Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[Whisperer]

LE would take the clothing that was hit on and/or described. There must have been a reason for the tape and dispenser also. Where were they found? We have a list of the seven items taken. They took these for good reason not for laughs.

Pretty obvious they believe she was wrapped with tape at the home.

 

[tlcya]

The items include a multicolor comforter, purple shorts, a multicolor Disney character shirt, a Glo Worm toy, a "Cars"-themed blanket, rolls of tape and a tape dispenser.

http://www.kmbc.com/Lisa-Irwin-Sear...it/-/11664900/12264286/-/108618q/-/index.html

the linked article describes what was taken by LE during a search. It does not describe the articles taken as being the ones Lisa's mother claims she was wearing.

Pinks and purples are EXTREMELY popular colors for little girls of that age. It is very likely that Lisa had a wardrobe full of purple clothing. So LE removing an outfit from the home that happens to be purple does not equal LE knows DB is lying about what Lisa was wearing and they have the clothes DB reported her wearing. That is simply not logical and is a pretty large leap, particularly when stated as if it is a fact.

 

[Whisperer]

I'm not disputing the fact that LE removed some clothes from the Irwin home. In fact I provided a link showing the receipt that they made with some clothes listed. What I haven't seen is anything saying that those clothes are the ones that Lisa was last seen in. The description sure doesn't match.

Each person looking at the clothing will describe it a little differently. IMO and most people's opinion, it is the clothing db described. It was found because it fit the description and/or it had evidence on it

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

To me it's just not that significant if it's the same or not. If DB is a liar she could have lied about the clothing description too. If she told the truth it proves nothing as either an abductor or DB could have undressed Lisa and left the clothing there, or maybe even one of the kids. Some babies can probably get out of shorts or pants all by themselves if they are loose fitting. I sometimes found my babies wearing less clothing in the morning than they started out with. I just want to know if the cadaver dogs hit at that clothing and what if anything was found at the crime lab.

If the clothing description that was published in the Amber Alert was all that DB told LE they would imo have no way of knowing if anything they found at that house was the same clothing or not, it was so vague. At least tell us what the material was and which Disney characters.

BBM: Or, it was NOT the same clothing, which brings up the clothes LE supposedly showed DB which they allegedly found at the dumpster fire.

 

[Whisperer]

The items include a multicolor comforter, purple shorts, a multicolor Disney character shirt, a Glo Worm toy, a "Cars"-themed blanket, rolls of tape and a tape dispenser.

http://www.kmbc.com/Lisa-Irwin-Sear...it/-/11664900/12264286/-/108618q/-/index.html

the linked article describes what was taken by LE during a search. It does not describe the articles taken as being the ones Lisa's mother claims she was wearing.

Pinks and purples are EXTREMELY popular colors for little girls of that age. It is very likely that Lisa had a wardrobe full of purple clothing. So LE removing an outfit from the home that happens to be purple does not equal LE knows DB is lying about what Lisa was wearing and they have the clothes DB reported her wearing. That is simply not logical and is a pretty large leap, particularly when stated as if it is a fact.

Maybe somebody else can find the words used by db. I had to research this part and my memory tells me this is darn close. Of course, if one chooses to argue the difference in defense of the parents, they can add this to their list of suspicions and belief people are after the poor parents and have no reason to be.

LE took the clothing from the residence and had good reason to remove it. It either was the clothes worn that day or it wasn't. If they took it it was because they believed it was the clothing described OR it contained some evidence on it.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Each person looking at the clothing will describe it a little differently. IMO and most people's opinion, it is the clothing db described. It was found because it fit the description and/or it had evidence on it

Well are they the same clothes or are they similar? That's two different things. Or the third reason is because they had evidence on them? I think that your beginning to see the issue here. MOO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Maybe somebody else can find the words used by db. I had to research this part and my memory tells me this is darn close. Of course, if one chooses to argue the difference in defense of the parents, they can add this to their list of suspicions and belief people are after the poor parents and have no reason to be.

LE took the clothing from the residence and had good reason to remove it. It either was the clothes worn that day or it wasn't. If they took it it was because they believed it was the clothing described OR it contained some evidence on it.

BBM

Maybe LE took the clothing because they were similar to the clothes that Lisa was said to be wearing and they wanted to test them. And maybe the testing showed nothing of evidential value. That makes sense to me because there hasn't been an arrest yet. MOO.

 

[Donjeta]

BBM: Or, it was NOT the same clothing, which brings up the clothes LE supposedly showed DB which they allegedly found at the dumpster fire.

