Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Hmmm....

Decomposition begins at death. That is a fact. There has been at least one study done where, within 120 minutes of death two different male subjects who had publicly collapsed and died where placed on carpet, (squares 20x20cm) for 2 minutes and 10 minutes. The subjects skins were intact, and their bodies were at or above 36.7 degrees centicregde cadaver dogs could pick these samples out.

As to fecal matter, unless the mother was feeding the baby live food, I'd be willing to assume the "food" had already started the decomposition process long before baby Lisa consumed it. That the "food" was in her digestive system for a number of hours, and was decomposing before it became fecal matter! Certainly as baby Lisa disappeared on 10/04/2011 and the cadaver dog did not "hit" until 10/17/2011 as I recall more than ten hours had pasted.....

Originally posted by Dav1d
Hmmm....

Decomposition begins at death. That is a fact. There has been at least one study done where, within 120 minutes of death two different male subjects who had publicly collapsed and died where placed on carpet, (squares 20x20cm) for 2 minutes and 10 minutes. The subjects skins were intact, and their bodies were at or above 36.7 degrees centicregde cadaver dogs could pick these samples out.

As to fecal matter, unless the mother was feeding the baby live food, I'd be willing to assume the "food" had already started the decomposition process long before baby Lisa consumed it. That the "food" was in her digestive system for a number of hours, and was decomposing before it became fecal matter! Certainly as baby Lisa disappeared on 10/04/2011 and the cadaver dog did not "hit" until 10/17/2011 as I recall more than ten hours had pasted.....

What I meant is...

*Example Only* The child dies at 9:00pm. The police were called at 4:00 am.

So even in the most generous time frame that's 7 hours.

I have trained one dog in scent discrimination.

I honestly have no clue how the cadaver dogs work.

I am really interested to find out though.

Perhaps you are unaware that the cadaver dog did not hit on the "floor" near the bed then until the search on 10/17/2011? So no matter what the "hit" was based upon it was not fresh. The hit did not occur within hours, or even days of Lisa going missing but something like two weeks later? Most "tracking" dogs track on scents of hours to perhaps 10 to 12 days. It has been reported that they (the police) had tracking dogs there the day she was reported missing, and multiple days after. Yet none of these tracking dogs picked up on a scent of Lisa.... Indeed it is not until the police decide to put on a media event, that we get the report of a hit, used to justify the search warrant. And then there is the prade where the police walk the giant roll of carpet out, after they call attention to it, so that there is a picture taken..... Of course the police don't actually take a sample of the carpet, why?!? What do the police know, that we don't; could it be how really worthless this hit actually is? Could it be that a sample would give the defense something to actually work with? The carpet that they walked out, to give the media something to focus on came from the garage by the way. ABC showed the parents room with the carpet still on the floor untouched, today.

Originally posted by Dav1d
Perhaps you are unaware that the cadaver dog did not hit on the "floor" near the bed then until the search on 10/17/2011? So no matter what the "hit" was based upon it was not fresh. The hit did not occur within hours, or even days of Lisa going missing but something like two weeks later? Most "tracking" dogs track on scents of hours to perhaps 10 to 12 days. It has been reported that they (the police) had tracking dogs there the day she was reported missing, and multiple days after. Yet none of these tracking dogs picked up on a scent of Lisa.... Indeed it is not until the police decide to put on a media event, that we get the report of a hit, used to justify the search warrant. And then there is the prade where the police walk the giant roll of carpet out, after they call attention to it, so that there is a picture taken..... Of course the police don't actually take a sample of the carpet, why?!? What do the police know, that we don't; could it be how really worthless this hit actually is? Could it be that a sample would give the defense something to actually work with? The carpet that they walked out, to give the media something to focus on came from the garage by the way. ABC showed the parents room with the carpet still on the floor untouched, today.

Hi , first post so please be gentle....
Just a few observations...
I think the police did take a sample of carpet....as in carpet rug.(mentioned earlier in thread)
If you look closely on the news footage (page 41) you can see when the police are removing the carpet it has a *finished edge* (more softer/flexible) than the main body of the carpet.
The size of the rug looks about 3m x 3m(10Ft x 10Ft) to me.(It looks "giant" because how they have rolled it up)
Also on the footage they look like they are walking towards the garage(down the side of the property?)
It also explains why the carpet in the parents room is untouched and very clean...

