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: 93
41
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I am also wondering if t he DA's statement was a ploy to get the guilty parties, WHOMEVER they may be, to feel they are home free and drop their guard. I can't imagine a statement like that from a DA .




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Redux

Originally posted by Dav1d
It would seem to me that if Deborah has friends that she can call, at the drop of a hat, who are so skilled that they can dispose of a child, this well, there would be evidence of that as well.


I agree with this - it's like you mentioned before in another post, who in the world has a friend that you can just call up and request they dispose of a body for you? And in only a one minute phone call? The biggest thing that gets me about this case, that makes me consider Deborah to be innocent, is how on earth do you pull off killing your child and disposing of her so effectively as to not be found by police, in such a sort timeframe and whilst completely drunk? And without leaving significant evidence behind?


Exactly my point...

not only that, someone mentioned earlier that criminals always leave some evidence behind, and if it would have been a kidnapping, there would be evidence..like gloves, etc left behind.

Almost spit my coffee out reading that the police would say that...and not entirely sure they did...don't know what to believe anymore.

If these dudes that may have been over there that evening, or even in the area.. were adept at B&E's , and did this consistently, it would be safe to assume they would be a lot better at hiding any evidence than Debbie would be...especially given that she is drunk...passed out.. or who knows.. maybe she was slipped a lil something in one of her drinks, and hauled off to bed by one of the perps. Did not one of the boys say they heard a dragging sound?..which could be all heresay as well.

I had a hunch there were others there that evening, even if it was for only a short time..and we really don't know why or how that came about ..considering her brother was allegedly friends with some of these people as well?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


If a kidnapper who knew the family and/ or had been in that house, then they would in essence leave no trace because they ahve reason to be there. An absolute stranger would leave a trace or most of the time. A stranger leaving no trace would indicate a well planned out pre meditated act, not some opportunist sort of abductor. I don't know statistically which there are more of.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


If a kidnapper who knew the family and/ or had been in that house, then they would in essence leave no trace because they ahve reason to be there. An absolute stranger would leave a trace or most of the time. A stranger leaving no trace would indicate a well planned out pre meditated act, not some opportunist sort of abductor. I don't know statistically which there are more of.


Neither do I schmae , only that it is looking more complicated than it first appeared , and hopefully...hopefully there are some decent leads in all the investigative work that has been done, and is continuing to be done.

I think we both agree that most of us want the real truth , and hopefully that will unfold sooner than later...



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
By the way, Megan's facebook is NOT 100% open to public. I have a FB account and am logged in and I can not see all of her postings or her pictures.

Michelle



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michelle129th
By the way, Megan's facebook is NOT 100% open to public. I have a FB account and am logged in and I can not see all of her postings or her pictures.

Michelle


Thank you, for confirming what I believe....

It sure feels to me, that HLN is NOT reporting the news, but rather reporting what they believe supports their theory...



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


If a kidnapper who knew the family and/ or had been in that house, then they would in essence leave no trace because they ahve reason to be there. An absolute stranger would leave a trace or most of the time. A stranger leaving no trace would indicate a well planned out pre meditated act, not some opportunist sort of abductor. I don't know statistically which there are more of.


Perhaps I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that if the perpetrator had a bad case of dandruff, halitosis, and was bleeding, there would be no trace evidence, if it wasn't gather because someone "knew" that the child was dead, and who did it? There are reasons above and beyond, there being no evidence, for a lack of evidence collected. Remember the date on when evidence was collected...



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
That Justice for Lisa facebook page is really getting out of hand. They should be realllllly careful. They are treading on thin ice with their threats to everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets shut down

Michelle



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dav1d

Originally posted by Redux

Originally posted by Dav1d
It would seem to me that if Deborah has friends that she can call, at the drop of a hat, who are so skilled that they can dispose of a child, this well, there would be evidence of that as well.


I agree with this - it's like you mentioned before in another post, who in the world has a friend that you can just call up and request they dispose of a body for you? And in only a one minute phone call? The biggest thing that gets me about this case, that makes me consider Deborah to be innocent, is how on earth do you pull off killing your child and disposing of her so effectively as to not be found by police, in such a sort timeframe and whilst completely drunk? And without leaving significant evidence behind?


I know the answer to this! you use misdirection, and do it at another, place and time. Then the police can hunt to their hearts content and still not find anything they don't plant... If you are a real mastermind, you enrage the public, in an attempt to force the police to arrest you too soon. There is that double jeopardy thing...


edit on 8-11-2011 by Dav1d because: Spelling...

Except that in this case, there were other parties who saw the baby up to a certain time, still leaving (what I would consider) a pretty short timeframe to dispose of a body so well that no one has found it. The kind of misdirection you're talking about takes time for evidence to get messed with, scent trails to be destroyed, people's memory to get fuzzy, etc. It doesn't seem to me that there was enough time. They would have had to drive somewhere where no one would think to look for the baby, and to me, that would have to be substantially away from the house which just wouldn't be possible given the time constraints (except unless there was a perfect hiding place in the geography nearby, like numerous abandoned wells or something).

