IDI Theories (intruder did it)

[Whisperer]

I can't be sold on the intruder theory.

I wonder two things about DB. (1) Did she black out and harm her child? She may not know what she did but doesn't want to think she could. She is not sure.

OR (2) does she have a mental disorder? Did she have post partum or does she have an Axis I w/psychosis? I know for a fact that you should never mix Xanax/ativan/valium with liquor. You may get lucky and live but sometimes you die. She has poor judgement at best. My money is on a mental disorder which may or may not be the root of a crime.

Somehow, someway, DB knows or suspects she has everything to do with Lisa being missing.

 

[Donjeta]

This is probably not the correct thread for this question, but I can't think of where to put it- was the search warrant for probable cause? or reasonable suspicion? TIA to anyone who can answer this.

Not sure if this answers your question but from the warrant document

"Based on the information in the verified application affidavit the Court finds probable cause to warrant search for and/or seizure of the following:

Property, article, material or substance that constitutes evidence of the commission of a crime
Property for which possession is an offense under the laws of the state
Deceased human fetus or corpse or part thereof"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/70119069/Search-Warrant-for-Home-of-Baby-Lisa-s-Parents

 

[cityslick]

The 'probable cause' was the dog hit, correct?

 

[vlpate]

Why would someone take all the cell phones? There has to be something on there that LE is not telling. I pray they have some leads and are watching and waiting on all information on cell phone triangulations and history...GPS...something. The FBI is on this case too with LE and they are all smarter than the average bear. They know something and may God help them figure it all out for babies sake.:innocent:

In a recent case, Joerlys Rivera, LE held a ton of evidence close to the vest. Once the case was over, many facts came out that we had dismissed or speculated incorrectly on....other information we were spot on about.

Had we been privy to the evidence and information LE had, the case would have been a no-brainer. Without it, there were those who believed to the bitter end that Ryan Brunn was innocent and may have been set up. My point is, we just don't know what they have, so nothing can be discounted out of hand because the public isn't kept up to date with every bit of evidence there is.

 

[DeAnn]

The 'probable cause' was the dog hit, correct?

the probable cause is there's a baby missing from her home and that's a crime so it's a crime scene.

They could have gotten a search warrant without the dog hit.

 

[Whisperer]

There was reasonable suspicion to search the house the morning of arrival but it was limited in scope. We have heard they only searched Lisa's room, the dented screen window and the door. Parents were absolutely positive intruder climbed through window.

I am assuming they needed a warrant stating probable cause to do a more thorough search and take things for evidence...a legal technical move designed to protect LE.

 

[vlpate]

the probable cause is there's a baby missing from her home and that's a crime so it's a crime scene.

They could have gotten a search warrant without the dog hit.

There is no "crime scene" exception to the fourth amendment. They needed probable cause to obtain the search warrant.

 

[DeAnn]

There is no "crime scene" exception to the fourth amendment. They needed probable cause to obtain the search warrant.

Maybe I'm missing something here.....finding a reason to get a judge to grant a search warrant is a pretty low threshold in an Amber Alert case. You tell a judge....there's a missing baby. She went missing from her home. We've done everything we can. We need to search her home. Judge signs warrant.

Unless you are aware of a Kansas City area judge turning down a search warrant in a kidnapped baby case that I'm not aware of?

 

[cityslick]

Maybe I'm missing something here.....finding a reason to get a judge to grant a search warrant is a pretty low threshold in an Amber Alert case. You tell a judge....there's a missing baby. She went missing from her home. We've done everything we can. We need to search her home. Judge signs warrant.

Unless you are aware of a Kansas City area judge turning down a search warrant in a kidnapped baby case that I'm not aware of?

But if that's true why did it take so long to get a search warrant? They should have gotten one on Oct 5.

 

[DeAnn]

But if that's true why did it take so long to get a search warrant? They should have gotten one on Oct 5.

The parents had voluntarily given access. They didn't go to a judge. Police repeatedly got voluntary access from the parents starting Oct. 4.

It's a big point for Tacopina and Picerno.

Police outline in their search warrant request why they didn't want just voluntary access anymore but wanted a court-approved search.

Now Tacopina and Picerno etc have talked about this quite often.

My point is when police decided they wanted a court-approved search that it's hard to imagine it would have taken a lot to get a Clay County judge to approve a search when there's a baby missing. But I could be wrong. But could you have imagined that uproar if the request had been denied? The judge did deny the request to seal the document.

