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: 33
41
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Bee2010
 


Why isn't it the father's fault? Why is he the victim and the mother is the killer? Is it because your gut tells you so? Why do you hate the mother so much without one shred of evidence, seen with your own eyes, that she is guilty of anything? The father was in the house too at some point.

I never said or implied it wasn't the fathers fault. If you have read the 'whole thread' (which I seriously doubt) then you would have noticed - (unless you're on a witch hunt of your own which you obviously are) - I've asked many pointed questions of the father and thrown out many scenarios where Jeremy might indeed be culpable.

The point of the picture - again attempting to do something to help the family - is to prove at least here Jeremy is so much more than the picture MSM paints him to be. In my eyes that makes him a 'victim after the fact'.

peace
edit on 23-10-2011 by silo13 because: peace




posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I agree with Schmae about the entire drinking story.
I think it would have been appropriate if Deborah had bought the wine at a "convienience" store.
I am commenting from memory here about the interview.
She (Deborah) admits she was drinking the night little Lisa disappeared.
She admits she drank enough to be drunk.
She may have drank enough ( or did ) to be in a black-out state.
She only has adult time (drinking) a couple times a week. I may have misunderstood that part.
But this is what caught my attention .... She stated she only drinks after the kids are asleep.
Well we know that is a lie because she was supposedly drinking while the boys were watching tv with the neighbor child.
If you can't believe just one of the above, how can you believe any of it ?
I am not saying she was not black-out irresponsible drunk or defending her by any means.
I am just wondering why the whole world believes her when SHE says she was black-out drunk.
An accident to Lisa could have happened drunk or sober.
An intruder kidnapping Lisa could have happened drunk or sober.
A planned disappearance of Lisa ? Well, then being drunk just becomes convienient. Not to mention how the late "confession" of it just muddied the water that much more.
The genuine ( to me at least ) look of shock on her face when asked if she might have had 10 glasses of wine that night speaks volumes in my opinion.
Thanks Schmae. Just seems all too convenient to me.
A planned scenario seems to be the only hope we have left for Lisa, so that is what I believe.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRuby
 


And I think I can say with certainty she is an alcholic . I know I'm going to be jumped for saying it but there it is. I watched the interview with MK again last night on some judge judy show? And after she says I can't remember she says words to the effect of " doesnt everyone forget what happens when they drink?" Uh.....no. I've been drunk more times than I'd like to admit and not everyone forgets everythign that happens after they drink ! OH...... perhaps she doesn't drink at all ever..........and that's why she seems so unknowledgable about the blackout and how many drinks? Maybe she's just guessing? Hmmm

LOL i know i just went from alcoholic to not a drinker at all in one paragraph while my mind wandered. Sorry
Thoughts, all?
edit on 23-10-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


I am sorry if you felt I was questioning/defending/condemning her drinking habits.
My only point was that she lies and how are we to believe anything she says, including being black-out drunk.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRuby
 


Nope I didnt' think that at all. I think the more we can think up the better, whether it points to guilt or innocence, the better. The whole drinking story is just more and more bizarre the more I think about it though.
And feel free to condemn her drinking. It was a ridiculous error in judgment at the very least ! And was probably much more than that .



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRuby
 


If you can't believe just one of the above, how can you believe any of it ?


That's the problem. The story has changed so many times along with willful lying and withholding the truth. It makes it very difficult to believe anything after a certain point.

I so hope this new 'mystery man' in the surveillance video pans out to be something important that brings us all some closure in the best possible way.

Sadly, we don't see him carrying Lisa, but, again, we can keep out hopes up.

I'll be following any new information and bring it to the boards asap.

peace



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I've been getting caught up here with the thread, and a couple of new Qs and points come to mind...
first, re whether or not there is a basement.

The floor plan shows very clearly that there is a DOWN STAIRCASE. Not an UP staircase. Would that not indicate a basement?

Second...one way to determine how much she had to drink would be to see how much is LEFT the next day -- if any.

Third...perhaps more attention needs to be paid to the "missing cell phones". IF there was an accident AND she had no cell phone to use to call 911, THEN, who took the cellphones? Dad? To work, so that it would be pre-planned that she had no way to call 911?

Lame anyway, a panicking, distraught mom would run to a neighbor's house regardless of the hour if her phone was gone/dead and she needed first responders.

