Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by schmae

For those so inclined to support the Irwin family financially as well as emotionally.........

Oh and let's make sure and add what's written under the header:

We ask that any donations made be a minimum of $10 to avoid excess operational fees. Thanks for your support!

It's worth going to the page to read the comments. We're not alone in thinking this is a complete farce Schmae. It really makes my skin crawl.

All proceeds (less percentage taken by Pledgie.com and Paypal.com for operating costs) will be used to assist with the day to day financial obligations as well as costs incurred to help locate baby Lisa. This fund will remain in place until Lisa has been found and the case is resolved.

If we ever wanted proof the family is profiting off of Lisa's disappearance? Here it is. Read it in black and white. The money will go to:

FIRST ON THE LIST - 'DAY TO DAY FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS'

(Only then like an after thought)

SECOND- as well as the costs incurred to help locate 'baby Lisa'.

Added question: Is there anyone to oversee this money or do we take the Brad-Win's word for where the money is going? (Does the word wine spring to your mind as it does many others)?

This is a grand moment for me to take a self imposed time out for a few moments before I tell you how I really feel.

peace

Dont know if anyone has covered this already, too many pages to read!

I find it odd that they mention her date of birth, iv never heard of missing people's date of births being disclosed especially when they first go missing.
I dont know if thats the norm in the U.S but its not in U.K where i come from or in Australia where i currently live.

I mean they already say that she is 10 months old.

Coincidence her D.O.B is 11th november?

reply to post by mazzle

Coincidence her D.O.B is 11th November?

No, I don't think anyone's put that together yet but it honestly fits right in. This case couldn't get much stranger if it tried. Then again maybe I better not say that!

It seems strange to me (also) the DOB being included like that. Let me look around and see if I can find anymore info.

Thanks for your post.

peace

reply to post by silo13


We dont need a law, we already have one. Its called endangering the welfare of a minor, and it can be prosecuted as a midameanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances / facts. Unless they are wanting some more specific and restrictive guidelines.

*** For those not versed in Criminal Law, when reading a statute there is a huge difference between the use of the word "and" and the use of the word "or". When reading a statute that lists elements of a crime and specifically uses the term "and", it means ALL elements listed must be met in order to be in violation. If the elements are listed and uses the term "or" it means any number of the elements can be met individually in order to be in violation ***

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 568 Offenses Against the Family

568.045 - Endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree - Felony

568.045. 1. A person commits the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree if:

(1) The person knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to the life, body, or health of a child less than seventeen years old; or

(2) The person knowingly engages in sexual conduct with a person under the age of seventeen years over whom the person is a parent, guardian, or otherwise charged with the care and custody;

(3) The person knowingly encourages, aids or causes a child less than seventeen years of age to engage in any conduct which violates the provisions of chapter 195;

(4) Such person enlists the aid, either through payment or coercion, of a person less than seventeen years of age to unlawfully manufacture, compound, produce, prepare, sell, transport, test or analyze amphetamine or methamphetamine or any of their analogues, or to obtain any material used to manufacture, compound, produce, prepare, test or analyze amphetamine or methamphetamine or any of their analogues; or

(5) Such person, in the presence of a person less than seventeen years of age or in a residence where a person less than seventeen years of age resides, unlawfully manufactures, or attempts to manufacture compounds, possesses, produces, prepares, sells, transports, tests or analyzes amphetamine or methamphetamine or any of their analogues.

2. Endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree is a class C felony unless the offense is committed as part of a ritual or ceremony, or except on a second or subsequent offense, in which case the crime is a class B felony.

3. This section shall be known as "Hope's Law".

568-050 - Endangering the welfare of a child in the second degree.


In addition to the above there is also murder / child abuse etc etc etc. Just depends on what occured.

Originally posted by mazzle
Dont know if anyone has covered this already, too many pages to read!

I find it odd that they mention her date of birth, iv never heard of missing people's date of births being disclosed especially when they first go missing.
I dont know if thats the norm in the U.S but its not in U.K where i come from or in Australia where i currently live.

