Police say parents are not answering vital questions #3

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Your welcome, anything I can do to advance your case for the defense. I know now that even if she said 99.9% some would argue that it is not 100%..no case.

The affidavit states clearly there was a hit in the bdrm by a cadaver dog. LE doesn't lie on affidavits, as much as some here would like to think they do.

BBM: I have no dog in this fight, it's not MY case, I'm just trying to help keep the facts we know out there.

 

[Whisperer]

VERY, very rare that an intruder would steal a baby...yet here we are with a group that contends it happens. This is based on less than 5% possibility that one did.

...BUT we, who think the bio parents know what happened to their baby, are the emotional ones.?..just out to hang these innocent victims of a crime?.

 

[iamnotagolem]

Very cool! Can I ask what area of the county you are in? They are ALL over here, as they should be. Just curious as to how far away you are.

I'm in Cali, I check every time I see boards with missing children posters. This was at a walmart, they had to have just put up the poster b/c it hasn't been there the last few times I was there. We're in a pretty remote area, but at least there is a poster up, I went to the walmart in the "big city" last week and they didn't have one up.

I didn't see any when I was in KS in mid October.

If Lisa was kidnapped, I feel it would be incredibly easy to not be found out. Once they had Lisa they just needed to move to a new town. Especially since babies change so much from 10 months on.

 

[melissasmom]

And for 8 and 11 hours on the very first day no less! Also, for those convinced that they were not interviewed separately already, how do we get different hours on the first day? This means that they had her at the very LEAST 3 hours by herself, most likely more as I am sure that part of his hours were alone.
It seems like a neighbor KCPD officer who explained to me that Miranda is only for an arrest may have been wrong.

I thought is was only for arrest also, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. yeah, I don't really like Wiki, they are sometimes wrong, but the info there seems correct

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning"]Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Quote from article:

The Miranda warning (also referred to as Miranda rights) is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. In other words, a Miranda warning is a prophylactic criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer in order to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination

This actually confuses me more though, because it says in police custody or a custodial interrogation. So this still applies to people who give statements of their own volition? Can anyone clarify? Thanks

 

[melissasmom]

VERY, very rare that an intruder would steal a baby...yet here we are with a group that contends it happens. This is based on less than 5% possibility that one did.

...BUT we, who think the bio parents know what happened to their baby, are the emotional ones.?..just out to hang these innocent victims of a crime?.

I think that is part of the issue here though. Some people are really letting the Caylee Anthony case guide their emotions in THIS case. All cases are not like Caylees. All parents are definitely NOT like Casey. JMO

ETA: Ok, did you edit your post as I was quoting? i could have sworn I read something about grandparents and drowning and molesting.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

VERY, very rare that an intruder would steal a baby...yet here we are with a group that contends it happens. This is based on less than 5% possibility that one did.
...BUT we, who think the bio parents know what happened to their baby, are the emotional ones.?..just out to hang these innocent victims of a crime?.

BBM: And I think until there is solid evidence they are guilty, they deserve that 5% chance. Even more important, I think Lisa Irwin deserves that that 5% chance be explored in every way possible. JMHO!

 

[DeAnn]

Did anyone see baby Lisa that night? The neighbor, brother to DB, anyone else?
The last time seen changed, iirc, and that has been troubling.

Here's the reality. Lisa's brothers were questioned the day she went missing. They were questioned some weeks later. It seems nothing major new came out of those.

If they didn't see her that night......I can't imagine that wouldn't have come out! My conclusion is the brothers validated their sister being home at some point that evening. Police have said they wanted to know who came and went "that night." Not that day and night or the day before. That night.

 

[Minette]

I think that is part of the issue here though. Some people are really letting the Caylee Anthony case guide their emotions in THIS case. All cases are not like Caylees. All parents are definitely NOT like Casey. JMO
.

I think you are right about this. However, Lisa Irwin deserves her OWN justice. Lisa cannot be a proxy for Caylee, nor can Deborah Bradley be a proxy for Casey Anthony.

