"Jersey" and MW

[powayparent]

I think we can safely assume a federal case exists because the FBI is very much involved. And on the same note, because KCPD has cleared somebody doesn't necessarily mean the FBI has. It all could be a case of semantics. The FBI has made absolutely no statements to my knowledge.

I believe the FBI is involved because they actively participate in many alleged child abduction investigations, no other reason necessary.

 

[natsound]

If the kitten smothered her, why the big coverup, though? No one would be charged.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Quick story...I adopted a kitten this past spring, and he was making me crazy at night because he would curl up by my face as soon as I shut off the light to go to bed. I didn't remember my parents' cat doing this when we adopted her as a kitten, so I asked Google what was up. I think I typed "Why does my cat like to sleep on my head" or something. One of the top 5 links I got back told me, "My Gran says it is because he's trying to steal your soul." :silenced:

I don't think this idea is too far fetched (Holly's, not Gran's).

Certainly not disregarding dear gran, but a 10 month old would be able to push off a kitten. Lisa looks to be very active and definitely not tiny. Besides, this is an old wives tale. It is a bit creepy to think of though.

 

[natsound]

I do not necessarily take another's word for it about just how intoxicated someone else is. I was a bartender for many years.It is very hard to assess just how inebriated someone else is, or isn't. Especially if both have been drinking. Some people can hold their liquor very well. And others, not so much. Also, people like to fake it, or pretend, for whatever reason.

Right now I take anything the neighbor said with a huge grain of salt rock.

ITA. The neighbor went out to get her own liquor, anyway, so how could she be the judge of anything?

 

[cowtowner]

Title 18, chapter 55 of the United States Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00001201----000-.html

§ 1201. KIDNAPPING
How Current is This?
(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when—
(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported across a State boundary, or the offender travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
(2) any such act against the person is done within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
(3) any such act against the person is done within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section 46501 of title 49;
(4) the person is a foreign official, an internationally protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined in section 1116 (b) of this title; or
(5) the person is among those officers and employees described in section 1114 of this title and any such act against the person is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official duties,
shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.
(b) With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the fact that the presumption under this section has not yet taken effect does not preclude a Federal investigation of a possible violation of this section before the 24-hour period has ended.
(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
(d) Whoever attempts to violate subsection (a) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years.
(e) If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an internationally protected person outside the United States, the United States may exercise jurisdiction over the offense if
(1) the victim is a representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United States,
(2) an offender is a national of the United States, or
(3) an offender is afterwards found in the United States. As used in this subsection, the United States includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places within the provisions of sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501 (2) of title 49. For purposes of this subsection, the term “national of the United States” has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(22)).
(f) In the course of enforcement of subsection (a)(4) and any other sections prohibiting a conspiracy or attempt to violate subsection (a)(4), the Attorney General may request assistance from any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.
(g) Special Rule for Certain Offenses Involving Children.—
(1) To whom applicable.— If—
(A) the victim of an offense under this section has not attained the age of eighteen years; and
(B) the offender—
(i) has attained such age; and
(ii) is not—
(I) a parent;
(II) a grandparent;
(III) a brother;
(IV) a sister;
(V) an aunt;
(VI) an uncle; or
(VII) an individual having legal custody of the victim;
the sentence under this section for such offense shall include imprisonment for not less than 20 years.
[(2) Repealed. Pub. L. 108–21, title I, § 104(b), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 653.]
(h) As used in this section, the term “parent” does not include a person whose parental rights with respect to the victim of an offense under this section have been terminated by a final court order.

 

[norest4thewicked]

If the kitten smothered her, why the big coverup, though? No one would be charged.

I was just about to say the same thing. Kitten smothers baby, mom throws baby in the river. Not happening....

 

[curiousjo]

If the cadaver dogs hit in the home, then the baby died at that site. DB (and possibly JI) must have hired the handyman or asked a family member to bury the infant. A mother who wants her baby back - does not change her timeline, lie and refuse to be interviewed by local media. We know this case will be cracked by a local. Obviously, she doesn't want the baby to be found dead or alive.

