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: 50
41
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 

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.


It's here in this thread somewhere, lol. I'll look to see if I can find it. There was a big to-do over why Deborah needed a ride to buy wine. She hasn't gotten her license back because of money issues and if I remember correctly something about come classes she had to take - but that part is very vague and might not be 100 percent.

I'll look - I've got to look back for info on Jeremy anyway because I am sure I read there is no video back up for Jeremy's alibi from between after midnight and 0400.

peace




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


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??


You're speculating on an area I'd have spent a lot more time on today if I wasn't sick. There's a report not that long ago - I know I can find it - that said Jeremy was 'viscous' in the custody battle for the boy, and, the mother is in a 'group home'.

I'll let you know what I find if you let me know what you find. I'd like to have some answers.

peace



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 


NO WAY could i make viable statements or think viable thoughts about something so important in my state.


I'd like to agree with you but you're forgetting one thing. To your scenario you have to add another factor. Think how you'd feel - in the blink of an eye - a nano second - if someone told you your baby was missing...

You got to be kidding me! The adrenaline that would shoot through you would do more than any cold shower and cup a coffee could ever do.

I have no doubt - you at least - would become crystal clear - in a heart beat. In a heart beat.

peace



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 



Interesting then VisitKC is lying when it claims;

What do you expect a tourist information center to say? LOL. 'Nope, we don't got no taxis here.'

Sorry, but, I looked up a tourist bulletin for my area and got a good laugh for the day. Especially when they stated anything that could be found in an American pharmacy could be found here. IF ONLY!

I'll take first hand knowledge to anything put out by a 'come visit us and give us your money' site anytime. If WildTimes tells us there's limited Taxis service? I'd make sure and rent a car.

It does bring up another issue also. If Jeremy is at work, and Deborah can't drive, there's no taxi service? What's she going to do if something happens to one of those kids? Rely on 911? Or wait until later? Lisa was sick at the time - a baby at that age can take a turn for the worse so easily! I guess I'll just have to write it down as her feeling confident to call 911.

That is until we remember none of her phones worked.

So now we've got a mother who's inebriated, can't drive and no phone to call 911 (so says she) if something happens to the kids while the father is at work.

peace
edit on 26-10-2011 by silo13 because: fix name



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 





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?


It says to me that they have had a some family problems ..and many many families today are from "blended" families. It could mean that there are some family members who have grudges, or ulterior motives for taking the baby.

I apologize if I saw wildtimes info as more character assassination, if it was only an attempt to shine some info on the possibilities of others being involved.

Just because a married woman gets pregnant by another man.. after not seeing her husband for quite some time..( a few years?)..does not make her morally corrupt in my eyes...though it may to others.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d
 



Interesting then VisitKC is lying when it claims;

What do you expect a tourist information center to say? LOL. 'Nope, we don't got no taxis here.'

Sorry, but, I looked up a tourist bulletin for my area and got a good laugh for the day. Especially when they stated anything that could be found in an American pharmacy could be found here. IF ONLY!

I'll take first hand knowledge to anything put out by a 'come visit us and give us your money' site anytime. If Schmae says there's limited Taxis - I'd make sure and rent a car.

peace



and I get lambasted for being off topic??


carry on with the taxi debate....



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Kansas City is especially keen on Community Policing. We are encouraged to speculate, to call the police if we see anything suspicious.


That still just gets my goat. It's unbelievable to me someone - especially a couple - in their own homes - who'd witness a man carrying a baby down the road in the wee hours of the morning, the baby is inappropriately dressed - and they don't call the police.

That still just sticks in my craw.

peace



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
www.kmbc.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">KCPD Plans To Re-Interview Missing Baby's Brothers

Here’s that link!



"Good Morning America's" Dan Abrams said the boys were in the house when the baby disappeared, and they are relevant witnesses.


- The two boys are now going to be interviewed. They were in the house. Whatever happened? These boys are relevant witnesses.

The legal witness said - ‘Yes, the testimony of the kids can be used against the parents’.

He also brings up that ‘Yes’ the parents will answer questions - as long as they’re approved first.

The police are insisting interviewing these parents separately have the key they need to go forward in the case.

Listen to the interview for more.

peace



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Half-brothers of missing Missouri girl to be interviewed


The half-brothers of a missing Missouri girl, who were in the family's home the night the 11-month-old disappeared, will be re-interviewed by authorities on Friday, Kansas City police said Wednesday.

Lisa Irwin's brothers, who reportedly are ages 8 and 5, will be interviewed by a "child services specialist trained to interview kids," Kansas City police Capt. Steve Young said. The interview will be non-confrontational, he said, and a police officer won't even be in the room.

"Not an interrogation," he said. "They are kids, after all."

There was a report earlier the boys would also have DNA swabs taken - but I can't find a link to that yet.

I take that back, lol. Here is is:


Attorney Cyndy Short told ABC News that police will talk to the boys on Friday, and that DNA samples will also be taken from them.
here

peace
edit on 26-10-2011 by silo13 because: link add



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
Half-brothers of missing Missouri girl to be interviewed


I take that back, lol. Here is is:


Attorney Cyndy Short told ABC News that police will talk to the boys on Friday, and that DNA samples will also be taken from them.
here

peace
edit on 26-10-2011 by silo13 because: link add


Not sure of the date of your link, but Cindy Short in her press release of 10/21/2011 stated that they have given consent for buccal swabs for themselves and their children. I'd also seen where the police had acknowledged taking/getting them back when this all started.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Why wouldn't the police have DNA samples from the family? GOD only knows how many DNA samples are in a persons house. Police aren't telling us everything, which is a good thing. They have had complete access to that home!?! This is driving me crazy and breaks my heart. Toothbrush? Hairbrush? Toys?

abcnews.go.com...


"We are expecting to collect DNA samples," Snapp said. "It will be very non-intrusive, pretty much just a Q-tip swab." Snapp said some DNA samples, currently in a lab, that were collected from the house are labeled "unknown" and they want to use the boys' DNA to eliminate some of the unknown samples.



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d
 



Interesting then VisitKC is lying when it claims;

What do you expect a tourist information center to say? LOL. 'Nope, we don't got no taxis here.'

Sorry, but, I looked up a tourist bulletin for my area and got a good laugh for the day. Especially when they stated anything that could be found in an American pharmacy could be found here. IF ONLY!

I'll take first hand knowledge to anything put out by a 'come visit us and give us your money' site anytime. If WildTimes tells us there's limited Taxis service? I'd make sure and rent a car.

It does bring up another issue also. If Jeremy is at work, and Deborah can't drive, there's no taxi service? What's she going to do if something happens to one of those kids? Rely on 911? Or wait until later? Lisa was sick at the time - a baby at that age can take a turn for the worse so easily! I guess I'll just have to write it down as her feeling confident to call 911.

That is until we remember none of her phones worked.

So now we've got a mother who's inebriated, can't drive and no phone to call 911 (so says she) if something happens to the kids while the father is at work.

peace
edit on 26-10-2011 by silo13 because: fix name


Do words have meaning? When someone states that "...there's NO taxi service" does it mean anything? When someone states an area the size of KC has Very Limited Taxi service, and that there are only 7 taxies and they are all at a hotel does it mean anything?

And now she is allegedly home without the ability to call?!? Funny I thought at one point it had been stated here, that Jermey left his phone at home, that the only working phone was their landline?



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d
 



Interesting then VisitKC is lying when it claims;

What do you expect a tourist information center to say? LOL. 'Nope, we don't got no taxis here.'

Sorry, but, I looked up a tourist bulletin for my area and got a good laugh for the day. Especially when they stated anything that could be found in an American pharmacy could be found here. IF ONLY!

I'll take first hand knowledge to anything put out by a 'come visit us and give us your money' site anytime. If WildTimes tells us there's limited Taxis service? I'd make sure and rent a car.

It does bring up another issue also. If Jeremy is at work, and Deborah can't drive, there's no taxi service? What's she going to do if something happens to one of those kids? Rely on 911? Or wait until later? Lisa was sick at the time - a baby at that age can take a turn for the worse so easily! I guess I'll just have to write it down as her feeling confident to call 911.



I didn't get my driver's license until I was 33. I was terrified at the thought of driving and no amount of cajoling from my husband would make me change my mind. We have lived in many areas where you'd be crazy to call a cab even if one was waiting outside your door as the amount of time it would take to get from my house to a store would cost a fortune. I waited until my husband came home from work, or had a friend with a free day to drive me around or I just didn't go. Plenty of people in this world don't have a phone (not me..but I do know people that don't). There are people without cable, tvs, cars, and some that don't even live "on the grid". I couldn't..but some people can an do. This is again a situation of what you're used to. We only "need" a phone in case of emergency because that's what we've grown up with or become accustomed to. I have a million friends that say "I NEED my cell phone because what if my car breaks down?" Well what did we do 30 years ago when our cars broke down before cell phones? Walked our butts to the nearest house or gas station LOL Technology has taken over to the point that people don't remember living without it. - I know having a phone in your home is somewhat different but I am making a comparison.

Although odd, I guarantee you it's not as uncommon as you think to be raising a child in ahome without a car/driver and a phone. Probably plenty of people on welfare/govt assistance that even with a license can't afford a car and maybe not even phone service. She's definitely not out in the middle of nowhere either, so there are always neighbours that can help.

I can totally see this situation happening, but again...if the story of the cell's being off due to not paying the bill is true (which I don't know)....the only thing the mom is guilty of here is not using the wine money to pay the bills instead.

Michelle



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by judydawg
 


Why wouldn't the police have DNA samples from the family? GOD only knows how many DNA samples are in a persons house.


Perhaps for specifics? From a hairbrush or toothbrush with little kids they might (yuck!) swap them back and forth and all. Who knows whos DNA from the other etc.

???

peace



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by Dav1d
 





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?


It says to me that they have had a some family problems ..and many many families today are from "blended" families. It could mean that there are some family members who have grudges, or ulterior motives for taking the baby.

I apologize if I saw wildtimes info as more character assassination, if it was only an attempt to shine some info on the possibilities of others being involved.

Just because a married woman gets pregnant by another man.. after not seeing her husband for quite some time..( a few years?)..does not make her morally corrupt in my eyes...though it may to others.



I agree here with Gabby...while the situation may not be ideal, it's becoming quite the norm. I don't have dates of marriages etc but perhaps both couples married at young or immature times in their lives and just came to realize they'd made a bad choice. Not everyone stays married to their first spouse these days. I also don't see an issue with having a "child out of wedlock" LOL...did I really just say that phrase in the year 2011? I guess everyone has their own thoughts on this, but that seems a bit old fashioned these days to bring up a blended family or an unmarried couple having a child as an issue. Check out some stats you'd probably be shocked!

Michelle



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


And now she is allegedly home without the ability to call?!? Funny I thought at one point it had been stated here, that Jermey left his phone at home, that the only working phone was their landline?


Where did you get this information?

Jeremy's phone he left at home was stolen with two others. Out of the other two the mother has stated one was new - but didn't work. She was programming the new one even though it didn't work. The others didn't work or were not charged. Etc etc. The story's changed repeatedly. It's all here in this thread (links).

Land-line? What land-line? As far as I've read know there is no viable land-line - it wasn't used due to unpaid bills.

Jeremy used his work phone (cell phone) to call 911.

peace

edit on 26-10-2011 by silo13 because: have to stop hitting reply by accident!



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by judydawg
reply to post by silo13
 


Why wouldn't the police have DNA samples from the family? GOD only knows how many DNA samples are in a persons house. Police aren't telling us everything, which is a good thing. They have had complete access to that home!?! This is driving me crazy and breaks my heart. Toothbrush? Hairbrush? Toys?

abcnews.go.com...


"We are expecting to collect DNA samples," Snapp said. "It will be very non-intrusive, pretty much just a Q-tip swab." Snapp said some DNA samples, currently in a lab, that were collected from the house are labeled "unknown" and they want to use the boys' DNA to eliminate some of the unknown samples.


The justification for the last search warrant was to collect DNA samples! They took 17 hours and took bags of samples out of the home. We are into the forth week of Lisa missing and now the police claim they don't have DNA samples of all family members? I know that I saw where the police acknowledged getting these samples back in the first week of this case. Just as the police acknowledged that they (the family) was cooperating fully with them!

It is one thing for the police not to share all they know, it moves the police into a different light when they choose to lie, to choose to give false impressions, and choose to publicly vilify a person!



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 



The justification for the last search warrant was to collect DNA samples!


Sure is, but, without then taking DNA from the family members how do you know who is whos? How do you differentiate one from the other???

In other words they've got dna from a brush and toothbrush and comb, etc, but until they then take dna []uspecifically from each person how can they match comb to person, toothbrush to what family member, etc?

Added note:


It is one thing for the police not to share all they know, it moves the police into a different light when they choose to lie, to choose to give false impressions, and choose to publicly vilify a person!


Ridding so close on the C. Anthony case I'd bet the police are being very careful who they're trying to 'vilify' if anyone at all.

peace
edit on 26-10-2011 by silo13 because: see added note above



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d
 



The justification for the last search warrant was to collect DNA samples!


Sure is, but, without then taking DNA from the family members how do you know who is whos? How do you differentiate one from the other???

In other words they've got dna from a brush and toothbrush and comb, etc, but until they then take dna []uspecifically from each person how can they match comb to person, toothbrush to what family member, etc?

Added note:


It is one thing for the police not to share all they know, it moves the police into a different light when they choose to lie, to choose to give false impressions, and choose to publicly vilify a person!


Ridding so close on the C. Anthony case I'd bet the police are being very careful who they're trying to 'vilify' if anyone at all.

peace
edit on 26-10-2011 by silo13 because: see added note above


Once again in small words...
We are at the fourth week of this case.
The police went to court last week, to get a search warrant, specifically so that the family could not interfere.
So what? The police were unaware that they did not have all the family's DNA? The police were unaware that the family might not cooperate? The police were unaware that Lisa had brothers?
It is incompentance......



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 



It is one thing for the police not to share all they know, it moves the police into a different light when they choose to lie, to choose to give false impressions, and choose to publicly vilify a person!


They are, once again Dav1d, trying to RULE OUT suspects. Until they can rule OUT the family, or anyone for that matter, they have to pursue the case as open-ended.

To whom did they lie? How do you know that? How are they villifying anyone? The parents of this baby have made, and continue to make, strange behavioral decisions. The LEOs are not bound to disclose all of their investigation's findings. The media is a pirranha-pool ready to go into a feeding frenzy.

If the parents want to be exonerated, they will need to talk to police according to the police's protocol, and willingly. Not hiding behind slick East-Coast lawyers who are friends of some Media talking-head. They need to allow their kids (yeah, I know, scheduled for Friday) to not only be interviewed, but to be treated for trauma and to be questioned. They need to step forward with EVERYTHING they know, and give the names of ANYONE they even reMOTEly suspect might have been planning or executed this.

The more they "lawyer up" and refuse to talk, the more guilty they look. It's just common sense.
What part of this do you not get???

What would YOU suggest they do?



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join