Anyway i could be wrong but hey i felt i had to post my thoughts on it

Originally posted by silo13
NOTE: I don't like this. At all.

Call it what you will but this is all over the net today. I've an obligation to bring it here so here it is. However, for now, I will not give my personal opinion - my choice - and for many reasons I may or may not go into later.

Let the picture do the talking.

The 'then' pictures were taken throughout the last few weeks. The last picture? The 'now' pic was taken just before Deborah and Jeremy joined - for the first time - a prayer vigil for Lisa.

peace

edit on 24-10-2011 by silo13 because: spelling

I think you're reading far too much into this photo. So she had her hair done...
My guess is that you've never been through significant trauma.
The majority of therapists will tell you to be kind to yourself while you're going through a terrible situation.
They will actually suggest that you focus on and do things that will make you feel more normal like having your hair or nails done. Doing small things for yourself that are in no way associated with the trauma will help a person from entering deep despair and hopelessness.
Those small things are designed to help lift one's mood and keep the person looking after themselves however meaningless and ridiculous it seems to the person at the time. Attention to diet and exercise will also be recommended, as well as sleep aid and surrounding oneself with friends and family support.
The alternative is to lose oneself and completely fall apart and that helps no one. This woman must stay strong for her son's, her husband and her missing child. It's not an easy task but every little bit helps.

Something else odd other than the carpet was in the last TV spot I saw where they take you through the house, the news castor picks up the empty wine box sitting in the kitchen and says that they took the wine to do an experiment to show how something or other matches the whatever. BUT, that's more bs because why would they leave the empty box sitting on the counter? It looked like props to me. Also the house was clean and I think the family went in and cleaned up before the family left and that was interfering with the investigation.

Originally posted by bluescreen



Hi , first post so please be gentle....
Just a few observations...
I think the police did take a sample of carpet....as in carpet rug.(mentioned earlier in thread)
If you look closely on the news footage (page 41) you can see when the police are removing the carpet it has a *finished edge* (more softer/flexible) than the main body of the carpet.
The size of the rug looks about 3m x 3m(10Ft x 10Ft) to me.(It looks "giant" because how they have rolled it up)
Also on the footage they look like they are walking towards the garage(down the side of the property?)
It also explains why the carpet in the parents room is untouched and very clean...

Anyway i could be wrong but hey i felt i had to post my thoughts on it

edit on 24-10-2011 by bluescreen because: wrong page for news footage

Well welcome to the forum then Bluescreen!

I like to believe that I'm gentle, so please forgive me if you don't share that belief about me.

If you go back to (I believe it might be page 39 there is a link to a PDF file that list just what the police took, after 17 hours). It is surprisingly little. The police in my opinion made a production of appearing to take this very big roll of carpet, but it is not listed on the inventory the police turn into the judge! I have no reason to believe that they would so blatantly lied to the court, do you? ABC talks about this carpet, and states it was stored in the garage, and was not in the bedroom.

Originally posted by antar
Something else odd other than the carpet was in the last TV spot I saw where they take you through the house, the news castor picks up the empty wine box sitting in the kitchen and says that they took the wine to do an experiment to show how something or other matches the whatever. BUT, that's more bs because why would they leave the empty box sitting on the counter? It looked like props to me. Also the house was clean and I think the family went in and cleaned up before the family left and that was interfering with the investigation.

edit on 24-10-2011 by antar because: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What I heard was they believe the police emptied the bag, in an attempt to measure how much of the wine was consumed. That it was moved by the crime scene investigators. Shrug ~ don't know, wasn't there. It does sound reasonable to me. It was also my understanding that the parents were barred from entering their home while the investigation (Search) was on going, and were not even there. That the lawyer got in as soon as the police left, and had a chance to see it the way it was left by the police.

It should also be noted that on 10/04/2011 the police did a complete search of the home, and looked everywhere they believed Lisa could be, in the home, the out buildings, the cars, the land, the basement... They even looked in the computer need I suggest they found nothing? That the police came back multiple times between the fourth and the seventeenth without finding anything of significance? And did you notice that they were all dressed in tyvek suits, and booties? But did you notice that none of their heads were covered?! So their hair And dandruff was permitted to contaminate the crime scene? That that great big roll of carpet they moved for the media, was NOT protected from contamination as it was not bagged, or covered in anyway? That there are multiple reports of the police removing many large brown bags from the home, yet the actual items removed could have fit in one or two brown bags.... .