Is it true - DB had MW cell number written on her hand or is this just another incorrect rumor?

 

[raeann]

I wonder what that person did in the woods for 2 hours... from the time of the first witness sighting at 12:15 to the video at the convenience store at 2:30, other than start a fire. That seems to all be within a few blocks.

Well, one of the players had free and open access to a house that was known to be empty for the night since the owners were out of town.....just sayin'


jmo

 

[natsound]

I was just about to say the same thing. Kitten smothers baby, mom throws baby in the river. Not happening....

yeah, not feelin' it.

 

[natsound]

If the cadaver dogs hit in the home, then the baby died at that site.

respectfully snipped

I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are some on this board who just don't believe this. I mean, 1 and 1 equals 2.

 

[cowtowner]

I do not necessarily take another's word for it about just how intoxicated someone else is. I was a bartender for many years.It is very hard to assess just how inebriated someone else is, or isn't. Especially if both have been drinking. Some people can hold their liquor very well. And others, not so much. Also, people like to fake it, or pretend, for whatever reason.

Right now I take anything the neighbor said with a huge grain of salt rock.

Thus - for me - reducing the simplicity of the "DB did it" theory making it more and more less-simple.

I have to now say DB did it IF she wasn't actually as drunk as she said, and IF she wasn't actually as drunk as Brando said, and IF she was able to dispose of the body and phones so well that LE hasn't found them 30 days later and IF she had transportation or maybe IF she got JI to cover up for her.

For me, when a crime is committed, I look for the known criminals in the area first because past criminals commit crimes.

For me the theory that the crimes were perpetrated by a person who fits the abductor profile and who was called from a phone reported stolen that night from the same place as the abduction (MW) and her known recidivist criminal ex who has documented history of B&E in the area is simpler and has data to back it up.

 

[cowtowner]

respectfully snipped

I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are some on this board who just don't believe this. I mean, 1 and 1 equals 2.

Because there are "cadaver dog" (HRD) experts on this site who have said repeatedly that this is NOT always true.

 

[norest4thewicked]

respectfully snipped

I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are some on this board who just don't believe this. I mean, 1 and 1 equals 2.

I hate to say that I believe it too. I've come a long way since the beginning, when I was wholeheartedly defending DB. The lies, the changes in story and then the cadaver dog did it for me. Plus, Occam's Razor...I think it's a LOT simpler than we think.

 

[crimejunkie]

LE has in fact crossed the state line multiple times in this case. I'm sorry but you have deemed incorrectly.

I live in KC. The FACT is, from much of this town you can throw a rock across the state line. From their house, you can cross the state line in less than 10 minutes. They could have crossed the state line on their way to breakfast. Crossing the state line, and therefore triggering federal jurisdiction is ALWAYS a possibility in this metro area. You can be driving right down STATE LINE ROAD and not know which state you're in; Missouri or Kansas. And, kidnapping is a federal crime.



Just because they were reported together does NOT make them the same crime. Why is it so hard to understand that while they may be tied to the same INCIDENT, the crime of Theft and the crime of Kidnapping are DIFFERENT CRIMES?! Police charge people with different crimes related to the same incident ALL THE TIME. It just happened in KC last month regarding a murder. One perp was charged with theft and battery, the other person with murder.

Why is it so hard to understand that one person could be guilty of the crime of stealing the phones and - say if they FLIP - be left off the charge of kidnapping/murder/whatever.

They are two separate crimes. One local jurisdiction, one federal jurisdiction. No amount of snark will change that fact.




Uh, yes it is needed. If she's using "I was blacked out drunk" as an excuse or alibi for how she couldn't have had the capacity to dispose of the body. Just because DB says she was drunk, and therefore was passed out and didn't hear anything, see anything, and didn't have the capability to do all of this doesn't mean anything. The fact that a neighbor was there, and can testify that DB was in fact drunk and passed out lends credibility to her claim of being drunk and passed out at 10:30PM.





me.



