IDI Theories (intruder did it)

[In da Middle]

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.

I really don't think they ONLY processed that way. I think it was only worded that way in the search warrant. I would think they did not do a very good investigation at all if they only did that. It would make me question almost everything they did or did not do if that was the case. This is the part that makes me wonder if the judge was thinking the same thing. Like I said, I have NEVER seen a warrant during the course of an open investigation. Maybe somebody else can find one for me though that I have missed.

 

[Sherbie]

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.

As I understand, it was never sealed to begin with, so it couldn't have been unsealed. I think what happened was that LE applied for their search warrant application/return to be sealed and that request was denied.

Not sure what there would've been for a judge to "see through." At least where I live, it's not that uncommon for a judge to deny (or to grant) a motion or application to seal documents in an investigation. Lots of factors can influence that decision.

 

[In da Middle]

As I understand, it was never sealed to begin with, so it couldn't have been unsealed. I think what happened was that LE applied for their search warrant application/return to be sealed and that request was denied.

Not sure what there would've been for a judge to "see through." At least where I live, it's not that uncommon for a judge to deny a motion or application to seal documents in an investigation. Lots of factors can influence that decision.

Ok, let me restate that. I have never seen a motion to seal approved here. Bad wording. The 'saw through' is my wording for maybe this is the judges way of letting the public know they are saying they only processed it as an intruder did it. I dunno. I do follow crime here closely. I have never seen this before here. Outlying counties, yes. Here, no. But like I said, I could have missed something but I love to see how they are worded so I do look.

 

[Jacie Estes]

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.

They might be the bed and carpet in D/J's room, the crib and the bedding and pillows for both

 

[Minette]

I really don't think they ONLY processed that way. I think it was only worded that way in the search warrant. I would think they did not do a very good investigation at all if they only did that. It would make me question almost everything they did or did not do if that was the case. This is the part that makes me wonder if the judge was thinking the same thing. Like I said, I have NEVER seen a warrant during the course of an open investigation. Maybe somebody else can find one for me though that I have missed.

Yes, me too on the BBM part. Because if the initial search(es) were inadequate, by the time the search warrant was executed the house had been unsealed as a crime scene for ~2 weeks and everyone from the family to the media had been in and out. The time to get clear and conclusive evidence as to point of entry (if any) and forensics was in the first few days when the family was out of the house and it was still sealed as a crime scene, IMO.

And I say this because if something terrible has happened to Lisa, I want the perp to be held accountable. WHOEVER it turns out to be.

 

[Sherbie]

Ok, let me restate that. I have never seen a motion to seal approved here. Bad wording. The 'saw through' is my wording for maybe this is the judges way of letting the public know they are saying they only processed it as an intruder did it. I dunno. I do follow crime here closely. I have never seen this before here. Outlying counties, yes. Here, no. But like I said, I could have missed something but I love to see how they are worded so I do look.

Thank you, IDM! That's interesting that motions to seal are rarely granted there. We see them a good bit here, especially in high-profile type cases. They're not always granted, but applications to do so aren't unusual at all. If I get unlazyfied later, I might research what the threshold is to have one granted in MO - could be the bar is just higher there than other jurisdictions.

 

[Sherbie]

Yes, me too on the BBM part. Because if the initial search(es) were inadequate, by the time the search warrant was executed the house had been unsealed as a crime scene for ~2 weeks and everyone from the family to the media had been in and out. The time to get clear and conclusive evidence as to point of entry (if any) and forensics was in the first few days when the family was out of the house and it was still sealed as a crime scene, IMO.

And I say this because if something terrible has happened to Lisa, I want the perp to be held accountable. WHOEVER it turns out to be.

They would have to be SO Barney Fife-ish to screw up that badly. I just can't see that level of incompetence in a fairly metropolitan department. Let's hope that's not the case. Like you, I want whoever did whatever to Lisa to be brought to justice...and for it to stick.

 

[Minette]

Thank you, IDM! That's interesting that motions to seal are rarely granted there. We see them a good bit here, especially in high-profile type cases. They're not always granted, but applications to do so aren't unusual at all. If I get unlazyfied later, I might research what the threshold is to have one granted in MO - could be the bar is just higher there than other jurisdictions.

Best. word. EVER!!! :floorlaugh:

And I believe you were correct that the contents of the search warrant were not sealed--it was that LE applied to have the SW sealed and that request was denied by the judge.

 

[In da Middle]

Thank you, IDM! That's interesting that motions to seal are rarely granted there. We see them a good bit here, especially in high-profile type cases. They're not always granted, but applications to do so aren't unusual at all. If I get unlazyfied later, I might research what the threshold is to have one granted in MO - could be the bar is just higher there than other jurisdictions.

I just never really thought about it until recently. I think it might be a judge thing also. Some might be more eager to seal but I can't think of any right here in this county that have been public in any high profile case.

