11/9/11 MSM reports "major change" to timeline (Oct. 4 phone call)

[SyraKelly]

And didnt that neighbor Shane come back over at 10:30 and sit with the wine drinking neighbor on her stoop. Does anyone know what time they left or went inside?

I think it was said 1130

 

[Cher352]

1-DB herself said she went in at 1030
2-DB herself said in an interview she got on puter after she went in at 1030
3-If the neighbors were still out front on her front porch until 1130-I would think they would have seen someone trying to break in DB'D front window
4-they would have seen kidnapper walk out front door with baby!!!
I am not going to argue-I believe DB is not telling the truth!!

She did??? I must have even missed that or forgotten that part.

 

[tlcya]

I have missed something, know nothing of major change referred to, must away to go read up on this

 

[tlcya]

[ame]http://video.foxnews.com/v/1266782744001/sources-confirm-changes-to-timeline-in-lisa-irwin-case/?playlist_id=87485[/ame]

Video at link, something to do with phone call to MW. MW's claim that the call was received by her phone at 8:30 is false. The call was actually made from one of the missing cel phones to MW's at 11:57 p.m.

 

[PoppyH]

Originally Posted by SyraKelly
1-DB herself said she went in at 1030
2-DB herself said in an interview she got on puter after she went in at 1030
3-If the neighbors were still out front on her front porch until 1130-I would think they would have seen someone trying to break in DB'D front window
4-they would have seen kidnapper walk out front door with baby!!!"

Hold up - how does a drunk, maybe passed out DB get on a computer and remember it??? Was this a slip-up of the tongue and stories?

What I don't get,if she was so stinkin drunk, how was she on the puter?? thought she went to bed at 10:30

 

[winterrose]

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...-owner-to-defend-herself-on-new-Facebook-page MW left her house at 3am and didn't take her phone?This revolving phone stuff is so confusing.

 

[Abby Normal]

Am I missing hte link to the information that she got on the computer at 10:30? And for how long?

Personally I never took the 8:30 as gold because it was stated by MW, based on what she heard in interrogation. I tend to assume that half of what is said in interrogation is false, we know they don't have to tell the truth in the interview. I also believe half of what they told DB was false, she would have been wise to keep mum on it.

I'm going to read through the thread again, and slower, to see if I missed this confirmation that she was on the computer afterwards, how it relates (she could have been on from 10:30-10:45), and who confirmed this new timeline...

 

[Abby Normal]

Originally Posted by SyraKelly
1-DB herself said she went in at 1030
2-DB herself said in an interview she got on puter after she went in at 1030
3-If the neighbors were still out front on her front porch until 1130-I would think they would have seen someone trying to break in DB'D front window
4-they would have seen kidnapper walk out front door with baby!!!"

Hold up - how does a drunk, maybe passed out DB get on a computer and remember it??? Was this a slip-up of the tongue and stories?

I guess I'm not getting your math. IMO the timeline of them going in at 11:30, being entered and calling at 11:57, with a sighting at 12:15 (I personally can't credit the 4AM sighting just yet) makes so much more sense than the 8:30 call. Alternatively, it makes so much more sense if it was DB too- waits till they go in to make a help call or whatever it was.

Hypothetically, she didn't black out (she said "it's possible" in which case she has some memory) and went in at 10:30. Get on computer.
11:00 stumbles to bed (or up to no good, whatever side of the fence you hang).
11:30 neighbors go inside.
11:45 whomever is watching neighbors to leave (friend, family, DB, stranger, etc) proceeds to break in (or prepare things?)
11:57, makes call.
12:07 leaves house. (note: this number is random, not sourced)
12:15 seen on Chelsea.

To me this timeline is so much more plausible than 8:30/12:15/2:00/4:00.

 

[Abby Normal]

-DB says she went to bed at 1030
-SB says she was out front until 1130
-27 minutes later her phone dials MW's phone... which means if this WAS an intruder than that person was inside the house doing this and broke in before the call was made.. what... was the intruder hiding out in the trees waiting for all the people to go inside their houses?

this makes no sense...

I wish media could find out if the phone was the one that was loaned to DB..... if it was we haven't heard that there were any restrictions on that one... only on the ones that Bradley and Irwin paid the bills for....

I'm not good with names, what was that case with an older girl (college-ish?) who was home with her brother, Dad had already left for work, man drug her into the woods. Story changed a bit here and there?

Long way of saying that they determined the man did in fact hang out in the bushes and wait. That's what people awaiting a crime do, they watch for the coast to be clear.

Just a thought, not putting it out there as gospel.

 

[Kamille]

Okay here are all the times that I can recall being reported on. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of them...

