Live MSM coverage on Baby Lisa 20 October 2011

[SDT]

There is nothing earth shattering in this article, but I like the timeline that they have put together after 16 days of Baby Lisa missing.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/19/3218089/16-days-in-the-lisa-irwin-case.html

Please let today be the day we get a break in finding this angel or what happened to her.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

I am wondering the same, the timeline the police have verified could go all the way back to the party on Sunday. If they are trying to verify from a source other than JI or DB this timeline could be 36 hours easily.

Good theory. FWIW, this could also be the reason the other children have not been allowed to answer any questions LE has.

 

[greenpalm]

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/generic/news/Lisa-Irwin-AMBER-Alert

I didnt know electric went out!

A tree trimmer?

"NBC Action News reporter Chris Hernandez witnessed the flashes of electrical light and smoke, which flared on the other side of the Irwin's next door neighbor."

Was the tree trimmer carrying a camera with a 300mm zoom lens and a press pass along with his trimming tools?

Seriously, the no fly zone was to keep the press out. Odds are someone was attempting to get up high above the scene without breaking the rules. Oops!

 

[hb2008]

The Kansas City Police Department says rumors circulating that a body has been found in the search for Lisa Irwin are not true.

NBC Action News

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

There's a term for that: Flashbulb memory.



http://www.memorylossonline.com/glossary/flashbulbmemory.html

To clear up any misunderstanding, I would like to note that while flashbulb memories are very five and people are very confident about them, they are incomplete and not always accurate (eg., Lanciano et al, 2010, Memory).

 

[AnaTeresa]

To clear up any misunderstanding, I would like to note that while flashbulb memories are very five and people are very confident about them, they are incomplete and not always accurate.

Memory is a tricky thing. I have a very good memory, bordering on photographic. I still get things wrong or misremember things from time to time. Or, in conversations with family members about certain events, my memory can shift from my perspective, towards agreeing with the general consensus over time. Memory is imperfect, and we can't rely on it 100%.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Memory is a tricky thing. I have a very good memory, bordering on photographic. I still get things wrong or misremember things from time to time. Or, in conversations with family members about certain events, my memory can shift from my perspective, towards agreeing with the general consensus over time. Memory is imperfect, and we can't rely on it 100%.

Agreed, agreed! That's why it is so damn interesting.

I am happy that you chimed in with some personal anecdotes. There are a lot of misconceptions about memory, sometimes because we don't know the facts and sometimes because even if we do, they feel very counterintuitive so the knowledge is overridden. This can have major legal consequences.

 

[Boodles]

I don't know where to post this, so here it goes.

Has anyone else noticed that in the Judge Jeanine video, when Deborah was describing the evening in question and how the boys were in the room watching a video, she says things "were pretty normal." (@0:30). Then, in another later interview (can't recall which), she said something to the same effect. In other words, she did not say, "everything was normal". She qualifies that night by saying "pretty normal" which means something was different. This stands out to me. Something was different. She's withholding whatever it was.

 

[mmmagique]

Is there a place to discuss the $100,000 reward BS mentioned?

I noticed he specifically did not say what is was for (which JT said the other night was for the safe return of a live baby Lisa) and I thought he was being disingenuous by not specifying.

Most people are going to assume that this reward like so many, are for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for whatever happened to Lisa. (or are most rewards only for the safe return...which would give people who know something but only something "bad" no incentive whatsoever to come forward?)

 

[frankie069]

I feel like I am getting somewhat of a different spin in BS's interview. I feel like yes, he wants this killer to found but him saying he is NOT working for the parents, but basically working to find out what happened to Lisa. It sounds to me like he suspects the parents deep down, does anyone else get that feeling. Whoever hired him (I didnt finish the interview yet) seems to want the truth.. OK, now back to the interview..

 

[Marah]

I don't know where to post this, so here it goes.

Has anyone else noticed that in the Judge Jeanine video, when Deborah was describing the evening in question and how the boys were in the room watching a video, she says things "were pretty normal." (@0:30). Then, in another later interview (can't recall which), she said something to the same effect. In other words, she did not say, "everything was normal". She qualifies that night by saying "pretty normal" which means something was different. This stands out to me. Something was different. She's withholding whatever it was.

Pretty normal except JI was not home?

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Some random thoughts on Bill Stanton's appearance blowkissatty!)

- Since when is shaking a baby an accident?
- Once you eliminate did Mom walk, did she drive, did Dad...? Have those been eliminated?
- Master criminals for the virtually perfect crime. Hmmm...should I send Mr. Stanton a list of the dozens of cases we're following where remains have not been located and the suspect (again often a parent) have been neither officially named or charged.
- Virtually perfect crime? Nothing is impossible but if they have found no foreign DNA, fibers, hairs, fingerprints, shoe impressions, etc than it may very well not be a perfect crime at all.
- He does admit, and I do give credit, that there is nothing to either confirm nor deny this could be an inside job but he has problems with Mom only having 5.15 hours to commit this crime...imo, that is a long time and still based on her timeline.

