"Jersey" and MW #2

[In da Middle]

Wasn't Donjeta referring to Picerno? :waitasec:

That very well could be. It did strike me as funny for a teen to keep quiet! Or these particular lawyers for that matter.

 

[vlpate]

I think the word "lie" is too strong in this case. IF someone lied, it could have been:
a) the (boy) teen who told the girl, who told her mom
b) The girl who told her mom
c) JP

However, there may not be a LIE anywhere. It could be that:
a) the teen girl misunderstood what the teen boy said
b) the teen boy said what the girl heard, but has forgotten
c) JP misunderstood what the girl said

There is also the possibility that the teen boy said exactly what JP said he did, to the girl, but now the teen boy doesn't want to admit to saying it.

Or, possibly any other mix of the above,

But, to say that the lawyer is LYING because some information turns out to not be correct, is completely unfair. Not to mention derogatory.

As always, just my opinion.

http://www.examiner.com/missing-per...g-paid-to-steal-baby-lisa-irwin#ixzz1eOKjTcCc

According to Picerno, the mother of a teen girl said her daughter admitted that a male friend of hers was told by “Jersey” that he’d been hired to “get” Baby Lisa.

Picerno said he doesn’t yet have the name of the friend, who told this to the teen, who in turn told her mother.

Fox News reports Picerno did speak with the girl this week and says he believes her allegations.

Picerno said he still wants to interview the man who initially had the conversation with “Jersey” himself.
____________________
http://www.examiner.com/missing-per...id-for-baby-lisa-legal-team-fumbles-for-words

The news began a media frenzy that lasted Friday night through Saturday, ending with the family’s consultant “Wild” Bill Stanton fumbling with words, trying to turn things around by blaming media for putting the information out there.

“The legal team put this information out as a possible theory which got big headlines … without even talking to this kid?” Russ asked Stanton.

Stanton replied, “Well, most things, while they ‘might have’ they ‘may have’ … I’m not sure. But then again it’s the press that makes the headlines.”
(snip)
Russ said the teen acknowledged he does know the handyman “Jersey” and said he hasn’t seen him since before Baby Lisa disappeared.

When asked about his statement that “Jersey” bragged about being paid $300 to steal Baby Lisa, the teen adamantly denied it.

Russ said there was never an admission of guilt. The teen reportedly said, “I told someone, I was like (expletive.) Jersey was the kind of person where you could say here’s $300, take care of this baby and he would have done it. That’s all I’ve said. I haven’t seen Jersey since weeks before all this happened actually.”
_______________________
1. Why would the teen say this l if he hadn't seen Jersey since before the kidnapping - because, IMO, he didn't say it to the mother or the teenage girl, he said it to someone else who spun it into a story. Someone who asked, "do you think Jersey would take a baby?"
2. How could the defense team not know his name? Why didn't they simply ask the teenage girl. In a matter of hours a reporter was able to find it - IMO, this is either pathetic investigative skills, or someone is lying.
3. I can't find it now, but I watched either Tacopina, Picerno, or Stanton say that the blob came out of the woods that "backed up " to the Bradley/Irwin property. Either a lie or they are getting bad information.

IMO, it was a manufactured lie - derogatory or not, that's my take.

 

[vlpate]

I do not have any links, but the baby that was seen by witnesses being carried by a man was wearing only a diaper. All three witnesses stated this fact.

In his ever-evolving account, Mike Thompson changed his story from "just a diaper", to "a tee shirt and a diaper".

 

[Just K]

In his ever-evolving account, Mike Thompson changed his story from "just a diaper", to "a tee shirt and a diaper".

And, we only have witness reports from TWO people, LP & MT. LP's hubbie has never made a public statement as to what he did or did not see.

 

[vlpate]

<respectfully snipped>
I just didn't think that it was fair to accuse the lawyer of being a LIAR (that's a really strong word, IMO) when there were all kinds of logical reasons he might have said that besides being a liar.
<snip>

BEM: Please find that word in my post that you are referring to.

