Police say parents are not answering vital questions #3

[In da Middle]

I was married to and have a child with a police officer. I spent a lot of time with them - one of my best friends is LE. I trust them completely. I also know they are human and they make mistakes...as a group and individually. I also know that they absolutely do have tunnel vision and jump to their own conclusions on some cases...this I know for a fact.
So...
I would like to know though, why they didn't fingerprint the light switches or counter area in the kitchen...even the door handles? The warrant request said they only did the point of entry in the computer room? And Lisas crib? They wouldn't even have to touch the crib to pick up the baby. I just found that odd. If D/J specifically told them that the lights were on and that Deb knew she had turned them all off, why not print the lights?? I just wonder if they had some reason to suspect the parents right off the bat, otherwise, how can that be overlooked.

And let's add that there are more points of possible egress than just those that were processed. Why weren't the garage doors, garage door code buttons, garage slider doors and back deck door processed?

 

[yllek]

I don't know what LE did or didn't process right away. I do know that they were investigating a very rare crime; a reported child abducted from a crib. Lots to do and quickly. Getting the right investigative team out to the house in the wee hours, interviewing the parents, searching the nearby area pronto, requesting and justifying an Amber Alert, getting the story out to the public. Also, they were responding to a family reportedly going through the rarest and worst tragedy imaginable.

Since most baby abductions are someone in or known to the family and the baby's are retrieved alive, not sure LE would want to dislocate the parents and other children right off the bat to finger print areas that will have tons of prints that statistically wouldn't help (prints of people in and known to the family). What if someone decided to bring Lisa back or if the parents or other children (who know the home much better than LE) noticed something out of ordinary after the initial shock wore off? I can see lots of possibilities why certain things would and wouldn't be done when following up on a baby abduction vs. a murder or robbery in the home, for example.

Maybe some things could have been done differently or better by LE. It's possible. But since we don't know exactly what was and wasn't done and why, I can't justify calling this a botched investigation at this time.

All JMO...

 

[In da Middle]

I don't know what LE did or didn't process right away. I do know that they were investigating a very rare crime; a reported child abducted from a crib. Lots to do and quickly. Getting the right CSI team out to the house in the wee hours, interviewing the parents, searching the nearby area pronto, requesting and justifying an Amber Alert, getting the story out to the public. Also, they were responding to a family reportedly going through the rarest and worst tragedy imaginable.

Since most baby abductions are someone in or known to the family and the baby's are retrieved alive, not sure LE would want to dislocated the parents and other children right off the bat. What if someone decided to bring Lisa back or if the parents or other children (who know the home much better than LE) noticed something out of ordinary after the initial shock wore off? I can see lots of possibilities why certain things would and wouldn't be done when following up on a baby abduction vs. a murder or robbery in the home, for example.

Maybe some things could have been done differently or better by LE. It's possible. But since we don't know exactly what was and wasn't done and why, I can't justify calling this a botched investigation at this time.

All JMO...

No matter the circumstances known or unknown, ALL points of egress should have been processed.

 

[Whisperer]

Found this article while searching:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...searches_for_missing_mo_baby_in_kan_landfill/

Allen said his organization has handled 278 infant abduction cases during his nearly three decades with the group. Only 13 cases involved a stranger coming into a home and taking a baby, and all but one of those children were recovered unharmed

I only know of one case where an infant was taken and sexually molested. It is extremely rare for a stranger to enter a home and steal an infant, as Madge has told us. <modsnip>
This LE in Kansas City has done a fantastic job in this case.

Once again, I wish somebody would offer a profile on the kind of perp that would take Lisa. I gave my input many times <modsnip>.

 

[yllek]

No matter the circumstances known or unknown, ALL points of egress should have been processed.

You're fast! I edited my post before you resonded to it.

