"Jersey" and MW

[krimekat]

I'm confused. Why is there no sleuthing of DB's brother? He has been named in MSM, has he not? He is 20 years old, so he is not a minor. Or IS he? I was thinking under 18 is a minor.

Respectfully, he is not considered a POI yet, is he? That's who we sleuth, not the innocent (or minors).

 

[natsound]

Has there been any disclosure on why DB had MW's phone number written on her hand? Just curious. . .

I think that's just a rumor.

 

[StrayKat]

The only person I've seen quoted stating as fact that the call was placed at 8:30pm is MW herself. (Trusting the fox to give you the count in the hen house)





Correction: KCPD has said they cleared Jersey's involvement with the baby's disappearance. Has the FBI cleared him? Has KCPD said they have cleared him of any involvement in the crime of burglary?

Couple things:

First, Jersey can very well be guilty of burglary and innocent of kidnapping -- especially if he took the phones, called MW, and she came and took the baby.

Second alternate thought: Consider that kidnapping is a federal crime. Have we seen where the FBI has cleared anyone? Given that the crime of kidnapping is a federal crime and we're five minutes from State Line, that makes it the FBI's jurisdiction.

Thank you, I was wondering about that.

 

[djm41]

It's not up to anyone's opinion; the crime of burglary/robbery is different than the crime of kidnapping. So different, in fact, that our criminal justice system has chosen to name them two separate crimes. Pretty compelling stuff, eh?

ETA - It's also important to note that these two separate crimes because they fall under two separate jurisdictions. The crime of burglary is local/county/state. It's under jurisdiction of Clay County to prosecute and KCPD to investigate. But the crime of kidnapping is a federal crime and falls under the FBI jurisdiction. ESPECIALLY if they cross the state line which is about 5 minutes away.



We have no idea if they took place at the same time, separate times, same person, separate people. (Wouldn't it be great if we did?) The only thing we DO know is we have a theft and we have a kidnapping.




Actually Deb's not the only one who said it. Read the article I linked, the neighbor Blondo was there and DB told her "she was going to bed."





Not exactly correct. There is actually Blondo to say that DB blacked out drunk. She was there. She can either corroborate the "blacked out" story or refute it. So there is actually someone who can say that "DB blacked out drunk." Her name is Blondo.




Given that their daughter is missing and presumed dead, I don't see how we can argue these things were "in their favor."

You're right about one thing, I don't think they are capable of pulling something like that off either. And if I don't think someone is capable of pulling something off, then they probably did not pull it off -- so I look elsewhere.

I look where the data, facts and evidence points.

• Phone missing.
• Missing phone calls one woman. That woman is MW.
• That one woman fits the description and profile the FBI has established as the most likely to be the kidnapper of a baby.
• That woman has a connection to a recidivist criminal. That recidivist criminal is Jersey.

I choose not to focus my attention on those I don't think could pull off a crime. Instead I focus my attention on those connected to the crime who are known, adjudicated, convicted criminals and/or those who fit the profile of the offender.

:seeya:Wayne Williams didn't fit the profile. There are exceptions.

 

[norest4thewicked]

As has been reported on local media by cadaver dog trainers, those dogs can "hit" on old blood, new blood, and they do not differentiate between that an actual "cadaver" or dead body. They also do not differentiate between "Lisa's remains" and "Bob's remains" or "Suzie's remains."

According to the woman who trains those dogs, it's just not possible to get that level of specificity from them.

So...was there another dead body in the room? Because we also know that your regular cadaver dog won't hit on a smell of remains older than a decade (only specially trained ones will) and we know the JI has owned this home for at least a decade.

 

[21merc7]

Cadaver dog thread where Oriah and Sarx answered our questions:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152258"]Human Remains (*cadaver) Detection (HRD) dog questions and answers **NO DISCUSSION** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

I'm sure there are studies out there too.

 

[cowtowner]

:seeya:Wayne Williams didn't fit the profile. There are exceptions.

And this would be the exception that proves that the rule exists.

 

[yllek]

"And are moving on"... could mean that they are moving on with their investigation of him. JMO!