2:30pm JI returns from work at day job
4:30pm SB is at Irwin home and sees Lisa in crib
4:30pm DB and PN go to store for baby products and wine
5:00pm DB and PN return from store
5:00pm JB leaves house next door for trial separation
5:20pm JI leaves for second evening job
6:30pm SB goes to store for liquor
6:30pm SB’s daughter sees Lisa
6:40pm DB puts Lisa to bed
7:00pm SB returns from liquor run
8:30pm MW says that call received on her phone from Irwin residence
8:30pm ShaneB went up to meet DB and SB on the porch as a new neighbour
9:00pm ShaneB leaves Irwin house, does not know there is a baby in the home
10:30pm DB asks boys if they want to sleep in her bed
10:30pm DB goes to sleep, with boys and cat. Does not remember checking on Lisa as she is drunk
10:30pm ShaneB returns to Irwin house and talks with SB
10:35pm SB receives text from JB
10:55pm SB returns text to JB
11:30pm ShaneB returns home
11:30pm SB goes in and notices lights are off in Irwin home
11:30pm MH notices that the sprinklers are off at her neighbours home that Jersey was watching
11:57pm New possible time for phone call to MW phone from Irwin residence
12:15pm Lisa P and husband see man walking up street with baby from direction of N Lister
2:19am Call is placed to 911 for fire in dumpster
2:30am DB claims LE told her of phone call to MW phone at this time
3:00am MW claims to be at the waffle house clipping coupons
3:30am JI leaves Starbucks to return home
3:45am JI gets home
4:00am MT sees man with baby
4:04am JI places 911 call that Lisa is missing

 

[matou]

Who is making this claim that the call actually came in at 11:57 pm? Is this a defense team spin? Notice that the articles associated with this story are following it up with the "mystery guy and the baby" that the neighbors saw at 12:10 ish? That time is way to specific. Is it the cops? Someone at the phone service? Someone working for Joe Tacopina on this?

By the way, who is MKelly? TIA

 

[SUNchips]

Hypothetically, she didn't black out (she said "it's possible" in which case she has some memory) and went in at 10:30. Get on computer.
11:00 stumbles to bed (or up to no good, whatever side of the fence you hang).
11:30 neighbors go inside.
11:45 whomever is watching neighbors to leave (friend, family, DB, stranger, etc) proceeds to break in (or prepare things?)
11:57, makes call.
12:07 leaves house. (note: this number is random, not sourced)
12:15 seen on Chelsea.

To me this timeline is so much more plausible than 8:30/12:15/2:00/4:00.

I completely agree. A call at 11:57 is much easier for me to put into any timelines I'm thinking of, regardless if DB made the call or an intruder. My question is, are we supposed to believe DB was out on porch without going in at all until 10:30? Then what happened to the brothers, and the neighbor's kid? I don't believe a 5 yr old would go to bed that late, and if she went in earlier to put them to bed then why didn't she check on Lisa then? And why haven't we heard about this?

 

[matou]

@ Kamille: :heartbeat: That was awesome. LOL!

 

[matou]

3:00 am MW claims to be at the Waffle House picking up coupons? Really? Where is this place? Why so early on a Tuesday morning?

 

[matou]

“No, I was not on meth,” Wright wrote on Facebook. “I went to the Waffle House around 3:00 a.m. because I was irritated about the situation with my phone and my friend thought it would be good for me to get away. Any more questions about my actions that night?”

Read more: http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...nd-herself-on-new-Facebook-page#ixzz1dG1LOyT7

MW facebook posts are now on MSM.

 

[matou]

Why was she irritated about the situation with her phone? Didn't she make it a house phone to help out all those tenants without their own phones? Didn't she post on FB that night as someone discovered?

 

[Karmaa]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/11/0...ell-phone-happened-hours-later-than-believed/

What exactly does THIS mean?
Authorities maintained the crucial nature of the timeline in the case throughout their investigation, which makes the latest development vital to the case.

Is this just their way of making it sound *official* when it's just another bogus rumor? I have caught Fox doing that before - actually a reporter that MK was talking to did it early on. Shady and very misleading, IMO.

Look at what this says and analyze it:
"Authorities maintained the crucial nature of the timeline in the case throughout their investigation"

Maintained? As in "kept" or as in "said repeatedly"? neither one really means anything in that sentence does it? It's nonsense. It seems to be saying that they have kept (watched?) the timeline. Ya think? REALLY?

And then: "which makes the latest development vital to the case"
Right-o. It's vital (real important), because the authorities have been watching the case. ??? WHAT?

This REALLY annoys me. Because who actually stops to analyze what was really actually said? We see the word "authorities" and we make the mental connection that Oh! THIS info is *official*. But all they are doing is putting nonsense words out there, not saying anything.

Like the National Enquirer and "sources close to" meaning the street-person who lives in front of the celebrity's apartment building. They are indeed a "source" who is "close to" (geographically - they are closer than a person in another city, right?) whoever. It's infuriating.

Sorry to rant but I HATE to see the way "journalists" are willing to sell their ethics and morals to the highest bidder. I really used to admire MK. After this, I am getting really disgusted!

 

[matou]

Is the Waffle House on the map yet? I found this address: Waffle House
7401 Northeast Parvin Road, MO, United States

 

[Kamille]

3:00 am MW claims to be at the Waffle House picking up coupons? Really? Where is this place? Why so early on a Tuesday morning?

I'm guessing that because she said she was living on N Brighton and was walking it might be the one at 7401 Northeast Parvin Road. Which is eerily close to the 4am siting area.

MOO

 

[Karmaa]

I'm not good with names, what was that case with an older girl (college-ish?) who was home with her brother, Dad had already left for work, man drug her into the woods. Story changed a bit here and there?

Long way of saying that they determined the man did in fact hang out in the bushes and wait. That's what people awaiting a crime do, they watch for the coast to be clear.

Just a thought, not putting it out there as gospel.

Is that Holly Bobo? I didn't really follow that case - have they solved it yet?