Lisa Irwin Disappearance - Thoughts and Theories ONLY!

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bothers me too. Who takes all their cell phones ( and why so many for a stay at home mom)) lines them up and reprograms them?

Mom has one phone. Dad has one phone for personal and one for work. A (personal) phone is replaced/updated, and since Dad has his work phone to take to his Starbuck's job, Mom hangs onto his old phone to transfer the numbers to the new/replacement phone. While she is at it, she may want to put in some numbers from the other phone, and to add numbers to her or Jeremy's personal phone that exist only in the other one's phone.

I have been through this, getting numbers from my bills, my old phone, and my daughter's phone to put into a new phone. While I am working on it (can take a day or two in spare time) I keep them all in the same area.
 
My new theory, for this hour, is that both mom and dad are involved. Lawyering up with "high powered" attorney's per link at that thread. Have a PI.

This is all about hiring people to create reasonable doubt.

This is not what people do who are innocent. This is what people do who are guilty. JMHO.

Does anyone remember how CA was so rude to Tim Miller with TES? I do. Was that because she didn't want Caylee found?

These people need to be out, getting volunteers to search for their baby. Their behavior is not indicated to me that they have a live baby. It's indicating to me that they are defending themselves already. MOO

Hiring a lawyer doesn't bother me, in fact I think it is very wise and I suggest that DB gets one of her own but I completely agree with you on the rest. I can't begin to understand why they aren't pleading for their daughters return at every opportunity (and there would be plenty if not for that "exclusive" deal). Then there is the PI that is neither private nor licensed to investigate...what are they thinking?
 
Another thought about Jeremy.

Electricians don't work "shifts" necessarily. If he was hired by a company or Starbucks directly to do electrical work, and he had to do it in the night, then it might mean the work began after the store closed. But it wouldn't necessarily be an 8 hour job. He could have wrapped it up quickly and come home well before 4AM. If he worked alone, who would know how long he was at Starbuck's?
 
Hiring a lawyer doesn't bother me, in fact I think it is very wise and I suggest that DB gets one of her own but I completely agree with you on the rest. I can't begin to understand why they aren't pleading for their daughters return at every opportunity (and there would be plenty if not for that "exclusive" deal). Then there is the PI that is neither private nor licensed to investigate...what are they thinking?
ITA. The parents had a 7.5 minute interview with multiple Kansas City tv stations and they didn't hold up a photo. They did remember to bring the tear-inspiring Barney toy though.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Lmy0Q5U_k&feature=player_embedded"]Baby Lisa's Parents Take Questions From Reporters - YouTube[/ame]
 
I know I've indicated on here ad nauseum that I think the mom is involved somehow (accidental and then cover-up). Although that is still my main theory, I have two other thoughts:

1) if it was an intruder, I'm placing my bets on the homeless handyman who was said to have been squatting in the abandoned/demolished home. He could have been wondering around the neighborhood at night, the dogs could all be familiar with him, he could have broken into the car a few weeks ago, etc. He could also have been watching through windows and knew everyone was asleep so he felt comfortable going in. Having said that, I still think it's the mom. But if not her, then it would have to be someone very very familiar with the neighborhood/home.

2) the trip to the store: Was anything else purchases besides baby diapers, baby wipes, baby food, and wine? It seems that it was all for the baby (except the wine), almost like planning on going on a trip with the baby. Four other people lived in that home so it seems like something else would have been bought, like snacks, milk, cereal, toilet paper (just thinking of our staples whenever I go to the grocery store). Why just those items?
 
I have a theory. I don't know if I thought of it or I read hints of it elsewhere. But it's based on the weird things the parents say, and the way they speak. And on the old saying "there's an ounce of truth in every lie."

Hypothetical scenario:

Jeremy is a control freak with anger issues (I pulled that out of the air, but it could be). He goes to work. When? We strangely have never heard a word about this. Anyway, he goes to work.

Deborah goes to bed as she said. Her son comes into her room sometime after she goes to bed, and wants to sleep with her. She says ok. She "likes to sleep with" her boy(s) (she said this in one of the interviews in an awkward moment, but someone, either Jeremy or Jeanine Pirro cut her off as she said it).

Jeremy comes home. Not at 3:30 or 4, but some time before, like around 2AM. Maybe he's trying to catch her in the act of fooling around; maybe he just finished work early, maybe he was actually scheduled to come home and did. We don't know anything other than what he has said about him being at work. No employer or fellow employees have corroborated this.

