LE statement on the case to be released

[4Jacy]

This is "wild speculation" and is NOT allowed. There is NO evidence of this at all. JI has a pretty good alibi so if you want to go down this road, you need to link it to something factual.

Salem

Very, very sorry Salem! It was just a theory I threw out. However, there is no evidence of anything. Again, sorry. <modsnip>

 

[Whisperer]

Why would she think this though about JI? We have no back story on their relationship, if there was trust issues between them. Unless he's slipped up to her after the fact, according to her he was at work.

As far as JI is concerned, why can't it be that DB made a horrible mistake in his eyes (drinking). He may have been angry with her, but that doesn't mean he would think she did something to BL. I have no idea about their relationship, neither does anyone else and to assume how one would react to the other in this situation is simply guessing.

I can assume how people would react...normal people, that is.

A horrible mistake would be drunk while watching children. An unforgivable horrible mistake is being drunk and not remembering what you did with your baby. Sorry, no reasonable parent would look at it any other way. When your child goes missing and the care-giver was drunk at the time, you get rid of the care giver...

 

[iSleuth]

Here's a link to a PDF of it.

http://media.kshb.com/pdf/LisaIrwinStatement.pdf

<<Police have exhausted leads provided by Lisa Irwin&#8217;s family and their attorneys, and the leads
were of no benefit to the investigation. While communication with the family has been ongoing,
police have not had the opportunity to sit down one-on-one to speak with Lisa&#8217;s mother,
DB. As the only adult in the home at the time of the baby&#8217;s disappearance, police
continue to have questions to which only she can provide answers.>>

:-( Can you imagine?..."over a year and Mom hasn't had the opportunity to sit down one -on -one with police"
Also, question/favor:
As much as i have poured over this case...the one statement " someone who cheats on their ....." I actually have not been able to locate, hear, or see which and where that interview snip is" If someone could direct me to a link, i would really appreciate it. TY

 

[RANCH]

<<Police have exhausted leads provided by Lisa Irwin’s family and their attorneys, and the leads
were of no benefit to the investigation. While communication with the family has been ongoing,
police have not had the opportunity to sit down one-on-one to speak with Lisa’s mother,
DB. As the only adult in the home at the time of the baby’s disappearance, police
continue to have questions to which only she can provide answers.>>

:-( Can you imagine?..."over a year and Mom hasn't had the opportunity to sit down one -on -one with police"
Also, question/favor:
As much as i have poured over this case...the one statement " someone who cheats on their ....." I actually have not been able to locate, hear, or see which and where that interview snip is" If someone could direct me to a link, i would really appreciate it. TY

Perhaps if KCPD asked for an interview,it would help.

Kansas City Missouri Police Sgt. Sondra Zink said police have not requested an interview with Lisa’s parents since they retained an attorney,

http://plattecounty.fox4kc.com/news...rance-continues-stump-police-six-months-later

 

[RANCH]

I wonder if the dogs hit anywhere else? There has to be something that the police or FBI knows that made KCPD release the statement in October that they still have questions for Bradley.No there persons of interest were mentioned in the release or at any other time.



http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/police/documents/police/pr_09.28.12_lisairwin1stannive.pdf

I think that LE saying that they wish to talk to DB suggests a lack of evidence rather than an abundance of it. JMO.

 

[KsStormy]

I think that LE saying that they wish to talk to DB suggests a lack of evidence rather than an abundance of it. JMO.

From KCPD:

Police have exhausted leads provided by Lisa Irwin’s family and their attorneys, and the leads
were of no benefit to the investigation. While communication with the family has been ongoing,
police have not had the opportunity to sit down one-on-one to speak with Lisa’s mother,
Deborah Bradley. As the only adult in the home at the time of the baby’s disappearance, police
continue to have questions to which only she can provide answers.

Perhaps if Lisa's mother would consent to helping out, they may have come u[ with some new leads? For some reason, she still refuses to help. Why that is would be left to personal speculation. My personal opinion (along with many, many others) is that she is responsible, in some manner, for Lisa's disappearance. I cannot fathom any other reason why a parent would refuse to help when their child is missing. MOO :moo:

 

[Chris_Texas]

I think that LE saying that they wish to talk to DB suggests a lack of evidence rather than an abundance of it. JMO.

