The window and the lights

[RANCH]

As I stated in that post, that is what I recalled. I must have mis-remembered b/c I'm not finding LE ever stating anything, it was just news articles that alluded to it. Guess I need to re-read articles before using my memory.

That's ok. My memory is far from perfect. Sometimes we all say things that aren't entirely accurate. Maybe DB/JI are human beings like the rest of us and can make mistakes.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I am done with this topic for a while. We can all believe what we want to believe. We can believe the window is waist high and an intruder bent the screen, then took it off, climbed in the window, went into the house and took Lisa and 3 phones, then walked out the front door, then went back to the window and put the screen back in.

I personally do not believe that.

 

[redheadedgal]

As I posted up thread, I recall LE stating there was no evidence the window was used as a point of entry. I'll see if I can find a link, something about there being undisturbed dust & spider webs, the screen would have been removed, then put back after the climbing through.

kamille posted this back in october... thought it was worth bumping up... but she did not post a link to the info sadly.

Not that we didn't already know this but it was pretty obvious when watching the window re-enactment that LE were trying to figure out a way to get into the window without touching or disturbing anything on the ledge or window sill. Which of course pretty much proves that nothing was disturbed such as dust or debris, nor any clothing fibres left behind, when the crime scene investigators were there checking previously and why they are sure that it's unlikely that the window was a point of entry.

if nothing was disturbed on the window sill or ledge, that would indicate it wasn't used as the point of entry imo.

He is clearly standing on something or has heaved himself up - all other pictures where the flower bed and people standing in it clearly show the window would only be "waist high" to the Jolly Green Giant".

i agree. the water pipe makes it look like that's the level he's standing on... but the ground is lower.

It clearly was at the shoulder level of the officer in the video.

there is no way that window is "waist high"... more like their shoulders, as norest states imo.

so while "neighbourhood kids" might be able to get into the window, the question is: could they do it and not touch the ledge or the sill?

 

[RANCH]

kamille posted this back in october... thought it was worth bumping up... but she did not post a link to the info sadly.


if nothing was disturbed on the window sill or ledge, that would indicate it wasn't used as the point of entry imo.


i agree. the water pipe makes it look like that's the level he's standing on... but the ground is lower.





there is no way that window is "waist high"... more like their shoulders, as norest states imo.

so while "neighbourhood kids" might be able to get into the window, the question is: could they do it and not touch the ledge or the sill?

The post by kamille looks like an opinion of the window re-enactment and not anything LE said. That's probably why there's no link. And I have no idea how kamille knows that no clothing fibers were left behind. I haven't seen any forensic test results released in this case yet.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I am done with this topic for a while. We can all believe what we want to believe. We can believe the window is waist high and an intruder bent the screen, then took it off, climbed in the window, went into the house and took Lisa and 3 phones, then walked out the front door, then went back to the window and put the screen back in.

I personally do not believe that.

I hear ya! It's kind of frustrating when you look at a photo of a blue sky and some insist that it is green. :banghead:

 

[redheadedgal]

The post by kamille looks like an opinion of the window re-enactment and not anything LE said. That's probably why there's no link. And I have no idea how kamille knows that no clothing fibers were left behind. I haven't seen any forensic test results released in this case yet.

i've posted with kamille in several threads and her observations are usually very astute...

i personally haven't watched the vid lately... i did see it way back but if she believed LE was trying to enter via the window while not touching the ledge or the sill that would then negate any clothing or skin or anything getting caught on either the ledge or the sill. that is most likely where her observation/thought came from as opposed to any test result.

 

[RANCH]

i've posted with kamille in several threads and her observations are usually very astute...

i personally haven't watched the vid lately... i did see it way back but if she believed LE was trying to enter via the window while not touching the ledge or the sill that would then negate any clothing or skin or anything getting caught on either the ledge or the sill. that is most likely where her observation/thought came from as opposed to any test result.

