Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[3doglady]

From the warrant and the following paragraph from the one quoted above: View attachment 19999

Also the cadaver dog was not in the parents room until the 17th.

How do we know that? There is a video of a spaniel in and around the house very early in the investigation. It's possible that the dog that hit on the 17th was not the first cadaver dog in the parents room. We know that LE suspected DB from the first few days so why would they wait a couple of weeks to take a cadaver dog in? IIRC during one search, the area around the house was restricted from helicopters because the FBI did not want the dogs filmed.

 

[spamelope]

The only pictures I recall people not seeing the bird feeder was in a pic that the media published that was found out to be an old real estate pic. Not even current. It showed the house in the summertime with all greenery in full and not in early fall when the greenery was starting to die back.

Ah, okay, thank you! Well, there goes that theory lol. You've been an amazing source of help on here, IDM. Thank you for all you do.

 

[JohnBull]

I agree with you. But the reason "an intruder" sounds bizarre is because we have no information about it. Many times, after the intruder is caught and talks, their actions are not really bizarre - but rather just bold. And lucky.

I mean, we all know that the first person suspected is always the parents. So, in many of these cases evidence is overlooked. Not until the killer is found does everything become understandable (I mean, as understandable as any senseless crime can be.)

As an example - Tommy Lynn Sells walked into a house and killed a boy. The boy's mom (Julia Harper) was convicted of murder, even though there was plenty of evidence of a stranger. But, not until Sells confessed did it make any sense. He just walked in to the house with the sole purpose of stabbing the boy to death because the mom had been "rude" to him at a 7-11. No one could have ever imagined such a thing because things like that just don't happen. Until they do.

Worth printing out and keeping handy!

 

[natsound]

If they didn't know about the phones, then what were they looking for with the metal detectors before the house was released from being deemed a crime scene? Not a baby.

Excellent question. Remember when Steve Young gave that initial interview and he was asked if anything else was taken from the home? He gave the answer "Not that I'm aware of, and if there were anything else taken, I don't know if I could discuss it."

As we all agreed on before, Young is the PIO and there's a chance the info about the missing phones had not trickled down to him by October 4. But there's also a suggestion that LE did not know about the phones at that time.

 

[natsound]

I agree with you. But the reason "an intruder" sounds bizarre is because we have no information about it. Many times, after the intruder is caught and talks, their actions are not really bizarre - but rather just bold. And lucky.

I mean, we all know that the first person suspected is always the parents. So, in many of these cases evidence is overlooked. Not until the killer is found does everything become understandable (I mean, as understandable as any senseless crime can be.)

snipped

Actually, that's not why an intruder sounds bizarre to me. I don't want to write another book on it, but suffice it to say that intruders don't grab a baby, then walk into a different room and grab phones, then leave. Intruders who steal babies upset the parents so much that the parents work as a team with police and call groups like Equusearch.

 

[Donjeta]

JMO but I think LE knew right away. I looked at the first general discussion thread and on the day she was reported missing there's a link to a video that says an aunt said LE had taken their cell phones. I think this is either the aunt misunderstanding or a reporter misunderstanding when it was in fact an intruder who took the phones and not LE. But the info about the phones missing was out on the first day even if the media didn't get it right right away.

 

[Rooster27]

snipped

Actually, that's not why an intruder sounds bizarre to me. I don't want to write another book on it, but suffice it to say that intruders don't grab a baby, then walk into a different room and grab phones, then leave. Intruders who steal babies upset the parents so much that the parents work as a team with police and call groups like Equusearch.

BBM

i wrote an entire paragraph verbatim to yours last night, in my post, but cut that part out, because it was the wrong thread, and yes, hearing it over and over is tedious, but when it is brought up again, you want your information and opinions thought of by the readers whom you haven't shared ideas with to hear their comments. You put it better than i did. And I appreciate all of your posts.

An intruder climbs in a window, finds a baby, in a house with people in it, and a dog, when all is quiet and then goes to another room while quieting a sick baby, turning lights on??? Finds cell phones, leaves the house with baby, and three possible tracking devices???? Especially when using one of them? This has been bothering me all along. Far fetched. A kidnapper of a baby does not need cell phones, they want to get out of there, and if they did take them to provide the obstacle to someone calling out too quickly, did they know the family had or had not a land line, or other phones? How did they know they were the only ones? Makes no sense to me MOO.

But of course I could be wrong. There is always the exception to the logical.

Over to the cellphone thread now.

 

[cityslick]

BBM

i wrote an entire paragraph verbatim to yours last night, in my post, but cut that part out, because it was the wrong thread, and yes, hearing it over and over is tedious, but when it is brought up again, you want your information and opinions thought of by the readers whom you haven't shared ideas with to hear their comments. You put it better than i did. And I appreciate all of your posts.

An intruder climbs in a window, finds a baby, in a house with people in it, and a dog, when all is quiet and then goes to another room while quieting a sick baby, turning lights on??? Finds cell phones, leaves the house with baby, and three possible tracking devices???? Especially when using one of them? This has been bothering me all along. Far fetched. A kidnapper of a baby does not need cell phones, they want to get out of there, and if they did take them to provide the obstacle to someone calling out too quickly, did they know the family had or had not a land line, or other phones? How did they know they were the only ones? Makes no sense to me MOO.

