Mystery Man Surveillance

[marge_rita]

I don't really care what specific questions DB is unwilling to answer just as I don't care why she refused to allow LE to re-interview the children. Innocent people answer all questions fully and truthfully and don't ever go to the media and whine.JMO

bbm
:seeya: Post of the day.

imo

 

[MyBelle]

I know that. I'm not disputing she (MK) said that on camera, just don't know if she really did get confirmation from LE or DB herself.

She said it was from LE.

 

[mysteriew]

Trust me, I hope that I am wrong as well. However, there are so many things that so far could have been done better. And it is going to be a defense lawyers dream to get a case like this in front of them. We thought that Casey Anthony getting away with murder stung, this case could very well turn out the same way.

The mystery man should have been looked at completely by LE. Track the man down. Find out who he had with him that night and if they can't find him then they need to look harder and ask for help from the FBI or the public. By not doing so they are just opening the door at a trial for reasonable doubt.

MOO

BBM

Do we know that they didn't? LE has no obligation to inform the public of what the evidence is and no obligation to report if they rule leads out. And this particular LE has consistently not reported to the public what they are doing. Evidently they feel that is best for the investigation and I can live with that.

But we don't know if they went to the home the man reportedly seemed to enter and determined that there was an innocent explanation for the story. And they probably won't. Because if they did, some smart aleck would be trying to find out the man's name and address and media would be overwhelming that family. Eventually if this ever goes to trial, this will come up again, and undoubtedly will be used as a part of the defense to cause doubt. And this family will pay for what will probably be an innocent activity.

Earlier many didn't think that LE was paying much attention to "Jersey." But as it turned out, LE was talking to neighbors about him and apparently did talk to him even before he was arrested. They just weren't talking about it to media.

 

[AngelWings444]

She said it was from LE.

I know that. Doesn't mean it was factual. Nor do we know if it's fair and balanced. Did you see Geraldo tonight? Same news network. Why in the world would LE give an exclusive to Fox News? I don't see that happening. JMO! :waitasec:

 

[dovebar]

Sadly, this has happened before, and in many cases - cops follow what they think is their hottest lead and discount anything that contradicts their theory.

In this, they are only doing what other humans do, which is form a conclusion based on early evidence, and then it's harder for new evidence to get through. So they attended a course, for instance, in child abduction, in which they learned a parent is often involved. They meet DB, they don't like this plump lower-class woman who didn't initially tell them she was drunk that night and now they're off and running in this direction. Yes, cops fail to follow leads. This is why wealthy families hire private investigators. This is why many cases are never solved. This is why Jaycee Dugard was missing for many years. The leads were there, the cops didn't follow them - until two unusual female campus cops got an intuition about a guy that a lot of male cops and probation officers thought was just an okay guy. Those cops followed the lead and found Jaycee.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there aren't a lot of hard-working LE on the case. But I believe that at the top, there is a mentality that they staked out early on a certain belief - including believing the husband without much verification - and they put manpower into the scenario against DB.

 

[AngelWings444]

My opinion is LE never told MK that DB failed her polygraph "miserably." I don't believe LE told the media anything that we haven't heard ourselves. JMO

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

 

[mysteriew]

Sure they would - as others have pointed out, cops do it all the time, either because they're corrupt or because they can say, sorry, it was a false hit.

Second, it would only work if one or the other or both hurt the child. LE thinks that's what happened, so that is the playbook they are drawing from. It's hard to investigate a stranger abduction. That's why they are doing what they think is easier. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have worked.

Actually this scenario is one of the hardest ever to prosecute. The evidence has to be clear and sufficient enough to overcome the public perception that parents/mothers don't kill their own children. They not only have to provide that evidence, they have to clear reasonable doubt. Which means no one with any motive that was available to commit this crime. That the crime couldn't have been committed in this way by a stranger. And that the story as presented by the parents was unlikely to have occurred. That is why they did all the reenactments. But even then it would be difficult to prove in court. Believe me this is not the easy way.

The easiest way would be for them to say that a stranger committed this crime. Everyone knows a stranger crime is the hardest to solve and often goes unsolved. Do some searches, find nothing, and then move on to the next crime. It happens all the time. People are used to it. That is what would be the easiest.

 

[Turnadot]

Well, I can't even tell if the person in the vid is a man, but I concede others have better eyes than mine and can tell it's a dude.

I hope this person comes forward, then again, if he/she followed the Anthony trial, they may not and I can't say I would blame then. I wouldn't want to be the next Kronk either.

But...

It's more likely the MSM that have this tape are making a lot out of this for ratings and the such. The MSM will glom on to any darn thing so long as it gets ratings. Of course, only LE can say for sure the relevance of the *blob*. They have been handling this case very well and I don't see a reason yet to think they are f'n up.

As easy as it might be to accuse LE of dropping the ball, there's no factual basis to claim that because we don't know everything that they do. And we won't unless they choose to share. It's too soon to accuse LE of railroading the parents and dismissing real evidence. And though I'm hanging off the fence by my teeth, leaning towards DB harming Lisa, it's too early for me to say with certainty that DB did anything to Lisa. I really don't know.

