Lawyer of baby Lisa's family sets up a website

[frankie069]

She's not the only one who has questions about the cadaver dog "hit". There is no excuse at all for LE to have not taken the carpet where the hit was. None. Even if there was a rug over it. Even if the hit was on an object on the floor. They would have taken the carpet, or at least the part of it that was under and around the hit. So, why didn't they take it? Maybe because they knew the cadaver dog hit was a false positive? (Or maybe because the dog never actually hit there?)

And, no - it's not likely that LE took the carpet and replaced it with other carpet. They do not do that on a search. They do not fix their messes.

IF i am not mistaken here, I did see this on another post on this site, but apparently the hit was on a comforter that was on the floor, they took the comforter. i dont believe the hit was on their carpet. There was nothing false about this, this is a clear case of needing to make sure people see their lies so when jury selection comes up, hopefully they will get some *advertiser censored* like CA did.

 

[Wendy101]

snipped from : http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...-provide-information-about-case#ixzz1bkGTvNSb

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - The local attorney for Lisa Irwin’s family, Cyndy Short, told NBC Action News a website has been set up to provide information about the case.

B&RBM:

:waitasec: So ... WHY would a "defense attorney" set up a website to provide information about the "case" ?

IMO ... this is purely a DEFENSE STRATEGY ... ATTORNEY SPIN ... and DAMAGE CONTROL ...

I am "guessing" that attorney Short "suspects" her client or clients will be charged ...

I am also wondering if the attorney is "taking a shot" at LE as well as the msm ?

MOO ... I do NOT want an update on the case from a "defense attorney" or the "parents" ... I want to hear what LE has to say ...

Let me remind CS that it was HER CLIENT, DB, who has repeatedly inserted her "foot in mouth" ... it was DB who went on NATIONAL TELEVISION and stated that she failed a poly, was drunk, etc.

NONE of this info came from LE ! It came out of the MOUTH of DB !


MOO ...

ITA: Sure is a difference between this lawyer and Terri Hormans lawyer, Stephen Houze!!

BTW: Has Dehrah even been charged with anything ...... :floorlaugh: .. this lawyer is doing Debrah no good at all IMO...

 

[katydid23]

Yes, it is telling, imo, that the DT instantly tries to discount the reliability of the dog hit. How does mom know for sure whether someone came in and killed her child while was she was out on the stoop, or passed out on her bed?She does not know, she admits she does not know because she blacked it all out.

 

[rosetattoo]

That's not correct. The courts have consistently held that even if LE out and out lies on the SW, it doesn't invalidate it. The officers could be sanctioned if they were caught, but they rarely ever get caught. This is easy enough to say "the dog made a mistake.. too bad."

But if there's no probably cause for the warrant, the search would be illegal and the court could suppress evidence obtain from the search. If the dog hit was completely fabricated (which I can't imagine it was) there might not be enough basis for probable cause.

 

[rosetattoo]

Just bouncing off your post.

I was thinking maybe the "hit" was not on a carpet but a blanket that was on the floor near the parents bed... in this situation, wouldn't they just have to photograph the scene, and collect the blanket?

Just wondering, did the LE say the dog hit onthe carpet???

The affidavit just says the dog hit on the "floor." I'm beginning to wonder if LE wasn't intentionally vague in the affidavit for the SW because they didn't want to give away what the dog hit on.

 

[w1df10wr]

Finding Lisa alive would accomplish that. Win, win situation.

Its possible people are looking at the months old photos on the available flyer & t shirt, that lists Lisa as 2" 6', and 30 lbs & 10 almost 11 months old and confused? I know people who have a hard time, "baby" image they've been shown, doesn't match with what has been descripted to look for. There is a missing child - " infant" , "baby" pic plastered everywhere is a lot different than the actual 10 almost 11 month old.

Finding Lisa means having the most recent image of her available, imo.

 

[strach304]

IF i am not mistaken here, I did see this on another post on this site, but apparently the hit was on a comforter that was on the floor, they took the comforter. i dont believe the hit was on their carpet. There was nothing false about this, this is a clear case of needing to make sure people see their lies so when jury selection comes up, hopefully they will get some *advertiser censored* like CA did.

That was speculation from posters trying to understand why LE didn't take the carpet and based on what items were taken listed in the search warrant.

 

[strach304]

Its possible people are looking at the months old photos on the available flyer & t shirt, that lists Lisa as 2" 6', and 30 lbs & 10 almost 11 months old and confused? I know people who have a hard time, "baby" image they've been shown, doesn't match with what has been descripted to look for. There is a missing child - " infant" , "baby" pic plastered everywhere is a lot different than the actual 10 almost 11 month old.

Finding Lisa means having the most recent image of her available, imo.

Makes no damn sense, I agree. :seeya:

 

[cluciano63]

Just seems to me that a reaction to learning that a trained HRD dog hit in my bedroom while my child is missing would be absolute panic at the thought that my child might be dead...and that my "team" would also feel that panic. Instead we hear only reasons why LE didn't do their job correctly...

 

[sorrell skye]

BBM

The document filed on Friday is State's Motion to Seal Court Records - http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf

This is to keep evidence that was found on Wed. from being leaked to media, etc. The several items were listed, I suppose, to show the court that there was evidence collected. In my opinion, there is much, much, much more evidence that was obtained on Wed.