But of course I could be wrong. There is always the exception to the logical.

Over to the cellphone thread now.

What if the intruder's intention was to rob the house, not steal a baby. They take the phones and the baby starts making noise?

 

[Donjeta]

What if the intruder's intention was to rob the house, not steal a baby. They take the phones and the baby starts making noise?

JMO but the exit would probably be faster without the baby that had to be carried and possibly silenced.

Maybe he was in the room with Lisa, killed the baby and panicked, thought he had to take her with him?

But then it doesn't make sense to have the cadaver dog hit in the parents' bedroom. How did Lisa get there?

 

[cityslick]

JMO but the exit would probably be faster without the baby that had to be carried and possibly silenced.

Maybe he was in the room with Lisa, killed the baby and panicked, thought he had to take her with him?

But then it doesn't make sense to have the cadaver dog hit in the parents' bedroom. How did Lisa get there?

Assuming the hit can be attributed to Lisa.

 

[Nixie]

JMO but the exit would probably be faster without the baby that had to be carried and possibly silenced.

Maybe he was in the room with Lisa, killed the baby and panicked, thought he had to take her with him?

But then it doesn't make sense to have the cadaver dog hit in the parents' bedroom. How did Lisa get there?

But did they hit on the parents bedroom or stuff in the room. Example if she died in her crib (no matter who did it) did her stuff then get moved in the bedroom at some point and then get hit on. I know DB said the glow worm was something Lisa slept with, if RR is right and it was hit on was that one of the things in the parents room or did the dog hit in more then one spot and just the bedroom was mentioned in the warrant. I get confused by the warrant because it says a hit, its been assumed it was something on the floor because carpet wasn't removed, so why would Lisa's stuff be on the floor. wouldn't DB (if she did it) move Lisa's things back into her room to make it look like a break in/kidnapping?

 

[Donjeta]

I suppose a panicked sibling might grab a toy or a blanket from the baby's crib and carry it around for comfort while waiting for the police? That would explain the toy and the blankie but I'm not so sure that it would work for the clothes. Why would the abductor have left the deceased baby's clothing there? (Supposing the dog hit on them and it's a cadaver smell). The parents would hopefully have known not to touch anything, not to move things around at the crime scene.

Was there a laundry basket in the bedroom? I suppose items from the crib might have been thrown into one with the intention of washing them.

 

[Minette]

I suppose a panicked sibling might grab a toy or a blanket from the baby's crib and carry it around for comfort while waiting for the police? That would explain the toy and the blankie but I'm not so sure that it would work for the clothes. Why would the abductor have left the deceased baby's clothing there? (Supposing the dog hit on them and it's a cadaver smell). The parents would hopefully have known not to touch anything, not to move things around at the crime scene.

Was there a laundry basket in the bedroom? I suppose items from the crib might have been thrown into one with the intention of washing them.

I wonder about whether the items from the crib could have moved into the parents' bedroom for two reasons: 1) the house was initially sealed as a crime scene and then released a few days later, and 2) the cadaver dog hit reported in the warrant didn't come until two weeks after the disappearance. In the meantime, everyone from family to media to attorneys had been in and out of that house. That's why I asked earlier whether it was possible that the items had been photographed/documented as being in the parents' bedroom during the initial search.

 

[Rooster27]

I wonder about whether the items from the crib could have moved into the parents' bedroom for two reasons: 1) the house was initially sealed as a crime scene and then released a few days later, and 2) the cadaver dog hit reported in the warrant didn't come until two weeks after the disappearance. In the meantime, everyone from family to media to attorneys had been in and out of that house. That's why I asked earlier whether it was possible that the items had been photographed/documented as being in the parents' bedroom during the initial search.

very good question, i have wondered that myself.

I still believe an accident was involved in this case, even though as many posters have stated here, when it is an accident, normally 911 is called. If there was an accident, let' say she left BL in the tub too long, or or BL woke after crying for awhile and climbed out of crib (i believe it was reported she was starting to walk) and fell, maybe the crib side was down, or one of the boys was involved somehow, watching her, since DB was out cold possibly, and they carried the poor little thing into the bedroom and laid her on the floor with her blankie and toy to comfort her. I shouldn't go into much else here, and I am in no way implicating those two poor boys, but because of neglect on DB's part and too much time passing perhaps, guilt and fear of her neglect and condition maybe why 911 wasn't called until a plan was in place. Remember when DB and JI had conflicting stories about where the boys were, one was in bed with her and then in another version they were in their rooms. The boy in bed story could support this theory of BL being carried into Mommy. Fire away.

If i stated anything that is inappropriate, I apologize and snip away.


MOO MOO MOO

 

[Karmaa]

very good question, i have wondered that myself.

