MSM coverage of Baby Lisa, 11/6/11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know what motorcycle guy told police "about a week" after he supposedly saw a male with a baby, but when he first was asked to describe this man by the press, "all dressed in white" must have slipped his mind because he hasn't mentioned it. After the video of all white blob appeared, the man he saw was "all dressed in white." I am not impressed to say the least.
 
JeannaT said:
Does it make less sense than a cadaver dog hit on a piece of carpet, that is the evidence cited to obtain a search warrant - doesn't result in the carpet piece being removed and taken to the lab?
Click to expand...

It didnt hit on the carpet and never said it did. It hit on the side of DB's bed. They took a comforter which is probably what was on the floor. If a dead baby was laying on a comforter, and the dog hit on that why pull up the carpet. I am sure the decomp smell was on the comforter itself. All they said was a hit on the "floor", they didnt say on the carpet or a blanket, it was a blanket they took though. So yes it makes sense.
 
jjenny said:
Nowhere. We all know that's not what search warrant said.
Click to expand...

JeannaT said:
In the search warrant. It says on the floor by the bed in the master bedroom.

(there are some who say it might have hit on an item that was on the floor, but to me that doesn't hold up because then they'd just say it. A quilt on the floor. A toy on the floor. A weapon on the floor. I don't think LE has been at all sloppy in this investigation, and to say the cadaver dog hit was on the floor when instead it was on an item, doesn't make sense).
Click to expand...
This would be a good time to link and quote the specific passages exactly.

TIA.
 
JBean said:
This would be a good time to link and quote the specific passages exactly.

TIA.
Click to expand...

http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552734.pdf
Search Warrant

The affidavit also revealed that "On October 17, 2011, an FBI cadaver dog was brought into the residence upon consent of (Jeremy) Irwin and Bradley. The cadaver dog indicated a positive 'hit' for the scent of a deceased human in an area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed."

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/29552254/detail.html#ixzz1cwYh652r

Items taken include: a multicolor comforter, purple shorts, a multicolor Disney character shirt, a Glo Worm toy, a "Cars"-themed blanket, rolls of tape and a tape dispenser.
 
JBean said:
This would be a good time to link and quote the specific passages exactly.

TIA.
Click to expand...

Um hm. I think you can find the search warrant by googling "Search Warrant Lisa Irwin".

I think everyone in this conversation knows what the search warrant said, and I'm choosing to believe them when they say "floor". I understand that not everyone in this conversation believes they were accurate in describing the location of the dog hit.
 
JeannaT said:
Um hm. I think you can find the search warrant by googling "Search Warrant Lisa Irwin".

I think everyone in this conversation knows what the search warrant said, and I'm choosing to believe them when they say "floor". I understand that not everyone in this conversation believes they were accurate in describing the location of the dog hit.
Click to expand...

The search warrant doesn't say a thing about "carpet." A rug could have been on the floor. Something else could have been on the floor. The LE could have been deliberately vague in the search warrant because they knew it would become public.
 
JeannaT said:
Um hm. I think you can find the search warrant by googling "Search Warrant Lisa Irwin".

I think everyone in this conversation knows what the search warrant said, and I'm choosing to believe them when they say "floor". I understand that not everyone in this conversation believes they were accurate in describing the location of the dog hit.
Click to expand...

They probably did not want it known exactly where the hit was.
 
JeannaT said:
In the search warrant. It says on the floor by the bed in the master bedroom.

(there are some who say it might have hit on an item that was on the floor, but to me that doesn't hold up because then they'd just say it. A quilt on the floor. A toy on the floor. A weapon on the floor. I don't think LE has been at all sloppy in this investigation, and to say the cadaver dog hit was on the floor when instead it was on an item, doesn't make sense).
Click to expand...
No. It said "in an area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed".

http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf
 
JeannaT said:
Um hm. I think you can find the search warrant by googling "Search Warrant Lisa Irwin".

I think everyone in this conversation knows what the search warrant said, and I'm choosing to believe them when they say "floor". I understand that not everyone in this conversation believes they were accurate in describing the location of the dog hit.
Click to expand...
I hope this is not the response most members get when they politely ask for information.
If you state something as fact and a member asks for back up-particularly when 2 statements of fact directly contradict one another-it is good form to support your statement.
hope that helps.
 
cluciano63 said:
They probably did not want it known exactly where the hit was.
Click to expand...

Well, sure. In that case, they would have said "on an item located on the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed".

They wouldn't just state it incorrectly, that the hit was on the floor if the hit was on a different item, not the floor.

