Man seen carrying diaper clad baby

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
These two just lost all credibility IMO, I remember her initial interview on the local news and she stated only her husband saw it. What is wrong with people???:banghead:

And this is a sample of what LE has to deal with, IMO.
 
That;s virtually a daily occurrence in that area. Nothing shocking or related IMO

Sad to say that there are areas in my town that have body's being discovered all too often. Its not just KCMO.
 
These two just lost all credibility IMO, I remember her initial interview on the local news and she stated only her husband saw it. What is wrong with people???:banghead:

She didn't state only her husband saw him. She stated her husband saw him. Which is how it happened. Her husband saw him, pointed him out to her, and then later called her to see if she could still see the man and if so, call 911.

No one said to her at that time, did you also see him?

I think sometimes we read so much into what someone omits to say, or says in an odd way, when it's just a manner of speech for her. Like, maybe she thought it lent credibility to say her husband saw this, and wasn't really given time by the reporter to say I also saw him out the window.

Her husband was outdoors, watched him for awhile, and then pointed him out to her after believing he was odd. We all, starved for details, all decided that only he had seen the man because she hadn't flushed out all the details.
 
She didn't state only her husband saw him. She stated her husband saw him. Which is how it happened. Her husband saw him, pointed him out to her, and then later called her to see if she could still see the man and if so, call 911.

No one said to her at that time, did you also see him?

I think sometimes we read so much into what someone omits to say, or says in an odd way, when it's just a manner of speech for her. Like, maybe she thought it lent credibility to say her husband saw this, and wasn't really given time by the reporter to say I also saw him out the window.

Her husband was outdoors, watched him for awhile, and then pointed him out to her after believing he was odd. We all, starved for details, all decided that only he had seen the man because she hadn't flushed out all the details.


Seems she would have said that her husband saw him "too" or "also" if she was indicating they both saw him.
 
Seems she would have said that her husband saw him "too" or "also" if she was indicating they both saw him.

And if I was interviewed about something, I am pretty sure I would start off with what I saw. Not what somebody else saw.
 
Sad to say that there are areas in my town that have body's being discovered all too often. Its not just KCMO.
But that is KCKS. hehehe different city, different state. KCMO has the same thing too but just had to add it. KC peeps will understand.
 
Well to hear it now on that HLN interview, the man walked up the street facing the husband, passed him and then walked away with his back to him. I would think the description would be better than a guy with dark pants and a white t-shirt. And that they only saw the baby's one arm and leg. :waitasec:

I'm assuming they gave a much better description to LE than what they are sharing with the news?


MOO
 
All I can think of when I try to judge some of these witnesses is the difficulty of trying to explain something well when it is being repeated and reworked by many other people. It reminds me of trying to explain oneself and the aftermath of an accident when both sides are questioning you, looking at your previous statements, and comparing them. It is hard.

We were run off the road by a clearly drunk driver and still, once their attorney got to us, we ALMOST had to split the cost of our totaled car. Luckily our insurance companies great skilled lawyer saved us, but it was hard going. The other attorney put words in my mouth and also tried to make me say some things that were not true, through twisting of my earlier deposition.

I kind of think that is what is happening to this lady. But I don't know.
 
She didn't state only her husband saw him. She stated her husband saw him. Which is how it happened. Her husband saw him, pointed him out to her, and then later called her to see if she could still see the man and if so, call 911.

No one said to her at that time, did you also see him?

I think sometimes we read so much into what someone omits to say, or says in an odd way, when it's just a manner of speech for her. Like, maybe she thought it lent credibility to say her husband saw this, and wasn't really given time by the reporter to say I also saw him out the window.

Her husband was outdoors, watched him for awhile, and then pointed him out to her after believing he was odd. We all, starved for details, all decided that only he had seen the man because she hadn't flushed out all the details.

The problem was caused by some of the worst reporting done in he case so far. If you read the article on the following link it was reported just the husband saw the guy, there is no clue the woman saw him to.


Now if you watch the video and put two and two together from what the reporter says and what the girl says you get it that she saw him too.

So far this has been the worst article and video done on the story. It mislead a lot of people.

I blame the reporter 100%.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...d-saw-man-carrying-baby-wearing-only-a-diaper
 
The problem was caused by some of the worst reporting done in he case so far. If you read the article on the following link it was reported just the husband saw the guy, there is no clue the woman saw him to.


Now if you watch the video and put two and two together from what the reporter says and what the girl says you get it that she saw him too.

So far this has been the worst article and video done on the story. It mislead a lot of people.

I blame the reporter 100%.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...d-saw-man-carrying-baby-wearing-only-a-diaper

She does not say anything on that video about herself seeing the man and the baby trough her window.
 
She does not say anything on that video about herself seeing the man and the baby trough her window.

I said you had to put two and two together from what the reporter says and the girl says. The reporter says "what she and her husband saw last night".
 
I said you had to put two and two together from what the reporter says and the girl says. The reporter says "what she and her husband saw last night".

In the same sentence where that reporter says "One woman Regretting telling the police"-that sentence makes no sense whatsoever so I am certainly not going to conclude anything based on that sentence.
 
I do not trust eye witnesses unless they are trained eyes such as LE type people.

I know of a store owner who had 2 customers in her store when a man with a sawed-off shotgun walked in to rob her. All three gave a totally different description. One had him white and about 5'10. One had him black and 6 ft and one had him mexican about 5'7.

Eye witness generally are not reliable. I will make one exception to my rule and that is prepubescent females. They are uncanny accurate with descriptions.
 
I said you had to put two and two together from what the reporter says and the girl says. The reporter says "what she and her husband saw last night".

Something like group think with these people. This happens with UFO sightings also.
 
Something like group think with these people. This happens with UFO sightings also.

I believe this lady told the same story on that first day that she is telling now. The video was just chopped up and the reporter on the video was not the same one who wrote the story. The video was edited to support the story written.

There is no way this lady did not tell the police she saw the guy too and I believe she told the reporter in the video all about her seeing the guy. Just crappy reporting.
 
The problem was caused by some of the worst reporting done in he case so far. If you read the article on the following link it was reported just the husband saw the guy, there is no clue the woman saw him to.


Now if you watch the video and put two and two together from what the reporter says and what the girl says you get it that she saw him too.

So far this has been the worst article and video done on the story. It mislead a lot of people.

I blame the reporter 100%.


http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...d-saw-man-carrying-baby-wearing-only-a-diaper
Now you see what I have been saying! I am definitely sure that is why Le wants raw video is stuff like this. What was really said vs what got published.
 
Now that I'm thinking about it, I seem to remember a show on TV where there was a bloodhound tracking someone who was taken by car. The bloodhound went for so many miles that LE had to finally put an end to it because the dog was ready to drop dead. If I'm remembering correctly, when they stopped the dog they weren't far from where the body was eventually found- off the road and into a wooded area. Cannot remember what case it was, though.
I can't remember the case but I remember them showing the bloodhound running up the interstate and on and off of exit ramps. The dog handler said that when the human scent ended, the dog picked up the unique smell of the getaway cars exhaust.
I felt so bad for that dog because he almost ran himself to death.
 
I am jumping in here late but someone said last night on TV said that it was half past 12 for the first sighting and it was 4 the second. That is only 2 and half hours, which could make it plausible. He may have stopped for a time in during the walk, or it may have taken him that long to walk the 3 miles.

No, that's 3 and a half hours. I find the idea that some dude would kidnap a baby in a diaper and then walk around with the baby for hours and hours particularly bizarre.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
1,502
Total visitors
1,681

Forum statistics

Threads
600,410
Messages
18,108,291
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top