MSM coverage of Baby Lisa, 10/31/11

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
redsky said:
how would we know that the phone call was deleted from DBs cell call log (on the physical cell), if they have not found the cell phone. otherwise they/we only know that the cell companies records say that they can't see if someone deleted call from the physical phone log w/o the phone.
so much info out there today!
Click to expand...

I though they meant it was deleted off megans phone; but I could be wrong, its very hard to follow..<modsnip>
 
redsky said:
how would we know that the phone call was deleted from DBs cell call log (on the physical cell), if they have not found the cell phone. otherwise they/we only know that the cell companies records say that they can't see if someone deleted call from the physical phone log w/o the phone.
so much info out there today!
Click to expand...

I took that whole comment to mean that the phone call was erased from pinks phone log on her phone. I am sure they pulled her cell phone records as well. I could be wrong though.
 
Hey peeps! We now have a thread for discussion of the MW/Jersey connection as reported on HLN (and we are still awaiting links to online videos or transcripts to that story). The Megan and Jersey thread is right here:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153189"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153189[/ame]


Keep posting links to general MSM stories here in this thread, along with discussion that can't be split out into a topic-specific thread, and take topic-specific discussion to the appropriate thread.

:tyou:
 
I don't see what is the big deal about LE telling MW that DB had her number on her hand (if they in fact did). I understand that they wouldn't like to reveal any secret bombshell information to the witnesses for fear of endangering the integrity of the investigation but they might have thought it wouldn't be a bombshell to MW that DB had her number, they would just be telling her something that she already knew from the fact that there had been a phone call between them.

At least on cop shows they do confront the witnesses with little tidbits to show the witnesses that they know, to get them to admit the truth. (Yes I know it's not always true even if it's on TV)
 
curiositycat said:
On the night of October 14th, I believe, the man was arrested on another charged and questioned extensively by LE. They later said he was "cleared."

They released the information on October 15th. http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-lis...ated-federal-warrant-20111015,0,6040126.story
Click to expand...

I believe there is a video somewhere of Captain Young strongly emphasizing that Jersey is not directly involved. If I recall correctly, Captain SY did not even want his name released. Anyone else recall that or find the video link?
 
~n/t~ said:
Whichever way they worded it, it's now out in the media that mom had this phone number written on her hand. So of course, those who already felt mom was involved, now have her convicted to murdering her baby girl. It's sickening.

I pray they are not involved and sue the heck out of LE like the Aisenburgs did. 1.5 million!
Click to expand...


Personally, I think DB is involved in whatever has happened to her baby daughter..I'm still somewhat on the fence concerning JI's involvement, but I will say this... IF he has no knoweldge of what has happened to his daughter, he needs to grow a "set" because IMHO he is enabling her to the nth degree...She has readily admitted she was drunk that night...Not a good thing when you are supposed to be taking care of your children..JMHO

Also, DB and JI can't sue me..Reason being, this is JMHOOTS
 
epiphany said:
I believe there is a video somewhere of Captain Young strongly emphasizing that Jersey is not directly involved. If I recall correctly, Captain SY did not even want his name released. Anyone else recall that or find the video link?
Click to expand...

Did he say "not directly involved"? As in, possibly indirectly involved?

It could go either way I suppose. The police might not want someone's name released because it's an innocent person or because he is a suspect and they don't want people to know.
 
Just an FYI...New Thread created for "Jersey and Megan".

ynotdivein posted this in that thread.
Might help her out if we move the MW & JT discussions to that thread, less she will have to move.

ynotdivein said:
Holy guacamole! I'm off to bring posts here from MSM thread. Prepare for possible temporal dislocation of some of the posts in this thread since they will merge in order of the time they were posted, no matter what thread they started on.
Click to expand...
 
If JI had cable computer, he may have even had a land line. It is listed that he did/does have a land line. They could use Skype to make their calls also. He is an electrician. I would think he would have a land line in his home.
 
Donjeta said:
Did he say "not directly involved"? As in, possibly indirectly involved?

It could go either way I suppose. The police might not want someone's name released because it's an innocent person or because he is a suspect and they don't want people to know.
Click to expand...

At that time, it was just short of "innocent."
 
Heads up: Jane Velez-Mitchell will have an update on the case this hour on Issues HLN.
 
Copying over this helpful post from darnudes; HLN about to revisit the MW/Jersey item. If you can't watch on TV, there's a link here to watch online:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7304111&postcount=115"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7304111&postcount=115[/ame]
 
Think of all the innocent reasons DB could have to write a phone# on her hand the night her baby Lisa goes missing. :waitasec:
 
Donjeta said:
Did he say "not directly involved"? As in, possibly indirectly involved?

It could go either way I suppose. The police might not want someone's name released because it's an innocent person or because he is a suspect and they don't want people to know.
Click to expand...

Video at this link-1:45 forward. Very strong comments by Captain SY. "The guy is not related to this case..." And more:

http://www.kmbc.com/video/29498238/detail.html
 
Emeralgem said:
Personally, I think DB is involved in whatever has happened to her baby daughter..I'm still somewhat on the fence concerning JI's involvement, but I will say this... IF he has no knoweldge of what has happened to his daughter, he needs to grow a "set" because IMHO he is enabling her to the nth degree...She has readily admitted she was drunk that night...Not a good thing when you are supposed to be taking care of your children..JMHO

Also, DB and JI can't sue me..Reason being, this is JMHOOTS
Click to expand...

I am ducking becuase I expect rotten tomatoes to be thrown..but Em, I agree and JI should never allow DB to care for his child alone. It is irresponsible to put your child in the care of someone who has admitted to being blackout drunk while caring for them. JMO MOO and all that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 122 more.
Total: 1,715 (members: 123, guests: 1,592)

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
1,592
Total visitors
1,715
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,897
Messages
18,194,527
Members
233,628
Latest member
Lexus24
Back
Top