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: 67
41
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d


Arachne believes baby Lisa is alive and was taken by someone not connected to the family, but has been inside the home.


And yet still another voice, another opinion on the Kanas City Police....


This took my attention. Someone "Not Connected" to the family, but has been inside the home (sentence indicating been in the home before the baby was missing). I wonder what "Not connected" to the family means, that would rule out any ex's and friends and any type of family. The teenager that knew the code to the garage would be connected I would think. So this would leave maybe someone that has done recent work on the house or has been in it to do work?




posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
On the subject of Kanas City Police Department attitude of arrogance;


LISA IRWIN: Police Not Phased by $100,000 Reward in Lisa Irwin Disappearance Case - WDAF

KANSAS CITY, Mo.—

Authorities say that in high-profile cases like the disappearance of Lisa Irwin, there can be pros and cons to offering a big reward like the one now being offered by Irwin's family for information leading to her return, or a conviction in her alleged kidnapping.

The big reward dwafs the $1,000 offered by the TIPS Hotline for information leading to an arrest. But police say that money doesn't have anything to do with the TIPS Hotline.

"We weren't consulted..." said Det. Kevin Boehm of the Kansas City Missouri Police Department and the TIPS Hotline.


Sour grapes attitude, or just another example of the Kansas City Police Department's arrogance? Clearly the intent here is to establish and acknowledge that the Kansas City Police Department's TIPS $1,000 is just as good, or even better than the $100,000 the family has obtained?



"The family and Mr. Stanton that's involved have the right to do whatever feel is important to bringing Lisa back."


Do they actually? Or just whatever doesn't cause the Kansas City Police Department to feel showed up?


edit on 30-10-2011 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Michelle129th
 

The reality is....mom didn't report the drinking information to the MEDIA until a week later....that does not mean she didn't report it to the police from day one.


So you're thinking she told the police she was drinking - but for some reason the police didn't tell the media? Or she didn't tell the media? We can only hope so. I seriously doubt it. But, if you think so? Prove it. Pretty simple that.


Prove it? Well, on that logic why shouldn't you have to prove it isn't the way it went? I'm not saying i'm right or you're wrong but rather that we don't have the information to say for 100% certain that she actually did lie about it. My point was we only get about 1/8 of the actual true factual story (if we can even use factual in this case) because it's the media's word and not the police or the parents. I was thinking back in the case and couldn't remember mom actually saying she had lied, or misforgot or what have you so I was throwing out another scenario (just like everyone including you has done in this case so far so don't be so defensive!)



Again, I don't hear/see Deborah saying she put baby to bed at 10:30, but rather that she herself went to bed at that time



I've linked to this repeatedly. She gave three separate stories of when she put the baby to bed - wait - 4 now.

peace

edit on 30-10-2011 by silo13 because: (no reason given)


That's what I said in my original post...that I had gone back to the beginning and was reading through several links that had been posted and in none of them do I see Deborah sitting in front of a camera saying "i put baby to bed at 10:30. Then another saying "oh sorry...i actually put her to bed at 6:30" etc. I see the media saying the different times, but not the police or the mother. If in fact those videos or transcripts do exist, I apologize...but I do NOT see them anywhere.




In the first cell phone post on this thread (page 57) there is absolutely no police confirmation of the phone call or megan wright that I can see in either text or video. From some searching there is also no actual police confirmation. Even the media is not stating "police have confirmed", so it's all this woman's word and nothing else

So what's your point? There's no link or no confirmation? You pick these things apart - but offer no proof of your own. For you just because you 'can't find it' - it isn't there. You REALLY THINK this woman is going to step out and tell national media thus and so if it's a total fabrication? Fine, that's your opinion. peace


David asked if there was any OFFICIAL (as in police) confirmation of Megan Wright being the recipient of the phone call. You stated that in your link to that article there was indeed confirmation. I went to your link, read the text, watched the video and then went a step further and googled and watched every other video of Megan Wright and on none of those videos or attached articles do we have the police officially saying "yes she is the woman" or "yes, she received the phone call". So I was responding to both you and David to say that no we don't have official confirmation. I am not picking things apart. Saying I have to prove something is a two way street. If I have to prove she is NOT the recipient of the call then why shouldn't you have to prove she IS the recipient? Do you see how silly that is? None of us can prove things either way.