So Jeremy comes home. He goes into the parent's bedroom and sees Deborah's son in bed with her. This is not allowed. He says (as she has stated in interviews) "why is he in bed with you?" but the context is not what they represented to the media. He is enraged for that and/or some other reason (wine was left out, and he's ticked off that she partied while he worked, jealousy, who knows?).

Somehow, in his anger, he harms the baby. Or accuses Deborah of being an unfit mother and says he's taking the kid to punish her. Whether he has already harmed Lisa in the house, or he hurts her later, he leaves with her. And he takes all the phones. But he calls her (on the landline?) or someone else (or texts) at around 2:30, which is when this is going on (that's if the phone call rumor is true). He goes to the river and that's where the phones and the baby's body are left. (I can't even stand to type this.)

This would explain why the odd statement and contradiction about the boy being in bed with Deborah was part of the media statement. Because it was significant (i.e., triggers his anger), but they screw up when trying to describe the events of the night - their stories don't quite synch (he went to check on the "boys" but one of the boys was right there in bed with Deborah).

And now Deborah is covering for him. Why? If he is an abuser, he may have threatened to hurt her or her son. She keeps referring to "the boys need her back...we need her back" but she never personalizes these statements to say "I want my baby back" because that's not allowed. It will cross Jeremy for her to voice disapproval at whatever he has done.

And LE somehow knows this. But they know Jeremy is cold and won't crack, so they target in on Deborah, give her a lie detector to try to get her to break and tell what she knows about Jeremy, and she does fail, because she is afraid to tell the truth. They think she's an easier target to break, so they are working on her. And that would explain her weird behavior of looking at Jeremy when she speaks (checking with him constantly to see if she's saying the right thing), and it would also explain her tearful episodes.

This could also explain her slip-up when she said "whenever we...whenever I woke up..." during one of the early media appearances. That struck me as so odd, like she caught herself saying something that did not fit with the story they were portraying. When Jeremy returned from the river, they may have gone to sleep until it was the appropriate "time" for Jeremy to come home from his shift, at which time they enacted their story as they told it to the media, pushing the screen out and calling 911..

This would assume that Jeremy's presence at work (continuously) until 3:30AM has not/cannot be corroborated. But isn't it odd that no one has spoken of when he left for work, nor verified his actual presence at work? If I missed that, forget this theory!

I can't come up with how the boys fit into this, except to note that Jeremy said in one of the interviews "the boys are sound sleepers."

I feel bad sharing this theory if it's off base, because it's the opposite of what I felt initially. But it would explain LE's continued focus on Deborah - trying to get her to crack. Then again, Jeremy could be Deborah's dupe.

Anyway, that's the theory.

BBM I picked up quickly on this anger about the boy being in bed with mom. I have only ever heard this kind of comment from one other man BEFORE his baby even arrived. He was very militant and defensive that the baby would never sleep in their bed and he felt strongly about it. It worried me and I felt pity for his wife that she would never know the joy of putting that little one in the bed and snuggling up.

The coldness and pulling away that I see in dad, reminds me of a kid when they do something wrong or embarrassing and they pull away emotionally. For example, your kid does something that hurts their pride but doesn't hurt them physically and they are furious at you.

I hope I am wrong. I hope they had some kind of argument about separating and she said she would get custody as they were not married which led him to hide Baby Lisa. That would put her with an accomplice that is taking care of her. I would love that to be the case.
 
I know I've indicated on here ad nauseum that I think the mom is involved somehow (accidental and then cover-up). Although that is still my main theory, I have two other thoughts:

1) if it was an intruder, I'm placing my bets on the homeless handyman who was said to have been squatting in the abandoned/demolished home. He could have been wondering around the neighborhood at night, the dogs could all be familiar with him, he could have broken into the car a few weeks ago, etc. He could also have been watching through windows and knew everyone was asleep so he felt comfortable going in. Having said that, I still think it's the mom. But if not her, then it would have to be someone very very familiar with the neighborhood/home.

2) the trip to the store: Was anything else purchases besides baby diapers, baby wipes, baby good, paper goods, and wine? It seems that it was all for the baby (except the wine/plates/napkins), almost like planning on going on a trip with the baby. Four other people lived in that home so it seems like something else would have been bought, like snacks, milk, cereal, toilet paper (just thinking of our staples whenever I go to the grocery store). Why just those items?
The paper plates was a "mis-reporting". All I saw in the report was baby food, baby wipes and the box of wine. No diapers.

I have no clue where the paper plates and napkins came from - but it was redacted to only wipes, baby food and box of wine.
 
