Thought and theories on Jeremy

[Donjeta]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know when there is a baby in the room - as you said they babble and make noises that older children don't. Why would this woman lie about that??? Just another one of Jeremy and Debs protectors??

If she had said that it was totally silent when she spoke to Jeremy everyone would be quite happy to state that the baby wasn't 'around' at that time and take it at face value.

I don't see any reason why she would lie...

I don't see any reason why she would lie either but I don't think it's completely reliable anyway. Not worth a sighting IMO (and sightings aren't always worth a lot either). People can remember sounds they didn't hear on the phone or misinterpret sounds they did hear coming from other children or the TV or a video on the computer as sounds made by a baby in the room.

 

[Donjeta]

Yes, that is what she said in a few interviews - that the question was, "do you know where Lisa is?".

Later - and on the Dr. Phil show, IIRC, she changed it to, "did you kill your baby".

Inconsistency #.... aww he((, I've lost count.

close...

Dr.Phil: So let me be very clear, she did not fail a polygraph when they asked her, "Do you know what happened to your baby?" She did not fail that polygraph, although it's been reported that she was told she did?


I just can't fail to notice that JT never says she actually PASSED a polygraph. He repeatedly says that she didn't fail but never that she passed.
unreal that the question changed too!! :what:

To be fair, it's Dr. Phil supplying that question there, not JT or DB. They just spoke about a failed polygraph, not any specific questions at all.

When Dr. Phil said that JT agreed that it was accurate she didn't fail that polygraph. He's speaking more generally I think, not about any particular questions.

But I can't fail to notice that he never actually says that DB passed a polygraph, he just repeatedly insists that she didn't fail because they haven't shown him a failed polygraph. I don't think we should take him as confirmation that DB passed, because it's not what he says.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

What did we do before all these test results? There was testing but if the parents are the perps, it can never be proven if it was a soft kill. W/o a body, it is almost impossible to convict so the one responsible gets away with it way too often, especially when there are attorneys to prevent LE from doing what is necessary to find the child or get a confession. Most of the time this has to take place within the first week.


I don't consider an FBI trained cadaver dog, speculation. I also think failing a poly is a pretty good sign something isn't right. When parents need numerous legal help to defend them from talking to LE, well, that doesn't sit right, and most people will say it is a sign of guilt. It usually is too. Joe T is world renowned for defending the very guilty.

BBM: We hung a lot of innocent victims, I'd like to think as humans we have advanced past weighting down someone and throwing them in the lake to see if they are a witch.

 

[Whisperer]

We have reached a point where more and more babies are being murdered and more and more perp/parents/caretakers are getting away with it. Now more than ever. Look at the Kyron case. How pathetic. She lawyered up. no body, no case, if you have an attorney.

How come each time there is a custody battle and the father gets the child, it is always assumed the mother is no good and doesn't care. Fact is that judges make mistakes every single day. they go by a fact sheet and don't inviestigate...they hand the child over to the father (even if not married) if has a job and the woman doesn't. How many mistakes has the Court made? We keep hearing about these all the time.

I don't think this mother has been away from her son for six years. If it is true, I bet she can't even see him for fear of Jeremy. He treats his parents and sister the same way. He doesn't want anyone to bother hiim or inconvenience him.

IMO, both of these boys should be removed from that home till this case is resolved.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I see what you mean. I think instead of correcting the interviewer that only one boy was in his bedroom, JI just answers the question. I don't think they are very savvy at being interviewed, which is understandable. I guess I tend to give the benefit of the doubt on this kind of thing because I don't think they realized they should carefully weigh every. single. word. mentioned. (They are not politicians after all). What bothers me more are things like not going to talk to LE separately now that they have a lawyer. That's why I'm on the fence.

BBM

No, that is not the case. All the interviewer asked was did the boys hear anything and JI did not tell the truth.

That doesn't have anything to do with being savvy or thinking about being careful with your words or politicians or anything.

It has to do with telling the truth or not telling the truth.

 

[Donjeta]

JI introduced the boys' bedroom in the conversation in that interview implying that's where they both were, not the interviewer.

Reporter: “Did the boys hear anything at all? You said you, you, you had to wake the boys. Did, did they not hear anything coming in the window, or…?”

JI: “Uh, I don’t think so. The window that was open is nowhere near their bedroom, so, I don’t think they heard anything or, they’re both pretty heavy sleepers.”

http://www.kmbc.com/r/29404237/detail.html

 

[Elley Mae]

BBM: We hung a lot of innocent victims, I'd like to think as humans we have advanced past weighting down someone and throwing them in the lake to see if they are a witch.