Unless of course all the other people that saw the baby that day were in on it? Don't think that's too likely though.
edit on 8-11-2011 by Redux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011
 


If a kidnapper who knew the family and/ or had been in that house, then they would in essence leave no trace because they ahve reason to be there. An absolute stranger would leave a trace or most of the time. A stranger leaving no trace would indicate a well planned out pre meditated act, not some opportunist sort of abductor. I don't know statistically which there are more of.
Awesome point schmae. I hadn't really looked at it that way before.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Redux

Except that in this case, there were other parties who saw the baby up to a certain time, still leaving (what I would consider) a pretty short timeframe to dispose of a body so well that no one has found it.


Really? Whom, at this point is a reliable witness, that claims to have seen Lisa? By far the best secrets, are not shared! But in this case Deborah and Jeremy are not seen as trustworthy, would it be Deborah's little brother, Phillip Netz, who was content to apparently go along with the illusion that he wasn't there that night? Or would it be Samantha Brando, who again was willing to play along with the illusion that, she was just drinking with Deborah that night? If you go with the theory that anyone who changes their story is unreliable, who then that hasn't changed their story in some sigificant way saw Lisa that day/night?


The kind of misdirection you're talking about takes time for evidence to get messed with, scent trails to be destroyed, people's memory to get fuzzy, etc.


Just how long does it take to drive out of the county? How long to cross the state line? Who other than family and friends was the last person to see Lisa, and just when was that really? When was Lisa last seen by her doctor? The Cable guy? The lady in the store? I remember hearing how Deborah would bring Lisa to the store, and how happy she seem.... Yet this night, she wasn't taken to the store... something to think about... When was Lisa last seen on a street cam, and where?


It doesn't seem to me that there was enough time. They would have had to drive somewhere where no one would think to look for the baby, and to me, that would have to be substantially away from the house which just wouldn't be possible given the time constraints (except unless there was a perfect hiding place in the geography nearby, like numerous abandoned wells or something).


Perhaps my memory is not as good as I believe. Perhaps Lisa was seen on security tapes that morning?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Redux
 


If you assume this is true, and you (the collective "you", not you in particular, silo) believe that Deborah might be guilty, then what is said here applies to her as well. Add onto that that she was supposedly drunk, there should be tons of evidence she left behind, but there is not.


Funny you say that - she's exactly who the criminal professional was speaking of - but - like he added to the end of that sentence - 'You can't discount luck.' Then he went on to say something about all her stars being in aline or something I"ll have to go back and listen again, I want to get exactly what it was he said.

Thanks / peace



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


By the way, Megan's facebook is NOT 100% open to public. I have a FB account and am logged in and I can not see all of her postings or her pictures.


Strange that - when I U2U'd you last night with that info I could see everything. I could post, read all comments, see all pictures - it was just too late for me to do anything about it.

What, did she change it again? What a frootloop.

peace



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
The boy's need to be questioned. And fast. They are the only people that can give real clues as to what was going on in that house that day. They can say where Lisa was all day, who was at the house and how mummy was acting etc. Children can lie but in situations like this they can be gently pushed to reveal many things. And guess what, Deborah says no. Why?
Isn't this indicative of how this is panning out.
Don't you think this is why the police are so suspicious of how this case is being manipulated?
We now have at least 7 characters, all in or around the house or being contacted by phone.
Where is the proof that Lisa was in that house that day?
Whether the detectives are working on gut instinct or whether they are starting to get clues, surely they must be so frustrated not being allowed to interview the boys and the longer this goes on, someone, somewhere will slip up. If this is truly a random abduction, by an unknown to the area, an opportunist that just so happen to walk by, pick a house, break in, go to the exact room Lisa is in, take her, walk out, walk blocks away. And if the witness to the man walking down the street saw a man with a baby, Why, why have the police not consistently followed up that lead? Because they think that it might not be true? Haven't Deborah's ex friends said that she isn't what she makes out to be when you get to know her.
I'm just flying questions out because they are going round my head.
edit on 9-11-2011 by sussy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Redux
 


If you assume this is true, and you (the collective "you", not you in particular, silo) believe that Deborah might be guilty, then what is said here applies to her as well. Add onto that that she was supposedly drunk, there should be tons of evidence she left behind, but there is not.


Funny you say that - she's exactly who the criminal professional was speaking of - but - like he added to the end of that sentence - 'You can't discount luck.' Then he went on to say something about all her stars being in aline or something I"ll have to go back and listen again, I want to get exactly what it was he said.

Thanks / peace


So which one do you (the collective "you") pick? Is Deborah the criminal who is dumb, and can't have any luck? Or is she the innocent one who can have luck? Was Deborah perhaps drugged that night, did the police get a sample of her blood? The police are the professionals here, they have been trained for this. If one assumes she is telling the truth, how could someone sneak into her home? By drugging her, would be one way. Seems logical to attempt to rule this possibility out, if she was drugged one has a very limited window of time to rule this in or out... One needs to recall that the police characterizer her as cooperating at that time... Deborah let the police in, let them search from the top to the bottom of her home, she was talking to them, and so where her children, then.... Of course if you already have your mind made up, you just might not want evidence that could conflict with your theory...

This so called "professional" appears to want it both ways. They appear to be saying criminals can't have luck, and always make mistakes, then go on in the same breath to tell how a drunk, Deborah had all the luck in the world. Funny in a sad sort of way, how the "professionals" never choose to question, the only other real "professionals" involved in this case, actions or lack of actions at this point. Just how costly is it to run a blood alcohol, and drug test? We can run these test for a moving violation, but when a child's life is involved they are too costly? The failure of the so called professionals to close certain doors, permits the defense to claim many things. Much has been made here, by many that going into this the police knew the parents where the most likely ones to have harmed Lisa. From OJ to Anthony the one real constant here is the police make mistakes, and fail to preserve evidence! The police know that the family is the most likely to have harmed Lisa, and so that permits the police to treat the family with a lack of respect, but apparently doesn't require the police to preserve evidence of a potential crime?

Is it just a creminal's good luck, when the cops fail to take, and collect evidence? Or is it a sign of arrogrance, that the cop believes he/she can break anyone? Or does it rise to perhaps the level of derelictions of duty? A lack of evidence, doesn't necessarily prove that there was no evidence. Just how many days had passed before the cops got around to requesting a search warrant to collect evidence? By that point in time, how many cops had been to that home? How many reporters had walked up and looked at that window? How many cops had played at crawling in through that window?? And then the cops are going to look you straight in the eye and tell you they didn't see any evidence to collect....



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sussy
The boy's need to be questioned. And fast. They are the only people that can give real clues as to what was going on in that house that day. They can say where Lisa was all day, who was at the house and how mummy was acting etc. Children can lie but in situations like this they can be gently pushed to reveal many things. And guess what, Deborah says no. Why?


Perhaps a better question is why weren't these questions asked on day one when the cops DID talk to the boys?
On day one, wouldn't it have been reasonable to ask the boys if they saw anyone, heard anything? We are at a month now, and there is no way anyone can claim any interviews at this point are fast!

Remember the Elizabeth Smart case? Her sister idenfided her kidnapper, and was discounted by the police


Isn't this indicative of how this is panning out.


Yep visions of the OJ trial, and Anthony....
Where the ball was dropped...


Don't you think this is why the police are so suspicious of how this case is being manipulated?


I see the police manipulating the media and the public, there is too much spin, too much manipulation, in this case. Is the evidence of such poor quality and quanty that the parents need to be tried in the court of public opinion?


We now have at least 7 characters, all in or around the house or being contacted by phone.
Where is the proof that Lisa was in that house that day?


Yes where is it? Where is the proof she was there that month, for that matter?


Whether the detectives are working on gut instinct or whether they are starting to get clues, surely they must be so frustrated not being allowed to interview the boys and the longer this goes on, someone, somewhere will slip up.


You're right! Someone has, the detectives, perhaps you never heard but the DA has announced that it is likely this case will take years to resolve... Perhaps because in part someone can't control their ego, and frustrations...


If this is truly a random abduction, by an unknown to the area, an opportunist that just so happen to walk by, pick a house, break in, go to the exact room Lisa is in, take her, walk out, walk blocks away. And if the witness to the man walking down the street saw a man with a baby, Why, why have the police not consistently followed up that lead? Because they think that it might not be true? Haven't Deborah's ex friends said that she isn't what she makes out to be when you get to know her.
I'm just flying questions out because they are going round my head.
edit on 9-11-2011 by sussy because: (no reason given)


Why must it be a random abduction? Why could it not be a planned abduction? Truth is we know that lie detector test are not foolproof, in most cases they are NOT admissible in a court of law. So why waste time with them? Just because a person passes a lie detector test that DOESN'T prove they are innocent! Nor for Lisa to have actually have been abducted must she have been seen by someone. If the people that claimed to have seen a man and a baby, are all proven to be wrong in time, that does not prove that Lisa was not abducted... And what, people never change? They never learn? They never grow up? Deborah wasn't even an adult back then. Remember the so called experts claim that criminals are dumb? If Deborah is the town drunk, where is the evidence that supports this allegation? If she is a methead where is the proof? The cops searched her home, where are the drugs if she is an addict?

Someone messed up, and everyday that gets just a little bit easier to see.... That someone in my opinion was the KCPD....



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


There was a family birthday party the Sunday before the day she went missing. As far as I can tell that is the last independant sighting of Lisa by someone other than her parents. I think there were photos from that party as well showing her in her grandpa's arms, etc.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Michelle129th
 


By the way, Megan's facebook is NOT 100% open to public. I have a FB account and am logged in and I can not see all of her postings or her pictures.


Strange that - when I U2U'd you last night with that info I could see everything. I could post, read all comments, see all pictures - it was just too late for me to do anything about it.

What, did she change it again? What a frootloop.

peace


I think she must have silo...I'd have to say once she opened it she probably got a million crazies posting on her wall so it would make sense that she at least closed down the commenting portion. However, she also closed the picture and "history" portion. I have FB but I don't do much on it so i'm not sure how you make it stop showing your older posts...but we can't see her older posts before suddenly becoming america's sweetheart.

That just makes me sick. People in the Justice For Lisa page are actually calling this woman a HERO??? A hero for goodness sakes?? For what??!!! Talk about your 15 mins of fame. They are all falling all over MW telling her how beautiful and wonderful she is. How about...how beautiful and wonderful Lisa is....it's becoming more of a vicious circus on that page than anything else I've seen to date. Jjust to mention I also got banned from there....just can't keep my mouth shut I guess. We were told we could ask Megan questions and when I asked if she was getting paid for her media interviews I got the boot. I guess that wasn't a question I was allowed to ask.

Anyhow, an interesting factor involving Megan was one I came across last night between her facebook and her Justice for Lisa "question segment", and her HLN interview.

Her story is this Dane guy had her phone all of Oct 3 and 4th. YET, someone on websleuths who had friended her on FB and saw all of her previous posts took a screenshot that at 1:36am on Oct 4th Megan posted to her facebook page "via mobile". Pretty interesting for a house with only "her" phone(which dane had). She also admitted that at 2am on Oct 4th she left the house to go out for waffles..(I guess that's normal?) We still don't have confirmation of whether or not that phone call came at 8:30 or 2:30 am.

IF (big if) it did indeed come at 2:30, we now have MW's phone in her possession 50 mins before the call, and MW out of the house 1/2 hour before that phone call....interesting.

To be clear here, I deep down don't feel that MW is involved BUTTTTTT if we are tearing apart all of Deborah's claims to make her look guilty....do you see how easy it is to link just about anyone to this crime? \

I seriously think KC is a very weird city (sorry to anyone that lives there lol).

OH, and did anyone else find it really unprofessional for Jim Spellman to "pose" for a personal picture with MW and then post it all over the net??? Is that normal for a reporter to post for personal pictures with possible suspects in a kidnapping case?

Michelle



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
David ''I see the police manipulating the media and the public, there is too much spin, too much manipulation, in this case. Is the evidence of such poor quality and quanty that the parents need to be tried in the court of public opinion? ''

How so ? I haven't heard of a police statement issued in , literally, weeks. So what have they said or done that is manipulating? Maybe I 've missed some statements. I do spend a lot of time with this, but not a fraction of what some people are spending so it's very possible I missed some police statements. It seems to be the police are the only ones who are pretty QUIET and issuing no kind of statement. tks



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Megan's story seems to have changed,


Posted: 9:53 PM
Last Updated: 31 minutes ago
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A woman Tuesday identified a man she said was using her phone when it got a mystery call from one of the three cell phones stolen from the house the night Lisa Irwin disappeared on Oct. 4.
NBC Action News investigator Russ Ptacek uncovered a September restraining order in Clay County against the man Megan Wright claims has physically and emotionally abused her.
Below is the transcript from the interview with Wright on Tuesday:
Wright: "I absolutely had nothing to do with this. The whole reason I'm involved in this case is because I was trying to be nice and let people use my phone.
I just set it down on the table. Told everybody I was going downstairs with my boyfriend at the time. Told them if they need it feel free.
I was downstairs probably from 5:00 that night until midnight when I was looking for my phone again."
Russ: "So at the time the mystery call came, what happened?"
Wright: "I'm not sure, from what I was told from people who were upstairs at the time said Dane had the phone all night. I don't know if it was answered if it went to voicemail or if he was on the phone at the time.
Honestly I have no clue. I don't know if he answered and tried to leave."
Russ: "But you believe this person had the phone all night."


Read more


So... I read that as the guy had her phone from at most 5:00 pm that night, till midnight. Clearly she acknowledges asking, and finding out that Dane had the phone that night! So why did she state that she didn't know who had it, and imply that any of a number of people could have had it...

Of course she appears to have told NBC vet another version of the truth....

And this person is honest? Is truthful? Is trustworthy?

That Facebook page is suppose to be 100% open and like so many other things seems less than true...


edit on 9-11-2011 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)







 
41
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join