Irwin Attorney: ‘Jersey’ Bragged About Kidnapping Lisa Irwin

[yllek]

I can see that theoretically with one parent, but not both. I just have a hard time grasping how both parents would be conspiring to cover up the murder of their own daughter, especially since JI wasn't a part of it (he was at work).

I hear what you're saying city, and I have wondered if LE really needs to have Debbi answer questions about who was there that night and what went on at the house (without her answers being influenced by the fact that her fiancee is in the room). They may have info from others that conflicts with Debbi's early account, info that she might be more likely to confirm outside of Jeremy's presence. JMO...

I think maybe we need to take this discussion to the other thread:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151916"]Police say parents are not answering vital questions - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[AngelWings444]

LOL. Jim Spellman tweeted this:

@jimspellmancnn jim spellman
I see some over at @webseuths chatting about #babylisa witness Lisa, the 12:15 witness. Just to clarify she says she saw the man w/ baby...
​

Hi, Jim! :rocker::yourock:

OH my! I love Jim Spellman and his reporting in this case. He is such a cutie, good reporter too. :floorlaugh: I think he was one of the very few people in this case who is trying to be factual. I know he would have asked Dane the "right" questions if he had a chance to interview him.

Come back Jim! Lisa needs some honest reporting, no spin!

Hi JIM!! :seeya:

Here you go Jim...
http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...d-saw-man-carrying-baby-wearing-only-a-diaper

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A woman who lives in the area where police believe a 10-month-old child was abducted said her husband saw a man carrying a baby early Tuesday morning, but didn’t think anything of it.
A neighbor, who later asked NBC Action News that she not be named, said her husband was coming home around 12 a.m. Tuesday when he saw the man carrying a baby wearing only a diaper.
“He seen the guy act like he was going to go into a residence,” she said, “but then my husband drove off so we’re thinking that maybe he was just doing that so that my husband would leave.”
The woman said her husband saw the man walking on a street perpendicular to North Lister, where Lisa Irwin lives with her parents and brothers.

 

[Sparklin]

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.

"I'm not saying they're not cooperating," he said. "They have met some of our needs. What I've been talking about specifically is sitting down, separate from each other, to be interviewed by detectives. In regard to that, no, that hasn't happen since the 8th of October."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/1...till-missing-on-first-birthday/#ixzz1eB9tg1nL

 

[Sherbie]

Nothing from LE has indicated that they haven't been in communication with the parents. They have specified they would like to get them seperate, but Young wouldn't go far to say they've been uncooperative (which I take to mean, not talk to LE at all).

Thanks. Pretty much all I have to go on is what Picerno said in that interview yesterday about LE passing questions through the attorneys and the parents giving answers to pass back to LE. Not an ideal setup for the flow of information (in either direction). You just can't get the spark of ideas or brainstorm off a question or answer in that situation.

 

[Donjeta]

Thanks. Pretty much all I have to go on is what Picerno said in that interview yesterday about LE passing questions through the attorneys and the parents giving answers to pass back to LE. Not an ideal setup for the flow of information (in either direction). You just can't get the spark of ideas or brainstorm off a question or answer in that situation.

IIRC yesterday wasn't the first time the attorneys have said that if LE has any questions just submit them to the attorneys and the attorneys will get back at them.

 

[MissJames]

I <snipped> and bolded the Professional and Verified Posters post for space.
Hope it helps.

*************************************************************
Thread: Professional and Verified Posters

JBean JBean is offline
WS Adminoderator

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dana Point,CA
Posts: 14,979
Professional and Verified Posters
OK, maybe not professional posters, but posters that are professionals Although a lot of you probably are professional posters by this time.

We are lucky enough to have posters from all walks of life with a broad spectrum of expertise and/or some may have special inside knowledge about a case.This is all extremely valuable information for the forum.

But,we like to make sure that anyone posting as a professional in a specific area truly is what/who they claim to be. This is not a new rule and has always been the case. But it seems unclear to some and I wanted to clarify it.


This thread is to reference posters that are posting as experts in certain areas, such as law ,psychology,LE, and we even have a resident chemist. This also applies to those that claim to be insiders to a case.

Basically if any information from a particular poster is to be given more weight based on the fact that they claim to have special knowledge in any one area, we need to confirm it for the posting membership.

We ask that posters that are posting with expertise in a specific area contact Tricia so she can confirm their credentials. This is 100% voluntary and no one is ever required to reveal their true identity unless they want to post as an expert. Please know that Tricia does not reveal ANYONE'S identity if you should choose to be confirmed by her.

