why haven't they done this sooner?
They did do cursory searches. I think they haven't obtained a warrant for more thorough searches until now because 1. They just now obtained probable cause or 2. They could have justified probable cause all along but now need warrants as db & JI have loitered up.
If they found something out in the woods today, would they have left the scene that fast?
ITA, they wouldn't have left that scene unsecured if they'd found anything. I have a (holey) theory below.
I thought of that too. I have never known LE to be able to keep it quiet. Either a searcher told media, or the media could tell from the coroners van was seen or many times the family reaction they could tell. But in this case, the search area was where the media couldn't access it or watch it. All the searchers were professionals. And the family may not be told yet.
As far as notifying the family. I would think they may not have to yet. Ok, LE normally goes to the family and tells them if they believe they may have found a loved one. But because it is preliminary, I don't think it is a requirement, I think it is a curtesy. In this case if parents are suspected, they may use the "body not identified yet" as a reason not to notify. Because identity has to be formally established.
You're right. Except they didn't leave the area secured.
Did I read dogs were around the house today? I read something about dogs and then a discussion. Could they have been drug dogs?
Could they be searching for drugs? It's hard to drink as much as she and her neighbor drank that night without "help". I totally believe the 2:30 call was to obtain drugs. Someone here said JI being an electrician would know about hiding things behind plates, etc.,. I think drugs are what they are after.
DB's mother was an addict, addiction is hereditary, especially alcohol addiction - not sure if it's the same for drugs...but if so....
How do we know DB's mother was an addict? I heard she died young, but I haven't even seen a link for THAT, let alone that she was an addict.
I've never seen that on FB before.. Here on Sleuths it's normal but on FB (for me personally) I've never seen it on my contact list.
BUT.. I might ad, you haven't had a child disappear either. It just ads to the creep factor (of this case), IMHOO.
I had Kyron on my FB profile early in his case.
I sure hope they start checking some of the plumbing in that house because 3 cellphones can easily be flushed down the toilets.
Would a wet cellphone still ping? I have dropped two iPhones in the toilet <genius alert> both times I grabbed them out right away. They were both toast. I'm thinking a phone still underwater would not make a signal for long, but I will look for info to verify that.
Maybe LE is also going to look for the object that the made clicking sounds that the children heard? What makes clicking sounds? Someone checking to see if a lighter works? Typing on a computer keyboard?
I don't watch TV, I only get my info from the web. Is there a link to the GMA interview where the clicking noise is mentioned? (I will go hunting, I just now got to the end of this thread and I wanted to get all my questions and comments out before i move off on my own sleuthing)
Just had a thought... a baby coughing on a baby monitor may sound like 'clicking' with the distortion...
Nah, it still sounds like a baby coughing. The sound quality is pretty good. The swing idea is plausible. I think the dryer was too far away, the fan too routine, the mop intrigued me, mine clicks (sponge mop), still pondering the clicking, but pondering is all any of us can do.
Sorry OT, morning crew will come in and see this has a lot of pages and think something happened...then by the time they get to the end, all they read was CLICK CLICK CLICK and of course my not so funny jokes. Sorry Day Crew!
Yeah, thanks
apology accepted.
This is what I am leaning towards.
I watched the video a couple more times of Peter Alexander interviewing DB about the wine incident. IMO...her body language and tone appears defensive, almost like "ya, so what, I drank wine, I'm an adult needing "my" time". I also remember reading she admitted to drinking "a couple times a week". IMO - she might have drank more than usual, realized she was all alone, got on the computer, opened the window to smoke (hopefully just cigs), possibly found a chat room, or who knows what. Being intoxicated lets loose all inhibitions, and maybe she said a few too many things to the person on the other side of the screen. Things like "I'm lonely, I'm drunk, I'm bored, I need me time, my husband is at work till ____, I'll leave the front door open, my room is so-and-so, the kids are sleeping in ____ room so don't go in there and wake them, etc".
I think it's possible she did blackout and may not have recollection of certain events she doesn't want her husband to know about. Maybe she does remember and doesn't want him to find out. I still do not believe she personally killed/intentionally harmed Lisa. However, I do believe she is the one responsible for providing this "intruder" with "intimate" information regarding the house, where the kids' rooms are, that her husband was gone till a certain time, etc. If she didn't give out that information, than the only other people who could have would be the neighbor or her brother.
I think DB body language shows she knows she is guilty of what happened that night. It's almost like she looks to JI and is begging him to not leave her or turn against her. And given JI's body language, I think he knows DB is responsible in some way, but doesn't want to turn against her in hopes she will tell him the full truth of what happened that
That theory can't work if the computers were the first thing LE took. (per Ashley Irwin) I think we have to assume there weren't any incriminating searches or leads on the computer, or we'd have a manhunt for the "guest," or, in the case of incriminating searches, an arrest. - depending on when the searches were done.
Done editing now! Thanks for patience! (
I'm still editing this thread - i marked some of my quotes so long ago that I forgot what I wanted to say! )
I will say this, since this is a thread about the search warrant. (oh yeah, remember the search warrant?) I'm wondering if the 9th search of the wooded area was bait. Meaning, that, LE has noticed particular reaction or behavior from DB, or others involved each time they search this location. Maybe she calls the same friend, or maybe LE gets a call, or maybe, LE is watching a message board, and each time they search there some anonymous poster makes comments that only an insider would know. So, whatever this behavior might be, that gets repeated each time the woods are searched, they went back out there to search yesterday afternoon, because they wanted to see if "it" would happen again when they searched the area. When it did, that gave them info they needed to obtain a search warrant. Moo. Moo.
I'm trying to figure out what new information LE acquired that would justify the search warrant for the house. They have to have probable cause. Additionally, search warrants aren't carte blanc, they have to state what is being searched for. So, the two big questions are:
1. what new info persuaded the judge to issue the warrant. (
Or do they simply NEED a warrant now that DB & JI aren't agreeing to the search?
Or do they want the warrant to protect the integrity of the evidence in case of a future trial, and were prompted by the appearance of the defense atty JT?)
2. What are they looking for?
Oh, and one more thing: We know that they haven't been searching the house overnight. I think Grandmaj may have missed that because, she asked why no one was tweeting. There wasn't anything to tweet. Overnight they had Officers guarding the property, but no activity. (now there's an exciting night shift for ya!)
