Irwin Attorney: ‘Jersey’ Bragged About Kidnapping Lisa Irwin

[JeannaT]

The original post was that the parents were hiding something because they haven't given their attorneys the phone records. I think that it's the attorneys responsbility to get those phone records not the Irwin's.

I am not sure how you go about getting your own phone records. I have sprint and years ago I could go online and get the calls made/calls received. You can no longer do that once they made everything unlimited.

Too bad they didn't have the iphone..I just got one and uploaded the "find my iphone" app...I test it out all the time :crazy: just to see it on my map....

I think it varies case to case. The payer of the phone bill can always get the records that show calls in and out, etc., but they can't get "ping" records without a court order. Or at least, when my son's phone was stolen and used, the phone company wouldn't give them to me.

But Gary Christian, in the murder case of his daughter Channon Christian, was able to get ping records by telephone request when it was still too soon to officially file a missing persons report on Channon. Rare case of mercy by the phone company.

 

[Karmaa]

We have DB's changing stories, admission to being drunk, cell phone calls/voice mail/internet attempts at all hours, refusal to be interviewed by LE separately, cadaver dog hit in parents' bedroom. And I don't think many are accusing her of murder, but many of us believe she had some responsibility for BL to go missing. Doesn't really seem a stretch under the circumstances.

1. There is no proof that DB's stories changed to LE. We know that additional information was added to the media in subsequent interviews, but there was nothing in the actual interviews where DB said anything directly, that she later changed. (Caveat: whether DB checked on Lisa or not at 10:30 is open - she has said that she "normally" checks on her, but doesn't specifically remember doing it that night.) There are lots of things that DB did not tell the media (possibly asked not to by LE.) If we find out about them later, it is not necessarily a "change" in the story.

2. Being drunk does not make one a murderer. It does not even necessarily make one a bad parent. It is not illegal, and it's not unusual.

3. Cell calls/messages were made by someone. If the phones were stolen and DB did not have then, then the calls don't point towards DB's guilt.

4.DB and JI were interviewed separately. They stopped agreeing to these separate interviews when it became clear that LE was aggressively suspicious of them. Local LE then became publicly antagonistic to the family. However, everyone agrees that the parents have been generally cooperative, and answered all questions.

5. Cadaver dog hit is not evidence. It was "probable cause" for a search warrant. Without knowing what evidence was found, it is impossible to form a conclusive opinion from that.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind. It makes no difference to me (or to the reality of the situation) if everyone believes that DB is a murderer or had "something" to do with "it" (whatever "it" is), or even if they are willing to bet $1000 that she is innocent (although I doubt ANYONE on WS would be willing to do that, lol). But until real evidence is produced, we have to be able to look at both possible sides of the situation. There is no doubt that IF the things mentioned are, in fact true, it would look really bad for DB. But the fact remains that each of those things can be explained (reasonably), and thus can't be considered proof of anything.

So, as much as it's not a stretch to believe that DB is (or may be) involved, it is not a stretch to say she may not be involved, either.

JMO (ie: no links)

 

[lonetraveler]

Long ago I came to the conclusion that Defense Attorneys will do and say absolutely anything to deflect from their client. And, I mean anything! They have to be accomplished liars and have no ethics, scruples or a conscience at all in order to do what they are willing to do. Period. If there was any merit to this story it would have gone to LE, not the defense attorneys for the parents. Unless LE makes a statement I don't believe a word that this attorney states.

 

[mlc9852]

Long ago I came to the conclusion that Defense Attorneys will do and say absolutely anything to deflect from their client. And, I mean anything! They have to be accomplished liars and have no ethics, scruples or a conscience at all in order to do what they are willing to do. Period. If there was any merit to this story it would have gone to LE, not the defense attorneys for the parents. Unless LE makes a statement I don't believe a word that this attorney states.

LE said they moved on from Jersey. I don't believe the cops. The cops are under no obligation to tell any of us or the media the truth.

