Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Posts on facebook are opinions and nothing more, regardless of how much drama they stir up. As far as libel / slander those are civil issue and not criminal, so the police have nothing to do with what people are saying (harrasment / threats made could fall under criminal, depending on what was said / siuation etc)..

Generaly the only time it becomes criminal is when people lie / mislead law enforcement during an offical investigtion. Filing a false police report, false testimony etc.


Aside from that, people are entitled to their opinions, regardless of how howl at the moon, rectal-cranial inverted they are. Just because a facebook account says it belongs to John Doe, doesnt mean John Doe knows about it or even owns it.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I believe that it is a family conspiracy with a little mixture of unsavory people from the neighborhood and their party favors. I left the forum because it was just too intense and it became in fighting and people judging others for speaking their opinion - which that is what a forum is created for. The bickering like replies turned me off.

By now with the single statement that Deborah did not frantically search her entire neighborhood, back yard, trash cans and even peoples homes in her neighborhood speaks volumes to me. I would especially have acted in this manner after stating that I might have blacked out. She felt it was ok to take the stance and tell the media she doesn't want to tramatize her son and sorta step son about what they heard or may know is just unmotherly. (I am a mother of a 21 yr old and a 3 yr old.) I have drank with both - but never to the point that I would not be able to uphold my parental duties to the max and remember all the next day. When Deborah also said she was scared to check in the backyard because she doesn't know what she may find. Well there again speak volumes. The truth needs to be found however, with whomever and whatever happened. I don't understand how child protection services haven't critically evaluated this mixed family - which if they are that would be very closed lip to the media. Which could be why the slow down.

Lastly there is a facebook page like the poster below my last post was speaking which is very odd in itself. Seems the brother is being backed in the corner. I also had read views intuitive blogger pages and when quite a few started hinting on certain things ....like the Father playing a major role with a mother, and death in the past..I posted in the remote viewing OP

www.abovetopsecret.com...

. Stephanie from her blog had said she thought that there is blame from a father about infidelity and "the matriarch" being untrusted...which would have been Deborah's mother. Which Deborah's mother's father believes Deborah's dad killed her. DNA & genetic make-up can predict what type of character you will become as well as past experience.

Stephanie - one of the intuintives was soon pushed onto nat'l tv interview where people were critical of her tarot readings and interpretations of where Lisa is and what her perception was of the incident.

All and all.....yes the parents have knowledge and I am quite confident the child has passed and somehow Deb/Jer may believe if they lay low it will be forgotten or something.

For the record....just my opinion as a mom and no matter how much you are shock, tramatized by the incident of a child ....you don't act like CA or Deborah or that Susan chic when your children are gone .....Like CA's parents they were relentless in scrapping the corners of the world to find the answer to what happened to Caylee except to ask in front of the media if CA had mistakenly done something with her and where to find her. Which she may have and her brother helped her move the body. Interestingly familar that Deb and brother together the day she goes missing.

I think we are of the same mindset when it comes to what most likely occured. As far as DFS in Missouri goes (Department of Family Services - MO equivelant of CPS) they cannot seize a child on their own as they dont have the authority to do so. It must be done by law enforcement / medical doctor / court order.

Since lise is missing, and no charges have been formally brought, there is no standing to seize the remaining children. Granted she made the comment she was drunk and most likely blacked out, there is absolutely nothing in the way of evidence to link her condition to Lisa's disappearence under law (law, not personal opinion).

reply to post by wildtimes


Okay, replying to my previous post about the "march" ....
finally found something tucked away on nbc....it's not in the newspaper's site, or any of the other networks that I have looked at.

here ya go:
www.nbcactionnews.com...

And Johnny C on fb is claiming he is at the Summit Street, KCMO FBI office right now -- had an appointment at 9:30. So, like RIGHT now. If he is to be believed.

reply to post by silo13


Whoa, we don't know she has a computer........... She HAD one but LE took it from the house, remember? Long ago they took it. AND I wonder if they gave it back. If not, then it must have had something of evidentiary value on it, right? They're so broke, they have set up a beg for $$ fund, he's not working, so I doubt if they do have a PC. But this day and age, anyone can check fb from their phone...... Assuming they've got their phones back or at least another service plan activated.

