem to pick Lisa up, his hands had to be cold, from the night air. It could not have been comfortable for the baby to wake up with cold hands on her.

7) He would have had to have known that the dog would not bark at a stranger around the house.

8) He would have had to have no fear of climbing in a front window of a home before midnight, when people could be coming home from work or night out.

Unless it didn't happen that way - which the police seem to think it did not.

9) He would have had to have been unafraid that someone was going to see him coming out the front door with Lisa.

Why? Supposedly people did and they didn't bother to call the police until way later.

10) He would have had to have a reason for wanting to access Deborah Bradley's voice mail after sitting in the woods for 3hrs 23 min.

Who said he/she sat in the woods?

11) He would have had to have a reason for wanting to access the internet after sitting in the woods for 3hrs 23 min.

12) He would have had to be dense or drunk to keep trying to use a phone that was not working.

13) He would have had to be unafraid that it had been discovered by Deborah, one of the boys or Jeremy that Lisa was missing and the police had been called, while he sat in the woods for over 3 hours.

There's more food for thought in the above - see link of for the rest.

The nicely paid attorneys did nothing to help prove their client(s) innocence in any way. They helped point the finger at them. By disclosing the attempts to call out on the phone but more importantly, someone who just happened to pick Bradley's personal phone to try and access her personal voice mail, they pointed straight at Deborah. It seems unthinkable that a person could kill their child, even accidently, and not call 911, but it happens.

This last part I lean to believing but some of the rest of this article is just wrong. Again, just food for thought.

peace

reply to post by wildtimes

Isn't it everyone's best interest, especially Lisa's, to hear the parents' answers to questions connected to the investigation of what happened to her??

It seems to me the only people who this would NOT be good for is the parent's.
Makes ya wonder why doesn't it - As if anyone really needed a 'ligh-bulb' moment.
But hey - their life is going back to normal, so, I'm sure they want to keep it that way.

peace

reply to post by silo13


Hmmm. Yeah, I'm not real impressed with that "article", partially for the consistently inconsistent poor grammar, and partly for the assumptions.

But hey, at least someone else out there is thinking it through.

I saw a fb page today (Lisa has her own now -- can be linked from the article I cited) where they showed demographic data of who is looking at that page. Mostly people here in KC, and mostly women of the same age range as Deborah. Next most was in St Louis. BUT, there are viewers ALL OVER THE WORLD! And in dozens of languages. (What on earth is "pirate English" btw?)

Hardly any men at all or people of either gender in my age range.

Nothing very revealing about that little tidbit in terms of what happened to Lisa, I just thought it might be of interest to some of the folks following along...

videos.kansascity.com...

There was a vid last night here in KC, regarding "Lisa's Angels" the vigil group who has also been passing out fliers and looking for Lisa actively, being asked to stop the vigils. Jeremy's dad speaks up about the prayers being appreciated, and how "normalcy" would ever possibly be resumed....but says the family is overwhelmed by having the vigils there every night. I can understand that. It would be overwhelming to have a group of people in my yard daily, and detrimental to the two boys' return to a feeling of stability.

Like I said, no opinion. There's a tiny bit about it becoming "ugly" when DB and JI came out of their home that night....
but
BUT
WHY would Deborah not be out there WITH THEM? And explain to the boys that it was goodwill and caring that the people are offering? Why would she not be wanting to participate, even if they DO move the vigils somewhere else? She clearly has not taken part in the activity on a daily basis (and apparently neither have Jeremy or the boys).

reply to post by wildtimes


It was a hypothetical and based on if you were the investigator but its an interesting response none the less.

A few things to clarify for everyone.

In Missouri DFS (Department of Family Services) are not law enforcement and are not empowered to seize a child on their own. The only groups who can take a child into protective custody are law enforcement and doctors, and we have to be exact in our reasoning. Check well being calls for children got to DFS and then is passed to the police agency with jurisdiction if it looks like the call might be something more than it is.