In the part I edited in my post, I added that that since most baby abductions are committed by those in or known to the family and there would be tons of justifiable various prints on things like light fixtures and doorknobs, it could simply be a prudent judgment call not to print everything. Possibly considering the factors specific to a baby abduction, there were good reasons that LE followed certain protocols that we don't know about. Since we don't know, I'm not assuming things were botched. I'm not questioning the right of others to make that assumption.

How do we know that LE didn't process points of egress? I think I missed something on that. I dont' remember LE saying that it wasn't part of the early search/processing and that it didn't occur while investigators were interviewing the parents during the initial response to the home. TIA!

 

[Whisperer]

I was married to and have a child with a police officer. I spent a lot of time with them - one of my best friends is LE. I trust them completely. I also know they are human and they make mistakes...as a group and individually. I also know that they absolutely do have tunnel vision and jump to their own conclusions on some cases...this I know for a fact.
So...
I would like to know though, why they didn't fingerprint the light switches or counter area in the kitchen...even the door handles? The warrant request said they only did the point of entry in the computer room? And Lisas crib? They wouldn't even have to touch the crib to pick up the baby. I just found that odd. If D/J specifically told them that the lights were on and that Deb knew she had turned them all off, why not print the lights?? I just wonder if they had some reason to suspect the parents right off the bat, otherwise, how can that be overlooked.

Of course they suspect the parents. Who wouldn't? They would be lousy officers if they didn't have suspicion of the people that lived in the home. They leave room for error and process every lead, FGS!

95% of the time it is the parents. How many tips now? 1400? not one credible tip. A $100,000 reward...nothing.

I don't know but if any of you are betting people, the odds are in your favor that the parent/s knows what happened to the baby.

 

[In da Middle]

You're fast! I edited my post before you resonded to it.

In the part I edited in my post, I added that that since most baby abductions are committed by those in or known to the family and there would be tons of justifiable various prints on things like light fixtures and doorknobs, it could simply be a prudent judgment call not to print everything. Possibly considering the factors specific to a baby abduction, there were good reasons that LE followed certain protocols that we don't know about. Since we don't know, I'm not assuming things were botched. I'm not questioning the right of others to make that assumption.

How do we know that LE didn't process points of egress? I think I missed something on that. I dont' remember LE saying that it wasn't part of the early search/processing and that it didn't occur while investigators were interviewing the parents during the initial response to the home. TIA!

I am only basing this myself by the way the search warrant was worded. To me it sounds that way. I would think that no matter what, they would have processed EVERY point of egress to know if anybody else had possibly entered or exited in that manner. Whether they did or not, I don't know. If they didn't then how could they know if it was possible or not? It was called in as a kidnapping, they should treat it as such until that possibility is eliminated. I don't see how that could be eliminated that fast if no arrest has been made. I am just saying they SHOULD have, not that they didn't.

 

[yllek]

I am only basing this myself by the way the search warrant was worded. To me it sounds that way. I would think that no matter what, they would have processed EVERY point of egress to know if anybody else had possibly entered or exited in that manner. Whether they did or not, I don't know. If they didn't then how could they know if it was possible or not? It was called in as a kidnapping, they should treat it as such until that possibility is eliminated. I don't see how that could be eliminated that fast if no arrest has been made. I am just saying they SHOULD have, not that they didn't.

Thanks IdM - I understand. I thought you were stating as fact that LE didn't print points of egress and that they should have done so.

I agree that they should have processed points of egress immediately and I trust that they did that in the intial response to the home. I believe it to be SOP for a major crime involving unlawful entry. If they did it right away as I trust and expect, it wouldn't be something that would necessarily appear on the search warrant. AFAIK, it would be mentioned in the later search warrant affidavit only if print results themselves from the early voluntary search rendered probable cause for LE to search later for something (or somewhere) specific in the house. I can see why LE wouldn't necessarily print everything in the house on first response, but points of egress "yes".

If for some odd reason LE didn't process points of egress at first response, I agree that it would be questionable and I'd want to find out their reasoning for not doing so. There might be justifiable reasons that we're not privy to. JMO...