Adding to my above post. A) didn't mean WHOA as any disrespect Silo
B) If I am Deb, guilty or not, the last thing I would do is read ANYTHING about ANYTHING related to me or this case right now. Guilty or not, it would drive her mad, don't you think?

reply to post by schmae

You're right they might not have given it back - I haven't heard either way (not that the news would be advised in this case for sure).
I like the WHOA! lol I'm no shrinking violet. Plus it's a horsey word.
As for reading about the case?
There's two sides to that. One, she'd want to have her fill of everything she could in order to feel she's 'staying on top of things' - or reversely - hiding from it all.
Interesting either way. Too bad we can't find out.
Have a good day!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I think we are of the same mindset when it comes to what most likely occured. As far as DFS in Missouri goes (Department of Family Services - MO equivelant of CPS) they cannot seize a child on their own as they dont have the authority to do so. It must be done by law enforcement / medical doctor / court order.

Since lise is missing, and no charges have been formally brought, there is no standing to seize the remaining children. Granted she made the comment she was drunk and most likely blacked out, there is absolutely nothing in the way of evidence to link her condition to Lisa's disappearence under law (law, not personal opinion).

I would think her admittance of her condition could be grounds of criminal neglect of all 3 children UNLESS someone else has come forward and given Deborah a safe harbor of "company - ie the neighbor." But she hasn't spoken to the neighbor since either. It just smells of deciet; and evokes such pitty.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Wow the number of things wrong in that case are mind boggling. For starters I find it weird family services would be conducting an interrogation instead of the police (granted Ill might allow for that, here in MO though its a no go since guilt seeking questions are being asked which requires Miranda.

Secondly doing the orphanage thing in order to sway the parents is tantamount to coercion. It would be like telling a mother that unless you tell me where your husband is, i'm taking your child. Forcing information under duress / coercion is a huge nono and is an excellent way to get evidence / testimony thrown out and destroy a case.

This is another reason you dont see the police constantly at the parents house or dragging them in for questioning. Its possible for the police to get hit with harassment complaints when we go a bit overboard on contact with persons of interest.

If this is true....I am trying to reaclimate myself to this thread since 83++; I would say this is my point to CPS getting involved to try and get the truth as I earlier mentioned. Remember Warren Jeffs and CPS bussing ALL of the children out of the compound? Where is Jeffs now?

reply to post by mcsandy


She is over 21 and was drinking at her house, which is not illegal. Its not illegal to be intoxicated at home either, even if children are present. In order to make an argument to remove the children, those children would need to have been placed in danger because of moms actions.

Granted Lisa is missing, however the 2 remaining children are not, and there are no signs of neglect or abuse to either one of them. Its not against the law to be poor, nor is it against the law for a person house to be messy (unless that mess poses an immediate danger to the children). Until we know what happened to Lisa there is nothing that links moms actions to Lisa's disappearance.

Dont get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from, and the way the DFS portion works has pissed me off to no end on many occasions.

However the defense lawyer would point out that if Lisa's actions were criminal, then why aren't the other children harmed? If I remember the criteria for endangering the welfare of a child, its all encompassing and not single, meaning that if she were to be charged, she would be charged with one count of endangering the welfare since all 3 children were under one roof at the time (the same would apply for a person operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner with 4 kids in the car, 1 charge).

While I dont care that much for the Missouri Legislature, and as goofy as the law sounds, it does make sense from both a criminal as well as civil point of view. First off how can one make an argument that she endangered the welfare of Lisa, but not the other 2 in the house? If those 2 children were somehow injured then one could make the argument. Since there is no link between mom and Lisa's disappearance, there is no endangering the welfare present.

Secondly, the goal of the law is to protect children from a parent / guardians behavior. Its not meant to be so severe that a person would lose their children with absolutely no ability to regain custody.

By permanently removing the children for a parents / guardians actions, it would unfairly punish the children involved as well. As with any law, the intent is to first and foremost prevent certain actions, and as a last resort allow a person to be punished for performing those actions.

Until we all can go down to the pool and walk across the water, we must keep in mind we are all human and prone to mistakes. A law MUST takes that into account, in addition to mitigating circumstances (letter of the law - spirit of the law view point).