 

[vlpate]

lease: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.

There is no crime scene exception to the fourth amendment. The question was about probable cause to obtain a search warrant at a crime scene. Once the initial search was done, they needed a search warrant.

The initial search did not include the Irwin/Bradley bedroom, IIRC

 

[Minette]

There is no crime scene exception to the fourth amendment. The question was about probable cause to obtain a search warrant at a crime scene. Once the initial search was done, they needed a search warrant.

The initial search did not include the Irwin/Bradley bedroom, IIRC

Really?? Wow.

 

[Whisperer]

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:

....and after 48 hours, that was the end. I am of the understanding they mislead LE in those 48 hours too.

Big deal, if some think they cooperated for two whole days. BUT they have obstructed for 120 days.

Hiring four criminal defense attorneys in the first month should put everyone's hinky meter exploding.

 

[vlpate]

Really?? Wow.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-ba...smell-deceased/story?id=14786129#.TzxpqsXOVEI

"The court document also indicated that Lisa's parents, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, restricted police access to the home.

"The only areas extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints during the consent were the baby's bedroom and possible points of entry," the document states.

"The extent of the search had been limited in nature with consent" of the parents, police stated in the request for the search warrant."

 

[cityslick]

....and after 48 hours, that was the end. I am of the understanding they mislead LE in those 48 hours too.

Big deal, if some think they cooperated for two whole days. BUT they have obstructed for 120 days.

Hiring four criminal defense attorneys in the first month should put everyone's hinky meter exploding.

Anyone is allowed representation in this country. It is a right. They shouldn't be judged because of that IMO.

 

[vlpate]

Anyone is allowed representation in this country. It is a right. They shouldn't be judged because of that IMO.

Any attorney can protect their rights. Tacopina, unless they are guilty, is like bringing a gun to a spit ball fight.. IMO

 

[redheadedgal]

Anyone is allowed representation in this country. It is a right. They shouldn't be judged because of that IMO.

originally posted by cynic (in the JBR forum: RIP Common Sense thread):

I will admit that I have enormous respect for Marc Klaas and his work. While he consulted an attorney, he did not hire one, nor did he use a lawyer, a public relations consultant or a spokesperson to hide behind...

ERNIE ALLEN, PRES., NATIONAL CTR FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN: It is surprising. And certainly, in this country, one of the first things that law enforcement would do is question the parents, question those who are around the children.
SNOW: Take the case of Polly Klaas, who was abducted from her home in 1993 and was found dead months later. Her father, Marc, says he and other family members were questioned by police and cleared within a week of Polly's disappearance.

MARC KLAAS, KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION: We took polygraph exams, we answered all their questions until they were satisfied that we had nothing to do with it, and then they moved on.
http://truthofthelie.com/2007/10/mystery-of-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-still-unsolved/

Pat Brown: One of the things, I think Marc Klaas says it all of the time on Nancy Grace when he’s on there. He says, a parent, and he should know because he was a suspect right up front with his missing daughter, Polly, He says you do everything you can to get the focus off of you to clear your name so they can go look for the person because the family is always looked at first because we all know that that’s most likely the people that do in their children and have the proximity to them. So you want to make sure you clear yourself in every way possible so the police go okay it’s definitely nothing to do with you. You’re showing no signs of trying to obstruct the investigation, you’re showing no signs of defense initiatives, showing no signs that you’re not telling the truth. So, you know, we, we’re comfortable with you.
http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/08/04/pat-brown-on-websleuths-radio-transcript/

With approximately 77 abductions by family members for every kidnapping by a non-family member, law enforcement will inevitably follow the statistics and concentrate on the child’s known universe. They will launch parallel investigations with a focus on the family and move outward. Like concentric ripples in a pond, they will look at family, friends and acquaintances, peripheral contacts, sex offenders registered in the community and finally the most frightening and daunting scenario of all: strangers.

As intrusive as it may become and as irrelevant as it may seem, fully cooperate with law enforcement and eliminate yourself as a suspect. They will ask questions that seem irrelevant and may even ask you to take a polygraph examination. It is not fair, but it is necessary. Remember, like you, law enforcement doesn’t know where your child is and the sooner they are able to gather and assimilate information and evidence, the sooner they are going to be able to direct their investigation toward the solution.
http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-lawenforcement.htm

Although the following deals with a general missing child scenario, I thought it was relevant:
To give your child the best chance of being found, you and law enforcement must treat one another as partners. —Don Ryce
Few parents have had experience working with law enforcement agencies. Perhaps you have had contact previously with law enforcement as a result of a traffic ticket or an accident. If so, you probably saw law enforcement as the enforcer of rules that had been broken—not as a lifeline.
But when your child is missing, you and law enforcement become partners pursuing a common goal—finding your lost or abducted child. As partners, you need to establish a relationship that is based on mutual respect, trust, and honesty. As partners, however, you do not have to agree on every detail. This chapter provides insight into the relationship you are entering into with law enforcement—what you can expect from the investigation, what types of questions you are likely to be asked, and what situations you and your family are likely to encounter in the process.

