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: 84
41
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by OneisOne



Believe it or not, the name can be anything the mother wants when she fills out the form at the hospital. (Except for maybe numbers and symbols). So when Lisa was born, if Mr. Irwin was listed as the bio-dad, his surname is acceptable legally. I think the rule is, the surname has to belong to either the mom or dad listed on the birth certificate.

OiO



That is absolutely not true. It's ONLY true if Irwin is taking on the responsibility and.....gets her legally adopted.


HumanAlien, I think you are still unsure of the relationship....or maybe I'm misreading. Irwin doesn't have to adopt her, it is HIS child. The parents are not married but they are together and were together when Baby Lisa was conceived and born and are still together (I won't go into whether or not the baby is biologically his because I have no clue).


Think about it...iff that WERE the case (and it was that simple for mothers to name their babies anything they want), do you know how many (famous or rich) men would be accused as being these fathers only to later on ...have everyone go to court to get the names switched? The courts would be backed up big time. You have to present proof. And if not, the baby gets the mothers name when s/he leaves the hospital.

If there is no father (this is if the mother is unwed) then the baby gets the mothers last name.


I'm in Canada so it may be different here....but the baby only "holds" the mother's last name while in hospital. This is regardless of whether or not mom and dad are married or who claims to be the father. This is not a "birth name". Once you are home (or even if you want while still in hospital) you fill out the birth registration. On that form you put who the father is and who's last name you would like the baby to have and the father signs off on that form. Marriage or not, biological or not, the baby can hold the father's last name when the father signs that form. Even if not the bio father or husband.




OP. Yeah. My bad about confusing Lisa and Deborah.
I'm still not understanding the family dynamics though. The 'husband' opposed to 'father' opposed to live-in 'boyfriend'. I surmise these are three different men correct?

Any idea how old these people are? They look to be in their early 20's. Is that right?

edit on 6-11-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)


Yes, you have the relationship wrong.

Lisa Irwin - 11 month old child missing
Deborah Bradley - mom of Lisa
Jeremy Irwin - dad of Lisa - (Deborah and Jeremy are not married but have been together 2 or 3 years)
Sean Bradley - EX husband of Deborah and has absolutely nothing to do with this case/story. They have been separated (but NOT divorced) for 3 years

Michelle




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneisOne

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Yup. I am thoroughly confused. Are there Cliff Notes on this case anywhere please?


HA the only thing I can offer is links that have been posted in this thread. (Many thanks to those that have posted them!!!)

Here are two that I have referred back to.

Who's Who link posted by Silo: Missing Baby Lisa Irwin Investigation Who’s Who

Timeline of events, sorry can't remember who posted this one. Also note this info comes from an "un-named source": Details emerge about the night baby Lisa Irwin disappeared

OiO



Thank you!!! That helps a lot. So Jeremy IS the biological father (according to this article). Then that makes sense.


Phillip Netz: Deborah Bradley's brother. He accompanied Bradley to Festival Foods on Oct. 4 and was shown with her buying wine and baby supplies in a surveillance video.


The surveillance camera showing Deborah buying wine and baby supplies?....was the baby with her? There's no mention of that. That's important because what I am thinking is, this little baby girl was traded, bartered or sold. That is just my raw guttural feeling.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by OneisOne



Believe it or not, the name can be anything the mother wants when she fills out the form at the hospital. (Except for maybe numbers and symbols). So when Lisa was born, if Mr. Irwin was listed as the bio-dad, his surname is acceptable legally. I think the rule is, the surname has to belong to either the mom or dad listed on the birth certificate.

OiO



That is absolutely not true.




When a baby is born to an unmarried mother, the mother can give the child a last name she chooses. dss.mo.gov...


