Searches for Lisa

[nursebeeme]

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...lice-search-area-near-lisa-irwin's-home-again

this article says (fwiw) they are "holding" the home.. we may not see any searches tonight? (I am not seeing any coverage of this and if they were searching etc right now I would expect all the local outlets to be all over this)??

just a thought

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:waitasec:

Now that BOTH parents have retained an attorney ... and I am "guessing" here ...

If LE wants to search the parents' home, I am "guessing" that the "defense attorney" would tell their "client" as well as LE to get a warrant if you want to search the home ...

I don't recall any other "search warrants" -- or did I miss "other" search warrants ?

I hope that made "sense" ... I am on "overload" right now ...

MOO ...

 

[belimom]

I wonder if they needed the phones in order to see any pictures taken.

I wondered that also but didn't want to actually bring it up. I'm glad you did... :innocent:

 

[Whisperer]

I think we will see an arrest very soon. Are they still searching the area near the home where the crime scene vans were? Did they run from the scene and directly to the house with the search warrant? It appears that way.

 

[luckyme]

I wondered that also but didn't want to actually bring it up. I'm glad you did... :innocent:

What kind of pictures do you think is on the phone? :sick: moo

 

[Marah]

I hope they look in the attic. :seeya:

and the freezer!

 

[wfgodot]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151995"]LE serves search warrant on family's home[/ame]

new thread

 

[Marah]

why didn't they do this search 2 weeks ago?

 

[belimom]

What kind of pictures do you think is on the phone? :sick: moo

It's not what I *think* is on the phone, but what could be. There's a reason those phones are missing. More than likely, it's because calls/texts were made -- or the numbers (if one of these disposable type of phones) can be gotten of the phones and then pings located. (I think these phones still have records with the companies but you have to know which number to ask for?).

I'm not accusing them of anything with the pictures, just trying to think of what could be so damning that the phones had to go away. MOO

 

[mysteriew]

warrant was served because they have to have probable cause to search. Warrant will state what they can search and seize or it can be open to include anything that might pertain to the case. The parents are barred meaning that the warrant would be good for how ever long they need it to be for. So they can serve the warrant tonight and not enter and search the house till tomorrow. The parents cannot go back in until the police are totally done with it. I am assuming they are going to tear the house and yard apart, if the yard is included in the warrant that is. This is a good thing, it probably also means that the family wouldnt give permission to search before so they had no choice but to get a warrant. They will get their warrant before the police search and I do believe they can serve the warrant through their lawyer JT. I also assume he will be on his way back to KCMO.

Except that LE was reported to be at the home yesterday and I think today. So they have been having access.

I think whatever search they plan on doing now might involve some destruction of the property. Digging or tearing something apart.

For those that considered that Luminol might be being used, I really hope that that has been done before now.

 

[nursebeeme]

LE serves search warrant on family's home

new thread

bumping up! :seeya: discuss the warrant at the above link woofie provided...keep this thread for general search information. Thanks peeps..

 

[katydid23]

It's not what I *think* is on the phone, but what could be. There's a reason those phones are missing. More than likely, it's because calls/texts were made -- or the numbers (if one of these disposable type of phones) can be gotten of the phones and then pings located. (I think these phones still have records with the companies but you have to know which number to ask for?).

I'm not accusing them of anything with the pictures, just trying to think of what could be so damning that the phones had to go away. MOO

Exactly. They already have all of the records showing any texts or calls. So why the urgency to find the actual phones. I suppose they might want to look for fingerprints. But besides that, pictures are the only thing I know that are not necessarily available in the company records. { although someone posted that some companies do have them available to be accesed w/out the actual phone. But I do not know for sure.]

I do not know what pictures exactly, but if there was a drunken party going on, even a few people only, partying, then pictures are often snapped. I know my 19 yr old guards her cell from my prying eyes.

 

[mrye4709]

Will the media that went through the house have messed up any evidence? They should have taped it off and not let anyone in it, IMO

 

[Hallow]

Does it sound bad to say it was nice to cut off the air space? For three weeks now, these news reporting choppers have been flying straight over my building here to circle around these areas just north of us. I can see why the neighbors over the river are becoming tired of this. : /

 

[Oriah]

Does it sound bad to say it was nice to cut off the air space? For three weeks now, these news reporting choppers have been flying straight over my building here to circle around these areas just north of us. I can see why the neighbors over the river are becoming tired of this. : /

Not at all, Hallow.
It's one thing to have SAR helicopters doing flyovers when there's a baby or other person missing- pretty sure most people are willing to tolerate that- but the reporters are just...annoying.

 

[Cuoco7]

Exactly. They already have all of the records showing any texts or calls. So why the urgency to find the actual phones. I suppose they might want to look for fingerprints. But besides that, pictures are the only thing I know that are not necessarily available in the company records. { although someone posted that some companies do have them available to be accesed w/out the actual phone. But I do not know for sure.]

I do not know what pictures exactly, but if there was a drunken party going on, even a few people only, partying, then pictures are often snapped. I know my 19 yr old guards her cell from my prying eyes.

I think when they find the phones, they'll find out where that poor baby has been hidden. LE can see activity on phones from records, they want the physical location of the phones.


JMOO

 

[marge_rita]

I also wonder this:

Based on her being intoxicated while in the care of Lisa and the two other children, if they are prepared to at least charge her with three counts of endangering the well being of a child, and negligence of some sort for the dissapearance and unaccountability of Lisa? Would this be enough to bring forth a warrant? I would think so since she endangered these children that were in her care at the time of her dissapearance, and as I've mentioned previously, if you take a child to a daycare provider and return to find your child missing and the caretaker intoxicated, don't you think there would have been an arrest of that daycare provider right there on the spot? It's time police stop looking at DB as a "mother" and start looking at her as someone who endangered this child and two others, and whatever charges they can bring for Lisa's dissapearance.

For 3 days I've asked the same question, why hasn't she been charged with child endangerment or child neglect?

What would be the reason for not arresting her at this time?

imo

 

[AnaTeresa]

For 3 days I've asked the same question, why hasn't she been charged with child endangerment or child neglect?

What would be the reason for not arresting her at this time?

imo

Because there's no proof of actual child endangerment or neglect? LE have to have proof an actual crime has been committed.

 

[marge_rita]

Because there's no proof of actual child endangerment or neglect? LE have to have proof an actual crime has been committed.

Oh but there IS proof. The mother admitted she was drunk when her husband was at werk and during that time the mother was in charge of 3 children.,.....one of which disappeared. There is plenty proof.

 

[AnaTeresa]

From the Missouri statute: 568.045. 1. A person commits the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree if:

(1) The person knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to the life, body, or health of a child less than seventeen years old.


Stating on television you were drunk one night while you were home with your children does not meet this threshold. You aren’t admitting it to LE. LE has no evidence that this statement occurred. You need actual, tangible evidence that DB knowingly acted in a manner that created a substantial risk. Stating you were blackout drunk doesn’t prove to LE that you were actually backout drunk, nor does it prove that the situation in the home at that time created a situation which was a substantial risk towards the children in the home.

Perhaps if the neighbor had observed something, that may meet the threshold. But a statement to the media about something that occurred is not enough to meet the requirements of the statute. There has to be PROOF that endangering a child actually occurred. There is no proof in this case.