Searches for Lisa

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I have not been following Baby Lisa's case as much as other cases recently. I guess I became frustrated that progress was in a lull. (Not that LE is not investigating, but new information has been limited IMO.)

Thank you for all you sleuthers who are keeping the search for Baby Lisa on the forefront.

And thank you to the locals in Kansas City and the surroundings for continuing your searches and keeping us updated!

I am praying Lisa is found soon!:seeya:
 
*sigh* this case has become one of "those" cases for me, i feel really connected to it and i will not forget about Baby Lisa, ever. i hope this case is not cold and i hope she is found soon, so much.
 
Little Ol Me said:
bbm
I know this sounds like an odd statement to some. However, I understand it perfectly. I might have felt the same way, or have said the same thing in this situation.
I would not have wanted to look in the back yard, for fear of seeing my baby dead, or seriously injured. I just could not have dealt with that scene, just no way I could have. I would have sent my husband to look. So I understand her saying this.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but according to the search warrant affidavit, DB didn't say she didn't want to look in the back yard - she actually didn't look there initially, which is very different, IMO.

"Bradley made the statement she did not initially look for her baby behind the house because she 'was afraid of what she might find.'" I think it's noteworthy that the preceding sentence says, "Investigative interviews with the people involved revealed conflicting information for clear direction in the investigation." (emphasis mine) That makes me wonder if she and JI gave differing accounts of who looked where and when.

I might have been literally terrified of what I might find, but that fear would never stop me from looking if I thought my baby might be outside, hurt, alone, cold, scared, needing me - I'd cover ever square inch of ground as far and as fast as my feet could carry me. I'm sure we all would have.

For me, the oddity of her statement is that the fear of what she might find apparently overrode any instinct to locate her endangered, possibly injured baby (at least initially). I think LE must've found that particular statement significant to have specifically included it in their summary for the SW application.
 
natsound said:
It is odd. Why would she be afraid of the back yard, but nowhere else? I tend to think it's your option B: it was a cover-up in case anything was found there.
Click to expand...
But wouldn't she know if anything would be found back there? Why would it be "in case"? She would already know if she did anything back there and would know the cops would find it in a few minutes of getting there. They found nothing IMO because there was nothing back there to find.
 
In da Middle said:
But wouldn't she know if anything would be found back there? Why would it be "in case"? She would already know if she did anything back there and would know the cops would find it in a few minutes of getting there. They found nothing IMO because there was nothing back there to find.
Click to expand...

It could have been just the way she said it seemed odd or something. For some reason, it drew the attention of LE enough to mention it in the SW application. If there's anything to it, I would think it's not so much because something was dropped or left behind, but that it could have been an attempt to deflect or bolster her position as an innocent victim and/or was in conflict with what JI related about the parents' initial searching prior to LE arriving. Because it was just an odd statement, it might have made LE suspicious that something occurred in or someone passed through the back yard with Lisa and was part of what made them want to search there.
 
In da Middle said:
But wouldn't she know if anything would be found back there? Why would it be "in case"? She would already know if she did anything back there and would know the cops would find it in a few minutes of getting there. They found nothing IMO because there was nothing back there to find.
Click to expand...

It almost made me think that she expected Lisa to be there, but did not want to be the one to find her...so she had to make an excuse as to why she did not look there. JMO
 
cluciano63 said:
It almost made me think that she expected Lisa to be there, but did not want to be the one to find her...so she had to make an excuse as to why she did not look there. JMO
Click to expand...

exactly, she excepted someone to have taken her out of her crib & placed her there ! Of course, she would not want to be the one who found Pumpkin Pie.

Feel bad for that family . . . hope little Lisa is thriving somewhere.

I know she is with God.
 
In da Middle said:
It IS walkable, but what you are seeing is DAYTIME possiblility. There is absolutely no comparison as to what the area is like back there between daytime and night time. There is absolutely NO light back there and very rough terrain. The only people who would be able to accomplish this at night and leave no evidence (LE was all over that area within hours) would be somebody that knew the area by making a habit of being back there getting around at night. I don't think that includes DB at all. Just last night my dogs were barking at something back there and I could not even see 20-30 ft back there and there was nearly a full moon shining. If you were to be walking back along the creek, there is the tree canopy blocking out any possibility of any light and the leaves had not fallen yet much by then.Then you have to factor in the fact that it would not be fast at all and there are sticktights, nettle, poison ivy and just plain mud and water that would be very noticable to LE when they processed the house when whomever got back to the house. Like I have said, what looks good on google, is not reality of doing this at night. Even though the river is close, actually getting down to the actual water in the pitch black is not going to be easy nor quick at all. Google just does not show you the terrain and obsticles even in the daytime, let alone in the pitch black.