I don't believe Picerno didn't know the teenage boys name - so when he said he didn't know it, I think he's lying.

As far as the mother and the teenage girl - where are they?

 

[askfornina]

http://kansascitypi.blogspot.com/2011/11/baby-lisa-irwin-investigation-megan.html
something i found very interesting in this interview with MW:

Rugen: Has anybody from the Bradley/Irwin family, Stanton, or Tacopina, visited with you about what you know?

Wright: If I had any information, believe me, I'd put it on blast. I'm not in this for money. Just wanting to do anything and everything in my power to help.
Nope. Short and Short. That's about it
.
Rugen: Cyndy Short, or a detective for them?

Wright: Cyndy Short and her sister Mary K.

Rugen: Is her sister Mary an attorney?

Wright: I spoke with Mary K many times, and she brought her sister, Cyndy the last time I spoke with her in person.

Rugen: When was that?

Wright: I'm not sure. I'll check her business card. Be right back…
"Mary K. Poirier. Mitigation Specialist. The McCallister Law Firm, P.C."
That was a few days before moving out of the house.

Rugen: Are you sure about the date on that? Because wasn't Cyndy Short no longer representing the family a few weeks before you moved out? Didn’t you move out last week?

Wright: Yes, they were still working, even though they were not on the investigation any more.

Rugen: Did they say why?

Wright: It was the right thing to do.

Rugen: And remind me again when you moved out of that house?

Wright: Just a second, I'll look up the date.
Sunday, the 6th this month. That evening. I stayed with a friend until Thursday, when I moved to Springfield.

so as of at least Nov.1st, more likely the 2nd or 3rd, according to MW, Cindy Short is still interviewing witnesses. because "it's the right thing to do"

 

[In da Middle]

http://kansascitypi.blogspot.com/2011/11/baby-lisa-irwin-investigation-megan.html
something i found very interesting in this interview with MW:



so as of at least Nov.1st, more likely the 2nd or 3rd, according to MW, Cindy Short is still interviewing witnesses. because "it's the right thing to do"

Her team of investigators are out still asking questions around here. Stanton's team - not so much. Kudos for CS for doing what is right IMO.

 

[DeAnn]

I don't expect many developments Tuesday. The Kansas City Police Department is going to be very busy trying to find the Chiefs' defense, offense and special teams. :>>> JK! Needing some amusment as the Search for Lisa now is into its seventh week and the Chiefs are a national embarrassment on Monday Night Football.

 

[Whisperer]

When a child's life is at stake, and needs to be found, the criminal defense attorneys advise the parents NOT to speak with LE. I have nothing but disgust for this behavior.

In every case I've watched, the criminal defense attorney hinders the chances of LE finding the baby. In case, some haven't noticed, the cases that are solved are the ones that didn't have a Criminal Defense Attorney working for them. The only way to get a conviction with one of these attorneys on board is to find the body. People are getting better and better at hiding the body.

If LE can question the perp, they can ususally get them to confess and lead them to the body. A Criminal Defense attorney stops this from happening.

I consider this appalling. When a child is involved, the parents should not be protected and prevented from a police interview or interrogation. The criminal defense attorney stops the case from proceeding and in many cases almost bankrupts the City taking the hit.

Take a close look at the cases we have covered and one will see when the attorney is hired, nine times out of ten, the perp walks IF they can't find the body.

 

[AngelWings444]

And, we only have witness reports from TWO people, LP & MT. LP's hubbie has never made a public statement as to what he did or did not see.

Nope, we have ONE witness report. MT. Lisa never saw the man with the baby. Her hubby said he saw it and she was his voice to the media, as he refused to be on camera.

 

[Whisperer]

Her team of investigators are out still asking questions around here. Stanton's team - not so much. Kudos for CS for doing what is right IMO.

