"Jersey" and MW

[Mountain_Kat]

I'm not trying to be a pain, but what exactly are known 'facts' in this case other than a baby is missing?

A dog 'hit' on an area in the room.
JI was working that night.

Is that it?

There are many known facts, but the one that immediately comes to mind is the cadaver dog hit that you already listed.

So does Jersey slip into the darkened house through a conveniently (and rarely, according to DB) opened window, turn on all the lights, grab some phones, snatch Lisa, cut through a yard on Chelsea, walk on over to Randolph, and then kill Lisa and bring her back to DB's bedroom?

 

[annalia]

THANK YOU. Let objectivity and logic prevail.

Let me suggest we go about this a different way. Let's take Lisa out of the equation for a second and ask one question:

WHO PROBABLY STOLE THE CELL PHONES?


We also have objective, forensic evidence that shows a connection between the stolen property and MW as close as the night of the crime, in the form of a phone call from one of the stolen phones to MW's phone on that night.

I don't recollect what time this call was placed. If the call from the stolen phone to MW was placed after the timeline established DB passed out (which has been corroborated by the neighbor here: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/01/3243027/a-look-back-at-a-critical-night.html) then it's very damning evidence of MW's connection to the stolen cell phones.

If your cell phone was stolen, and you found a call was placed after the theft from your phone to my phone, who would you LOGICALLY assume had some involvement????

ME!

I've said since October 5th that the cell phones are the key to the case because they provide objective, forensic data without the emotional clouds of kidnapping, Casey Anthony, etc.. Anything we learn about the phones points us towards the someone or something involved with Lisa's disappearance.

Now, we have criminal data and evidence that points to Jersey and MW's probable involvement, including:

• FBI abduction statistics for babies meeting Lisa's description are overwhelmingly a woman in her 20s, overweight/obese. (anyone look at MW?)
  
• Criminal statistics overwhelmingly illustrate that the best indicator of future criminal behavior is past criminal involvement. Ex cons are simply just more likely to be recidivist.
  
• Criminal statistics overwhelmingly suggest that "low level crime" (drug use, drug dealing, theft, etc.) tends to lead to instances of high-level crime: battery, robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc..

We also have objective, forensic evidence that shows a connection between the stolen property and MW as close as the night Lisa was taken, in the form of a phone call from one of the stolen phones to MW's phone on the night Lisa was taken.

I don't recollect what time this call was placed. If the call from the stolen phone to MW was placed after the timeline established DB passed out (which has been corroborated by the neighbor here: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/01/3243027/a-look-back-at-a-critical-night.html) then it's very damning evidence of MW's connection.

Let's take the missing baby out of the equation for one second and ask our selves one simple question: If your cell phone was stolen, and you found a call was placed after the theft from your phone to my phone, who would you LOGICALLY assume had some involvement????

I've said since October 5th that the cell phones are the key to the case because they provide objective, forensic data. Anything we learn about the phones points us towards someone or something.

Occams Razor indeed; follow the breadcrumbs.

If the cell phones are the key to the case and the phone call was made at 8:30 PM, as was reported, then where does Occams Razor fit into that and where would the breadcrumbs lead?

 

[In da Middle]

It seems to me that the same people that don't believe what MW is saying are choosing to believe the part about the call being at 8:30.:waitasec:

 

[wvjules]

The going scenario I have seen is he came in at 830, fingered around the place for stuff to sell, made a phone call while everyone was on the porch, then left, then came back later and snatched Lisa. Are people saying now that Lisa was snatched at 830 as well as the phones?

Not that I know of. I was just confused by the "twice". I hadn't heard he was in the house once, let alone twice.

 

[cowtowner]

Yes, but in this case, JT is not the simplest explanation, DB is..

How does JT (Joe Tacopino) even get brought into this? And how do you figure DB is the simplest explanation?

The simplest explanation to the question is: the person who committed the crimeSSSS (there are TWO crimes here, one of theft and one of kidnapping) is the person who was CONNECTED to the crime after it occurred, not the one who was incoherent and passed out (as corroborated by witnesses) while it occurred.

