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: 49
41
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 





So by your own words it's acceptable to wish a child DEAD so you can ‘sleep easy’ and you don't find that twisted? (This is a question not an accusation). Where do you draw the line? At some point in our lives we have to take a stand for ourselves as much as anyone else. In this case I take a stand for little babies who would rather live. Not hard to figure that.


For all who accuse me of trolling, and taking things off topic..I AGAIN point out that I don't steer it that way...this is the fouth post at least referring to what I have said if I had been a parent who's child was missing for a long time.. not a few weeks.




I’ll take a stand. It is NOT better a baby is DEAD so the parents don’t have to worry about them. That is twisted - and downright sick.


And yes..I will say if I was a parent who after a long time of not finding my child , I would be relieved if they found her body, and I knew in my heart my child was not suffering horrendous abuse at the hands of some very dark and twisted minds. If you call that sick..so be it..

I never said that it would be better for the baby Lisa to be found dead..now.

Thanks for twisting that around Silo... and also for taking another post to steer things off topic..so now you can accuse me of doing so again by replying to your words.

I suggest to those that want this thread to stay on topic , to keep it on topic..

The topic being why Deborah is most likely guilty


Have fun playing "keystone cops".. umm.. I mean "keyboard cops"

edit on 26-10-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I heard only one news item from Megan Kelly on Fox saying that the only trouble with the law either of the parents had been in before was a DWI on Jeremy, not Deborah. I've seen mention of Deborah losing her license due to a DWI. Is there a source for that? Or did the initial report of Jeremuy's dwi get transferred to her? A lot of people, strangely enough , do not drive. They just never got a license and so that may be why Deborah does not drive. She has an anxiety disorder, which are often accompanied by OCDs of some kind and she may just be too nervous to drive and so never got a license.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

They are actively attempting to make a case against Debrah in my opinion.

David,

The police explained very early on in this saga that they are attempting to RULE HER OUT as a suspect. It's her own behavior, and Jeremy's, that is making the impression that she's not very credible. They have to eliminate her as a suspect before they can move forward.

-----------------

I want to comment on Jeremy's "slip up" about "someone who has cheated on her husb..."

Do we know if his ex cheated on him? Is it possible that SHE -- his ex and presumably the mother of his son -- was unhappy about his relationship with Deborah? If she knew where he and the boy lived, and she was incensed about it (and, considering she's living in a "group home", there must be some backstory there as to her own judgment), is it feasible to think maybe she wanted the baby for her own??

Just speculating.

I wish this thread would focus on the investigation and serious brainstorming rather than all the bashing.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


Schmae, yes, in some places people just "don't drive". Kansas City is not one of them. In this metro area, there is VERY limited public transportation, and no rail system at all. Only about 7 taxis, which are all parked outside a downtown hotel. One has to wait a couple of hours for a taxi here.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Sort of related personal story. My son worked way late last night. He texts me when he leaves for home. I got 4 hours of sleep. After he got home I got an additional really crappy 1 hr of sleep,, it was fitful and not deep sleep. So when I got up this mnorning I had apounding headache and was really out of it. I felt hangover ish, but I do not drink anymore but I can remember a hangover. So at this moment, don't ask why, I had an empathetic moment for Deborah Bradly. I was thinking 'imagine if police came in right now and scouring all over and asking me questions and I just need to sit and think for a bit and wake upand clear my head and take some tylenol etc' I have a sinus infection which is adding to the headache but the overall effect was clear... NO WAY could i make viable statements or think viable thoughts about something so important in my state. Add to that the idea of being blackout drunk 5 hours prior and there's no way. Which takes me back to a previous statement I made,,, If DB was really drunk as she says on that night it would have been IMMEDIATELY obvious to the police when they arrived. For all we know it's in their report and it's one of those things they are not discussing with us. OR she never did drink that night and it's part of the cover for I cannot remember.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Wild, I live way out in the boonies and know people who do not drive. Does anyone know for a fact she has no license? OR are we assuming because her bro took her to store she does not drive? Perhaps family only has one car and dad had it at work so she just didn't drive at that time? Would love to know if someone saw a report somewhere that she has a DWI and thus suspended license. I just don't think that is the case.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Legal dance with police in Lisa Irwin case is part of the system



Read more: www.kansascity.com...

