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: 167
41
<< 164  165  166    168  169  170 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
In a story published Friday, an attorney for the Irwin family said he was trying to track a teen who supposedly claimed a neighborhood handyman told him he'd been paid to take the infant

www.nbcactionnews.com... appearance

Why would the Irwin attorney misspeak in such a GROSSLY negligent manner to make it appear that Jersey did INDEED take the child for 300 usd? When asked to follow up on the error...........

''Kansas City attorney John Picerno responded to our e-mail inquiry saying, "I'm on vacation out of town."

IE: No comment! grrr, the link is not working
Have they come back at any point and said oh we misspoke?
edit on 3-12-2011 by schmae because: replacing link

edit on 3-12-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


This is not entirely accurate.

Not for everyone no, but for me, yes.
I've spent my life in the animal care industry where reading body language and knowing 'who is who' in a heard of hundreds is paramount to the job.
Beyond that my yeas in Emergency Medicine (often closely involved in crime) put me in a place where I was called into 'witness' more than a handful of times and I 'nailed' the suspect(s) without mistake - even after being exposed to 'single photo' 'line-ups'. For me? It is or it isn't.

Again, my own personal history makes it difficult to understand anyone else 'being coerced' when they're the ones that 'saw what they saw'. I should be more understanding that for others coercion is possible as I find myself getting impatient with 'witnesses' who see one thing one day concerning Lisa, and something else entirely a few days later.

Thank you again *X* for your participation in this thread.

peace



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


Why would the Irwin attorney misspeak in such a GROSSLY negligent manner to make it appear that Jersey did INDEED take the child for 300 usd? When asked to follow up on the error...........

Jury tainting?
We'll have to ask *X* but I'd think it's to tamper with the jury and/or to confuse the issue, especially if it ever goes to court???

peace



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


www.nbcactionnews.com... appearance

Can certain media disable links so they do not work when shared? I'm sorry all, I cannot make it work. Good news though if you want to read it, hit refresh, then it is the first story at the top of a yahoo search page and it works from there.
edit on 3-12-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Right! It will be interesting to see if that little exchange is brought up in trial at all. If there is a trial . And if there is a trial I intend to watch it, because I've never paid so much attention to the initial facts and lies of a case as this one. Usually I do not watch the trial channel because I have no clue what's going on and I figure I'll leave the 12 men and women to do their job and sort it out and I will trust their decision. But this time after following it so closely, I will be glued to the set........or DVR ing .



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
''Rasleen Raim is the mother of the 8-year-old that was living in the North Lister home. Raim and Jeremy Irwin, Lisa’s father, once lived together in the same Northland home. But in 2008, the couple’s custody battle played out in court and Jeremy Irwin received full custody of their child.

Raim said she has not been able to see her son for years.''''

The reporter says in the video " rasleen explained she has not been ABLE TO SPEAK to her child for years'''

That doesnt' really sound like she had a choice, does it? I had thought 'group home', not seen her kid in years,,, maybe she's just a lame mother............ Things are not always as they appear .

Here's another attempt at link, but it's from the same source as the otehrs so I bet it won't work !

www.nbcactionnews.com...



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Here's another article from sciencedaily. This one addresses the automatic response of people when judging acts of others. The researchers measured the fMRI scans of people who were presented with two crimes or harms: in one situation the person deliberately hurt another. In the other, the person who could have prevented harm to come to another did not. In both cases, the "another" got hurt to the same severity.

It says that in our court system, it is generally the standard to punish active harm more harshly than passive harm.

The judging itself is automatic, everyone does it. BUT -- some people see the intentional harm as MORE wrong than harm caused by failure to prevent it. And OTHER PEOPLE, who appear to be more discerning, deliberate thinkers, don't have that "blind spot" and see both as EQUALLY wrong.


Looking at a moral choice Test subjects who feel that doing active harm is morally the same as allowing harm to occur will show more brain activity. The notion that active harm is worse appears to be automatic, a psychological default requiring less thought.

This ^^ is the caption under the picture of the fMRI attached to the article.

Interesting to know -- makes one wonder if this would influence the voire dire process, if a skilled attorney was aware of it. Defense would want to have jurors who would judge the "failure to prevent harm" as LESS wrong. Prosecutors would want jurors who see them as EQUALLY wrong.

here's the link.
Are Doing Harm and Allowing Harm Equivalent? Ask fMRI

ScienceDaily (Dec. 2, 2011) — Individuals and courts deal more harshly with people who actively commit harm than with people who willfully allow the same harm to occur. A new study finds that this moral distinction is psychologically automatic. It requires more thought to see each harmful behavior as morally equivalent.

The neuroscience of ethical dilemmas Fiery Cushman employs behavioral experiments, online surveys, and functional magnetic resonance imaging to figure out how the brain has evolved to process moral dilemmas and make moral judgments.

"What it looks like is when you see somebody actively harm another person that triggers a strong automatic response," said Brown University psychologist Fiery Cushman. "You don't have to think very deliberatively about it. You just perceive it as morally wrong. When a person allows harm that they could easily prevent, that actually requires more carefully controlled deliberative thinking [to view as wrong]."

edit on 3-12-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Oh uncle johnny is up bright and early this morning and talking some more smack. Apparently he found out deb's brother was gay and suggested he go straight and this lead to some family drama......... Not sure how this ties in to anything other than him just throwing everyone in his family under the bus?

