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: 64
41
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

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.


Would you?!? How long would you imagine it would take to really search every place a dead eleven moth old child could be in your home? Now multiple that by 100, 200, 300, and divide by 50 police working this case. How effect was that time spent in this case? Where are the stats that suggest when infants are stollen they are stollen 90% or more by people that live within what, 4, 5 blocks? Just how many homes are there within a mile of this home, within 5 miles? I'll bet there are significantly more the 300 homes within 5 miles. Nope in my opinion this was simply done to look like they were doing something, in this case anything. I believe if someone had the guts to stand up and hold them accountable we might have a far different outcome today. If you wish to assume something, assume the child is alive and being stolen. If she is dead, the body will always turn up, it just a question of time. But if the child is being taken away by parties unknown these first 48 hours and how one choose to use them or waste them are critical to the outcome.


edit on 29-10-2011 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

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.


I would have to say most departments are tapping into public emotion over missing children to justify the need for more extreme measures. Yet once these offenders are caught I'm really not seeing any new improved methods to punish/rehab or deter. How about keeping offenders locked up so they can't re-offend..no that would be against their rights. Instead bullying the media/locals removing some of our rights is the better way to convict.

I want these people caught. I could possibly be more agreeable to their tactics if I saw something real being done after the fact. Their main focus is convictions, LE/penal system quite miserably drops the ball when it comes to follow up. I honestly don't know if it's wise to put so much faith in a broken system. Instead of addressing the fact it's not working they choose to manipulate away more rights. You make a great point.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
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)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 11:34 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


Are there none who are attempting to *vilify* Deborah then in your opinion? Just because Deborah wasn't smart enough to *lose* her daughter in a public mall? Are these people who can actually help? Do the have experience in recovering infants alive, quickly? Will they give Deborah a time machine so she can go back in time and *lose* Lisa in a more public setting where it can be proven that Lisa was alive and walking around at 6:30 pm on the third? Just how fresh is either of there experiences? Did they use twitter, or Facebook for the successful recovery of their children? How well will Tina Porter *relate* to Deborah? To Jeremy? Perhaps you believe that Tina can *bond* with Jeremy, because their partner killed their children? Perhaps Tina can claim to know Jeremy's pain?

Because Deborah stated they are grieveing she must be guilty some suggest...
Could not others claim that her choice to follow the advice of other parents who have had their children murder, means she knows her partner did it?

Let's say they get in and have heart to heart meaningful conversations, do you believe for a minute that they would not be interrogated by the police?
And the outcome of that not leaked to the media?

Let's see;
The conversation were exactly the same as what was said last time. That proves she is guilty she practiced a speech, it was rehearsed, and if she really was innocent she would not need to give a speech!
The conversation changed yet again, that proves she is lying, she can't keep her story straight!

As to vilify, how am I or anyone else for that matter *vilifying* Gil and or Tina? What has either of them been subject to in the last month that Deborah and Jeremy haven't?

I've asked two questions really, how is someone's experience more than ten years ago in a different community under different circumstances going to be helpful?

Do you really believe for a minute that even if the police are not behind their appearance on the scene, that if they do get to experience any really sigificant time with them they will not be pumped for all they know by the police?

I'll ask one more, if they accept how long do you believe it will take before it is suggested this is *coaching* and nothing else they say can really be trusted?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

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)


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.
Nope they have not.
The cellphones by their nature if turn on, and not actively being used to place a call can be tracked and located....
The use of the metal detectors suggest that the phones have not been turned on, and the batteries are removed.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:16 PM
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?


We really don't know what Jeremy was going to say here....
It could have been:
Like the woman cheating on her husband and stole his car and crashed it.
Like the woman cheating on her husband and who took his dog and ran over it and killed it.

Have you ever fallen asleep at night without knowing it?
I have.
Not because I was drunk just because I was tired.
Ever take a pill and you are not sure if you did it or not ten minutes later?
I have.
Every leave your house, and went back because you where not sure you turn the stove off?
I have.
Ever locked the door, turn to walk away and your not sure you really did? So you turn around and check it just to be sure?
We don't know what the police have been telling them at this point. We do know that the police interrogated them for over 40 hours. The police have been playing with their minds for 40 hours. The police have gotten false confessions in less than 12 hours....
If you thought your child's life depended on you being 100% sure positive, that the last time you saw her was 10:30 pm would be really be sure? If the police told you that they search everywhere she could be, and they haven't found her, so either she was gone before 10:30 or you killed her could you begin to wonder? Do you note the time you interact with your child each and every time?
Could the last time you actually have seen her been 10:25? Or 10:15?
And you say know I know it was 10:30 because the news started the commercial for the car dealer then...
And the police tell you they checked and that commercial didn't run that night it ran the night before, isn't it possible that you are confusing the two nights?
Would you really be so sure of yourself that you be willing to gamble with your child life?
I wouldn't if it was presented that way to me.
If it was my child I'd want the police looking everywhere...
Does that make me a bad parent because I'd rather be sure the police where looking in enough places rather than risk them not looking far enough because I was too sure of myself.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by schmae
 

Ok today I'm devil's advocate for mom again. LOL

That’s fab actually - let’s hear it!


