Lawyer of baby Lisa's family sets up a website

[JeannaT]

I can't see LE making up a cadaver dog hit. I hope not. It would be not only unethical but also very stupid IMO. It could bite them in the bottom. If they later solve the case and want to prosecute someone but the working theory what happened to Lisa doesn't include her lying dead in the bedroom at all they would be giving an out to the defendant. Their attorney would be all over this hit. "Yeah, so you say that my client killed Lisa in [insert place] but that can't be true, the cadaver dogs hit in her parents' bedroom. If the dogs hit you must acquit."

I completely agree. I don't think they made up the hit at all, I think it was real. And it was the basis for them getting a search warrant to return with a team of white suits and another dog.

And during that search, they did not remove carpet from the area of the previous dog's "hit".

I think it's pretty clear that although the first dog hit there, the one they brought out to confirm did not. And so they dropped the investigation of that area of the carpet and left it intact.

 

[MyBelle]

Not relevant? If the carpet was put in the room after the search, that would be relevant to me. The way they said "hit on the floor" doesn't sound like shoes or some other object, but you could be right.

The carpet in the shed may have relevance but I don't know for sure that it is tied to the dog's hit in the MBR or something else. LE isn't giving us all the evidence at this point.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I can't see LE making up a cadaver dog hit. I hope not. It would be not only unethical but also very stupid IMO. It could bite them in the bottom. If they later solve the case and want to prosecute someone but the working theory what happened to Lisa doesn't include her lying dead in the bedroom at all they would be giving an out to the defendant. Their attorney would be all over this hit. "Yeah, so you say that my client killed Lisa in [insert place] but that can't be true, the cadaver dogs hit in her parents' bedroom. If the dogs hit you must acquit."

A search warrant is the same as any sworn testimony made to a Judge. It has to be truthful or there would be consequences to the LE who signed it.

JMO

 

[Donjeta]

I completely agree. I don't think they made up the hit at all, I think it was real. And it was the basis for them getting a search warrant to return with a team of white suits and another dog.

And during that search, they did not remove carpet from the area of the previous dog's "hit".

I think it's pretty clear that although the first dog hit there, the one they brought out to confirm did not. And so they dropped the investigation of that area of the carpet and left it intact.

I'm not so sure... why would they think the second dog's got to be right and the first one wrong? Why wouldn't they want to examine the carpet anyway to find out if there was something that could cause one dog to alert?

I still think the dogs alerted to something that was in the area of the floor but not the carpet.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

I completely agree. I don't think they made up the hit at all, I think it was real. And it was the basis for them getting a search warrant to return with a team of white suits and another dog.

And during that search, they did not remove carpet from the area of the previous dog's "hit".

I think it's pretty clear that although the first dog hit there, the one they brought out to confirm did not. And so they dropped the investigation of that area of the carpet and left it intact.

Actually that's not clear at all. I didn't see ANY dogs the day of the 17 hour search.

 

[mysteriew]

I completely agree. I don't think they made up the hit at all, I think it was real. And it was the basis for them getting a search warrant to return with a team of white suits and another dog.

And during that search, they did not remove carpet from the area of the previous dog's "hit".

I think it's pretty clear that although the first dog hit there, the one they brought out to confirm did not. And so they dropped the investigation of that area of the carpet and left it intact.

I'm getting confused. I hadn't read that LE brought in another dog. Or that the dog didn't hit on the area. Can you point out to me where LE said they said they brought in another dog and it didn't hit on the area? Linky???

 

[Deleted member 39678]

A search warrant is the same as any sworn testimony made to a Judge. It has to be truthful or there would be consequences to the LE who signed it.

JMO

Yes your right. If LE makes a mistake on the SW, the evidence collected may not be used at trial. Pretty big gamble to do something wrong on purpose.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

I'm not so sure... why would they think the second dog's got to be right and the first one wrong? Why wouldn't they want to examine the carpet anyway to find out if there was something that could cause one dog to alert?

I still think the dogs alerted to something that was in the area of the floor but not the carpet.

