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: 63
41
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


“We comply with all subpoenas,” McGruder said, “but we do not release raw material.”


I see from your source the news stations have a lawyer. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

I don't believe journalists should ever be forced to reveal their informants. Sometimes, as in this case a heavy price is paid to preserve anonymity. But if it were not? Soon we'd have no anonymity at all.

peace

edit on 29-10-2011 by silo13 because: bbc




posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Will everyone who has lost a child offer their advise? Or is this something the police have come up with to trick the parents?


If we can believe the account of Gil and Tina - they went to help of their own accord and a their own expense. I can understand that. We can vilify the police - but in this case I don't think we need to vilify the parents who've already lost their babies - and one of them two children to a grisly death.

On the other hand I'd like to hear your opinion. How would (let's say) 'bringing in these people' - benefit your theory the police are trying to demonize the parents? Is it as simple as because the police 'knew' the 'Brad-Wins' wouldn't have anything to do with 'outside' help?

I am curious you know. I like the way your mind works.


peace



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Could it be that KCPD is using this as an excuse to fish? Are we to believe that the media filmed something in front of the police, that the police missed? There are also reports that the police used this as an excuse to search over 300 homes and countless cars...


The police gave their reasoning as this - A lot of what the news has filmed ends up on the cutting room floor. The police believe something important may inadvertently be 'snipped' and dumped - lost forever.

There's a link to an article with a quote back a ways in this thread.

There ya go.
Good weekend to you.

peace



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Could it be that KCPD is using this as an excuse to fish? Are we to believe that the media filmed something in front of the police, that the police missed? There are also reports that the police used this as an excuse to search over 300 homes and countless cars...


The police gave their reasoning as this - A lot of what the news has filmed ends up on the cutting room floor. The police believe something important may inadvertently be 'snipped' and dumped - lost forever.

There's a link to an article with a quote back a ways in this thread.

There ya go.
Good weekend to you.

peace

Yes I've seen that before, and my understanding is that qualifies as "fishing". The police are not after, "X" (a known thing) if you will but rather the right to turn the media into a form of police, they become in effect an agent for the police. This has the effect of making all interviews by the media much more difficult to obtain, and interferes with the public right to know. When it comes right down to it the media is the media, and one is not required to tell them the truth, one can lie to them. Would you really want to give the police the right to search your home when ever they feel like it, but at least a couple times a year? Yep I know some people claim they have nothing to hide so it wouldn't be a problem for them, to me it is giving up a right.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 

I'm going to break this down because I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you. I learned that over the 'Amber Alert' and I don't want to get confused this time - the confusion on my part not your presentation!


Yes I've seen that before, and my understanding is that qualifies as "fishing". The police are not after, "X" (a known thing) if you will but rather the right to turn the media into a form of police, they become in effect an agent for the police.


Got it. The police want to use what the media 'foraged' (so to speak) to use for their own tool. To add to their own information base and (can they?) for their own 'search' as information gained during an investigation even though they didn't film it. LOTS of questions here.

My question: Let's say one day I inadvertently film a murder scene. The film is mine. What rights do I have to hold onto that film, and, what rights do the police have to confiscate it and use it to further investigation. ALSO - the people I filmed? What happens to their rights???

On one hand - If it's public information - it's also police information. And vice versa. (Like people filming police at traffic stops, etc). BUT - On the other hand - if the police didn't film the video - what right do they have to it?


This has the effect of making all interviews by the media much more difficult to obtain, and interferes with the public right to know.


Help me with this part. Much more difficult to obtain by who? And how does it interfere with the public right to know? The police, in this case, just want to make sure something 'scrapped' by the media isn't something important to the police.

I'm not making judgement I'm asking you to clarify - please.


When it comes right down to it the media is the media, and one is not required to tell them the truth, one can lie to them.


Ok, as in the 'suspect'? The police? Or both?


Would you really want to give the police the right to search your home when ever they feel like it, but at least a couple times a year?


How does this fit in with what media might have 'scrapped'? You mean (that's a question) if the police find something in a video that points to someone s being culpable of a crime they have the right to search their home?

If that's what you mean? Honestly I don't know what the law is in this case but I'd be more than happy to try and find out.


Yep I know some people claim they have nothing to hide so it wouldn't be a problem for them, to me it is giving up a right.


Here we agree right on target regardless if I have something to hide - or not. The right to hide, is mine, if I choose, and not yours (or the right of the police) to take away.