I mean they already say that she is 10 months old.

Coincidence her D.O.B is 11th november?

When it comes to minors the dob can be released since it helps when trying to identify a child who looks their age, if that makes sense.

As far as a baby goes its 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other. Its more difficult to identify a baby using dob of birth alone since at that age they pretty much can all look the same, depending on how they are dressed. We tend to look for more specific identifiers (birth mark / birth defect / genetic issue / medical issue etc).

Personally speaking im in favor of equipping new borns with baby version of a lowjack system (System used in the US to track a stolen vehicle).

reply to post by silo13


A website like that is a double edged sword. If its in place and linked to the Erwins then ther eis the possibility of legal action at a later date if its determined the family is responsible for Lisas disappearence and death.

Asking for donations knowing the facts underlying the request are false.

more power to them.

reply to post by Xcathdra

We dont need a law, we already have one. Its called endangering the welfare of a minor, and it can be prosecuted as a midameanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances / facts. Unless they are wanting some more specific and restrictive guidelines.

I was under the impression 'they' wanted much tougher guidelines - and as I said I'm not sure if I agree or not. The 'Nanny State' we have as it is is enough for me. Too much in fact. I'll leave it at that until I have more info to bring to the board. I probably spoke too early, but, there ya have it.

On another note in the same vein.

That Deborah has not been charged with any offense concerning her inebriation leaving minors without proper care (child neglect) would you hazard a guess why? Thanks in advance.

peace

reply to post by mazzle


HI Mazzle, my guess is because she is under 1 year old, so her actual birth DATE does more to show her age. Her birthday has passed now though, so I wonder if they are still doing that in current reports.

reply to post by silo13


I think they are not charging her so she can be OUT in case it prompts her to do something that might help find Lisa. Like calls someone who knows about it or goes to a spot where she may have been discarded OR if they believe a kidnapper took her maybe they think the kidnapper might contact them at their home, etc etc.
Until Lisa is found, chances of finding her are better without mom in jail. Or that's one theory I think .

reply to post by schmae

Oh dear heaven's isn't that right! Looking for twists and ran smack into that tree in the forest I didn't see, lol.
Thank you Schmae, right on as always.
So far I've found nothing new on Jeremy but I'm still searching for info (your people search).
peace

reply to post by Xcathdra


I'm wondering what expenses they are. The reward is offered by an individual and the attorney fees are paid for or donated as well. When life goes back to 'normal' that was supposed to entail Jeremy going back to work. So what expenses , exactly, are they talking about ?

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

We dont need a law, we already have one. Its called endangering the welfare of a minor, and it can be prosecuted as a midameanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances / facts. Unless they are wanting some more specific and restrictive guidelines.

I was under the impression 'they' wanted much tougher guidelines - and as I said I'm not sure if I agree or not. The 'Nanny State' we have as it is is enough for me. Too much in fact. I'll leave it at that until I have more info to bring to the board. I probably spoke too early, but, there ya have it.

On another note in the same vein.

That Deborah has not been charged with any offense concerning her inebriation leaving minors without proper care (child neglect) would you hazard a guess why? Thanks in advance.

peace

edit on 4-12-2011 by silo13 because: spelling

They could try to make a case of it but I doubt a judge would allow the charges to proceed. Their is nothing to link what happened to Baby Lisa with moms drunken state.

Its not against the law to be drunk in your house. Nothing links one to the other.

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I'm wondering what expenses they are. The reward is offered by an individual and the attorney fees are paid for or donated as well. When life goes back to 'normal' that was supposed to entail Jeremy going back to work. So what expenses , exactly, are they talking about ?

Lost wages, bills, legal expenses, private investigators etc etc etc.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The lawyer and PI are paid for by some donor . I get lost wages, but he's supposed to be back tow ork or going to soon. I just wonder if it's not a plea to basically supplement their income. I wonder if that site will have a tracker on it to see how much is donated.