Snark duly noted and disregarded as unneccessary.

BBM:

I don't think the neighbor was there when DB "passed out." Neighbor said when she left that DB said she was going to bed. So, I don't think anyone can attest to exactly when DB went to bed or if she indeed "passed out." Just as mentioned earlier....no one can prove or disprove whether DB experienced a "black out" either. So, I don't think it lends to anyone's credibility right now, imo. In order to assume these things as facts, we have to believe DB. I am not ready to do that yet.

 

[cowtowner]

If the cadaver dogs hit in the home, then the baby died at that site. <snip>

The Cadaver Dog (HRD) experts here at WS have repeatedly said that this is not a foregone conclusion. THere are multiple links to posts where our HRD (cadaver dog) experts have said that a dog can "hit" on a space where something that came into contact with a dead body may have been touched.

Sorry, but per the experts have said that what you wrote is just not necessarily accurate.

 

[katydid23]

Thus - for me - reducing the simplicity of the "DB did it" theory making it more and more less-simple.

I have to now say DB did it IF she wasn't actually as drunk as she said, and IF she wasn't actually as drunk as Brando said, and IF she was able to dispose of the body and phones so well that LE hasn't found them 30 days later and IF she had transportation or maybe IF she got JI to cover up for her.

For me, when a crime is committed, I look for the known criminals in the area first because past criminals commit crimes.

For me the theory that the crimes were perpetrated by a person who fits the abductor profile and who was called from a phone reported stolen that night from the same place as the abduction (MW) and her known recidivist criminal ex who has documented history of B&E in the area is simpler and has data to back it up.

I have always been open to an intruder theory here. It has always seemed very logical and likely that someone who knew of the child might have been lurking and watching, and that night was the perfect opportunity. That I can agree with. If they saw dad's work truck leave, and then watched mom get drunk on the stoop, they would feel confident breaking in the house, imo.

But I am still on the fence until I get a clearer timeline. I still need to have a definitive answer as to when someone besides mom and dad saw a living and breathing Baby Lisa. Hearing that the 4 yr old saw her last does not convince me.

 

[madge]

now MW says Jersey was into drugs = meth and that he was violent during the end.

 

[RANCH]

now MW says Jersey was into drugs = meth and that he was violent during the end.

Where does this come from?

 

[In da Middle]

I have always been open to an intruder theory here. It has always seemed very logical and likely that someone who knew of the child might have been lurking and watching, and that night was the perfect opportunity. That I can agree with. If they saw dad's work truck leave, and then watched mom get drunk on the stoop, they would feel confident breaking in the house, imo.

But I am still on the fence until I get a clearer timeline. I still need to have a definitive answer as to when someone besides mom and dad saw a living and breathing Baby Lisa. Hearing that the 4 yr old saw her last does not convince me.

This is exactly where I am, but to me an intruder is the simplest answer instead of the more complex as many seem to think. Way too many people have to be involved for parental involvement to work and I would think one of them would be squealing by now under pressure.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Thus - for me - reducing the simplicity of the "DB did it" theory making it more and more less-simple.

I have to now say DB did it IF she wasn't actually as drunk as she said, and IF she wasn't actually as drunk as Brando said, and IF she was able to dispose of the body and phones so well that LE hasn't found them 30 days later and IF she had transportation or maybe IF she got JI to cover up for her.

For me, when a crime is committed, I look for the known criminals in the area first because past criminals commit crimes.

For me the theory that the crimes were perpetrated by a person who fits the abductor profile and who was called from a phone reported stolen that night from the same place as the abduction (MW) and her known recidivist criminal ex who has documented history of B&E in the area is simpler and has data to back it up.

Just trying to understand your post. It seems to indicate that you are basing your theory on a stranger kidnapping. I think that an accidental death is every bit (if not more than) possible. In fact, it is more likely to be a death from inside the home than a kidnapping.