You say I'm claiming things aren't true because I can't find them, but the same goes for you in that you can't just post a link and say it's FACT and confirmation just because you say so. It's silly to get into semantics at this point. We have been having a good debate with several people on both sides of the fence offering opinions and scenarios. Why do we have to keep coming back to the snarky "prove its"? None of us can prove a damn thing because we are not the police or the parents or the baby so get off it.

Michelle



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 





You say I'm claiming things aren't true because I can't find them, but the same goes for you in that you can't just post a link and say it's FACT and confirmation just because you say so. It's silly to get into semantics at this point. We have been having a good debate with several people on both sides of the fence offering opinions and scenarios. Why do we have to keep coming back to the snarky "prove its"? None of us can prove a damn thing because we are not the police or the parents or the baby so get off it.


Once again I thank you for bringing the reality of the misquotes and confusion within this case ,and some of its so called facts to question.

I think at times Silo has made up her mind who she thinks is guilty , and can get a little defensive if she is challenged.

I really hope that is not the case... because only an open mind and willingness to look at all possibilities, will help find Lisa, in my opinion.




edit on 30-10-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

Oh I heard it - I just find it terribly difficult to believe the police would allow the story to continue if there was nothing to it or if it were an out and out lie.

Speaking of convolutions there's another report that said Megan called 911 to report the call. And yet another reporting the media knew this information from police reports and 'ambushed' Megan to get her story (based on those reports).

Just sayin'.





I'd have to say the first report of Megan calling 911 to report the call is probably untrue. If we are to believe Megan's account of not knowing who answered the phone (meaning she herself didn't take the call), then she would have no idea who made that call to her. Unless she knew Deborah or Jeremy's cell # beforehand (making her guilty of lying about knowing the family).

The second report I can totally see happening. As soon as the media got hold of her name I could absolutely see them ambushing her to get an "exclusive" interview.

I wish the media were more trustworthy. Or didn't bother to report until they themselves had factual information from reliable sources. Too bad for them this is all about who gets the highest ratings


Michelle



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I'm wondering about this headline in terms of the whole Megan Wright issue. The headline reads that she received a call from MOM's phone. But the article goes on to say nothing about who's actual phone it was that made the call. I also don't see Megan Wright saying it was told to her by police it was from the mom's phone (although I guess that question could have been asked off camera). Do you think when questioning her (if that's even true) that the police would let her know who's phone of the 3 had called her? I don't know if that makes much sense and if they would divulge that much info? Maybe they questioned her about her relationship specifically with Deborah so she just assumed that's where the call was from?

Megan Wright says Lisa Irwin's mom's phone called her the night baby vanished

I also wish we could clear up whether or not the call was actually answered (and by whom) or if it did indeed go to voicemail. Several news outlets are reporting voicemail some not saying where it went and others just with Megan wright claiming she "didn't know who answered it"

Ok, on second thought...I want to know everything about the phone call..waht was said and who was on the other end....come on police!!

Michelle



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
On the previous page I posted a link to an interesting story where Deborah was giving an interview, and in it she claims the police told her one of the phones placed a call at 2:30 am. Deborah states this is impossible ( I believe she was suggesting it was impossible because she KNOWS she didn't place the call) and goes on to talk about how the police lie. In context she is giving this as an example of how the police have lied to her. ****I believe**** this is the source of the Megan Wright story.
1) Megan Wright story hits the air after Deborah interview, giving Megan time to have seen it.
2) Megan went to GMA to tell her "story" one needs to wonder if she wasn't paid for this interview. It's a network interview, not a "local" interview...
3) Megan claims not to know "who" answered her phone, not really believable in my opinion. How often do you have unknown people answering your phone in the middle of the night.
4) Megan claims she was interview four times, that would appear to give her testimony importance, yet even I can see a need for the Kansas City Police to hear here statements four (!) times.... There is nothing new there.
5) If the call went to voice mail, then the Kansas City Police know everything that was recorded.
6) If one looks at the length of the call minus the greeting time, minus the message, it's not rocket science to figure out if there is enough time left to say anything significant.
7) What does it say about the professionalism of the KCPD if they are indeed ***selling*** information to the media?
8) What does it say about building trust with the community if you are willing to sell case information?
9) There are people with very deep pockets involved in this case, who ever is actually offering the $100,000 and the NY Lawyer.
10) What if the purpose of the New York Lawyer is not to prove innocents but rather to prove guilt??
11) People quit searching for a known dead baby even if the body is never located....
12) If my baby is alive, it CAN'T be the dead baby everyone is searching for....