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 ).

The police asked them for ‘persons of suspect’ and the ‘Brad-Wins’ supplied 9 names. Yes the link is here in the thread, none of these 9 names were leaked to the media and none of them reportedly ‘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.

I have to correct you here (and I will supply a link in a moment) but Jeremy was asked this question and he actually corrected himself (This is in transcript form from CNN and you can hear it on video - I’ll give you the link - it will take some searching but it’s here). Deborah didn’t have a say here, correct him, or interrupt him.


Jeremy think a cheating wife is as bad as a person who steals babies?

It can be surmised from what he said but remember it was a strange conversation at best. Some have actually implicated Deborah as the ‘cheating woman’ - but only in reference to she is in fact ‘cheating’ on her husband Sean Bradley with Jeremy as She and Sean are not divorced. And remember Irwin and Bradley have only been living together just going on 3 years.


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!!!!!!!!!


There was an off-handed report Deborah had someone on the ‘side’ but this was NEVER CONFIRMED. Or at least if the police looked into the report they’ve never disclosed their findings.


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.....


Do I think ‘freaky weird things’ happened that night - you bet!


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?


I can’t even begin to think along these lines as there’ no confirmation there’s ‘someone else’ - and Samantha (her drinking buddy) is not talking - neither is Deborah’s brother - or of course if they were we’re not being told anything about those conversations.






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



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


I have a friend who is a professional photographer. She came across a grisley accident immediately after it happend, wheels still spinning etc. Of course she had her camera with her and took many photos. The cops interviewed her on the scene and said they would get back to her later (as in a few days). They did, they were rude and they wanted her photos. She didn't give them to the police. As the case progressed, the insurance company wanted the photos and so did the one of the drivers legal defense team. In the end, her photos were subpena'd and she was paid a small sum since she could prove she was a professional photographer. I can't remember which side issued the subpoena.
edit on 29-10-2011 by Gridrebel because:



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 

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.

There’s a link and text way back in the thread here - I’ll hunt it down. In this ‘link’ she checked in on her ‘boys’ and asked if they wanted to sleep with her. They did but one didn’t end up going into his mother’s room with the other brother and the stray kitten. The link also includes Jeremy’s report of when he came home only one of the boys were sleeping with Lisa’s mother and poor Jeremy was flummoxed over what the heck was going on to the point of stating - ‘But we don't have a cat.‘

Confusing? You bet!



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.


Huge problem again as so many of these reports you have to actually listen to!



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.


Something that makes me steam! 'Wild Bill' should have taken the initiative to introduce Gil and Tina to the ‘Brad-Wins’ - not just leave these good and caring people hanging around on the stoop.


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?


Yep!


Or perhaps the parents are just so untrusting at this point they don't want any kind of stranger to approach them.


Regardless - we know legal counsel has instructed Lisa's parent not to talk to ANYONE. As all ‘good’ legal counsel should. Right?


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?


I skipped over a bit only cause I have to rush out the door - but YES - I agree. Gil especially didn’t like the reception he got and when he didn't get what he wanted? Wow - since then he’s been going around saying Deborah and Jeremy are suicidal. There’s a post/link just a few pages back. I’ll get to it when I get back!

Thanks so much for beige here!


Be back in a bit!

peace



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

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.


There is always a higher judge, not all judges see things the same ways. Your lawyer files an appeal...


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!


I've read it in context. The Police Chief certainly could have said in the East side, he didn't choose to do that. It is a blanket statment. Why should the rules here be different for the chief of police, a very educated and articulated man than Deborah? There are many that wish to spin things in such a way as to vilify Deborah, I'm simply attempting to give a little balance to the possibilities if this thread had been titled the let's bash Deborah thread, I would not be here.



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!"


Are you serious with this question? Let's assume you are, how many officers does the KCPD have? How many of them are assigned to this case? 50%? 40%? Less than a hundred? The media has already reported that they went home for the night! They are getting there regular days off.


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.


Are you stating an opinion about and idea here? Or are you stating an opinion about Dav1d here as a person? Just what do those last three "your" refer to exactly?

Some might choose to label me as anti-LEO. I do NOT choose to see myself in that light. I have an honest desire to look at the police an respect them, and that doesn't come from assuming they are always right. That doesn't come from always giving them the benefit of any doubt. It comes from holding them accountable, and to a higher standard than the general public. Call me weird, but I don't respect my buddy because he can fix my driving ticket, or I can drop a name and avoid the ticket altogether in certain areas, but rather because I know he wouldn't. I'm sorry but like your Chief of Police, if in any area of KC, a murder can be committed in front of fifty witnesses and not so much as one is willing to talk, the police could be doing a better job!! I'm not willing to simply toss up my hands, and shake my head, and say Oh it just those people in the East side, and (wink-wink) you KNOW how THEY are.