Two points here where you can either agree or disagree but the words speak for themselves.

- The cop - a seasoned cop - specifically used the word 'consent. There's no reason to bring up the word if you don't mean you were given consent here and there but not there.

I've posted it probably 4 times now and I'm really not into doing it again.

- When you read the PDF of the original warrant - written (again) by a seasoned cop -believe me - if the dogs had 'hit' ON THE CARPET the cop would have stated ON THE CARPET. She did not.

She specifically stated the dog 'hit' NEAR THE FLOOR in the bedroom by Deborah's bed. What does this mean? It means they didn't have to take the whole carpet or even a piece of it - but they did need to take something NEAR the bed. Since the police officer listed the items removed from the house you can bet whatever those dogs 'hit on' is included in that list.

Why then are we not hearing more about the 'item'? You all have been the ones reaffirming the cops only tell us what they want us to know so I"ll have to fall back on your opinions to answer that one.



Also - if you're going to take Tacopina's word for things you might as well give up any hope of getting to the truth of this case right here and now. Look at his track record. It would make a monster gag.

And remember - he's the one that's stated the time lapse between when Deborah got drunk and the baby went missing makes no difference. Makes no difference? Not someone I'd want to reply on for accurate information an unbiased opinion. Not me.

peace

reply to post by schmae


I 'have been following this on the net and you can come up with many scenarios from intuitives to reporters----MK"s show had the big wig atty on from NY and he said he believed the couple was innocent or he would not represent them - case closed. The next day.....in come Cyndy from KC.....I haven't seen him again in 2.5 days...is he still on the case?

I believe she may have went to sleep (passed out on the bed with Lisa - she had made a statement on her first interviewss that she told the boys they could come sleep in her room but it wasn't disclosed if they did) - going with the co-sleeping (or maybe Lisa was left alone in the bedroom) - I think she placed Lisa in the bed; Lisa awoke (maybe Deb was sleeping so hard she didn't realize.) Lisa found her pills and ate them....and she passed...on the floor where the dogs hit.

I am just now learning about the dad calling in burglary first and then the missing child 911 - so I don't know where to go from there. Iam beside myself thinking that she is suffering in the cold/environment possibly........there are some other intuitives that have said Lisa is a wise soul and was prepared for this......

Another thought I had was MAYBE Deborah's son has something to do with it??? I believe he is bi-racial and with his father out of the picture and his mom shacked up with another man and with another "son/new-family/" - there could be some pyschological "gray area" there.

I am a mom of a 20 yr old and 2 yr old.......girls no boys....but watch/read enough to know that if children in this day and age arent parented correctly and their character isn't nutured they are left to create their own. Deb had said the boys were always playing vid games....virtual babysitter as mom tends to baby Lisa/self medicates/sedates, Maybe jealousy/anger/hurt from the brother(s)? Or even maybe an accident and to avoid child protective services from snatching the boys maybe they are covering for them as well....whomever they maybe.

I'm including this only because I found it and what I find I bring back here.

I'm listing where it can be found on a blog - as that's ok via ATS - the original listen on FB? I'm not sure I can list a FB site - I'll ask.

In 2001 , My sister Lisa passed away from a suspicious 'accidental drug overdose'. Lisa was the mother of Debbie , the mother of this missing 10 month old. This missing baby was named after her deceased grandmother. I am the Uncle of the mother (Debbie) of this missing child. My sister Lisa had 3 kids and was estranged from her husband , who was thousands of dollars behind in back child support and was living in Delaware close to his estranged wife and his 3 kids. He did not like it on the east coast. He was from Kansas City. My 36 year old sister mysteriously died from what they called an 'accidental overdose'. After her death , her estranged husband who owed thousands in back child support and didn't like living in Delaware anyway , took his 3 kids and returned to Kansas City. Debbie , the mother of this missing child , is one of them 3 kids. Now here we are 10 years after the mysterious and suspicious death of my 36 year old sister Lisa ... and the 10 month old baby who was named after her is missing. I have no been in contact with them for a few years so I don't know what's been going on in Missouri. But I will say that I have always been suspicious about my sister Lisa's estranged husband and whether or not he was involved in her death. He had plenty of motive. And he left Delaware very fast. Lisa's death looked like an accident so it was ruled an accident. But I know my sister and she was smarter than that. And her death occurred on the 10th birthday of her youngest son who found her dead in bed on his birthday. Is the disappearance of this child and the suspicious death of my sister connected ? Is this just a coincidence ? We have one Lisa dead and another Lisa missing. I love my niece Debbie , the mother of this missing child. And I have no idea who her boyfriend is. Nor do I know what was going on in their lives in the past few years. But I do know that I lost my sister Lisa 10 years ago and I will always be very suspicious about her death. Now this poor child is missing. I am curious to know if her grandfather was around.

