Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by Dav1d


I dunno either. She doesn't look like a ' drunk' as in the red face and cheeks and nose etc. However it takes a lot more years than she's been old enough to drink to develop those tell tale signs. I don't know, drinkign to passing out on a Monday and a school nigth doesn't seem quite as innocent as say on a friday or her birthday or new years, etc or a big family event, wedding reception, etc. You see what I mean? So I don't know if shes' a big time drinker or not but I do believe she is NOT a meth user ! That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. If she is a meth user, shes' NOT got an anxiety disorder. That's my opinion as well. For the drinking,,, I don't know.

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Dav1d

 

I dunno either. She doesn't look like a ' drunk' as in the red face and cheeks and nose etc. However it takes a lot more years than she's been old enough to drink to develop those tell tale signs. I don't know, drinkign to passing out on a Monday and a school nigth doesn't seem quite as innocent as say on a friday or her birthday or new years, etc or a big family event, wedding reception, etc. You see what I mean? So I don't know if shes' a big time drinker or not but I do believe she is NOT a meth user ! That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. If she is a meth user, shes' NOT got an anxiety disorder. That's my opinion as well. For the drinking,,, I don't know.

I would be inclined to wonder about the other recreational drugs also. I mean, I couldn't tell you if she would fit the profile of a meth user. What if any one of the people that may have been there that night had the not so legal plant, or a pill. I have been to get together's in the past where the group of people would go around the corner for a few minutes to smoke and mix with a drink. Or the mixture of any meds she was on. Just some random thoughts after reading the last page or so.

IWOH

www.kansascity.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">source

Speaking on Fox News Channel’s “America Live With Megyn Kelly,” Picerno said that a call was placed from one of the family’s cellphones at 11:57 p.m. on Oct. 3. That call went to the phone of a Northland woman named Megan Wright.

Wright has said that someone else had her phone that night and that she does not know Bradley or Irwin.

The records also show that someone tried to access the voice mail and Internet browser on Bradley’s phone between 3:17 and 3:32 a.m. on Oct. 4, Picerno said. The activity took place one-fifth to one-third of a mile from the family’s home, he said.

Hopefully that's the 'official' time - and they'll be no more confusion there - hard to believe it's taken this long to nail that time down.


peace

I would like to go over again Lisa's bedtime.
Lisa was put to bed at 6 40. Mum's outside having a drink. Kids inside playing. This is normal activity and nobody else is around. Lisa has been fed and is down for the night. She has a cold and sleeps like a log. She doesn't stir the whole time Deborah is outside. So let say from 6 40 to 10 30 Lisa is sleeping soundly. Deborah says she goes to bed at 10 30, but that can't really be established because there are no witnesses. During the evening she must of gone to the toilet, walked through the house. She must be aware that Lisa is still sleeping soundly as she doesn't check her.
So at 10 30, her friend goes home, Deborah enters the house, closes up, probably pops to the toilet, turns off the lights, get undressed, falls into bed. The baby monitor is on and in the room.
She must of been aware that at some time Lisa would of woken up from her sleep as she had gone to bed quiet early and she would of known Lisa wouldn't of slept all night till morning. That's far too long to expect a child to stay sleeping.
At some point in the night Lisa would of woken up. She would of whimpered 1st, moved around her cot, start to cry for attention, then cry harder to get seen to. Which would get louder and louder.
So let's say from 12 to 3 o'clock could of been a time Lisa was starting to stir. She did have a cold too remember.
If Deborah had a lot of alcohol, this may have been the time her body went into a deep sleep.
Babies crying are very loud, they have a piecing scream when in distress and they don't stop until they are picked up or they hear a soothing voice. So there are a few things I want to go over. If she was abducted, Lisa if woken sharply in her sleep by a strange person would start to scream. Lisa would not of been in too deep a sleep between those hours as she had already had 4 or 5 hours sleep. Mothers have a built in awareness of their baby's screams and crying patterns. My only concern in this matter is that the abductor panicked and put their hand over Lisa's mouth to keep her quiet.
I'm going with this idea because,lets say someone broke in to steal some goods to sell on. Lisa is now at the point of sleeping lighter than in the hours previously. She wakes up, starts to whimper and the intruder grabs her in panic and stifles her screams. Then leaves the property with Lisa because they can't put her down for fear of her screaming again. The stifling of her screams with the hand over her mouth then causes .............. well I don't really need to go on.

