When was the last time Lisa was seen alive

[redheadedgal]

Police have not indicated that they think Lisa disappeared before the evening of Oct. 3.This tells me that LE has not told anyone if they are revisiting the time..We don't know if they are or not...

that's exactly my take on this too

 

[dog.gone.cute]

This story quotes SY saying *Its not a cold case*nothing about they are not revisiting the time..unless I missed it!

Police have not indicated that they think Lisa disappeared before the evening of Oct. 3-Not Indicated tells me-they have not spoken publicly about revisiting the time-We do not know if they are or not-Did SY tell you they were not revisiting the time?

BBM:

:seeya: Just "jumping off" your post here :

IF there is the possibility that Lisa "disappeared" BEFORE the evening of Oct 3 -- and LE "thinks" it is a possibility -- I sure wish they would tell the public.

JMO ... but this :silenced: from LE does NOT seem to helping this case at all.

I think it is high time that LE "let the :cat::cat: out of the bag"

Who knows what it could lead to ... maybe it could lead to finding Lisa !

MOO ...

 

[DeAnn]

This story quotes SY saying *Its not a cold case*nothing about they are not revisiting the time..unless I missed it!

Police have not indicated that they think Lisa disappeared before the evening of Oct. 3-Not Indicated tells me-they have not spoken publicly about revisiting the time-We do not know if they are or not-Did SY tell you they were not revisiting the time?

when it says police indicate, that's Steve Young. I asked him about the timeline in wake of all the questions on WebSleuths.

I'm not trying to convince anyone either way because folks can draw their own conclusions. I asked the questions and I'm sharing the response.

Steve Young is standing by the original timeline and is not revisiting the issue.

Here's part of what he said in response to questions about the timeline. "There really is not anything new."

 

[SyraKelly]

BBM:

:seeya: Just "jumping off" your post here :

IF there is the possibility that Lisa "disappeared" BEFORE the evening of Oct 3 -- and LE "thinks" it is a possibility -- I sure wish they would tell the public.

JMO ... but this :silenced: from LE does NOT seem to helping this case at all.

I think it is high time that LE "let the :cat::cat: out of the bag"

Who knows what it could lead to ... maybe it could lead to finding Lisa !

MOO ...

-I want to be fair and say the bold part is from Deann's story.But otherwise ITA with you-it is really making this forum hard to come to-for me at least!!But I keep coming back for Lisa!!I want justice for her.I am getting impatient with lady justice-but am good knowing that D/J never know when that knock will happen from LE-it could be tomorrow-next month-10 yrs from now-they are the ones who have to live with themselves day in and day out with what happened that Oct 3 night!!

 

[cityslick]

when it says police indicate, that's Steve Young. I asked him about the timeline in wake of all the questions on WebSleuths.

I'm not trying to convince anyone either way because folks can draw their own conclusions. I asked the questions and I'm sharing the response.

Steve Young is standing by the original timeline and is not revisiting the issue.

Here's part of what he said in response to questions about the timeline. "There really is not anything new."

Thank you for this. I'm not really sure how else to take it. It sounds like some want SY to spell it out, say specifically that they are not revising the timeline but according to you he did say that, in so many words.

If we are only relying on specifically what LE says and then LE pretty much says they are not revising the timeline, that says to me that there is no evidence to LE (who we all agree knows more than anyone here) that BL was deceased/missing prior to the timeline established. They know what SB said, they know what PN said. If there were questions based on those two witnesses, plus other facts that they know, I don't think SY would be making comments like 'there really isn't anything new'.

 

[DeAnn]

I really appreciate that you did the article and update. Thanks for helping to keep Lisa's name and case in the news. :woohoo:

Thank you so much. I hope and pray every day that Lisa is found. I think about the case quite a bit and hope we get answers soon! I've said it before, but I expected those answers the first week. I never imagined five months later we would be at this point.

 

[SyraKelly]

when it says police indicate, that's Steve Young. I asked him about the timeline in wake of all the questions on WebSleuths.

I'm not trying to convince anyone either way because folks can draw their own conclusions. I asked the questions and I'm sharing the response.

Steve Young is standing by the original timeline and is not revisiting the issue.

Here's part of what he said in response to questions about the timeline. "There really is not anything new."

I only ask this b/c its not in quote that SY said it-there are people here who - when I posted something SY said was not in quote-That it was not a direct quote from him.. so we were not to believe it-but yet you put something not in quotes and its OK..I totally give up on this case!!

 

[cityslick]

I only ask this b/c its not in quote that SY said it-there are people here who - when I posted something SY said was not in quote-That it was not a direct quote from him.. so we were not to believe it-but yet you put something not in quotes and its OK..I totally give up on this case!!

Yea, but Deann spoke to him directly. She heard it from him directly, not secondhand through a story.

 

[SyraKelly]

Yea, but Deann spoke to him directly. She heard it from him directly, not secondhand through a story.

tell me where in her story SY says they are not revisiting the timeline:banghead:

 

[cityslick]

tell me where in her story -its says SY says they are not revisiting the timeline??:banghead:
\she says nothing about a quote from SY that they are not revisiting the timeline--

How else can this be taken?