link

We do know the Grandfather was around there are pictures of him and Lisa at the birthday party held days before. I'm not implicating the man I'm only supplying answers.

(The only thing I took out was this man's name until I get some answers from ATS)...

peace

reply to post by silo13


WOW.....that is so interesting since I have seen on several blogs from intuitives that they saw/see - revenge, adultery - secret relationship - hidden story......father/mother ( tarot cards come up with the emporess card as prominent and the emporer having a strong presence.)

Lisa's mother: 'We are grieving'

When Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley arrived back to the house on North Walrond, KCTV5's Bonyen Lee asked the parents of baby Lisa Irwin on Monday if it was true that they were getting paid to avoid local reporters.

"No, not at all," said Deborah Bradley, the mother of the missing baby.

When asked why they would not talk to local reporters, Deborah replied, "Because we are grieving."

In all honesty and I'm not being snide or coy - I truly hope she never comes to regret using the word grieving. I would probably use it to - but I can also see how she could get roasted for it. I hope not.

peace

reply to post by mcsandy

WOW.....that is so interesting since I have seen on several blogs from intuitives that they saw/see - revenge, adultery - secret relationship - hidden story......father/mother ( tarot cards come up with the emporess card as prominent and the emporer having a strong presence.)

It is interesting. In a case like this that's just soooo unfortunate and bizarre - yes, it is.

I'd like to hear more of this information you've got. If your up for it will you visit this thread Remote Viewing Lisa Irwin and post some info there? If you're up for it. I'd also really like to have your opinion of the info in the thread too! Thanks!

peace

Originally posted by silo13
Two points here where you can either agree or disagree but the words speak for themselves.

- The cop - a seasoned cop - specifically used the word 'consent. There's no reason to bring up the word if you don't mean you were given consent here and there but not there.

I've posted it probably 4 times now and I'm really not into doing it again.

- When you read the PDF of the original warrant - written (again) by a seasoned cop -believe me - if the dogs had 'hit' ON THE CARPET the cop would have stated ON THE CARPET. She did not.

She specifically stated the dog 'hit' NEAR THE FLOOR in the bedroom by Deborah's bed. What does this mean? It means they didn't have to take the whole carpet or even a piece of it - but they did need to take something NEAR the bed. Since the police officer listed the items removed from the house you can bet whatever those dogs 'hit on' is included in that list.

peace

Let's see, your argument works both ways, in my opinion.
If the dog 'hit' on the carpet the cop would have stated ON THE CARPET. She did not So under this logic why would she have also not said 'ON THE PURPLE SHORTs' if that is what she ment? Or on the rolls of tape? Or on the tape dispenser, or the blanket..... The fact is she stated near the floor, what does this indicate? On the bed? Again if she had ment on the bed, did she choose not to use these words because they were to hard to spell? I don't think so. Perhaps she ment to indicate a spot 2 or 3 inches above the floor where baby Lisa floated. While she was dead?

Let's see then there is the issue of consent, and alledged lack of consent.... If the police were limited by a lack of consent as some would have us believe, how does one explain the cadaver dog in the parents bedroom? There is no question based on that PDF document that the dog was in the bedroom on 10/17/2011, long after the time the police alledged that the parents quit cooperating with them..... Need I also point out that the police also acknowledged searching the basement, and finding nothing there of interest? That they search the yard multiple times with metal detectors, and found nothing. Again an area outside of baby Lisa room, or the entrances to the home.... The police have in this case failed, in my opinion.