We just want to make sure that if posters rely on information posted by someone with special training, that they do actually have that training.
if someone posts with "expertise", and they are not on this list, do not assume they are an expert, but rather use your own judgement as to how much weight you would like to give it.

The following are current members in good standing that have been authenticated by Tricia and are free to post professionally or as an insider to a case:

K9 SAR & Police
SAR management
justtoseeyousmile
k9snoop
Oriah
Sarx
K-9 Chaser is a verified SAR dog handler
indepmo is a verified SAR


DogMom2JoeAndWillie
Criminal Justice
Sarx


Animal Search and Rescue
Sarx
Oriah
JustToSeeYouSmile

Lisa Irwin case
In Da Middle has been verified as a local
makinwaffles is a verified local
indepmo is a verified local



If you would like to add youself as an expert in a certain field or an insider to a case, please contact Tricia.

If you do not wish to be identified as an expert in a certain area, we only ask that you refrain from answering questions that are specifically directed to those that have been verified as specialist in their area.

If a member posts with "expertise" please check to make sure they are on this list. If not, please do not take their post as professional information, but rather just as another opinion ;much as you would with any member of the general posting membership.
__________________
In most investigations,the clean get cleaner and the dirty get dirtier.
Last edited by imamaze; 11-10-2011 at 11:03 PM. Reason: updated
Thanks

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.

BBM
We have WS verified professionals who don't agree with your opinion.

 

[Oriah]

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 I believe it was reasonable cause. But either way, a dog hit would not be 'evidence' until a case went to trial.

 

[Sherbie]

I hear what you're saying city, and I have wondered if LE really needs to have Debbi answer questions about who was there that night and what went on at the house (without her answers being influenced by the fact that her fiancee is in the room). They may have info from others that conflicts with Debbi's early account, info that she might be more likely to confirm outside of Jeremy's presence. JMO...

I think maybe we need to take this discussion to the other thread:
Police say parents are not answering vital questions - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Thanks! It's easy to respond to points without first remembering what thread we're on and whether it fits. That's definitely a better thread for discussion of parental interviews.
:seeya:

 

[katshep]

Do we know when the girl told her mother this? Jersey was reportedly not seen by anyone in the area since before Lisa went missing until his arrest on October 14th. LE started canvassing the neighbors and the regulars in the area with Jersey's photo right after Lisa disappeared (imo, either because he was a sometime neighbor who was unaccounted for, or because he was on Debbi/Jeremy's "list"). Did this girl come forward way back in early October, or is this a recent revelation?

Jersey was out of commission before the first vigil. If Jersey, for some unfathonamable reason, felt the need to brag about it to a homeless man, he would have had to do so right after it happened and before he went underground for this time line to play out. The timing just doesn't seem right on this. I'm not saying the girl is lying, but imo we really need to get to the source of this information (the homeless snitch) to determine if this is anything other than bs.

BBM:Jersey was around after Lisa's disappearance. MW says he was at her house in the stolen minivan two-three days after the child's disappearance. My source is Ron Rugen's interview of MW at http://kansascitypi.blogspot.com/2011/11/baby-lisa-irwin-investigation-megan.html

 

[georgiana]

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

Linkable or not, could you please post some references (title, authors, journal, publication year, etc.)?

Thanks.

 

[MissFine]

Truth is, DB & JI don't want to find Lisa or help find Lisa the same way Casey didn't want to help find Caylee. She knew she was dead, It's the same with DB & JI, they know Lisa is dead.

That the only logical answer I can come up with that makes sense.

It's the same thing. There is no good reason for D and J not to talk to LE. They know what happened to Lisa (DB does anyway).

As you said they don't want to find Lisa. Imo they feel some type of power with their cough big time lawyer. There's power in ignoring LE too. moo

 

[MissFine]

They have been talking to LE, just not under specific conditions.

They have not been talking to LE the way LE has asked them. D and J aren't the Ramsey's. They can't control this case.

I think DB will be arrested very soon. moo

 

[deoneta]

I can see that theoretically with one parent, but not both. I just have a hard time grasping how both parents would be conspiring to cover up the murder of their own daughter, especially since JI wasn't a part of it (he was at work).

Why would Adam Baker make a bogus 911 call? Why did Billie Dunn lie to LE and harbor the only named suspect in her daughter's disapperance? Why did Ronald Cummings marry Misty Croslin? Why do we constantly learn of mothers who stand by and watch stepfathers and live-ins murder their children? I'm not saying that any of those scenarios apply to these parents. I'm only saying that what happens in crimes against children never makes sense to us. All MOO

 

[Sparklin]

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.

