"Jersey" and MW

[RANCH]

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.

Maybe Jersey called MW on DB's phone.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

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.

Link please?

Incidentally, there IS no difference between a cadaver and a dead body. A cadaver IS a dead body. I would think a cadaver dog "expert" would know this.

 

[hambirg]

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

It was not an assumption, by her own admission. Somewhere up thread is a link to the interview where DB says something to the fact that she "knows" that the cell phones were not working, because she "tried" them.

Unless we want to believe that the abductor paid their cell phone bill, I think it's safe to assume she's lying, in light of the fact that a call was made from one of the missing phones that night.

 

[frankie069]

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.

JT was Jersey not Joe... Sorry I should have been clearer, all these initials are making me crazy..

 

[tehcloser]

I can't logically take Baby Lisa out of the pic.....she's the reason the phones are missing to start with. :waitasec:

 

[wvjules]

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

No one we're discussing have been named a suspect or POI by LE.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I can't logically take Baby Lisa out of the pic.....she's the reason the phones are missing to start with. :waitasec:

I'm going to need a statement from LE stating that Lisa even exists. Otherwise...I'm not convinced.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

No one we're discussing have been named a suspect or POI by LE.

I don't make the rules, I just try to obey them.

 

[webhound]

Problem is, although MW is slinging the mud at Jersey, the mud is not sticking on Jersey... Jersey is the ONLY person cleared by the LE... so why is she continuing to try??

I'm so sorry. I am only on page 29 of this thread and way behind, but I can't find any link to a police statement that declares JT (Jersey) cleared of all suspicion. I found a blog and media report that stated that LE stated he was "not a suspect", which to me means nothing because they do not declare someone a suspect unless they've got enough on you usually. To me it doesn't mean you aren't being looked at (and sometimes really hard). I also saw a link to a blog saying LE stated he was not a suspect and assuming that meant he had been cleared. I also saw on the same site that LE said JT cooperated with LE and they are "moving on", but nowhere have I seen a statement from LE that says that JT "has been cleared of suspicion in the case of LI". Please forgive me if this link has been posted and I missed it. I just like to cross the Ts before I move on and this is bothering me. Thank you very very much.

I am still convinced that JT is a piece of this puzzle, even if it is just a link between other folks involved.

 

[hambirg]

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?

DB bought a box-o-wine.

 

[frankie069]

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.

I am not sure there are 2 crimes here, it seems to be one crime with 2 parts IMO. So does that mean we have 2 separate people as well, one who stole Lisa and one who stole the cell phones?? No, they are part of the same crime. IF there were cell phones, IF lisa was stolen. There are way too many if's and the parents need to clear this up. IMO they arent helping at all. We dont know that DB passed out because only she said that. I can say I went to the store today and didnt spend a penny when in reality I spent all the money we had here but, well I said I didnt spend anything, doesnt mean its the truth. I could say I lost the money and no one would know. Doesnt mean I did, it means thats what I said. There is no one to say that DB blacked out drunk. She might have had some wine but thats a lot of wine to black out. I would bet my last dollar thats a defense ploy. I dont believe it for a second. Look at all the things that were in that family's favor that night, work hours changes, blacking out, cell phones missing, on camera buying wine, cant call LE right away because there are no phones, a homeless man walking around the neighborhood, etc... There is a cover up going on here. I big one that I didnt think they would be smart enough to pull off but there is no such thing as a perfect crime. There are too many players in this and someone is going to break. Jersey to me had nothing to do with this. I will put MW as being a player before I would JT. JMO

 

[cowtowner]

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?

As I said in my post:

If the call from the stolen phone to MW was placed after the timeline established DB passed out ...
​

 

[New1]

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

Well, they haven't named any of the others being sleuthed as a suspect or person of interest either, have they?

 

[frankie069]

I'm so sorry. I am only on page 29 of this thread and way behind, but I can't find any link to a police statement that declares JT (Jersey) cleared of all suspicion. I found a blog and media report that stated that LE stated he was "not a suspect", which to me means nothing because they do not declare someone a suspect unless they've got enough on you usually. To me it doesn't mean you aren't being looked at (and sometimes really hard). I also saw a link to a blog saying LE stated he was not a suspect and assuming that meant he had been cleared. I also saw on the same site that LE said JT cooperated with LE and they are "moving on", but nowhere have I seen a statement from LE that says that JT "has been cleared of suspicion in the case of LI". Please forgive me if this link has been posted and I missed it. I just like to cross the Ts before I move on and this is bothering me. Thank you very very much.

I am still convinced that JT is a piece of this puzzle, even if it is just a link between other folks involved.

I agree, he is a piece of this puzzle but only as a ploy or being in the wrong place and the wrong time and knowing the wrong person. He has a record, easy mark... I really think thats what it comes down to.

 

[GoodGurl]

DB bought a box-o-wine.

A list of "just the facts" would be mighty handy to have right about now. New Thread?

 

[ruby2]

Regarding the cadaver dog hit...

I am not a dog handler and know nothing of the ins and outs of how they work. But I'm gonna just throw this out there.

Logically speaking, if I were handling an HRD dog and we were in a bedroom and the dog hit on an area near the floor by the bed (which I believe is the actual wording or very close to it), and where the dog hit was a comforter or article of clothing that was laying on carpet, I would want to figure out what exactly the dog was hitting on. Again, thinking logically, I would take that article (comforter, piece of clothing, etc) and move it to another area of the room and then ask my dog to examine the area again. If the dog then hit on the article (comforter, clothing, etc, laying in a new location) but did NOT hit on the carpet where it had been previously, I would conclude that there was no reason to take the carpet and would only take the article.

Again, MOO, but this is how my logical mind works.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Well, they haven't named any of the others being sleuthed as a suspect or person of interest either, have they?

You are free to take this up with a mod, New1. Like I said, I don't make the rules.

 

[RANCH]

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.

Nursebeeme bumped those rules from yesterday morning. Things have changed a bit. There is now a thread about the brother here at this link.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153361"]was Deb's brother there that night ? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[djm41]

Regarding the cadaver dog hit...

I am not a dog handler and know nothing of the ins and outs of how they work. But I'm gonna just throw this out there.

Logically speaking, if I were handling an HRD dog and we were in a bedroom and the dog hit on an area near the floor by the bed (which I believe is the actual wording or very close to it), and where the dog hit was a comforter or article of clothing that was laying on carpet, I would want to figure out what exactly the dog was hitting on. Again, thinking logically, I would take that article (comforter, piece of clothing, etc) and move it to another area of the room and then ask my dog to examine the area again. If the dog then hit on the article (comforter, clothing, etc, laying in a new location) but did NOT hit on the carpet where it had been previously, I would conclude that there was no reason to take the carpet and would only take the article.

Again, MOO, but this is how my logical mind works.

I like the way your logical mind works. :seeya:

 

[annalia]

As I said in my post:

If the call from the stolen phone to MW was placed after the timeline established DB passed out ...
​

I understand what you're saying, but it was also reported that the call was made at 8:30, but you say you are just disregarding that because there was no LE corroboration on it. As if theories should only come from what LE has corroborated. I was just saying that there was no LE corroboration on either.

I'm not set on any one scenario as to what happened or who's guilty, the only thing I do know that as each day goes on it just gets more and more confusing.

ETA: Just an afterthought, as far as LE corroboration goes, they have come out and said that they are moving on away from Jersey, said he is not a suspect, actually the only one that LE has come out and said was not a suspect. Should that be regarded or disregarded?