Geeze is that what they do in Indiana?

 

[Detective Klimpt]

JI introduced the boys' bedroom in the conversation in that interview implying that's where they both were, not the interviewer.

http://www.kmbc.com/r/29404237/detail.html

I remember that and meant to address it here. It's troubling, the variation of the stories about the boys.

What bugs me is the interviewers and why they don't pick up on these details and ask the right questions.

 

[leanaí]

BBM: We hung a lot of innocent victims, I'd like to think as humans we have advanced past weighting down someone and throwing them in the lake to see if they are a witch.

Then what do you think should be done? Cause the current system is only letting the many who are guilty get away with it on technicalities.

 

[cityslick]

BBM

That is pretty much what I said earlier in this thread. That's why I want to look more closely at Jeremy. If DB was responsible, I don't think he would be going along and acting the way he is. BUT if JI is responsible, it might be that he acted alone without DB's knowledge OR she is going along. . .I think I find that more believable, that DB would go along with JI, not the other way around.

MOO

I'd really like to hear plausible theories that involve JI, specifically if you believe he was involved with the events of that night that also would explain a prolonged absence from his job (that his boss or co worker wouldn't be aware of), plus what (if any) role the cell phones played into that?

I've seen one suggestion of him doing something with BL on the way to work. This would suggest that BL died sometime while there was a number of people coming in and out of the house (I have to assume SB was in the house since she gave the statement that BL was 'fine' and I have to assume PN was in the house at some point). This would also suggest that JI would have to have BL in some sort of concealed container where no one would notice him walking out the house with her. Also, there is no way DB would be unaware of any of this. So, playing it foward, JI takes BL out of the home when he goes to work, disposes, goes to work. DB goes on normally with the evening, drinking, etc. Then we come to the cell call attempt at 11:57pm to MW. For what reason? The baby is already gone and disposed of by then in this scenario. Then the vm's after 3am? Again, BL is long gone by then. What was going on for 3 hours between 12-3am?

Once again, the cell phones complicate any theory.

 

[leanaí]

I'd really like to hear plausible theories that involve JI, specifically if you believe he was involved with the events of that night that also would explain a prolonged absence from his job (that his boss or co worker wouldn't be aware of), plus what (if any) role the cell phones played into that?

I've seen one suggestion of him doing something with BL on the way to work. This would suggest that BL died sometime while there was a number of people coming in and out of the house (I have to assume SB was in the house since she gave the statement that BL was 'fine' and I have to assume PN was in the house at some point). This would also suggest that JI would have to have BL in some sort of concealed container where no one would notice him walking out the house with her. Also, there is no way DB would be unaware of any of this. So, playing it foward, JI takes BL out of the home when he goes to work, disposes, goes to work. DB goes on normally with the evening, drinking, etc. Then we come to the cell call attempt at 11:57pm to MW. For what reason? The baby is already gone and disposed of by then in this scenario. Then the vm's after 3am? Again, BL is long gone by then. What was going on for 3 hours between 12-3am?

Once again, the cell phones complicate any theory.

To point blame at Jersey perhaps? Or that group of people.

 

[cityslick]

To point blame at Jersey perhaps? Or that group of people.

I could believe that if there was evidence that any of those people knew JI/DB. Plus, the call did not go through anyway. And why then, at that time? Maybe DB decides she's got to figure something out, when (according to everything we know) she stayed calm, casual while she was out drinking with SB for 4+ hours. And then why was she checking vm at 3:20am?

 

[Quizzical]

BBM

No, that is not the case. All the interviewer asked was did the boys hear anything and JI did not tell the truth.

That doesn't have anything to do with being savvy or thinking about being careful with your words or politicians or anything.

It has to do with telling the truth or not telling the truth.

Oh, I misunderstood then. That is more concerning.

 

[Quizzical]

[/B]

I don't understand. Are you saying because their refusal to talk to LE is the reason you are on the fence?

Yes. I mean that is one big reason I think they might be guilty. If they were still working with LE to do everything they could, I might be on the side of the fence that thinks they are innocent.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I have a question, and this is not to "sleuth" Jeremy's employment, just trying to see how it "fits" into one of my theories regarding Jeremy :

Does anyone know if the job that Jeremy worked the night of Oct 3 at the Starbucks was the same job he worked earlier that day ?

OR -- was the job that Jeremy worked that night at the SB like an "extra job" ?

KWIM ?

JMO ... but it canNOT be a coincidence that the "first time" Jeremy works a "night time job" -- Lisa goes "missing" ...

Nope ... not buying it because I don't believe in such "coincidences" ...

MOO ...