I don't remember this being reported the first time, but here it is. I'll have to say it was reported as it's a CNN Transcript

LISA: Yes. Correct. Based on the lighting. When it reflected off of the gentleman`s head, there was no long hair. To us it appeared as if the gentleman had a bald head.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And now when you say -- I`m trying to glean some kind of clue from your incredible eyewitness of this man. And you`ve told the story and yet it leaves us sort of perplexed with the mystery of who is this person.

Can you describe him in more detail? Could you say, anything about his age, his height, his possible ethnicity, anything, and I usually don`t like to focus on that but I`m only focusing on trying to paint a portrait of this man.

And by the way, have cops taken your information so that they can create a sketch? Do you have any word that cops are making a sketch of this man, perhaps?

LISA: The cops did offer to make a sketch for us. However, we didn`t have clear facial features to give them. We were able to describe the man, he was very slender. He was a tall gentleman. He was probably six-foot tall, maybe 5`8" to six-feet tall. So he was a really tall gentleman and he was very, very slender. He was wearing a white T-shirt and some sweat pants.

One reason this is important is conflicting witness reports.

Second - the obvious - Jeremy could be described as bald. That the baby was not dressed correctly could (I repeat could) lead one to believe he was in shock.

Third - I still think it's absolute bunk - unless the 'kidnapper' was a complete moron (which should not be ruled out) - meaning - who kidnaps a kid without using a car? Who kidnaps a child and then walks around the neighborhood for hours making no attempt to cover the child?

peace

reply to post by Dav1d

Let's see, your argument works both ways, in my opinion.
If the dog 'hit' on the carpet the cop would have stated ON THE CARPET. She did not So under this logic why would she have also not said 'ON THE PURPLE SHORTs' if that is what she ment? Or on the rolls of tape? Or on the tape dispenser, or the blanket..... The fact is she stated near the floor, what does this indicate? On the bed? Again if she had ment on the bed, did she choose not to use these words because they were to hard to spell? I don't think so. Perhaps she ment to indicate a spot 2 or 3 inches above the floor where baby Lisa floated. While she was dead?

Minus the sarcasm they're good points though the 'carpet' question lacks basic common sense. (No insult intended!)

Those the CSI, FBI and police are there to find evidence, they want to find evidence. They removed a whole rug at one point. Not an easy thing even with a few people but it proves they had no hesitation to removing a carpet in it's entirety.

When those dogs got a 'hit and if they 'hit' on the rug - why didn't CSI take it? They didn't feel like it? Weren't up for even cutting out a swath? No, there's obviously another reason. Not taking the carpet or a piece of it makes absolutely NO logical sense at all. If those dogs 'hit' on the carpet you can be sure CSI would have have removed it.

So - why didn't they? The answer is right there to read. Because they took the thing or things 'near the floor by the bed'.

The cadaver dogs getting a 'hit' near the floor/bed could very well mean multiple items. The police officer listed multiple items in her report.

Here's the important part.

The cadaver dogs 'hit' in an area by the bed - now - staying consistent with the photo? The dogs (logic would indicate) 'hit' on multiple items - including a glow worm toy, shorts, a cars theme blanket, etc, all listed in the report.

Not until an analysis is done can the officer indict WHAT item in that jumble the dog 'hit' on now can she? She's no cadaver dog - all she sees is multiple items. Meaning she would be creating a false report to list just one of the items when there were more. Look at the photo of the room. Not a picture of cleanliness and neatness by a long shot.

Good question about 'consent' - I'll have to check the dates to make sure I have them correct in my mind. I was under the impression there was a search on entry (consent) and a search later with dogs - with a warrant. Let me unscramble when was when and I'll be back.

peace

reply to post by silo13


I nfind the "story" odd as well - I believe that is why everyone is pertaining to baby Lisa's passing away.

The man in the video doesn't seem to be carrying anything....and I have heard they have several videos of the entire area. I believe the investigation is being controlled as far as leaks and news bites to what the investigators want to be placed out there. The witnesses were found on day Oct 5 and I believe the guy called a week later. I think because of Casey A - they are playing there cards close. Odd that only 2 people saw a man with a baby unclothed. But as a father \- a real one - I find it hard you could hold your child in that manner trecking 4miles away from home....wouldn't the guy on the bike noticed his emotion duress - how could a parent (a good one) not have shown some emotion as they are walking. I buy someone could have been in shock carrying the baby or someone that doesn't have children. I just don't see someone kidnapping a baby and walking on the sidewalks of KC through the night and only 2 people come up as witnesses.....it is just an odd visual and I know it was late but even a lot tipsy it would stick out in your mind. I think there are more clues that the investigators have not eluded too.

