Mystery Man Surveillance

[norest4thewicked]

We have to believe the two eyewitnesses fabricated the story about the baby only in a diaper in the arms of a man in those early morning hours. So if they did indeed see this, what parent or caregiver would be carrying their baby in no clothes in cool weather at the hour of the morning?

It was dark and only under street lights. Many eye witness reports are completely off. This could have been just mistaken identification. Besides, if DB put Lisa to bed in clothing and this man was seen at midnight walking around with a baby only in a diaper, are we to believe that he stripped the baby before he took her? And, furthermore, are we to believe that this same man walked around the area with this baby for FOUR hours? Because that is how much time there was between the first and second "sighting."

 

[LvsAMystry]

Here's a map from a screenshot of this video:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/baby-lisa-irwin-surveillance-footage-mystery-man/story?id=14795844

anyone know where the starbucks job is in relation to this map area?

 

[~n/t~]

That's perfectly fine and I will defend your right to have your own opinion. But I do have a couple of questions - How many hits would it take for you to believe she was not kidnapped? And, what dead human being do you think had been laying on the floor in the parents room?

Have you read the Cadaver Dogs Question thread? If not, it's quite informative.

One hit (assuming it was one hit) can be a false positive and experts will bring in a second dog to confirm. That's the way it's normally done in many of the high profile cases.

Casey Anthony
Susan Powell
Jaycee Dugard

 

[strach304]

Of course I believe that LE would fake something like that. They do it all the time. They never planned to use that "evidence" in a trial. They just needed a reason to get probable cause to get the search warrant. And the courts have held consistently that incorrect information on a search warrant does not constitute "fruit from the poison tree". So, even if LE out and out lied, the search warrant is valid.

I have nothing but respect for people who put their lives on the line for us. And I don't even have a problem with them lying during an investigation. They do it all the time, and even most of them will admit it.

I'm not saying this is what happened but my first thought was "oh the dogs" would be a good reason for probable cause and real easy to explain away later as a false hit if need be. No harm no foul.

 

[In da Middle]

All I have to say is I'm really disappointed by the reply. Either LE knows Lisa is dead and if that's the case, why don't they announce it so people will stop calling in leads and tips. If not, why are they shrugging it off as rogue and amateur. If this person is seen in the tape going into a wooded area, around the time baby Lisa was allegedly abducted close to a dumpster where possible burnt clothing was found (unconfirmed), what is the freakin deal for LE to check it out and rule it out.

WTF? We either have a kidnapped child or not. Frankly, I think LE is the one playing the games here and I am disgusted by the way it's being handled.

If Lisa was kidnapped, she is out there. Do they want people to stop looking or what?

This is insane!

We don't know that LE didn't check this out. I think they are just stating their frustration at the media for 'leaking' some info. Dunno. But the media sure has been screwing things up A LOT.

 

[Bon]

They don't need a body.

So how do they confirm she is dead with no body???????????

They may have their suspicions and finding things adding up to Lisa no longer being alive but that isn't enough to "confirm" she is dead:twocents:

 

[Bon]

The media is going to destroy this case just like in the CA case...it will no longer be a case, it will become a circus.........

 

[norest4thewicked]

Have you read the Cadaver Dogs Question thread? If not, it's quite informative.

One hit (assuming it was one hit) can be a false positive and experts will bring in a second dog to confirm. That's the way it's normally done in many of the high profile cases.

Casey Anthony
Susan Powell
Jaycee Dugard

Actually, yes I have read it. And, do you have some information to say that ONLY one dog hit on this area? None of us know if one dog hit or a dozen. All they need to say in the SW is one hit. I would find it very odd for them to come out and reveal every place they had a hit, if more than one was done.

 

[~n/t~]

We don't know that LE didn't check this out. I think they are just stating their frustration at the media for 'leaking' some info. Dunno. But the media sure has been screwing things up A LOT.

My reaction was more to do with Young's response. I don't even know this family. I don't know baby Lisa. I'm miles away in another country and was offended by it. Imagine what the family must feel knowing LE thinks this is rogue amateur? It's like they're saying, don't waste our time.

I don't like that arrogant attitude at all.

IF the parents are involved, I want proof. If not, I will assume this child was kidnapped.

 

[3doglady]

Do we know that they didn't take anything on the search on the 17th?

Could it have been intentionally vague in order not to tip their hand when the SW becomes public? I don't know how they usually do it but I could easily see LE wanting to keep it under wraps if there was a specific item that gives a clue what might have happened to the victim and describing it in terms of a general area.

Intentionally vague I could understand. Intentionally misleading in a SW is another matter. During the trial the DT could say " So Mr. LE you intentionally lied in a legal document when you stated that the dog hit on the floor, when in fact the dog hit on items that had already been removed from the home".

 

[norest4thewicked]

My reaction was more to do with Young's response. I don't even know this family. I don't know baby Lisa. I'm miles away in another country and was offended by it. Imagine what the family must feel knowing LE thinks this is rogue amateur? It's like they're saying, don't waste our time.

I don't like that arrogant attitude at all.

IF the parents are involved, I want proof. If not, I will assume this child was kidnapped.

I actually was with you in the beginning. I didn't go on the fence until they started changing their story. I fell OFF the fence when they started doing interviews with national stations instead of local ones. Then, the change of time was HUGE to me. Then, the cadaver dog? Just absolutely too much coincidence for me.

 

[writer7]

I don't think LE needs to be making statements that might make folks afraid to give tips or that make them confident that the parents are the culprits. If this is a kidnapping, the public needs to help, even if the tips are just like this footage.

 

[3doglady]

My reaction was more to do with Young's response. I don't even know this family. I don't know baby Lisa. I'm miles away in another country and was offended by it. Imagine what the family must feel knowing LE thinks this is rogue amateur? It's like they're saying, don't waste our time.

I don't like that arrogant attitude at all.

IF the parents are involved, I want proof. If not, I will assume this child was kidnapped.

I agree that statement did come off as arrogant. They could have easily said "We're checking all leads." End of story.

 

[Bon]

My reaction was more to do with Young's response. I don't even know this family. I don't know baby Lisa. I'm miles away in another country and was offended by it. Imagine what the family must feel knowing LE thinks this is rogue amateur? It's like they're saying, don't waste our time.

I don't like that arrogant attitude at all.

IF the parents are involved, I want proof. If not, I will assume this child was kidnapped.

Many things are pointing to the parents (not listing) them all here but there is no evidence of a kidnapping We already see the parents changing their story several times already....she is hiding something.....

And Le may be very frustrated as to what the media and the DA's are putting out there. These people are working so hard to find this baby and you have people putting the spin on their efficiency and professionalism.

 

[mysteriew]

I haven't read the whole thread. But have seen the video. All I can say is that GMA now appears to be creating the news rather than reporting it. Under their logic if I see a red car go by my house, and hours later I go to the store and a red car pulls in behind me, I should immediately call police and report I am being stalked.

According to GMA this alleged man is allegedly seen in the Irwin's neighborhood carrying an unclothed baby. 2 hours later and a short distance away a person (unable to determine if the person is male or female) is seen on video. He/she may have been coming out of a wooded area. He/she cannot be determined if carrying anything. A dumpster fire also occurred in the same area around the same time. The dumpster fire has not been conclusively linked to the disappearance, apparently there were several dumpster fires that night. Then 2 hours later a man is seen carrying a baby several blocks away. There is no conclusive evidence evidence of the man's race or description in any of the sightings other than he was wearing a white tshirt. Both sightings were observed from a distance away, and the observers were moving. Only one sighting was reported soon after the disappearance.

Could they be related to Lisa's disappearance? Sure they could be. Or they could be that a man was having trouble getting his child to go back to sleep and took it for a walk. And hours later another man ran to get something out of his car and happened to carry his baby with him. Maybe what was thought to be unclothed babies, was actually babies with tan or light colored clothing on. And maybe they all happened that night, or perhaps some of them happened that week, but were later remembered as that night.

As far as the house, the attorney showed it and pointed out that the carpet where the dog reportedly hit was intact. That is a bit surprising, but since I wasn't there during the search, I cannot say why. Perhaps the comforter was lying beside the bed and that is what the dog actually hit on.

I'm really disappointed in GMA.

As far as no fingerprint powder, the LE has been in the home previously and reportedly did fingerprinting at that time. Any further fingerprints in the home would be useless as the fingerprints of the parents and children would be expected to be there. And DB has reportedly admitted she was in the bedroom and that was reportedly verified by JI.

 

[strach304]

The video showing a guy with no baby isn't a lead. He wasn't seen on the video as doing anything illegal.

JMO

I was assuming this whole thing came about because LE is viewing surveillance cameras to try and find something based on what description those witnesses told LE about the man with a baby. Now, just anyone who looks like a man in a white shirt is under scrutiny from that night is how I perceive it.

 

[UMfanforever]

The inside of the house from the ABC film looks undisturbed. I don't understand that. Maybe it was a rug which they rolled up and it was assumed to be carpet? Did I not read they had "cut carpet"?

Carpet in shed at back of house

 

[cluciano63]

There is no way LE is going to announce that this baby is dead at this stage; they don't know that she is, and may never know for sure, unless she is found or they come across indisputable evidence in the lab.

I have no problem waiting to hear news from LE; the media is not going to solve this case, unless they happen to find Lisa, IMO. If anything, they should be working with LE, but the way many media outlets are going, no wonder LE is keeping their info quiet.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Another thing too is that a few people are talking as if this was LE's first rodeo. While it's always possible that DB is innocent and there was a kidnapping, it's very improbable. And, the fact that LE is treating this as if it were not a kidnapping and something else even strengthens my own personal opinion that Lisa is gone because of DB and possibly someone else.

 

[Donjeta]

Intentionally vague I could understand. Intentionally misleading in a SW is another matter. During the trial the DT could say " So Mr. LE you intentionally lied in a legal document when you stated that the dog hit on the floor, when in fact the dog hit on items that had already been removed from the home".

If I was in the courtroom I wouldn't see it as that misleading and I wouldn't see it as lying particularly if there was a good explanation about preserving the integrity of the investigation. Just a defense attorney misdirection.
If they had a HRD dog alert in the bedroom next to the bed and low enough to be considered floor it would be true enough for me, even if they omitted that there was a specific object in the area of the floor that attached the dog's interest.

IMO the cadaver dog hit would be enough to indicate a possible crime warrant a search warrant even if the item had already been removed from the home by LE so I don't really see how it matters.

But as I said I don't have any experience in how they usually handle these things.