IDI Theories (intruder did it)

[Sherbie]

My question is did they screw up that badly or was the search warrant purposely vague, to the point of being misleading if they didn't screw up that badly. Not really expecting an answer - just pondering out loud.

Maybe we need to separate the SW application from the request to have it sealed. I don't think the SW application was vague or misleading - if that were the case, the judge wouldn't have granted it.

It could be that LE, knowing that the request to seal might be denied and the SW contents made public, listed enough to meet the threshold for granting the SW without tipping their hand as to every detail of the investigation. They're not required to lay out the entire case, only to have enough to meet the criteria for granting the SW.

That could have been a calculated risk taken by LE - especially if, as you mentioned, it would be a rarity for a request to seal to be granted and they knew it was a long shot to request it. If that's the case, it was a good strategic move on LE's part to protect some aspects of the investigation from going public.

While the judge didn't find a compelling reason to seal, he/she obviously felt the SW application was proper and sufficient. IMO.

 

[cityslick]

Yeah, yeh, yeh..constitutional rights..know all about it. But it ain't stopping me from saying Phooey on that. How many innocent parents need four Criminal Defense attorneys to protect their rights. GMAB.

Yes, they should be judged. They are hiding behind attorneys and not cooperating. We can all judge their behavior and should.

Exercising a right does not and should equal guilty. That was my only point.

 

[vlpate]

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.

No, they did not have unfettered access, if they did they would have done the testing they needed to do on the master bedroom and other areas of the house. Just because it was a crime scene did not give them unfettered access - please research it. You said yourself if they were told to stop what they were doing they would have to stop, get a warrant, and then go back. During that time evidence could be destroyed.

Getting the warrant was the right thing to do - I'm not sure why it's even being argued.

 

[vlpate]

Exercising a right does not and should equal guilty. That was my only point.

BEM: Amen to that! :rocker:

 

[DeAnn]

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

How do you know the initial search didn't include the bedroom?

And the last sentence of your first paragraph is factually wrong.

Police returned Oct. 9 or Oct. 10 after the parents were interviewed on Oct. 8. This was done voluntarily and without a search warrant AND after the initial search was done and the home had been released on that first Thursday. They were in the home that second week without a search warrant. It was the third week when a search warrant was sought and granted by a judge.

 

[cityslick]

BEM: Amen to that! :rocker:

You know what I meant

 

[vlpate]

You know what I meant

I know....just giving you a hard time

 

[vlpate]

How do you know the initial search didn't include the bedroom?

And the last sentence of your first paragraph is factually wrong.

Police returned Oct. 9 or Oct. 10 after the parents were interviewed on Oct. 8. This was done voluntarily and without a search warrant AND after the initial search was done and the home had been released on that first Thursday. They were in the home that second week without a search warrant. It was the third week when a search warrant was sought and granted by a judge.

Factually wrong? None of the times you site involve the initial search. LE states in the search warrant only the child's bedroom and the points of entry were the areas of consent for compulsory evidence. After that, when the dog hit, which is not a search, per se....they needed a search warrant to take DNA samples, etc.

All the bags of evidence taken out in the first searches were from the computer room and Lisa's room. Deborah Bradley herself said NOTHING was taken from her bedroom.

If you have FACTS that show the parents bedroom was searched during the initial search, please hook us up with a link. TIA

 

[vlpate]

Why would those 7 items necessarily mean she died in the house? We don't know the reason why they were took or what the results were of any processing was. It COULD mean she died in the house, but 'would' mean is assuming that the dog hit on all of those items and they all tested positive for her cadaver scent. We dont have enough to definitely say that yet. IMO. And from looking at all of the dog info threads, it definitely seems that if a dead baby was in that house, the dogs should have hit on more things than those 7. That scent is, for lack of a better word, tracky. The dogs should have hit on anything that anybody that handled a dead body would touch or the body laid on.

I am not saying it definitely doesn't mean that though.

You're right, "could" is what I should have written - or, what I actually meant and should have written was, if they find decomp on the clothes it "would mean" she died in the house.

 

[DeAnn]

Factually wrong? None of the times you site involve the initial search. LE states in the search warrant only the child's bedroom and the points of entry were the areas of consent for compulsory evidence. After that, when the dog hit, which is not a search, per se....they needed a search warrant to take DNA samples, etc.

All the bags of evidence taken out in the first searches were from the computer room and Lisa's room. Deborah Bradley herself said NOTHING was taken from her bedroom.

