LE Serves Warrant on Family Home #6

[Patty G]

Are those boys with mom and dad still? Has CPS been involved at all? Very concerning if they haven't.

Friday's Today Show showed JI and DB taking the boys to school. ~35 seconds

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/44987184#44987184

We have no idea if CPS is involved or not.

 

[~n/t~]

That's a pretty teesy straw you've got there. :floorlaugh:

I understand wanting the parents to be innocent, but it's just not looking good. Their own words convict them.

I'm not ready to convict them based on one cadaver dog hit. False positives are very common.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-17/...orrey-garrido-property-second-dog?_s=PM:CRIME

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=17284572

 

[Tuffy]

He had to be pretty determined to take his boy. They weren't even married. I wonder how he got him. There is a story here, I bet. He shows us none of those signs of being ruthless to find Lisa...how strange!

Jeremy has owned that house since he was eighteen. WTH? Does his family have money? I have not heard of an 18 yr old homeowner before.

I can't imagine wanting to own a home at 18 bad enough to come up with a down payment, apply for a mortgage, and go through all the stuff you have to do to buy a house. How does an 18 year old even have the income history, and credit history to qualify for a mortgage?

IMO, someone bought the house for him. So that begs the question, why buy a 3 bedroom ranch home for an 18 year old? The previous owners aren't his parents, right? So he didn't inherit it. Someone along the way, thought he should own a house.

Maybe this isn't important to the case anyway, but sure is strange.

 

[2goldfish]

I'm not ready to convict them based on one cadaver dog hit. False positives are very common.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-17/...orrey-garrido-property-second-dog?_s=PM:CRIME

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=17284572

I believe it is standard to bring in more than one dog, blind.


I see which way the wind is blowing - it's blowing me off the fence.

and I am soooo cynical from the anthony case, I can see the defense right now, reading through here, all the posts of posters desperate to believe lisa is still alive, that maybe drunk momma rolled over on her and it was an accident, no surprises here for the defense if there is ever an arrest that makes it to trial.

just look at the anthony defense, it was just a lineup of WS's worst forgotten theories...mark my words we see it again here...if/when there is an arrest.

(note: I do not believe momma was drunk. at all. not until I hear LE state that they knew she was still drunk at 4 am.)

 

[TobyWong*]

I sent a tweet to Jeanine Pirro to ask her about JI background and how he was able to afford a house so young. Maybe she will dig into that.

srry ot to thread..

I know a single young male that bought his 1st house @ 18. He started work young in a family business and made his own money, made his own down payment and 4 yrs later is still there never late w/ a payment and still works from morning til nite. I've always been proud of him for doing this.

Rare but does happen.imo

If dad had nothing to do w/ disappearing his daughter, I will feel badly for him that he now has this stigma related to that house. It has to be a point of pride for him to have gotten and kept it for 10 years.imo

Though none of this will matter if he aided in the disappearing of baby Lisa!

 

[~n/t~]

Where did the information about JI owning the house at 18 come from? Anybody have a link? I thought he'd been there 9 years (??):waitasec:

 

[Tuffy]

I'm not ready to convict them based on one cadaver dog hit. False positives are very common.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-17/...orrey-garrido-property-second-dog?_s=PM:CRIME

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=17284572

Whoa, ~n/t~. Neither of those articles say that false positives are very common. It only says that they can occur.

The second article says this:

It was unlikely the apparent wood gave the cadaver dogs a "false positive," Merritt stated. The cadaver dogs are trained to detect human decomposition as opposed to flakes of dead skin. He also noted it was interesting that the charred pieces were found buried about 2 ½ feet in the ground.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

This is where i stand now. I just cant get there either.

I grew up in a home with alcoholics. For years I watched them deny/cover/hide even simplest things that resulted from a drunken episode. A burnt sofa cushion gets carried across the street and put in the neighbors trash can, a rug mysteriously "disappears", the dent in the car becomes "someone hit it at grocery store and took off", etc. etc. Why? Because those things are jumping off points for confrontation about a problem that the alcoholic doesn't want to address.

Not saying anyone in this case IS an alcoholic, just saying I've seen similar behavior from alcoholics that I've known personally.

JMO

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Where did the information about JI owning the house at 18 come from? Anybody have a link? I thought he'd been there 9 years (??):waitasec:

Well, isn't he in his mid to late 20's? :waitasec:

 

[Tuffy]

Where did the information about JI owning the house at 18 come from? Anybody have a link? I thought he'd been there 9 years (??):waitasec:

I think there was a link to the property records earlier that said he'd been there 9 years. Isn't he 27 now?

 

[TobyWong*]

Where did the information about JI owning the house at 18 come from? Anybody have a link? I thought he'd been there 9 years (??):waitasec:

funny now that you mention it, I thought I read here that he did own it for 9 yrs and then it morphed to 10. But I've got nothing to back it up. just read here all day everyday

 

[~n/t~]

I believe it is standard to bring in more than one dog, blind.


I see which way the wind is blowing - it's blowing me off the fence.

and I am soooo cynical from the anthony case, I can see the defense right now, reading through here, all the posts of posters desperate to believe lisa is still alive, that maybe drunk momma rolled over on her and it was an accident, no surprises here for the defense if there is ever an arrest that makes it to trial.

just look at the anthony defense, it was just a lineup of WS's worst forgotten theories...mark my words we see it again here...if/when there is an arrest.

(note: I do not believe momma was drunk. at all. not until I hear LE state that they knew she was still drunk at 4 am.)

The point I'm making is that one hit is not enough for me to convict. If the results from the evidence taken turn out to be positive and/or more than one cadaver dog hit on that same spot or anywhere else in the home, I will gladly fall off the fence. In the meantime, all we have is what was in the affadavit.

If it turns out that Lisa died in the home, I will NOT stand by an accident theory. Dr. G's testimony in the CA case will stay with me forever. Nobody stages an accident to look like a kidnapping or murder. They call 911.

 

[vlpate]

I'm not ready to convict them based on one cadaver dog hit. False positives are very common.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-17/...orrey-garrido-property-second-dog?_s=PM:CRIME

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=17284572

Neither of the stories you site indicate the dogs gave false positives. One said the dogs can give false positives. The truth is, the dogs are 90% accurate. 9 out of 100 give a false positive.

Like you though, I am holding out hope we have one of the nine.

http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dogs-how-reliable-are-they-at-detecting-death/

"In other words, out of 100, there are 0-9 false positives and 0-25 false negatives. A negative predictive value describes the chance that, if a sample is not contaminated, the dog will correctly identify the sample as clear of human remains. The study quotes a negative predictive value of 90-100. This means only 0-10 ‘clean’ squares are wrongly identified as contaminated by the dogs.

Accuracy is the degree to which the evidence presented by the dogs matches known information about which squares were marked. The accuracy of dog detection is presented as 92-100. This means that dogs correctly identify carpet squares as ‘marked’ or ‘unmarked’ in at least 92 cases out of 100. This is an impressive accuracy score.

In addition, I think it is important to consider that this is an experiment, not real life. In reality cadaver dogs are given more time to assess possible traces of human remains. Hence in a true police setting, cadaver dogs are more likely to give accurate information."

 

[~n/t~]

I think there was a link to the property records earlier that said he'd been there 9 years. Isn't he 27 now?

I thought he was older. :floorlaugh:

 

[mmmagique]

I'm not ready to convict them based on one cadaver dog hit. False positives are very common.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-17/...orrey-garrido-property-second-dog?_s=PM:CRIME

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=17284572

We have more to work with (imo) than the cadaver dogs.

 

[~n/t~]

Neither of the stories you site indicate the dogs gave false positives. One said the dogs can give false positives. The truth is, the dogs are 90% accurate. 9 out of 100 give a false positive.

Like you though, I am holding out hope we have one of the nine.

http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dogs-how-reliable-are-they-at-detecting-death/

"In other words, out of 100, there are 0-9 false positives and 0-25 false negatives. A negative predictive value describes the chance that, if a sample is not contaminated, the dog will correctly identify the sample as clear of human remains. The study quotes a negative predictive value of 90-100. This means only 0-10 ‘clean’ squares are wrongly identified as contaminated by the dogs.

Accuracy is the degree to which the evidence presented by the dogs matches known information about which squares were marked. The accuracy of dog detection is presented as 92-100. This means that dogs correctly identify carpet squares as ‘marked’ or ‘unmarked’ in at least 92 cases out of 100. This is an impressive accuracy score.

In addition, I think it is important to consider that this is an experiment, not real life. In reality cadaver dogs are given more time to assess possible traces of human remains. Hence in a true police setting, cadaver dogs are more likely to give accurate information."

I never said they did. They brought in more dogs to confirm.

 

[~n/t~]

We have more to work with (imo) than the cadaver dogs.

Like what? Did I miss something? Not being snarky, I may have missed other evidence found that pointed to one or both parents. TIA

 

[mmmagique]

Their ever-changing stories.
The fact that criminals who steal children would know better than to steal cell phones that could track them.
The staging is all wrong for the crime reported.
The parents not talking to police for the past...what? ten days?
The father speaking of his daughter in the past tense.
The parents never begging for their baby back, or explaining to whoever has her to how to care for her.

It's circumstancial but damning, imo.

 

[~n/t~]

Well, isn't he in his mid to late 20's? :waitasec:

I didn't know he was only 27. Looking at him I assumed he was in his mid 30's.

 

[Tuffy]

I thought he was older. :floorlaugh:

I know right?! Although, if he was on his own and taking care of that house at 18, I can see why he may look prematurely aged! Keeping up with a house on your own isn't easy. I did it by myself for years. I wouldn't have wanted to do it when I was 18.