Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Have the Inconsistencies in the Baby Lisa Case Been Explained?

Interesting read of the inconsistencies.

peace

Look at the picture that the police supplied with the alert! That in my opinion is not the picture of an 11 month old baby. Why? This was issued on October 4 at 7:00 am by the police. Now we know that the parents have many pictures of her, that the cops search the home that morning. That on the fourth there was no hint that the parents were in anyway not cooperating... The police had full access to the home, they could have had any picture they want, and what image did they use with the alert? There have been many pictures released since the fourth, the police could update the info on baby Lisa, that is normal behavior ~ and yet is it updated?

Colorado Man Reaches Out to Family of Lisa Irwin

This was reported a long time ago and I don't think I remembers to add it.

The first time this man approached the family he got a door slammed in his face. I'm casting no blame on the parents - just saying.

KANSAS CITY, Mo.—
A Colorado man has a similar story to the one of Lisa Irwin's family. Gil Abeyta and his wife woke up on July 15, 1986 and their son Christopher was gone. He's still missing 25 years later.

Abeyta is reaching out to Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin.

"I met with them briefly," Abeyta said. "I could tell they don't trust anyone, not even me."

He says he expected that response. He's been following the story from the beginning. He feels like the baby's parents got some bad advice as well as being overwhelmed and they simply withdrew. Abyeta says talking with them wasn't easy.

"It didn't go as well as I wanted it to, but then again, I was telling them to do this do that," he said. "Talk to police, they didn't like it, you think they like someone coming in and telling them that?"

It's easy to see that Abyeta has a passion for helping families find their missing children. The Lisa Irwin case gets him really fired up.

I'm sure the parents heads are spinning. It's useless for me to say that I'd listen to a father who'd been through the same experience - because that's just me - and, it's irrelevant.

He didn't get much time with the family so he tried to make the most of it and pass on advice from his own case.

"You can not ignore the news media, the public," he said. "The police, you can not do that. That is your life line, that is who's going to help you."

He says he isn't sure if he will meet with Lisa Irwin's parents again. He'd like to help but he also wants to make sure the focus stays on finding Lisa and bringing her home.

Good on him.

peace

reply to post by Dav1d

Look at the picture that the police supplied with the alert!

You might want to look at the picture Lisa's parents chose for the t-shirts. That picture isn't a recent photo of Lisa either.



Go figure.

peace

I found this on another forum posted on 10/05/2011

A friend of mine who lives in the neighborhood called police last night to report "blood curddling screams" coming from the woods. The police told her it was too dark to investigate. Apparently other neighbors heard the same thing and called 911 as well with no response. What's the problem with this picture? They shoudl have investigated.
by sma 6:09 PM yesterday

Might explain why the 911 tapes from that night haven't been made public....

The original source I believe is here on page 17;

livewire.kmbc.com...

reply to post by Dav1d

I've been looking all over for the link to that info! We're not supposed to post or link to other forums here on ATS (blogs are ok) but I sure wish I could find the link where that was reported in the news. I know it was - I just missed it in the beginning of all these reports.

Thanks!

reply to post by silo13


Let's see they are young, and to the best of my knowledge this is the first child they have had stolen? Is it so unreasonable to do what the police do? Like I said this is the picture that the police chose to use ~ if it's good enough for the police it's good enough for me seems reasonable! Until you figure out that the police aren't really interested in finding Lisa....

I mean given a choice what logic is there for not using the newest picture possible? And if on day one the parents won't give you current picture, that sure as the devil is worth commenting on! I certainly would not choose to say they were cooperating! Babies change so much, grow so much in the first year of their life. Wouldn't you request the newest picture avalible if you were the police? I certainly would.

reply to post by Dav1d

Let's see they are young, and to the best of my knowledge this is the first child they have had stolen? Is it so unreasonable to do what the police do? Like I said this is the picture that the police chose to use ~ if it's good enough for the police it's good enough for me seems reasonable! Until you figure out that the police aren't really interested in finding Lisa....

I would like to believe there was little malice in this either way. That the parents followed the lead of the police is a good point - though I'm not ready to give that over quite yet!

What seems to be the most reasonable scenario is all concerned just grabbed the first photo possible and went with it in the confusion.

I'll have to look, I believe the shirts and posters have been updated. I'll let you know.

Thanks tons!