Yeah, again, the same principle applies. Short of finding Lisa's DNA in the burned clothes which may be a forlorn hope if it's badly charred, LE wouldn't have any way of confirming if it was Lisa's or not. It's possible the parents don't know if it was Lisa's either, depending on how badly it was affected by the fire

Then there were the neighbors' sightings that saw someone carrying a baby with no clothes on.

"It was shocking because I couldn't imagine anyone outside walking with their baby in the cold like that with no clothes on," the woman told ABC News.

Bradley has said that Lisa was wearing purple shorts and a purple t-shirt when she last saw her, but the neighboring couple said they baby they saw did not appear to be wearing any clothing.

"We seen the little arm, the leg, it didn't look like the baby had on any clothes, just a diaper," she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-ba...smell-deceased/story?id=14786129#.UKwNJoaOwXg

So maybe the abductor undressed Lisa and stuffed her clothing in his jeans pocket in order to burn it later. I can't think of why he'd have done so, at the moment, but it probably made sense to him at the time.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I guess my point was if LE thought the clothes they allegedly found at the dumpster site were "the" clothes Lisa was last seen wearing, they couldn't also be in the home at an area of the floor in DB's bedroom, which is roughly where it states a cadaver dog hit. Nor could th clothes they took from the home be one in the same as the ones found at the dumpster. They can't have it both way.

 

[Donjeta]

Yeah... wasn't Deborah adamant that the clothes at the dumpster were not Lisa's? But I guess she might say that either way. Unless the drinking neighbor and the children are extraordinarily observant Deborah is really the only one who could positively identify what Lisa was wearing for sure, (if the clothes are in such a state that anyone could) but if we're not sure that we can trust what she says then I guess it brings us exactly nowhere.

I just want to interview the dogs...

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Yeah... wasn't Deborah adamant that the clothes at the dumpster were not Lisa's? But I guess she might say that either way. Unless the drinking neighbor and the children are extraordinarily observant Deborah is really the only one who could positively identify what Lisa was wearing for sure, (if the clothes are in such a state that anyone could) but if we're not sure that we can trust what she says then I guess it brings us exactly nowhere.

I just want to interview the dogs...

BBM: Yes she was, but it seems LE was adamant that they were Lisa's and then wanted the clothes at the home to be Lisa's clothes she was last seen in as well, according to some. Since 3 witnesses claim to have seen a man with a child in a diaper that night, it makes me feel if either is true, Lisa's clothes were in the dumpster over still in the home, although as you stated, it could be either. Until LE (or if you are successful in your questioning of the dogs lol) release more information, we'll never know if any of the clothes mentioned were the ones Lisa was last seen in. It's frustrating I know.

 

[Donjeta]

The bottom line is, we just don't know... Sigh.

It's hard to know what LE is thinking, imo, they've released so little information. Did they think the clothes in the dumpster were Lisa's or were they just fishing to see if they could rattle DB up and she might let something slip.

I don't really see why LE would attach a lot of significance in proving that the clothes they took were the same ones Lisa was last seen in because if they're trying to prove that DB did it they make her a liar and if she's a liar she could just as easily have lied about the clothing description. If the clothing that Lisa died in and might contain evidence was still in the house why would she want to draw any attention to them by describing the very clothes?

I think finding any burned baby clothing or baby clothes with blood or decomposition smell or suspicious stains on it would have interested LE whether it matched the Amber Alert or not.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The bottom line is, we just don't know... Sigh.

It's hard to know what LE is thinking, imo, they've released so little information. Did they think the clothes in the dumpster were Lisa's or were they just fishing to see if they could rattle DB up and she might let something slip.

I don't really see why LE would attach a lot of significance in proving that the clothes they took were the same ones Lisa was last seen in because if they're trying to prove that DB did it they make her a liar and if she's a liar she could just as easily have lied about the clothing description. If the clothing that Lisa died in and might contain evidence was still in the house why would she want to draw any attention to them by describing the very clothes?

I think finding any burned baby clothing or baby clothes with blood or decomposition smell or suspicious stains on it would have interested LE whether it matched the Amber Alert or not.

BBM

That's why I'm on the fence in this case. To many unknowns and unanswered questions.

I haven't seen any evidence that LE has made that kind of connection with the clothes they took from the Irwin home.

And I have to say that I agree with your post. Thanks Donjeta.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

The bottom line is, we just don't know... Sigh.

It's hard to know what LE is thinking, imo, they've released so little information. Did they think the clothes in the dumpster were Lisa's or were they just fishing to see if they could rattle DB up and she might let something slip.