 

[Sherbie]

Thanks, y'all. I kept wondering how I'd missed that LE processed only certain areas but was embarrassed to ask. :blushing:

 

[yllek]

Hoping that some of the many questions surrounding this mystery are answered soon. Mostly hoping that Lisa is found tomorrow!

Nite all...:seeya:

 

[Sparklin]

Of course they suspect the parents. Who wouldn't? They would be lousy officers if they didn't have suspicion of the people that lived in the home. They leave room for error and process every lead, FGS!

95% of the time it is the parents. How many tips now? 1400? not one credible tip. A $100,000 reward...nothing.

I don't know but if any of you are betting people, the odds are in your favor that the parent/s knows what happened to the baby.

I'm not concerned with odds or stats - I'm concerned with proof. I don't know that the parents are innocent. I don't like that they aren't talking to LE, but that's just me. I don't know that they are guilty either. And until there is proof that they are...the kind of proof that results in an arrest, not just speculation or innuendo or gossip, then I am going to have sympathy for what they are dealing with. If it were me and I was innocent, but I didn't follow some unknown rules and regulations that some people imagined parents should be, it would be horrible to be accused of harming my baby.

From the Tori Stafford case:
Fed up by the accusations, especially the many posted on Facebook, McDonald told reporters she was going to get a lawyer to sue for slander. "What bothers me are the ignorant people who are out there and are pointing fingers at me. I would like them to walk a mile in our shoes because I guarantee you, I would not be accusing them or pointing fingers at them."
************
"Shame on all of you who blamed Tara McDonald and said she was the one who had harmed Tori," wrote Michelle Cosgrave. "God forbid any of you are ever in her place this woman went through hell missing her child and then to have people blame her. Shame on all of you!!"
*************
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/michele_mandel/2009/05/21/9519901-sun.html

Deb is being accused of not using the media enough, Tara was too much. At this point, all I have is that Deb drank (maybe too much) the night her daughter went missing. That doesn't tell me she was a negligent mom or that she did anything to her daughter. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be on the bashing train right along with the rest of people. Until then, I don't know!

 

[Whisperer]

Goodnight all!

 

[Karmaa]

There's a correlation between trust in LE and the suspicion of the parents ,imo.
It seems those who don't trust LE are more supportive of the parents innocence.

There also seems to be blame placed because LE either didn't search the home enough because they thought it was a kidnapping, or they did too much because they had tunnel vision focusing on the parents guilt. Either way,this is all LE's fault.

We have a profession who literally puts their lives on the line every day that they work,who work odd hours and holidays,often leaving families to do so.
There are rotten people in every profession ,but the large majority are in it for the right reasons.

just wondering who to call when someone with a weapon is trying to break into your home ?
If an over zealous Lisa supporter harasses the parents ,who will they call for help?

:waitasec: I would guess that they would call exactly who they called when they found that their baby was missing - 911.

In fact, the way that the family acted towards LE initially (allowing accusational interrogations with no lawyer, and so on) suggests that they are not (or at least WERE not) suspicious of LE at all.

And, you know, one can be critical of LE without "blaming" them, or thinking they are "bad". They make mistakes, as we have seen in almost every high-profile case ever. They can get tunnel vision. They can jump to conclusions. they can use statistics to solve crimes, rather than really examining all possibilities. That doesn't make them bad.

To blindly accept every word, every action or every accusation made by LE as gospel can cause a whole bunch of other problems, which we have seen way too many times. There has to be a balance between trust and skepticism, and society has to be diligent to make sure that the balance stays even. So, I for one, will never BLINDLY believe LE about everything - although I will give them a lot more weight than I give other sources of information.

 

[Karmaa]

You're fast! I edited my post before you resonded to it.