If you have FACTS that show the parents bedroom was searched during the initial search, please hook us up with a link. TIA

I'm so confused. Initial search to me is everything from 4 a.m. Oct. 4 until 7 p.m. Oct. 6 when police had control of the house.


Parents get house back. ABC reporter goes on a tour either Friday, Oct. 7 or Saturday, Oct. 8.

Police returned the week of Oct. 9. No search warrant. Parents gave consent. They did throughout that week.

They don't get a search warrant to around Oct. 18. I wasn't around that week but my guess is since Tacopina had come into town and his reputation proceeded him that police didn't want to depend on voluntary searches anymore since they were planning to haul in X-ray equipment.

I am saying a whole lot of searching went on after the initial search and before they got the search warrant. A lot.

Considering how many hours they were in the house, I find it hard to believe that no officer went into the bedroom and looked around considering they were rummaging through drawers for cell phones and using metal detectors in the backyard. But by all means.....if you want to think those first three days that they had metal detectors in the backyard but didn't bother to do at least a visual search or some sort of search of the bedroom go ahead. I'm not going to dissuade you. Just hopefully I can help inform others.

The search warrants says they didn't "extensively" search. That doesn't mean they didn't search.


And mistakes are made in search warrants. I saw a search warrant in a high-profile case yesterday that repeatedly referred to Dec. 14, 2012, when the police officer clearly meant Feb. 14, 2012.

I think the key here is "extensively."

 

[DeAnn]

At 10 p.m. Oct. 4 canines were still searching the woods for Lisa Irwin.

At night.

 

[Minette]

Factually wrong? None of the times you site involve the initial search. LE states in the search warrant only the child's bedroom and the points of entry were the areas of consent for compulsory evidence. After that, when the dog hit, which is not a search, per se....they needed a search warrant to take DNA samples, etc.

All the bags of evidence taken out in the first searches were from the computer room and Lisa's room. Deborah Bradley herself said NOTHING was taken from her bedroom.

If you have FACTS that show the parents bedroom was searched during the initial search, please hook us up with a link. TIA

Once again, from the actual search warrant, parts BBM:

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.

If LE says in a sworn affidavit that they searched all the rooms in the house, that's what I take it to mean. It further states that they only processed certain areas extensively, but that is not the same as not searching them at all.

Edit to add the link to the search warrant as requested: http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552734.pdf

 

[vlpate]

I'm so confused. Initial search to me is everything from 4 a.m. Oct. 4 until 7 p.m. Oct. 6 when police had control of the house.


Parents get house back. ABC reporter goes on a tour either Friday, Oct. 7 or Saturday, Oct. 8.

Police returned the week of Oct. 9. No search warrant. Parents gave consent. They did throughout that week.

They don't get a search warrant to around Oct. 18. I wasn't around that week but my guess is since Tacopina had come into town and his reputation proceeded him that police didn't want to depend on voluntary searches anymore since they were planning to haul in X-ray equipment.

I am saying a whole lot of searching went on after the initial search and before they got the search warrant. A lot.

Considering how many hours they were in the house, I find it hard to believe that no officer went into the bedroom and looked around considering they were rummaging through drawers for cell phones and using metal detectors in the backyard. But by all means.....if you want to think those first three days that they had metal detectors in the backyard but didn't bother to do at least a visual search or some sort of search of the bedroom go ahead. I'm not going to dissuade you. Just hopefully I can help inform others.

The search warrants says they didn't "extensively" search. That doesn't mean they didn't search.


And mistakes are made in search warrants. I saw a search warrant in a high-profile case yesterday that repeatedly referred to Dec. 14, 2012, when the police officer clearly meant Feb. 14, 2012.

I think the key here is "extensively."

BEM: Is that what I stated? I believe I stated exactly the opposite. A visual search of the master bedroom is all they should have done, given the nature of the crime. No doubt they "looked" at the master bedroom.

Your initial (first), statement in this long line of posts was that all LE needed as probable cause was the fact that there was a crime scene, and this was not correct. LE still needed a list of items or item that they believed to be related to the crime.

Due to the fact that DB and JI are not married, and the house belongs to JI, consent by DB would be questionable should there be a trial based on evidence found during the consensual searches. A good lawyer, like Tacopina, would find a way to have any evidence thrown out that was found during a search under consent by DB alone. JI owns the house and I doubt DB's name is anywhere on it. They are not even common law married. Murder convictions are overturned all the time due to illegal search and seizures. Chances are, JI is not that savvy and likely signed the consent forms to search the house.