Example - 16 year old son and 54 year old dad are arguing over the sons inability to keep his room clean. During the argument the 16 year old gets pissed and starts punching dad. Dad defends himself, resulting in the kid being knocked out from a punch.

Under the law the situation could fall under child abuse as well as a domestic disturbance. However, if we take all factors into account - Child's size, age, Dads size and age, physical confrontation between the 2, with the son being the primary physical aggressor, and dads response which resulted in his son being knocked out, at which point dads activities stop.

Situation would easily fit into both categories I mentioned. However, using all the facts it would allow for the mitigating circumstance of self defense on the part of dad. Since his actions ended when the "threat" ceased to be present (being knocked out), his actions would be justified under self defense.

We will never have a law that is only black and white, and the day we do we may as well replace the Star Spangled Banner with that of the anthem of the old Soviet Union.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by mcsandy

 

She is over 21 and was drinking at her house, which is not illegal. Its not illegal to be intoxicated at home either, even if children are present. In order to make an argument to remove the children, those children would need to have been placed in danger because of moms actions.

Granted Lisa is missing, however the 2 remaining children are not, and there are no signs of neglect or abuse to either one of them. Its not against the law to be poor, nor is it against the law for a person house to be messy (unless that mess poses an immediate danger to the children). Until we know what happened to Lisa there is nothing that links moms actions to Lisa's disappearance.

Dont get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from, and the way the DFS portion works has pissed me off to no end on many occasions.

However the defense lawyer would point out that if Lisa's actions were criminal, then why aren't the other children harmed? If I remember the criteria for endangering the welfare of a child, its all encompassing and not single, meaning that if she were to be charged, she would be charged with one count of endangering the welfare since all 3 children were under one roof at the time (the same would apply for a person operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner with 4 kids in the car, 1 charge).

While I dont care that much for the Missouri Legislature, and as goofy as the law sounds, it does make sense from both a criminal as well as civil point of view. First off how can one make an argument that she endangered the welfare of Lisa, but not the other 2 in the house? If those 2 children were somehow injured then one could make the argument. Since there is no link between mom and Lisa's disappearance, there is no endangering the welfare present.

Secondly, the goal of the law is to protect children from a parent / guardians behavior. Its not meant to be so severe that a person would lose their children with absolutely no ability to regain custody.

By permanently removing the children for a parents / guardians actions, it would unfairly punish the children involved as well. As with any law, the intent is to first and foremost prevent certain actions, and as a last resort allow a person to be punished for performing those actions.

Until we all can go down to the pool and walk across the water, we must keep in mind we are all human and prone to mistakes. A law MUST takes that into account, in addition to mitigating circumstances (letter of the law - spirit of the law view point).

Example - 16 year old son and 54 year old dad are arguing over the sons inability to keep his room clean. During the argument the 16 year old gets pissed and starts punching dad. Dad defends himself, resulting in the kid being knocked out from a punch.

Under the law the situation could fall under child abuse as well as a domestic disturbance. However, if we take all factors into account - Child's size, age, Dads size and age, physical confrontation between the 2, with the son being the primary physical aggressor, and dads response which resulted in his son being knocked out, at which point dads activities stop.

Situation would easily fit into both categories I mentioned. However, using all the facts it would allow for the mitigating circumstance of self defense on the part of dad. Since his actions ended when the "threat" ceased to be present (being knocked out), his actions would be justified under self defense.

We will never have a law that is only black and white, and the day we do we may as well replace the Star Spangled Banner with that of the anthem of the old Soviet Union.

edit on 13-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

All points understood and well taken. Unlike the fact of a defiant teen though. I have swam in a pool in GA....domestic violence dispute...no physical contact and third degree charges were brought up and indicted; not me. With that said staying on topic, here in GA it would be considered child endangerment or neglect in some degree. Kinda like either you have had a couple of drinks and you drove or you had none. If it is the latter then you are good, if not you are guilty of dui. I think with your knowledge it sounds to me that - just like CA files - holding the charge may be an ace in the hole for "just in case," it may be what they are doing apparently is covertly so that this may not become a case like OJ or CA if in fact we are speaking of a crime that they are aware of or close to indicting.