Agreed, like maybe a blanket or purple shorts? jmo

 

[JeannaT]

I'm getting confused. I hadn't read that LE brought in another dog. Or that the dog didn't hit on the area. Can you point out to me where LE said they said they brought in another dog and it didn't hit on the area? Linky???

No, LE hasn't said anything about anything. All we have to go by is that their statement in the search warrant based on the Oct. 17 search, that the cadaver dog hit on the floor by Deborah's bed. So that we know, from LE, their cadaver dog hit on the floor near Deborah's bed on the 17th.

You really have to kind of just piece the rest of this together. LE is mum.

I watched the search on live cam, and I saw another dog in the house briefly. I think others have alluded to seeing that too, saying "no that dog wasn't exhausted, it was in and out quickly". At that point, people were saying hey why aren't there dogs in the yard to help out with the yard search, I believe the one and only dog used that day was used very briefly in the house, first thing, and was gone. The day of the search warrant, white suits were there forever, but the dog was there only briefly. If I recall correctly.

So I don't have a link. This is all based on what I think are logical conclusions, based on the little we have.

1. They obtained a search warrant from the Oct. 17 search, when they didn't have a warrant, and state (I'm sure truthfully) that a dog hit on the floor next to Deborah's bed.

2. They brought the search warrant, guys in white suits, and briefly a dog the day they did the search backed by the warrant.

3. They did not remove carpeting from the floor next to Deborah's bed.

My conclusion is the second dog (probably the best they could get) didn't confirm the hit.

Sorry, no link. It's a thought process.

If you want to watch Cindy go through this thought process (I think this is what she's saying) go to findbabylisa.com and you can watch her interview.

 

[Quiche]

New post is up there.

http://www.findlisa.com/?p=10

The tone is a little rah-rah for the parents, again, and I resent the "let's" phrasing too...

Whatever lady, I'm not interested in mopping up their image, I'm just watching and learning. mo

 

[JeannaT]

The tone is a little rah-rah for the parents, again, and I resent the "let's" phrasing too...

Whatever lady, I'm not interested in mopping up their image, I'm just watching and learning. mo

I don't see that as rah rah for the parents necessarily. She's calling Deborah ignorant and naive, and saying virtually no one will come forward with information about them. I didn't find that flattering at all, more a call for opinions from their acquaintances. She's saying no one is offering any opinions to "flesh out" what they are like. That's neutral, at best, to me. It's like, hey where are your friends?

 

[Karmaa]

Yes your right. If LE makes a mistake on the SW, the evidence collected may not be used at trial. Pretty big gamble to do something wrong on purpose.

That's not correct. The courts have consistently held that even if LE out and out lies on the SW, it doesn't invalidate it. The officers could be sanctioned if they were caught, but they rarely ever get caught. This is easy enough to say "the dog made a mistake.. too bad."

 

[scmom]

Seems I also remember LE requesting that the media retreat to a distance on the day of that search. And wasn't there some talk of not wanting to reveal every tool and method they were using so as not to help the criminal element? (Paraphrasing here.)

 

[mysteriew]

No, they haven't said anything about anything. All we have to go by is that they obtained a search warrant based on the Oct. 17 search that the cadaver dog hit on the floor by Deborah's bed. So that we know, from LE, their cadaver dog hit on the floor near Deborah's bed.

You really have to kind of just piece all this together. LE is mum.

I watched the search on live cam, and I saw another dog in the house briefly. At that point, people were saying hey why aren't there dogs in the yard to help out with the yard search, I believe the one and only dog used that day was used very briefly in the house, and was gone. The day of the search warrant, they were there forever, but the dog was there only briefly.

So I don't have a link. This is all based on what I think are logical conclusions, based on the little we have.

1. They obtained a search warrant from the Oct. 17 search, when they didn't have a warrant, and state (I'm sure truthfully) that a dog hit on the floor next to Deborah's bed.

2. They brought the search warrant, guys in white suits, and briefly a dog the day they did the search backed by the warrant.

3. They did not remove carpeting from the floor next to Deborah's bed.

My conclusion is the second dog (probably the best they could get) didn't confirm the hit.

Sorry, no link. It's thought process.

If you want to watch Cindy go through this thought process (I think this is what she's saying) go to findbabylisa.com and you can watch her interview.

So you think a dog was there briefly and that is what you base it on, that a dog was there? LOL LE drops by scenes all the time when they are between assignments. Maybe he came by to ask if his dog was needed. Or maybe he just wanted to say hi or see how things were going.

Or maybe that dog hit too! Unless we hear it from LE, it isn't fact.

I got to thinking about the "if it hit, they had to take the carpet idea." Besides the fact that the attorney didn't have them show the whole room so we really don't know if there was any carpet missing, there is also the possibility that the carpet area was dry and not stained. Maybe it didn't floresce under luminol. So they vaccumed the carpet and took that back to the lab to look at fibers.

When a dog gets a hit in the woods, they may collect twigs and stones from the area for testing. But they don't usually dig the area up and take it back to the lab. So IMO the same principle would apply here. If they can collect the evidence without tearing up the carpet, you would think they would do so.

Basically we don't know what they did, and won't unless/until they get to trial.

 

[MyBelle]

That's not correct. The courts have consistently held that even if LE out and out lies on the SW, it doesn't invalidate it. The officers could be sanctioned if they were caught, but they rarely ever get caught. This is easy enough to say "the dog made a mistake.. too bad."

BBM. Link, please. Thank you.

 

[JeannaT]

So you think a dog was there briefly and that is what you base it on, that a dog was there? LOL LE drops by scenes all the time when they are between assignments. Maybe he came by to ask if his dog was needed. Or maybe he just wanted to say hi or see how things were going.

Or maybe that dog hit too! Unless we hear it from LE, it isn't fact.

I got to thinking about the "if it hit, they had to take the carpet idea." Besides the fact that the attorney didn't have them show the whole room so we really don't know if there was any carpet missing, there is also the possibility that the carpet area was dry and not stained. Maybe it didn't floresce under luminol. So they vaccumed the carpet and took that back to the lab to look at fibers.

When a dog gets a hit in the woods, they may collect twigs and stones from the area for testing. But they don't usually dig the area up and take it back to the lab. So IMO the same principle would apply here. If they can collect the evidence without tearing up the carpet, you would think they would do so.

If that dog hit too, there would have been carpet removed. IMHO.

And yes, that's what I base it on. The dog went into the house at the first of the search that morning, was dispatched after a short length of time, and they dropped the apparent need to research the area the first dog hit on.

They came for that search with the big guns - LOTS of white suits, lots of hours, and I suspect the best dog they have.

And although they had a hit on the 17th, they didn't act on that by removing the carpet after the second (I believe better) dog left the scene.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

That's not correct. The courts have consistently held that even if LE out and out lies on the SW, it doesn't invalidate it. The officers could be sanctioned if they were caught, but they rarely ever get caught. This is easy enough to say "the dog made a mistake.. too bad."

What part of my post is incorrect? You did see my use of the word may right?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

here we go...

again !

moo ...

 

[Quiche]

I don't see that as rah rah for the parents necessarily. She's calling Deborah ignorant and naive, and saying virtually no one will come forward with information about them. I didn't find that flattering at all, more a call for opinions from their acquaintances. She's saying no one is offering any opinions to "flesh out" what they are like. That's neutral, at best, to me. It's like, hey where are your friends?

Yes, but why is this lawyer concerned about that while an innocent baby is missing??? She needs to load up her clients and get them down to LE-- that's what her real job is. Everything else is designed to confuse the issue.

I could care less about DB's flattery. mo

 

[JeannaT]

Yes, but why is this lawyer concerned about that while an innocent baby is missing??? She needs to load up her clients and get them down to LE-- that's what her real job is. Everything else is designed to confuse the issue.

I could care less about DB's flattery. mo

Because she's trying - as hard as she can - to keep the focus off Deborah and Jeremy and on to making the public look for a live baby Lisa.

The way it was going a couple days ago, people who might have a very nagging feeling that a friend's baby is Baby Lisa might have been lulled into thinking Deborah killed her, no point in possibly embarrassing myself and hurting my friend by calling in this tip.

I couldn't care less about DB's flattery. I do take exception to the thought that article was a rah rah article about them. Neutral, at best.