LE had no right to extensively search the master bedroom without probable cause and a search warrant because no crime was said to be committed in the master bedroom. Once the dog hit, there was probable cause to obtain a warrant.

You may want to read a few precedents in this article, which also has a lot of good information on obtaining search warrants for a crime scene.

 

[cityslick]

BEM: Is that what I stated? I believe I stated exactly the opposite. A visual search of the master bedroom is all they should have done, given the nature of the crime. No doubt they "looked" at the master bedroom.

Your initial (first), statement in this long line of posts was that all LE needed as probable cause was the fact that there was a crime scene, and this was not correct. LE still needed a list of items or item that they believed to be related to the crime.

Due to the fact that DB and JI are not married, and the house belongs to JI, consent by DB would be questionable should there be a trial based on evidence found during the consensual searches. A good lawyer, like Tacopina, would find a way to have any evidence thrown out that was found during a search under consent by DB alone. JI owns the house and I doubt DB's name is anywhere on it. They are not even common law married. Murder convictions are overturned all the time due to illegal search and seizures. Chances are, JI is not that savvy and likely signed the consent forms to search the house.

LE had no right to extensively search the master bedroom without probable cause and a search warrant because no crime was said to be committed in the master bedroom. Once the dog hit, there was probable cause to obtain a warrant.

You may want to read a few precedents in this article, which also has a lot of good information on obtaining search warrants for a crime scene.

The only counter I have to this is in the Ayla Reynolds case, LE searched that house extensively, forensics, mobile trailer, the whole nine yards. They did all of that without a search warrant. But that was in Maine and it may be different from state to state. My point being I think the warrant was more of a CYA than anything else, especially since the defense attorneys got involved.

 

[vlpate]

The only counter I have to this is in the Ayla Reynolds case, LE searched that house extensively, forensics, mobile trailer, the whole nine yards. They did all of that without a search warrant. But that was in Maine and it may be different from state to state. My point being I think the warrant was more of a CYA than anything else, especially since the defense attorneys got involved.

Wouldn't be a stat-to-state thing, this is based on the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court case precedent. No one is saying they "can't" search without a warrant, of course they "can"....but will whatever they find be admissible or upheld if there is a conviction? What's different is training and experience of the homicide detectives - that and high powered attorneys being involved. Tacopina was all for the consensual searches - encouraged them even, and this is why. I agree it was CYA to obtain a warrant, not to mention it would be an exercise in futility if they did find evidence (Irwin case), without a warrant...as it should be, IMO.

 

[vlpate]

Once again, from the actual search warrant, parts BBM:



If LE says in a sworn affidavit that they searched all the rooms in the house, that's what I take it to mean. It further states that they only processed certain areas extensively, but that is not the same as not searching them at all.

Edit to add the link to the search warrant as requested: http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552734.pdf

Minnette, I realize they did a cursory search for Lisa and visible signs of evidence in the master for signs of an abduction. I'm not arguing that. The dog hit on a scent in the bedroom and that's when they got the warrant. If they didn't need one, they wouldn't have gotten it. I know what the warrant says, I'm telling you why they needed a warrant. Case law was not cited in the warrant, just saying.

 

[Minette]

I think we all need a :hug:.


Although I must admit I would love to find an excuse to use that 'DENIED!' gif IDM found without being snarky, because that thing is awesome! :floorlaugh:

 

[vlpate]

I think we all need a :hug:.


Although I must admit I would love to find an excuse to use that 'DENIED!' gif IDM found without being snarky, because that thing is awesome! :floorlaugh:

I found this - it helps explain what I am talking about and might make this debate make more sense. No one is right or wrong because all cases are different, but one thing is clear by all accounts, if you want it to stand up in court, as City Slick stated, CYA. These are interesting cases so it's not a tough read.

Crime scene searches: the need for Fourth Amendment compliance

Back to topic.... I feel a spankin' coming on lol

 

[cityslick]

Between this debate and listening to DNA experts in the Jason Young trial, I think I'm ready for a drink.:needdrink:

 

[Minette]

Between this debate and listening to DNA experts in the Jason Young trial, I think I'm ready for a drink.:needdrink:

:denied:

Only sober discussion here! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::woohoo: