ME ME - Ayla Reynolds, 20 mnths, Waterville, 17 December 2011 - # 3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
But we only get that information, that he was keeping the child from doctor's care, from the mother's side. So we do not really know if it is a fact. Maybe he had found her a doctor in his town and was having the records sent over?

I do not know. Maybe he is the perp. But so far I am only hearing Mom's side of things. And I am wondering why. Maybe it is because dad and his extended family are guilty as He!!. But maybe it is because they have been told to lay low because LE knows more than we think they do. ????

It's seems really quite simple to me - the father's family isn't talking because maybe they are scared, and they don't want to be the ones to implicate either the Dad, his girlfriend, or someone else in the family. JMOO :cow:

The mother really has nothing to do with this "crime" because she wasn't there, and whatever disputes they had over doctors might be important in the timeline or to show the father's state of mind, but we can't prove anything from all that so it's all conjecture.

The bottom line for me is that Daddy had custody, he's a grown-up, the people in his house were his friends, and the child was in his family home. That's what LE looks at and why they've searched and searched around his house - end of story. :twocents:
 
It's seems really quite simple to me - the father's family isn't talking because maybe they are scared, and they don't want to be the ones to implicate either the Dad, his girlfriend, or someone else in the family. JMOO :cow:

The mother really has nothing to do with this "crime" because she wasn't there, and whatever disputes they had over doctors might be important in the timeline or to show the father's state of mind, but we can't prove anything from all that so it's all conjecture.

The bottom line for me is that Daddy had custody, he's a grown-up, the people in his house were his friends, and the child was in his family home. That's what LE looks at and why they've searched and searched around his house - end of story. :twocents:

I know that is the simplest answer, and it is the most likely one. But it is not the only possibility. We don't know , for sure, that the dad was the perp here. His car has been returned to him and his home has been returned as of today, I believe.

FBI seems to be focussing on the side window and the driveway. And the shed outside. IMO, that implies a possible abduction. But I may be wrong.

I am not clearing the mom just because she seemed to be not involved. She may have sent someone to take the child for her, imo. I don't know. She may have convinced somebody that the baby was being abused and needed to be saved. ???
 
State troopers using surveying equipment appeared to be taking measurements from the driveway to the home at 29 Violette Ave. where Ayla lived with her father, Justin DiPietro.

A window of the modest vinyl-sided house on the driveway side of DiPietro's house had been removed and appeared to be part of the measuring detail.


http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/foul-play-now-suspected-in-ayla-
case_2011-12-30.html

aylasearch+copy.jpg



I was curious of what that piece of piece of specialized equipment they they were using to in the picture from your link. Below is a somewhat similar station.

Leica%201.jpg




This is what the other station I am adding for comparison does:

“This machine can catalog and measure entire rooms, buildings, or outdoor crime scenes to preserve that information forever,” says Chris Collins, Erie County Executive. “Law enforcement officials can then go back and see a 3-D bird’s eye view of the crime scene if need be years later.”
It essentially does for crime scenes what Google Earth did for neighborhoods and streets.

The $175,000 device (paid for with Homeland Security funds) won’t be used for every crime scene, but will instead getting dusted off for homicides, fatal accidents, some fires and disasters.
Mostly the camera will be used corroborate information given by witnesses, which often pop up days or weeks after a crime scene has been cleaned up.

“We could actually take the witness [who says] they were standing at a certain point. We can put them in that video, make that point on that video and see exactly what they would see,” says John Simic, Public Safety Lab Director of Erie County.


This kind of access to the past could come in handy in establishing a witness’s credibility - evidence gathered with the machines has withstood court challenges in other parts of the country.

And local investigators have been waiting for a tool like this.
“Obviously, the most important thing is to go back after a crime scene has been cleaned, and if there’s a piece of evidence or a measurement that you need, this scan station will be able to do that, literally within seconds,” says Peter Vito, Central Police Services Commissioner.

http://innovationtrail.org/post/3-d-camera-keeps-crime-scenes-intact


Although they may just be taking shots for other investigators or document distances, there maybe a possibility they have a witness that has come forward (even to seeing a vehicle) and they are checking sight distancing IDK? I am think it is a possibility due to the picture of investigators doing this from the neighbors yard, with a big dose of wishful thinking on my part.