Great think Dave! I'd appreciate the clarifications so I don't break my brain with the puzzle of it all.

Peace



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Will everyone who has lost a child offer their advise? Or is this something the police have come up with to trick the parents?


If we can believe the account of Gil and Tina - they went to help of their own accord and a their own expense. I can understand that. We can vilify the police - but in this case I don't think we need to vilify the parents who've already lost their babies - and one of them two children to a grisly death.

On the other hand I'd like to hear your opinion. How would (let's say) 'bringing in these people' - benefit your theory the police are trying to demonize the parents? Is it as simple as because the police 'knew' the 'Brad-Wins' wouldn't have anything to do with 'outside' help?

I am curious you know. I like the way your mind works.


peace


I'm curious, would you mind sharing your approximate age? To my mine I would say Deborah & Jeremy are young, and far to often when someone that young interacts with some one my age they feel a power embalance. They perceive the older person as not giving advice, but ordering them around. That can I believe create a natural reluctance to listen.

Is the media the same as it was in 1981, or has it changed? Would I, would you really be interested in hearing how to manipulate the media based on how to do it back in July of 1981? (Adam Walsh) If I want to believe my baby is still alive do I really want to hear someone, anyone else tell me that they KNOW, how I FEEL now because they lost their child too thirty years ago, or twenty years ago, or ten years ago? Do I want someone telling me how to "Grieve" (an yes I believe they have a "right" to grieve! They have lost, real tangible things here. They did not get to be with their daughter when she turned 11 months old. They have lost the right to expect that their every action will not be second guessed! If I was Deborah or Jeremy would I want to read this thread? If I was Jeremy would I want to read that I must be cheating on my partner based on the fact that some woman claims her phone ~ not even her ~ got a call? Or that I knew them because her ex-boyfriend, was an electrician and I'm also an electrician? Like there are only a handful of electricians in all of KC, and we all meet for a beer, once a week?)

Have the police told them not to talk too much about this case? To limit what they say to request to return baby Lisa? Have the police caution them that making themselves the center of focus, tends to stop people looking for Lisa? We know that the chief of police has private discussion with the media, and there is much reason to believe he's not the only cop talking off the record with the media. Are one set of cops coaching Deborah and Jeremy to act in one way, and another set claiming to the media that this indicates they are guilty? We have a thing called spin, and one action can be spined a number of ways.

Is it reasonable to assume that the more the media portrays them as "bad" the less they want to have anything to do with the media? News has become entertainment, right here in this thread we have a source of "news" that thought it would be entertaining to make a baby Lisa picture look like what? A dead baby? A demon? Hideous? And in part these are the people providing introductions to these parents/people who has lost their children. Would you really, want to feel connected to them now? Especially those of you who feel that the mere use of grieve indicates that they "know" baby Lisa is dead, and therefor they killed her! Like the police searching ponds, and lakes, the sewers, digging up the garden, and their flat out telling Deborah that they "know" she killed Lisa!

How does Deborah prove that she didn't kill Lisa? She can't at this point. There is nothing, she can do to prove she didn't kill Lisa. If she proves where she was every minute between 4:01 pm on the third and 4:00 am on the forth, the police can always claim that she did it at three, or two on the third. Until they either find Lisa or her body and establish how she died, they can theorize an unlimited number of things that **could** have happen to her!

The police like everyone else has a limited number of resources, and the more fixated they become on Deborah the less they are looking at other possibilities. From day one they were and have been searching for a body. You don't find a live baby on a cliff you need to rappel down! Nor do you find one in a sewer, or a cistern! KC has an international airport, and at 8.5 hours into a missing baby, one Doesn't limit the search to a two state area, if you truly believe the baby has been stolen. You draw a circle on a map showing how far a baby could have gotten in 8.5 hours, expand it a little bit more and start searching inward from that circle, as well as outward...