Or they know it will just be more of the same blame game they got during their many hours of individual interviews originally. Like I said before, if there are questions that would make or break this case and LE is sitting on them because they can't ask them individually - then there really is a problem. If they NEED something answered in order to find Lisa - ask the question any way you can get an answer. Otherwise, I too believe it is just requested in order to pit one against the other and throw out accusations. The parents have answered any question LE has posed to them by phone, email, through attorneys. In the station, individual interviews have been done.

 

[Oriah]

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.

I don't need to link.

BBM: This is absolutely NOT true.

Scent discrimination can be extremely precise. It all depends upon what the canine has been trained to discriminate off of.

If a laboratory can distinguish between scent- then so can a properly trained canine, who has the physical ability to do so.

You'd be amazed at what an adept canine can scent discriminate between.

 

[Just K]

That would make sense unless this person is involved in the drugs and maybe doesn't need the money. Also there is a code amongst those people that they don't roll on each other and if he turned up with lots of money they would know he was the snitch. Just a couple of thoughts.

He could go anywhere with that kind of money and I'd bet he could get a friend or two to go with him as traveling companions.

 

[Karmaa]

But there is no clue and no probable cause either if the dog can't tell you if it was vomit or semen he hit on or a dead body. There must be traces of semen in practically every bedroom with a fertile male living in it. So I don't see why a judge would consider a dog that possibly hit on semen as probable cause. The dog could have gone to any of the neighboring houses and got the exact same result. It's useless if it can't distinguish between things that are in every house such as traces from bodily fluids that come from living people such as female sexual secretions and those that aren't, such as traces of dead persons.

I don't know anything about it but I can tell the difference between the smell of vomit and the smell of semen and my nose is nowhere near as accurate as a dog's. I'm thinking there might be something more to the smell distinction than just the two compounds.

There are a lot of different compounds. But the dogs are TRAINED using cadaverine and putrescine, which is only available to certain trainers, under specific conditions. You can't just walk in a store and buy it. (In fact, it is so hard to get that only elite trainers can get it - everyone else has to use synthetic or PIG scent. Seriously. And those dogs are going to have many more false hits.)

So this scent is what the dogs learn on. They obviously can't smell a real cadaver - so they use these substances, because they are present in EVERY cadaver. But the same stuff is also in other body fluids. And that's the problem here.

As I said - normally a dog is running around, looking for a body. If it smells urine, the handler sees that there is no body there, and they move along. It's not even really considered a "hit" usually (so that the hit/miss ratio stays high). They don't really care about the smell - they are looking for the body.

In THIS case, LE wanted that hit. They either wanted it as a clue (something to say woah - there COULD have been a body here) or they wanted it to get probable cause to get the search warrant. But I m pretty sure that very few LE really think that a dead body was laid down in that spot. If they had thought that, they would have ripped up the carpet and the floor, and probably half the wall too - and taken it as evidence.

Anyway, if we are going to discuss the dogs anymore we should probably move to the Cadaver thread

 

[AngelWings444]

O/T - I was reading Jeff Ashton's book last night. The defense attorneys sending out bogus leads, injecting innocent people, making false statements to the media etc..was a huge challenge for them, as they had to follow up on said leaks by defense, which all turned out to be BS and cost the state a ton of $. In the end, none of it were true, Caylee was dead, and it was all "smoke and mirrors."

Sad. I know the defense team has a job, but they shouldn't be making their media rounds until someone is charged. JMO

 

[yllek]

BBM:Jersey was around after Lisa's disappearance. MW says he was at her house in the stolen minivan two-three days after the child's disappearance. My source is Ron Rugen's interview of MW at http://kansascitypi.blogspot.com/2011/11/baby-lisa-irwin-investigation-megan.html

Yes, thank you katshep. I posted upthread about finding Ron Rugen's statement from his posting yesterday that Jersey came in the minivan a few days after Lisa's disappearance. This was new to me; so I posted a correction. I agree that's the most reliable info we have to go on at this time regarding the minivan incident.

 

[Karmaa]

I don't need to link.

BBM: This is absolutely NOT true.

Scent discrimination can be extremely precise. It all depends upon what the canine has been trained to discriminate off of.

If a laboratory can distinguish between scent- then so can a properly trained canine, who has the physical ability to do so.

You'd be amazed at what an adept canine can scent discriminate.

But a LAB can't tell where an isolated sample of cadaverine came from. All they can tell is what it is, and if it's human, but they can't tell you who produced it, or even where it came from. It's not like DNA.

Don't get me wrong, I think dogs are amazing, and I would sure use them if I needed to track someone - but they just are not magicians. They can find the scent, but they have no clue where it came from.