Really? Too bad MO is unaware of that...

edit on 6-11-2011 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 




I got it now Michelle. Thanks. I was getting hung up and caught up on what I first read in the beginning of this thread.
Thanks my friend



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Michelle129th
 




I got it now Michelle. Thanks. I was getting hung up and caught up on what I first read in the beginning of this thread.
Thanks my friend



No problem
It's quite a messy case with a lot of different players. It's easy to get confused. Silo has been here since day one (sorry if I forgot anyone else that has hung in there). I *believe* the rest of us have joined in a bit later in the case. By now so much information and craziness has ensued that it might be a bit hard for you to just jump in (but I won't count you out yet LOL)

To answer about the wine buying trip...the baby was at home with her dad and brothers at the time the mom went to the store. The store trip I believe was at 5:30 pm between Jeremy Irwin (the dad) working his day job and having to leave for the night job. According to the neighbour that later came over and drank with Deborah she saw the baby that "night" (6:40pm) when she was put to bed or just before. Regardless the baby was still in the parents possession at 5:30 pm...from there nothing is verified as fact by police...just some media reports that we're still unsure of. Deborah first claimed that she put her to bed at 6:40pm and then checked on her at 10:30 before going to bed herself. She then later told media (we're not sure if she told police in the beginning as the police are being very tight lipped on this whole case) that she was drinking a lot that night and can't be sure she did check on her at 10:30...so the possible last sighting of Lisa is 6:40 pm

Michelle



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 
Thanks for the facebook posts. I'm hoping she's got good reason to feel that way. It's so easy to lose hope and think the worst. I try to keep Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart in mind. They beat the odds.

On the one side we can't ignore statistics but on the other without evidence we can't just write Lisa off as dead and mom did it. Jaycee Dugard's stepfather had some very enlightening things to say. He was in a very similar situation as the Irwins but Carl Probyn witnessed the abduction. All these years he remained a suspect. How horrible would that be?
Jaycee Dugard's Stepfather Had "No Idea...We'd Find Her Alive"


The FBI and other authorities questioned Carl Probyn numerous times and conducted lie detector tests when Jaycee first went missing in 1991. Despite the ordeal, Carl Probyn says they were just doing their job. "I knew the FBI was going to put me through the wringer, and that was OK."

Although he remained a suspect he had no bad feelings he accepted his lot. Jaycee's family were crime victims too. Society as a whole is victimized. That's what make these crimes so heinous and explains public outrage. Carl Probyn certainly didn't like it but he understood it.


"I was hoping for a better scenario where maybe a couple took her because they couldn't have their own children or something; that she had been in school, that she had been raised by a couple. I wasn't expecting this ending," Carl Probyn said.

Certainly if someone stole or bought Lisa they're warped individuals. Lisa would always be a crime victim not a member of a healthy family but she would be alive. Both Elizabeth and Jaycee are survivors. They didn't give up easily on life.


Carl Probyn is also relieved to find out his original description of the kidnappers and their car was right all along. "I told them it was a man and a woman; it was a man and a woman. I said it was an '85 Ford Monarch gray four-door and it turned out they had the car in the backyard." "I was I was curious for years like how close was I. Was I a help to the case? Did I get the car right? And it turned out I get everything right."

Getting "it right" may be little comfort to Carl Probyn, who lost his marriage as well as his stepdaughter. Carl and Terry Probyn are currently separated.

How that must have haunted him. Whether guilty or innocent something like this forever changes everything. Although Carl was happy Jaycee was alive he was traumatized by the conditions she was kept. There are no perfect outcomes in these cases. There are only victims/criminals. LE has a tough job and emotions run high. It's a lousy situation all around and there's no guide book on how to react. We can only hope damage be kept minimal with the best possible outcomes.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Morningglory
 

I'm curious Morningglory, do you at least acknowledge that LE has the ability to spin the story based on what they choose to release, and to acknowledge? Just as the public's knowledge in these types of cases has grown over the years, so has LE's, I believe. Do the ends ever justify the means? Is the best that we can hope for, to loose our relationships, to have innocent people demonized?

Should Deborah be happy, with just getting Lisa back in a few years? After she has lost her relationship with Jeremy? Can't help but think of another news story, where a couple entered a store, the wife opened a package of food, and the wife ate it in the store without paying for it. The hatred directed there at the local police, for arresting the couple, after they exited the store without paying for the food.

What a strange world we live in....



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I just watched the interview of Deborah and Jeremy on the Today Show.

They (or at minimum, Deborah) definitely knows what happened to Lisa.
She corrects the interviewer after he said (paraphrasing) ".....and the police have gone so far as to accuse you of killing your daughter"
And the mother immediately comes back assertive and assured (although carefully not to say 'alive' which looks to me as if she was about to.....) that she's missing!!!