Of course.

This, however, should not be taken as an indicator of innocence. I imagine that the police, like many of us here, have a very good idea who killed little Lisa.

 

[RANCH]

Of course.

This, however, should not be taken as an indicator of innocence. I imagine that the police, like many of us here, have a very good idea who killed little Lisa.

The difference between police and many of us here is that they won't accuse someone of a crime without evidence to back it up. JMO.

 

[KsStormy]

Of course.

This, however, should not be taken as an indicator of innocence. I imagine that the police, like many of us here, have a very good idea who killed little Lisa.

I agree, this ain't their first rodeo! :seeya:

 

[RANCH]

I agree, this ain't their first rodeo! :seeya:

Your right, and this is why they haven't arrested anyone yet. They know that they need some evidence first. :floorlaugh:

 

[RANCH]

From KCPD:



Perhaps if Lisa's mother would consent to helping out, they may have come u[ with some new leads? For some reason, she still refuses to help. Why that is would be left to personal speculation. My personal opinion (along with many, many others) is that she is responsible, in some manner, for Lisa's disappearance. I cannot fathom any other reason why a parent would refuse to help when their child is missing. MOO :moo:

I think that Lisa's mother did consent to help. Starting from day one with undergoing hours of interviews with police.

According to Picerno, Jeremy and Deborah were interviewed separately by police, without an attorney, for a total of 19 hours on Oct. 4. Two days later on Oct. 6, police interviewed them again separately for a total of nine hours without an attorney. On Oct. 8, the parents were interview again for approximately three hours. It was during this third interview that, according to Picerno, things turned &#8220;nasty.&#8221;

http://fox4kc.com/2011/11/11/baby-lisa-family-attorney-accusations-of-noncooperation-‘fantasy’/

And even consenting to having a cadaver dog search their home.
The affidavit also revealed that "On October 17, 2011, an FBI cadaver dog was brought into the residence upon consent of (Jeremy) Irwin and Bradley.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/Lisa-Irwin-Sear...12264286/-/108618q/-/index.html#ixzz2F094mqv4

Seems like a good amount of consent to help to me.

 

[RANCH]

Police and their FBI partners have investigated 1,667 tips since 10-month-old Lisa went missing from her home in the 3600 block of North Lister in the early morning hours of Oct. 4, 2011.

This quote from the September 28, 2012 KCPD statement indicates that they consider Lisa Irwin went missing in the early morning hours of Oct. 4, 2011.

I would hope at this stage if they had evidence that Lisa was missing on Sunday Oct. 2, it would be reflected in their statement.

http://media.kshb.com/pdf/LisaIrwinStatement.pdf

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

This quote from the September 28, 2012 KCPD statement indicates that they consider Lisa Irwin went missing in the early morning hours of Oct. 4, 2011.

I would hope at this stage if they had evidence that Lisa was missing on Sunday Oct. 2, it would be reflected in their statement.

http://media.kshb.com/pdf/LisaIrwinStatement.pdf

From your link above, this tells me that LE doesn't put 100% faith in the dogs either since they still checked out sitings of Lisa. Regardless of whether or not the tips panned out, they still checked them out. The dogs serve a purpose as a tool but not any moreso than a LDT IMHO.

 

[RANCH]

From your link above, this tells me that LE doesn't put 100% faith in the dogs either since they still checked out sitings of Lisa. Regardless of whether or not the tips panned out, they still checked them out. The dogs serve a purpose as a tool but not any moreso than a LDT IMHO.

Another interesting piece from the LE statement is this.

They and Crime Lab analysts also have re-evaluated several pieces of forensic evidence.

Lets face it. The fact that LE is only re-evaluating "several pieces" of forensic evidence tells us that they have very little to look at in the way of forensic evidence in the first place.

And why do they have to re-evaluate this forensic evidence at all? What do they mean by this? Were the initial tests inconclusive? If they try to do multiple tests until they get the desired results, I think that they will have a problem getting it into court. JMO.

http://media.kshb.com/pdf/LisaIrwinStatement.pdf

 

[Nom de plume]

I agree, this ain't their first rodeo! :seeya:

Totally agree.