ETA >> Sorry I don't know how to post these pictures.
 
I am really curious about that car sound the witness heard. One report said it was at 3:30 am. I am curious why a kidnapper would rev their engine or be so noisy at that late hour? Why wouldn't they pull in quietly, or park down the road a bit?
 
I very respectfully disagree with this alternative theory, the fact that daddy would even consider NOT taking Ayla to the doctors because mummy wanted to go with him doesn't make sense. Again who would deny his baby girl medical attention because he had a beef with the mother. Not only this but he did take her to the doctors until he just didn't or more likely was no longer able to for whatever reason. One presumes if he ever or if whoever has her needs that cast removed there will be problems as her records will come into play. Unless of course this wonderful father hacks it off himself.

We don't know he didnt take her to the appt, we only know he told the mom he wasn't going to take her. It was also a soft cast so removable.
 
I've been thinking....what if, and its a pretty big if, the dad really didn't have anything to do with this, but has an inkling of who actually did do it? If you look at the very carefully crafted statements he has made, it seems like they could be directed to an individual. Since LE is responsible for releasing these, I don't think its a stretch to think they may have had a hand in crafting them. Could this be why there is no media seeking on the father's side? Perhaps LE is afraid that the family could inadvertently provoke the kidnapper? Admittedly, I don't know much about how LE handles these things, but I would think if they had a suspect in mind, but didn't know where he/she was, they would have to proceed very slowly and cautiously for fear that the kidnapper would harm the child to hide evidence of the crime.

Again, not saying I even believe this, but I wanted to throw the possibility out there.


BBM: Respectfully disagree ...

JMO, but I do NOT believe LE is "responsible" for these statements -- this is a CHOICE made by Justin ...

Again, JMO ... but I think Justin had his statements released THRU LE because he does NOT want to reveal whether or not he has "lawyered up" ... I am "guessing" that he probably has already consulted a lawyer -- because IMO, his 1st Statement seemed like something a lawyer would write ...

I am "guessing" that IF he had the lawyer release the statement, he would be looked at more closely as the GUILTY ONE -- which IMO, I think he is -- MOO ...

Justin has chosen to RELEASE 2 written Statements ... AND ...

Justin has chosen NOT to directly SPEAK to the MSM ...

This is very telling IMO ... I think Justin gave those statements to LE to release -- to make it "LOOK LIKE" he is "cooperating" ... but in reality, I am "betting" that LE is keeping a close eye on him because they KNOW that "something ain't right" with Justin's "story" ...

JMO and MOO ...
 
FBI seems to be focussing on the side window and the driveway. And the shed outside. IMO, that implies a possible abduction. But I may be wrong.

I am not clearing the mom just because she seemed to be not involved. She may have sent someone to take the child for her, imo. I don't know. She may have convinced somebody that the baby was being abused and needed to be saved. ???

Exactly. We don't know what details investigators have found and if there is any indication of entry, ie the window, and thats what turned the corner or term usage in the investigation. The obvious answer without knowing that is someone in the home, aka dad, but we just don't know and that leaves outside involvement including the mom open to speculation. I can't just think no way because her demeanor is different etc..
 
snippets from : http://www.pressherald.com/news/the-tale-of-the-tape_2012-01-01.html

A manual for investigating missing-child cases, used by police across the country, indicates that the house on Violette Avenue should have been "sealed" soon after the first investigators arrived Dec. 17.

"I don't know why they didn't put crime-scene tape up before they did, but I have to believe they're gathering evidence as they should," said Chuck Drago, of Oviedo, Fla., a retired police chief and cabinet member and adviser to former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.