In the part I edited in my post, I added that that since most baby abductions are committed by those in or known to the family and there would be tons of justifiable various prints on things like light fixtures and doorknobs, it could simply be a prudent judgment call not to print everything. Possibly considering the factors specific to a baby abduction, there were good reasons that LE followed certain protocols that we don't know about. Since we don't know, I'm not assuming things were botched. I'm not questioning the right of others to make that assumption.

How do we know that LE didn't process points of egress? I think I missed something on that. I dont' remember LE saying that it wasn't part of the early search/processing and that it didn't occur while investigators were interviewing the parents during the initial response to the home. TIA!

I hope they did check and print everything. A missing baby case is not the place to be worried about conserving manpower or whatever might prompt that decision. If it turns out that the baby was innocently taken by a relative or something else, then fine they may not need the prints. But they can't go back and get them later. It MUST be done immediately.

We don't know for sure everything that was printed / investigated. But in the search warrant docs, LE says that they chose to only process a few areas - Lisa's room and the computer room were two of the places. When Cyndi Short let the reporters in the house after the big search, she mentioned how few areas seemed to have been processed and the cameras kind of panned around to see.

Hopefully they did process the entire house - all entryways and light switches, the kitchen counter and so on. But all we have seen from them so far suggests that they didn't.

 

[Sparklin]

Sorry ~ the Affidavit for Search warrant does state: 'possible points of entry' so the doors front and back were probably processed

It also states: "the actual land, any and all vehicles..."

"a cadaver dog was brought into the residence upon consent of Irwin and Bradley"

http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf

Why would they consent to the dog if they knew there would be a hit? I would love to see how they responded to that request.

 

[In da Middle]

Sorry ~ the Affidavit for Search warrant does state: 'possible points of entry' so the doors front and back were probably processed

It also states: "the actual land, any and all vehicles..."

"a cadaver dog was brought into the residence upon consent of Irwin and Bradley"

http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf

Why would they consent to the dog if they knew there would be a hit? I would love to see how they responded to that request.

The search warrant states that for IT, the search warrant search, all possible points of entry were being processed. My question is were they processed in the very first hours on the first day? If they only did it during the search warrant search, it's a bit too late for it then as many people had been in and out of that house by then.
This makes me believe that they did not process ALL points of entry in the initial searches. Or is it just me? It really makes it sound like LE made the decision to only process a couple of areas and not all areas of egress.

The only areas extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints during the consent were the baby's bedroom and possible points of entry.

I just wonder if it was ALL possible points of entry and why not all of the switch plates of the lights that were on or the counter where the phones were at? That all seems like basic stuff to me.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I honestly think LE messed up with their initial search by not searching the house better. If the parents are guilty they had time to remove things, if they aren't then LE lost a valuable window of time to find her. I am not sure why they didn't but I think Jeremy did sign a warrant giving them permission just seems like if he didn't give them full access they could have gotten pretty quickly based on the fact the house is a crime scene. A kidnapping is a crime so I would think a judge would sign off based on that fact and allow them full access.
So much speculation on things that may or may not have happened is good, its what this site is all about,and I love to read peoples speculation even if I disagree. Its good that people think about things and come up with so many theories I never would have even considered.

Nixie..you brought up a point I hadn't considered before (and I am certainly no expert), but since there was a reported kidnapping, then the building in which it occurred would be a "crime scene" Therefore, why would a search warrant be needed at all, and wouldn't all areas be fingerprinted, etc.?
JMO

 

[In da Middle]

Nixie..you brought up a point I hadn't considered before (and I am certainly no expert), but since there was a reported kidnapping, then the building in which it occurred would be a "crime scene" Therefore, why would a search warrant be needed at all, and wouldn't all areas be fingerprinted, etc.?
JMO

I believe the search warrant was just a formality of LE dotting i's and crossing t's so that IF anything was found, it could not be claimed as an illegal search.

 

[highflyer]

And let's add that there are more points of possible egress than just those that were processed. Why weren't the garage doors, garage door code buttons, garage slider doors and back deck door processed?

What? Link please.

 

[In da Middle]

What? Link please.

Post 37