The intruder then has the phones, panics and tries to call known friends. This then could account for the witness report of seeing a man with a child at 2 30 am

More new facts? Or just another reporter attempting to rewrite another's story, and messing it up?

The night of Lisa Irwin's alleged disappearance, someone apparently tried to use Bradley's mobile phone to call a woman; it was later discovered that the unidentified woman was, in fact, Wright. Investigators examined Bradley's mobile phone after Lisa was declared missing and that was when they found the call. According to reports, Wright received a call that lasted for 50 seconds.
Read more

So does this story tell us that the phones have been recovered? Or is it simply one writer attempting to make their story different enough that they are not accused of plagiarism? Has someone slipped up, and let something out of the bag? New facts here? Or just the imagination of another, story teller?

Is the KCPD honest? Or just bald face liars? Capt. Steve Young is quoted as saying "We don't have any suspects" here. So what's up with that? Is the KCPD dumb? The public has plenty of suspects! Yet it is alledged that KCPD doesn't have even one! In the same article the police alledgedly claim a need to ask the couple questions. Questions the police alledgedly have had since as far back as October 8! Just how important are these question? Well I believe KCPD has clearly demonstrated that they aren't interested in the answers to these questions. Both of the family lawyers are open to taking specific questions to the family and relaying the answers. However, this isn't good enough for KCPD, why if the KCPD is truly after answers? It is reported that the family have spent over 30 hours going over the same things, they don't have the answers. The cops keep asking the same questions, and if you answer in the exact same words, your answer is rehearsed, and if you try to state it in different ways, your story keeps changing. It is a no win situation. KCPD appears to be living in a fantasy world, with a unhealthy case of tunnel vision.

Has the KCPD crossed the line, to were any solution to this case that doesn't involve Deborah and Jeremy will be a costly one for KCPD? Capt. Steve Young doesn't share his beliefs, but rather claims to release details, facts. We know that the KCPD is permitted to lie to us, when their lies damage reputations and inflect emotional harm, do they also get a free pass?

Is the KCPD required to act responsibly? Or do they get a free pass for that too? What is the most important goal here? Is it to recover Lisa? Or is it to sit where KCPD tells one to, and jump when they say jump? Is KCPD afraid? Does KCPD even care about answers at this point, or is it simply into being a puppet master? One plays by KCPD rules, or like any spoiled child KCPD will take it's ball and go home! In this case that leave little Lisa out in the cold!

Whomever took little Lisa isn't dumb, they've managed to elude the police for 5 long weeks with no sign in end! Nor is the public as dumb as KCPD apparently would like to believe. Perhaps, just perhaps, it's time for KCPD to get real, to get honest, and give up on its juvenile desire to have everyone dance to KCPD's tune, and instead get back into the business of finding little Lisa?

reply to post by schmae


alcohol and prescription meds?
Could cause that kind of 'black out effect'

Anyone know what meds she was on?

reply to post by sussy


Wow Sussy, good thinking. You've brought up some really good stuff I hadn't thought about before the sleeping patterns, etc. It is a very long time for a sick baby to sleep soundly.

reply to post by sussy


It was reported that the police have 'moved on' from all of the sightings. This either means they have proven them not related ( like a neighbor with sick child came forward and said that was me, but I dont want media around so keep it quiet) or that there was not enough to GO on , so the lead was left alone or they have found the witnesses non credible etc. But I heard various reports of this but have yet to determine if the police actually gave a statement to someone in media saying WE HAVE DISCOUNTED ALL SIGHTINGS...of if this is just some media spin.

reply to post by Dav1d


Agreed whoever took her is not dumb. This might be an interesting avenue to look into............what is the difference in the police DEFINITION of 'suspect' vs. 'person of interest' ? Do we know? I would think there are a great many persons of interest. But no suspect yet means none of those POI have filled the criteria to go on to become a suspect. So when you say the public has many suspects, maybe what we really have are many POI's? You see what I mean. At some point a person of interest, let's say JERSEY the handyman, can move into the SUSPECT category but first he must fulfill some requirements.......like a fingerprint inside the house or a sighting of him with a baby bottle, etc. So maybe we need to look at what elevates a POI to a legitimate SUSPECT.

reply to post by Thurisaz


EFFEXOR,, i do not know if there were any others or not.