 

[hambirg]

I have a question, and this is not to "sleuth" Jeremy's employment, just trying to see how it "fits" into one of my theories regarding Jeremy :

Does anyone know if the job that Jeremy worked the night of Oct 3 at the Starbucks was the same job he worked earlier that day ?

OR -- was the job that Jeremy worked that night at the SB like an "extra job" ?

KWIM ?

JMO ... but it canNOT be a coincidence that the "first time" Jeremy works a "night time job" -- Lisa goes "missing" ...

Nope ... not buying it because I don't believe in such "coincidences" ...

MOO ...

I don't think it was just because we have heard that the Starbucks closed early at 6pm so they could do the work. But that is a bit of a logical assumption. I don't think we've ever heard where they were working earlier in the day.

 

[cityslick]

I don't think it was just because we have heard that the Starbucks closed early at 6pm so they could do the work. But that is a bit of a logical assumption. I don't think we've ever heard where they were working earlier in the day.

I would think the job he did that night at Starbucks was at least planned a few days out. Usually things like that are coordinated with store management and/or Starbucks HQ (not sure if it was a franchisee or not). IMO, I think the coincidence of him working that night works against DB, not JI.

 

[hambirg]

I would think the job he did that night at Starbucks was at least planned a few days out. Usually things like that are coordinated with store management and/or Starbucks HQ (not sure if it was a franchisee or not). IMO, I think the coincidence of him working that night works against DB, not JI.

Oh, I'm sure the job was pre-planned.

BBM, that is why I think it might be JI. He would know that a night he is supposedly at work, that that fact would work against others and not himself. Just like I think that if something did happen earlier in the day or sometime that night, that he called 911 when he got home at 4am, instead of waiting until morning, because it strengthens his alibi. If he had waited til morning. . .now he is thrown into the mix from the time he came home till the morning hours.

Idk. . .I still have to think on those phones. :waitasec:

 

[Sparklin]

This is not a matter of evidence anymore, it is a mindset. There is not enough evidence that we know to file charges but there is PLENTY in the Court of Public Opinion. The parents have changed their stories, failed a poly, and a cadaver dog hit in the house. It was an FBI trained dog and the FBI/LE swore it to be the truth.

When you top this with parents refusal to speak to LE to find their baby....well...most people would say they have something to do with her going missing. Top that with hiring four attorneys in the first month and you have yourself a set of people that appear to be guilty of a crime.

If it takes more than this for some to say they could be guilty, bless your little hearts. There are plenty of defense attorneys that would love to have you sitting in the jury box.

It does take more - I want facts, not opinions. I want LE to show me actual evidence, not just speculation by people who have heard bits and pieces of information provided by the media. I want an actual evaluation of the situation and the people from professionals that have met and spoken with them and not just wishy washy, jumping to conclusions from seeing a reaction/attitude of distraught parents on msm. .

We can all speculate and give our two cents ~ we can create theories and conjecture until the cows come home, but DEB and/or JEREMY are NOT in jail - therefore as far as I am concerned, LE does NOT have enough evidence to put either of them there. If and when that evidence is brought forth, only then will I agree that they are responsible for their daughter being gone.

Certainly if the FBI/KCPD etc...people who have MET and spoken with Deb and Jeremy are not calling them all the psychotic names that I have seen in these threads...I can't imagine I would either!

Personally, I am very thankful that the majority here are not sitting in the jury box - because unbiased they are not.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I don't think it was just because we have heard that the Starbucks closed early at 6pm so they could do the work. But that is a bit of a logical assumption. I don't think we've ever heard where they were working earlier in the day.

:seeya: TY.

BBM: That's what I thought -- that we do NOT know where he was working earlier in the day.

JMO, but I think it IS important in the "timeline" :waitasec: or should I say with respect to the TRUTH as to what happened to Baby Lisa :

SPECULATING here and MOO :

The reason I think it is important is this : IF -- a BIG IF here -- something happened to Lisa BEFORE Jeremy went to work that evening at the SB, HOW would he be able to "work" knowing that something happened to Lisa ?

I am NOT defending Jeremy here -- just saying -- IF something UNexpected happened to your 10 month old baby, how in the world would you be able to go to WORK -- and do "electrical work " -- and how would you be able to "concentrate" ?

I know -- some people may be able to -- but a "normal person" would be a "nervous wreck" having to go to work after something happened to their baby ...

I don't know ... just SPECULATING here ... this is why I believe that at a MINIMUM, Jeremy was involved in the "cover-up" ...

But who knows -- maybe he knew something and was still able to go work ...

:waitasec:

MOO ...