I just believe them. They seem thorough, and careful, right down to removing "tape" and a "tape dispenser" instead of just calling the item they removed "tape". They're being careful to get this thing right.

So. Seems to me the hit was on the floor. But the second dog didn't confirm that, so it was discarded and the rest of the home searched for other evidence.

IMHO.
 
JBean said:
I hope this is not the response most members get when they politely ask for information.
If you state something as fact and a member asks for back up-particularly when 2 statements of fact directly contradict one another-it is good form to support your statement.
hope that helps.
Click to expand...

If someone hadn't come along within the minute and posted the search warrant, I was fully prepared to do it.

As it is, the search warrant with the information requested was posted very quickly, by the time I was ready to start the search.

I had actually found the search warrant, but it was in PDF form and I couldn't "zoom" the text enough to read it, so I checked back on the board and saw someone else had already posted it.
 
JeannaT said:
I'm confused. How is that different from what I said?
Click to expand...

Really? OK..... You said (Bolded by me)

JeannaT said:
Does it make less sense than a cadaver dog hit on a piece of carpet, that is the evidence cited to obtain a search warrant - doesn't result in the carpet piece being removed and taken to the lab?
Click to expand...

The search warrant say's: "in an area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed". Very different IMO.

Also I will say that the "an area of" (The floor) is deliberate language LE used so has not to name the specific item they are talking about IMO.

And to be fair I will say as much as I personally trust these dogs (and their training) it is all moot unless forensics find physical evidence to back the "hit" up.
 
JeannaT said:
Well, sure. In that case, they would have said "on an item located on the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed".

They wouldn't just state it incorrectly, that the hit was on the floor if the hit was on a different item, not the floor.

I just believe them. They seem thorough, and careful, right down to removing "tape" and a "tape dispenser" instead of just calling the item they removed "tape". They're being careful to get this thing right.

So. Seems to me the hit was on the floor. But the second dog didn't confirm that, so it was discarded and the rest of the home searched for other evidence.

IMHO.
Click to expand...

BBM
I've never read anywhere where a second dog didn't confirm it and that the first hit was discarded. Right about now, we have no idea what further evidence LE has. We don't even know if there were other hits on that property.

ETA: There is a thread here for the cadaver dog hit and I think we've discussed this at length here ... [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152518"]Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
 
The floor is the bottom of the room. So, yes, there may be carpeting on it. And there may also be a rug on top of the carpet. Or, there might be a blanket or a comforter on top of the carpet. An area of the floor might well comprise one or all of those things, not just the actual floor (probably wooden sub-flooring). I think it likely that LE would be at least somewhat non-specific as to what the scent was actually on, so that no one can say, oh, yes, we wrapped our dying granny in that blanket, or I got that comforter from the Goodwill. Anyone who wants to offer a reason as to why the dog might alert on something will have to know what particular item needs 'excusing'. If this case comes to trial, the actual item will be fully disclosed.
 
curiousc said:
BBM
I've never read anywhere where a second dog didn't confirm it and that the first hit was discarded. Right about now, we have no idea what further evidence LE has. We don't even know if there were other hits on that property.

ETA: There is a thread here for the cadaver dog hit and I think we've discussed this at length here ... Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Click to expand...

I never read that either. Do we have a link that a second dog didnt hit the parents room. I believe LE hasnt even been back in that house again, never mind with dogs. They would need another warrant to do that. THAT is not something you can hide. TIA for the link..
 
JeannaT said:
Well, sure. In that case, they would have said "on an item located on the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed".

They wouldn't just state it incorrectly, that the hit was on the floor if the hit was on a different item, not the floor.

I just believe them. They seem thorough, and careful, right down to removing "tape" and a "tape dispenser" instead of just calling the item they removed "tape". They're being careful to get this thing right.

So. Seems to me the hit was on the floor. But the second dog didn't confirm that, so it was discarded and the rest of the home searched for other evidence.

IMHO.
Click to expand...

For purposes of obtaining a search warrant, I don't believe LE has to be specific about what item(s) the hit was made on, just that it was made. I can easily see LE saying "an area of the floor" rather than "an area of the floor containing x, y and z," especially when they wanted the SW sealed but knew that it might not be.

It is not necessarily a matter of their stating it incorrectly, but rather possibly stating it incompletely, with the bare minimum needed to obtain the search warrant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 130 more.
Total: 2,095 (members: 131, guests: 1,964)

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
1,964
Total visitors
2,095
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,637
Messages
18,127,640
Members
231,113
Latest member
SWilkie1985
Back
Top