IDI Theories (intruder did it)

[lonetraveler]

I do not think it is an issue that an intruder was not heard. People do sleep deeply, and often do not hear things in the house unless it is very loud. Someone opening a door would not have to wake someone up.
Did Jessia Lunsford Father not say neither he nor his parents heard jessica being taken and there were no signs of forced entry (I seem to remember the grandparents were accused of involvement). I have known people who were broken in to whilst they slept and did not notice anything until the morning. I also have known people who have returned home, and only when they noticed small things missing did they realised they had been broken in to as there was no sign of forced entry (bit spooky to think you woudl never know if someone had been in your home).

As for the dog, someone mentioned it only bark at people it knew, but quite quickly stopped barking at Spellman. If it is the case the dog was about, and did only bark at strangers, there is also the possibility that someone had been watching the house, and the dog recognized them. If someone was planning to break into a home and steal a baby then they might very well watch the place, be a bit friendly to the dog. I will also say my dog was a coward so whilst he would bark at strangers he would only do so when he was nice and safe, if someone had broken in he would have hidden and kept quiet (and I have known yappy dogs to actually do this).

But as Lisa is so young it makes me think she was taken because someone wanted a baby. That makes me think the family may have been followed by someone who saw them out and about with Lisa, perhaps even near places where people with babies go( baby clinics etc). Hospital maternity units (at leats here) tend to have high security so someone wanting a baby would perhaps avoid hospitals and target families in other situations. (I wonder if the dog barked as much with women?)

There was the dog that belonged to the Irwin household then there was also the German Shepherd type dog who lived next door whose fence came very close to the front side of the Irwin house. This dog was ferociously barking and lunging at the fence during one of the media interviews just outside of the home, I think it was Fox news. IMO, there is no way a stranger could have been lurking about outside the home trying to find a way into the house without the dogs making a heck of a racket.

 

[4Jacy]

There was the dog that belonged to the Irwin household then there was also the German Shepherd type dog who lived next door whose fence came very close to the front side of the Irwin house. This dog was ferociously barking and lunging at the fence during one of the media interviews just outside of the home, I think it was Fox news. IMO, there is no way a stranger could have been lurking about outside the home trying to find a way into the house without the dogs making a heck of a racket.

BBM

Of course you are right lone. <modsnip> AGAIN, no strange fibers, hair, fingerprints, footprints, et al., NADA. But posters keep insisting IDI. I wonder why, I wonder why?

:bump:

 

[RANCH]

There was the dog that belonged to the Irwin household then there was also the German Shepherd type dog who lived next door whose fence came very close to the front side of the Irwin house. This dog was ferociously barking and lunging at the fence during one of the media interviews just outside of the home, I think it was Fox news. IMO, there is no way a stranger could have been lurking about outside the home trying to find a way into the house without the dogs making a heck of a racket.

Hi lonetraveler. Are you basing your opinion about the neighbors dog's ability as a watch dog from a single news video?

Is this the same neighbor dog that Jim Spellman (CNN not Fox) talked about?

Anyway, the first few times I went back there the next door neighbor dog bark loudly at me the whole time i was back there. After going back there many times I think the dog got to know me and he would trot back and see what was going on but not bark.
It's a medium size dog...probably a mix breed (aka mutt).

If your talking about a different dog I would like to know some details about it.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7643839&postcount=209"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Questions for CNN reporter Jim Spellman - Q & A Only **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE**[/ame]

 

[RANCH]

BBM

Of course you are right lone. <modsnip> AGAIN, no strange fibers, hair, fingerprints, footprints, et al., NODA. But posters keep insisting IDI. I wonder why, I wonder why?

:bump:

Hi 4Jacy. <modsnip>

I feel that asking if it's possible for an intruder to have taken Lisa and not left things that you mention like fibers, hair, fingerprints, footprints, and DNA as being an honest question. I'm not sure what "NODA" is. For all we know, LE does have some forensic evidence to support an intruder taking Lisa.

Anyway, I'm just curious about peoples thoughts about the possibility that an intruder could have entered the Irwin house and removed Lisa without leaving obvious signs behind.

 

[4Jacy]

Hi 4Jacy. <modsnip>

I feel that asking if it's possible for an intruder to have taken Lisa and not left things that you mention like fibers, hair, fingerprints, footprints, and DNA as being an honest question. I'm not sure what "NODA" is. For all we know, LE does have some forensic evidence to support an intruder taking Lisa.

Anyway, I'm just curious about peoples thoughts about the possibility that an intruder could have entered the Irwin house and removed Lisa without leaving obvious signs behind.

In this day and age I believe it is highly improbable, if not impossible to enter a home and take a child without any obvious clues.

 

[RANCH]

In this day and age I believe it is highly improbable, if not impossible to enter a home and take a child without any obvious clues.