ITA. The parents had a 7.5 minute interview with multiple Kansas City tv stations and they didn't hold up a photo. They did remember to bring the tear-inspiring Barney toy though.
Baby Lisa's Parents Take Questions From Reporters - YouTube

Im trying to put myself in their shoes, but I dont get it either. Hold her picture up and ask for anyone seeing anything strange in the area that night to please speak up. IDk maybe they are scared maybe this BS guy will do this for them?
 
belimom,
I don't put too much worry into the items D and friend bought at the store. I have more than a dh living in our home and it's not unusual for me to go to the store to buy meat and veggies while another family member goes to wally world to get dog food and children's school supplies.


imo
 
The paper plates was a "mis-reporting". All I saw in the report was baby food, baby wipes and the box of wine. No diapers.

I have no clue where the paper plates and napkins came from - but it was redacted to only wipes, baby food and box of wine.

Thanks, Owl... (ETA: I corrected my original post)

I guess I just find it odd that someone with three children and two adults in a home can go to the store and walk out with just three items. I can run into the grocery store for 2-3 things and never fail to come out with a dozen or so items. I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that it has anything to do with Lisa being missing - it's just a thought I had... (If it's true that she doesn't have a license - sorry, I'm behind on what's true and what's not - and she caught a ride with this person to the store, then it's even more puzzling not to buy more things since it would be like, "Oh, I got a ride to the store - let me grab a few other things while I'm here"... kwim?)

:seeya:
 
I don't know, I doubt the other children harmed their sister....... they are 6 and 8.

Kids 6 and 8 don't always think they are little kids. If they were alone with Lisa for a few minutes, even if Mom was outside on the porch, and she began to cry, one boy might choose to pick her up, without realizing a squirmy fussy baby can be hard to hold onto, or that she was now almost 30 pounds. They might also have seen Mom give the baby medicine to quiet her and decided to "help" by doing the same. It would be a total accident and Mom might not even have known what killed the baby, assuimng it was her fault. Or she may have been told by the boys and not wanted THEM to get in trouble. I DO NOT for SECOND think those boys intended to hurt their Pumpkin Pie, who kept their family united.

Unrelated thought... if the boys woke at 2:30 and there was a problem with Lisa and they discovered that Deb was sleeping too soundly to wake, or if Lisa and Deb were not home at all, they could have run around turning on the lights, and then used one of the phones to call Dad at work to tell him what was going on. Dad and Mom get home at about the same time, the boys are not in their beds and the story develops from half-truths.
 
Thanks, Owl... (ETA: I corrected my original post)

I guess I just find it odd that someone with three children and two adults in a home can go to the store and walk out with just three items. I can run into the grocery store for 2-3 things and never fail to come out with a dozen or so items. I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that it has anything to do with Lisa being missing - it's just a thought I had... (If it's true that she doesn't have a license - sorry, I'm behind on what's true and what's not - and she caught a ride with this person to the store, then it's even more puzzling not to buy more things since it would be like, "Oh, I got a ride to the store - let me grab a few other things while I'm here"... kwim?)

:seeya:

Right, if I go to the store for 2-3 items I come out with at least $50 worth of stuff. Maybe she was very short on money and only got the essentials?
 
I know I've indicated on here ad nauseum that I think the mom is involved somehow (accidental and then cover-up). Although that is still my main theory, I have two other thoughts:

1) if it was an intruder, I'm placing my bets on the homeless handyman who was said to have been squatting in the abandoned/demolished home. He could have been wondering around the neighborhood at night, the dogs could all be familiar with him, he could have broken into the car a few weeks ago, etc. He could also have been watching through windows and knew everyone was asleep so he felt comfortable going in. Having said that, I still think it's the mom. But if not her, then it would have to be someone very very familiar with the neighborhood/home.

2) the trip to the store: Was anything else purchases besides baby diapers, baby wipes, baby food, and wine? It seems that it was all for the baby (except the wine), almost like planning on going on a trip with the baby. Four other people lived in that home so it seems like something else would have been bought, like snacks, milk, cereal, toilet paper (just thinking of our staples whenever I go to the grocery store). Why just those items?

I have wondered the same thing. With two hungry boys at home, it seems odd that all she bought was baby food. And she bought almost nothing considering she went all of the way to the store. Not having a drivers license one would think she would take advantage of a ride to the store. But as you mentioned, no milk or bread or tp or anything usually needed.
 
I have wondered the same thing. With two hungry boys at home, it seems odd that all she bought was baby food. And she bought almost nothing considering she went all of the way to the store. Not having a drivers license one would think she would take advantage of a ride to the store. But as you mentioned, no milk or bread or tp or anything usually needed.