How does she know she's not dead?

How? Because she's in on it somehow.

I'm telling you, this baby is alive and I further feel, Deborah's brother (who was with her earlier that evening) has something indirectly to do with this.
I've been known to be very intuitive and spot on accurate in many instances and this case is screaming to me 'she's alive and with someone else'...... and 'the parents (or just Deborah) know about this.

Interesting. Do we know how old the parents are?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
She's 25. I wasn't paying attention when I was listening because I was too transfixed on Deborahs's eye movement. She kept looking to the left. An indicator of deception. To retrieve preconceived thoughts or to make up new ones.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


Where are those baby supplies? Because (let's say she bought diapers, for a sake of argument) I am curious to want to know, how many diapers were already at home?
Because once again, my gut is telling me this was a contrived purchase. She bought this to cover her tracks.
Baby supplies and wine seems like an odd mixture.

I think this dysfunctional family was strapped for money, hence the father working two jobs, and the opportunity came about to sell this child.
I don't get that warm and fuzzy feeling about this mother. So I am left wondering if she's even capable of loving.

Now before I get barraged with the 'I live in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty'.... lecture, let me remind you, I am on a forum. I am not law enforcement nor on a jury. So I have every right to speculate. So please, save it!



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I started reading this thread when it was initially posted, but stopped reading it shortly after because, frankly, it just makes me so incredibly sad. I know that I can't pretend that things like this don't happen. I know they do. But following it, makes my heart ache so much.

With that said, something which caught my eye in one of the very first posts was the comment about/by the neighbors.

Originally posted by silo13

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Neighbors said they are shocked that almost 24 hours after the 10-month-old was last seen, they have not found her.
It just never sat well with me and it stood out like a glowing beacon. Why would neighbors go out of their way to mention how shocked they are that a baby hasn't been found within 24 hours of going completely missing from her bed. Does that seem like a normal comment to you?

Who, out of all of us here, would ever think it shocking that a baby, gone missing in the dead of night without a trace, would not show back up within 24 hours of searching? And what would make someone word it in that way?

I can think of other things which I would be shocked over...shocked that a baby went missing from her bed in my neighborhood...shocked that a baby could disappear without her parents and the other children in the house hearing or knowing a thing...scared and worried for the safety of my family and others in the neighborhood...worried for the family and parents of little Lisa. But shocked that a missing baby hasn't been found within 24 hours of her disappearance, just seems like a strange train of thought and strange wording to me. Almost like...they had to say something...and that's just what came out.

Its probably really nothing, and I chose not to post anything about it at that time. But then I saw this today:

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Michelle129th
According to the neighbour that later came over and drank with Deborah she saw the baby that "night" (6:40pm) when she was put to bed or just before.


Who is this neighbor? How drunk did they (or only Deborah) get?

By no means am I trying to jump into a thread where so many have been faithfully following along for quite some time. Its just something that has been bothering me about this since it began and this recent posted quote caught my eye and made me want to say something.

I am going to go back and read through the thread now, I think. Maybe this has been discussed already. If so, I apologize in advance.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by idunno12
 


Perhaps they where shocked, because when Lisa went missing they were told, that they shouldn't search for Lisa? The KCPD, requested that the locals not go out searching for Lisa.

Are you aware of the issue with the Kansas City schools? Many people believe the school system is simply too big, and has lost the ability to relate to it's students. There is talk of breaking the school district into smaller parts. There is a new Chief of Police, who came in four days into the Lisa Irwin case. He has acknowledged many issues with his department. There is an old saying about power corrupting, Kansas City schools has lost accreditation, or will in Jan of 2012.... I've pointed out a number of potential issues with how the police have handled this investigation, over the last few pages....