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


I think you you have made some very interesting points...and it makes sense if someone with a lot of money..and connections was involved with the disappearance of Lisa...and wanted to cover their tracks completely.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13


A call was received Friday by a woman who wishes to remain anonymous. She asked that these questions be posed:

“Did the interviews for the boys, that police say could lead to answers in their missing sister’s case, get canceled Friday because their attorney, Joe Tacopina, is still in Rome negotiating his soccer deal with As Roma?” The caller then said, “I want to ask, is Tacopina’s involvement in this case more about Tacopina than Baby Lisa? Is he exploiting these parents? Is he taking away from finding the baby for his own egotistical reasons? Is he a media hound?


It is reported he was (still is?) in Rome. I’m still looking on this end in the Italian news to see if I can find something to collaborate the story.



This really ticked me off when I first read it. How dare the "lead" attorney in a case this important (not important in terms of media coverage but in terms of a poor innocent missing child) take a leisurely trip to Italy to talk soccer...Arghhhhh!!!! But when I tried to research it myself it turns out JT was actually trying to buy that soccer team 3 years ago...so this anonymous caller is herself just trying to stir up crap and make him look bad.

Why bother even doing that? I just don't get it! A BABY is missing....a 10 month old BABY ffs....everyone stop trying to get your f'ing 15 mins of fame and find this child! It is making me so mad that everyone is so focused on stupidness in this case then just finding the baby.

JT may very well still be in Rome, I couldn't find confirmation or denial of this, but the reasons this caller states are obviously untrue.

AND to add...if this jerk is indeed in Rome...get the hell home you deadbeat and get this family heading in the right direction for goodness sake!

Michelle



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by Dav1d
 


I think you you have made some very interesting points...and it makes sense if someone with a lot of money..and connections was involved with the disappearance of Lisa...and wanted to cover their tracks completely.





I quoted you only Gabby, but this is also for David. What I have to wonder is WHY on earth someone with money would have this go down this way? The $100,000 alone put up for reward could very very easily have "bought" a baby on the black market....or at the very least paid for an adoption. People keep stating how odd it would be to abduct a 10 month old and then try to pass it off as their own and I have to agree....I'd think someone would rather take a newborn that you could easily pretend was yours.

There will be no way ever to completely cover their tracks...this baby's face has been plastered all over the news and a very specific trait .... her birthmark...has been pointed out.

Granted, people are weird and just because it doesn't make sense to me, doesn't mean it doesn't to others

Michelle



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   


I quoted you only Gabby, but this is also for David. What I have to wonder is WHY on earth someone with money would have this go down this way? The $100,000 alone put up for reward could very very easily have "bought" a baby on the black market....or at the very least paid for an adoption. People keep stating how odd it would be to abduct a 10 month old and then try to pass it off as their own and I have to agree....I'd think someone would rather take a newborn that you could easily pretend was yours.



They may want it to go down this way, because the advantages of the sensationalistic feeding frenzy of the media...after all the Casey Anthony case is over, and they need knew fodder for the networks , that create a great amount of revenue.

Also don't think these people would be trying to pass the baby off as their own...maybe someone in the circle would , but it would probably be known in the "inner circles" that it isn't their own, and was intended for some money making child porn.

I believe there are some very twisted type individuals in positions of power and money, who get their 'entertainment" in very strange ways...and the whole game playing and creating the set up and illusion is just another part of the game , that gives them some kind of twisted thrill.

Types like this are very hard to understand using common sense... they are under the influences of very dark energy , in my opinion..and delight in creating the complicated scheme with their cleverness, and enjoy watching drama , and generally laughing at all the chaos they create.

I'm not saying this is the case here... just saying that it would not surprise me one bit if there were people out there totally capable of doing it for these reasons.
edit on 30-10-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


I also don't think you realize how much protection there is for child porn, and its creators in the some of the circles of the upper echelons of society..










edit on 30-10-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
A tale of two girls....
A tale of two cities....
A tale of two police departments...

first a little background on Elizabeth Smart:

The kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart occurred on June 5, 2002, when 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her Salt Lake City, Utah, bedroom that she shared with her sister, Mary Katherine.  Smart was found alive nine months later on March 12, 2003, in Sandy, Utah, about 18 miles from her home. Although police had an eyewitness, Mary Katherine's report was not very helpful to investigators. Furthermore, there was almost no significant forensic evidence such as clear fingerprints or DNA samples to help identify the abductor, hindering the investigation. 