I have had a few situations where I have refused to seize a child because the reasons being used didn't amount to any crime. Being poor is not a crime, and having a messy house is not a crime either. Unless the house is in such a condition (animals / animal poop / rotting food / bugs etc) those poses an immediate danger to the child, the grounds are not present to seize.

Law Enforcement / Medical staff and teachers are all mandated reporters.

As far as charges go - Everything we have to date is circumstantial and would most likely not survive challenges if the PA decided to file charges. When a person is charged, their first court appearance in front of a judge is the are you innocent or guilty of the charges. I have seen defense and prosecution go back and forth during this part challenging charges, evidence etc etc.

I have seen quite a few charges dismissed because the evidence was circumstantial.

What do we know for sure?
* - Baby Lisa is missing

Aside from that fact, everything else we know is open to interpretation, including the changing time-line.The only person who knows more than the rest of us is the mom. Its her word and unless we have concrete evidence that she is lying, which we dont, her word is what we are stuck with.

Under law it doesn't matter what we think occurred if we have nothing concrete to support it, which is why circumstantial cases rarely go off without a hitch. For every theory the prosecution can come up with, the defense can suggest alternatives explanations to create doubt.

People need to understand possible ramifications -
Hypothetical -
Mom is charged for the death of Baby Lisa based on circumstantial information. At the end of the trial the jury decides there is not enough evidence and finds her not guilty. 2 days later baby Lisa's body is found and the evidence present conclusively links mom to the crime.

Because she was already charged and found not guilty, she cant be charged with the same crime twice.

When we rush thats when cases go from horrible to 10 times worse. Not only is Baby Lisa dead, she wont get any justice because of the not guilty verdict and a murderer walks free.

What if mom is arrested and charged and is found guilty in court, and is sentenced to life in prison. a few years later the body is found and the evidence collected confirms mom had nothing to do with it. The trial of the new suspect is now complicated because of the "rush to judgment". It allows the defense to question the ability of law enforcement to do a proper investigation. It allows the defense to challenge forensic handling. It allows the defense to question the motives of the Prosecutor, etc etc etc.

* - Do I think baby Lisa is still alive? - Sadly, I dont.
* - Do I think mom is involved? I do.
* - If I were the investigator knowing the info we know now would I arrest her? I would not.
* - If I were the Prosecuting Attorney and received the PC statement recommending charges would I file? - I would not.

All the evidence suggests a crime occurred. That same evidence doesn't tell us conclusively who did it.

From this point out its a waiting game. Media attention will die down, people will go back to their lives, new issues in the media will take center stage and life moves forward. Its usually around this point where evidence / break in the case occurs because people involved have the mind set its done and over with.

There is a saying in law enforcement thats drilled into us from day 1 of the academy.

"Complacency kills"


The same holds true for criminals, who become complacent, because they think they can get away with anything.

If people remember a few years back a guy with a bomb attached to his neck was sent into a bank to rob it. When police arrived he kept telling the police he was a pizza delivery person forced into doing this. While waiting for the bomb squad the bomb went off, killing the person. The police had no leads.

A few years later some lady had a fight with her boyfriend. She got so mad she called the police and turned him and herself in for the Bank robbery crime.

Weirder things have happened.

The goal is justice, but what good is justice when its not blind?

reply to post by silo13


The lights is what got my attention.

When Jeremy came home he said the front door was unlocked and all the lights were on. The assumption is mom was sleeping / passed out so didn't wake to lights being turned on by an intruder.

The problem with that is if the lights in the house were all off, and then all turned on by an "intruder" someone is going to wake up. Think about it.. If you fall asleep with a light on, it doesnt really affect your sleep when the light is turned out.

If you are sleeping in the dark, and someone turns a light on, people tend to wake up / notice. Why do I find the lights interesting?

If I were going to kidnap or rob a house, im certainly not going to pick one that i slit up on the inside. That tells me people are home and possibly awake. It says that even if someone is asleep, chances are its not in there bed but a chair or couch front of the tv.

