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: 85
41
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d

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?


Believe me (and I think I've proven myself several times in this thread) that I believe the parents are innocent....so I DO believe that line. I am not talking about it not being a viable concept but rather that we have come to realize that we all have different ideas in this thread, so I *don't think* anyone will jump down someone's throat for having a theory that doesn't fit our OWN beliefs. However, I could be wrong. I guess I should've said "I won't do that..."

On the matter of innocent until proven guilty...does that also include the police that you are trying to vilify? David, I have enjoyed a lot of your posts that have brought a new perspective to the thread, but, you have been a very strong proponent of the kcpd's guilt....and police in general as your last few posts have shown. Do they not get the benefit of the doubt? OR, do they fall under some other "american concept"?


Michelle




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nkinga
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?


Good question but one we can't answer...perhaps she had a roast in the oven (or something similar that had been cooking for a while). Got back from store by 4:50, served the meal and out the door he went. Or hell..maybe she threw some hotdogs in the microwave and served them up LOL. BTW we eat dinner anywhere from 4pm to 6pm here depending on the night...5:30 is pretty standard for us, but maybe we're late eaters.


Deborah then put Lisa in her crib at 6:40 while Brando (neighbor) .ed 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.


A lot of people have been asking this same question and I have always been mystified that everyone found it so out of the norm.. I have 3 kids of my own and although 6:40 does seem a tad early...at 10 months 7pm would be completely normal here. (remember..this is just a baby!!)

From this site: (just as an example...and pretty close to what my own kids did...)

10 Month Old Baby Schedule

At this age, most 10 month olds can sleep through the night, without a feeding, and take two naps for a total of 2 to 2 1/2 hours per day plus 11-12 hours at night.


So putting the baby to bed at 6:30ish pm means a baby waking around 5:30-6:30 am...that seems pretty darn reasonable to me! Also, this baby might be a really early riser (as one of mine was/still is). If she wakes every morning early mom might compensate by laying her down earlier rather than later.

Here's a sample schedule for a 10 mth old...note: 7pm bedtime with a 6:15 bedtime routine started

Sample 10 month old schedule
7:00 – Wake and Breast milk or Formula
9:00 – Breakfast
10:00 – Morning Nap (at least 1 hour)
11:00 – Breast milk or Formula plus snack
1:00 – Lunch
2:00 – Early Afternoon Nap (at least 1 hour)
3:00 – Breast milk or Formula plus snack
5:00 – Dinner
6:15 – Begin bedtime routine
7:00 – Breast milk or Formula and Bedtime (goal to be asleep at this time)


So, according to that site, it is pretty much completely normal. There was talk of the baby possibly having a cold as well, so perhaps that accounts for the bit earlier bedtime. (I didn't pick that site to go along with my own schedule it was just the first to come up in google)



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?


The boys WERE both questioned that night...the younger boy for 30 mins the older boy for 50 mins. Since that interview with police, the parents and/or lawyers have not allowed another interview for "fear it will traumatize" they had one scheduled which was cancelled and has yet to be rebooked. I do believe they had several dogs, not just the cadaver dog searching.

Michelle



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nkinga
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.


It's been reported many times that Jeremy (the boyfriend/dad/whatever) did NOT eat with the family, but himself...


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) .ed 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.


Many mothers find a reason to give their children **cold** medicine when they need them to be quiet for a few hours, it is alledged that Lisa was sick. One can only assume that she was being medicated for her cold. Funny how many choose to gloss over that, fact when assuming what Lisa would and would not do...


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?


Yes the boys where talked to on 10/4.

So do you have a friend, that you can call at the drop of a hat, to dispose of a body?
I don't. And the body becomes an issue... What happened to the body?
Cadaver dogs hit on more than just the scent of dead bodies, indeed many are trained with chemical scents. Truthfully we don't know what the dog hit upon. The choice of words, I believe demonstrates either a desire to vilify or a lack of real knowledge at the best.
Many things I have said for sometime, make me question the knowledge of the local KCPD.
It was the FBI dog that hit by the way. It was the FBI that tracked the cellphone down also...
Just what has the KCPD accomplished? It has been suggested they know a lot, and they are keeping it restricted, perhaps this is the case, or perhaps we should simply take them at there word when they claim to have no real leads, and no suspects at this point....