If not preceded by the statement, "he has been cleared of any involvement in Lisa's disappearance". To me, that preceding statement is quite important when followed by "and are moving on". JMO. If one is to interpret it that they've investigated and cleared him and are therefore moving on to investigate him again, really no point in debating the meaning. I think the language of Young's statement speaks for itself. JMO..

 

[StrayKat]

So... off topic. Witness sighting of man carrying baby at 12:15... to dumpster... starts fire... next video of man walking at 2:30 or there abouts. Where did he go in those two hours? How far from the house is that convenience store?

 

[katshep]

Kansas City Police Department spokesman Steve Young said he could not discuss investigators interviews with Wright. However, Young did say the man known as "Jersey" has been interviewed and cleared of any involvement in the baby's disappearance.
"We spoke to him and are moving on," Young said.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15919668/womans-cell-phone-connected-to-search-for-missing-baby

It was also stated emphatically at least 5 times on JVM and NG yesterday that LE has cleared Jersey (I won't search out the transcripts). Jim Spellman of CNN has made a point multiple times over the last 3 days of emphasizing that the man picked out of photo line up by Motorcycle Man witness at 4 am is NOT Jersey.

I understand that some feel Jersey must somehow be involved. I have never once seen LE publicly falsely clear a person as some sort of strategy, but doesn't mean it could never happen. LE hardly ever clears anyone publicly - they don't want to look foolish if they end up being wrong and they don't want that statement used against them if they later need to prosecute. They can just say "he's not a suspect" if they they don't have enough evidence to arrest, or to clear. So, it's a strong bold statement that LE is making when they say they have completely ruled the man out and everyone should be looking elsewhere. I believe LE is making this statement in good faith after much due diligence. Others may disagree for reasons of their own. But, it's very clear that LE has publicly announced that Johnny Tanko, aka Jersey, has been thoroughly investigated and cleared of any involvement in Lisa's abduction.

There are other crimes that JT likely culpable for, but, according to LE, not the kidnapping of Lisa Irwin. It would be lethal to a prosecution to say that they had cleared someone only to subsequently prosecute them--whoop whoop as Juggalos say. LE must have confirmed that JT's DNA is not at the scene. Maybe he has a locked-in alibi as well. So, that gets us back to a logical connection to MW and X (the caller to MW) by virtue of the cellphones and the witness identifications.

 

[cowtowner]

So...was there another dead body in the room? Because we also know that your regular cadaver dog won't hit on a smell of remains older than a decade (only specially trained ones will) and we know the JI has owned this home for at least a decade.

As was stated in the HRD thread (thanks SARX)

HRD dogs will also hit on what is called transfer scent. Say you touch your dead grandmother and then grab your phone, they'll hit on the phone as well.​

The fact that the dogs hit in the bedroom does not establish that there was ever a dead body in that room.

 

[josie1986]

As was stated in the HRD thread (thanks SARX)

HRD dogs will also hit on what is called transfer scent. Say you touch your dead grandmother and then grab your phone, they'll hit on the phone as well.​

The fact that the dogs hit in the bedroom does not establish that there was ever a dead body in that room.

but it does tell you that someone in that house came into contact with a dead body at some point fairly recently. i dont know anyone that goes around touching dead bodies :waitasec:

i believe the hit was real and it was something that was on the floor that got the hit not the carpet,ive believed this from when it came to light


lets not get O/T this is for JT and MW

JMO MOO!!

 

[cityslick]

As was stated in the HRD thread (thanks SARX)

HRD dogs will also hit on what is called transfer scent. Say you touch your dead grandmother and then grab your phone, they'll hit on the phone as well.​

The fact that the dogs hit in the bedroom does not establish that there was ever a dead body in that room.

What I'd like to know is if there was a dead body in that room, where is the vehicle to transport the body to whatever location it's at now? Did the dogs check that if there is one?

 

[StrayKat]

If not preceded by the statement, "he has been cleared of any involvement in Lisa's disappearance". To me, that preceding statement is quite important when followed by "and are moving on". JMO. If one is to interpret it that they've investigated and cleared him and are therefore moving on to investigate him again, really no point in debating the meaning. I think the language of Young's statement speaks for itself. JMO..

I agree...
"We spoke to him" is the preceding statement.