Fourth...those other children should absoFREAKINlutely be interviewed, away from their parents, with a Guardian Ad Litem.

To allow the parents to keep the kids from talking is asinine. If Deborah doesn't remember, or didn't hear what was going on, then maybe one of the sober youngsters did.

So, IMO, the points of the missing phones and the other kids need to be examined,

Finally, Deborah's brother needs also to speak up. Why would he take her to the liquor store? and WHO was with her KIDS while she was out choosing her box of wine?



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Lisa Irwin: Today Show 10/23/11

Very informative up-to-date video.

Transcripts are not out yet so there's nothing I can quote, but, I can say, sadly, this is the first time we're hearing the phrase 'search and recovery' instead of 'search and rescue'.



peace



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 





Also we are all merely spectators in this story. Whether or not we think mom did it or not has no bearing on the outcome of the case. So what does it matter? You are speculating she is innocent. If you read the whole 30 pages you would know that all of us HOPE she is innocent because that means there is a good chance baby Lisa is alive still.


I would not say that it appears all of you HOPE she is innocent...

In fact I would be willing to place a bet that many on this thread would feel disappointment if the mother is proven to be innocent.

I could go back and give you countless posts to back up what I am saying, but anyone can see by reading this thread from start to finish.

If baby Lisa is still alive, I don't even want to think about what she maybe experiencing, and the trauma that she may have to go through for years..if not found....as well as the trauma for the family ...of never knowing if she is suffering, being mistreated and abused.

I can't imagine how horrendous it would be to be innocent of such a crime, and never be able to find your child...along with having to live with the deepest insults and hatred towards you...and those you love.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Number 4 bugs me too. I either read or saw a video where Deborah stated that even she has not questioned the boys about that night. She did not want to put them through it. PUH LEASE !!!! Her baby has disappeared and she is worried about that ???
Dad ( Jeremy ) was with the kids while mom and her brother were at the store.
He left for work at 5:20. Mom and brother were at store ( a mile away ) close to 5 oclock.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

I've been getting caught up here with the thread, and a couple of new Qs and points come to mind...
first, re whether or not there is a basement.

The floor plan shows very clearly that there is a DOWN STAIRCASE. Not an UP staircase. Would that not indicate a basement?


I looked back at the floor plan and it definitely says ‘dn’ (I presume that means down?). I though that meant the computer room was ‘down’ but that’s impossible as it’s a one story house - so - What is it about that basement that we’ve never heard a peep about! Great catch!


Second...one way to determine how much she had to drink would be to see how much is LEFT the next day -- if any.


I’ve searched over and over and found nothing on that count. Not to say the info isn't ‘out there’ of course but I’ve exhausted myself over that one. What I do know is there were some blue recycle type plastic containers outside the house in one picture - and not in the next. I wondered if they were in fact recycle containers - but - I can’t find anymore info on that either. It sure would help though.

I’ve also tried to pin down the measure of those ‘glasses’ of wine. I mean are we talking Dixi cups or tankards? Regardless, she admitted to being drunk to ‘blacking out’ so I guess it doesn’t matter - UNLESS we follow through on theory she wasn’t drunk at all and her saying so after the fact is an attempt at laying a defense for the future.


Third...perhaps more attention needs to be paid to the "missing cell phones". IF there was an accident AND she had no cell phone to use to call 911, THEN, who took the cellphones? Dad? To work, so that it would be pre-planned that she had no way to call 911?


Problem with that is un-paid cell phone or not you can still dial 911. That’s a huge can of worms for those parents to deal with. That - and why it took 30-40 minutes to call 911 when a toddler goes missing. It‘s not like she can run off on her own. You’re right - those cell phones need to be found.


Lame anyway, a panicking, distraught mom would run to a neighbor's house regardless of the hour if her phone was gone/dead and she needed first responders.


You bet!


Fourth...those other children should absoFREAKINlutely be interviewed, away from their parents, with a Guardian Ad Litem.


I would suspect that’s exactly what the Grand Jury will insist on - wouldn’t you think? I mean we’re not talking just about Deborah’s kids here either. One of those children she endangers on a regular basis during her ‘adult time’ isn’t even hers. I can’t imagine the GJ will ignore that.


To allow the parents to keep the kids from talking is asinine. If Deborah doesn't remember, or didn't hear what was going on, then maybe one of the sober youngsters did.