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Ok today I'm devil's advocate for mom again. LOL
Silo, I might need some help since you've got an extensive pile of links somewhere. Very early on, within the first few days, Jeremy said he had given police a list of 9 names of people they knew that were bad and might have
taken Lisa ( apparently none of those have panned out ). Reporter asked what kind of bad things these people did and he said ' like woman cheating on her husb.........' He stopped short because Deborah cut him off somehow by saying something else. Did she cut him off on purpose? Hard to say because she speaks over him a lot. So does Jeremy think a cheating wife is as bad as a person who steals babies? Did Deborah cut him off because she's got something to hide in that area? So my thoughts today are what if all of D's inconsistencies and apparent lies are NOT because she did something to Lisa. Maybe they are because she is hiding an affair!!!!!!!!! So kidnappers come in and take baby....... Deborah is innocent of all wrong doing in this scene. But she is guilty of having her lover over that night and that's why all the freaky weird things are not adding up..... because she doesnt' want Jeremy to know the truth about that ! Maybe this neighbor was a 'lookout' for the 2 lovers and that's why she's being quiet. Any thoughts?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Everyday that goes by now
gets me closer to think that this child
is dead.

This mother reminds me of a Susan Smith.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
Ok today I'm devil's advocate for mom again. LOL
Silo, I might need some help since you've got an extensive pile of links somewhere. Very early on, within the first few days, Jeremy said he had given police a list of 9 names of people they knew that were bad and might have
taken Lisa ( apparently none of those have panned out ). Reporter asked what kind of bad things these people did and he said ' like woman cheating on her husb.........' He stopped short because Deborah cut him off somehow by saying something else. Did she cut him off on purpose? Hard to say because she speaks over him a lot. So does Jeremy think a cheating wife is as bad as a person who steals babies? Did Deborah cut him off because she's got something to hide in that area? So my thoughts today are what if all of D's inconsistencies and apparent lies are NOT because she did something to Lisa. Maybe they are because she is hiding an affair!!!!!!!!! So kidnappers come in and take baby....... Deborah is innocent of all wrong doing in this scene. But she is guilty of having her lover over that night and that's why all the freaky weird things are not adding up..... because she doesnt' want Jeremy to know the truth about that ! Maybe this neighbor was a 'lookout' for the 2 lovers and that's why she's being quiet. Any thoughts?


Don't you think if the neighbor was some *look out* they would of seen who took the kid.

If not there bad look outs. According to this mother
SOMEONE came into the house and took the kid.

Someone must of left also..

An entry and an Exist..
Unless it was the neighbor
who they were having the extracurricular activities with.

I'm sure though if the neighbor was a look out
she would say whatever she saw.

No need being quiet now when your ass would be going to jail

Maybe they were lesbian lovers though?
edit on 29-10-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


I don't know about all of your points, BUT as far as 1981 to today. I think in 81 the idea of a family member doing something to their own child was style relatively foreign to most people, police included. What we've learned in the last 30 years is parents often do bad things to their child. SO maybe that accounts for part of why Walsh's experience might have been different. Plus in that particular case I believe the son was taken in a MALL in public where lots of people saw mom with the son and then without the son and looked and looked, so the opportunity for the parent to have been involved was smaller.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


True, but that someone could have taken baby Lisa after everyone went on to sleep. Just like Mom says happened. Only the earlier hours of the evening are now fuzzy because she was with her lover... Just thinking out loud. But yes I posted the theory so I'd get feedback on why it woudln't work and you are right. Neighbor's a crappy look out either way !


Whoa , what Lesbian Lovers?? Hmm , you know this is a really plausible scenario because they are drinnking together anyway...... so no one woudl suspect and the neighbor was supposed to tell her BF she was having trouble with to NOT come home that night. ( need some time alone)
edit on 29-10-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Good Morning Silo13!

A murder scene, not a murder? Depends, I think on just were that scene might be. I see a difference between you coming across a scene say in a park, while say walking, and say filming that same scene say with your super telephoto lens from an over look. Also a difference base on if you discovered a murder, or you being/filming after the police have come and gone. If the police have done there thing (come and gone) I believe you have a total right to that film. If you found a dead person, and filmed the scene, and then call the police, I see the police having a right to that film. If you film a murder, you've got something that potentially could make you a lot of money, I hope you have the ability to high speed duplicate that video/film because I also see the cops having a right to it. But then what if the one doing the killing is a cop? Do the cops have a sole right to that film/video? Do they have the right to take the video, and hang on to forever? Going back to King in calf, would we have had the same outcome if that film was turned over to one of the cops there that night?