Your Partnership With Law Enforcement:
Be prepared for hard, repetitious questions from investigators. As difficult as it may be, try not to respond in a hostile manner to questions that seem personal or offensive. The fact is that investigators must ask difficult and sensitive questions if they are to do their jobs effectively.
...
Do everything possible to get you and your family removed from the suspect list. As painful as it may be, accept the fact that a large number of children are harmed by members of their own families, and therefore you and your family will be considered suspects until you are cleared. To help law enforcement move on to other suspects, volunteer early to take a polygraph test. Insist that both parents be tested at the same time by different interviewers, or one after another. This will help to deflect media speculation that one of you was involved in the disappearance.

Insist that everyone close to your child be interviewed.Encourage everyone—including family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, and coaches—to cooperate in the investigatory process.

Although polygraph testing is voluntary, refusal to take a polygraph can cause law enforcement to spend time trying to eliminate an individual from the suspect list through other means and, as a result, take valuable time away from finding the real suspect.
...
Talk regularly with your primary law enforcement contact.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/204958/ch2.html

 

[In da Middle]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-ba...smell-deceased/story?id=14786129#.TzxpqsXOVEI

"The court document also indicated that Lisa's parents, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, restricted police access to the home.

"The only areas extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints during the consent were the baby's bedroom and possible points of entry," the document states.

"The extent of the search had been limited in nature with consent" of the parents, police stated in the request for the search warrant."

That is not what the actual search warrant states.

http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552734.pdf

Detectives obtained consent to search for the house beginning on October 4, 2011. Detectives and crime scene personnel searched the home for any evidence of a child or evidence to support an abduction of a child. Crime scene personnel recovered items from the home, but due to the initial information provided by the family, the only areas extensively processed for DNA and finger prints during the consent were the baby's bedroom and possible points of entry.

This doesn't say the only areas processed. It says the only areas extensively processed.
And the whole above paragraph kind of contradicts the paragraph below as in you don't look for a baby in a drawer. And to answer the question of “in sight” search, looking inside a bottom desk drawer is not an 'in sight' only search. It also answers the question as to when LE knew about the phones. They knew immediately.

Interviews with Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley, the baby's mother and father, revealed the baby was missing along with three cell phones. Law enforcement personnel searched the home and located a cell phone in the bottom desk drawer of the computer desk. It was later determined that the cell phone located in the drawer was not one of the missing cell phones in question.

However, the type of search needed at this time would not be conductive to being revoked at any time by the owners and/or the attorney.

This states that they got this more extensive search warrant so that the search could not be revoked in mid process for any reason. A CYA move. A smart CYA move.

 

[Meri]

OT: "unlazyfied" ... LOL!

 

[In da Middle]

There is no crime scene exception to the fourth amendment. The question was about probable cause to obtain a search warrant at a crime scene. Once the initial search was done, they needed a search warrant.

The initial search did not include the Irwin/Bradley bedroom, IIRC

BBM
And they wait nearly 3 week for that??? Remember also the initial search that produced the 'hit' was a consented search, which was not an "initial" search at all. It was after many consented searches. LE had no probable cause until this consented search. If they had no consent to do this search, there would probably not have been enough info to even get a search warrant in the first place.

And nowhere does the search warrant state that they never searched the bedroom.

 

[Minette]

From IDM's link to the actual search warrant:

On October 4, 2011 patrol officers with the Kansas City Missouri Police department were dispatched to 3620 N. Lister on a reported missing child.

Upon arrival, contact was made with jeremy Irwin who stated his ten-month old daughter (LI) was missing from their house. Officers entered the residence to search for the baby. All rooms in the house and the basement were checked for the baby. An area canvass was also conducted in the back yard, both yielding negative results.

Detectives obtained consent to search for the house beginning on October 4, 2011. Detectives and crime scene personnel searched the home for any evidence of a child or evidence to support an abduction of a child. Crime scene personnel recovered items from the home, but due to the initial information provided by the family, the only areas extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints during the consent were the baby's bedroom and possible points of entry.

And then they go on to talk about the fact that the cell phones were reported missing along with the finding of a cell phone in the bottom desk drawer of a computer desk, etc.

Anyway, as IDM said, the SW states ALL rooms in the home were searched, but only the baby's room and "possible points of entry" were extensively processed for DNA & fingerprints. It doesn't say that the parents restricted the search, but that based on the information initially provided by the parents only certain areas were extensively processed.

It is also interesting to me that the SW indicates that the initial call was for a missing baby (not a robbery, as some have said). For those who have been following the discussion on the HRD dogs thread, it was specified that the dog who indicated the hit was an FBI cadaver dog.