When was the last time Lisa was seen alive

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

ITA. No, it's not.

ETA-but even less believable is that a SODDI would take a deceased BL into the bedroom where DB and at least one of the boys, maybe both of them, were sleeping and laid her on the floor. They really backed themselves into a corner with the BL was alive and well at 10:30pm story. . .so they changed it.

BBM: ITA with what I bolded above, but the way the SW request was worded, it's hard to determine if the HRD dog hit on the floor or something on the floor,if it was a legit hit at all. IOW the boys or DB could have brought something into the room (provided it was a legit hit) that had a HR scent on it. And since that hit was not done until days later anyone could have put that object there. KWIM?

 

[hambirg]

BBM: ITA with what I bolded above, but the way the SW request was worded, it's hard to determine if the HRD dog hit on the floor or something on the floor,if it was a legit hit at all. IOW the boys or DB could have brought something into the room (provided it was a legit hit) that had a HR scent on it. And since that hit was not done until days later anyone could have put that object there. KWIM?

True. But the point is DB changed her timeline the same day as the dog hit. that leads me to believe that they knew a dog was going to hit, and they even knew where. Otherwise why change the timeline on the exact same day?

If DB really did see a live BL at 10:30pm, then why change that at all? But the dog hit would sure point the finger at DB for the reasons we stated above. . .it's not believable that a SODDI would take a deceased BL into the bedroom where they were sleeping.

If she was drunk and really doesn't remember if she saw her at 10:30pm. Why lie? Maybe to hide her drinking? But then when she comes clean about the drinking why not admit then that she only remembers a live BL at 6:40pm. "I got drunk that night and I can't remember or be sure if I saw Lisa at 10:30pm. I know I saw her at 6:40pm."

But that's NOT what happens. She waits an entire week, the same day as the dog hit, to change the timeline. That time change was in reaction to the dog hit.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

True. But the point is DB changed her timeline the same day as the dog hit. that leads me to believe that they knew a dog was going to hit, and they even knew where. Otherwise why change the timeline on the exact same day?

If DB really did see a live BL at 10:30pm, then why change that at all? But the dog hit would sure point the finger at DB for the reasons we stated above. . .it's not believable that a SODDI would take a deceased BL into the bedroom where they were sleeping.

If she was drunk and really doesn't remember if she saw her at 10:30pm. Why lie? Maybe to hide her drinking? But then when she comes clean about the drinking why not admit then that she only remembers a live BL at 6:40pm. "I got drunk that night and I can't remember or be sure if I saw Lisa at 10:30pm. I know I saw her at 6:40pm."

But that's NOT what happens. She waits an entire week, the same day as the dog hit, to change the timeline. That time change was in reaction to the dog hit.

I think I know how you want me to respond to that, but I don't know for a fact when she "changed" her timeline. I only know when we heard of the "change", which I still believe is her trying to clarify some details.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

With regards to the timeline. . .Oct 17th. I find that day curious. It's the day LE went into the house on Lister with the cadaver dog and it's the day that DB changed her story from last seeing BL at 10:30pm to 6:40pm. Why???? If it was really that she was drunk and couldn't remember, she would have changed the timeline back on Oct 12th when the drinking story broke. So the cadaver dog hit and the new timeline have to be connected.

After mulling it over, I've come to the conclusion that they (DB/JI. . both or one of them) knew that there was likely going to be a dog hit in the bedroom. Ruh roh! That creates a timeline problem! If DB was supposedly sleeping in the bedroom from 10:30pm to 3:45am, no SODDI is going to lay a deceased BL in on the floor of the bedroom while DB is just inches away sleeping. Sooooo. . .they have to open the timeline. A SODDI could have snuck in the house after 6:40pm and did this while DB was on the stoop. . .or that's the new story anyway.

So, the real question is was 10:30pm really the last time BL was seen alive, and something happened after that time? In that case, the dog hit would imply DB was involved. Or was the 10:30pm time made up? Something happened earlier to BL, but the dog hit messed up the 10:30pm timeline because it doesn't work with a SODDI theory? Hmmmm. . . .:waitasec:

1st BBM: I totally agree ... the HRD dog HIT is very "telling" ...

2nd BBM: Hmmm ... thinking out loud here ... lol ...

Could this be why a "man" was seen "walking around the neighborhood with a baby" around midnight ? In other words, DB and JI know "something" about cadaver dog "hits", and they did not want to get a dog "hit" in their vehicles ... so ... JI walking around the neighborhood with the baby to dispose ?

3rd BBM: I agree -- the dog hit does NOT work if SODDI ... :waitasec: that would mean that the "kidnapper" either killed the baby -- or "took" a dead baby ...

