I no longer believe that...

[Truthwillsetufree]

BBM
As far as I know, LE hasn't released any forensic evidence that may have been collected in this case. They may have evidence to support the possibility that two people working together kidnapped Lisa. MOO.

LE hasn't released any forensic evidence that may have been collected in this case. They may have evidence to support the possibility that DI and JI had something to do with the disappearance of Baby Lisa.JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

LE hasn't released any forensic evidence that may have been collected in this case. They may have evidence to support the possibility that DI and JI had something to do with the disappearance of Baby Lisa.JMO.

That's true. And notice I didn't say that there's no evidence that DB and JI are involved in Lisa's disappearance. One thing that I do know is that LE doesn't have enough evidence to arrest anyone in this case yet. MOO.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't really understand why the two kidnappers would want to pass Lisa through a window. Wouldn't getting out via a door be faster, easier and attract less attention if anyone happens to see?

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I don't really understand why the two kidnappers would want to pass Lisa through a window. Wouldn't getting out via a door be faster, easier and attract less attention if anyone happens to see?

I guess that would depend on the perps state of mind. I've read of cases where the perp stayed in the house and made a sandwhich after a crime. Maybe one wanted to stay and look for things they could use or sell. Until we know who was in the house, and who all is involved, anything is possible.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

I don't really understand why the two kidnappers would want to pass Lisa through a window. Wouldn't getting out via a door be faster, easier and attract less attention if anyone happens to see?

They wouldn't.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

I guess that would depend on the perps state of mind. I've read of cases where the perp stayed in the house and made a sandwhich after a crime. Maybe one wanted to stay and look for things they could use or sell. Until we know who was in the house, and who all is involved, anything is possible.

BBM -Exactly why the parents should be talking with LE.

 

[KsStormy]

I do not believe there were 3 witnesses. The first witness was a man whose wife first said that her husband saw a tall bald man carrying a baby, then the story changed to she saw it as well The other witness on a motorcycle, his story also changed many times, in a big way. I do believe the first man saw a tall bald man carrying a baby, but oddly enough, that sounds an awful lot like Jeremy Irwin. However, Steve Young from KCPD said on TV that the first sighting "didn't turn into anything we could pursue", on day 2, which leads me to believe they ruled it out .
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSMwKxjtJB8"]Search For Baby Lisa Enters Second Day - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

BBM -Exactly why the parents should be talking with LE.

They did speak with LE, and we don't know what they said or what they were asked. They may have told them SB and her daughter were in the house, therefore any evidence found at the scene that points to SB could be explained away, such as finger prints etc. We don't know who else was in the home in the past few days but it could be anyone who was in there, or a total stranger. We also don't know if LE found any finger prints anywhere, any DNA, other than the family and those known to be in the home legitimately at some point. All these "we don't knows" is exactly why I can't say and won't say, that the parents are guilty of anything until LE gives us something substantial to work with.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I do not believe there were 3 witnesses. The first witness was a man whose wife first said that her husband saw a tall bald man carrying a baby, then the story changed to she saw it as well The other witness on a motorcycle, his story also changed many times, in a big way. I do believe the first man saw a tall bald man carrying a baby, but oddly enough, that sounds an awful lot like Jeremy Irwin. However, Steve Young from KCPD said on TV that the first sighting "didn't turn into anything we could pursue", on day 2, which leads me to believe they ruled it out .
Search For Baby Lisa Enters Second Day - YouTube

I haven't heard what The neighbours told LE, as far as I know it was never released in full transcript, so I imagine we only got a small tid bit from MSM. to believe everyone in the case has lied is too much of a stretch for me. Unless you hear the full conversation any witness had with LE, I don't know how one could say their story changed. It's also possible that one of them remembered more details as they had time to think about it over time.

 

[KsStormy]

I haven't heard what The neighbours told LE, as far as I know it was never released in full transcript, so I imagine we only got a small tid bit from MSM. to believe everyone in the case has lied is too much of a stretch for me. Unless you hear the full conversation any witness had with LE, I don't know how one could say their story changed. It's also possible that one of them remembered more details as they had time to think about it over time.

Pretty big stretch IMO, for the motorcycle guy to suddenly remember that he yelled at the guy & asked if he needed help, and also that the baby was awake & alert, & looking around. He said none of this at first, so I don't buy it for a minute.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I just find it almost too bizarre to believe that people would believe a story about a man carrying baby Lisa around, naked, for 4 hours, all over town. And, more importantly, WHY? Yet, they can't possibly accept that these parents could have accidentally or intentionally killed Lisa and disposed of her, even though we know from past child killings that the staggering number are killed by parents. This just boggles my mind.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Pretty big stretch IMO, for the motorcycle guy to suddenly remember that he yelled at the guy & asked if he needed help, and also that the baby was awake & alert, & looking around. He said none of this at first, so I don't buy it for a minute.