Here's part of what he said in response to questions about the timeline. "There really is not anything new."

You want him to say 'we are not changing the timeline' when he was specifically asked about the timeline and said nothing has changed about it. How else can it be said? If, according to LE, nothing has changed about the timeline they have (which I assume is the timeline we all have), isn't that the same as saying 'the timeline has not changed'?

 

[SyraKelly]

the story said-police have NOT INDICATED they are revisiting the timeline.This tells me-they have not told the public they are or not--We don't know if they are or not-they could be behind close doors or not!!!Maybe its just spin again!!

 

[cityslick]

the story said-police have NOT INDICATED they are revisiting the timeline.This tells me-they have not told the public they are or not--We don't know if they are or not-they could be behind close doors or not!!!Maybe its just spin again!!

Shrug...

Deann, who reported the story, told us what he said in response to the question about the timeline. Take it for what you will.

I believe Deann.

 

[hambirg]

How else can this be taken?



You want him to say 'we are not changing the timeline' when he was specifically asked about the timeline and said nothing has changed about it. How else can it be said? If, according to LE, nothing has changed about the timeline they have (which I assume is the timeline we all have), isn't that the same as saying 'the timeline has not changed'?

I think the important thing to remember is that we don't know what LE's timeline is. Everybody keeps referring to that 6:40pm time, but that did not come from LE, that came from BS.

Soooo, I believe that LE is not changing their timeline, but we really don't know what that means.

I'm not trying to argue. I think something happened to BL on Oct 3rd. That 12:15am sighting to me, unless it was staged, had to be part of the disposal. JMHO

But we really don't know what LE knows or what they have established as far as a timeline. LE has never given us their timeline, other than the last seen at 10:30pm on the Amber alert. . .and we all know how that turned out.

 

[cityslick]

I think the important thing to remember is that we don't know what LE's timeline is. Everybody keeps referring to that 6:40pm time, but that did not come from LE, that came from BS.

Soooo, I believe that LE is not changing their timeline, but we really don't know what that means.

I'm not trying to argue. I think something happened to BL on Oct 3rd. That 12:15am sighting to me, unless it was staged, had to be part of the disposal. JMHO

But we really don't know what LE knows or what they have established as far as a timeline. LE has never given us their timeline, other than the last seen at 10:30pm on the Amber alert. . .and we all know how that turned out.

Steve Young is standing by the original timeline and is not revisiting the issue.

Here's part of what he said in response to questions about the timeline. "There really is not anything new."

BBM

I wouldn't think Deann would just make up that part based on an assumption, but only she can answer that. You're right, we don't know what LE knows.

 

[DeAnn]

the story said-police have NOT INDICATED they are revisiting the timeline.This tells me-they have not told the public they are or not--We don't know if they are or not-they could be behind close doors or not!!!Maybe its just spin again!!

Spin by whom?

 

[DeAnn]

BBM

I wouldn't think Deann would just make up that part based on an assumption, but only she can answer that. You're right, we don't know what LE knows.

You are right. the original timeline was 10:30. DB revised that to 6:30 p.m. Police thought whatever happened to Lisa happened after Jeremy Irwin went to work. There have been no indications publicly or privately that belief has changed. But just to be sure, I asked Capt. Young on Friday.

there is a reason I didn't post the article in this thread yesterday and today's posts have underscored that decision. Ya'll have a great afternoon.

Btw, it's windy and gusty in Kansas City today.

 

[Whisperer]

You are right. the original timeline was 10:30. DB revised that to 6:30 p.m. Police thought whatever happened to Lisa happened after Jeremy Irwin went to work. There have been no indications publicly or privately that belief has changed. But just to be sure, I asked Capt. Young on Friday.

there is a reason I didn't post the article in this thread yesterday and today's posts have underscored that decision. Ya'll have a great afternoon.

Btw, it's windy and gusty in Kansas City today.

Did LE say "That w/e happened to Lisa happened after Jeremy Irwin went to work"? Is there a Qupte by Capt. Young on this?

 

[Whisperer]

Of course LE is going to work with what is given them. So there's a 9 hr window as far as they know...emphasis on "As far as they know".

Even if they had info, they certainly wouldn't share it...for that would be tipping the hat to the defense.

 

[DeAnn]

Btw, the headline of the story is.....the Lisa Irwin case is NOT a cold case. It remains an active investigation.

 

[redheadedgal]

Jeremy Irwin told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that the police suggested to him that it was possible that he hurt or did something to his child before he went to work that night.

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-nas...ps-hire-lawyer


if LE thought whatever happened happened after JI left for the starbucks job why the above line of questioning? why would they want to question him and DB separately now? and WHY are these parents refusing to do this? i think the answers are pretty obvious, and police are not saying b/c it's been their policy to not say. and if they're not saying, they're not saying to anyone. wouldn't be the first time LE protected an investigation !!