A call from a stolen phone was placed to Person X after the phone was last seen - it is not possible that Person X was not involved with the stolen property.

 

[Darcyline]

Not that I know of. I was just confused by the "twice". I hadn't heard he was in the house once, let alone twice.

Ah, there are a lot of theories going around now pointing at Jersey being the sole culprit here. That is the scenario I have seen most often. It still seems off to me, but every theory seems off to me no matter the variables. Like, the entire night and everyone involved makes no sense to me.

 

[yllek]

There are 2 JTs in this case:
Joe Tacopina and Johnny Tango (Jersey)

Maybe it's less confusing if we refer to Mr. Tango by his full name or "Jersey"? Just a thought...

 

[cowtowner]

If the cell phones are the key to the case and the phone call was made at 8:30 PM, as was reported, then where does Occams Razor fit into that and where would the breadcrumbs lead?

Did LE say the call was made at 8:30pm? Do the actual cell company logs say the call was made at 8:30pm?

Occams Razor says that someone who comes into contact with stolen property after it was stolen -even unknowingly - is in fact connected to that crime of theft. In short they are a bread crumb.

If I just bought a stolen guitar at a pawn shop, I am now a breadcrumb - whether I stole that guitar or not. That detective comes to me, finds out where I got it and when. Then she goes to that pawnshop, finds out when it was pawned, by whom, and keeps working backwards.

 

[wvjules]

Ah, there are a lot of theories going around now pointing at Jersey being the sole culprit here. That is the scenario I have seen most often. It still seems off to me, but every theory seems off to me no matter the variables. Like, the entire night and everyone involved makes no sense to me.

Being the sole culprit is one possibility. I just don't see him being at the house twice though.

 

[powayparent]

It seems to me that the same people that don't believe what MW is saying are choosing to believe the part about the call being at 8:30.:waitasec:

I don't think MW would lie about the timing of the call knowing that LE has access to the phone records.

 

[cowtowner]

Does it changed your opinion if the call was made at 8:30 pm, before DB passed out?

]

I've not seen that corroborated as fact (by LE or otherwise) anywhere. So I'm disregarding it.

Also based on the activities of LE it appears to me that the phones continued to ping from that location so IMO were not stolen and LE knows it.

What activities of LE make this appear to be the case?

 

[natsound]

Again, why must it be a lie and not an assumption?

I remember DB saying all three phones did not have service, and we heard later because she didn't pay the bills. Am I not remembering this correctly?

 

[Pensfan]

Yes, but in this case, JT is not the simplest explanation, DB is..

More simply, the phone call from Deb's phone went to Megan's phone not Jersey's. Also, Megan made extreme efforts yesterday to implicate Jersey.

 

[annalia]

]

I've not seen that corroborated as fact (by LE or otherwise) anywhere. So I'm disregarding it.



What activities of LE make this appear to be the case?

Wait a minute, have you seen it corroborated as fact by LE or otherwise that the call was placed after DB was already passed out, which is what your basing the OR on? How do you know what to disregard and what not to?

We probably will just need to disregard most of this case since there is a lot that LE hasn't come out and corroborated.

 

[New1]

bumping up the rules... this thread was previously closed for cleanup.. and these rules were posted when it was reopened for discussion

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.

 

[tink92]

THANK YOU. Let objectivity and logic prevail.

Let me suggest we go about this a different way. Let's take Lisa out of the equation for a second and ask one question:

WHO PROBABLY STOLE THE CELL PHONES?


We also have objective, forensic evidence that shows a connection between the stolen property and MW as close as the night of the crime, in the form of a phone call from one of the stolen phones to MW's phone on that night.

I don't recollect what time this call was placed. If the call from the stolen phone to MW was placed after the timeline established DB passed out (which has been corroborated by the neighbor here: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/01/3243027/a-look-back-at-a-critical-night.html) then it's very damning evidence of MW's connection to the stolen cell phones.

If your cell phone was stolen, and you found a call was placed after the theft from your phone to my phone, who would you LOGICALLY assume had some involvement????