The yellow ribbon went up Dec. 22, the same day that two of the state's top homicide prosecutors, William Stokes and Andrew Benson, visited the house. Chief Massey told reporters that investigators were expanding the search of the house and going "through that as thoroughly as we can."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting Article


JMO ... but I think when babies go "missing" from their home, LE needs to treat the home as a "crime scene" IMMEDIATELY ... and put that yellow tape up as soon as they get there ... and let NO one else in ...

I know ... LE's priority is to immediately find the child and start searching ...

But there have been way too many cases lately where it is quite "obvious" that these babies were NOT "randomly taken" by a "kidnapper" ... and there were people going in and out of the house, contaminating the crime scene ...

JMO and MOO ...
 
BBM: Respectfully disagree ...

JMO, but I do NOT believe LE is "responsible" for these statements -- this is a CHOICE made by Justin ...

Again, JMO ... but I think Justin had his statements released THRU LE because he does NOT want to reveal whether or not he has "lawyered up" ... I am "guessing" that he probably has already consulted a lawyer -- because IMO, his 1st Statement seemed like something a lawyer would write ...

I am "guessing" that IF he had the lawyer release the statement, he would be looked at more closely as the GUILTY ONE -- which IMO, I think he is -- MOO ...

Justin has chosen to RELEASE 2 written Statements ... AND ...

Justin has chosen NOT to directly SPEAK to the MSM ...

This is very telling IMO ... I think Justin gave those statements to LE to release -- to make it "LOOK LIKE" he is "cooperating" ... but in reality, I am "betting" that LE is keeping a close eye on him because they KNOW that "something ain't right" with Justin's "story" ...

JMO and MOO ...

i don't know, LE hasn't ruled anyone out that we know of so IMO they are keeping a close eye on everyone thats potentially involved. Others have said that since LE hasn't said JD not involved than he must be who they're looking at, but by that test TR hasn't been ruled out either.
 
I don't see why LE can't seal off a home as a crime scene AND begin searching at the same time, these activities usually involve different employees anyway...
 
Not to take this off track, but curious. We obviously have differing opinions as to what public statements versus no public statements means in cases such as these and it got me thinking, what is too much and what is too little? In Lisa Irwin's case, the parents are criticized for too much media focus and not enough investigation focus. In this case, the mom is media focused whereas the dad seems presumably more investigation focused, but yet the mom is credited for that as being more interested and concerned. Seems contradictory, just an observation on how similar things can be perceived so differently and it's probably our inner voices or perceptions that cause the same things to be perceived differently. If that makes sense!
 
JMO, but I do NOT believeLEis"responsible"forthesestatements-- thisisa CHOICEmade by Justin
You're right....this was a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was that this statement was passed through LE, and I speculated that LE may have at least made sure that it wasn't inflammatory or provacative. JMO of course.

I have no idea whether or not any of the parties has consulted an attorney, but I do know that LE has stated that the parents are cooperating.

Eta...sorry the quote looks so bad. I'm posting from a kindle and haven't quite got the hang of it yet.
 
The reason I now doubt that this child was kidnapped in a custodial manner is because of the use of words "foul play", which by the legal definition means harm has come to her. If they had said this is now a "criminal investigation" that might still indicate custodial kidnapping ,perhaps, but to me, this is now a case of harm having come to Ayla, not her having been hidden away by her mother or another relative. Also, they used the word "evidence" in conjunction with foul play. Perhaps I am reading too much into the legal sense of the word.
 
Not to take this off track, but curious. We obviously have differing opinions as to what public statements versus no public statements means in cases such as these and it got me thinking, what is too much and what is too little? In Lisa Irwin's case, the parents are criticized for too much media focus and not enough investigation focus. In this case, the mom is media focused whereas the dad seems presumably more investigation focused, but yet the mom is credited for that as being more interested and concerned. Seems contradictory, just an observation on how similar things can be perceived so differently and it's probably our inner voices or perceptions that cause the same things to be perceived differently. If that makes sense!

People not talking even though they are close to the missing person is a serious problem in many cases, not just missing child cases. There are several missing women cases where the husbands and families have clammed up or lawyered up (Gail Palmgren, Holly Bobo, Karen Swift).