Sometimes I almost feel people WANT Lisa to be dead and DB to be responsible so they'll have a new FCA circus to follow.

 

[melissasmom]

I think you are right about this. However, Lisa Irwin deserves her OWN justice. Lisa cannot be a proxy for Caylee, nor can Deborah Bradley be a proxy for Casey Anthony.

Sometimes I almost feel people WANT Lisa to be dead and DB to be responsible so they'll have a new FCA circus to follow.

If you ever saw some of the people talking about this case on Facebook, I would most definitely agree with that. As disgusting as that is

 

[Minette]

I have visited several of those Facebook pages. It is extremely disturbing. All I know is that if it turns out that Lisa is dead and one or both of her parents are responsible, I will be saddened and angered and I will hope that justice is served. However, if it turns out that she is still alive somewhere and/or her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance then my conscience will be clear.

 

[Meri]

Very cool! Can I ask what area of the county you are in? They are ALL over here, as they should be. Just curious as to how far away you are.

I also saw one at Sam's Club about 2 weeks ago, in California.

 

[melissasmom]

Did anyone see baby Lisa that night? The neighbor, brother to DB, anyone else?
The last time seen changed, iirc, and that has been troubling.

Here is my opinion on that. Just an opinion. Anyone that has ever been drunk can vouch for this. I am not talking about a blackout, I mean just drunk, somewhere between tipsy and passed out. If I drink too much, the next day my memory of the night before is very hazy. I was not in a blackout state (that is much different)but there are things I have trouble remembering. For instance, if I were to have say, 4 drinks, I would be drunk. The next day when going over what I recall about my evening, some stuff I'm just not going to remember. I may clearly recall putting my pajamas on, but dont recall taking out my contacts. I know I did, because they are in the case, but I sure don't remember doing it. Or lets say you are at a bar and get drunk. Maybe you remember getting in the car (with a designated driver of course) and you remember going to your front door, but the ride in between is pretty hazy.
This is what I think is going on with DB and why the timeline changed. She knows she put Lisa to bed at 6:30 and she remembers it was 10:30 when she went to bed or thereabouts. But the time closer to when she went to bed is more fuzzy, because she was drunk. She THINKS she checked on Lisa, Im assuming because it was something she normally did as routine, but she can not clearly remember walking into that bedroom and checking on the baby. So she doesnt want to say yes she did see her, because truthfully she is not sure, because she doesn't REMEMBER.
THIS is just my OPINION.

 

[cityslick]

Here is my opinion on that. Just an opinion. Anyone that has ever been drunk can vouch for this. I am not talking about a blackout, I mean just drunk, somewhere between tipsy and passed out. If I drink too much, the next day my memory of the night before is very hazy. I was not in a blackout state (that is much different)but there are things I have trouble remembering. For instance, if I were to have say, 4 drinks, I would be drunk. The next day when going over what I recall about my evening, some stuff I'm just not going to remember. I may clearly recall putting my pajamas on, but dont recall taking out my contacts. I know I did, because they are in the case, but I sure don't remember doing it. Or lets say you are at a bar and get drunk. Maybe you remember getting in the car (with a designated driver of course) and you remember going to your front door, but the ride in between is pretty hazy.
This is what I think is going on with DB and why the timeline changed. She knows she put Lisa to bed at 6:30 and she remembers it was 10:30 when she went to bed or thereabouts. But the time closer to when she went to bed is more fuzzy, because she was drunk. She THINKS she checked on Lisa, Im assuming because it was something she normally did as routine, but she can not clearly remember walking into that bedroom and checking on the baby. So she doesnt want to say yes she did see her, because truthfully she is not sure, because she doesn't REMEMBER.
THIS is just my OPINION.

It's a good theory and it's very viable that is what happened. The problem with some is they can't get past 'drunk while watching children' so anything after that gets dismissed as a possible reason as to why the times were off at first.

 

[KsStormy]

Problem with the drunk thing IMHO, is that she seemed to remember that the boys were still up, & telling them to come to bed with her, but not anything about Lisa. Selective memory?