I didn't see the video so I don't know the context, but it could be if the shaker was a child him/herself. I did this once to my baby brother. (Mom stopped me almost immediately.) I don't know how hard or long the baby would have to be shaken by a child to cause damage.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't know where to post this, so here it goes.

Has anyone else noticed that in the Judge Jeanine video, when Deborah was describing the evening in question and how the boys were in the room watching a video, she says things "were pretty normal." (@0:30). Then, in another later interview (can't recall which), she said something to the same effect. In other words, she did not say, "everything was normal". She qualifies that night by saying "pretty normal" which means something was different. This stands out to me. Something was different. She's withholding whatever it was.

Maybe she's normally not quite as drunk?

 

[nursebeeme]

Is there a place to discuss the $100,000 reward BS mentioned?

I noticed he specifically did not say what is was for (which JT said the other night was for the safe return of a live baby Lisa) and I thought he was being disingenuous by not specifying.

Most people are going to assume that this reward like so many, are for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for whatever happened to Lisa. (or are most rewards only for the safe return...which would give people who know something but only something "bad" no incentive whatsoever to come forward?)

I will bump that thread up for you

 

[goldringstx]

I didn't see the video so I don't know the context, but it could be if the shaker was a child him/herself. I did this once to my baby brother. (Mom stopped me almost immediately.) I don't know how hard or long the baby would have to be shaken by a child to cause damage.

From what I have heard, it takes quite a bit of force and for a sustained period of time...

 

[greenpalm]

I don't know where to post this, so here it goes.

Has anyone else noticed that in the Judge Jeanine video, when Deborah was describing the evening in question and how the boys were in the room watching a video, she says things "were pretty normal." (@0:30). Then, in another later interview (can't recall which), she said something to the same effect. In other words, she did not say, "everything was normal". She qualifies that night by saying "pretty normal" which means something was different. This stands out to me. Something was different. She's withholding whatever it was.

Well, it was JIs first night shift. That wouldn't be completely normal to have him gone.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

From what I have heard, it takes quite a bit of force and for a sustained period of time...

Gotcha. ...kind of embarrassed that I don't know this, since apparently my coffee cup is a promotional item for the Shaken Baby Syndrome Assoc. hdear:

Not trying to sleuth any minors here, btw. I am just speculating that if a child was shaking a baby, usually it's not because s/he wants to hurt it, hence an accident.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I didn't see the video so I don't know the context, but it could be if the shaker was a child him/herself. I did this once to my baby brother. (Mom stopped me almost immediately.) I don't know how hard or long the baby would have to be shaken by a child to cause damage.

It's hard for a child to have the force needed to shake a baby to cause damage, but it has happened. Lisa's a bit older, though, and larger. I'm thinking it would be difficult for her brothers to have shaken her with enough force. They could, however, have hit her head against something (accidentally or intentionally), and that could have caused damage.

There can be instances of accidental shaking, but they are rare. There was a case where a baby was on a bouncy, rocker-type toy at a playground and the parent pushed the toy back and force. The shaking/rocking motion did cause an injury which mimicked shaken baby syndrome (which is somewhat-debunked and now called non-accidental injury). Short falls in certain contexts from being accidentally dropped can mimic a shaking injury as well. When we hear that a baby was accidentally shaken, we're thinking of the parent picking up the child and shaking them back and forth. There's no accident about that. But there are certain circumstances that are accidental which can either create a shaking action or mimic a shaking injury.

I just finished a case on this at work, so sorry for the long-winded opinionating. These circumstances are very rare. Furthermore, if it was an accident in the home, there's no reason not to take Lisa to the doctor or call 911. Even if you're accused of intentional harm, that's easier to defend against when there's an accident than a murder charge that eventually comes up from hiding your dead baby.

 

[greenpalm]

I feel like I am getting somewhat of a different spin in BS's interview. I feel like yes, he wants this killer to found but him saying he is NOT working for the parents, but basically working to find out what happened to Lisa. It sounds to me like he suspects the parents deep down, does anyone else get that feeling. Whoever hired him (I didnt finish the interview yet) seems to want the truth.. OK, now back to the interview..

ITA! I got that vibe in today's interview. I think he says that everything is leading him to look outside the home because he know that DB & JI are listening. Obviously they stopped cooperating with the police once an accusation was made, he doesn't want to make that mistake. I assume DB & JI ARE actually talking to BS?

 

[BritsKate]

I didn't see the video so I don't know the context, but it could be if the shaker was a child him/herself. I did this once to my baby brother. (Mom stopped me almost immediately.) I don't know how hard or long the baby would have to be shaken by a child to cause damage.

Not verbatim but he basically said if it was an accident - if the child was shaken or over-medicated...(he did not finish that thought really) -

JMO but neither is an accident.

On mechanical/physiologic grounds and by experience with perpetrators who have been convicted or confessed to the shaking, it is clear that to lift an infant and shake requires an adult or an adult-sized person.

http://www.dontshake.org/sbs.php?topNavID=3&subNavID=21