MSM are getting ahead of themselves as they usually do and are taking viewers along for the ride. Until LE confirms a suspect, I'm going to ride the fence as long as I can.

Perhaps the reason LE isn't taking the tape seriously (if they aren't) is because they know a helluva lot more than we do and already know the *blob* is irrelevant to finding Lisa. We have no idea what evidence LE has, so it would be erroneous for me accuse this LEA of failing to follow leads. Perhaps they are following all relevant leads.

We simply have no way of knowing.


IMO

 

[mysteriew]

Sadly, this has happened before, and in many cases - cops follow what they think is their hottest lead and discount anything that contradicts their theory.

In this, they are only doing what other humans do, which is form a conclusion based on early evidence, and then it's harder for new evidence to get through. So they attended a course, for instance, in child abduction, in which they learned a parent is often involved. They meet DB, they don't like this plump lower-class woman who didn't initially tell them she was drunk that night and now they're off and running in this direction. Yes, cops fail to follow leads. This is why wealthy families hire private investigators. This is why many cases are never solved. This is why Jaycee Dugard was missing for many years. The leads were there, the cops didn't follow them - until two unusual female campus cops got an intuition about a guy that a lot of male cops and probation officers thought was just an okay guy. Those cops followed the lead and found Jaycee.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there aren't a lot of hard-working LE on the case. But I believe that at the top, there is a mentality that they staked out early on a certain belief - including believing the husband without much verification - and they put manpower into the scenario against DB.

BBM

Can you point me to one lead that we know conclusively that LE has not checked out?

 

[Turnadot]

Sadly, this has happened before, and in many cases - cops follow what they think is their hottest lead and discount anything that contradicts their theory.

In this, they are only doing what other humans do, which is form a conclusion based on early evidence, and then it's harder for new evidence to get through. So they attended a course, for instance, in child abduction, in which they learned a parent is often involved. They meet DB, they don't like this plump lower-class woman who didn't initially tell them she was drunk that night and now they're off and running in this direction. Yes, cops fail to follow leads. This is why wealthy families hire private investigators. This is why many cases are never solved. This is why Jaycee Dugard was missing for many years. The leads were there, the cops didn't follow them - until two unusual female campus cops got an intuition about a guy that a lot of male cops and probation officers thought was just an okay guy. Those cops followed the lead and found Jaycee.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there aren't a lot of hard-working LE on the case. But I believe that at the top, there is a mentality that they staked out early on a certain belief - including believing the husband without much verification - and they put manpower into the scenario against DB.

With respect, how do you know that? LE has not named a suspect or even a POI. Unless a person is inside the investigation, they can't state for fact what LE is doing in this case. They've made statements to the media wrt the parents lack of cooperation, but that's it. They have not one said that DB is guilty, or derided her. DB has derided herself via her own words to the MSM. Not even THAT may be accurate. I don't trust the MSM as far as I can throw them.

It's not uncommon for LE to run parallel investigations - one team works the "mom did it" theory, and the others works the "stranger did it" theory. Untill we, the public, are privy to all the evidence, the hard cold fact is that we're all clueless wrt LE's investigation of this case.

My opinion is that LE are handling this case well because they are so tight-lipped, and I respect that. But are they doing a good job investigating? I think so, but really, only time will tell.

So a more honest answer for me is: I hope so, for Lisa's sake.

IMO

 

[Dr. Know?]

..Then mom and dad better be convincing LE they aren't hiding anything. Obviously, the LE think they are possibly per MSM & their released statements. Should be a pretty easy thing to do. Answer questions. That simple. Find Lisa.

 

[dovebar]

With respect, how do you know that? LE has not named a suspect or even a POI. Unless a person is inside the investigation, they can't state for fact what LE is doing in this case. They've made statements to the media wrt the parents lack of cooperation, but that's it. They have not one said that DB is guilty, or derided her. DB has derided herself via her own words to the MSM. Not even THAT may be accurate. I don't trust the MSM as far as I can throw them.

It's not uncommon for LE to run parallel investigations - one team works the "mom did it" theory, and the others works the "stranger did it" theory. Untill we, the public, are privy to all the evidence, the hard cold fact is that we're all clueless wrt LE's investigation of this case.

IMO

Although we don't know all they are doing, we know a lot, and we know some of the things they haven't done.

As two examples, when ABC News is finding surveillance video of the route between two possible baby sightings, that's not a good sign that cops have fully investigated that angle. Also, the fact that police did not quickly follow up on witnesses describing a man with baby, get and release a sketch, does not show taking that lead seriously. It's pretty obvious that they are pressuring the mother in a variety of ways, yet they have not subjected the father to the same scrutiny.

 

[Turnadot]

Although we don't know all they are doing, we know a lot, and we know some of the things they haven't done.

As two examples, when ABC News is finding surveillance video of the route between two possible baby sightings, that's not a good sign that cops have fully investigated that angle. Also, the fact that police did not quickly follow up on witnesses describing a man with baby, get and release a sketch, does not show taking that lead seriously. It's pretty obvious that they are pressuring the mother in a variety of ways, yet they have not subjected the father to the same scrutiny.