 

[norest4thewicked]

As was stated in the HRD thread (thanks SARX)

HRD dogs will also hit on what is called transfer scent. Say you touch your dead grandmother and then grab your phone, they'll hit on the phone as well.​

The fact that the dogs hit in the bedroom does not establish that there was ever a dead body in that room.

I have searched for the link, but there was quite a bit of confusion over this and I remember reading that a hrdog will not hit on blood, unless it comes from a dead body. So, in any way you look at it, the dog hit on SOMETHING dead in that house.

 

[cowtowner]

ETA: I don't believe the 90% statistic, especially not for older babies.

Don't believe it based on what? I'm going to go with the words from of a 30+year former FBI officer with a history of recovering a kidnapped baby to his credit based on this exact profile?

To each his or her own I guess.

 

[josie1986]

What I'd like to know is if there was a dead body in that room, where is the vehicle to transport the body to whatever location it's at now? Did the dogs check that if there is one?

just bouncing off your post asking about the car to transport a body....

now we know MW got a call from one of DB's "restricted" cells that night,as far as i'm aware DB doesn't drive.does MW drive? or anyone in the house where she lives? does someone in that house have a car the PN could have driven?

just a thought to what that 50sec phonecall could have been about


JMO MOO!!

 

[crimejunkie]

It's not up to anyone's opinion; the crime of burglary/robbery is different than the crime of kidnapping. So different, in fact, that our criminal justice system has chosen to name them two separate crimes. Pretty compelling stuff, eh?

ETA - It's also important to note that these two separate crimes because they fall under two separate jurisdictions. The crime of burglary is local/county/state. It's under jurisdiction of Clay County to prosecute and KCPD to investigate. But the crime of kidnapping is a federal crime and falls under the FBI jurisdiction. ESPECIALLY if they cross the state line which is about 5 minutes away.



We have no idea if they took place at the same time, separate times, same person, separate people. (Wouldn't it be great if we did?) The only thing we DO know is we have a theft and we have a kidnapping.




Actually Deb's not the only one who said it. Read the article I linked, the neighbor Blondo was there and DB told her "she was going to bed."





Not exactly correct. There is actually Blondo to say that DB blacked out drunk. She was there. She can either corroborate the "blacked out" story or refute it. So there is actually someone who can say that "DB blacked out drunk." Her name is Blondo.




Given that their daughter is missing and presumed dead, I don't see how we can argue these things were "in their favor."

You're right about one thing, I don't think they are capable of pulling something like that off either. And if I don't think someone is capable of pulling something off, then they probably did not pull it off -- so I look elsewhere.

I look where the data, facts and evidence points.

• Phone missing.
• Missing phone calls one woman. That woman is MW.
• That one woman fits the description and profile the FBI has established as the most likely to be the kidnapper of a baby.
• That woman has a connection to a recidivist criminal. That recidivist criminal is Jersey.

I choose not to focus my attention on those I don't think could pull off a crime. Instead I focus my attention on those connected to the crime who are known, adjudicated, convicted criminals and/or those who fit the profile of the offender.

My two cents:

Brando/Blondo....(whatever her name is) can say that DB said she was going to bed, but that doesn't mean DB went to bed. I may tell someone I am with that I am going to bed when they leave and I end up staying up to watch a show or check email or make a call, etc.... They wouldn't have any idea if I actually went to bed or did other things after they left. So, again....it comes down to DB's word.

Also, a "black out" is normally "alcohol-related amnesia". Therefore, no one can say for sure whether someone else experienced a "black out." The neighbor can confirm DB was drinking and whether she appeared drunk, etc..., but how does she know if the amount of alcohol effected DB's memory or to what degree. She can't. So, again....this is going to come down to DB's word.

 

[josie1986]

I have searched for the link, but there was quite a bit of confusion over this and I remember reading that a hrdog will not hit on blood, unless it comes from a dead body. So, in any way you look at it, the dog hit on SOMETHING dead in that house.

and it wasnt a dead kitty :innocent:

 

[natsound]

The fact that the dogs hit in the bedroom does not establish that there was ever a dead body in that room.

respectfully snipped

Then what are cadaver dogs for? Why bring them in at all?

Police have to develop leads, especially if the woman in the house with the child who disappeared can't or won't answer pertinent questions. IMO, police developed a lead with the cadaver dog hit... a lead that Lisa is no longer with us.