I watched the live feed and there were many bags of evidence taken from the house and many x rays of the inside of the house taken.

ETA - I am not a lawyer.

There was definitely much more taken. I watched the live feed that day, and @ one point I saw the CSIs carry at least 4 or 5 evidence bags from the backyard.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Just seems to me that a reaction to learning that a trained HRD dog hit in my bedroom while my child is missing would be absolute panic at the thought that my child might be dead...and that my "team" would also feel that panic. Instead we hear only reasons why LE didn't do their job correctly...

I know, right??

I suppose this could be the reaction if one already knows what happened to the child. moo

 

[LancelotLink]

You know, if I had been the reporter going along on this tour of the house and this lawyer was standing there looking around the bedroom, perplexed at why the carpet was still in tact, I think as I watched her coming from the left side of the bed to the dresser, nearly having to step over a laundry basket sitting in the floor, with a line of clothes on hangers streaming over it, covering about five or 6 feet by three to four feet, I would have asked, "Hey! What's under here? "

 

[matou]

Just seems to me that a reaction to learning that a trained HRD dog hit in my bedroom while my child is missing would be absolute panic at the thought that my child might be dead...and that my "team" would also feel that panic. Instead we hear only reasons why LE didn't do their job correctly...

Instead, DB lawyered up and claimed she was drinking.

 

[matou]

You know, if I had been the reporter going along on this tour of the house and this lawyer was standing there looking around the bedroom, perplexed at why the carpet was still in tact, I think as I watched her coming from the left side of the bed to the dresser, nearly having to step over a laundry basket sitting in the floor, with a line of clothes on hangers streaming over it, covering about five or 6 feet by three to four feet, I would have asked, "Hey! What's under here? "


Hence, the dog hitting on an area of the floor? If everything is on the floor, I guess it increases the chance for a dog to hit?

 

[sorrell skye]

Belimom captured this image from the live feed of the search on 10/19.

These evidence bags were brought from the backyard - so yes, more was collected during the 10/19 search than Ms. Short is aware. Wasn't a portion of the SW return sealed?

 

[LancelotLink]

Hence, the dog hitting on an area of the floor? If everything is on the floor, I guess it increases the chance for a dog to hit?

I'm just wondering why, if she wants people to believe LE did not take a swatch of carpet, that she would leave this area covered up. It is located at the bottom corner of the bed. She was having to practically step over it. :floorlaugh:

If I wanted to get anyone to believe the police or FBI had not taken a swatch, you can bet that carpet would be clear of anything, especially something that takes up just enough of the carpet to be a swatch cut out. Geez, Cyndy.

 

[LancelotLink]

Belimom captured this image from the live feed of the search on 10/19.

These evidence bags were brought from the backyard - so yes, more was collected during the 10/19 search than Ms. Short is aware. Wasn't a portion of the SW return sealed?

I also noticed on JVM, one of the CS folks carrying what looked like a swatch of carpet about four feet by five or six feet. He was carrying it by holding both ends together. It was so quick, but it is what made me search out this lady's video. Hopefully, Patty G will have it tomorrow and I can SG it.

And as for being sealed, I'm not sire, but I don't know when they took the carpet swatch either. They have the hard drive, but I have never seen a receipt for that either.

 

[LancelotLink]

Matou,
I'm going to try and crop that photo, so not to blow the margins. Can you edit your post?

 

[rosiebean]

IIRC, the wording was 'area of the floor' not 'on the floor'. That leads me to speculate that the hit was on an object on the floor (such as a comforter, blanket, or toy), not the floor itself.

LE were seen removing a carpet and bringing it (was it into the garage?) somewhere else out of sight. It could be that LE wanted to see if dogs hit on the carpet separately from the floor (as the carpet is 'new' and the floor part of a 50 or so year home...a hit on the carpet alone indicates a 'newer' death while a hit on both carpet and floor indicate a possible historic death from a previous owner). I'm not sure if dogs would hit on a floor through a carpet...but if it's a possibility, maybe LE wanted to separate the two.

Or, maybe the dog hit on an object on the floor, and LE wanted to test the carpet and floor to see if there were residual fluids (i.e., blood). If they were able to do so on site and if they found NO fluids...why on earth would they take the carpet? Their documentation that the carpet/floor was 'clean' of blood/bodily fluid would meet a legal standard I presume. I mean, if a body lies on a carpet and leaves scent but nothing SOLID such as blood or bile, etc., why take the carpet? What would it prove, if there's not a visual test for scent?

OR, maybe they only brought in a second dog after the search warrant was issued (really shoddy LE work in that case, IMHO), and the second dog didn't hit on the floor.

There's no way to tell knowing the little we know, and everything else is speculation...and the lawyer in this case is speculating in a way that's most favorable to her clients, even if her 'most favorable' speculation doesn't help their credibility . As a previous person stated, if mom was so drunk that she was maybe blacked out, how the blankety blank does she know there's NOT the possibility of a hit on the carpet? The 'perp' could have done something in her room, and she wouldn't have known. And THAT kind of blanket 'oh, I was blacked out, but still this thing that might be possible but would make me maybe look bad is therefore impossible' statement is nothing but hinky and speaks to the fact that the lawyer is covering her clients rear ends, NOT trying to find that little girl. IMO.

 

[cluciano63]

I think LE was as vague as possible as to where the hit was, knowing that the warrant would end up being made public, against their wishes.