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d


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...






I hear your frustration if not, disdain for this entire system o'ours. It stinks with a capital SUCKS!

I realize a last name on a birth certificate doesn't establish scientific paternity but it renders the 'roles of Mother and Father.
They can't (or should I say "they shouldn't") have an open ended provision that allows you to name your child Adolf Hitler but then have limitations or exceptions to that absurd law ( i.e. to deceive someone).

If you have all this wiggle room to name your child anything you'd like, who are they to question 'why'?

So according to this law (that I am just learning of) if a young unwed mother wants to get back at her long lost first love, she can stick his name on this child even though, they haven't seen each other in years. Then, she can file for child support. Which will then require a paternity test ......which will eventually show he's not the father AND...the baby gets to keep his pseudo last name?

Wow. Seems a lot of this could be avoided at the get-go!

Good gawd this world is a mess. Umm, check please. I think I'm finished!



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 

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?
I most certainly do. LE can spin, release and acknowledge till the cows come home without evidence they're going nowhere except through the motions and simply wasting resources.

My biggest fear is when LE's sole focus seems to be on character LE/the public might start to believe establishing poor character alone is enough to charge/convict..I'm sorry but it is not.

As far as the ends justifying the means LE is sworn to uphold the law for themselves as well as the rest of us. Do they always do that? No as I said emotions run high on both sides that's why even the innocent need to lawyer up. I can't blame LE completely they're human too and have seen entirely too much bad crap.

People are going to be damaged in the wake of such a tragedy. It's neither hoped for or deserved but it's how it is in our violent society. Instead I would hope those who are inadvertently harmed keep their anger and sense of injustice aimed in the right direction. It's the offenders to blame for all of it.

Lawyers are there to lend protection against illegal behavior on the part of LE. As far as the public's treatment of family members that's unfortunately one of the many repercussions of these horrendous acts. There are so many victims and so many ways they are victimized there is no compensating for it ever.

The public should try to keep their emotions in check but society is victimized by these crimes too. They can get a little quick to convict. Can you blame them they're scared for other children maybe even their own. There's objective people out there they just don't say much until they've heard the facts. Others are a little quicker to feel outrage and usually have a louder voice.

Until we start appeasing the masses with programs/punishments/deterrents that really work the public will remain outraged while LE gets more frustrated. Eventually LE could feel more justified in being "creative." Some might think that's ok but where will it really get them...mistrials, charges/evidence thrown out, cases winning on appeal etc. LE would only be hurting themselves and letting the public down.

With the media circus it's getting harder to seat a jury, frankly I don't know how much longer we can prop up our system including our courts.

If I understand correctly you're wondering why when LE possibly uses the media to manipulate in one area the public eats it up yet when the public sees LE arresting a pregnant woman they spew hate at police. Idk that's a toughie and it would probably take a psychologist to explain it. I think in part it's people just being so fed up and emotionally charged for a host of reasons in a million different directions. Sorry for the lengthy reply.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d
And the body becomes an issue... What happened to the body?




The brother. This baby-Lisa's uncle. I don't know why I am honing in on him but the whole 'go-to-store-to-buy-wine-and-baby-supplies-with-her-brother' just rubs me the wrong way.

If she's a low-life (or person with some serious issues) then it's not so hard to consider the nut doesn't fall too far from the family tree.

I think the whole 'getting drunk' was deliberate (so she'd be rendered, out of it) and the purchase of baby supplies, to me...sounds like a ploy to show, later on to authorities, she didn't plan on her child to go missing.

(I still can't get over calling a child any 'last name you feel' law. I'm surprised there aren't more Rockefeller and Rothschilds' running around then! Even if not authentic it'll capture attention )



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Dav1d

Good gawd this world is a mess. Umm, check please. I think I'm finished!



Yep, you're right it is...hence us even having to discuss this thread
This world is a mess and going rapidly downhill....but don't be so quick to blame it on government or their employees...all of this mess was caused by society (us, you, me, the guy down the street etc)

A law such as that wouldn't be in place if someone with too much time on their hands and the "need" to bitch about something hadn't been outraged that they couldn't name their child after the long lost love somewhere along the lines...."you're stifling my rights!!!!" The public rally around "yeah...dont take away our rights!!" and then decades later we've having this conversation about how stupid the government is to allow this to happen. I can't help but just shake my . at how much we pin on the government when it was us that started this landslide (in my opinion of course).