Makes NO sense at all ... none ...

MOO ...

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

1st BBM: I totally agree ... the HRD dog HIT is very "telling" ...

2nd BBM: Hmmm ... thinking out loud here ... lol ...

Could this be why a "man" was seen "walking around the neighborhood with a baby" around midnight ? In other words, DB and JI know "something" about cadaver dog "hits", and they did not want to get a dog "hit" in their vehicles ... so ... JI walking around the neighborhood with the baby to dispose ?

3rd BBM: I agree -- the dog hit does NOT work if SODDI ... :waitasec: that would mean that the "kidnapper" either killed the baby -- or "took" a dead baby ...

Makes NO sense at all ... none ...

MOO ...

BBM: How tall is JI? JI would have to be in two places at once, since he worked until 3:30ish am. MOO

 

[hambirg]

I think I know how you want me to respond to that, but I don't know for a fact when she "changed" her timeline. I only know when we heard of the "change", which I still believe is her trying to clarify some details.

Is there any evidence of that at all? Did we hear anything prior to Oct 17th that we could use to show that Db was saying she couldn't remember what time she last saw Lisa?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

BBM: How tall is JI? JI would have to be in two places at once, since he worked until 3:30ish am. MOO

:seeya: JI looks tall -- not sure of the height ... BUT, some have said the neighbor's description of the man walking around the neighborhood around midnight "fits" the description of JI ...

BBM: Ahh ... but we don't know if JI was at work the whole time, if there were cameras at the StarBucks ... we don't know a lot of things regarding JI's "whereabouts" ... So maybe he took a break from work ?

Oh, I am NOT totally "sold" on these sightings of a "man walking around the neighborhood with a baby" in the middle of the night ...

Now : the Mike Thompson "sighting" is total BS IMO ...

And : the neighbor sighting at around midnight ... I am not completely sold on it ... but not ruling it out until I know IF Jeremy's "work alibi" is confirmed by LE

MOO ...

 

[highflyer]

BBM:

:seeya: Hope this helps the "confusion" ... LOL ...

LE has released very little info on this case ... so I would say that what they have released is probably all FACT ...

I sure wish they would release more FACTS -- anything -- tell the public something -- anything ...

JMO ... but this "playing everything close to the vest" just does not seem to be helping solve this case -- and other missing persons cases as well ... I am NOT "bashing" LE when I say this -- just saying that it is time that they try another, or opposite approach -- and see where it gets them ...

At this point, what do they have to lose ? Keeping quiet is NOT getting them anywhere --

UNLESS they have LOTS of evidence that they do not want to compromise the investigation -- and IF that is the case, THEN WHAT IS THE HOLD UP ?

JMO and MOO ...

Do you really think that LE releasing information is going to get this case solved? I'm as curious as the next guy, but LE needs to do what LE needs to do.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

:seeya: JI looks tall -- not sure of the height ... BUT, some have said the neighbor's description of the man walking around the neighborhood around midnight "fits" the description of JI ...

BBM: Ahh ... but we don't know if JI was at work the whole time, if there were cameras at the StarBucks ... we don't know a lot of things regarding JI's "whereabouts" ... So maybe he took a break from work ?

Oh, I am NOT totally "sold" on these sightings of a "man walking around the neighborhood with a baby" in the middle of the night ...

Now : the Mike Thompson "sighting" is total BS IMO ...

And : the neighbor sighting at around midnight ... I am not completely sold on it ... but not ruling it out until I know IF Jeremy's "work alibi" is confirmed by LE

MOO ...

I don't get your last comment, either the neighbour saw someone with a baby or they didn't, it should have no bearing on if JI was at work, they saw what they saw. :what:

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Is there any evidence of that at all? Did we hear anything prior to Oct 17th that we could use to show that Db was saying she couldn't remember what time she last saw Lisa?

If you pick a theory and then allow or disallow the evidence, sightings, news releases etc to fit that theory, rather than the other way around, I guess we will never know or even have an educated guess. his boss says he was there in his open letter to the media, LE has never said he would not take a LDT, neither neighbour who saw the man with a baby about midnight never ID'ed him. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Do you really think that LE releasing information is going to get this case solved? I'm as curious as the next guy, but LE needs to do what LE needs to do.

BBM:

:seeya: Ahhh ... but I did not say that LE releasing info would "solve" the case ... let me see if I can re-phrase it ...:innocent:

LE knows "something" ... what I'm trying to say is this keeping :silenced: just does not seem to be helping -- and not just in Lisa's case, but in many other cases as well ...