Jeremy is the one who said he noticed Lisa missing when he got home. Because of that mom cant say she turned all the lights on looking for the child, because it would mean she noticed the child missing before Jeremy got home. If she did notice, then why didn't she do anything, like call the police? If your child is missing you dont wait for family to arrive at the house before calling the police.

The only way someone is going to kidnap or rob a house with lights on and front door unlocked is if they are familiar with the people in the house, and know for sure its safe to enter, up to and including the person being able to write their presence in the house off if they are caught by saying the lights were on and front door unlocked and I wanted to check to see if people are ok.

to many abnormalities for me....

reply to post by gabby2011


''''I don't see where hating on a mother..that is scared to confess an accident (if that is the case)..is going to bring any justice to little Lisa..it just causes more self righteous judgement.. ''''

What will bring justice to Lisa IF there was an accident and mom is covering it up ?

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011

 

''''I don't see where hating on a mother..that is scared to confess an accident (if that is the case)..is going to bring any justice to little Lisa..it just causes more self righteous judgement.. ''''

What will bring justice to Lisa IF there was an accident and mom is covering it up ?

Why don't you say a prayer.. and ask Lisa that?.. Dear Lisa.. if your mom killed you by accident, and is afraid to confess...how do you think we should be treating her..and your dad?.. Dear Lisa.. If your mom is proven to be guilty of killing you by accident.. how do you want justice?

You meditate on that Schmae ..because I have.. ask Jesus to help you with it..

reply to post by wildtimes

WHY would Deborah not be out there WITH THEM? And explain to the boys that it was goodwill and caring that the people are offering? Why would she not be wanting to participate, even if they DO move the vigils somewhere else? She clearly has not taken part in the activity on a daily basis (and apparently neither have Jeremy or the boys).

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't realized the vigils were every night. I can understand that. On the other hand what I can't understand is Deborah not being 'out there' as you say. What's left to say there is my opinion and that is negative in the extreme at this moment. It reminds me of something my Grandmother used to say. 'Liars don't want to be prayed for'.

peace

reply to post by Xcathdra

The problem with that is if the lights in the house were all off, and then all turned on by an "intruder" someone is going to wake up. Think about it.. If you fall asleep with a light on, it doesn't really affect your sleep when the light is turned out.

Something to throw out here. How many times have we gone into a new home to meet a new friend, so sell a product, to have a gathering of some type and had trouble finding the light in the hall and/or the light in the bathroom.

Beyond it being unbelievable an intruder break into a lit house, it's just as impossible to believe an intruder would go into a home and know where the lights are and to leave them on, if turning them on at all.

Why do I find the lights interesting?

If I were going to kidnap or rob a house, im certainly not going to pick one that i slit up on the inside. That tells me people are home and possibly awake. It says that even if someone is asleep, chances are its not in there bed but a chair or couch front of the tv.

Unless you knew the family (even then it's just too unbelievable) - or the most likely reason? It didn't happen at all.

peace

reply to post by schmae

What will bring justice to Lisa IF there was an accident and mom is covering it up ?

Nothing. There is no justice there. None. But what do you expect when some people's opinions out and out qualify it's better off a child is dead so the parents don't loose sleep at night and it's better Lisa is dead and up in heaven.

Regardless of the negative impact this will have on OTHER CHILDREN who's parents are irresponsible and narcissistic. 'Hey, why not have our 'adult time'. Too bad if the kid goes missing - it will end up in heaven anyway right?

Regardless of other babies who will 'go missing' and NEED TO BE FOUND.

No, sadly it seems it's better to just let them go to heaven. Yeah, as long as Lisa's in heaven I guess that's justice enough, right? (/disgust)

peace

Originally posted by silo13
Regardless of the negative impact this will have on OTHER CHILDREN who's parents are irresponsible and narcissistic. 'Hey, why not have our 'adult time'. Too bad if the kid goes missing - it will end up in heaven anyway right?

edit on 30-11-2011 by silo13 because: fix bbc

Silo this reminded me of the heart break and anger I felt when I learned about Tyler Dasher. It wasn't the fact that his mom killed him that upset me so much, it was she left him on the side of the road. I can forgive the murder part, but I can not forgive treating him like a piece of garbage just to try and save herself. That is what has me hung up on Baby Lisa. I do believe she died accidentally that night, but I don't believe a drunk Deborah could have covered it up on her own. That leaves me with two questions. Was she really drunk that night? Or what else happened that night that convinced friends/family to help her cover up an accidental death? It would be very hard for me (if not next to impossible) to justify disposing of a baby's body just to cover for someone.