Maybe she already went on a major shopping trip the day before and forgot to get a few things. Yes, I know, how could you forget baby food?
 
I know I've indicated on here ad nauseum that I think the mom is involved somehow (accidental and then cover-up). Although that is still my main theory, I have two other thoughts:

1) if it was an intruder, I'm placing my bets on the homeless handyman who was said to have been squatting in the abandoned/demolished home. He could have been wondering around the neighborhood at night, the dogs could all be familiar with him, he could have broken into the car a few weeks ago, etc. He could also have been watching through windows and knew everyone was asleep so he felt comfortable going in. Having said that, I still think it's the mom. But if not her, then it would have to be someone very very familiar with the neighborhood/home.

2) the trip to the store: Was anything else purchases besides baby diapers, baby wipes, baby food, and wine? It seems that it was all for the baby (except the wine), almost like planning on going on a trip with the baby. Four other people lived in that home so it seems like something else would have been bought, like snacks, milk, cereal, toilet paper (just thinking of our staples whenever I go to the grocery store). Why just those items?

And I've been on ,ad nauseum saying loving mom's don't assume baby can't be saved and don't cover up an accident .......sorry : ( :seeya:

To me,anyone who would give up on their baby and discard them ,for whatever reason :waitasec:,instead of trying to get help ,would have to be so uncaring that they could also be capable of murder.I have no idea if Deb is that type. :fence:
I also don't correlate buying wipes and baby food with going on a trip. It looks like money was not abundant so Lisa may only buy whaat she needs when she needs it.
JMO
 
Maybe she already went on a major shopping trip the day before and forgot to get a few things. Yes, I know, how could you forget baby food?

DB may not have forgotten baby food. If Baby Lisa had a cold / cough, she may have only been eating certain types. And that was why the shopping trip was for only a few items.
 
Maybe she already went on a major shopping trip the day before and forgot to get a few things. Yes, I know, how could you forget baby food?

I can have a list and still forget stuff ON the list. It's easy to get side tracked in the grocery store,especially if you have kids with you ,or run into people you know who want to gab.

Lisa may have been on WIC ,with formula and other food supplied,but not enough ,especially for a baby that may be 30 lbs!


ETA: I'm really not arguing mom is innocent,despite what it sounds like. I just know enough.
 
Thanks, Owl... (ETA: I corrected my original post)

I guess I just find it odd that someone with three children and two adults in a home can go to the store and walk out with just three items. I can run into the grocery store for 2-3 things and never fail to come out with a dozen or so items. I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that it has anything to do with Lisa being missing - it's just a thought I had... (If it's true that she doesn't have a license - sorry, I'm behind on what's true and what's not - and she caught a ride with this person to the store, then it's even more puzzling not to buy more things since it would be like, "Oh, I got a ride to the store - let me grab a few other things while I'm here"... kwim?)

:seeya:

If you only have $10 and no credit you only buy what you can pay for and what you need.
My cleaning person always cashes my check when I give it to her so she can get her groceries for the week and buy gas. That's all she has to spend on groceries and gas so she's very careful.
When an extra bill comes up we find a project for her .It's worse than paycheck to paycheck.
 
Another thought about Jeremy.

Electricians don't work "shifts" necessarily. If he was hired by a company or Starbucks directly to do electrical work, and he had to do it in the night, then it might mean the work began after the store closed. But it wouldn't necessarily be an 8 hour job. He could have wrapped it up quickly and come home well before 4AM. If he worked alone, who would know how long he was at Starbuck's?

Mu hubby has a similar type job where night is required occasionally. He usually goes in around 11pm and and gets done anywhere from 4-8 am. If it takes less than 8 hrs he still gets paid for 8 that night. If the job ends up taking more than 8 hrs he gets paid overtime for those hours.

I googled Starbucks, KC and see references to several Starbucks that have been remodeled lately so maybe this is corporate wide thing. I looked at about 10 listed in the KC area and closing time varies all over the place from 6pm to 24 hr ones.

So my questions would be:
What location was he at and how far from home?
What time did he go in?
Was this a new short term schedule only?
Was he working alone or with others?
 
I hope there's a definite conclusion to this case . I want her found ,safe in a home that just wanted a baby.
If baby Lisa has passed I hope there are conclusive answers and the proper person is punished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
1,778
Total visitors
1,893

Forum statistics

Threads
601,813
Messages
18,130,212
Members
231,148
Latest member
ChriNBelusk0
Back
Top