Johnny Chiaravallotti You people dont know whats going on. The whole NETZ clan have hurt alot of people over the years. David killed my sister and Debbie killed this baby. I am going public with all their secrets. And Tony has been on here trying to stop the truth from coming out. We know much more than you. I am the only family member talking and I talk only the truth.
Uncle Johnny before he removed it......which he removes stuff pretty quick these days !

edit on 3-12-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


Oh uncle johnny is up bright and early this morning and talking some more smack. Apparently he found out deb's brother was gay and suggested he go straight and this lead to some family drama......... Not sure how this ties in to anything other than him just throwing everyone in his family under the bus?

Some people thrive on drama.
Some thrive and can't live without attention - even if it's negative.
Families work the same way.
If his info it's truth, or not, it goes a long way to project a real 'feel' of what these people have been involved in all their lives.
Like I said, some people can't live without it - it's gotta be drama, it's gotta be 'woop woop' it's gotta be 'someone against the other' and 'who's taking side'. Hell, we've seen it from some here in the thread.
In all seriousness, drama and turmoil and 'WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA' is like a drug for some and once addicted it's difficult to get out from under.
It's pretty sad for those the two boys left in the home.
Again, and I stress, I hope and pray the judge forces home visits from CPS and counseling for all.
peace


edit on 3-12-2011 by silo13 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 





It's pretty sad for those the two boys left in the home. Again, and I stress, I hope and pray the judge forces home visits from CPS and counseling for all. peace


It is very sad for those two boys left at home.. because of the drama people want to create around the family..and implications and accusations of bad parenting..

Some just won't give it up either..they are addicted to trying to find all the negative stuff they can about the irwins..

How truly sad these two little boys have to deal with a missing sister as well as all the psycho babble from total strangers..about the private lives of their parents..

I wonder what they have to say to the souls who pretend to care about them, but continue to dissect every little aspect of their private lives..

They would indeed be sick in the heart with all the nonsense and drama created by those who profess to care.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
www.nbcactionnews.com...

The FBI profiler points out the Irwins home..and how it indicated that the child was loved.. and well cared for.

You have to scroll down to the link called " Former FBI profiler describes home of Lisa Irwin"


Read more: www.nbcactionnews.com...



edit on 3-12-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)


This is nothing earth shattering. This could be the most loving household in the entire universe but it doesn't negate the possibility of an accidental death. Basing a guilty / innocent argument on the FBI's comment about the household has no direct bearing on the case in terms of what happened to baby lisa.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
America's Most Wanted featuring missing baby Lisa Irwin


The show is hosted by John Walsh, whose son was abducted from a department store and killed in 1981. Walsh has turned his tragedy into a tireless cause to help other parents find their missing children and solve other crimes.

The couple has not spoken with police or the local media since the first week that their daughter went missing.

Two months tomorrow.



"They should cooperate with police fully. They should do all the media they can and they should remember one thing - if they had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance, they need to be the face of baby Lisa," Walsh told Inside Edition, which is carried on KCTV5.

Walsh said this week that parents have the right to get an attorney, but should do everything they can to find their missing baby including running the search effort from their home. He has thrown veiled criticism toward Irwin and Bradley for not doing more to find their missing child.

Like any other caring loving parents who want their daughter back...


"You keep searching if you have nothing to do with the disappearance of your child. You are there every day at the police station saying what can I do to get this baby back," Walsh said.

Like any other caring loving parents who want their daughter back.

peace



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


This is nothing earth shattering. This could be the most loving household in the entire universe but it doesn't negate the possibility of an accidental death. Basing a guilty / innocent argument on the FBI's comment about the household has no direct bearing on the case in terms of what happened to baby lisa.

Exactly.
In fact it's been pointed out many times in the thread how all the 'shiny happy rich people with their pretty houses and happy families' have so much evil to hide.

Not only nothing earth shattering but nothing but tripe assumption. I can say from first hand experience growing up in a 'pretty house' with 'baby pictures' on the wall means NOTHING when the lights go out after company goes home.

peace

edit on 3-12-2011 by silo13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by rsodl
 

I'm not sure what your point is, but, Welcome to the thread and WELCOME TO ATS!


As for 'registry'? We've spoken about the sex offenders (listed ones) living in the area of Lisa Irwin's house. There are 16 if I remember correctly, but, the police haven't said anything about it or alluded to any links between these people and Lisa's disappearance.

peace



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





This is nothing earth shattering. This could be the most loving household in the entire universe but it doesn't negate the possibility of an accidental death.


I realize that. The reason I put it up was more in reference to the analysis of the family not being able to give children love do to their "psychological" make up brought on by family history.



edit on 3-12-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 



Wouldn't that be wonderful.. it would stop the attacks of calling people" ignorant trash".. especially in the sectors involving family counseling


Unfortunately, no, it wouldn't stop people from assessing others. Because there are ignorant people in the lower echelons of society who don't know how to control themselves or to nurture babies.