Let's pretend I'm a big shot at one of the media stations in KC, and the cops go to court and demand I turn over all material I have on Lisa, and I agree to it because I have a soft spot for kids. That then sets precedent, and makes it much hard for me to resist in the future. Now next week you happen to shoot a video of the chief of police killing a man for no reason, other than he is white. You give me the video. The police get a warrant for me to turn over all information I have on the shooting by the chief of police. Should I turn over your name, and your film to the police? Do I have a duty to protect your identity from the police? Do I have a duty to validate that your video is not faked? To investigate both you and the tape? Or do I simply run it as soon as I get my hands on it? Now what if tomorrow is election day and it is not the cheif of police, but the sheriff who may or may not be re-elected tomorrow? Does the Sheriff have a right to go before the public and demonize me because I'm uncaring about Lisa? Could this all have been avoided by the cheif of police just coming to me and saving Dav1d I'd like to see all your footage on Lisa, I believe it could help us find Lisa. Or I believe it could prove who killed Lisa.

Remember in this case we have a new Chief of police, who is setting precedent on how he will do things in the future. He is the one who says that if they have a homicide in front of 50 witnesses no one would tell them who done it. Could that be do to how they choose to treat people? At this point, are they saying/implying by this request that they expect to find baby Lisa in the arms of one of the bystanders? Or even baby Lisa's blood on a bystander?

If there are a number of murders, and the media shows up and films the scenes and one of my officers notices that the same man is filmed at say five of ten locations, I can see getting a warrant to see if he is also filmed at any of the other five locations. That has the potential to be important. I don't see that the police have the right to all the film from the ten murders on just the possibility that there maybe one or more people that shows up at all the scenes.

In the end, the police no longer see "us" as one of them. Under that belief system I do not feel the police have the "right" to size my phone, simply because I may have filmed and officer pulling a disabled man from a wheelchair and throwing him onto the ground. I don't think they have a right to arrest me, because I am filming them abusing their power, and I won't stop and move on.

Okay, I was attempting to say if it becomes public knowledge that everything the media films will be turned over to the police, for anyone they dislike. Then those who believe the police dislike them will be less likely to talk to the media. Say I'm very vocal about the poor job the KC police do. How likely am I to allow myself be filmed by the media, just so the KC Police can have an updated picture of my face, and my car, so they can harrass me? I'm not arguing here that they will do that, only that I believe they will. It is this notion that there are so many laws on the books now, that every body breaks some, without knowing it. Like when a cop pulls up behind you when you are driving, almost everyone puts on there best behavior while they are back there. How would you like to have a camera installed in your car that allowed the police to monitor your speed, and what you are doing while driving all the time? There is a theory that it would make us all better drivers..

We are not required to tell the truth to the media. We are required not to lie to the police, giving them false information is a crime always! Sad really elected officials are not required to tell us the truth, do or at a minimum try to do the things they promise. The police are not by law required to protect us,



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
www.kmbc.com...

Private investigator returns last night and loads up whole family and they drive away into the night to an unknown location. Are they just getting somewhere quiet so they cannot be bothered by media etc?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 



The only way I see that working is if they are already out of the country. Trust me as a single man, your not going to find it easy to get a blond 11 month old out of the country. You will not fly, unless you own your own plane.

Excellent point, Dav1d!
Haven't got all the way caught up yet this morning, but if we add ^^^ this to the idea of the people paying Joe BigBucks are the same people who simply opened the door with their key, patted the dog on the head, and took Lisa because they thought Deborah was not a fit mom...

They might just have enough dough to own their own plane, too...and now have Lisa in some private villa in, say, Tuscany, with a full staff including nanny, doctors, etc.

???
Maybe??



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Thanks Silo for posting that video. I watched it and I don't think that's the one the poster was talking about. She had said the footage she saw was early on in the investigation. In the video you posted the reporter states it has been 3 weeks since Lisa disappeared. Anyway I'm still looking.

As far as those pics of Lisa on Nancy Grace, that's inexcusable. I saw that same picture of baby Lisa sitting on the couch on HLN. It was a cute and very clear picture no shadows or eye glare. Either HLN cleaned up the photo or Nancy Grace distorted it.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Excellent point, Dav1d! Haven't got all the way caught up yet this morning, but if we add ^^^ this to the idea of the people paying Joe BigBucks are the same people who simply opened the door with their key, patted the dog on the head, and took Lisa because they thought Deborah was not a fit mom... They might just have enough dough to own their own plane, too...and now have Lisa in some private villa in, say, Tuscany, with a full staff including nanny, doctors, etc. ??? Maybe??