reply to post by mcsandy


Jeffs is in prison. He was convicted.....maybe 4 months ago if memory serves. I don't know if the kids went back to compound with their moms or not. WHICH brings up a good point, actually, TY McSandy. Several pages back was a discussion on whether or not Lisa would forgive her mother for doing something to her, even accidentally. I said that many times kids trust and love their parents EVEN if they are abusive. It's the nature of a child to cling to their parent, especially their mother. The JEFFS'c compound's children is an excellent point. Those kids were crying and wanted to be home. They'd grown up in a life where sleeping with youn g girls by the elders in their'church' was accepted. So they felt displaced and afraid to be taken from it, even though it was sick and twisted way of life. It seemed 'normal' to the children. But because it is normal to the children does not mean they should stay there because they miss their mommies and daddies.
Excellent case to bring up. ty so much !

reply to post by Xcathdra


''''First off how can one make an argument that she endangered the welfare of Lisa, but not the other 2 in the house? If those 2 children were somehow injured then one could make the argument'''''

I am sure if we could fast forward 20 years and see those 2 boys sittting on their psychiatrist's couch as adult men, we would see they have been irreparably emotionally injured. But that's just a guess !
I see your point though, but there is a mental factor here that hasn't come to fruition yet.

reply to post by mcsandy

** Edit to add - My responses in this thread are usually in depth at the request of a few posters who wanted to learn a bit more about how law enforcement / laws work. If your background is in the same field let me know so I dont keep putting up walls of text on info you already know in my responses to your posts. ***



Based on what we know to date on what occurred in the house leading up to Lisa's disappearance, as a Police Officer I would be hard pressed to put together a PC statement that the PA would accept. Even going for the misdemeanor charge, I would be hard pressed to have the charge stick. There just simply is not enough evidence / information available for the charge to be filed, let alone to hold up to scrutiny by the defense and the judge.

If there is a previous history logged for that residence dealing with child neglect / abuse, then maybe, but I doubt it since the 2 remaining children are still in the parents custody. Mind you this is based on what the media knows, and not the intimate details the police may or may not have. So the ace in the hole charge is possible. Depending on situation I have given the PA a buffet of charges to pick and choose from. Using your DWI example, I will usually issue anywhere from 2-5 citations. I do this not to be a jerk, but to give the PA some leeway when it comes to plea bargains (drop these 3 if you plead guilty to these 2 etc).

As for difference in laws between Georgia and Missouri, it sounds like I would find my job easier with the laws they use there than the ones we use here. Some of our laws in this state are just plain goofy and are not completely thought through (Registered Sex Offender laws is a prime example).

As far as this case goes, its a sad one for sure. The behavior of the family is something that makes one wonder about not only their innocence but their mental state. Obviously they are innocent till proven guilty, but their behavior suggests the latter. As for mental state the requests they have made in an attempt to "go back to a normal life" has some serious implications.

If Lisa is found, regardless of her status, I think the parents are going to find themselves under a very bright light and microscope to see if that mental status is anything that could affect the children in the long run. Unfortunately, thats only going to happen if and when Lisa is found. Absent that the only other way in that door is for one of the parents to go crackers and start talking.

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

''''First off how can one make an argument that she endangered the welfare of Lisa, but not the other 2 in the house? If those 2 children were somehow injured then one could make the argument'''''

I am sure if we could fast forward 20 years and see those 2 boys sittting on their psychiatrist's couch as adult men, we would see they have been irreparably emotionally injured. But that's just a guess !
I see your point though, but there is a mental factor here that hasn't come to fruition yet.

We are of the same mindset.... As you were typing your response to me, I was typing mine to sandy and touched on the mental status as well.

Great minds think alike I guess.

reply to post by Xcathdra

She is over 21 and was drinking at her house, which is not illegal. Its not illegal to be intoxicated at home either, even if children are present. In order to make an argument to remove the children, those children would need to have been placed in danger because of moms actions.

Hiya, X.

I know I've chewed this bone to splinters, but it still really bugs me about the above. She wasn't actually IN her house. She was outside and didn't go in, according to one of the participants. In my view, this is equivalent to not being there AT ALL. She might as well have gone over to Samantha's to have her "adult time". She left the baby in the house with three young kids. Literally leaving them in charge. Is it because she was still on the property that she is not held accountable for that?