I'm guessing that your talking about the things in your previous post. Fibers,hair,fingerprints, footprints, and that sort of thing.

Do we know that LE didn't find any of those type of things that may point towards an intruder?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I'm guessing that your talking about the things in your previous post. Fibers,hair,fingerprints, footprints, and that sort of thing.

Do we know that LE didn't find any of those type of things that may point towards an intruder?

No, we don't definitely, but I think their actions prove that they didn't find fibers, hair, fingerprints, footprints, or other evidence that points towards an intruder. First, they haven't been in the house since October, if we consider that it takes maybe 8 weeks, at the most, to process the evidence, this would mean that by December, at the absolute latest, they knew that Lisa was kidnapped by an intruder. However, during their February and May interviews, the Irwins expressed frustration that LE is only looking at them. That tells me that LE hasn't made them aware of this intruder evidence. It has also not leaked out to the media, nor has LE actually announced to the media that they have this evidence, or even that they are looking in a new direction. You find evidence that tells you two people actually had their baby kidnapped and you don't make them aware of it?! That's just cruel. There would be outrage if that turned out to be true.

IDI theories seem to be backed by the notion that LE might have evidence that no one outside of the department knows about, and the belief that the parents' actions do not reflect their guilt or innocence.

 

[RANCH]

No, we don't definitely, but I think their actions prove that they didn't find fibers, hair, fingerprints, footprints, or other evidence that points towards an intruder. First, they haven't been in the house since October, if we consider that it takes maybe 8 weeks, at the most, to process the evidence, this would mean that by December, at the absolute latest, they knew that Lisa was kidnapped by an intruder. However, during their February and May interviews, the Irwins expressed frustration that LE is only looking at them. That tells me that LE hasn't made them aware of this intruder evidence. It has also not leaked out to the media, nor has LE actually announced to the media that they have this evidence, or even that they are looking in a new direction. You find evidence that tells you two people actually had their baby kidnapped and you don't make them aware of it?! That's just cruel. There would be outrage if that turned out to be true.

IDI theories seem to be backed by the notion that LE might have evidence that no one outside of the department knows about, and the belief that the parents' actions do not reflect their guilt or innocence.

Thanks for your reply eileen.

So I'm to surmise from your post that since DB/JI have stated that LE is focused on them that there is no forensic evidence of an intruder? Maybe LE does have some exculpatory evidence but wish to keep it from DB/JI at this time. There not under arrest, and LE has no obligation to tell them the truth anyways.

Does the fact that there have been no leaks about forensic evidence to the media mean that LE has no forensic evidence to leak?

I'm not sure what LE has in the way of evidence myself, but I hope that they keep it to themselves and build a strong case to prosecute the persons who are guilty of the disappearance of Lisa Irwin.

 

[Cappuccino]

There was no forensic evidence ever found inside the Crowe house of Richard Tuitte's presence, nor inside the Fox house of Eby's presence....Just saying.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Thanks for your reply eileen.

So I'm to surmise from your post that since DB/JI have stated that LE is focused on them that there is no forensic evidence of an intruder? Maybe LE does have some exculpatory evidence but wish to keep it from DB/JI at this time. There not under arrest, and LE has no obligation to tell them the truth anyways.

Does the fact that there have been no leaks about forensic evidence to the media mean that LE has no forensic evidence to leak?

I'm not sure what LE has in the way of evidence myself, but I hope that they keep it to themselves and build a strong case to prosecute the persons who are guilty of the disappearance of Lisa Irwin.

If LE found evidence of an intruder, I don't see why they wouldn't let D&J know. They don't have to be specific, but just telling them that they found something that points to the intruder, would be fine. It's cruel to make innocent parents think that LE has nothing that points to the person who took your child, making you feel like there's no/slim hope that you will see them again. Also, LE has only talked to D&J once in person from November to now. If LE told the parents they believe IDI, the parents would be more willing to talk to LE, and that might help LE get closer to solving the case. I don't think KCPD is that corrupt.

The cadaver dog hit was leaked to the media. Isn't that forensic evidence? And why would it leak to the media that LE found, say, Deborah's fingerprints on Lisa's crib? There's nothing suspicious about that. That's normal. I found it more likely that if LE found the DNA of an unknown person, it would leak to the media, vs. them finding the DNA of D&J. That's not news.

Using your argument, couldn't I say that Lisa might have been abducted by aliens because LE has not came out and said that she wasn't, and it's possible that they have evidence of an alien abduction that they just aren't telling anyone about. The argument is just way too hypothetical, and you could think up the craziest theories if you subscribe to the belief that LE might have evidence they aren't telling us about.