 

[iluvmua]

1. There is no proof that DB's stories changed to LE. We know that additional information was added to the media in subsequent interviews, but there was nothing in the actual interviews where DB said anything directly, that she later changed. (Caveat: whether DB checked on Lisa or not at 10:30 is open - she has said that she "normally" checks on her, but doesn't specifically remember doing it that night.) There are lots of things that DB did not tell the media (possibly asked not to by LE.) If we find out about them later, it is not necessarily a "change" in the story.

2. Being drunk does not make one a murderer. It does not even necessarily make one a bad parent. It is not illegal, and it's not unusual.

3. Cell calls/messages were made by someone. If the phones were stolen and DB did not have then, then the calls don't point towards DB's guilt.

4.DB and JI were interviewed separately. They stopped agreeing to these separate interviews when it became clear that LE was aggressively suspicious of them. Local LE then became publicly antagonistic to the family. However, everyone agrees that the parents have been generally cooperative, and answered all questions.

5. Cadaver dog hit is not evidence. It was "probable cause" for a search warrant. Without knowing what evidence was found, it is impossible to form a conclusive opinion from that.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind. It makes no difference to me (or to the reality of the situation) if everyone believes that DB is a murderer or had "something" to do with "it" (whatever "it" is), or even if they are willing to bet $1000 that she is innocent (although I doubt ANYONE on WS would be willing to do that, lol). But until real evidence is produced, we have to be able to look at both possible sides of the situation. There is no doubt that IF the things mentioned are, in fact true, it would look really bad for DB. But the fact remains that each of those things can be explained (reasonably), and thus can't be considered proof of anything.

So, as much as it's not a stretch to believe that DB is (or may be) involved, it is not a stretch to say she may not be involved, either.

JMO (ie: no links)

1. It makes DB damn suspicious when she does constantly change her stories.

2. It DOES make one a bad parent when you have a sick 10 month old and a 8 year old & 10 year old in the house.

3. So the fact that the CD hit on a dead body is not evidence?????

 

[Cazzie]

1. There is no proof that DB's stories changed to LE. We know that additional information was added to the media in subsequent interviews, but there was nothing in the actual interviews where DB said anything directly, that she later changed. (Caveat: whether DB checked on Lisa or not at 10:30 is open - she has said that she "normally" checks on her, but doesn't specifically remember doing it that night.) There are lots of things that DB did not tell the media (possibly asked not to by LE.) If we find out about them later, it is not necessarily a "change" in the story.

2. Being drunk does not make one a murderer. It does not even necessarily make one a bad parent. It is not illegal, and it's not unusual.

3. Cell calls/messages were made by someone. If the phones were stolen and DB did not have then, then the calls don't point towards DB's guilt.

4.DB and JI were interviewed separately. They stopped agreeing to these separate interviews when it became clear that LE was aggressively suspicious of them. Local LE then became publicly antagonistic to the family. However, everyone agrees that the parents have been generally cooperative, and answered all questions.

5. Cadaver dog hit is not evidence. It was "probable cause" for a search warrant. Without knowing what evidence was found, it is impossible to form a conclusive opinion from that.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind. It makes no difference to me (or to the reality of the situation) if everyone believes that DB is a murderer or had "something" to do with "it" (whatever "it" is), or even if they are willing to bet $1000 that she is innocent (although I doubt ANYONE on WS would be willing to do that, lol). But until real evidence is produced, we have to be able to look at both possible sides of the situation. There is no doubt that IF the things mentioned are, in fact true, it would look really bad for DB. But the fact remains that each of those things can be explained (reasonably), and thus can't be considered proof of anything.

So, as much as it's not a stretch to believe that DB is (or may be) involved, it is not a stretch to say she may not be involved, either.

JMO (ie: no links)

BBM.

Actually, no. LE has said (link somewhere, already posted several times) that they need questions answered about who came and went from the home.

Also, JMO, but there are probably a lot of other questions that they want to ask the parents.

 

[iluvmua]

DB & JI's Attoney has the "EEBT" syndrome. (Everyone Else But Them).

This is nothing more than a spin to take the heat off of them and put it on someone else so LE will quit looking at the parents.