Back to the whether or not Lisa is actually Jeremy's issue....I don't know about anyone else, but to me she is the spitting image of him! I know it's difficult in young babys, but she does resemble him quite uncannily. If it ever did come to a paternity test I would honestly be shocked to find out it wasn't his baby. As far as LE telling Jeremy it wasn't his...I could completely see them using a tactic such as this trying to extract a confession. It does kind of suck but I can see why they would do it. I don't know that as of day one they had nearly enough information to start blaming the parents, but again we don't know what all they have

Michelle



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michelle129th

On the matter of innocent until proven guilty...does that also include the police that you are trying to vilify? David, I have enjoyed a lot of your posts that have brought a new perspective to the thread, but, you have been a very strong proponent of the kcpd's guilt....and police in general as your last few posts have shown. Do they not get the benefit of the doubt? OR, do they fall under some other "american concept"?


Michelle


Fair question Michelle. Does our country not also have a tradition of holding "some" to a higher standard? Traditionally have not the police been held to a higher standard? Have we not historically placed limits on police powers? Limits that in the last ten years that the goverment has chosen to remove?

Hmmm, I've attempt to point out issues I've seen with police procedures in this case. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I do not believe I've attempted to single out a certain person and vilify them to any where the degree that Deborah has been. It's been suggested that my knowledge of Kansas City is limited, so I switch to the words of the Chief of Police, someone who has extensive acknowledged experience with the KCPD. No one here truly knows me, as an individual person, knows where I lived where I grew up, or where I worked. It's been suggested that locals are far more better informed, even when they state that Kansas City has only seven cabs. I try real hard not to put words in other mouths, just to ridicule those words, something apparently not shared by all whom post here.

If I suggest that X has vilified Z is that truly an attempt to vilify X? Just what is required to be guilty of attempting to vilify one? Where do we draw the line? For me the line is where one is assumed guilty until proven innocent by the average person. Generally that is crimes against children, in my view...

The police are NOT required by law to protect Lisa, to take any action to protect Lisa. If I point out, that the police have not done all they could have, to find Lisa that is NOT a crime. When one compares, what KCPD did to find Lisa, and what was done to find Elizabeth Smart even the average "Joe" can see a real difference. There was almost an $300,000 reward for her, and thousands of searchers (on the ground combing the woods for her each day) in the first few days... One thing we can acknowledge is at a month into the search that hasn't happened for Lisa. At some point others will acknowledge the need to ask why? Does it truly serve Lisa better to ask that question one week into the investigation or at three years?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


You seem very versed on this case. That's great.

I'm not sure if I read it here or some other link FROM here.....but wasn't this the first time EVER that mother-Deborah was minding 3 kids on her own? Either Jeremy just started that second job or that wasn't his normal shift? Something like that.

So if that's true, it just seems like real bad timing for a mother of three to have an urge to get plastered! That's like showing up drunk your first day at a new job!

This just screams 'set up' to me.

Times (and people) have changed Michelle. You're holding people to old standards.

I understand we're innocent until proven guilty but as a species, the Human race, we're getting more in tune with things. For instances, have you ever watched Candid Camera from the 50's and 60's? People were a LOT more naive and 'dumber' back then. Most of those stunts could never be pulled off now a days. We're 'smarter' (I hate using that word because we're really not. We're just not as asleep)

So....I think we are able to sift the wheat from the chaff a little quicker now too. We know Human behavior a lot more than we did 50 years ago. We can usually tell when someone is lying or when something isn't registering 'true'.
If this case was presented 50 years ago, all the neighbors would be baking the Irwins a cake and taking them over, pot-luck dinners.

Times have changed and peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining, doesn't fly anymore.
We are more perceptive now. I'm not saying we can rule on a case the way we're doing on this forum but certainly we have the ability to lean one way or the other with a lot of conviction.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Going to attempt to find some confirmation of this, but it would make sense as to why I haven't been able to find out more on the volunteer search yesterday....