...so this is what it has come to.. A very wealthy family.. saving baby Lisa from a terrible life with two unloving parents..?

Anyone who could steal a baby , has some serious issues, and I would fear that the child would NOT be better off, being raised by "nannies' in some villa.

People who would go to the extremes of stealing a child.. will often have their own agendas..and it has little to do with "protecting' the child.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Most of us don't run our own media station, so giving up the 'scrapped' footage is not something we really understand, it's not personal for most of us. This was my attempt to make it more personal by asking how would you feel about having your home searched? Just on the off chance that they **might** find something useful? Say we pass a law to **stop terrorist** by having our homes randomly searched whenever the police feel like it. On the surface that might sound reasonable to some. But say you beat a speeding ticket. And now every time you throw a party, your home is searched. Every fifth time you leave your home, the front door is broken down because you didn't answer their knock? Or say four times a year but always while you are in the shower?

I believe there are ways to obtain the info they want, without settings new precedents. I see what they are doing is using Lisa to grab more power for the police. I don't think KC Police have a right to use Baby Lisa to grab more power for themselves.

I'm setting here, and I can't help but wonder if the police wanted to search my home, just on the chance that 11 month girl wander into it unnoticed, would I permit it? I know she isn't here, but is this an effective way to waste the 50 officers that KC Police has searching for Lisa in those first 48 hours?!? And why search my house but not the guy a mile down the road?

Or say I'm a convect child molester (yes this is unpopular) but I've paid my time, and I no longer do it. Do the police really have a right to demand to search my home, every time a child goes missing? Was not the time I served my punishment? Do I no longer have a right to move on with my life? Can I not change? And if you say/believe I should willing submit to searches for the rest of my life. What about the drunk that lives next door? Should he forfeit the right to drive for the ret of his life? Should he need to prove his whereabouts every time there is a hit and run? Should the person convicted of shoplifting have their home searched every time a store has an item turn up missing? Every year there are new laws passed, no one knows every law on the books anymore. The government slowly but surely manages to seize more and more power for itself. In how many states now does the government have the right after stopping you for a traffic stop the right to take your phone and download everything off of it, simply because they stopped you?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Dav1d,

What I don't understand here is how the media can "refuse" to obey a Grand Jury subpoena. It's a subpoena that was issued by a judge in good standing, in an effort to learn more about what happened to the child.

And why do you keep on with this Police Chief's statement about an entirely separate neighborhood and its troubles in the past???
It has NOTHING to do with this investigation!

And what if, when Short said everyone was just "too exhausted" to do the media tour, the police had replied with
"Yeah, you know, we're tired, too! So why don't we all just have a few days off to 'rest', and then we'll start looking again. Okay with you? Right. Good, then, see you Monday? No? How bout Thursday...a week isn't going to make much difference, you know, it's just a baby girl. See ya then!"

While I appreciate your anti-LEO stance in general, I think you're moving way off base here with your condemnation of the police and FBI and your absolute refusal to give them the benefit of the doubt.

------------
Where is Lisa??



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


I see where you're going with this. It's a tough call. I guess if you knew you were innocent and had nothing in yuor home, you'd let them in to look so they can CLEAR YOU and get on to finding the baby.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Dav1d
 


I don't know about all of your points, BUT as far as 1981 to today. I think in 81 the idea of a family member doing something to their own child was style relatively foreign to most people, police included. What we've learned in the last 30 years is parents often do bad things to their child. SO maybe that accounts for part of why Walsh's experience might have been different. Plus in that particular case I believe the son was taken in a MALL in public where lots of people saw mom with the son and then without the son and looked and looked, so the opportunity for the parent to have been involved was smaller.


I posted a bit about Tina Porter, feeling insulted that they would not take her advice, indeed called the cops on her. That name didn't ring a bell with me. So I looked her up. It turns out her husband kill their children. And it took the cops (I believe) three years to find the bodies. I'm sorry but I fail also to see what possible help she could be. I don't need additional reason to mistrust my partner. I don't need someone telling me how to recover my babies body in just three years now. And again this case happen many years ago, what she did then is not relevant to today.

Or do I need to listen to some national lost kid finding organization that claims almost all children are taken by the missing parent?

Do I really want someone whispering in my ear that my partner is bisexual has another lover, and has stolen our child, because my partner is planning on leaving me, at this point? I don't feel a need to hear that now, my world is crazy enough now.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join