I've got a bad case of the flu but I'm treading on here. If anyone has any information on Lisa's bedroom window I'd love to hear it.

In the video(s) of Lisa's bedroom the window is taped shut with a black garbage bag and duct tape.

Why?

*Back to looking* - I'll bring a pic back too...



peace

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d

 

Let's see, your argument works both ways, in my opinion.
If the dog 'hit' on the carpet the cop would have stated ON THE CARPET. She did not So under this logic why would she have also not said 'ON THE PURPLE SHORTs' if that is what she ment? Or on the rolls of tape? Or on the tape dispenser, or the blanket..... The fact is she stated near the floor, what does this indicate? On the bed? Again if she had ment on the bed, did she choose not to use these words because they were to hard to spell? I don't think so. Perhaps she ment to indicate a spot 2 or 3 inches above the floor where baby Lisa floated. While she was dead?

Minus the sarcasm they're good points though the 'carpet' question lacks basic common sense. (No insult intended!)

Those the CSI, FBI and police are there to find evidence, they want to find evidence. They removed a whole rug at one point. Not an easy thing even with a few people but it proves they had no hesitation to removing a carpet in it's entirety.

When those dogs got a 'hit and if they 'hit' on the rug - why didn't CSI take it? They didn't feel like it? Weren't up for even cutting out a swath? No, there's obviously another reason. Not taking the carpet or a piece of it makes absolutely NO logical sense at all. If those dogs 'hit' on the carpet you can be sure CSI would have have removed it.

So - why didn't they? The answer is right there to read. Because they took the thing or things 'near the floor by the bed'.

The cadaver dogs getting a 'hit' near the floor/bed could very well mean multiple items. The police officer listed multiple items in her report.

Here's the important part.

The cadaver dogs 'hit' in an area by the bed - now - staying consistent with the photo? The dogs (logic would indicate) 'hit' on multiple items - including a glow worm toy, shorts, a cars theme blanket, etc, all listed in the report.

Not until an analysis is done can the officer indict WHAT item in that jumble the dog 'hit' on now can she? She's no cadaver dog - all she sees is multiple items. Meaning she would be creating a false report to list just one of the items when there were more. Look at the photo of the room. Not a picture of cleanliness and neatness by a long shot.

Good question about 'consent' - I'll have to check the dates to make sure I have them correct in my mind. I was under the impression there was a search on entry (consent) and a search later with dogs - with a warrant. Let me unscramble when was when and I'll be back.

peace

edit on 25-10-2011 by silo13 because: ugh bold bbc

Starting at the top....

First thank you for the kind words.

I believe we may need to disagree, on your first assumption, the FBI and CSI want to convect ~ they are in my opinion not simply there to find evidence. Or at least not all or there for that reason.

A logical reason for not taking the rug, you see feceal matter on the rug! You see a small amount of dried blood on the rug. You bring in your alternate light sources and detect semen on the rug.. There are a number of things that can cause a cadaver dog to give a false positive...

Now let's assume you are right, and she is no dog, that agent who requested the search was not apparently there for the search, at least a different officer fill out the form for what was taken.... So we have one officer requesting the search (a femail) and another doing the search (a male). Scent settles over time, the cadaver dog hit on Monday the 17th as I recall, almost two weeks after baby Lisa disappears if there was sent on something unnamed and unknown on the floor, it's scent would have migrated to the floor in two weeks time. Carpet is an excellent scent carrier, and can pick up scent in as little as two minutes of contact. Once again it logically makes far more sense to take the carpet under the objects in question. I mean if one believes they murder their child, why NOT do all that is possible to convict them?

Then look at what was taken, are you really suggesting that they cared so little about their child that they left its clothes, and bedding in their bedroom to walk upon?!! Where is one most likely to find baby Lisa's clothes and bedding? I suggest in her room. So logically we have most of the items unlikely to be found in the parents room. Then where did Debrah claim to change Lisa's clothes, in her room. I believe that on the fourth when the police search their home, finding Lisa's clothes in the parents room would have raised red flags. Yet if you go back and read the initial comments for the first few days the police state the parents were not under suspicion....