The area rapelled down at was not at the river. It was almost directly west behind the house just to the north of NE 34th & N Jackson.
Click to expand...

First, I have to disagree on anything related to light. Flashlights are very useful tools. Second, the leafs that had not fallen yet provide great cover when you are walking in an area like this. Third, mud is not a factor here. You being local like I am should recall the drought we had. Total rainfall in this area from Septemper 3rd - Ortober 4th came to a grand total of 0.43 inches. The last rain Kansas City had seen prior to October 3rd was on September 7th and we only received 0.11 inches, not enough to saturate the ground. It actually looks harder on google based on the imagry being shown was during the flooding. I've personally walked to the river from Birmingham Rd. I can't believe how easy it was from one particular location to access the river. I found that same location just as easy to access from right above the Chouteau bridge. I did my homework on the cameras at the convenience store at the north end of the bridge. You aren't on camera unless you are at the gas pumps or directly in front of the store. As I previously posted, the cameras at the stoplights do not record you. Harrahs casino has no cameras at the intersection to record you.

I should also mention that if you follow the path behind the residences you don't have to cross 210 highway, there are very large drainage tunnels you can walk through, big enough for 6 or more people to walk through side by side.

I think it's important that accurate information is being posted in regards to neighborhood details and I should probably post some pictures or more video of the area I had previously taken when I shot the other neighborhood videos.
 
indepmo said:
First, I have to disagree on anything related to light. Flashlights are very useful tools. Second, the leafs that had not fallen yet provide great cover when you are walking in an area like this. Third, mud is not a factor here. You being local like I am should recall the drought we had. Total rainfall in this area from Septemper 3rd - Ortober 4th came to a grand total of 0.43 inches. The last rain Kansas City had seen prior to October 3rd was on September 7th and we only received 0.11 inches, not enough to saturate the ground. It actually looks harder on google based on the imagry being shown was during the flooding. I've personally walked to the river from Birmingham Rd. I can't believe how easy it was from one particular location to access the river. I found that same location just as easy to access from right above the Chouteau bridge. I did my homework on the cameras at the convenience store at the north end of the bridge. You aren't on camera unless you are at the gas pumps or directly in front of the store. As I previously posted, the cameras at the stoplights do not record you. Harrahs casino has no cameras at the intersection to record you.

I should also mention that if you follow the path behind the residences you don't have to cross 210 highway, there are very large drainage tunnels you can walk through, big enough for 6 or more people to walk through side by side.

I think it's important that accurate information is being posted in regards to neighborhood details and I should probably post some pictures or more video of the area I had previously taken when I shot the other neighborhood videos.
Click to expand...
My post after the one you are quoting explains the drainage tunnel problems. Going from the neighborhood TO the tunnel before 210 has very high banks. Mud is still going to be obvious even though we had drought at the time here. The drain tunnel AND creek always has water in it and it is always muddy down there. There is also the 10 ft or so of mud at the riverbank. Even more then because of the receding flood waters. The banks were extremely undercut.
Add flashlight to the mix of carrying a baby in that terrain at night and you are adding even more instability to yourself and the possibility of being seen even greater.
And again, you did your investigating in the daylight. I have never said it would be impossible, just soooooo very unlikely that DB would do this on foot at night in the timeframe available. Other people doing this that are used to getting around at night and didn't have a timing issue, very possible.
 
I agree with other people doing this at night, but there was no mud, not even on the river banks. The drought we had lasted a long time. We had record heat this summer also after the flooding receeded. The whole country was super hot this year for the most part.

I drove down Birmingham to where the barricades were and they were gone the particular night I went down there again. I stopped, got out of my vehicle, walked right to the river bank. No trees, no steep slopes. Downtown Kansas City lights and Harrahs Casino's lights reflecting off the water. Was easy to do in the dark. Also, very very very light traffic at 2am on a Tuesday morning at the gas station. Sat there for 10 minutes and 1 car drove by, didn't even enter the casino parking lot. No cars even left the casino.

