MO - Lisa Irwin, 10 months, Kansas City, 4 Oct 2011 - #5

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
oh_gal said:
I know next to nothing about polygraphs, so I'll apologize in advance if this sounds stupid. OK...they decide not to give dad a polygraph because he can account for his whereabouts, but wouldn't they also want to ask him if he had any knowledge of what could have happened to the baby, or any knowledge of anyone else who might have reason to do this?

I get that having him have an alibi accounts for his whereabouts...but that only seems like part of what they could have asked him in a polygraph.
Click to expand...

My thoughts are the same. Why was the dad not polygraphed? Doesn't make sense. Hypothetical...but what if something happened to baby BEFORE he went to work and they panicked and dad buried baby or something. So just because his whereabouts are accounted for does not disqualify him from being a person of interest. NOT saying he is hiding anything or that baby is not alive...just merely pointing out why I believe he should have been polygraphed too.
 
cluciano63 said:
I believe LE has reasons for coming forward as they did last night. I think they have some evidence or info that they are not ready to release. Just my opinion, as I have no reason to believe this LE is unprofessional or narrow-minded. Maybe I will be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

I am with you on this. They know something. I could also be wrong, but I don't think so.
 
Oh come on, give the news, if it is important...don't wait for the top of the hour, good grief...
 
It'll be interesting to see what Fox has to say, although when they have true "breaking news" they break in with it. When they have some sort of nothing tidbit to say, they tease with it and make you stay tuned.
 
Duke Fan4 said:
TOP OF THE HOUR!!! FOX NEWS CHANNEL ON CABLE no link
Click to expand...

But, but...that's like 7 minutes from now!!! I need info now!! (clearly I have an issue with patience...)

Thanks for the heads-up. :)
 
Just-a-Guy said:
I'm curious the thinking behind "were probably approached"? Are you aware that there are ethical rules prohibiting lawyers from soliciting clients in that manner? Possible you are not aware of such rules, as they've only been in place for a couple of decades.
Click to expand...

Is this for every state, because if I even get a speeding ticket in my state, I will have letters within a couple of days, to hire a lawyer to get me out of it!!!
 
cindysue said:
Well the way i look at it is ...if the parents are guilty ..why then release the neighbors dog..unless that was a completely unrelated event.
Click to expand...

Well, if they were doing something back in that area of the grounds/woods with Lisa or cell phones, they would release the dog so the dog wasn't penned up barking at them.
 
Lavanda Dolce said:
My thoughts are the same. Why was the dad not polygraphed? Doesn't make sense. Hypothetical...but what if something happened to baby BEFORE he went to work and they panicked and dad buried baby or something. So just because his whereabouts are accounted for does not disqualify him from being a person of interest. NOT saying he is hiding anything or that baby is not alive...just merely pointing out why I believe he should have been polygraphed too.
Click to expand...

I am wondering if the children were able to give them some information that baby was indeed in the home and LE was able to confirm that the dad was indeed at work and could be accounted for. I have a feeling during the interview with the mother is where all the inconsistencies occurred, which is why they aren't interested in the dad. Imagine being in that position and you were told that they only wanted a poly from you, and not your husband. That alone may make her break down and tell them what they want to know. They are targeting her for some reason. Maybe it's that she just knows something that she hasn't divulged, but may not be actually involved other than a witness.
 
If Le does have evidence...I bet they are dying to release that fact, as the parents seem to be spending their time on making LE look bad, IMO...
 
Seeing how it is Fox...my hopes are not sky-high...JMO
 
Duke Fan4 said:
FOX NEWS CHANNEL NEWS ALERT TOP OF THE HOUR

Piece of evidence causing focus on parents
Click to expand...

Interesting. I suspected that was the reason LE were focused on mom. Can't wait to hear what the evidence is.
 
cluciano63 said:
If Le does have evidence...I bet they are dying to release that fact, as the parents seem to be spending their time on making LE look bad, IMO...
Click to expand...

The family is making LE look bad? I don't see it that way at ALL. LE is making the family look bad, by publicly stating they aren't cooperating, and the family has been gracious and thankful and said they aren't not cooperating, and they are grateful for all LE has done to help.

LE looks bad because of what they've done, IMHO, not what the family has done.
 
Statistically speaking....

"Parents were responsible for 61% of children murders under the age of five"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 211 more.
Total: 508 (members: 212, guests: 296)

Online statistics

Members online
212
Guests online
296
Total visitors
508
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,527
Messages
18,240,600
Members
234,390
Latest member
Roberto859
Back
Top