Fortunately, though, family counselors are taught how to do initial assessments. They are taught how to "read" a general picture of the client. You seem to take a lot of delight in that, gabby, by bringing up over and over that I, in the very first page of this thread two months ago, made a "snap"decision based on what I saw and heard.

Now, if Deborah had been my client (which she is not), and my first impression was that she was poorly educated and poorly brought up (which it definitely was), I would have wanted to find out about her life. Her family, her past, her mind-set and parenting theories. Her hobbies and interests, her willingness to learn what she did not know, and to "own" her set of problems.

Yes, I did say she "looked to me like ignorant trash." IF SHE HAD DONE ANYTHING TO change that opinion, I would have said "Huh! Well, I was wrong."

Just like if two doctors see a patient come in limping with a swollen ankle and their foot twisted sideways, one might say "it looks like that ankle is broken." And the other, who is assigned the case, says "I agree, but let's get some x-rays and take a deeper look at the matter." The x-rays come back, and the patient's assigned doctor says "Good news! I was wrong! Wow, I've never seen a foot in that condition that wasn't broken, but there it is!" And the second doctor says "Wow, I'm really glad to hear that! He must have exceptionally strong bones!" And together, they tell the patient, "It's just a sprain, but my colleague and I can fix that. We can help you deal with it."

The fact is, she has NOT done ONE THING publicly to change my impression of her. Not One! And she has certainly been put under a microscope.

If you, gabby, have any HARD EVIDENCE that she is, in fact, NOT ignorant, then by all means, share it with us. And as far as her "echelon" .... well, that was a judgment call. Just as you have acknowledged, there is a continuum of "classes" in society. There are brilliant, kind, genuine people who were fortunate enough to have been born into circumstances that were optimal, and to parents who had some skills.

And there are ignorant (the word means "not aware"), poor people who reproduce and teach their children to live the way they do. Those are not going to be the "higher" echelons.

"Trash" was harsh, I give you that.
Let's say "uneducated lower-middle-class". You happy now?

You are right spot on about one thing, though: If ANY family counselor were to tell their client "you are ignorant trash", that would be horrible indeed.

For me, a retired, educated person, to say that it "looks to me" about a COMPLETE STRANGER whose life has been thrust under a high beam by her own actions and the consequences of those actions is a FAR CRY from me saying "you are" TO A CLIENT or "she is" ABOUT A CLIENT.

Deborah has EVERY OPPORTUNITY to defend herself and PROVE she is a brilliant, wonderful, loving mother. WHY IS SHE NOT DOING SO??!! She has a captive audience, waiting to see!!!

EDITED FOR CLARITY
edit on 3-12-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


''Deborah has EVERY OPPORTUNITY to defend herself and PROVE she is a brilliant, wonderful, loving mother. WHY IS SHE NOT DOING SO??!! She has a captive audience, waiting to see!!! '''.......... AMEN!

You know I feel bad for Deb in a lot of ways. As I explained before she got a rough lot dealt to her from birth basically. We have no choice what sort of family we are born to and what choices our parents make that will affect us mentally , emotionally, spiritually and physically as we grow into adults. Deb didnt' have a chance really to have a very happy life given her early years. For that I am sorry for her and I wish every child born had at least a real CHANCE at success. But she did have a choice to have kids . Once you choose to have kids your own past demons are no longer an excuse. If you want to live in a world of pills and alcohol to drown out a really bad past then go to it. But again YOUR kids have no choice now and have to live with your choices. I hope she doesnt' try to use any sort of mental defense in this charade if it goes to trial !



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I have been reading this thread for a while now....but I do not understand your perspective. Why is it so many ( the majority) of people post FACTS......links etc....to credible info, but your posts seem to be mostly based on emotion/opinion ??

I don't want to say you are directly related in some way to the family.......but your view point does seem strange.

PLEASE...backup your posts with facts, research links, papers....etc
Otherwise your posts seem to cloud the intention of this thread.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by vogon42
reply to post by gabby2011
 


I have been reading this thread for a while now....but I do not understand your perspective. Why is it so many ( the majority) of people post FACTS......links etc....to credible info, but your posts seem to be mostly based on emotion/opinion ??

I don't want to say you are directly related in some way to the family.......but your view point does seem strange.

PLEASE...backup your posts with facts, research links, papers....etc
Otherwise your posts seem to cloud the intention of this thread.


I have posted facts..and some of the "facts" that have been posted here are speculation as well.

Just like your assumption that I am directly related to the family pretty much sums up the type of assumptions and speculations in a negative way on this thread.

Is it really so odd, that I would stick up for a families right to innocence before proven guilty?.. is it really so odd I would stand up against people calling them "ignorant trash"...and implicating so much more.


Do I have to be related to them to actually care about what they may be going through?

If this should ever happen to someone you care about.. in the sense of a child abduction..I would hope you appreciate those who don't rush to villify the parents, using their pseudo psychology... and veiled smear campaigns.









edit on 3-12-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 164  165  166    168  169  170 >>

log in

join