 

[Whisperer]

Are the ones who are here to protect DB's rights saying there is no evidence? When a cadaver dog hits, they want more cadaver dogs, when the dogs don't bark, they say, they were in the back, when the mother fails a poly, they say she was nervous; when they refuse to speak to Le after four days, they say that is their constitutional right. When the same clothing describe she was wearing was found on the premises, we are told she had two of the same outfits.

They say LE was just to mean to them and it is LE's fault that Lisa is not found. IF ONLY LE had been nicer, maybe they would get somewhere.

When told that the chances of a stranger taken a baby, they balk and say it's possible in this case that it could happen. When said no noise was heard on the monitor, they refer to be her being drunk and there is no harm in that. And the final explanation is she may be a drunk but that doesn't mean she harmed her baby.

At what point does it become a point of contention for some people to start questioning and wondering how all the pieces came together and the father was absent for the first time that a stranger found this home and took a ten month old baby? When all these things are put together, it sure makes a pretty good case for the parents having kge.

It appears to me that it is nothing but excuses made for every single thing observed that leans in the direction of parental involvement. It is my opinion and the opinion of people a whole lot smarter than me that this child's demise occurred in that house and the parents both know what happened.

The parents don't want local media in this case. They don't want to talk to LE about their daughter. They have High Profile Defense Attorneys and yet a small faction of people still want to believe they are innocent. It is their right, however, I don't see very much investigation going on to back up the theory of innocence. All I see is constant balking at anyone who suggest the parents are guilty.

This will go forever and it just gets worse. I've been to this rodeo before and have seen this play out before also. It doesn't get better, but can get worse..especially if no resolution happens. That is where it can get ugly. I feel sorry for the mods.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I feel bad for Lisa.

I know most of this thread is just a big argument, but whether Lisa is alive or dead, whether her parents are innocent or guilty; I'm really glad that this many people are still so passionate about Lisa. I'm glad that this many total strangers care what happened to her, that this many people take time out of their day to check on Lisa. Bless her little heart.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I am looking for two things.

I am looking for proof of an abduction.

And I am looking for proof the parents were involved.

I'm not finding proof enough to be swung in either direction right now. But the fact that the parent are not fulfilling every LE request does weigh on the scales ~ and not in favor of the parents.

 

[askfornina]

BBM: I have no dog in this fight, it's not MY case, I'm just trying to help keep the facts we know out there.

I agree. I am not DB's defense or supporter. I am here for Lisa. I genuinely believe that there is not enough evidence to determine guilt. I don't need DB to be innocent, and I don't think it's impossible that she did it. To me, guilt just hasn't been proven.

 

[Whisperer]

As I recall, SB said she was there while DB went to get the booze. She tells that Lisa was sleeping in her room and apparently fine. I never heard her say she saw her. It sounds like she was assuming everything was fine. She used the word "apparently".

She then tells her four yr old saw her. Well, isn't that peachy? When did she see her? So we are basing Lisa was alive and fine at 4:30 based on a four year old.

JI says he was playing with Lisa and the boys went she went to the store. OK. We have no witness for that one.

I wonder if Lisa was alive on Oct 3. She may have died the night before for all we know...as I am not going to base Lisa being alive on what a four year old allegedly told her mother.

So if Lisa was asleep @ 4:30pm and again put to "Sleep" at 6:40pm and not checked on till 4:00am, does that sound reasonable to anyone? A ten month old baby not checked on for ten hours and then only under the suspicion of being abducted is more than odd. When was she going to check on her? Gosh, if all the lights in the house weren't on and if there wasn't a kitten on the bed, she may not have been checked on for five more hours, maybe longer.

 

[Sparklin]

Problem with the drunk thing IMHO, is that she seemed to remember that the boys were still up, & telling them to come to bed with her, but not anything about Lisa. Selective memory?

Big difference imo -- she had interaction with the boys and it was unusual for them to be up at that time. Opening Lisa's door and peering in was regular routine..