I have been going crazy trying to find more information on how the Saturday community search went...I checked back to all the facebook and twitter accounts that I remember seeing it posted on and had no luck. The last I can see is just the actual posting of the search going to happen and then...nothing. (although there are a ton of Baby Lisa facebook pages now with 1000's of people commenting so it will take some time to go through them all)

Anyhow, on another forum I have been following the case on there is a neighbour of the Irwins. From the start this neighbour has brought a ton of information about the family, the case, the neighbourhood etc...so it's fairly certain they are an actual neighbour. this person posted that she was watching fox4kc and they had a quick blurb about one of the searchers finding baby clothing in the woods just north of where MT spotted the guy. The outfit found was confirmed as being one that Lisa owned (not the one she was taken in though?) DB found a picture of Lisa in the outfit and it was said on the news that family went back to house on N Lister to check for outfit and it was gone.

The neighbour that's posting at the forum says they can confirm someone was back at house today...family car was there but they didn't see who was in it or the house. Also, Edith Fine (the woman that organized the search) was also there.

There are varying views on the finding of this...everything from someone planting the outfit to take blame off the parents, to it absolutely HAS to be Lisa's...the emotions are really heating up. someone on the other forum said it perfectly.

Everyone has been moaning that noone is out searching, but the minute someone does, those same moaners claim they must have planted the evidence. I guess this is exactly why LE don't want everyday citizens doing the searching....

I have found absolutely nothing on this information anywhere in the MSM and am completely taking it on the word of another poster (who so far has been on the up and up and a member of that forum for several years so I can't see why they would want to sully their reputation now. I will update if/when I find out more.

Michelle



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 




Great updating Michelle. You're the best! Are you British (the way you spelled neighbourhood)? Just wondering.

I wonder, do the two older children go to school like, business as usual?

I don't have/watch television but has anyone from this case been on TV lately? I'm just interested in this brother who started 'drinking' with this mother of 2 and step girlfriend/mother of 1.

I don't know about Jeremey but if I was busting my hump by working two jobs to provide for a family of 5 and I had a girlfriend/mother-of-my-child home getting rip roaring drunk in FRONT of my kids, I'd toss her to the crib and tell the father of the older one, to come pick up your son immediately.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Did you guys know that the brother (the one that I am suspecting as some culprit to this) slept over that night?? At least that's how I'm reading it.




Kansas City, MO (CNN) - An uncle of missing Kansas City baby Lisa Irwin voluntarily met with police for about two hours Tuesday.

He's the brother of the baby's mother, Debbie Bradley.

He was with Bradley October third, the night before her baby disappeared and said the mom had drank enough that night to pass out drunk, as she maintains.

The family believes a kidnapper snatched the baby from her crib while the dad was working, the uncle was sleeping and the mom was passed out.

Police still want to re-interview the parents.

www.ksdk.com...


She should at minimum be arrested for endangering the welfare of 3 minors that evening.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morningglory
reply to post by Dav1d
 

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?
I most certainly do. LE can spin, release and acknowledge till the cows come home without evidence they're going nowhere except through the motions and simply wasting resources.

My biggest fear is when LE's sole focus seems to be on character LE/the public might start to believe establishing poor character alone is enough to charge/convict..I'm sorry but it is not.


There is nothing "fair" about a grand jury, it is design to convict. Any prosecutor that can't get a grand jury to convict is indeed a poor prosecutor...


As far as the ends justifying the means LE is sworn to uphold the law for themselves as well as the rest of us. Do they always do that? No as I said emotions run high on both sides that's why even the innocent need to lawyer up. I can't blame LE completely they're human too and have seen entirely too much bad crap.


Just what does uphold the law truly mean? There are many cops that will look you in the face and tell you it is their right to fix tickets of their friends and family. there is an Us and them attitude that is very prevalent in LE.



People are going to be damaged in the wake of such a tragedy. It's neither hoped for or deserved but it's how it is in our violent society. Instead I would hope those who are inadvertently harmed keep their anger and sense of injustice aimed in the right direction. It's the offenders to blame for all of it.


So then the ends do justify the means? Just keep the anger focused on those who took Lisa, and ignore any failures, on the part of LE? Try not to learn from our failures, so we are doomed to repeat them...