I agree but on the other hand that is pretty touchy ground - parents rights vs. state rights. Horrible situation all the way around isn’t it.


Finally, Deborah's brother needs also to speak up. Why would he take her to the liquor store? and WHO was with her KIDS while she was out choosing her box of wine?


He does need to speak up - a lot more. As to why he took her to the store? Deborah has not recovered her license after it was taken due toa DUI. Why he’d take her to the liquor store? Seems like someone would have to? And the kids - who was watching them? Supposedly the father was but I’ve yet to pin that down in transcripts, only in spoken word on video.

Great post - thank you!



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRuby
 


Hmmm. Okay, giving Dad time to do...what, exactly? Wash out the wine glasses for her? Get rid of the phones? Give the boys a heads up?

Just speculating. What was happening at home while she was out getting her party supplies?

Yeah, those kids need to be interviewed by someone kind and approachable, with blank paper and markers. Kids that age will draw pictures indicative of any trauma or worries they have in their minds. A skilled interviewer would need only to say, "Boys, I bet you're pretty confused about what's happening here. I just thought we could sit here for awhile. I have some toys over here you can play with, and when you're done with them I want us all to draw a picture together."

Then, watch what toys they choose (and their needs to be a wide variety of things to use, from dolls to race cars to legos to toy weapons to cell phones -- anything that can help the kids "review" their feelings and impressions.

When they've done with the toys, the interviewer would have made notes as to what remarks they made, what aggression levels or fear/sadness or panic...whatever.

Then let them draw the pictures. It's most effective to say, "Can you draw me a picture of your family?" But pretty much anything they draw will have SOME clue to their state of mind.

ETA: Yes, I was a psychotherapist for several years and worked with young kids whose families were affected by substance abuse and other dysfunctional types of home lives. The above descripton is pretty standard "play therapy" and "child therapy." That's my biggest frustration with this.


edit on 23-10-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


So, the dumpster fire, the wine-box, the cell phones, the baby's clothing....the guy coming out of the woods. Has there been anymore investigation of the dumpster fire?

And that lawyer said that carpet had not been removed from the bedroom. But, wasn't there a bunch of carpet removed from SOMEWHERE? She seemed to deny that, but I thought I saw it in the paperwork.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


So, the dumpster fire, the wine-box, the cell phones, the baby's clothing....the guy coming out of the woods. Has there been anymore investigation of the dumpster fire?


Yes, in fact they were just saying a witness saw flames 'shooting' many feet up in the air adding an accelerant must have been used but beyond that the police are keeping information pretty tight.


And that lawyer said that carpet had not been removed from the bedroom. But, wasn't there a bunch of carpet removed from SOMEWHERE? She seemed to deny that, but I thought I saw it in the paperwork.


I saw via live feed the CSI workers taking a huge roll of carpet out of the house. I also was sure I saw it on the paperwork. So, what does that say for the media? I know what I saw with my own eyes.

peace



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Flames shooting up? Wouldn't that happen if a BATTERY was blown up, maybe? A cellular phone battery, or three?
And combined with an empty wine box? Which may or may not have been refilled with other things like clothing?

Very weird night on the block, I'd say!



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Silo, I'm sorry that I don't know, but are you in the US? I've noticed and it won't surprise folks at ATS, that the media often , in fact possibly always, distorts or withholds info. I don't know if that is to use later for more ratings or at the request of law enforcement or what. But they are sneaky with what they say or don't say.
So it wouldn't surprise me one bit to know the media is withholding info from us. Whether or not it is to decieve or is to AID thepolice is the search is the question.
Think about that megan kelly interview............did yu think of another 30 questions she SHOULD HAVE asked and did not? You see what I mean? She gave her the 'softball' questions. That is the ones that are not that improtant to answer and don't really tell us anything concrete.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Retracted.
edit on 23-10-2011 by silo13 because: I guess it was off topic after all. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Flames shooting up? Wouldn't that happen if a BATTERY was blown up, maybe? A cellular phone battery, or three?
And combined with an empty wine box? Which may or may not have been refilled with other things like clothing?

Very weird night on the block, I'd say!


I would definitely think it would! Let me see if I can find that report again - made it 'sound' like it was a HUGE fire - but - that might have been exaggerated. Once again- great insight!

peace



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join