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
HumanAlien, you will not get the "innocent until proven guilty" line here. We did that 30, 40, 70 pages ago.....and for the most part have gotten over ourselves and just let everyone have their opinion. There are those of us that believe the parents' innocence, those of us that believe the parents' guilt and those of us that just don't know and are on the fence.

idunno....your name is great along with your question because...we dunno
Mom claims she drank enough to be black out drunk. When asked she never really gave a true amount but kind of conceded to 5-10 glasses of wine. The neighbour has never spoken publicly so we don't know how much she had...but it was revealed she had left Deborah's house at one point after Deborah had purchased the wine, to buy her own alcohol. The box of wine Deborah bought that night.....I don't know how much it holds, but all we got to see of this wine was an empty box. The Bradley/Irwin lawyer thought LE had dumped the box to measure how much the mom drank..but we still have no confirmation of any of that. Some people think perhaps she wasn't even drunk at all..it was just a coverup..and others think she drank the entire box....who knows

Michelle



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Well let me tell ya something, times have changed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For an unwed mother to be able to put anyone's name on the birth certificate is absurd! This was not the case 30 some odd years ago. Not in New York anyway.

If a mother goes into the hospital ALONE (without a husband or father-to-the-child) her last name always became the child's last name. Always! What has happened to this country? It's being run by a bunch of baboons.

I don't happen to believe in marriage per se but I do believe in REAL identities. And if a father is unknown (or is out of the picture by choice of both parents) I don't see how the mother can take any name in the phone book and hang it on her child. Again, that's insane.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Well let me tell ya something, times have changed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Agreed they have indeed, changed.


For an unwed mother to be able to put anyone's name on the birth certificate is absurd! This was not the case 30 some odd years ago. Not in New York anyway.


Well it's not thirty years ago...
When we assume, we often find to our sorrow that we assumed wrong....



If a mother goes into the hospital ALONE (without a husband or father-to-the-child) her last name always became the child's last name. Always! What has happened to this country? It's being run by a bunch of baboons.

I don't happen to believe in marriage per se but I do believe in REAL identities. And if a father is unknown (or is out of the picture by choice of both parents) I don't see how the mother can take any name in the phone book and hang it on her child. Again, that's insane.


Lots of things in this world are insane...
When I grew up the police were our friends, you could TRUST a cop.
The good guys wore white...
Now days the cops dress in black, wear black, and hide behind a mask. Some no longer want their faces known.
Some cops, deal drugs...
Some cops sell guns...
Some cops sell guns to drug lords...
Some cops fix tickets, for friends and family, and don't see a problem with it.
Some people feel more comfortable when they can pretend....



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 
Davi1d, thank you for posting that link.


reply to post by Human_Alien
 
I agree that it is craziness, but I did do some internet searching before I posted. I was shocked to learn that the baby's last name could be anything the parent/s choose as long as the name is not part of an attempt to defraud. (which I think naming a baby after someone and then trying to sue is what that covers)

OiO



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michelle129th
HumanAlien, you will not get the "innocent until proven guilty" line here.


Why? Is that no longer an American concept? Post 9/11 is that just one more thing we have surrender in the rush to the illusion of safety? Are some crimes so hideous, that we don't have a right to innocent until proven guilty, anymore? Do we live in such fear, that pinning these crimes on someone, anyone so important that it's acceptable to vilify?

Do the children matter so little to us now? Are we so uncomfortable with the notion that it could be anyone, that we NEED to vilify them? That it is so important to have someone behind bars, that we are willing to accept anyone? Does that justify the spin? The attempts to vilify before the trial? Are the cases so week, that we need a biases jury?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Dav1d
 


Well let me tell ya something, times have changed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Agreed they have indeed, changed.


For an unwed mother to be able to put anyone's name on the birth certificate is absurd! This was not the case 30 some odd years ago. Not in New York anyway.


Well it's not thirty years ago...
When we assume, we often find to our sorrow that we assumed wrong....



If a mother goes into the hospital ALONE (without a husband or father-to-the-child) her last name always became the child's last name. Always! What has happened to this country? It's being run by a bunch of baboons.

I don't happen to believe in marriage per se but I do believe in REAL identities. And if a father is unknown (or is out of the picture by choice of both parents) I don't see how the mother can take any name in the phone book and hang it on her child. Again, that's insane.


Lots of things in this world are insane...
When I grew up the police were our friends, you could TRUST a cop.
The good guys wore white...
Now days the cops dress in black, wear black, and hide behind a mask. Some no longer want their faces known.
Some cops, deal drugs...
Some cops sell guns...
Some cops sell guns to drug lords...
Some cops fix tickets, for friends and family, and don't see a problem with it.
Some people feel more comfortable when they can pretend....