 

[RANCH]

If LE found evidence of an intruder, I don't see why they wouldn't let D&J know. They don't have to be specific, but just telling them that they found something that points to the intruder, would be fine. It's cruel to make innocent parents think that LE has nothing that points to the person who took your child, making you feel like there's no/slim hope that you will see them again. Also, LE has only talked to D&J once in person from November to now. If LE told the parents they believe IDI, the parents would be more willing to talk to LE, and that might help LE get closer to solving the case. I don't think KCPD is that corrupt.

The cadaver dog hit was leaked to the media. Isn't that forensic evidence? And why would it leak to the media that LE found, say, Deborah's fingerprints on Lisa's crib? There's nothing suspicious about that. That's normal. I found it more likely that if LE found the DNA of an unknown person, it would leak to the media, vs. them finding the DNA of D&J. That's not news.

Using your argument, couldn't I say that Lisa might have been abducted by aliens because LE has not came out and said that she wasn't, and it's possible that they have evidence of an alien abduction that they just aren't telling anyone about. The argument is just way too hypothetical, and you could think up the craziest theories if you subscribe to the belief that LE might have evidence they aren't telling us about.

I don't know if KCPD is corrupt or not. But I do have a feeling that if they are looking at DB/JI as suspects in the disappearance of their child, that KCPD would definitely withhold information from them.

The dog hit is evidence of something, but is it conclusive?

Aliens? I'm not sure if I want to go there. But you have to admit that LE must have more information than we do. Right?

 

[brit1981]

The bent screen could have come from the intruder trying and failing to get in that way.

As for not leaving any evidence, this is real life and not CSI. It is possible to walk into a house pick something up and leave again without leaving incriminating evidence (no incriminating evidence has ever been found in tara grinsted's home aside from a latex glove outside, and tara was a fit young woman who would have put up a fight). I know people who were broken into, and they did not notice anything amiss until they saw small items missing (oddly the thief took small items like rings, and also a pair of falling to bits trainers, so the police thought they were probably addicts who just took what they coudl grab). the police never found any evidence of an intruder except the missing items. But like people say the police have not released all the evidence to the general public.

As for the dog, if it had got to know someone (either a casual acquintence of the familys or someone who had been hanging around several times watching the home) then he would not have barked.

As for the 'phones, again like someone above says why not. It could be the intruder took Lisa for someone else and wanted the 'phones to sell. Or they took Lisa and also wanted the 'phones. Just because someoen takes a baby does not mean they are not desperate in other ways. A richer and/or more stable person who wanted a child would try adoption/surrogacy etc, but someone who was desperate enough to go into a home and snatch a child might be desperate enough to take the 'phones.

As for the cadaver dogs. i cannot speak for these particular dogs, but according to what I have read "cadaver dogs" alert to all decomposing human material even that from a living person. In the casey anthony case the cadaver dog handler said her dog woudl alert to things like nail clippings from a living person. In the UK we had a "cadaver" dog alert in the home of a missing child. That child was later found alive and well. In the madeleine Mccann case it turned out the cadaver dog (correct name enhanced victim recovery dog) was also trained to alert to bodily fluids, and has had made false alerts since. So i do not think it is a given that an alert means a dead body was there, i think it depends on the dog (i.e does it alert to nail like the dog in the casey anthony case).

 

[cityslick]

In this day and age I believe it is highly improbable, if not impossible to enter a home and take a child without any obvious clues.

Elizabeth Smart was taken from her home and besides her sister's account, there was no clues to lead to who took her. From wikipedia:

Although police had an eyewitness, Mary Katherine's report was not very helpful to investigators. Furthermore, there was almost no significant forensic evidence such as clear fingerprints or DNA samples to help identify the abductor, hindering the investigation. A search using bloodhound dogs was unsuccessful in following Mitchell and Elizabeth's path on foot. Police questioned and interviewed hundreds of potential suspects including one individual, Bret Michael Edmunds, a 26-year-old drifter who was pursued across the country but ultimately was cleared of suspicion in the case after being located in a West Virginia hospital suffering from a drug overdose. One by one, the leads that were pursued often put at-large criminals back in prison, but they did not produce the desired result of finding Elizabeth.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I don't know if KCPD is corrupt or not. But I do have a feeling that if they are looking at DB/JI as suspects in the disappearance of their child, that KCPD would definitely withhold information from them.

The dog hit is evidence of something, but is it conclusive?

Aliens? I'm not sure if I want to go there. But you have to admit that LE must have more information than we do. Right?

But if they found evidence of an intruder, they would no longer see the parents as suspects. They would see them as innocent people whose daughter was abducted, and why wouldn't they at least tell them that they found evidence of an intruder (don't even have to give specifics) so the parents can get some hope that they will see their daughter again and justice will be served?