I don't really see why LE would attach a lot of significance in proving that the clothes they took were the same ones Lisa was last seen in because if they're trying to prove that DB did it they make her a liar and if she's a liar she could just as easily have lied about the clothing description. If the clothing that Lisa died in and might contain evidence was still in the house why would she want to draw any attention to them by describing the very clothes?

I think finding any burned baby clothing or baby clothes with blood or decomposition smell or suspicious stains on it would have interested LE whether it matched the Amber Alert or not.

Another thought, what if they find / found DNA on the clothes they can't trace back to Lisa or anyone else known to have been in the house recently? Just way too many possiblities right now.

You do bring up a good many legitimate points though.

 

[Donjeta]

Another thought, what if they find / found DNA on the clothes they can't trace back to Lisa or anyone else known to have been in the house recently? Just way too many possiblities right now.

You do bring up a good many legitimate points though.

Gotta love stranger DNA, matching it to a specific individual is so much due to luck... One more thing we don't know.

They wouldn't have known that there was stranger DNA on any of the items they took during the search until it got tested and compared to everybody so either all that stuff attracted their attention because of something that was immediately obvious or they thought it was important to test for stranger DNA on those particular items of clothing and none of the others. Why?

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Gotta love stranger DNA, matching it to a specific individual is so much due to luck... One more thing we don't know.

They wouldn't have known that there was stranger DNA on any of the items they took during the search until it got tested and compared to everybody so either all that stuff attracted their attention because of something that was immediately obvious or they thought it was important to test for stranger DNA on those particular items of clothing and none of the others. Why?

I should have been more clear, sorry, I was referring to the clothes that they claim came from the dumpster. If they found stranger DNA and Lisa's DNA on the clothes, then that would be an entirely dofferent ballgame. but that could also be said about any of the itmes taken during the search warrant execution.

With that said, got to run for now, my DW just got home w/ supplies to put me to work for most of the night. Will try to catch up later if she let's me have a break. Enjoyed your posts today, you make some interesting points to think about. :seeya:

 

[Donjeta]

OK, I misunderstood.

The dumpster is tricky in that there are more chances for contamination depending on what else was tossed in the dumpster.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Gotta love stranger DNA, matching it to a specific individual is so much due to luck... One more thing we don't know.

They wouldn't have known that there was stranger DNA on any of the items they took during the search until it got tested and compared to everybody so either all that stuff attracted their attention because of something that was immediately obvious or they thought it was important to test for stranger DNA on those particular items of clothing and none of the others. Why?

I think that a better question is why did LE take so little as evidence during the search warrant. Seven items. Besides the clothes they took a comforter, a blanket, a toy, some tape and a tape dispenser. That's it. They were allowed to take "anything deemed to be of evidentiary value to the relevant case of a missing child, to include but not limited to DNA ,fingerprints,cell phones and evidence of human decomposition."

They didn't seem to take anything from the vehicles and they didn't impound them. You would think that they would have taken many more items to test. They were allowed to take anything that was relevant in a case of a missing child. That's pretty broad if you ask me. And only seven items. Why?

http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf

 

[Whisperer]

DB could have killed Lisa in a black out. She may have stuffed the clothes somewhere. She would have absolutely no memory of it either. This may be one reason why she nixed the "blacked out" story quickly. Where the items were found would be important.

I bet they took more from the house than reported. Where they found the tape would also be important. They need a body to compare the tape. Fat chance of that one.

LE needed a confession. They both lawyered up and there will be no such thing any more for most confessions are given within the first week or two. These two parents were not going to let LE question them for fear one would break. IMO, this is the reason they will not be alone with LE and the reason they have had such high profile attorneys and a security consultant...not exactly the normal behavior of innocent parents.

There is reason to not believe the parents in the case.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

DB could have killed Lisa in a black out. She may have stuffed the clothes somewhere. She would have absolutely no memory of it either. This may be one reason why she nixed the "blacked out" story quickly. Where the items were found would be important.

I bet they took more from the house than reported. Where they found the tape would also be important. They need a body to compare the tape. Fat chance of that one.

LE needed a confession. They both lawyered up and there will be no such thing any more for most confessions are given within the first week or two. These two parents were not going to let LE question them for fear one would break. IMO, this is the reason they will not be alone with LE and the reason they have had such high profile attorneys and a security consultant...not exactly the normal behavior of innocent parents.

There is reason to not believe the parents in the case.

LE has to enter on the receipt all property that was seized during the execution of the search warrant. So that's where the seven items are listed. Did DB and JI voluntarily give LE some items? That's a possibility, especially since they cooperated with LE in regards to searching their property over an extended period of time.

I think that LE would always like to get an easy confession but most of the time they need evidence to solve and close a case. And I feel that this lack of evidence is why there has been no arrest yet. MOO