I still believe an accident was involved in this case, even though as many posters have stated here, when it is an accident, normally 911 is called. If there was an accident, let' say she left BL in the tub too long, or or BL woke after crying for awhile and climbed out of crib (i believe it was reported she was starting to walk) and fell, maybe the crib side was down, or one of the boys was involved somehow, watching her, since DB was out cold possibly, and they carried the poor little thing into the bedroom and laid her on the floor with her blankie and toy to comfort her. I shouldn't go into much else here, and I am in no way implicating those two poor boys, but because of neglect on DB's part and too much time passing perhaps, guilt and fear of her neglect and condition maybe why 911 wasn't called until a plan was in place. Remember when DB and JI had conflicting stories about where the boys were, one was in bed with her and then in another version they were in their rooms. The boy in bed story could support this theory of BL being carried into Mommy. Fire away.

If i stated anything that is inappropriate, I apologize and snip away.


MOO MOO MOO

The only semi-logical explanation for why DB would not have immediately called 911 for an accident would be if HER son did something. But both boys were questioned that night - and there is no possible way they could have been coached to not spill it, that quickly.

They could have been essentially brainwashed over the month or so before they were interviewed by the FBI, but you would think that the parents would refuse to let LE talk to the boys that first day. And LE needed their consent to talk to them right then.

 

[Detective Klimpt]

I could have sworn there were rumors (obviously wrong) swirling within 24-48 hours about odd text messages on the missing phones close to when she went missing...

Yes, there were. There was a rumor about a text saying something like "ready when you are". As I recall, that was supposed to have been at 2-2:30am. I don't remember the source, but it was spread around a lot. The cell phone times changed almost as much as did DB's stories.

 

[indepmo]

We don't know if LE has video of a blurry figure throwing a bag off one of the bridges, but can't tell who it is, let alone know if that person is responsible for Lisa's death. It is not an impossible theory knowing what we know. Anybody have a link from LE stating that they know for a fact that didn't happen?

A very important fact that should be pointed out about the Chouteau Bridge that runs over the Missouri River. At the north end of the bridge there is a stoplight. On the bar for the signals, there are cameras.
Here is a sample view of what a traffic light camera can see:

These cameras do NOT record. Here is a paragraph giving out details about the stoplight cameras:

Per MODOT (Missouri Department of Transportation)
Who is watching me through these cameras?

There is no constant surveillance or archiving of these images. The camera view is a fixed focus, fixed location image (there is no zooming or moving the cameras once they are installed). The image is analyzed by the camera processor ONLY for the simple presence of vehicles within defined areas or "zones". The resolution of the image by these cameras is NOT good enough to read license plates or distinguish any facial features.
MODOT source for above reference: http://www.modot.mo.gov/stlouis/links/signalcameras.htm

There is another camera system in Kansas City Missouri called KC Scout.
(kcscout.com)
There are no "scout" cameras on the Chouteau bridge.
If anything took place on the Chouteau bridge that night, it was not recorded.

Traffic light cameras vs. KC Scout cameras serve two different purposes.

 

[Rooster27]

The only semi-logical explanation for why DB would not have immediately called 911 for an accident would be if HER son did something. But both boys were questioned that night - and there is no possible way they could have been coached to not spill it, that quickly.

They could have been essentially brainwashed over the month or so before they were interviewed by the FBI, but you would think that the parents would refuse to let LE talk to the boys that first day. And LE needed their consent to talk to them right then.

Yup, I know what you're saying- love your icon BTW-

I can think of a way where the boys would not have to had known things, just that BL was "sleeping" and then they went to sleep. DB wakes up without boys waking up type thing. Intricate, I know, and if you let the mind wander there, it does come up with a few scenarios where they may not have knowledge of outcome. Who knows what they actually asked the boys the first day. Maybe when they last saw her? But maybe that was too traumatizing to ask a little boy. Or I can imagine a scenario where they tell their boys "you didn't see it, you didn't hear it..." (quoting TOMMY...sorry did the show recently) but it could also be true here. At that age, in many cases, parents are the "say all be all." I agree it is hard to fathom this, or that they wouldn't have said anything at the second interview, but we really don't know what they said, do we? Nothing to lead to an arrest obviously.

MOO

 

[askfornina]

i hesitate to even post this article, but i will because i believe it puts into perspective the confidence Mr.Rugen has in his source.

http://www.examiner.com/missing-persons-in-national/twisted-words-wreak-havoc-missing-baby-lisa-case

He explained that “misquoting something like this can have critical consequences.” While initially met with resistance, Rugen said the writer later acquiesced and agreed to write a follow-up article.

Further, Rugen did not state as fact:

Dogs indicated human death on one of Lisa Irwin's blankets as well as the baby's clothing that she was reported to have been last wearing.

Rugen said:

“If true that means the fluid that secretes from the body upon death were possibly on those items.”

He did not say:

“Either Lisa was dead before the clothing was removed or a very tiny person died in the clothes.”

Rugen wrote in an email Tuesday evening, "In my original post I said a source close to law enforcement shared this information with me. I never said or implied I had privileged information directly from law enforcement.

this is from Isabelle Zehnder, WS approved author.

 

[Oriah]

This is the current bridge situation, is that correct locals?

http://www.modot.mo.gov/kansascity/major_projects/documents/Aerial2.pdf