OiO

reply to post by gabby2011


OK, not hating, but making Deb take accountability ? We are responsible for our actions,, arent' we? I am far more comfortable with thinking Deb accidentally let Lisa die, through her own actions or totally accidental, than I am with thinking she killed her with malice. And the horror of it is had she come out that night and said it, this would be over and she wouuld be back to her 'normal' life now probably.
The accident is forgivable. The lies and cover up are not. Imagine Jeremy is 100% innocent and has told nothing but the truth and believes an intruder came and took his baby. All the while his 'wife' and Lisa's mother KNOWS that's not the case. Doesn't Jeremy deserve to know the truth? He's out working all hours to bring home a living for his family that includes Lisa and mom's at home partying down with the neighbors and an accident happens.
So Hating on Deb doesn't bring justice and I'm sure Lisa doesn't want her mother hated. But if Lisa is in heaven with Jesus, I'm pretty sure the message is we are accountable for our actions.
The only way Deb would ever see her baby again in heaven is to come clean, repent and beg forgiveness !

By accidentally let her die through her own actions or an accident I mean,,, there is a difference in A) lisa felll out of bed and bumped her head and no one knew until it was too late B) mom drunkenly tripled her robitussin C) mom drunkenly rolled over on her..
All are accidents but not all caused by mom directly.

reply to post by OneisOne


ONE IS ! You just brought up an interesting idea. Who would help Deb cover up the death? Unless something else happened to her. Is that what you're suggesting? Perhaps someone else caused the accident, like the uncle or neighbor etc........or were a party to the accident and so that 's why they'd help her cover it up?

reply to post by silo13

Nothing. There is no justice there. None. But what do you expect when some people's opinions out and out qualify it's better off a child is dead so the parents don't loose sleep at night and it's better Lisa is dead and up in heaven.

And,, it is better for the child to be alive, and being mistreated for an indefinite amount of years? Yes..the chances of Lisa having a good life now if she was abducted are so great aren't they..

Regardless of the negative impact this will have on OTHER CHILDREN who's parents are irresponsible and narcissistic. 'Hey, why not have our 'adult time'. Too bad if the kid goes missing - it will end up in heaven anyway right?

oh yes ..so many parents will be thinking that now.. good grief..talk about grasping at straws..now that is disgusting.

No, sadly it seems it's better to just let them go to heaven. Yeah, as long as Lisa's in heaven I guess that's justice enough, right? (/disgust)

Again twisting things around.. but you just want to be angry at this family.. and if that is what blows your hair back , and feeds your day to day life..have at it..

Because I choose to see the child having compassion and forgiveness if her parents..or debbie had an accident which caused her death...does NOT make me out to be the heartless one..

We don't even KNOW what really happened.. but continue on with the bashing and looking for any little evidence that makes the parents look guilty. Its obvious this is what feeds your life at the moment, and who am I to take that pleasure away from you..right?

reply to post by schmae

So Hating on Deb doesn't bring justice and I'm sure Lisa doesn't want her mother hated. But if Lisa is in heaven with Jesus, I'm pretty sure the message is we are accountable for our actions. The only way Deb would ever see her baby again in heaven is to come clean, repent and beg forgiveness !

Yes..we are all accountable for our actions.. even if it is maligning and finding fault with a mother who MAY NOT be guilty of harming her child.

You are guilty of sinning against Lisa by making assumptions as well.. especially if she is still alive.

If Debbie is found to be innocent at some point.. you will all need to ask her forgiveness before entering heaven perhaps?

But carry on with the hating and bashing.. it obviously gives you something to live for..and look forward to everyday.