I have quite a few theories of the case, but they all come back to DB. Too many coincidences for her not to be involved. imo. Yes, she was drinking, by her own admission and in the opinion of neighbor Shane, but her memory lapses all concern Lisa and her shifting timeline centers around the last time she saw her baby. That, coupled with her reluctance to be re interviewed by LE or to talk to local media, either to keep the case in the news or to plea to a possible abductor makes it difficult for me to believe she isn't involved. Then there's her alternately defiant and evasive language during the drinking confession interviews which leads me to consider JI. My theory is that JI is not an accomplice or a perpetrator and is not actively involved in a cover up. I think he's got his suspicions, but doesn't want to face up to the possibility, not wanting to lose more when he's lost so much already. DB's take charge attitude during the interviews, and the way JI defers to her makes me think he's passively just going along, either because he really doesn't want to know what happened since there can be no good outcome or because DB has convinced him it was an accident and she was afraid they would lose the boys.
Then there's neighbor lady SB. I think she's going to go along with whatever DB says. I wonder about her husband. Would a newly separated husband who doesn't really want to leave his family be persuaded to help out his wife and her friend if an "accident" occurred? There were those "good night, I love you" texts exchanged between the husband and wife. The husband lived in that neighborhood too and could possibly know any of the folks connected to MW's shared cell phone. I think everyone is assuming from what Jim Spellman has said that SB's husband is the person picked out of a photo lineup by motorcyclist MT and is not alibied for the night. That is not confirmed, but is the widely held speculation.
Then we have Jersey and MW, Dane and others associated with the neighborhood house. I agree with Hambirg that Jersey might have dropped by. The lady next to the "sprinkler" house thinks he must have turned off the sprinklers altho she didn't see him. If true, he was out and about and could have been drawn to two young women, drinking on the stoop. Maybe he was an unwitting accomplice in getting rid of the phones. Something like, "we lost our service and are going with another company who'll give us new phones with the contract. You want these?" A possible exchange for cash, goods or services or maybe just a freebie. That could explain the call to MW's number and other attempts to use the phone. This wouldn't rule out the possibility of another individual, a relative or neighborhood associate removing Lisa from the house. If DB is involved, I do think she had help.
I don't think MW or Dane have any involvement in a crime that night. I don't see anyway DB is not involved, but that call makes me think that someone from the neighborhood is also involved.
The baby carrying man sightings and the white blob video are the most difficult for me to fit into any theory. Neighbor Lisa's account seems believable, but first it seemed her husband only saw the man, then later that they both saw the same thing. MT's account, despite later additions or embellishments, depending on your view, seems genuine, too. What doesn't make sense is that a sick baby without proper clothing, out on a chilly night, in the arms of a stranger would never cry. It also doesn't make sense that someone would carry around a deceased child all night long, in plain sight. I discounted the white blob video, but John Bull's enhancement of that frame has made me reconsider.
poor poor baby, May your remains one day be found.