MT, the motorcycle guy, didn't report this until days after and then, every time he gave an interview, he embellished his story so that in the last interview he gave, he was calling the baby a "she". I don't believe this was anything other than someone wanting their five minutes of fame.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I just find it almost too bizarre to believe that people would believe a story about a man carrying baby Lisa around, naked, for 4 hours, all over town. And, more importantly, WHY? Yet, they can't possibly accept that these parents could have accidentally or intentionally killed Lisa and disposed of her, even though we know from past child killings that the staggering number are killed by parents. This just boggles my mind.

I haven't heard anyone say that they believe the baby sightings and say that they can't accept the possibility of an accidental or intentionally death. Where are you getting the "man carrying baby Lisa around naked, for 4 hours, all over town?"

 

[4Jacy]

Again: If LE found nothing, i.e., fibers. hair, fingerprints, et al, on the window/door or inside the house, other then those belonging to the boys, BL, DB, JI, PN, and the neighbors, then one must assume it was an inside job. Let's be real here folks!!!!

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Pretty big stretch IMO, for the motorcycle guy to suddenly remember that he yelled at the guy & asked if he needed help, and also that the baby was awake & alert, & looking around. He said none of this at first, so I don't buy it for a minute.

You know for a fact he didn't tell LE that up front? If so a link to his interview with LE would be nice to read. It doesn't matter a whole lot what he told the media and when.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I just find it almost too bizarre to believe that people would believe a story about a man carrying baby Lisa around, naked, for 4 hours, all over town. And, more importantly, WHY? Yet, they can't possibly accept that these parents could have accidentally or intentionally killed Lisa and disposed of her, even though we know from past child killings that the staggering number are killed by parents. This just boggles my mind.

I'm not sure what "people" you are referring to. I think if SODDI it doesn't mean he was carrying her around the entire time. I also think it's possible the parents are involved. What I don't believe right now is that there is enough to point a finger at anyone with my mind made up they are guilty of Lisa's disappearance.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Again: If LE found nothing, i.e., fibers. hair, fingerprints, et al, on the window/door or inside the house, other then those belonging to the boys, BL, DB, JI, PN, and the neighbors, then one must assume it was an inside job. Let's be real here folks!!!!

Do we know they found no fibers? Do they not have gloves in MO?

 

[KsStormy]

Again: If LE found nothing, i.e., fibers. hair, fingerprints, et al, on the window/door or inside the house, other then those belonging to the boys, BL, DB, JI, PN, and the neighbors, then one must assume it was an inside job. Let's be real here folks!!!!

Might be why the police recently released a statement saying that Deborah Bradley is the one person they need to speak to. Seems pretty obvious to me. This ain't rocket science. A real mother does ANYTHING to help their child. :jail:

http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/police/documents/police/pr_09.28.12_lisairwin1stannive.pdf

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

Do we know they found no fibers? Do they not have gloves in MO?

Well it's not only fingerprints that a would be kidnapper might leave behind but it is possible they could leave:

Hair, fibers, carpet fibers,semen,blood, saliva,sweat, dust, soil, grass, vegetation, adhesives, tape, tool marks and a multitude of other things.

Locard's Exchange Principle - Basically, this principle states that everything leaves a trace when two objects come into contact with one another. At a crime scene an offender and victim will bring something to the scene and also leave something behind. This may be a hair, fiber, fluid or dirt, but something is left behind.

So with this information, to find nothing is more peculiar than not, considering the thought is that the would be kidnapper went through a screened window that was at a height he would have to drag his clothed body across and do so without leaving one single fiber from his clothing. Houdini couldn't have done it! JMO.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Well it's not only fingerprints that a would be kidnapper might leave behind but it is possible they could leave:

Hair, fibers, carpet fibers,semen,blood, saliva,sweat, dust, soil, grass, vegetation, adhesives, tape, tool marks and a multitude of other things.

Locard's Exchange Principle - Basically, this principle states that everything leaves a trace when two objects come into contact with one another. At a crime scene an offender and victim will bring something to the scene and also leave something behind. This may be a hair, fiber, fluid or dirt, but something is left behind.

So with this information, to find nothing is more peculiar than not, considering the thought is that the would be kidnapper went through a screened window that was at a height he would have to drag his clothed body across and do so without leaving one single fiber from his clothing. Houdini couldn't have done it! JMO.

Yes I get all that, but I ask again, do we know that LE found nothing? If they found nothing I guess that means JI and DB never touched that window either? Does it mean they have found fibers and can't connect them to any of the many clothes, rugs, etc in the home or the neighbour's home. That's just it, again we don't know what they found or didn't find, and what testing may or may not have been done, or those results. So it doesn't point in any direction when we don't even know those things. JMHO