Members can have any opinion they want. When members post about what LE is saying and not backing it up with a link is were I have an issue.

 

[iamnotagolem]

CORRECTION TO ABOVE GIVEN BY JEREMY IN PHONE INTERVIEW 10-6-2011

Lisa in bed at 7:30 p.m. Debbie in bed at 10:30 after checking on Lisa. 6 year old son slept with Debbie in parents room. Point of entry by abductor was unlocked front door, window mentioned earlier was NOT tampered with.

from the timeline

 

[SyraKelly]

Does anyone if DB/JI were in the house when this re-enactment was going on?

 

[RANCH]

CORRECTION TO ABOVE GIVEN BY JEREMY IN PHONE INTERVIEW 10-6-2011

Lisa in bed at 7:30 p.m. Debbie in bed at 10:30 after checking on Lisa. 6 year old son slept with Debbie in parents room. Point of entry by abductor was unlocked front door, window mentioned earlier was NOT tampered with.

from the timeline

This is a correction of what?

 

[redheadedgal]

Members can have any opinion they want. When members post about what LE is saying and not backing it up with a link is were I have an issue.

since she posted what she did, i'm sure there's a source she read or saw. no one at the time in the thread questioned it.

if you're concerned/don't believe her, why not PM her to ask? i'm sure she'll be very forthcoming and try to help

 

[iamnotagolem]

Timeline

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150977"]Lisa Irwin-Timeline - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[RANCH]

since she posted what she did, i'm sure there's a source she read or saw. no one at the time in the thread questioned it.

if you're concerned/don't believe her, why not PM her to ask? i'm sure she'll be very forthcoming and try to help

It's not a matter of believing a member or not. Or do you believe that the rule for providing a link to support a fact vs opinion post is not necessary.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I'm not really sure what you want from me. I provided links to every news article I could find about the windows not being the point of entry. No there is nothing from LE stating anything about the windows, or much else in this case. I clearly stated in all of my posts that it was to my recollection that the window had been ruled out. I had no other motives, I wasn't trying to mislead.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I wasn't referring to the cops experiment as them ruling out the window as an entry point. I thought there was no sign of entry. No disturbed dust, spider webs, no fingerprints, etc that indicated it not the entrypoint. But maybe I'm remembering wrong.

It appears I remembered wrong. I retract my wrong memory and hope this will end this silly argument that has now gone on for way too long.

 

[RANCH]

I'm not really sure what you want from me. I provided links to every news article I could find about the windows not being the point of entry. No there is nothing from LE stating anything about the windows, or much else in this case. I clearly stated in all of my posts that it was to my recollection that the window had been ruled out. I had no other motives, I wasn't trying to mislead.

You did exactly the right thing. I asked for a link with LE statements, you found what you could and then let us all know that you couldn't find any LE statements. Perfect. That's the way it's done correctly. And I do appreciate your work in looking for the truth.

 

[askfornina]

:deadhorse:

The recreation of a possible entry through the window appeared to be an attempt to test that theory.

A police spokesman declined to comment on conclusions investigators may have drawn from the test. "For reasons that are obvious, we can't comment on the specifics of the case," Capt. Steve Young of the Kansas City Police Department told HuffPost.

"What the cameras saw speaks for itself," Young said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/baby-lisa-irwin-missing_n_1003644.html

 

[iamnotagolem]

:deadhorse:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/baby-lisa-irwin-missing_n_1003644.html

Clicking thanks wasn't enough! Thank you thank you thank you!

 

[RANCH]

Clicking thanks wasn't enough! Thank you thank you thank you!

I agree.

 

[redheadedgal]

It's not a matter of believing a member or not. Or do you believe that the rule for providing a link to support a fact vs opinion post is not necessary.

no one at the time asked her for a link that i saw and no one questioned her post that i saw... you always have the option to go back and read thru the thread. maybe your answer is here somewhere. or, again, your other option is to ask her... i "got" what she was saying so that was good enough for me.

moving on...