Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by schmae
As you probably already know you can look up her official arrest records for a fee?
sorry didn't mean to just pop in like this but I've been following this thread since the beginning.oops looks like someone beat me to it!...I think it was the media that mentioned she didn't have a license to drive.

reply to post by wildtimes


Thank you for the info. I heard the reporter only mention jeremy's dwi as their only 'scrape with the law'. Now we know Deborah does not drive because shes' not legallya ble to and NO ONE insinuated by any stretch that makes her guilty. Always with the drama ! So this report I saw that stated Jeremy's dwi, which you don't even show him having one.... were they misinformed or is this some of the media TOYING with us and tgiving us false info?

reply to post by wildtimes


Right, the fastest way for them to eliminate themselves as suspects is to be 100% forthcoming with police. If they truly believe that police are IGNORING other leads to focus on them, then they would need to get themselves cleared immediately to get the police back on tracking the nappers ! So the best way to do that is sit at the police station until they've asked everything they want 1000 times if that 's what it takes to say " am i no longer a suspect'?

reply to post by wildtimes

What would YOU suggest they do?

I would suggest they give all information they have, but they may feel they have done that already, and may feel the way they are questioned is entrapping them..I'm not sure.

If they are guilty in any way..I would hope that they would just confess, and stop this needless money spent on investigation, and what could be a very long expensive trial..if it goes there.

I hope the truth is revealed sooner than later, whatever that may be.

reply to post by wildtimes
did I hear the mom Deborah correctly that she is referring to her baby Lisa in the past tense?I believe her statement was when a reporter asked why they wouldn't give an interview she stated "We're grieving for our child"

I don't know about anyone else but I find that odd to say that when she supposedly doesn't know what happened to her child.I have a strange feeling about these two parents and I'll say it now,they both know what happened to baby Lisa.They are hiding information,otherwise they would be all over the officials to find her.

reply to post by TWILITE22


Twilite22,
I don't think that "grieving" automatically means she's thinking past tense. I have endured grief while my loved ones are in pain, whether physical, emotional, or practical.

But then again, a kidnapper would jump on the $100,000, one would think. A disgruntled family member may just sit tight and watch the fireworks while caring for the baby. A jealous ex might just hop on a Greyhound and head for the coast, baby in tow.

We just don't know enough about the family's background, their individual histories and collective histories, to make any real assumptions. We don't know what the neighbors have to say except for the ones who "saw some guy walking". There are 50+ investigators working on this case. There are LOTS of people who care very much. We just don't know...and I, for one, do NOT trust the media to give an unbiased report of the goings-on.

reply to post by TWILITE22

I wonder if Deborah is catching the 'past tense' from her lawyer? Her lawyer has been referring to Lisa in the past tense from the get go.

I'll tell you - lawyer supplied gratis or no - the first time my lawyer referred to my child, my missing baby, in the past tense? The Lawyer would be - past tense.

peace

Missing Baby's Extended Family Discusses Parents' Past

Here’s the link I promised to the ‘ruthless’ comment in reference to Rasleen Raim (Jeremy’s ex) and the custody battle for Blake, their 8 year old son.

peace

reply to post by wildtimes

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.

So once again we are into the fourth week of this case.
There have been multiple searches of their home by the police. That they agreed to.
The Police have volunteer that the parents are cooperating, (look at the first few reports) then alledged that they are not, (in the second week) then stated they are. This is using the media to coerce the family, by vilifying them. By portraying them as not doing all they could to find their daughter.
On day one the police collected DNA, on day one the police knew they would like samples of DNA from all the family. [that they "need" is truly arguable as they have samples from both parents, any child will have at least a half match to one of the parents] an unknow sample will have less than a half match to either parent! This we need samples from everyone is false. When parents of a missing child are treated this way by the government do I really wish to enter my child's DNA into a database that will last forever? If Lisa is found dead, with some other DNA upon her that links another to her death, it will be easy to establish a partial match to her family at that time (if it exist) and get a court order for a DNA sample! That has not yet happen. Until it does happen there is no need for this.

As to ruling out suspects, there are none based on what the police have stated! Hard to rule someone out of being a suspect when you have none to begin with....

reply to post by Dav1d

There have been multiple searches of their home by the police. That they agreed to.
The Police have volunteer that the parents are cooperating, (look at the first few reports) then alledged that they are not,(in the second week) then stated they are. This is using the media to coerced the family, by vilifying them. By portraying them as not doing all they could to find their daughter.

Not to vilify but to tell the truth.
Initially Lisa’s parents were cooperating.
As soon as they ‘lawyered up’ they stopped cooperating.
Now they will cooperate as long as certain terms are met.

Opinion swings both ways here and excuses can be made to either vilify or justify.

On day one the police collected DNA, on day one the police knew they would like samples of DNA from all the family. [that they "need" is truly arguable as they have samples from both parents, any child will have at least a half match to one of the parents] an unknow sample will have less than a half match to either parent! This we need samples from everyone is false.

Oh really? Try telling that to a jury.

‘So Mr. Police person, you took DNA from every family member or not?‘ No? I rest my case”...

When parents of a missing child are treated this way by the government do I really wish to enter my child's DNA into a database that will last forever?

Depends on how badly you want to help get your child back and what concessions you’re willing to make, or not.

If Lisa is found dead, with some other DNA upon her that links another to her death, it will be easy to establish a partial match to her family at that time (if it exist) and get a court order for a DNA sample! That has not yet happen. Until it does happen there is no need for this.

Seems like the police don’t agree with you. Ask yourself why. Ask yourself what they know we don’t. I’m sure there’s a good reason for needing to take these samples. Also, you can bet your boots Tacopina wouldn’t be advising his clients to condone the DNA taking if he didn’t think it would be good for their case.