 

[tehcloser]

bbm = Right. Which BS explains would have a reason to NOT be on the actual phone records. If the phone was actually on restriction and the call didn't actual go to MW's phone but to the provider, they would not be charged for the call, therefore it would not show on their phone record.

Yes, but what was being talked about was that DB and JI had supplied their phone records....they did not. If they had of, their attorney would not have made that statement. If BS has seen any of the records it must have been the copies the LE had.

 

[MissFine]

The way I understand it is a Cadaver dog is a tool. A hit can lead to evidence but is not in itself evidence. I discounted it,yes, when nothing else was produced. There are reasonable explanations for it. Having raised a bunch of kids I can see a child running to mama with a bleeding toe (it happens) It may have been an innocent spot of blood DB missed or it could have been a throw rug from a thrift store for all I know.
I see a lot of fallacies; I don't see any evidence against DB.

Cadaver dogs know the difference between a drop of blood say from a cut and blood from a deceased person. We have a very good cadaver thread here if you're interested. moo

 

[tehcloser]

1. There is no proof that DB's stories changed to LE. We know that additional information was added to the media in subsequent interviews, but there was nothing in the actual interviews where DB said anything directly, that she later changed. (Caveat: whether DB checked on Lisa or not at 10:30 is open - she has said that she "normally" checks on her, but doesn't specifically remember doing it that night.) There are lots of things that DB did not tell the media (possibly asked not to by LE.) If we find out about them later, it is not necessarily a "change" in the story.

2. Being drunk does not make one a murderer. It does not even necessarily make one a bad parent. It is not illegal, and it's not unusual.

3. Cell calls/messages were made by someone. If the phones were stolen and DB did not have then, then the calls don't point towards DB's guilt.

4.DB and JI were interviewed separately. They stopped agreeing to these separate interviews when it became clear that LE was aggressively suspicious of them. Local LE then became publicly antagonistic to the family. However, everyone agrees that the parents have been generally cooperative, and answered all questions.

5. Cadaver dog hit is not evidence. It was "probable cause" for a search warrant. Without knowing what evidence was found, it is impossible to form a conclusive opinion from that.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind. It makes no difference to me (or to the reality of the situation) if everyone believes that DB is a murderer or had "something" to do with "it" (whatever "it" is), or even if they are willing to bet $1000 that she is innocent (although I doubt ANYONE on WS would be willing to do that, lol). But until real evidence is produced, we have to be able to look at both possible sides of the situation. There is no doubt that IF the things mentioned are, in fact true, it would look really bad for DB. But the fact remains that each of those things can be explained (reasonably), and thus can't be considered proof of anything.

So, as much as it's not a stretch to believe that DB is (or may be) involved, it is not a stretch to say she may not be involved, either.

JMO (ie: no links)

I don't think everyone comes close to agreeing to that. No where close.......

 

[mlc9852]

1. There is no proof that DB's stories changed to LE. We know that additional information was added to the media in subsequent interviews, but there was nothing in the actual interviews where DB said anything directly, that she later changed. (Caveat: whether DB checked on Lisa or not at 10:30 is open - she has said that she "normally" checks on her, but doesn't specifically remember doing it that night.) There are lots of things that DB did not tell the media (possibly asked not to by LE.) If we find out about them later, it is not necessarily a "change" in the story.

2. Being drunk does not make one a murderer. It does not even necessarily make one a bad parent. It is not illegal, and it's not unusual.

3. Cell calls/messages were made by someone. If the phones were stolen and DB did not have then, then the calls don't point towards DB's guilt.

4.DB and JI were interviewed separately. They stopped agreeing to these separate interviews when it became clear that LE was aggressively suspicious of them. Local LE then became publicly antagonistic to the family. However, everyone agrees that the parents have been generally cooperative, and answered all questions.