 

[RANCH]

But if they found evidence of an intruder, they would no longer see the parents as suspects. They would see them as innocent people whose daughter was abducted, and why wouldn't they at least tell them that they found evidence of an intruder (don't even have to give specifics) so the parents can get some hope that they will see their daughter again and justice will be served?

Not necessarily. Lets say that LE found some hair and fibers that don't match up with anything or anyone in the Irwin house. Could the hair and fiber be from an intruder or could it be a transfer from one of Jeremy's job site's?

If LE finds an intruder suspect, the hair and fiber evidence may tie that suspect to the scene. Or it may mean absolutely nothing.
JMO.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Not necessarily. Lets say that LE found some hair and fibers that don't match up with anything or anyone in the Irwin house. Could the hair and fiber be from an intruder or could it be a transfer from one of Jeremy's job site's?

If LE finds an intruder suspect, the hair and fiber evidence may tie that suspect to the scene. Or it may mean absolutely nothing.
JMO.

How would hair from Jeremy's job site get into the Irwin house? I guess you mean that it would get on Jeremy and he would transfer it to his own house? I would hope that if LE found something that pointed to an unknown person, they would get samples from people the Irwins know, like co-workers, to see if there's a match or if they can rule people out. Also, if there's forensic evidence in the house that matches someone the Irwins know, how do you know whether it's an innocent transfer or if that person is the intruder?

After ten months, I hope that if LE found evidence that doesn't match someone in the house, they would've determine whether it matches an intruder or not, even if they don't know who the intruder is. They should know whether the evidence is significant, at this point. They should be testing every person the Irwins know, if they found anything with an unknown profile.

 

[RANCH]

How would hair from Jeremy's job site get into the Irwin house? I guess you mean that it would get on Jeremy and he would transfer it to his own house? I would hope that if LE found something that pointed to an unknown person, they would get samples from people the Irwins know, like co-workers, to see if there's a match or if they can rule people out. Also, if there's forensic evidence in the house that matches someone the Irwins know, how do you know whether it's an innocent transfer or if that person is the intruder?

After ten months, I hope that if LE found evidence that doesn't match someone in the house, they would've determine whether it matches an intruder or not, even if they don't know who the intruder is. They should know whether the evidence is significant, at this point. They should be testing every person the Irwins know, if they found anything with an unknown profile.

BBM
If Jeremy did a job at a public place like a Starbucks which could have hundreds of customers coming in, how would LE know who to test for a possible match?
JMO.

 

[4Jacy]

BBM
If Jeremy did a job at a public place like a Starbucks which could have hundreds of customers coming in, how would LE know who to test for a possible match?
JMO.

The store was closed while JI was "werking".

 

[eileenhawkeye]

BBM
If Jeremy did a job at a public place like a Starbucks which could have hundreds of customers coming in, how would LE know who to test for a possible match?
JMO.

Jeremy's job the night Lisa went missing was at a Starbucks that was being constructed. It was not open to the public yet, so there weren't hundreds of customers. I guess it's possible that weeks or more before Lisa went missing, Jeremy was working at a Starbucks that was already open for business, and somehow managed to get a customer's hair on his clothing, despite, I'm assuming, working after business hours, and then that hair transferring from his clothing onto say, Lisa's crib. But if that scenario occurred, how is that going to solve this case? Unless this customer is already in the database somehow, LE is never going to make a match. It's just going to sit in some back-room. It won't find the killer or clear the parents.

Now that I think about it, if LE find one little strand of hair that didn't match the parents, but didn't have a match or any other evidence pointing towards an intruder, I could see why they wouldn't tell them. If they do, it would be all the parents would need to scream to the media that there's no way they could be guilty. It would be the equivalent of the touch DNA in the Ramsey case.

 

[Meri]

Jeremy's job the night Lisa went missing was at a Starbucks that was being constructed. It was not open to the public yet, so there weren't hundreds of customers. I guess it's possible that weeks or more before Lisa went missing, Jeremy was working at a Starbucks that was already open for business, and somehow managed to get a customer's hair on his clothing, despite, I'm assuming, working after business hours, and then that hair transferring from his clothing onto say, Lisa's crib. But if that scenario occurred, how is that going to solve this case? Unless this customer is already in the database somehow, LE is never going to make a match. It's just going to sit in some back-room. It won't find the killer or clear the parents.

Now that I think about it, if LE find one little strand of hair that didn't match the parents, but didn't have a match or any other evidence pointing towards an intruder, I could see why they wouldn't tell them. If they do, it would be all the parents would need to scream to the media that there's no way they could be guilty. It would be the equivalent of the touch DNA in the Ramsey case.

I could have sworn he was working at an existing Starbucks that was being remodeled and that's why they had to do the work late at night, when they were closed. Not sure if that's correct, but I seem to remember something along those lines.