Cindy Short took the high road and I am hoping she can be the hero in this case. I am convinced she wants to find Lisa.

 

[Whisperer]

LE has processed over 900 tips and have nothing. Darn shame..

 

[cindysue]

Nope, we have ONE witness report. MT. Lisa never saw the man with the baby. Her hubby said he saw it and she was his voice to the media, as he refused to be on camera.

This is the women Lisa right?
At marker 8:43 you can watch the women describe what SHE and her husband saw in this video,,

Lisa Irwin: Prime News 11/1/11 youtube. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK91LdOmE40&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Lisa Irwin: Prime News 11/1/11 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[tink92]

This is the women Lisa right?
At marker 8:43 you can watch the women describe what SHE and her husband saw in this video,,

Lisa Irwin: Prime News 11/1/11 - YouTube

Yes...she even showed us how she peered through her blinds and saw the man down the road.

 

[hambirg]

Yes...she even showed us how she peered through her blinds and saw the man down the road.

I think why people are questioning her account is because in her first interview, she never mentioned that she also saw. She only said that her husband was driving and saw the man with baby. It's hard to tell if she actually saw him too, or if she just later inserted herself into the story. I'm sure LE knows.

 

[In da Middle]

I think why people are questioning her account is because in her first interview, she never mentioned that she also saw. She only said that her husband was driving and saw the man with baby. It's hard to tell if she actually saw him too, or if she just later inserted herself into the story. I'm sure LE knows.

She very well could have said she saw him in the first interview and it got cut out. The media, in this first interview, also had many things wrong about her. One big fact the MEDIA got wrong in this very interview was stating that this witness lived 3 doors down. There were others, but this one I am comfortable listing publicly.

 

[hambirg]

Her team of investigators are out still asking questions around here. Stanton's team - not so much. Kudos for CS for doing what is right IMO.

That is good to hear.

Back to Jersey, with regards to those woods between the house and the river. You said that they are thick and the terrain wouldn't really be someplace to cut through. Are there no trails? I know they drained the creek. From looking at that map could someone have walked along the edge that runs along the back of the houses on Lister? It looks to end up near the creek area? Are there fences along there or is it just open? TIA

 

[hambirg]

She very well could have said she saw him in the first interview and it got cut out. The media, in this first interview, also had many things wrong about her. One big fact the MEDIA got wrong in this very interview was stating that this witness lived 3 doors down. There were others, but this one I am comfortable listing publicly.

Thanks. I did think of that as a possibility, that it was her original story but got cut from the interview. Like I said, I'm sure LE knows. I sure wish we knew who they saw, but I don't expect to find out unless there is a trial.

 

[In da Middle]

That is good to hear.

Back to Jersey, with regards to those woods between the house and the river. You said that they are thick and the terrain wouldn't really be someplace to cut through. Are there no trails? I know they drained the creek. From looking at that map could someone have walked along the edge that runs along the back of the houses on Lister? It looks to end up near the creek area? Are there fences along there or is it just open? TIA

Virtually every yard is fenced. The trails in the woods don't lead to the river. The greenway goes most of the way through, but again it would be somebody INTIMATE with the area to get there. I am in no way saying it could not happen, because it could. It just had to be somebody (like Jersey or one who grew up in and around around those woods) VERY familiar with them. Not just somebody that took their kids to the edge of the woods to play in the creek or stuck to the trails. And we are talking doing all of this in the dark! Thee is no light back there.

 

[GoodGurl]

Virtually every yard is fenced. The trails in the woods don't lead to the river. The greenway goes most of the way through, but again it would be somebody INTIMATE with the area to get there. I am in no way saying it could not happen, because it could. It just had to be somebody (like Jersey or one who grew up in and around around those woods) VERY familiar with them. Not just somebody that took their kids to the edge of the woods to play in the creek or stuck to the trails. And we are talking doing all of this in the dark! Thee is no light back there.

What about walking through there during the day? Is it common?