Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Originally posted by silo13
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

edit on 25-10-2011 by silo13 because: pic

Because they are not staying at their home, per the police request..... And wish to keep the media and curious out of their home? Prevent them from taking pictures? just a guess, but all windows appear to be taped over to my eyes... Or blocked to prevent someone from looking in.

Originally posted by mcsandy
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.

Let's see there was a couple, (two people) that spotted a man and a baby... Then there was a man on a motorbike that spotted a man and a baby. That would be three people by my count, that felt a need to report it. Then there is the gas station video. They all claim to have seen a man in a white tee shirt. And the people claim to have seen a baby with its chest and legs bare... Now me, I've got to believe that a man carrying a dead baby is far more rememberable than a man with a baby....

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A key part of the investigation into the disappearance of 11-month-old Lisa Irwin has been police search dogs that the media has been asked not to show while they work.

Read more: www.kmbc.com...

So the media has access to telephoto lens, and can take pictures at great distances.... Could the real reason be they wish to hide how offen the dogs 'HIT'?!? This page also acknowledges that there have been multiple searches

what the hell are the media doing?

wth are they up to?
One minute they broadcast something, the next minute they state something else????

the media involvement is not right!

I get the feeling the baby momma boyfriend left before daddy got home....and walked out with the kid. One of those this kid is why we can't be together white trash situations.
I'm betting the mom isn't telling the whole truth.

"We have some canines out in the woods," said Kansas City Police Capt. Steve Young on Tuesday. "We don't need daylight for the dogs to work. When they finish we will stop the area search, but maintain a command post to work leads as they come in."

This was posted on Fox4kc on 10/6/2011 the FBI also acknowledges bringing in their cadaver dogs from outside the KC area and searching with them multiple times.

reply to post by Dav1d


I don't understand all the agression that comes out on this site!!

I just viewed the female from the couple on tv and the gentleman on the bike. Yes it does seem odd that any guy walking with an unclothed baby in 45 degree weather around rounds where only other intersections are around - not an "urban" area. TO ME....seeing someone walking near an off ramp out of the woods would catch my eye if he had a baby....hence the video.

reply to post by mcsandy


edit...typo -rounds..I meant woods.....I have the flu as well.

reply to post by Dav1d

So the media has access to telephoto lens, and can take pictures at great distances.... Could the real reason be they wish to hide how offen the dogs 'HIT'?!? This page also acknowledges that there have been multiple searches

There's information about this in a link I don't have at my fingertips. It explains they don't want the dogs photographed while working to 'give away' to the public just how they work. Yeah, sounded weird to me too, but there ya go...

I'll get back to your other posts in a few and comb through the threads to find the link to above.

Thanks

reply to post by silo13


Hey I noticed this as well and thought maybe police had damaged or removed something there for evidence and they taped it up to keep weather out? I don't know how we'd know if it was like this PRIOR to that evening. Sorry you're sick Silo

reply to post by Dav1d


I just don't really put much into ANY of the sightings for some reason. If you were carrying a kidnapped OR deceased baby, why would you walk in the light and down semi busy streets? It just doesn't jive with me and the video of the person near the convenience store doesnt look like a man or woman in pants or a dress and carrying anything. There is no way anyone can see enough of that person to determine anything. It just doesn't make sense.

reply to post by schmae

I was thinking it was to keep the sun out for filming - but - whoever filmed would have taken it down. It 'seems' like it's been there since the 'abduction'...

I'm still looking... Can't breath, but still looking, lol

reply to post by schmae

I don't either. Unless - and I'm just using conjecture here - unless it is in fact Jeremy. He's in shock - walking around and around thinking 'Oh my God what do I do, what do I do, my baby is dead...' Kind of thing. God I hope that isn't it but since hearing the update about the man being 'bald'... Ouch. I just don't want to go there...

Why don't I agree with the sightings? Someone who steals a baby isn't going to do it without a car and isn't going to walk around all late night early morning with the baby almost intentionally making sure he's spotted.

Peace

Ok working on part 2 of my theory. I don't know if this part is related to Lisas disappearance or not. But two very KEY players in this we've heard almost nothing about,,,,,,, the drinking neighbor/friend and the brother who took her to the wine store. I said before the neighbor's literal SILENCE is odd unless police have told her not to talk to media , which they would do if she was a MATERIAL witness to some of the goings on. I have heard several places that this neighbor and her bf/husband were fighting and arguing and she was going to tell him to NOT come home that night. I do not know if he did come home or not or if they are together or not at this time . The brother who took her to the beer store is also out of the spotlight . Could he also be a material witness? I saw a quote several places that Deb said they were going to get wine for a " family event''. That sounds sort of like a party but there were no other adults there but the neighbor and the children, right? So was the family event a sort of ...... liason for the brother and the nieghbor? Perhaps they are having an affair ? I know I'm stretching but maybe that's why they want to not talk to media or police have asked them not to.
Also along this line of thinking we don't know really if the neighbor ever saw Lisa at all that night. We know when dad left for work, but not when neighbor came over to begin drinking. Perhaps she came at 7 after Lisa was already in bed and never saw her at all.

Another thing Deb said she was keying in numbers manually to a NEW cell phone from the OLD cell phones. I don't know if it was that night but at some recent point, which is why all the phones were together on the counter at the same spot,,,,,,easily seen and accessible. SO, why would you be manually keying in numbers toa NEW phone that does not work? I mean I suppose just to kill time, but with 3 kids , one of them sick, and dinner to make a family event of drinking going on, would you take the time to do that on a phone that you would NOT be using to make calls any time soon?

reply to post by Dav1d

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...

Sure there are - but the point of common sense still remains - you find something, anything, you’re going to have it analyzed. If not? ‘If not’ is just not a possibility.

Now let's assume you are right, and she is no dog,

LOL, that didn’t come out right did it... Anyway...

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....

It’s my understanding the officer in change fills out the report recording a conglomeration of facts. Regardless, there was a ‘hit’ *unless the media is lying to force a confession which may or may not be true) but since a ‘hit’ was reported it’s out of the realm of possibility not to have whatever it was causing the ‘hit’ not be analyzed.

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?

This is a great point. We’ll have to wait and find out. Sure, why not take the carpet too? Unless the object of the ‘hit’ was so obvious that was all they would need? Or whatever the ‘hit’ was it was on top of something else like the car theme’ blanket that was removed also.

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?!!

I’d hate to think so but the bedroom is a huge mess. I mean look at it. Even if the picture of the room was taken after the search I don’t think the police are going to trash it that badly?

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.

At ten months the parent controls the bedding, the clothes, the toys for the most part, the majority of the time. It’s no stretch to conclude a blanket, a toy, whatever was littering mom’s room during her ’adult time’.

Yet if you go back and read the initial comments for the first few days the police state the parents were not under suspicion....

Problem here is family members are always the first under suspicion in abduction/kidnapping cases whether the police or media reports it as so - or not. Remember too even late as a few days ago media reported the police were ‘pushing' the parents for a confession.

Thanks I find debating with someone who has tact and respect for others interesting and would be enjoyable if Lisa still wasn’t missing.

peace

reply to post by schmae

Another thing Deb said she was keying in numbers manually to a NEW cell phone from the OLD cell phones. I don't know if it was that night but at some recent point, which is why all the phones were together on the counter at the same spot,,,,,,easily seen and accessible. SO, why would you be manually keying in numbers toa NEW phone that does not work? I mean I suppose just to kill time, but with 3 kids , one of them sick, and dinner to make a family event of drinking going on, would you take the time to do that on a phone that you would NOT be using to make calls any time soon?

Exactly! And it's all ruled out as complete and utter nonsense anyway because pay the bill or no - she still could have called 911 with one of those phones. Not the broken one, but surely the one that worked.

peace

Today interview of Sean Bradley

Sean Bradley is the father of the 5 year old boy who's been living with Deborah and Jeremy Irwin.
Sean and Deborah are not divorced. The reason? Sean says they 'can't afford it' and adds he's not seen or talked to either his wife or little boy in two years.

Sean says Deborah 'was always a good mom.'

Sean also says he'd like to have his 'boy back.'

peace

reply to post by silo13


Can't "afford" it? Do-it-yourself divorce kits are EASILY available on line for FREE. The only cost is the notary (if necessary, but at the bank where you have an account it's generally free, too!), and the filing fee ($163 according to the very first Google hit headline!).

This sounds to me like an excuse. Yes, it's a pain and a headache to do it, but no worse than wokring up and filing your own tax return (I've done both).

Next, if Sean is such a dedicated Dad, why has he not seen or spoken to his own son in TWO YEARS? Sorry, that doesn't fly. In the child's mind, he has been abandoned. Two years is a LOOoonnngg time for a six-year-old. Any concerned father would want to make certain his son knows who he (his father) is, would want to hear about beginnings of school (K or grade 1 at age 6 - depending on his birthday), would want to meet the man who is acting "father" for his child.

An Army reservist? Is he currently deployed? If not, he'd be working as a civilian. Where? Does he have another family too?

Just more questions and more avenues of investigation, in my amateur opinion.

This is getting a little messy with all the quotes, so hopefully I can keep it tidy and readable. Before I do though I wanted to make it a bit more clear that the actual search warrant states "The cadaver dog indicated a positive "hit" for the scent of a deceased human in an area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed" I noticed a few times people had said "near the floor". I don't know that that necessarily makes a difference or not. It is a weirdly worded phrase...I would think if it was the actual floor it would say "a positive "hit" of the floor/carpet/whatever" but I've never read another search warrant so I don't know if they're all worded oddly or not. A thought is that because it is carpeting and not just bare floor perhaps the police were unclear of whether the dog was hitting on the carpet itself or of the flooring underneath? If there was carpeting on top of other flooring they wouldn't be sure exactly what flooring the dog was hitting on...but again if that was the case why not take the area of carpeting the dog hit on and then test the carpet and the bare floor separately again with the dog? So many possibilities.

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d

 

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?!!

I’d hate to think so but the bedroom is a huge mess. I mean look at it. Even if the picture of the room was taken after the search I don’t think the police are going to trash it that badly?

To David...there room did look a bit messy, and having 3 kids myself, there are times that i'm walking over toys, clothes, bedding etc, so it's not out of the realm of possibilities.
To silo...I agree the bedroom is pretty messy and there just seems to be "stuff" everywhere. BUT having said that we don't have a before picture. Police definitely will trash a house when searching for something and they do not put it back together, so I can't be sure that the room is always that way. (speaking from experience! No not something I did but something a family member did just to clarify). The rest of the house seems pretty tidy to me, but hey lots of people keep tidy houses and close bedroom doors so noone can see the mess.

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.

I agree some people do keep their kids' belongings solely in the kids' rooms or a playroom or whatever, but seeing there are at the very least diapers in the parents room I think they are probably pretty lax with that. I am a "keep it to your room" mom but I know some parents that have more kids' belongings in their bedroom than their own lol