Wow, this is actually intereseting....... I thought that person of interest was a relatively NEW term.

en.wikipedia.org...


"Person of interest" is a phrase used by law enforcement when announcing the name of someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. The phrase was adopted by the media and widely disseminated, thus most law enforcement agencies have picked up the term
It has no legal meaning, but it is a "catchy" term
person of interest remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice.[2] It is often used as a euphemism for suspect, and can sometimes result in a trial by media.

ADOPTED BY MEDIA and can result in TRIAL BY MEDIA,,, but no legal definition.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Exclusive: Irwin Family Attorney John Picerno Talks to FOX 4′s John Holt

FOX 4′s John Holt sat down with Picerno on Friday to discuss the Lisa Irwin disappearance case, and why the family chose to hire a defense attorney if, as they claim, they have nothing to hide.

At the link the video is cut into 3 segments.These are my notes on what stood out to me.

First video:
- Basic introduction, how Picerno approaches the case & his role in the process.
- Why "lawyer up"? Basically to protect rights
- Bradley and Irwin "subjected" themselves to 5 different interview/interrogations, 2 without a lawyer present. It was a family member who is a law student that suggested they get a lawyer.
- Family is cooperating, they've had 30 hours of interviews with police. Now advised to no longer talk to police because there is nothing beneficial to be gained from it. All information has been given.
- Attorneys are advising them to not participate in any more "interrogations" and if the police have more questions for their clients they can contact them (the attorneys) anytime.
-3rd interview was when it turned "heated", police lured them to the interview under false pretenses, then turn accusatory.

Second video:
- Talks about the abduction statistics
- Picerno views his role as keeping B&I from getting charged.
- He wanted to stress to everyone "they have cooperated, at some point there is no other answers they can supply, it is a helpless feeling.
- Talks about time line & the sightings. (my note-Picerno seems to be pointing the finger at Jersey)

Third video:
- Interviewer states, "sounds like your trying to build a case for reason doubt, just in case" Picerno says just looking out for the client.
- Picerno talks about the family dynamic and that they are a loving family.
- Does not anticipate Bradley will be changed and he doesn't think she should be charged.
- Talks about the future.
- Picerno's focus will continue to be investigation of what happened and keeping the family from being charged.

----------------------------

OiO

Originally posted by OneisOne
Third video:
- Interviewer states, "sounds like your trying to build a case for reason doubt, just in case" Picerno says just looking out for the client.
- Picerno talks about the family dynamic and that they are a loving family.
- Does not anticipate Bradley will be changed and he doesn't think she should be charged.
- Talks about the future.
- Picerno's focus will continue to be investigation of what happened and keeping the family from being charged.

----------------------------

OiO

I found this part rather interesting, the whole thing is, but this stood out. We were told the family and lawyers would not be doing anymore interviews with the media. Immediately after the Specialist came out and interviewed the two boys, the lawyer for the family is out doing more interviews than I have seen in the past and setting the record in the public eye for the family.

The interview from yesterday had the lawyer state that the police considered them suspects "They've told them as much" (could not elaborate more), and in the same article the police responded they were not. I would think then that the police consider the family suspects in the sense of trying to solve the case, but have not named them as "Official Suspects" to the case.

Just interesting.

IWOH

Originally posted by schmae
Wow, this is actually intereseting....... I thought that person of interest was a relatively NEW term. 

en.wikipedia.org...


"Person of interest" is a phrase used by law enforcement when announcing the name of someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. The phrase was adopted by the media and widely disseminated, thus most law enforcement agencies have picked up the term
It has no legal meaning, but it is a "catchy" term
person of interest remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice.[2] It is often used as a euphemism for suspect, and can sometimes result in a trial by media.