ME!

I've said since October 5th that the cell phones are the key to the case because they provide objective, forensic data without the emotional clouds of kidnapping, Casey Anthony, alcohol use, prejudice etc.. Anything we learn about the who stole the phones points us towards the someone or something involved with Lisa's disappearance.

Presented with the cast of characters, facts of the situation, objective, provable data: the key question to finding Lisa is; who's most likely involved in stealing those cell phones? Or who most likely knows who stole those cell phones?

From today's published timeline (HERE at the KC STARwe have: MW, Blondo, Jersey and to some degree DB.

MW - got a call from one of the phones, connected to the stolen items after their theft.
Blondo - was, per the timeline, left alone at the Irwin home when DB went to bed (opportunity)
Jersey - history of breaking into windows and robbery in the neighborhood, past criminal history (motive)
DB - left alone at the home while Blondo went to get her own liquor.

Now, we have criminal data and evidence that points to Jersey and MW's probable involvement, including:

• FBI abduction statistics for babies meeting Lisa's description are overwhelmingly a woman in her 20s, overweight/obese. (anyone look at MW?)
  
• Criminal statistics overwhelmingly illustrate that the best indicator of future criminal behavior is past criminal involvement. Ex cons are simply just more likely to be recidivist.
  
• Criminal statistics overwhelmingly suggest that "low level crime" (drug use, drug dealing, theft, etc.) tends to lead to instances of high-level crime: battery, robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc..

We also have objective, forensic evidence that shows a connection between the stolen property and MW as close as the night Lisa was taken, in the form of a phone call from one of the stolen phones to MW's phone on the night Lisa was taken.

I don't recollect what time this call was placed. If the call from the stolen phone to MW was placed after the timeline established DB passed out (which has been corroborated by the neighbor here: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/01/3243027/a-look-back-at-a-critical-night.html) then it's very damning evidence of MW's connection.

Let's take the missing baby out of the equation for one second and ask our selves one simple question: If your cell phone was stolen, and you found a call was placed after the theft from your phone to my phone, who would you LOGICALLY assume had some involvement????

I've said since October 5th that the cell phones are the key to the case because they provide objective, forensic data. Anything we learn about the phones points us towards someone or something.

Occams Razor indeed; follow the breadcrumbs.

Wow..I agree with every word. I bet LE are close to putting all the peices together and we will have a breakthrough real soon.:dance:

For the first time in this case things are starting to come together for me become clear.
I still wouldn't bet my mortgage on it BUT..I think Jersey and MW are in this deep.

 

[cowtowner]

There are many known facts, but the one that immediately comes to mind is the cadaver dog hit that you already listed.

So does Jersey slip into the darkened house through a conveniently (and rarely, according to DB) opened window, turn on all the lights, grab some phones, snatch Lisa, cut through a yard on Chelsea, walk on over to Randolph, and then kill Lisa and bring her back to DB's bedroom?

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.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

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.

Because LE hasn't been named him a suspect or person of interest in this case.

 

[mrye4709]

Does it changed your opinion if the call was made at 8:30 pm, before DB passed out? I believe there was involvement between someone in the DB/JI household and the MW household but don't believe MW has anything to do with Lisa's disappearance. Also based on the activities of LE it appears to me that the phones continued to ping from that location so IMO were not stolen and LE knows it.

The drinking buddy neighbor was there at that time, right? I have never heard of a phone company only restricting the main phone, but IF that is a possiblilty then it is possible DB didn't know that. The neighbor might not know the phones were "supposed" to be restricted and may have picked it up and made the call to any one of the eight living at the MW home. Anything is possible, this case is certainly strange.

 

[powayparent]

]

I've not seen that corroborated as fact (by LE or otherwise) anywhere. So I'm disregarding it.



What activities of LE make this appear to be the case?

I just don't think MW has a reason to go on camera and lie about the timing of the phone call.

IMO the extensive use of metal detectors and video of the detectives searching the eaves, bird feeder etc. They weren't looking for Lisa in those instances, they were clearly looking for something small and metal.