Your right, and this is why they haven't arrested anyone yet. They know that they need some evidence first. :floorlaugh:

And agree that they know they need evidence.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that CA was guilty? Yet she got away with it anyway due to lack of evidence. KCPD is not about to arrest anyone, send them to trial, and have them get away with murder due to lack of evidence.

I think they know what happened, and who the guilty party is, but they are waiting for more evidence before they make an arrest. :moo:

 

[Nom de plume]

Another interesting piece from the LE statement is this.

Lets face it. The fact that LE is only re-evaluating "several pieces" of forensic evidence tells us that they have very little to look at in the way of forensic evidence in the first place.

And why do they have to re-evaluate this forensic evidence at all? What do they mean by this? Were the initial tests inconclusive? If they try to do multiple tests until they get the desired results, I think that they will have a problem getting it into court. JMO.

http://media.kshb.com/pdf/LisaIrwinStatement.pdf

BBM Perhaps they are doing different tests, or just double checking to make sure they didn't miss something the first time around. Maybe there are new, more accurate tests available now that weren't available before. I see nothing to indicate that the results were inconclusive or that they didn't get the desired results they were looking for. Seems to me that they are just being thorough. Just my :twocents:

 

[cityslick]

Totally agree.



And agree that they know they need evidence.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that CA was guilty? Yet she got away with it anyway due to lack of evidence. KCPD is not about to arrest anyone, send them to trial, and have them get away with murder due to lack of evidence.

I think they know what happened, and who the guilty party is, but they are waiting for more evidence before they make an arrest. :moo:

BBM

OT, but you're going to be hard pressed to find someone on this forum who thinks that's the reason CA got aquitted.

 

[RANCH]

Totally agree.



And agree that they know they need evidence.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that CA was guilty? Yet she got away with it anyway due to lack of evidence. KCPD is not about to arrest anyone, send them to trial, and have them get away with murder due to lack of evidence.

I think they know what happened, and who the guilty party is, but they are waiting for more evidence before they make an arrest. :moo:

The "CA" that your referring to must be Cindy Anthony getting away with perjury as LE had more circumstantial evidence showing Casey was guilty than in most cases that I have seen.

I don't think that LE is waiting for evidence to fall on their lap. They have what they have and I don't think that it's much. JMO.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Totally agree.



And agree that they know they need evidence.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that CA was guilty? Yet she got away with it anyway due to lack of evidence. KCPD is not about to arrest anyone, send them to trial, and have them get away with murder due to lack of evidence.

I think they know what happened, and who the guilty party is, but they are waiting for more evidence before they make an arrest. :moo:

Yes, I totally agree that CA got away with murder because of lack of evidence presented to the jury. While it is true that the evidence was there, and just not discovered by the DA, when it came to presenting it to the jury, it may have just as well been not there at all. This is what I feel we have going on here with DB. I PERSONALLY believe that there is evidence pointing this way, but that right now, there is not enough to make an arrest.

 

[Nom de plume]

The "CA" that your referring to must be Cindy Anthony getting away with perjury as LE had more circumstantial evidence showing Casey was guilty than in most cases that I have seen.

I don't think that LE is waiting for evidence to fall on their lap. They have what they have and I don't think that it's much. JMO.

BBM Key word - curcumstantial. IMHO there's more than enough circumstantial evidence in this case to convict. (But that's just MO and we know what those are like.) Unfortunately, too many jurys won't convict on circumstantial evidence alone. Everyone's been watching CSI for years and thinks there has to be all this forensic evidence to convict instead of circumstantial and some good common sense. I agree that they had tons of circumstantial evidence that Casey was guilty, but we saw how that turned out.

And no...I was referring to Casey. But she's really not my point. I was just saying that I think that case taught all LE an important lesson: Make sure there is enough physical evidence to convince a jury before making an arrest.

I do think KCPD has physical evidence that Lisa was deceased in that house. I think what they lack is anything that connects that evidence to a time of death, thus they are unable to link it to one specific suspect, even though I think they know which suspect did it. I think they have absolutely no evidence that SODDI. IMO I believe they are waiting for someone's loose lips to sink someone else's ship. lease: