It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 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?
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?
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.
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.
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)
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?
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?
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?
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 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.
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?
Originally posted by Dav1d
And the body becomes an issue... What happened to the body?
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 head 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
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
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.
Originally posted by Morningglory
reply to post by Dav1d
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
She should at minimum be arrested for endangering the welfare of 3 minors that evening.
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.
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.
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.