These examples are assumptions. A fact can be verified, the above examples can't until LE lays all the evidence on the table, all of us here are working off assumptions and opinion.

How do you know LE hasn't already seen this footage early on in their investigation? You don't. I don't. No one here does.

No, that's not a fact at all that LE didn't quickly follow up. LE doesn't have to share what they're really doing, or have done. They will lie to the media, or not correct the media's bullsh---t, IMO, to protect the integrity of the investigation. I remember during the Ted Bundy investigation reading that LE in King County fed the media a line crap because they didn't want the media to get a whiff of the truth, because it might damage the investigation. Any LEA dance with the media is a tight rope; they simply can't be forthcoming with the sharks, IMO. And a sketch wasn't going to happen because none of the witnesses. Not one described a single facial feature of the man they saw, IIRC.

So really, these two examples cited in the quoted post are opinions, not facts.

IMO

 

[mysteriew]

Although we don't know all they are doing, we know a lot, and we know some of the things they haven't done.

As two examples, when ABC News is finding surveillance video of the route between two possible baby sightings, that's not a good sign that cops have fully investigated that angle.

Or perhaps LE has reviewed the sightings, determined that they weren't related, and thus the surveillance video is not needed. Or they may have reviewed it and determined that not enough detail was available in the video and determined it would be useless as evidence.

Also, the fact that police did not quickly follow up on witnesses describing a man with baby, get and release a sketch, does not show taking that lead seriously.

Do we know that as a fact? IIRC the first sighting the woman speaking for her husband said that LE had talked with her and her husband. Where it went from there we don't know, only because LE isn't talking.
It's pretty obvious that they are pressuring the mother in a variety of ways, yet they have not subjected the father to the same scrutiny.

Maybe because they feel the father has been honest with them and because they have been able to track his movements that night? Maybe they feel that DB's answers weren't honest or her answers changed or something else that made them suspicious?
Or maybe DB is just saying that for her own reasons?

My responses in red

With LE not accusing anyone it is very hard to determine what their thoughts or theories of what happened will be.

 

[~n/t~]

:waitasec: "a mystery man" surveillance ... let's see, almost 3 weeks later ...


:abduction:


MOO ...

Is there a time limit on leads? 14 years later, the Aisenbergs are still getting leads.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-ba...g-offer-support-lisa/story?id=14737456&page=2

 

[indepmo]

Until I see a video clip with a few minutes prior to the sighting showing that perhaps the man in the video may have just been walking down the street, this is all smoke and mirrors to me.

The smoke being the "tree", the mirror being the "lack of video footage prior and after he is sighted". Maybe there is footage of this guy walking behind the tree prior to himcoming out from behind it?

The clip is so short! One can say, maybe there is nothing else to see? Well, we didn't see if this man walked east on Parvin or south on Brighton. Also missing from this video is a time stamp that. Without a time stamp, the time the man was seen on footage could change a couple of hours...

I'm sure this convenience store was probably one of the first places LE pulled surveillence video from so they could review vehicles or people that could have been walking in the area.

 

[~n/t~]

Until I see a video clip with a few minutes prior to the sighting showing that perhaps the man in the video may have just been walking down the street, this is all smoke and mirrors to me.

The smoke being the "tree", the mirror being the "lack of video footage prior and after he is sighted". Maybe there is footage of this guy walking behind the tree prior to himcoming out from behind it?

The clip is so short! One can say, maybe there is nothing else to see? Well, we didn't see if this man walked east on Parvin or south on Brighton. Also missing from this video is a time stamp that. Without a time stamp, the time the man was seen on footage could change a couple of hours...

I'm sure this convenience store was probably one of the first places LE pulled surveillence video from so they could review vehicles or people that could have been walking in the area.

Let`s hope you`re right that LE checked out this convenience store tapes even before this tape was released.

If they`re working a parallel investigation, it should have been done. They should be asking for any other surveillance from businesses in the area if they haven`t done so already. Not just the one where we see mom buying wine.

 

[Donjeta]

Regardless of what their working theory is, asking for surveillance footage asap would have been wise IMO. Not only could you see an abductor with a naked baby Lisa, you could also see a family member up to no good.

Hope they have lots of tape to review.

 

[not_my_kids]

Um, is it wrong of me to say that I don't understand what is so significant about the blob? I know that the blob was blobbing along at a nice nifty spot in the timeline, but how the heck can anyone tell what the blob is, where the blob is going, or what the blob is doing?

 

[~n/t~]

Um, is it wrong of me to say that I don't understand what is so significant about the blob? I know that the blob was blobbing along at a nice nifty spot in the timeline, but how the heck can anyone tell what the blob is, where the blob is going, or what the blob is doing?

If the reports are accurate, the person is seen at around 2:30 am, in a wooded area, close to the home, near the dumpster where the fire was reported.

All it takes is for the FBI to enhance the tape. If it`s nothing so be it. They can dismiss the lead. If not, they should investigate further. I think that`s what some of us are trying to get at.

No lead should go without at least taking a look at whether you believe Lisa was abducted or the parents are involved.