Lawyers are there to lend protection against illegal behavior on the part of LE.

Are they, really? Or are these the people that they will work with tomorrow and next week? Do they truly go after each and every infraction, or simply the most grievous ones?


The public should try to keep their emotions in check but society is victimized by these crimes too. They can get a little quick to convict. Can you blame them they're scared for other children maybe even their own. There's objective people out there they just don't say much until they've heard the facts. Others are a little quicker to feel outrage and usually have a louder voice.


Isn't there an old saying about when good men choose to remain silent?


Until we start appeasing the masses with programs/punishments/deterrents that really work the public will remain outraged while LE gets more frustrated. Eventually LE could feel more justified in being "creative." Some might think that's ok but where will it really get them...mistrials, charges/evidence thrown out, cases winning on appeal etc. LE would only be hurting themselves and letting the public down.


Sadly not everyone can afford a first class lawyer for their first trial, let alone their second or third. when LE gets frustrated, and chooses to cross the line what is the cost? When LE gets frustrated and chooses not to care, to simply go through the motions, what law is broken? Every year convictions are overturn, how many prosecutors go to jail for each overturn conviction? The odds are on the side of the crooked cop, and dirty prosecutor. Odds are they never will go to jail, and if they do, they will not be confined in the same way you would be.


With the media circus it's getting harder to seat a jury, frankly I don't know how much longer we can prop up our system including our courts.

If I understand correctly you're wondering why when LE possibly uses the media to manipulate in one area the public eats it up yet when the public sees LE arresting a pregnant woman they spew hate at police. Idk that's a toughie and it would probably take a psychologist to explain it. I think in part it's people just being so fed up and emotionally charged for a host of reasons in a million different directions. Sorry for the lengthy reply.


There are members right here on this thread who; on this thread, can see no harm that the police have done here, who have started other threads and would condemn the police for arresting people who steel food. Or at least pretend that is how they feel.

There are some people who will always seek to condemn, who feel so bad about themselves that the only way they can feel okay, is to find someone to put down...



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by idunno12
 


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.


The neighbor's name is Samantha and she's been interviewed quite heavily if we're to believe what the press is putting out. Samantha was also involved in talking with the 'new' lawyer when they all me with the family. This has caused a lot of speculation.

Samantha's husband and she were having marital problems, went to a counselor, decided on some 'time apart' and her husband was not at home the night Lisa went missing. He was also interviewed at length (again if we are to believe the reports), he passed a polygraph test and has been cleared of any suspicion. (So they say).

How drunk did they get you ask? I'd love to know the answer. Deborah said she got drunk enough she could have 'blacked out'. You've probably already read this so far - you said you were going back to read - I bring it up only because we've no confirmation from anyone other than Deborah that she was drunk. Many assume she only 'came out' about being drunk later to form the first step of a defense.

Welcome to the thread. Nice to see you here and please do 'jump in' any time!

peace



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 

Did you guys know that the brother (the one that I am suspecting as some culprit to this) slept over that night?? At least that's how I'm reading it.

Unreal huh. This was version - I think version 5 or maybe 6 of ‘that night’. It was hard to believe (when I read it the first time) and is still hard to believe now. It makes me wonder (even more) just how much information Deborah is hiding about that night - compared to how much information the police want released. I’ve no idea where the balance is on that one.


She should at minimum be arrested for endangering the welfare of 3 minors that evening.

Considering one of the children isn’t even hers (Jeremy’s son from another mother) - I would suspect at some point CPS will step in but who knows. It’s so hard to even speculate at this point.

peace



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I'm not sure if I read it here or some other link FROM here.....but wasn't this the first time EVER that mother-Deborah was minding 3 kids on her own? Either Jeremy just started that second job or that wasn't his normal shift? Something like that.

Yes, it was his 'first night shift ever' - I posted a link way back, but yes, if the media can be believed this was some extra work he took on and he'd never been away at night before.


So if that's true, it just seems like real bad timing for a mother of three to have an urge to get plastered! That's like showing up drunk your first day at a new job!

Problem is - if she can be believed - she takes her 'adult time' (to get sloshed) a 'couple times a week' and sees no 'harm' in taking her 'adult time' once the 'kids are in bed'... Problem is unless she put all those kids down to be awful really that night - she isn't sticking to her 'adult time' rules.

