IDI Theories (intruder did it)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

the one thing that may indicate (to me) a lack of guilt from either parent is the silence of the boys...

wouldn't they have heard more (parents talking at some point?) than the "clicking" sound by now?

in the powell case, the boys were starting to talk - "mommy never came back"... the picture where "mommy's in the trunk"

in the jessie davis case, little boy said - "mommy's in the rug"

of course, on the flip side, burke ramsey has never said a word...

guess it's possible all are in the dark ?
 
This is not really a theory but a question.

If this is an IDI crime do you see it as random, methodical, planned, crazed violence?

Someone like Jersey, say, a random burglar who came in to find some cell phones or booze, woke up a baby and panicked, took her with him and then something?

A targeted, planned, methodical attack on the family? Gil Abeyta thought the neighbor made a good suspect because he allegedly is such a well trained, stealth conscious, technically minded individual with all sorts of expertise to commit the perfect crime.

The Juggaloes, on the other hand, make good suspects because apparently some of them are crazy homicidal meth heads who can be inspired to unmotivated violence because of the music.

What would you expect to see in each case, in terms of evidence left behind, or not?
 
I'll take a go at it. . .

Donjeta said:
This is not really a theory but a question.

If this is an IDI crime do you see it as random, methodical, planned, crazed violence? Planned. Too many coincidences for it to be random, IMHO

Someone like Jersey, say, a random burglar who came in to find some cell phones or booze, woke up a baby and panicked, took her with him and then something? I don't think a petty thief/burglar would be interested in taking a baby. BUT let's just say the baby woke up and instead of fleeing the house ASAP, they grabbed the baby and left. I think it would be likely that they would drop off the baby ASAP somewhere. Kind of like we see in carjackings, where the carjacker is interested in stealing the car, but once they discover a child in the car, they drop it off quickly because they don't want any part of a kidnapping.

A targeted, planned, methodical attack on the family? Gil Abeyta thought the neighbor made a good suspect because he allegedly is such a well trained, stealth conscious, technically minded individual with all sorts of expertise to commit the perfect crime. I could see this. There are things I think the intruder had to have known. I also think that this doesn't just mean JB. Personally, JI meets a lot of this criteria AND he knows more about that household than anybody. MOO

The Juggaloes, on the other hand, make good suspects because apparently some of them are crazy homicidal meth heads who can be inspired to unmotivated violence because of the music. Eh, for me there has to be a clearer connection. I also think if it was Juggalo random violence it would be sloppier. They may not have tried to hide the body, etc.

What would you expect to see in each case, in terms of evidence left behind, or not?
Click to expand...

Random burglar. . .wouldn't have taken the baby. If for some weird reason they did, they would have dropped it off somewhere safe, so as not to be in any deeper doodoo.

Stealth insider. . .yep.

Psycho Juggalo's. . .not so much. I think they would have left a lot of messy evidence.
 
Bill Stanton called it a crime of opportunity on the Dr. Phil show, IIRC. I don't buy that for a second, no matter who was responsible. You don't go in and steal phones (but leave other electronics), go around peeking in bedrooms, see a baby, and snatch her too while you're at it. Besides all the other reasons, it's just far too risky.

Could that family have been unlucky enough to have been hit on two separate instances within a few hours, by two separate criminals with two separate motives? IMO, not a snowball's chance in hell. The phones are connected (either as attempted misdirection or b/c they contain incriminating evidence) - but LISA was clearly the target.

Whether she was abducted or removed by a parent, it's not a crime of opportunity. It's either a disposal to cover up something or a removal/abduction that would have required (1) familiar, intimate prior knowledge of the family's habits/home, or (2) stalking and lying in wait for the perfect moment to strike.

In any case, I absolutely cannot see this as some random or neighborhood petty criminal taking advantage of a "lucky break" to steal a baby, as BS and JT seemed to be indicating. Lisa was the target, and it would take a degree of familiarity, knowledge and intent to remove her that totally negates a crime of opportunity. JMO.
 
PLEASE THANK THIS POST BEFORE POSTING

The Lisa Irwin forum appears to be made up of cliques. You know, the type you have in high school before you begin to understand that there are a lot of interesting people and places in the world and your fear of such limits the personal boundaries you set for yourself. The disrespect between the two cliques is tiresome.


That being said, we need another review of the rules (which is really just a curtesy as everyone should know them or how to find and read them by now): This is NOT hard. Post YOUR thoughts, theories and interpretations (easy enough right?). Read the thoughts of others (not hard). Respond to those that may be of a like mind (okay, that should work). If you disagree with another poster and cannot post nicely, MOVE PAST THEIR POST (how hard is that?) If another poster gets under your skin, PUT THEM ON IGNORE (only takes about a minute). If you must refute their post - then use a link and state the fact as YOU see it (you all know this case, it can't be that hard). THEN DROP IT! That's it. See, not hard. If a post offends you, ALERT it, DO NOT RESPOND TO IT, and MOVE ON. It is okay to disagree, but it is NOT OKAY to attack or make fun of others. AND THE SNARK...well, that needs to just STOP.



It is our hope this gets the message across. There are many good posters here and no matter what opinion we may hold on who we feel is responsible we all are here for Lisa Irwin and want her to come home safely and soon.

Thanks so much,

The Lisa Irwin forum moderators
 
The.quote below has a Direct statement from LE stating they believe it to be an abduction..
"It appears the suspect entered/exited through a window," authorities said in a statement. "Evidence at the scene leads police to believe the child has been abducted."