Meanwhile, friends or family who speak out or seem at least concerned are often viewed as prime suspects even if they were far away and are only expressing fear or grief. I don't get it myself. :waitasec:

For instance, the first time I ever heard about the Laci Peterson case, I saw Scott Peterson trying to hide under a ball cap as he walked past the cameras. Wanting to hide turned out to be a signal of guilt. Then he blabbed to the cameras on Good Morning America and that turned out to be his downfall because it was used in court against him. My guess is that many of these silent people have learned something from watching other cases unfold, so they stay quiet.

It's a choice but what people have to understand is that it does tend to make that person sometimes seem cold or distant towards the missing person, in my opinion.

In the Baby Lisa Irwin case, the mother said a lot in the beginning about drinking and deserving to have "adult time" away from the kids, and then someone told her to shut up because she was nearly incriminating herself, at least for neglect. The father has stayed quiet nearly the whole time, whether from fear or shock, it's hard to tell.

In this case, the mother was honest and spoke out from the beginning, but now she's being judged for being in rehab and even for not speaking proper English, which wasn't a crime the last time I checked. :twocents: I feel sorry for the woman because there's just no way she was in that house on that night, nor did she just drive up and walk in there at midnight. I just don't see how that could have happened.
 
People not talking even though they are close to the missing person is a serious problem in many cases, not just missing child cases. There are several missing women cases where the husbands and families have clammed up or lawyered up (Gail Palmgren, Holly Bobo, Karen Swift).

Meanwhile, friends or family who speak out or seem at least concerned are often viewed as prime suspects even if they were far away and are only expressing fear or grief. I don't get it myself. :waitasec:

For instance, the first time I ever heard about the Laci Peterson case, I saw Scott Peterson trying to hide under a ball cap as he walked past the cameras. Wanting to hide turned out to be a signal of guilt. Then he blabbed to the cameras on Good Morning America and that turned out to be his downfall because it was used in court against him. My guess is that many of these silent people have learned something from watching other cases unfold, so they stay quiet.

It's a choice but what people have to understand is that it does tend to make that person sometimes seem cold or distant towards the missing person, in my opinion.

In the Baby Lisa Irwin case, the mother said a lot in the beginning about drinking and deserving to have "adult time" away from the kids, and then someone told her to shut up because she was nearly incriminating herself, at least for neglect. The father has stayed quiet nearly the whole time, whether from fear or shock, it's hard to tell.

In this case, the mother was honest and spoke out from the beginning, but now she's being judged for being in rehab and even for not speaking proper English, which wasn't a crime the last time I checked. :twocents: I feel sorry for the woman because there's just no way she was in that house on that night, nor did she just drive up and walk in there at midnight. I just don't see how that could have happened.

Such great observations, thanks! Perceptions are strange and contradictory for sure, leaves me puzzled.

On this, with the mom, agreed she shouldn't be judged for speaking or HOW she speaks. I believe she has genuine concern for her daughter, but I'm not yet certain she doesn't have anything to do with anything, although if it is that harm has come to that poor baby, I am certain that she wouldn't have anything to do with that for sure. The window throws me off, makes me think there was some entry there maybe and that would point to abduction. I just wish we knew more facts I guess.
 
Maybe the window showed signs of tampering but LE does not believe it was from the outside, or by someone coming in from the outside...maybe it made to look like it was opened and used? Everything is a maybe right now, at least for us.

Also, as far as Mom, at first she said Ayla had missed her doctor's appointment and then in a later interview she said that Dad told her he wasn't taking her, when she called to ask him. So maybe she checked and found out that indeed Ayla had missed the appointment, which would go along with her early remarks about wondering when Ayla was actually last seen.
 
I think it was stated early on that she has a baby with her now...which is why some wondered why he was not taken when she went to rehab, but then maybe his father is not at all involved in the baby's life? I don't think anything has been clarified re: this other child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
2,643
Total visitors
2,790

Forum statistics

Threads
603,260
Messages
18,154,149
Members
231,689
Latest member
Cnc1967
Back
Top