It's reasonable for the parents to be confused, and stressed. The Police are suppose to be professional, and NOT directly involved with the child. As professionals who have been trained they should in theory NOT be confused and emotionally stressed. Also remember by the time the alert was sent out they had searched the home. There would have been specialist there and in charge.

At the best you have incompentence, at the worst you've got something far worst. Remember the post about the blood curdling screams? And the refusal of the police to respond? (Because it is dark in the woods?) I also saw a video from a reporter who walked over into the woods, after the police had supposedly search it, and stumbled on a cellphone or a radio of some kind laying on the ground.... I'm truly sorry but that to my mind is evidence, or at a miminum potential evidence and either should not have been left in the woods, or it is evidence that the police really did a very poor job searching the woods! You can see the police in the background standing around and bull#ing to one another in the video. They made no effort to stop the reporter. There are also gas cans there....

www.youtube.com...

Things are starting to add up....
We have a dumpster fire.
We have evidence of a radio or cellphone in the woods by a gas can
That suggest two or more people. Someone watching in the woods, a lookout perhaps? With the ability to signal their partner? Someone that could have helped a partner up and through the window...
Someone who could act as a diversion and wander around the area, and get people looking for someone on foot, while their partner and Lisa gets away in a car?
The above after the police alledgedly search the woods multiple times, and with trained dogs! Yet the police can't find these things? The dogs can't pick up the scent of gas? Or the cops don't deem it worth their time to invisgate? If nothing else in their role as protectors it seems smart to pick up the gas, to stop children playing with it and starting a fire! But our professionals miss it....
The picture the police chose to use for the amber alert, a picture way out of date. Even I can tell that is NOT a picture of an 11 moth old!
The wrong time on the amber alert as to when Lisa was last seen! That would have had the effect of limiting the area that Lisa could be in by at least 360 miles!
The choice to cancel the alert after just half a day
Get people looking in the wrong area, and then end the alert, like everything is under control....
Anyone is capable of mistakes, but the above is not a single mistake....
Add now the police antagonizing the parents, enough that they want to stop cooperating!
The fact that the police don't want the public to help comb the woods, they want to control the area.
That the police don't want the dogs filmed while they are searching, could it be that they fear the dogs might be filmed alerting in the woods?
Could it be the police fear being seen removing evidence from the woods? evidence that could point to someone else? Or to others?

When law enforcement needs to hide, something is wrong!

reply to post by Dav1d


WHAT??
This is the only time I've ever heard of this report. Good find !!!
Why the heck hasn't this been reported? Or did I miss it?
Blood curdling screams like an adult or a child?
Oh man :*(

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Dav1d

 

WHAT??
This is the only time I've ever heard of this report. Good find !!!
Why the heck hasn't this been reported? Or did I miss it?
Blood curdling screams like an adult or a child?
Oh man :*(

Did you click on the YouTube link? Did you watch it? did you see the gas can, the radio (walkie-talkie)? Why would the police not take this stuff? Why leave a can of gas in the woods where a child could find it? Why leve a walkie-talkie in the woods? Why ban the filming the dogs searching the woods? So that one doesn't need to turn over evidence that might help validate the defense? That is not legal is it? Why not announce that one has found walkie-talkies in the woods next to a gas can? Perhaps the owner will come forward and explain why they are there?

I found the link on another forum and back traced it to kmbc, (link above now) it was reported. The station was aware of it, yet it appears not to have been followed up!

reply to post by Dav1d


I did watch and I gotta say I'm confused. The trainer at the beginning said not filming the dogs is to keep the dogs on track and as far as not giving out sensitive techniques, I can understand that part. But the walkie talkie and gas cans in the area......... I'm baffled. I don't know what it means.

At my link above for the scream, a few post below it (4:47) there is a post were they acknowledge having to break out the chainsaws to cut a path into the woods because they are so thick!!! If the woods are that thick you will not get a baby and yourself into them in the middle of the night! Nor will you do it without leaving a trace. The police knowing wasted time searching fruitless places.... Why!?! This is the important 48 hours, and they choose to waste time searching then in an area you need to chainsaw down to get into it? WHY!?!

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Dav1d

 

I did watch and I gotta say I'm confused. The trainer at the beginning said not filming the dogs is to keep the dogs on track and as far as not giving out sensitive techniques, I can understand that part. But the walkie talkie and gas cans in the area......... I'm baffled. I don't know what it means.