I have a little story about Missouri's DFS from some 8 years or so ago. It may have been "cleaned up" by now, but when I was practicing in the field, they were notorious for making dumb decisions and doing slip-shod work.

A girl of 12 who was attending a public school in the urban core went to her school counselor and reported to her that she had a little sister (preschooler) at home, and that her parents were meth users. The counselor called our agency, and I was dispatched. So far, so good.

This girl, who should have been attending school and having meals cooked for her and proper attention, had devised an ingenious plan to get her little sister out of that house. She intended and had arranged for an uncle to take them in. She had thought of EVERY possible glitch and option. Very carefully and ernestly.

I heard the girl's story, and I asked her if she wanted my help, and she said yes. So together we called the police. An officer came to the school and she told her story. The officer followed up, and arranged for the parents' home to be "raided."

Now, as this was going on, the DFS worker just coincidenteally happened to be following up on the case, which was already under their supervision, and for some reason phoned into the police station, and she was told the police were heading over there. And what did she do??

She CALLED THE PARENTS AND TOLD THEM
It was a sure bust. It would have made a HUGE difference in the lives of these two kids, and possible provided the final "warning" to the parents to clean up their act. But by the time the cops arrived, the mother had cleaned up the house, disposed of the meth and paraphernalia, and they found nothing. The children were left in the home.

I was livid. I complained to my super, who then called DFS and said, "WTH are you doing!?" I don't know what happened after that, but what a cluster!! The girl had done exactly the right thing. She had told an adult she trusted. That person had brought in others who could be trusted. And yet, the DFS worker sabatoged the intervention, thus proving to the girl NOT to talk to adults you trust. A travesty indeed.

reply to post by Xcathdra


X, would you assume in a case like this that the teachers and friends' parents of the older 2 boys have been talked to ? Not in connection with Lisa, but just in connection with the home life? I would think given everything they must have at least asked their teachers if the boys seemed cared for, content, etc.

AND not to sound like a sexist pig, but here goes,, most men , especially very young, do notwant to 'fight for custody' of their son from the mother. A lot of 20 year old guys would be just fine with the mother taking the child and just seeing it on the weekends, etc. SO the fact that Jeremy did want his son , exclusively even, indicates that he's probably a really good dad.......... I think he's much more emotionally stable and nurturing than DEB. Onlya guess. So my thinking is if anyone did interview the teachers, they would probably find glowing reviews of happy kids with their homework done,w earing clean clothes, witha full belly when they come to school. So the idea of taking the kids away post Lisa's disappearance would not work if the home seemed totally normal suitable etc.

reply to post by wildtimes


It bugs me as well, however she was present at the house. In Missouri a person cannot be charged with the crime of being intoxicated in public as its a status offense. So unless she got behind the wheel of a car, the alcohol (as far as we know based on info the media provided) is not a factor that I can see.

As far as DFS goes I had pretty much the exact same experience. I was working a child abuse case, and when I was finished with my investigation I spoke with the DFS agent assigned to inform her I submitted by PC for both mom and dad. Per policy, she informed her supervisor of the case status.

When I went to arrest both parents, they both told me they knew I was coming because the DFS Supervisor, who apparently did not agree with my investigation results, called them up and warned them.

When it was over with I had a conversation with her and explained in no uncertain terms that if she ever pulled a stunt like that again I would be arresting her for obstruction, hindering prosecution and a few others. Not all DFS agents are morons, but for some reason down in this part they seem to be prevalent. I actually had one tell me she was going to take a child. When I asked under whose authority, she stated she had obtained a court order.

She apparently was confused, because when I pointed out the order states to any commissioned law enforcement officer, she had no idea what it meant. When I used the term kidnapping after explaining it to her a second time she seemed to grasp the concept.

As far as this case goes, does anyone know if DFS has been to the house to check on things? To date I have not seen any info on that aspect.

reply to post by wildtimes


AND imagine what home life was like AFTER the methheads viewed their daughter as the enemy..... meth heads are very suspicious and paranoid. Her life as probably twice the hell after that it was before