5. Cadaver dog hit is not evidence. It was "probable cause" for a search warrant. Without knowing what evidence was found, it is impossible to form a conclusive opinion from that.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind. It makes no difference to me (or to the reality of the situation) if everyone believes that DB is a murderer or had "something" to do with "it" (whatever "it" is), or even if they are willing to bet $1000 that she is innocent (although I doubt ANYONE on WS would be willing to do that, lol). But until real evidence is produced, we have to be able to look at both possible sides of the situation. There is no doubt that IF the things mentioned are, in fact true, it would look really bad for DB. But the fact remains that each of those things can be explained (reasonably), and thus can't be considered proof of anything.

So, as much as it's not a stretch to believe that DB is (or may be) involved, it is not a stretch to say she may not be involved, either.

JMO (ie: no links)

How can you make excuses for a mother getting admittedly drunk while solely caring for three children? I wouldn't want someone like that anywhere near my children! And I don't think responsible mothers do that. And I forgot to mention her failed polygraph. I know that alone doesn't mean she lied, but it certainly doesn't help her credibility. She initially said she put Lisa to bed at 10:3, then changed it to 6:40. And the story from her former "friend" about DB trying to have sex with her husband doesn't say much for her character. She is still married to her husband, yet has no problem taking her child into a relationship with another man and having another child. Also, she avoided calling Lisa by name when talking about her, which is often what parents who are responsible for the death of a child do to distance themselves from the child. She and JI have not made any overt attempts to locate BL, nor have they had any recent pleas to the public.

Cadaver dogs have a pretty high success rate. I just can't ignore all the evidence (not proof) that point towards DB. And I find it very curious that the cell activity stopped just prior to JI returning home. In the end, I just hope the case is solved and BL is found alive, but I fear that won't be the outcome.

DB may be totally innocent in all this, but my opinion is that she knows exactly what happened to her baby daughter.

 

[Karmaa]

LE said they moved on from Jersey. I don't believe the cops. The cops are under no obligation to tell any of us or the media the truth.

I tend to believe LE about some things. But I know that LE has the Supreme Court on their side when it comes to lying about other thing during the course of an investigation. That is just the way it is. If they lie to a suspect to attempt to get the truth, it's legally acceptable. (ie: telling a suspect that there is evidence which does not really exist.) They are also permitted to not tell most details of the investigation to the media, to the family, to the lawyers, etc. (until/unless charges are filed). After charges are filed, the bar is raised on how much LE can lie, and once they are in court and sworn in, the bar is raised much higher - no lies are allowed at all.

As for attorneys. they are taught in law school to "dissemble". It is not exactly the same thing as bold-faced lying. It is a way of injecting doubt, or suggesting alternative scenarios. They will not usually lie about facts that can be verified. So, if the lawyer says "the FBI told us ______", that is almost certainly true. If _________ is something unfavorable, they will not mention it at all.

So, yes, the parents lawyers may be spinning somewhat. But the base of what they are saying is probably true. They probably talked to the mother of the girl... they probably talked to the girl... those are verifiable. The girl probably said what they say she did. That's somewhat verifiable. but how much weight they give it is open to interpretation.

To completely reject every word of the lawyers, and completely believe every word of LE doesn't leave a person able to evaluate the information in a very comprehensive manner.

 

[Sherbie]

I just don't think the FBI would waste time looking for a live baby Lisa as far away as NY if they KNEW her in fact to be deceased.

Hi, serveit I think it's standard for LE to follow up all leads, even if they have some circumstantial evidence or indicators that a victim is deceased. I'm not saying they have any such indicators in this case (I have no idea), but without a body or definitive circumstantial evidence, I don't think they'd discount any avenue of investigation.

 

[natsound]

I'm not so sure the parents could get their cell ping info if they wanted to. The call logs yes but not the ping charts.

But the defense attorneys were discussing the records, not the pings. They were discussing records that DB and JI could get their hands on.

 

[Karmaa]

BBM.

Actually, no. LE has said (link somewhere, already posted several times) that they need questions answered about who came and went from the home.

Also, JMO, but there are probably a lot of other questions that they want to ask the parents.