Last week Cyndy Short, a lawyer for Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, said she was setting boundaries for her clients’ cooperation with police and insisting on ground rules in exchange for additional interviews about the disappearance of Lisa Irwin in early October.

Police have issued public appeals to Bradley and Irwin for separate “unrestricted” interviews to follow up on issues raised at their last formal interrogation on Oct. 8.

Conducting separate interviews is a standard police procedure. Officers even do it at traffic accident scenes, where they pull drivers and witnesses apart to speak to them. So they certainly wouldn’t deviate from the practice in a missing-child case, said Capt. Steve Young, a Kansas City police spokesman.


In my view, this whole case is becoming about politics and spotlights on lawyers, and LEO-bashing, rather than finding this missing child.

There are just too many "did they?"s unanswered in terms of what the LEOs have done (i.e. interviewing the exes, the neighbors, etc.). I think it's probably impossible for any of us who are not directly involved to make any sense out of it. If the police have info they are not releasing, we just haven't got much to work with. And all these lawyers trying to "limit" and "set rules" for interviews is just obstruction and posturing.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I like where you're going with this ! There have been reports it was a ' nasty custody ' battle but the court filings for the divorce seem pretty simple filing etc. So for it to be nasty something else would have to be present. That is to say there was not a years long drawn out custody battle like sometimes can happen. Perhaps the mother of his son was a drug addict or possibly..... mentally challenged? Group home can mean lots of things so I wonder which sort she is in. But I think very early on they 'cleared' both J's and D's exes in connection with this. But at this point who knows. I'd say anyone who's been cleared needs at least talked to again because there is still no Lisa .



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by schmae
 


Schmae, yes, in some places people just "don't drive". Kansas City is not one of them. In this metro area, there is VERY limited public transportation, and no rail system at all. Only about 7 taxis, which are all parked outside a downtown hotel. One has to wait a couple of hours for a taxi here.



Interesting then VisitKC is lying when it claims;


Taxi and car services are available throughout the Kansas City metro area. Taxi stands are located at all major hotels, shopping and entertainment districts. Taxi fare starts at $2.50 with an additional $2 per mile and $1 for any time spent waiting in traffic. Traveling from the airport to downtown via taxi will cost you about $50.


I see both checker and yellow cabs are still listed, your claim of very limited public transportation being available with only 7 taxis I find unbelievable....



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Okay, folks, I just went to casenet and looked up Deborah Bradley.
(Her middle initial is "L")

She was on probation for about a year, for apparently driving without registration. She pled guilty in Feb 2009. She was placed on probation. In March of THIS year, her probation was revoked, according to the case file online, and she was fined $250. She seems to have failed to appear at court, and was served with a warrant. This was dragging on for several months. So, she is no stranger to the KCMO courts.

www.courts.mo.gov...

There were several Deborah Bradleys on the list at first search. To ensure it was the right one, I clicked on "parties". And yes, it gives her same address.
So, she's already in trouble with the law.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Yeah, Dave, I was being facetious. And yes, they are "lying" when they make it sound as though taxis are readily available. Sure, they're at the airport and parked outside big hotels. But they are NOT just cruising the streets looking for fares. And there are NOT "taxi stands" on every corner and people waving them down. Can you call a cab if you need one? Absolutely!

Can you expect to stand on the curb and wait til one comes by ? Nope.

I have lived here for 25 years, and am quite familiar with the city. I have needed a taxi about twice. I had to wait quite a while both times. I worked at a major downtown convention hotel. There were generally 5 or 6 taxis parked outside ALL DAY. They'd pick up a fare, come back and get in the line. They were NOT parked outside in the wee hours. The night auditors routinely advised guests to make sure they made an appointment if they wanted a taxi during the night-time. And even if they took a taxi uptown to a pub or what-have-you, when they were ready to come back, there were NOT taxis waiting all over to do so.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


On casenet again, looked up Jeremy L Irwin. He's also no stranger to the court system. A few traffic violations, and the stuff with (apparently) his baby-mother regarding custody, parenting classes, and he seems to have sued her for child support.