Mary Katherine suddenly remembered where she had heard Mitchell's voice, telling her parents "I think I know who it is..." Mary Katherine now identified "Emmanuel"/Mitchell as the man who had abducted her sister. When this was reported to the police, they had doubts as to its reliability. the police did not consider it a worthy lead.

=============================================================================
                                                 Salt Lake City.                                              Kansas City
Reward by city.                   $25,000.                                                        $1000
Total reward.                        Almost $300,000.                               $101,000
Searchers.                               2000.                                                             50

On day one the KCPD and FBI search a 20 to 30 acre landfill  spending about 2 hours doing it... 
Contrasts this to the search for Elizabeth 
2000 Volunteers combed the hills near her family's home and extended the search using search dogs and aircraft. 

Salt Lake City Police didn't have an issue with convicting Elizabeth's kidnappers, even after using 2000 community volunteers. Salt Lake City Police Department wasn't to proud to ask for help from the community. Salt Lake City Police focused on finding Elizabeth, and ultimately did!
Kansas City Police on the other hand refused the help of the community in searching for little Lisa.
Kansas City Police focused on day on searching for a crime scene, and a body! Are we really to believe that they were expecting to find a live Lisa in a landfill, a sewer, a cistern?
Salt Lake City Police welcomed additional reward money for the safe return of Elizabeth....

Perhaps Deborah and Jeremy are guilty?
Guilty of choosing to live in the wrong city!






posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


No one has collected that $100,000 yet...
I'd be willing to bet if Deborah confesses today she wouldn't collect....
You might think of that $100,000 as a carrot on a stick, tied to a poor old horse, dangling in front of it's face, leading it out into the dessert....

It's been claimed that the NY Lawyer is being paid for by a family member, yet all I can find out of the Lawyer's mouth is an anonymous benefactor, if she/they are guilty just how likely is this benefactor to continue to support them? Joe claimed to be involved with this case a week and a half before he "officially" came on, by my math that is just when public opinion started to turn against them.... Was Joe involved in turning them against the police, and the police against them? Unless Lisa is recovered alive, this case is unlikely to be resolved next year. Joe is not doing this for free, and there is nothing to suggest he will stay with them once the money runs out... The really good lawyer and her staff / support people where working for free. My guess is they are unlikely to get that aragment back if/when Joe walks. The investigator seems to actually work for Joe. My impression overall is they seem to be going further and further out on a limb. They are being isolated from family and friends in a high stress situation, and ideal situation to have them in if you want to play head games with them....



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Gabby, in regards to the "why would someone with money do this.." question...after reading your post it makes much more sense as to the why. I can't fully grasp the concept as i'm sure many others because well i'm not stark raving mad (I think) LOL. I guess people do get off on this type of media circus..and I could see the people involved sitting back watching it unfold and getting something out of it...

As disgusting as the whole thing is I do have to remember there are sick individuals out there that do things that will never ever make sense to me....

Michelle



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d
A tale of two girls....
A tale of two cities....
A tale of two police departments...

first a little background on Elizabeth Smart:

The kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart occurred on June 5, 2002, when 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her Salt Lake City, Utah, bedroom that she shared with her sister, Mary Katherine.  Smart was found alive nine months later on March 12, 2003, in Sandy, Utah, about 18 miles from her home. Although police had an eyewitness, Mary Katherine's report was not very helpful to investigators. Furthermore, there was almost no significant forensic evidence such as clear fingerprints or DNA samples to help identify the abductor, hindering the investigation. 

Mary Katherine suddenly remembered where she had heard Mitchell's voice, telling her parents "I think I know who it is..." Mary Katherine now identified "Emmanuel"/Mitchell as the man who had abducted her sister. When this was reported to the police, they had doubts as to its reliability. the police did not consider it a worthy lead.