Jeremy , from as young as 18 yrs, has been able to hold on to this house and seems very responsible with money as far as major expenses. It would be a shame if he were to lose it now, ESPECIALLY if Deb is the reason.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Nothing links one to the other.

but

568.045. 1. A person commits the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree if:

(1) The person knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to the life, body, or health of a child less than seventeen years old; or ...

Can you please elaborate on this? It seems to me like they are linked. I'm confused now. I must be missing something...or putting things together that should not be put together...can you please straighten me out here?

(P.S. I am SO glad you are here to help us all navigate the waters of legalese, investigations, evidence, protocol, etc)

Breaking: Father of Missing Toddler Fails Polygraph

DETROIT, Mich. (WJBK) - Police and the FBI continued to search for 2-year-old Bianca Jones Saturday and also continued to question the child's father. He says she was kidnapped after a carjacking Friday. A reward for information that leads to the child's return has been increased to $17,500.

Update: Police sources tell Fox 2 the father failed a lie detector test. Stay with Fox 2 and myfoxdetroit.com for continuing coverage.
An anonymous donor added $15,000 to CrimeStoppers $2,500 reward.

Wow. Maybe if we watch this case we can "compare and contrast" -- the differences in the LE in Michigan vs Missouri...how the families handle it...etc.

Very similar in some ways:
daughter gone
polygraph failed (supposedly)
anonymous donor
mom asks for child to be dropped off anywhere

Glaring differences in other ways:
MUCH smaller "reward" offered
father was "carjacked"
10 minutes later, car recovered - no daughter

Any thoughts?

reply to post by wildtimes


Can you with 100% certainty say that mom being drunk was a direct result of the child going missing? We can speculate and assume she was, in addition to using her own words from interviews. The fact remains though there is no solid evidence that the 2 are linked.

Life, body and health....

Is Lisa alive? - We dont know, and until a body is found - yes
Is Lisa injured? - We don't know, and until a body is found - no
Was Lisa treated badly / neglected / malnourished / etc? - We dont know.

Dont get me wrong, I understand what your saying.

What we think and what can be proven in court are often not even in the same state, let alone book.

reply to post by wildtimes


One difference police never said Deb failed poly, only Deb did , correct? She may have, she may not have. We don't even know if they TOLD HER she did fail.

Wild I didnt even hear about this. Is there a rash of babies going missing? or is this the normal amount and we are just more finely tuned to HEAR it because we are following Lisa's case?

reply to post by wildtimes


Polygraphs are not scientifically accurate enough to have the results admitted into evidence in court, let alone use it against the person in an investigation. It measures among others things galvanic skin response.

United States

In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court. The use of polygraph in court testimony remains controversial, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex offenders. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993),[50] the old Frye standard was lifted and all forensic evidence, including polygraph, had to meet the new Daubert standard in which "underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue." While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. In United States v. Scheffer (1998),[51] the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In the States of Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware and Iowa it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.[52]

In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).

Since it is not proven, and as we see above 19 states allow it by stipulation, it still sets the groundwork for an appeal if the defendant is convicted.

I dont care for polygraph or voice stress analyzers. In both cases the claim of being a lie detector is not accurate either. As in this case responses are being deceptive. There are also methods one can use to skew / throw off the results.

Then again I have issues when it comes to relying on machinery / equipment for analyzing a person behavior.

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by wildtimes

 

One difference police never said Deb failed poly, only Deb did , correct? She may have, she may not have. We don't even know if they TOLD HER she did fail.

Wild I didnt even hear about this.

Is there a rash of babies going missing? or is this the normal amount and we are just more finely tuned to HEAR it because we are following Lisa's case?

edit on 4-12-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)

To speculate on deb announcing the polygraph -
For her to come out and say it could be a deception technique. Until the police confirm / deny her statement, it allows her to continue the game of the police are concentrating on me instead of finding the missing baby. I have seen and read about cases where an innocent person has gone down the road of misleading investigators to make it look like they are guilty when in reality they are protecting someone.

As we can see it can be difficult investigating these types of crimes.