Well it means at best, these trained tracking dogs can't smell gas, in a red plastic gas can. (and that can was bright red not the faded pink of a can that's been exposed to sunlight for a bit.) that the police can't see that bright red can and there search pattern missed large areas ~ and they don't want the public to know that...

They found it, and didn't think it was important....

They found it, and feel it will validate Deborah story, and desire to keep the psychological pressure on her, to get a confession out of her... (so they are attempting to ignore it)

At the very least I'd want to test it for Lisa parents finger prints.... Wouldn't you?

Now we were told about the backpack found in the abandon house, but did anyone see it, actually? Or did anyone see the diapers? The ones that were suppose to be very old!? Hmm and do I recall correctly was that house destroyed shortly afterward?

reply to post by Dav1d

The above after the police alledgedly search the woods multiple times, and with trained dogs! Yet the police can't find these things? The dogs can't pick up the scent of gas? Or the cops don't deem it worth their time to invisgate?

I understand your points - really. And I applaud your tenacity. Problem is, the investigator said that area didn't 'pan out' - meaning the cellphone/walkie-talkie and gas cans.

All in all do I agree the police have made mistakes - from day one? Yes. I hope, as I'm sure you do, this will not factor in when finding Lisa, alive, or not.

By the by I went back over what you were saying about the timeline of the Amber alert and I see your point. I'll explain more later after 'hearing' from you.

peace

reply to post by Dav1d

So let me ask you. You believe the police are covering up evidence and leading people off track.
Let's say I agree for the sake of a discussion.

Where does that lead you in your thinking? They're out to demonize the parents? In their book they're already the killes so why bother it's just a matter of time before they crack? One or both of them?

Or

Possibly there's someone from the area involved and the police know him/her, or someone from the force is involved?

I'm wondering where you're going with this is all.

Thanks

The dogs are not trained to smell gas......they are trained to track HUMANS. I don't know if the initial search dogs were trained on live or dead humans but frankly HUMANS can smell gas its' so strong, so a tracking dog would not be trained to smell gas I woudln't think.

Also what the HECK is up with the cell phones. Regardless of whether or not the physical phones are found by this time the phone company, sprint, verizon, whoever , would have been able to give a call log to police. Surely they have and that's why we havent' heard a WORD about the cell phones from anyone. Agreed?

Also I just realized this morning while looking at other stuff that, remembered rather, that Deborah bought baby wipes along with the wine, so at that point Lisa was alive and she had every intention of her being alive into the next coming days. I had previously thought possibly the baby had been lost before reported. This indicates the death IF THERE IS A DEATH was completely unplanned and / or accidental.

reply to post by schmae

This indicates the death IF THERE IS A DEATH was completely unplanned and / or accidental.

I surely hope that's what it means. The alternative is just far too ugly for me to even want to talk about.

peace

reply to post by silo13


I do not know/believe etc that police are covering up . I don't discount it though. If they are covering or mishandling info, I would guess it 's because PRIDE. It ain't a deadly sin for nothing. If they are unable to come up with any credible leads and they know the case is getting colder by the day and they know the chances of finding Lisa are slimmer by the day and they know the WORLD spotlight is on them and they will look like buffoons if they cannot find Lisa, then perhaps they would . I don't even know if this would be a conscious decision though. Through their frustration of being able to 'pin it' on anyone else, mom and dad look better and better every day, so they are naturally going that route.
Again, I'm not stating they are doing this, but I suppose if they were that would be as good a reason as any.

reply to post by Dav1d

It is pretty obvious to me the police messed up there. Most people see the changes that Deborah made to the time line as bad, the difference between 10:30 and 6:30 is 4 hours so the kidnappers could be 4 x 60 miles or 240 miles farther away. But when the police sent out the Alert they stated that she was last seen at 4:00 am that morning giving a false impression that the kidnappers would need to be 6 x 60 or about 360 miles closer than what they could have been.

I don't know why I didn't 'get' this the first time around. I absolutely see your point now.

So I'm wondering - again - what they know we don't OR what their motive is in this case. It should be to find Lisa and who's responsible for her disappearance. I'm not going to agree with you straight across the board but you are doing a great job painting a grim picture of their actions/inaction.

Me, I've just no idea. It's all so muddled up now. All the lies, the misinformation, the agendas of those involved. What an ugly soup. And still Lisa is missing.

peace