=============================================================================
                                                 Salt Lake City.                                              Kansas City
Reward by city.                   $25,000.                                                        $1000
Total reward.                        Almost $300,000.                               $101,000
Searchers.                               2000.                                                             50

On day one the KCPD and FBI search a 20 to 30 acre landfill  spending about 2 hours doing it... 
Contrasts this to the search for Elizabeth 
2000 Volunteers combed the hills near her family's home and extended the search using search dogs and aircraft. 

Salt Lake City Police didn't have an issue with convicting Elizabeth's kidnappers, even after using 2000 community volunteers. Salt Lake City Police Department wasn't to proud to ask for help from the community. Salt Lake City Police focused on finding Elizabeth, and ultimately did!
Kansas City Police on the other hand refused the help of the community in searching for little Lisa.
Kansas City Police focused on day on searching for a crime scene, and a body! Are we really to believe that they were expecting to find a live Lisa in a landfill, a sewer, a cistern?
Salt Lake City Police welcomed additional reward money for the safe return of Elizabeth....

Perhaps Deborah and Jeremy are guilty?
Guilty of choosing to live in the wrong city!



WOW.....once again David your thorough investigation of each and every point you make in this thread has impressed me. It's so hard to look at that information and not wonder WTF is going on in this case that would make it different from Elizabeth's?

When Young (kcpd) said he didn't want the general public to help in searches because they could contaminate a possible crime scene, it made perfect sense.

But in retrospect I can think of many many missing child cases where the public does volunteer and they can cover ground very quickly....so why wouldn't they do that in this case?

Very thought provoking and kudos to you again

Michelle



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Cyndy I'm back.....


Cyndy Short: I will continue to search for Baby Lisa

The local attorney, who is no longer counsel for the parents of missing Baby Lisa says in a statement released today (Sunday) that she will continue to search for the child as a concerned citizen. Cyndy Short announced Friday she was no longer the family's local attorney after reports surfaced that Short and lead attorney Joe Tacopina were butting heads after Tacopina tried to fire her. Short is holding a news conference about the search for Baby Lisa tomorrow morning. Bay Lisa has been missing nearly four weeks.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
And yet another person who doesn't like the way this case has been handled....


Kansas City defense attorney Pat Peters doesn't like the way the entire Lisa Irwin case has been handled.

"Someone needs to get a grip on this case and bring it back to normalcy so it becomes what it is, a missing baby case," Peters says.

He is disgusted that the investigation has focused on everything but Lisa Irwin...


Seems like there just might be a few people, who aren't really happy with the new chief...



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 



Prove it? Well, on that logic why shouldn't you have to prove it isn't the way it went?


That's my point. And if you don't understand what I mean - sorry - I can't help you.


...we don't know she actually did lie about it.

Two of those times the words came from Deborah's own mouth during an interview. So, either someone has their hand shoved up her backside making her mouth move - Or - when she opens her mouth (in this instance) she's lying. Your choice.

Look, I've over 260 posts in this thread already. The vast majority of those posts are to outside media links bringing the information in to ATS. What happens from there? People act like I should be defending information I didn't even write, lol. I'm not here to 'prove' anything - only to bring information to the boards. You don't like it complain to the journalists who write the info, complain to the news agencies, the blogs.

If people don't like 'my' information (and don't forget it's not mine - it's the medias) - Go find it yourself.

(I don't mean you specifically Michelle).

peace
edit on 31-10-2011 by silo13 because: need coffee



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Here's where I'm voicing purely an opinion.

Short was 'fired' or 'removed' herself. I could care less which it is. But - by her own words - you know, in interviews where her mouth was moving - Short continually referred to Lisa in the past tense - as if Lisa were already dead.

It's my opinion Short and her law firm are scrambling at damage control. Their 'continuation of the search for Lisa' is nothing but a raged attempt to clean up Short's mistakes. I wouldn't be surprised if Tacopina twisted their arm - I mean - had a hand in this decision to 'continue the search for Lisa'.

Remember - Short had knowledge of the complete case. For her to speak of Lisa in the past tense was not only profoundly unprofessional and heartless but very misgiving to the public. Needless to say it sure doesn't make her clients look very good either - especially when she's supposed to be defending them.

So yeah - it's damage control. Regardless - if Short has some underlings looking for Lisa? It's still nice to know someone's still out there pounding the pavement - considering Lisa's own family is off somewhere 'resting it up' and 'lying low'.

peace
edit on 31-10-2011 by silo13 because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join