Also linked many times, from many different interviews, in many different words:
"I'm not saying they're not cooperating," he (Steve Young] said. "They have met some of our needs..."
http://www.news-leader.com/article/...lice-Hunt-Kansas-City-baby-Lisa-not-out-steam

If LE has questions, they can ask the parents in their home, with the attorneys present. LE had their chance to have separate unrestricted interviews, and if they didn't get the info they wanted, then they are now at the mercy of the parents. The parents have every legal right to refuse to sit down and be interrogated. Maybe if LE had not been so heavy-handed and antagonistic, the parents would have been more cooperative, but the fact remains, of LE wants a question answered, they can ask it of the parents, in the parent's preferred environment. And there is no evidence that the parents have refused to answer any questions, period. Only that they don't want to sit in LE's interrogation room.

 

[MissFine]

I just don't think the FBI would waste time looking for a live baby Lisa as far away as NY if they KNEW her in fact to be deceased.

The FBI has to check on tips--especially since no body has been recovered. moo

 

[TheDuchess]

How can you make excuses for a mother getting admittedly drunk while solely caring for three children? I wouldn't want someone like that anywhere near my children! And I don't think responsible mothers do that. And I forgot to mention her failed polygraph. I know that alone doesn't mean she lied, but it certainly doesn't help her credibility. She initially said she put Lisa to bed at 10:3, then changed it to 6:40. And the story from her former "friend" about DB trying to have sex with her husband doesn't say much for her character. She is still married to her husband, yet has no problem taking her child into a relationship with another man and having another child. Also, she avoided calling Lisa by name when talking about her, which is often what parents who are responsible for the death of a child do to distance themselves from the child. She and JI have not made any overt attempts to locate BL, nor have they had any recent pleas to the public.

Cadaver dogs have a pretty high success rate. I just can't ignore all the evidence (not proof) that point towards DB. And I find it very curious that the cell activity stopped just prior to JI returning home. In the end, I just hope the case is solved and BL is found alive, but I fear that won't be the outcome.

DB may be totally innocent in all this, but my opinion is that she knows exactly what happened to her baby daughter.

BBM-I haven't really seen anyone making excuses for her. Many of us,however, do say it does not necessarily mean she did something to BL. That is all.

 

[natsound]

bbm = Right. Which BS explains would have a reason to NOT be on the actual phone records. If the phone was actually on restriction and the call didn't actual go to MW's phone but to the provider, they would not be charged for the call, therefore it would not show on their phone record.

Who is BS?

Of course it would show on their phone record. How else would anyone even know about this 50 second call at 11:57?

 

[Karmaa]

Cadaver dogs know the difference between a drop of blood say from a cut and blood from a deceased person. We have a very good cadaver there here nif you're interested. moo

No matter what anyone says on a message board, it does not change the scientific conclusions. The substances used for training by HRD dogs are cadaverine and putrescine, which are secreted by decaying corpses. Those chemicals are ALSO present in vomit, urine, and several other body substances/fluids. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a dog to be able to distinguish which body substance caused those specific chemicals to be emitted.

My information comes from scholarly research sources which are not linkable (my University library), but google it.

 

[tehcloser]

Also linked many times, from many different interviews, in many different words:
"I'm not saying they're not cooperating," he (Steve Young] said. "They have met some of our needs..."
http://www.news-leader.com/article/...lice-Hunt-Kansas-City-baby-Lisa-not-out-steam

If LE has questions, they can ask the parents in their home, with the attorneys present. LE had their chance to have separate unrestricted interviews, and if they didn't get the info they wanted, then they are now at the mercy of the parents. The parents have every legal right to refuse to sit down and be interrogated. Maybe if LE had not been so heavy-handed and antagonistic, the parents would have been more cooperative, but the fact remains, of LE wants a question answered, they can ask it of the parents, in the parent's preferred environment. And there is no evidence that the parents have refused to answer any questions, period. Only that they don't want to sit in LE's interrogation room.

If that's the case, well I have no words......."I won't answer questions about my missing daughter because I don't have a nice comfy couch"???????? What?????????????? GMAB. They don't won't separate interviews because they are afraid one of them will slip up and the other won't be there to cover.