ADOPTED BY MEDIA and can result in TRIAL BY MEDIA,,, but no legal definition. 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm  

So in effect what we have here is a means for the police to START the TRIAL BY MEDIA in the hopes that the police can pin it on the person they suspect is guilty, but LACK the evidence to prove is guilty. It is part of a psychological ops to increase pressure in the hopes that they can break a person, or persons. What is commonly thought of as a form of coercive behavior. It maybe instructive to read about > Emotional abuse < , and just what it is. 

On the page I  have linked to one ** might** want to look at gaslighting 

GASLIGHTING: The other person may deny that certain events occurred or that certain things were said. You know differently. The other person may deny your perceptions, memory and very sanity. (If a borderline has been disassociating, they may indeed remember reality differently than you do.

**Could** as an example, Capt. Steve Young denial that there is an interview scheduled with the boys this week be seen as a form of gaslighting? 
***Could*** Capt. Steve Young announcement that the family had quit cooperating, when they had simply asked to leave be an attempt at gaslighting?
****Could*** Capt. Steve Young statement that there are no suspects, after you have been accused of killing your child, be just one more example, in a long list?

Another thing we might want to look at is CONSTANT CHAOS;

CONSTANT CHAOS: The other person may deliberately start arguments and be in constant conflict with others. The person may be "addicted to drama" since it creates excitement.

Well it would seem, that Capt. Steve Young has certainly deliberately created drama. There is that we NEED questions answered, but written answers aren't acceptable bit...

These are just some of the things I find similar...

reply to post by sussy


Are you a parent of more than one child? Are all children the same, in your eyes? Are not some children finicky, and others less? My experience teaches me that All children are not interchangeable! One of my children had no issues with sleeping throughout the night, another was at best a napper, it took many years for her to sleep throughout the night. A child that is worn out from a cold, (and perhaps fighting the cold), given some medication and able to sleep for ten or more hours? I at least can see that as possible, that doesn't mean it happen in this case. Nor do we actually know when Lisa really went to sleep. Yes she was put to bed around 6 that doesn't in my opinion mean she was asleep by 7, or even 8. The pictures I've seen of her crib suggest to me she had many things potentially to occupy her time with.. Of course nothing I've said proves your theory wrong either, it could well have happen just as you suggest. But it could also have happen many other ways as well.

Obama said fallout from the the scandal had shown 'You can't just rely on bureaucracy and systems in these kinds of situations. People have to step forward, they have to be tapping into just their core decency.

'When kids are mistreated, or anyone, for that matter, all of us have to step up, we don't leave it to somebody else to take responsibility.
Read more

So it seems to me, that Obama's words also apply to this case, as well. I see a family, two people, three children, being mistreated...

Originally posted by Dav1d

Another thing we might want to look at is CONSTANT CHAOS;

CONSTANT CHAOS: The other person may deliberately start arguments and be in constant conflict with others. The person may be "addicted to drama" since it creates excitement.

Well it would seem, that Capt. Steve Young has certainly deliberately created drama. There is that we NEED questions answered, but written answers aren't acceptable bit...

These are just some of the things I find similar...

I agree with you. Constant Chaos could be involved in this case. I mean, look at the lawyers, they said they were not going to do anymore media and they have been all over the news after the kids interviews. It would seem the lawyers could be causing chaos and drama. This was a good find.

IWOH

Originally posted by Dav1d

Obama said fallout from the the scandal had shown 'You can't just rely on bureaucracy and systems in these kinds of situations. People have to step forward, they have to be tapping into just their core decency.

'When kids are mistreated, or anyone, for that matter, all of us have to step up, we don't leave it to somebody else to take responsibility.
Read more

So it seems to me, that Obama's words also apply to this case, as well. I see a family, two people, three children, being mistreated...

I agree. I also see many others being mistreated as well, not just this one family. If there is only accusations of wrong doing, then most of the people involved in this case fall under the presidents words.

IWOH