This was over the last 10 years that these things happened...the custody thing was in 2008/2009.
www.courts.mo.gov...

ETA: There was also a small claims problem, and service about a year ago for delinquent taxes.
edit on 26-10-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by schmae
 


On casenet again, looked up Jeremy L Irwin. He's also no stranger to the court system. A few traffic violations, and the stuff with (apparently) his baby-mother regarding custody, parenting classes, and he seems to have sued her for child support.

This was over the last 10 years that these things happened...the custody thing was in 2008/2009.
www.courts.mo.gov...


wow..so they have appeared in court... and this somehow makes them guilty of harming their child?

Talk about digging up irrelevant dirt , for the purpose of character assassination..

Do you think they would use this info to convict them in a trail?..

You never know..they might hire some psychologist to testify that these two were morally corrupt from the get go, considering their "terrible" criminal past...



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by IwasOnceHappy
 


My question, if it has not been posed, what if the Newer cell phone had a \"Video\" on it? Even if the service was not enabled to make calls, the Picture and Video function still works. This is not to say it did have it, but what if there was something captured on the video portion of the new cell phone that the \"someone\" did not want to get out. If it was an intruder or even someone working with the family, maybe they would not have known which cell might have had it and just took all of them?


In one of my darker moments - (and just after hearing about a mother who was selling porno of her baby on the internet) - I came to the same conclusion as you. Possibly there are some type of pictures/info on those phones that are damning. That and/or information about the 'someone' (if there is a someone) who got close enough to the family (via the internet) to want to do Lisa harm.

I so hope we're wrong and the cell phones were/are just a subterfuge!

Thanks tons!




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


*sigh*
okay, gabby, so now you're coming after me. Oh boy. *yawns*

This information is available to the public. I am trying to research and investigate what info exist on them. My angle is not to assassinate anyone's character. I am interested in the case from a psychology/family systems point of view, and because a baby is missing.

The facts are the facts. You don't have to like them.

And just so you know, I won't be responding to anymore of your posts. I actually started skipping them entirely about 6 pages ago, because you are doing NOTHING but stirring up emotions. We all understand your point. Okay? Enough.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I guess like so many things it depends on what ones expectations are. Shrug I'm new here, perhaps others reading this thread are as well. You've made a claim about public transportation in KC based on personal knowledge. I've spent most of my life in areas without lite rail. I've live in areas without taxi service. It's been stated on this thread that the KC area requires one to drive. I find that information to be false, something that as a member of this website I believe we agree to not knowingly post? Personally I fail to see the value in posting false information!

Not everyone drives. Nor does everyone who chooses not to drive make that choice because they are prohibited by law.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Okay, folks, I just went to casenet and looked up Deborah Bradley.
(Her middle initial is "L")

She was on probation for about a year, for apparently driving without registration. She pled guilty in Feb 2009. She was placed on probation. In March of THIS year, her probation was revoked, according to the case file online, and she was fined $250. She seems to have failed to appear at court, and was served with a warrant. This was dragging on for several months. So, she is no stranger to the KCMO courts.

www.courts.mo.gov...

There were several Deborah Bradleys on the list at first search. To ensure it was the right one, I clicked on "parties". And yes, it gives her same address.
So, she's already in trouble with the law.


Interesting when I click on your link I get an error 500....



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Where was it stated? I said that in KC it's difficult to get around the metro area without driving. You can take the bus to some areas, but it might take you several hours to get from, say, downtown to, say, Olathe. You can also ride your bicycle, or walk.

And what does this have to do with the topic? I was addressing schmae's question as to why Deborah was or was NOT a licensed driver. I looked at casenet to see if there was evidence of her having a license revoked.

If you got an error 500, I don't know what to tell you.
try doing a search for casenet. It's very easy to find.

......

I agree that the mods need to clean up this thread. Community participation is a valid and established venue for ANY kind of investigation or suspicion.
Kansas City is especially keen on Community Policing. We are encouraged to speculate, to call the police if we see anything suspicious.