 

[cityslick]

The parents had voluntarily given access. They didn't go to a judge. Police repeatedly got voluntary access from the parents starting Oct. 4.

It's a big point for Tacopina and Picerno.

Police outline in their search warrant request why they didn't want just voluntary access anymore but wanted a court-approved search.

Now Tacopina and Picerno etc have talked about this quite often.

My point is when police decided they wanted a court-approved search that it's hard to imagine it would have taken a lot to get a Clay County judge to approve a search when there's a baby missing. But I could be wrong. But could you have imagined that uproar if the request had been denied? The judge did deny the request to seal the document.

I understand, I just figured they needed something more concrete and the dog hit provided them that. I could be wrong though. I think it works in the parents favor that they were very open to LE that first 48 hours. It's one of the things that keep me :fence:

 

[In da Middle]

There was reasonable suspicion to search the house the morning of arrival but it was limited in scope. We have heard they only searched Lisa's room, the dented screen window and the door. Parents were absolutely positive intruder climbed through window.

I am assuming they needed a warrant stating probable cause to do a more thorough search and take things for evidence...a legal technical move designed to protect LE.

They had unfettered access to the house for 3 days. It was considered a crime scene. They were not limited in any way with that designation. They took bags of evidence during that time. LE should have processed it for either designation -parents did it AND intruder did it. Why would they only process it as intruder did it AND interrogating her as a suspect while they had complete control of the house? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Minette]

They had unfettered access to the house for 3 days. It was considered a crime scene. They were not limited in any way with that designation. They took bags of evidence during that time. LE should have processed it for either designation -parents did it AND intruder did it. Why would they only process it as intruder did it AND interrogating her as a suspect while they had complete control of the house? That doesn't make sense.

This is what confuses me as well. So, LE arrives to the scene of distraught parents and a missing baby and because the parents say that an intruder came in a certain way LE says, "Well, OK, we will just take your word for it and not search other possible points of entry."

 

[In da Middle]

This is what confuses me as well. So, LE arrives to the scene of distraught parents and a missing baby and because the parents say that an intruder came in a certain way LE says, "Well, OK, we will just take your word for it and not search other possible points of entry."

I am starting to wonder if the judge that denied the sealing of it saw through some of this. I have never seen a search warrant unsealed in a case before in Clay County that I can think of during the course of an investigation.

 

[vlpate]

Maybe I'm missing something here.....finding a reason to get a judge to grant a search warrant is a pretty low threshold in an Amber Alert case. You tell a judge....there's a missing baby. She went missing from her home. We've done everything we can. We need to search her home. Judge signs warrant.

Unless you are aware of a Kansas City area judge turning down a search warrant in a kidnapped baby case that I'm not aware of?

An officer can use the plain view doctrine to take items that are obviously part of a crime in an emergency situation. They can't however, open drawers or move anything into view that was no in view to begin with. Since they were going into walls and lifting carpets, they needed a search warrant to make sure anything they found would be admissable. IMO

 

[In da Middle]

lease:

An officer can use the plain view doctrine to take items that are obviously part of a crime in an emergency situation. They can't however, open drawers or move anything into view that was no in view to begin with. Since they were going into walls and lifting carpets, they needed a search warrant to make sure anything they found would be admissable. IMO

This is not correct when a place is a designated crime scene. They DID find an old phone in a drawer. I am sure it did not just happen to be open. They also had permission to do such. LE did not get a search warrant until they had an attorney on board.

 

[Sherbie]

I wonder if any of the items that LE removed from the home during the voluntary searches were checked by a HRD back at the station. Is that something that would be out of the ordinary?

 

[Minette]

I am starting to wonder if the judge that denied the sealing of it saw through some of this. I have never seen a search warrant unsealed in a case before in Clay County that I can think of during the course of an investigation.

I sometimes wonder if some of the bad blood between the parents and the KCPD came about because for whatever reason LE did NOT do the extensive search when they had unfettered access to the house and then had to back track. But honestly, I just cannot imagine that LE would just search the window & Lisa's room and not look around anywhere else because the parents said an intruder came through the window. Because if so, that was....different.

 

[In da Middle]

I wonder if any of the items that LE removed from the home during the voluntary searches were checked by a HRD back at the station. Is that something that would be out of the ordinary?

I would think they would still have to file an inventory with the parents. But I am wondering the same. We do still know what obvious things that were not taken though.

 

[vlpate]

I am starting to wonder if the judge that denied the sealing of it saw through some of this. I have never seen a search warrant unsealed in a case before in Clay County that I can think of during the course of an investigation.

Saw through?