It's almost been a month, and just how many hours have been spent on this case? How soon will we have an arrest? The good people of the north side don't mind talking. Someone had to see something. Will there be an arrest next week? Next month? I'll tell you what I'll post on this thread that I was wrong, I was to harsh on the police. If there is an arrest by the end of next month. So what about you? Just how long are you willing to give them the benefit of doubt? If it was your child just how long would you be content to give them the benefit of doubt? To assume they are doing enough? How many sewer lids would you want them pulling up on day one? How many ponds, would you want them to check out? How far UP the river should they drag?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


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."

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’.

Megan did not answer the call.

The call was forwarded to her voice mail.

The call lasted 50 seconds.

The police have not revealed(if anything) was said on the voice mail.

The police have not revealed WHERE the phone call came from but report it was one of the ‘stolen’ cell phones.

The police have not released the ‘triangulation’ they’ve established between the ‘stolen cell phone’ and Megan’s phone.

Megan said she had ‘driven through the area (of Lisa’s house) with her ex-boyfriend in the past - but did not know Lisa or her parents/family.

Since these findings it’s been established Megan does know one of the Bradley/Irwin family members but the police would not say who - and Megan (reportedly) still denies knowing the Irwin family specifically.

Megan has been interviewed by police 4 times.

peace


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



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 



No one knows. Or more truthful no one is admitting to knowing.


Love you buddy but Megan Wright admitted to receiving a 50 second call that went to her voice mail.

It's unclear however if she reported this to the police or if the police back-tracked the call to her own cellphone. I'll try to clear that up if I can.


No one has confirmed it is from the stolen cellphones, indeed from a cellphone, it could be from their landline.

It was confirmed by police the call came from one of the 'stolen' cell phones. Or your buddies the police are lying to media.


The cops interviewed the owner of the phone number, she denies answering the phone.

Hun, you just said no one is 'admitting' to receiving the call. Your last statement contradicts that. And YES the police have interviews Megan 4 times - no she didn't answer the call but it went to her voice mail.

Dave, I absolutely adore your participation in this thread but right now I have to give you a WHACK!

WHACK!

*hugs*



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


David, that's the thing. As far as I can understand that neighbor has never spoken a word to MEDIA but has been in talks with police from the very get go. If she knew the baby's whereabouts or anything else , let's say the MISSING LINK and she told police, then police would have told her to keep it quiet while they build a case. I've said a few times I think the neighbor holds the key to the whole thing. Because of her silence, I think she knows something. If this were my drinking buddy and neighbor going through this and I knew the TRUTH and it vindicates my friend, I'd be screaming it from every satellite tower in town. " i saw baby Lisa alive" , " i know deb didn't do this" , etc etc. The neighbor hasn't even confirmed if the lights were on or off as Deborah says the neighbor told her and that's the only way she knew. If you ask me, the neighbors silence speaks volumes. She's in cahoots with the police. Let's just hope she's telling the TRUTH to police and not pissed at Deb for something and attempting to railroad her. Neighbor certainly does not care about 15 minutes of fame though !



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


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?


'Samantha' is the name of Deborah's 'drinking buddy' (as you call her).

She is saying NOTHING - I repeat - NOTHING at this point, or if she is the police are keeping the info well away from MSM.

GREAT POINTS DAVE!!!

Edit to Add:

Listen to Schmae's post above too.




edit on 29-10-2011 by silo13 because: see above



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

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’.


Megan Wright words are "...my phone did,..." NOT that her cellphone did. Have you got a real link to Megan video? It seems to be pulled today. What I also heard her say was my phone....



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’.


Again do you have a link from the police where they acknowledge they have question this woman once? That they limit this phone call to coming from one of the stolen cellphones? I've looked and can't find one. This could be an assumption on her part. That call could have come from the house phone.

As far as I can tell the police have not stated anything about Megan, it is all what Megan reports the police told her???



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Missing Baby Lisa Irwin: Damaging Details Emerge Despite Damage Control


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.


David - take note:


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?


Read more on the link for more details.

For now me and my Flu are going to bed. I’m dead.

Have a great Sunday All!

peace



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



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

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.


What I read says Gil showed up on three different occasions but he never got to talk to them alone, and he was upset over that. Tina tracked them down on her own, walked up and knocked on the door. she was asked to contact the Lawyer to make arrangements, and went away.

After some point she decided to go back and ask which Lawyer (guest she didn't know Short was no more) and at that point some called the police on her. She took off and got out of there before the police showed up. Was very upset that they would not greet her with open arms.....

Perhaps both want to capture some of the 15 minutes again?



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join