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.
Originally posted by schmae
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.
Originally posted by Dav1d
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.
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
Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by silo13
Hey Silo,Since your the one that has kept up on the latest in this case,and without reading the last ten pages,does anyone know who received the phone call from the stolen phone the night of the incident?I wasn't able to catch the piece on the news so I didn't hear the whole report,I do know the cops interviewed the girl that answered the call from it.Also have they given out the phone numbers of the lost cell phones?
edit on 29-10-2011 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)
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?
Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Michelle129th
Be careful...nowhere in that article did it say Deborah said that.
No it wasn't 'written' in the article but like MANY (if not the majority) of the reports on the Irwin case you have to listen to the video.
I have yet to see any news on Deborah changing this part of the story...
Yes, sometimes, especially where video is included - you have to use your ears as well as your eyes.
The video reporter clearly states Deborah reports the boys were BOTH sleeping with her on the night Lisa went missing. This goes against Deborah's former 'story' - yet again.
----> If this reporter is blatantly lying you can bet Tacopina will be all over him.
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.
Jeremy think a cheating wife is as bad as a person who steals babies?
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?
Yeah, unfortunately on that link for some reason I can't view any of the videos so was just commenting on the text. I would still like to see the words in quotes, or Deborah saying it herself before taking it for 100% real.
I was searching for hours last night because I was sure earlier on in the case several stations were reporting this both ways ie: one station saying "one child in bed" and another saying "both"...I couldn't find it but there are just so many links and videos and updates now it's getting muddled. If I do come across it, I'll post it.
On the topic of the two families that have tried to come in and help and being refused. One we have NO idea how these people approached the irwins.
They people that have approached to help...they could very well have been quite aggressive or judgemental or even a bit loony and crazed in their approaches. Let's say they approached with a "come on...you know what needs to be done...you know you are involved..." type attitude that turned the parents' off?
Or perhaps the parents are just so untrusting at this point they don't want any kind of stranger to approach them.
Wanted to add as well something that hasn't been sitting well with me is the fact that right after being denied their "help" by the families these "helpful" people immediately went to the press and whined about it. If indeed they had any thoughts of helping this family do they think they're doing it by making them look even worse in the public's eye? If they truly were there to help the family and the baby I feel they would do it privately and quietly. So are they there to help...or get their own faces on tv?
Originally posted by wildtimes
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.
Hey Silo,Since your the one that has kept up on the latest in this case,and without reading the last ten pages,does anyone know who received the phone call from the stolen phone the night of the incident?I wasn't able to catch the piece on the news so I didn't hear the whole report,I do know the cops interviewed the girl that answered the call from it.Also have they given out the phone numbers of the lost cell phones?
"I received a phone call, well my phone did, the night that baby Lisa went missing," Megan Wright said. "It was apparently a 50 second phone call. I don't know who answered it or what was said or who was on the other end of the phone."
No one knows. Or more truthful no one is admitting to knowing.
No one has confirmed it is from the stolen cellphones, indeed from a cellphone, it could be from their landline.
The cops interviewed the owner of the phone number, she denies answering the phone.
I'm curious, let's say you are Deborah's drinking buddy. And you know for a fact that at 6:45 Deborah was passed out drunk. Who is willing to post that you would let yourself out the front door, and not comment to the media that that is what happen? If you knew in your heart that Deborah was going to be totally out of it until at least 3:00 am, and likely would take some work to wake at 4:00am would you be willing to let Deborah go on TV and claim she checked on Lisa at 10:30??
Let's say you knew that Lisa was dead, you saw her dead with your own eyes, you touch her cold lifeless body. Would you be willing to stay silent? Would you claim that you so feared Deborah or Jeremy that you felt the police couldn't protect you and so you kept silent?
Originally posted by silo13
"I received a phone call, well my phone did, the night that baby Lisa went missing," Megan Wright said. "It was apparently a 50 second phone call. I don't know who answered it or what was said or who was on the other end of the phone."
link
Her name is Megan Wright.
Megan Wright received a call on her cell phone the night/early morning Lisa went ‘missing’.
There is NO CONFIRMATION of the time of this call - regardless what rumor (0228) that’s hearsay on the internet.
One of the ‘stolen cell phones’ (of course the police will not say which one) - ‘called’ Megan Wright’s cell phone early the same morning Lisa went ‘missing’.
Here's more on the damaging details that are emerging in the Irwin case:
* Pirro did not know whether lead attorney Joe Tacopina fired Short or whether she left the case for other reasons. But ABC News reported that she was "forced off the case overnight," local Kansas City station KMBC said.
* The Irwin's New York counsel Joe Tacopina has told police he will reschedule the interview of the two boys for sometime next week. It's an extraordinarily late time to be finally allowing interviews of witnesses who were in the house the night the baby is said to have disappeared.
* Deborah Bradley acknowledged her son and Irwin's son heard something the night baby Lisa disappeared. But Bradley said the couple avoided further questioning of the boys so as not to put them through anything else.
* Jeremy Irwin's sister Ashley Irwin, who said on Facebook she is a third year law student, has been coordinating some of the search activities and also, apparently, running damage control. When a poster to her Facebook page asked Tuesday why the boys weren't made available for police interviews, Ashley Irwin said they were interviewed right after the disappearance. This is a truthful answer but an evasive one that obscures the conflict between police and the parents over more extensive interviews.
* There was a phone call made from one of the missing cellphones in the early morning hours of Oct. 4.
Judge Pirro said the police confirmed this to her.
The recipient of the call was the message box of someone named Megan Wright. Police have talked to Wright (4 times) but haven't released details of what, if anything, they learned.
This new revelation by Judge Pirro is consistent with Bradley's statements about early police interviews in which she said they had ping data from one of the phones.
Was Ashley Irwin misinformed, or attempting serious damage control when she claimed that the 2:30 a.m. phone call was a rumor and could not possibly have happened? The blog Shadowplay noted that Ashley Irwin posted on its Find Baby Lisa Facebook page Oct. 17, "Jeremy was at home with the children while Debbie & her brother went to the store. The 2:30 a.m. phone call is a false rumor. Their cellphones were shut off due to non-payment. No one could have made a call and that is also why police couldn't ping them."
* Bradley and Jeremy Irwin said they discovered that their cellphones were missing when they tried to call 911 after discovering their daughter missing and not finding her in a house search. "Jeremy had his work cellphone on his body when he got home at 4 a.m. That's how they called 911." Ashley Irwin posted Oct. 17 on Find Baby Lisa. So why was there any effort to find missing home cellphones or delay in calling 911?
Originally posted by Morningglory
As far as Gil and Tina showing up I would think there's more appropriate less intrusive ways to lend support. Guilty or innocent it would be hard to relate with those parents. Someone like Jaycee Dugard/family could be a better example of hope but even Jaycee would be hard to face if you're going through such an experience.
Did either of these people have close communications with Deborah/Jeremy lending support from the onset? Wouldn't it have been better to know in advance if help is wanted instead of just showing up? It's somewhat arrogant/naive to expect an offer of help will always be met with equal enthusiasm.
I don't like the fact they ran to the media to basically gossip. Deborah/Jeremy or investigators really don't need a parade of people coming in poking around then running their mouth to the press. It makes me question their intent. I wonder if "someone" approached Gil and Tina suggesting they go.