Jeremy Irwin told reporters that he found Lisa missing when he got home from work. "The front door was unlocked," he said Thursday. "Most of the lights were on in the house, and the window in front was open -- all very unusual"
Click to expand...
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-06/...missouri-girl-child-seat-window?_s=PM:JUSTICE
 
SmoothOperator said:
The.quote below has a Direct statement from LE stating they believe it to be an abduction..

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-06/...missouri-girl-child-seat-window?_s=PM:JUSTICE
Click to expand...

I watched the press conference for Oct 5th and SY didn't say that during that, so just who are they quoting? Do you have a link to where the actual statement was made?

With all due respect, that article was published on Oct 6th. LE hadn't even finished investigating the window that day. That statement was before that. . before DB admitted she was drinking, before JI said he needed a "break" during questioning, before the dog hit and before the SW was executed. I believe that LE might have said that on Oct 5th. . .BEFORE they were able to investigate anything. But the investigation was ongoing and things change as they learn new information.

If you can find me a quote any time after the SW on Oct 19th saying that LE believes it was an abduction, then I will give it some credence. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:
 
hambirg said:
I watched the press conference for Oct 5th and SY didn't say that during that, so just who are they quoting? Do you have a link to where the actual statement was made?

With all due respect, that article was published on Oct 6th. LE hadn't even finished investigating the window that day. That statement was before that. . before DB admitted she was drinking, before JI said he needed a "break" during questioning, before the dog hit and before the SW was executed. I believe that LE might have said that on Oct 5th. . .BEFORE they were able to investigate anything. But the investigation was ongoing and things change as they learn new information.

If you can find me a quote any time after the SW on Oct 19th saying that LE believes it was an abduction, then I will give it some credence. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

the case is classified a missing child/endangered child.
 
DeAnn said:
the case is classified a missing child/endangered child.
Click to expand...

And your point?

Has LE came out and said since Oct 19th that this is a kidnapping?

The definition of "endangered missing" means that Lisa is missing and LE believes that she met with harm. To me, that means that they have evidence that she was harmed. It in NO way implies that the parents are not responsible. .. and it doesn't imply that they believe she was abducted. Otherwise, she would be listed as "abducted." I guess there is not evidence of that.

Do you have a quote from LE after the 19th saying they believe that Lisa was abducted?
 
Just in case anybody is interested, here is the Charley Projects definitions

http://www.charleyproject.org/terms.html

IF Lisa was harmed by her parents she would be listed as "endangered missing." If LE believed that she was abducted by a SODDI from her home, she would be listed as "non-family abduction."
 
hambirg said:
And your point?

Has LE came out and said since Oct 19th that this is a kidnapping?

The definition of "endangered missing" means that Lisa is missing and LE believes that she met with harm. To me, that means that they have evidence that she was harmed. It in NO way implies that the parents are not responsible. .. and it doesn't imply that they believe she was abducted. Otherwise, she would be listed as "abducted." I guess there is not evidence of that.

Do you have a quote from LE after the 19th saying they believe that Lisa was abducted?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but I understand missing/endangered to mean


endangered; : to cause (someone or something) to be in a dangerous place or situation

From your link,

Endangered Missing

The default classification for minors (under 18) and elderly persons (over 65). An adult between those ages will be listed as Endangered Missing if they have a medical condition or are missing under circumstances that indicate they may be in danger.

ETA: from your site. ]These are my own definitions. Other missing persons organizations/websites may have different ideas of what these mean.


I agree though, it doesn't imply that the parents aren't responsible for her being missing & endangered.
 
according to NCMEC categories of "missing", if LE knew without a doubt lisa was missing due to a "nonfamily abduction", she'd be classified as such. she isn't. the category of "endangered missing" is for those cases where "there are insufficient facts to determine the cause of the child's disappearance". this speaks volumes to me.

see page 6:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-3-3%20Allen%20Testimony.pdf
 
Dewey2Me1MoThyme said:
All kidnappings are not done for ransom money.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/kidnapping
Click to expand...

Nor did I say they were (see: or anything else).

You are right, they are interchangeable depending on the circumstance, although, an abduction is never perpetrated with the objective of gaining quick money or using the victims as a bargaining tool.... as in a child molester who murders the child.

Point is, I'm perplexed Lisa is not labeled as either, nor is she in the FBI data base - or wasn't the last I looked.
 
Honestly IMO, I don't think that LE knows for sure what happened to Lisa.
They may not have the evidence that points to an abduction, but that doesn't mean she wasn't abducted.
 
Little Ol Me said:
An adult between those ages will be listed as Endangered Missing if they have a medical condition or are missing under circumstances that indicate they may be in danger.
Click to expand...


the statement you bolded pertains to a missing adult not a child... so i'm not sure why you bolded it... ??
 
Little Ol Me said:
Honestly IMO, I don't think that LE knows for sure what happened to Lisa.
They may not have the evidence that points to an abduction, but that doesn't mean she wasn't abducted.
Click to expand...

At this point, the elephant in the room with the IDI theories is the HRD hit. In order for the police to follow the IDI theory absent of evidence to prove it, they would have to disregard the HRD dog hit(s). I just cannot see that happening. I would imagine the detectives and investigators put more stock in the HRD hits than the average layfolk, especially when you couple that with the info they have that we do not.

I entertained the faintest possibility of an IDI scenario in the beginning, it just does not fit to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 82 more.
Total: 259 (members: 83, guests: 176)

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
176
Total visitors
259
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,331
Messages
18,252,780
Members
234,626
Latest member
XtraGuacPlz
Back
Top