As to ruling out suspects, there are none based on what the police have stated! Hard to rule someone out of being a suspect when you have none to begin with....

The police stated just recently the parents are suspects. There’s a post just a few pages back, with link and video.

peace

Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl refuse separate interviews

The parents of a missing Missouri girl have refused to be interviewed separately by authorities, Kansas City police said Wednesday.

But the attorney representing Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley, parents of 11-month-old Lisa Irwin, said the couple is not opposed to separate interviews, but do not want what police requested -- an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present.

So, no they didn't refuse, they agreed - but with terms.

"Being questioned separately is not the issue," said attorney Cyndy Short. She said the couple has been cooperative and has previously been interviewed separately as well as together. They don't mind being interviewed separately as long as the detectives are fair, open-minded and non-accusatory, she said.

Sounds like a slow news night on CNN. Misleading title, scrambled information.

peace

reply to post by silo13

"Being questioned separately is not the issue," said attorney Cyndy Short. She said the couple has been cooperative and has previously been interviewed separately as well as together. They don't mind being interviewed separately as long as the detectives are fair, open-minded and non-accusatory, she said.

This is what I don't understand about the police..

You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.. .so at least appearing as they have some empathy and understanding would seem to help a lot more in the goal of getting information, than accusations,and lie detection tests using the most vulnerable and emotional stress levels.

The police need to make them feel like they are helping with finding baby Lisa..and not trying to pin it on them...and maybe they have.. but it doesn't appear so .

If you know you are not guilty, and the police want to keep pointing accusations at you, it would indeed seem like a futile effort in trying to help find your child.

Look at this press confrence, before they felt inclined to get a lawyer



What was the purpose of this conference? To announce that the police can't release any details about the case? Or to vilify the parents, and coerce them? How can the police claim to not be willing to release any details about the case, and in the same statment state tHat the parents are not cooperating?

I know nothing of DNA...don't understand the whole process behind I'll willingly admit. Nor do I pretend to understand how to solve a case.

But what I don't understand about the whole DNA thing is only 4 days after Lisa was reported missing (Oct 8), they questioned and obtained a DNA sample from the teenage neighbour. Why would they not have also taken DNA from the rest of the family by then? I'd think their first priority would have been to get those samples from everyone in the house for sure before then pursuing others for the samples. 4 days vs 4 weeks...

Michelle

Originally posted by silo13
Police: Parents of missing Missouri girl refuse separate interviews

The parents of a missing Missouri girl have refused to be interviewed separately by authorities, Kansas City police said Wednesday.

The police have stated the above^

"Being questioned separately is not the issue," said attorney Cyndy Short. She said the couple has been cooperative and has previously been interviewed separately as well as together. They don't mind being interviewed separately as long as the detectives are fair, open-minded and non-accusatory, she said.

Reply by Attorney^ perhaps?

It is very strange that they have appointed an Attorney to defend them, very strange indeed.

Perhaps that is typical in the USA?

edit on 26-10-2011 by Thurisaz because: typo

At this point, if I were the parents and I truly had nothing to do with my child's disappearance I would be royally aggravated, frustrated, and getting more and more frightened as the police continued to come after me and my family. They are forced to walk a very fine line here between making sure the efforts of investigation is being focused OUT THERE to find the missing baby and still not looking like criminals.

I know a lot of details, many negative, of these people's lives are coming out now, but what if the same were being done to any of us? How good would you look if people you know were giving details to reporters? If your house was being emptied by strangers? If every single action you made last week/month, every choice, was being rehashed, questioned, and judged?

I doubt anybody looks good under this kind of scrutiny.

reply to post by Michelle129th


My Daughter recently had a sample taken. It was quick using a swab, there were no court order in place, it was part of the police investigation.

Why would the police need a court order to take DNA samples? The Parents don't appear to be cooperating unless of course court orders are routine in the USA?

over here, if for eg, my Daughter refused to allow the swab, then the police would approach the courts for an order to proceed.

Originally posted by Alora
At this point, if I were the parents and I truly had nothing to do with my child's disappearance I would be royally aggravated, frustrated, and getting more and more frightened as the police continued to come after me and my family. They are forced to walk a very fine line here between making sure the efforts of investigation is being focused OUT THERE to find the missing baby and still not looking like criminals.

I know a lot of details, many negative, of these people's lives are coming out now, but what if the same were being done to any of us? How good would you look if people you know were giving details to reporters? If your house was being emptied by strangers? If every single action you made last week/month, every choice, was being rehashed, questioned, and judged?

I doubt anybody looks good under this kind of scrutiny.

Amen and well said. None of us are angels or "normal". Things we do on a daily basis that may seem normal to us...retold to strangers would make some of us look like kooks i'm sure. On top of the info being given out they're doing public 'tours' of their house and neighbourhood. All the while being scrutinized and judged for every single move they make and have made. Noone will be satisfied at the results of this info or the look at the house.

One example is in just this thread (never mind the millions of people talking/watching/blogging about this). Someone made a comment that the kitchen was "too clean" "how would your counters be that tidy with 3 kids" while others were commenting "what a messy bedroom". I don't think any info at this point about the parents will make people happy or satisfied that these are probably pretty darn normal people in the grand scheme of things

Michelle

Michelle

reply to post by wildtimes
Yes I agree but when on national television you best pick your words carefully,when someone says "I'm grieving" it usually mean someone has died.Although it could mean otherwise,when speaking of someone missing in their case and not cooperating with officials everything means something..what you say and how you say it matters.

My sympathies go out to the families if they are not involved,but as a mom that little voice in my mind says different.