Yes, I know 'COPs' have changed a great deal, After all, the name was retrieved from Citizens On Patrol. Ha!!! They are more like militants in combat now! They should be changed to MICs! But back on topic.......

Why of all 'freedoms' would they let a child have ANY last name??

I mean, they take away all the freedoms we want, can use, would like to have again and YET....give unwed mothers the freedom to name their new-born, any last name in the Universe????

It makes no sense. At least let's TRY to keep a family unit together by name because gawd knows...most are not together in the flesh anymore! That's almost a lost civilization.


You're right about assumptions. But I never would've guessed in a million years that was correct. And it does vary from state to state.

Oh who cares anymore? This whole world should just implode so we can start all over again.

End Rant~



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Just my take, here...
Why any last names? Names have a tendency to humanize. The goverment is not truly interested in seeing us as equals anymore. We are just numbers, and the numbers mean more than names! When your hired killers, kill for you it's better if they believe those whom they kill are not their equal. If their victims are thought of as less than, the killers. It makes killing easier... Hang around with LE for a bit, and you'll be able to pick up on the us and them attitude real quick.

Say that Deborah and Jeremy both showed up at the hospital, and Jeremy acknowledge Lisa as his, would this actually indicate that Lisa was his? Nope. It's still possible that Deborah got pregnant by someone else. It would take a paternity test for a court to acknowledge his right... That paternity test doesn't actually prove he is the father, it simply makes him very likely by the way...

We as in the American goverment doesn't value the family unit any longer. Our goverment is redefining just what a family unit is. Indeed one can make an argument that our goverment has been actively seeking to destroy the meaning of family for many decades. Look at how men have been treated over the last fifty years, how they have been portrayed...



edit on 6-11-2011 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Okay.... several things just within the beginning of the most recent news article strike me as odd.

It states that Irwin (the boyfriend/dad/ whatever) came home from work at 2:30pm, he stayed long enough to have dinner with his family and play with the children. At 4:30 Deborah and her brother went to the store while Irwin stayed home with the kids. They returned at 5. 30 minutes later Irwin left for work at Starbucks. ... why is this weird to me? when did they have dinner? I realize not everyone in the country eats at the same time...but, where in here did anyone eat dinner?

Deborah then put Lisa in her crib at 6:40 while Brando (neighbor) headed to the store to purchase alcohol for herself (cripes! how much alcohol did these women need?!) She returned to Irwin's at 7pm. At 10:30 she went to bed and the boys went to bed with her. Now...I don't know about anyone else, but I've never been able to get any child (babysitting since age 12) including my own before 7:30-8pm. 6:40 would have been a very late nap time.

Irwin left to go home from work at 3:45, the older boy had moved to his bunk bed, the younger boy was still in bed with Deborah.

Again....the question I have, that has not yet been answered by police, news reports, parents etc etc..is DID THEY QUESTION THE BOYS? Because think about it....baby goes to bed at 6:40pm, she's going to wake up way before 3:45 am....did one of them here her and try to take care of her? .. What if say..the oldest who was originally in bed with mom but sometime in the night moved to his bunk bed, had woken up because the baby was crying? He takes her and 1. takes her to the bunk bed with him, or 2. puts her in bed with mama? or at the very least...did they hear anything? my 10 year old...if her sister wakes up at night..she's up...as a matter of fact, she's usually the one to wake up first and we end up meeting in the hallway to both check on her, lol..... and thats with her door closed. So, even if mom was dead to the world through intoxication....why didn't the boys hear anything? Things just do not make sense with any of this...even the investigation itself...they brought the dogs in, to check for a dead body..what about a live one? what about having them trace Lisa's scent on where she might have gone?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nkinga


Irwin left to go home from work at 3:45, the older boy had moved to his bunk bed, the younger boy was still in bed with Deborah.

Again....the question I have, that has not yet been answered by police, news reports, parents etc etc..is DID THEY QUESTION THE BOYS? Because think about it....


The police are waiting on the lawyers to allow the boys to be interviewed. The last scheduled one was cancelled.

IWOH



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join