So, all of you who are here just to accuse contributing members of anything EXCEPT trying to figure out what happened are really just wasting our time and cluttering up the thread.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Legal dance with police in Lisa Irwin case is part of the system


Innocent parties may hesitate to be completely honest with police for fear that their statements may be used against them, defense lawyers said.

As would the guilty. Both sides of the coin here and it’s impossible without knowing more which side of the coin we’re dealing with in reference to Irwin and Bradley.


Police have issued public appeals to Bradley and Irwin for separate “unrestricted” interviews to follow up on issues raised at their last formal interrogation on Oct. 8.

Conducting separate interviews is a standard police procedure. Officers even do it at traffic accident scenes, where they pull drivers and witnesses apart to speak to them. So they certainly wouldn’t deviate from the practice in a missing-child case, said Capt. Steve Young, a Kansas City police spokesman. “We want to know what they have to say on their own,” Young said.

I still have to ask. If I were innocent and my baby girl was ‘out there’ missing why I wouldn’t talk to the police - alone. If I were innocent I’d have no reason, now would I.


The parents also have refused to allow police to have specially trained social workers reinterview their older children from previous relationships, boys ages 6 and 8 who were at the home when Lisa disappeared.

As a general rule, police do not interview children who are witnesses. Instead, they refer them to a child protection center, where social workers talk to the children. Police are not allowed in the room.

In the Irwin case, social workers talked to one boy for 30 minutes and the other boy for 50 minutes the day Lisa vanished. Police have not been able to send the boys back to the center.


I had heard Irwin ad Bradley were going to allow this - something was said on Good Morning America - but I have no link...yet.


One condition that Short has set on the interviews is that two detectives who previously interviewed Bradley not sit in on any new sessions. That isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker, one former investigator noted.

“If she trusts someone and would rather speak with them, have at it,” Lanza said. “Let’s throw them in.”

“What the defense attorney and the couple has to realize is that they are viable suspects in the case,” Lanza said. “Even if they didn’t have anything to do with the disappearance, they are still suspects.”


So now the police and media are (back) to publicly stating the parents are definitely suspects. They’ve kicked that ball around since day one.


Defense lawyer Pat Peters said that investigators could consider granting the couple so-called “use” immunity in future interviews. Under such immunity, the subject could not be prosecuted for anything she said during the session unless the investigators could support the charges with information “derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of” what she said during the interview, according to a 1972 Supreme Court ruling.

Without some kind of assurances, Peters said he’d be reluctant to advise Bradley and Irwin to speak with investigators again.

Wow. That’s a huge chunk a meat for the media and police to put out for public consumption.

Immunity. Scenes of pitting one person against the other. Ratting out the ‘other guy’...


And investigators would be wary of using immunity unless they already had a clear idea of the subject’s role in the crime, Bernard said. If he was investigating a drive-by shooting, Bernard said he would want to know for certain whether the fellow he was investigating was the driver or the shooter.

“If you’re not sure, the guy could come up and say, ‘Hey, I’m the guy who pulled the trigger,’ and you can’t do anything with it,” Bernard said. “You must be sure about the exact role before you throw the immunity statute at it.”


There ya go.

peace



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by schmae
 


On casenet again, looked up Jeremy L Irwin. He's also no stranger to the court system. A few traffic violations, and the stuff with (apparently) his baby-mother regarding custody, parenting classes, and he seems to have sued her for child support.

This was over the last 10 years that these things happened...the custody thing was in 2008/2009.
www.courts.mo.gov...


wow..so they have appeared in court... and this somehow makes them guilty of harming their child?

Talk about digging up irrelevant dirt , for the purpose of character assassination..

Do you think they would use this info to convict them in a trail?..

You never know..they might hire some psychologist to testify that these two were morally corrupt from the get go, considering their "terrible" criminal past...


LOL I don't always agree with you Gabby2011, but I do like that you in my opinion are not into character assassination. However, I'm curious if you feel a married woman, living with a man other than her husband, and having a baby with him; and a husband that would divorce his wife, who needs to live in a group home. Says anything that is relevant to this matter ~ or is it all just a diversion?



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join