She also stated her getting drunk to the point of blacking out had nothing to do with Lisa's disappearance.


This just screams 'set up' to me.

It screams something that's for sure.


I understand we're innocent until proven guilty but as a species, the Human race, we're getting more in tune with things. For instances, have you ever watched Candid Camera from the 50's and 60's? People were a LOT more naive and 'dumber' back then. Most of those stunts could never be pulled off now a days. We're 'smarter' (I hate using that word because we're really not. We're just not as asleep)

Oh I agree. And I believe the internet has a lot to do with it. We 'pick up' pretty quick on the people we're interacting with - very quickly in fact - and without having the benefit of seeing them, hearing them, watching their reactions, evaluating their tone of voice, etc. I believe interacting in this way has gone far in bumping up people perception of others - to a really new level, and all time high.


So....I think we are able to sift the wheat from the chaff a little quicker now too. We know Human behavior a lot more than we did 50 years ago. We can usually tell when someone is lying or when something isn't registering 'true'.
If this case was presented 50 years ago, all the neighbors would be baking the Irwins a cake and taking them over, pot-luck dinners.

Which begs the question - just how many kids were stolen from their homes, their beds 50 years ago compared to now?

And if the community didn't rally around the 'Brad-Wins' (though I do believe the community has rallied around LISA) - but if not the parents - it makes me wonder...why...


Times have changed and peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining, doesn't fly anymore.
We are more perceptive now. I'm not saying we can rule on a case the way we're doing on this forum but certainly we have the ability to lean one way or the other with a lot of conviction.


Lean with conviction - sure - problem is I'm pretty positive there's a 'key' bit of information the police have - that we don't.

Some speculate is Jeremy really Lisa's father. Others speculate at a extra-relationship Deborah might have been having. My point - there's a lot of speculating because people are looking for that one 'key' that's going to open this all up.

I tend to think the police have that information. Then again - maybe it's just I'm in hopes they do.

Thanks for bringing some great insight questions and comments to the thread.

peace



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I expect the key elements to this, from the police points of view are...
1 For the very 1st time Jeremy is not in the house, an abductor enters the home and takes a baby.
2.Deborah is for the the 1st time alone with the children and an abductor deliberately enters the home knowing she is there, without a male to protect her.
3 The abductor knew the Irwins movements, knew Jeremy was at work, saw Deborah turn off the lights, enters the house by a window.
4 A phone had made contact with Megan during the time Deborah is alone with the children.
5 Deborah plans to have a drink, goes to get the booze, Jeremy is fully aware of this as he is at home. Deborah drinks with a neighbour. Neighbour leaves, Deborah is alone with the children and is intoxicate to whatever degree that she falls deeply asleep.
6 Deborah is alone with a child in bed and a child in a bunk bed and a child missing from the cot.
7 They have no forensics or fingerprints or motive, they have no evidence of any other persons, either spotted during the day, weeks in the area prior to the abduction.
8 They have witnesses of another man carrying a child which they cannot identify or find.
I suppose as in all cases of abduction, where there is no forensic evidence of an outsider being involved, no witnesses, no known cases of any individuals in the area that could possibly cause concern, then who do they question? The 1 person that was there on the scene.
There have been many cases of abducted children, where there are no evidence to point the law at the parents. I think as people that live in communities and have familiar people around us in a street, buildings and environment, it is inconceivable to comprehend how easily it is to have someone enter your home and take a child. Many people have been burgled during the night without any knowledge of it happening till the have awoken. We may point the finger at Deborah as she has been key to the events, the only adult in the house, the only 1 with any clue as to the build up of the abduction.
But.......
Just because there are no clues, are no forensics, are no witnesses, we must also be prepared to imagine that an outsider could of, have done in the past and as with many other cases, may never be solved.
Lisa, sadly is 1 child of many. Lisa is part of a tragic and all too real phenomenon that occurs all around the world.
All taken with no witnesses, no forensics, no motive.
The only case I think about that could bring hope is a case not too long ago in England where a mother reported her daughter missing, gave tearful interviews in front of the worlds press. Had all the community searching for her for weeks. Only to discover the police found the young girl hidden by her Uncle under a bed in his house, all arranged by the mother to collect reward money. Happily the mother is in jail and the girl enjoying living with loving foster parents.
I'm so hoping this could be a scenario that Lisa is safe somewhere.
edit on 7-11-2011 by sussy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sussy
 

Hi Sussy


I was just about to look at some facts on a news page - let’s see what you’ve got first!