I went back to August 17th and the total rainfall through October 4th was 0.74 inches.
Dry dry dry. And I recall this well. 1, my garden. 2, my metal detecting hobby and the dry holes I was digging most of August while hunting a civil war era field.
http://www.wunderground.com/history...011&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
 
indepmo, do you by any chance have handy the coordinates of the exact location from which you walked to the river? TIA.
 
Indepmo..thank you!

Disposal in the river is still what I think happened. Your facts lead me to believe that DB could have disposed of phones and BL quite easily that way.
 
Unless a body is weighted down, wouldn't it surface at some point? Especially a baby?
 
indepmo said:
I agree with other people doing this at night, but there was no mud, not even on the river banks. The drought we had lasted a long time. We had record heat this summer also after the flooding receeded. The whole country was super hot this year for the most part.

I drove down Birmingham to where the barricades were and they were gone the particular night I went down there again. I stopped, got out of my vehicle, walked right to the river bank. No trees, no steep slopes. Downtown Kansas City lights and Harrahs Casino's lights reflecting off the water. Was easy to do in the dark. Also, very very very light traffic at 2am on a Tuesday morning at the gas station. Sat there for 10 minutes and 1 car drove by, didn't even enter the casino parking lot. No cars even left the casino.

I went back to August 17th and the total rainfall through October 4th was 0.74 inches.
Dry dry dry. And I recall this well. 1, my garden. 2, my metal detecting hobby and the dry holes I was digging most of August while hunting a civil war era field.
http://www.wunderground.com/history...011&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
Click to expand...

I still think the physical condition of DB needs to be taken into account here. We are talking about a lady (not to be rude) that's probably not in the best physical shape carrying 25-30 lbs of dead weight, in the dark, across uneven terrain for about 1/3 - 1/2 mile, then walking back. If LE suspected that she did this, all of her shoes would of been confiscated in a search warrant to check for soil samples.

With the times of the vm's, assuming it was her that did the vm's, there is no way that BL and the phones were disposed of at the same time.
 
Buuuttt the thing is, LE did believe them at first that the baby had been kidnapped. It's possible any evidence was gone by the time LE started to get hinky about the story.

And I wouldn't see why she couldn't carry 25 lbs, she carried that big honkin box of wine like it was nothing, she yanked that sucker off the shelf and away she went.

She should have been used to carrying Baby Lisa around a bit as well so that would be nothing. I'm only 105lbs and I'm sure I could carry 25lbs for a long long way and of course adrenaline would be kicking in, survival mode at some point.

Still, it's possible she didn't "carry" her anywhere. The river can be reached without going down hills, etc. InDepMo drove right to the river in a vehicle without any restrictions just a few days into the investigation.

Not within the realm of possibility too that the baby was never dead until it was disposed of. The hit on the bedroom floor could be a false of course LOL
 
~n/t~ said:
Unless a body is weighted down, wouldn't it surface at some point? Especially a baby?
Click to expand...

it's so tiny though, even bloated she'd be no bigger than a normal size dog and in a big azz river that could easily be missed, caught up in debris. That is a fast moving river as per LE
 
Big difference of carrying a box of wine a few hundred feet in the daylight across a very level surface as to carrying 25+ pounds for a mile then walking back in the night without having any evidence of this night trip with the time she had and take into consideration that the boys could have waken up during this time.
Also page 4 of the search warrant states "ANY AND ALL vehicles" there were to be searched. All of their vehicles are accounted for so if they had a dog there to verify the previous hit, then if she was transported in their vehicle it should have hit on that and the vehicle would be in evidence.
 
If DB was blacked-out drunk from drinking boxed wine, how on Earth could she maneuver in the dark with a flashlight & a dead baby in steep terrain? I don't see her as the "active" type nor do I believe we have super powers when we drink, so IMHO it wasn't DB who took Lisa anywhere . . .

I do listen intently when a body is found in the River (here in StL) but I would have to agree a baby in that Big Muddy swift moving River would be like finding a needle in a haystack!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 55 more.
Total: 2,262 (members: 56, guests: 2,206)

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
2,206
Total visitors
2,262
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,742
Messages
18,129,119
Members
231,138
Latest member
mjF7nx
Back
Top