I expect the key elements to this, from the police points of view are...
1 For the very 1st time Jeremy is not in the house, an abductor enters the home and takes a baby.
2.Deborah is for the the 1st time alone with the children and an abductor deliberately enters the home knowing she is there, without a male to protect her.
3 The abductor knew the Irwins movements, knew Jeremy was at work, saw Deborah turn off the lights, enters the house by a window.

Ok, so the lights were on when Jeremy got home. So you think the ‘kidnapper’ turned the lights on?
Also, the police ‘ruled out’ the window as a place of entry. Do you think the police are telling the truth? Or maybe the window was staged to look like someone came through it?



4 A phone had made contact with Megan during the time Deborah is alone with the children.
5 Deborah plans to have a drink, goes to get the booze, Jeremy is fully aware of this as he is at home.

I wonder if Jeremy knew she was going to get sloshed? I ask because it as said Deborah bought the wine for a upcoming family gathering. What do you think?


Deborah drinks with a neighbour. Neighbour leaves, Deborah is alone with the children and is intoxicate to whatever degree that she falls deeply asleep.
6 Deborah is alone with a child in bed and a child in a bunk bed and a child missing from the cot.
7 They have no forensics or fingerprints or motive, they have no evidence of any other persons, either spotted during the day, weeks in the area prior to the abduction.
8 They have witnesses of another man carrying a child which they cannot identify or find.

Speaking of phones - what’s your take on Deborah saying none of the phones worked?


I suppose as in all cases of abduction, where there is no forensic evidence of an outsider being involved, no witnesses, no known cases of any individuals in the area that could possibly cause concern, then who do they question? The 1 person that was there on the scene.
There have been many cases of abducted children, where there are no evidence to point the law at the parents. I think as people that live in communities and have familiar people around us in a street, buildings and environment, it is inconceivable to comprehend how easily it is to have someone enter your home and take a child. Many people have been burgled during the night without any knowledge of it happening till the have awoken. We may point the finger at Deborah as she has been key to the events, the only adult in the house, the only 1 with any clue as to the build up of the abduction.
But.......
Just because there are no clues, are no forensics, are no witnesses, we must also be prepared to imagine that an outsider could of, have done in the past and as with many other cases, may never be solved.


Sadly for Lisa you might be exactly right.




Lisa, sadly is 1 child of many. Lisa is part of a tragic and all too real phenomenon that occurs all around the world.
All taken with no witnesses, no forensics, no motive.
The only case I think about that could bring hope is a case not too long ago in England where a mother reported her daughter missing, gave tearful interviews in front of the worlds press. Had all the community searching for her for weeks. Only to discover the police found the young girl hidden by her Uncle under a bed in his house, all arranged by the mother to collect reward money. Happily the mother is in jail and the girl enjoying living with loving foster parents.


Yes! I remember something about that! I know a few people think there’s a great possibility of the same thing happening here with Lisa but for some reason you bringing up this case really just smacks me between the eyes! It could be soooooo easily the case couldn’t it! And it would explain the dog not barking, the police not believing the screen was broken by an intruder, etc.


I'm so hoping this could be a scenario that Lisa is safe somewhere.

Me too! Thank you for taking the time to post!

I’m off to check for that mother’s name - the one you spoke of. I’ll bring info back to the boards here if I find it.

Thanks again!



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I wanted to mention this case so that videos of this mother are watched and that her acting can be viewed by others on here. Then you can see how mother's can and will lie, put convincing tears, pleading acts for the camera. After watching Deborah in an interview I felt I saw the same act.
I can't embed videos so if anybody else would like to, of this British case.

Apologies for being too lazy to learn to embed.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sussy
 

Not a problem. If you want to get me her name I'll post the videos. I have not had time to go looking yet.
U2U me if you'd like and I'll post away.
Sounds interesting.

Thanks!



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join