I know LE needs to be careful, as well as "pick and choose" what they release and do not release because they do NOT want to compromise the investigation ...

But when you have nothing ... nada ... zip ... try something different ... let a little something out and see what happens ...

All JMO ... and MOO ...

 

[hambirg]

If you pick a theory and then allow or disallow the evidence, sightings, news releases etc to fit that theory, rather than the other way around, I guess we will never know or even have an educated guess. his boss says he was there in his open letter to the media, LE has never said he would not take a LDT, neither neighbour who saw the man with a baby about midnight never ID'ed him. Take it for what it's worth.

Strictly going by the evidence.

There was a cadaver dog hit in the house on Lister, that routinely gets dismissed.

JI's boss says JI was at work that night. That is not in question.

LE is not going to tell us anything about who did and didn't take a LDT. JD says they didn't ask him to take one. To me, that is outside of SOPs and is unlikely.

We don't know if they ID'ed the man with the baby or not. They could have very well told LE exactly who they saw. It may be why LE has not asked for the public's help in identifying the man. LE may already know who it is!

MOO

 

[cityslick]

ITA. No, it's not.

ETA-but even less believable is that a SODDI would take a deceased BL into the bedroom where DB and at least one of the boys, maybe both of them, were sleeping and laid her on the floor. They really backed themselves into a corner with the BL was alive and well at 10:30pm story. . .so they changed it.

The difference in our thinking is you attribute the cadaver dog hit to A) a dead body and B) that decaying/dead matter is attributed to BL.

I don't think either is a 100% certainty. So therefore, I'm not convinced a dead BL lay next to the bed in the master bedroom. I need more evidence (more hits perhaps).

 

[cityslick]

True. But the point is DB changed her timeline the same day as the dog hit. that leads me to believe that they knew a dog was going to hit, and they even knew where. Otherwise why change the timeline on the exact same day?

If DB really did see a live BL at 10:30pm, then why change that at all? But the dog hit would sure point the finger at DB for the reasons we stated above. . .it's not believable that a SODDI would take a deceased BL into the bedroom where they were sleeping.

If she was drunk and really doesn't remember if she saw her at 10:30pm. Why lie? Maybe to hide her drinking? But then when she comes clean about the drinking why not admit then that she only remembers a live BL at 6:40pm. "I got drunk that night and I can't remember or be sure if I saw Lisa at 10:30pm. I know I saw her at 6:40pm."

But that's NOT what happens. She waits an entire week, the same day as the dog hit, to change the timeline. That time change was in reaction to the dog hit.

The thing you need to remember is that she changed her time to the media. Do you know exactly when she told LE about the different time?

As we heard from locals (InDaMiddle and Deann), certain events happened earlier (for example, when the metal detectors came out) then when the media reported it. But yet some are going by the media report as when it actually happened. Also, there seems to be an ongoing assumption that if certain things were not reported by the media, it didn't happen when again I don't think that's necessarily true.

 

[highflyer]

BBM:

:seeya: Ahhh ... but I did not say that LE releasing info would "solve" the case ... let me see if I can re-phrase it ...:innocent:

LE knows "something" ... what I'm trying to say is this keeping :silenced: just does not seem to be helping -- and not just in Lisa's case, but in many other cases as well ...

I know LE needs to be careful, as well as "pick and choose" what they release and do not release because they do NOT want to compromise the investigation ...

But when you have nothing ... nada ... zip ... try something different ... let a little something out and see what happens ...

All JMO ... and MOO ...

Somehow I don't think LE needs our help in telling them how to run an investigation.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I don't get your last comment, either the neighbour saw someone with a baby or they didn't, it should have no bearing on if JI was at work, they saw what they saw. :what:

:seeya: LOL ... it made sense to me :innocent: LOL

My last comment :

And : the neighbor sighting at around midnight ... I am not completely sold on it ... but not ruling it out until I know IF Jeremy's "work alibi" is confirmed by LE


First, I am NOT sure IF the neighbor who spoke to the media even saw a "man walking around with a baby" --

Remember : she spoke on behalf of her husband -- who she says supposedly saw a man walking around midnight with a baby ... and then she "claimed" she was "peeking through the window blinds", so not sure what she even saw ...

Many times, "eye witness testimony" is inaccurate -- one person saw one thing and another saw something else, so it is not 100% reliable ...

Now : IF Jeremy WAS at work the entire time -- and this is confirmed by LE -- then it was NOT Jeremy walking around the neighborhood carrying a baby ... JMO ... but that would rule out Jeremy as the person who seems to "FIT" the description of the man walking around the n-hood at midnight as described by this female neighbor ...

Which then questions :

- the CREDIBILITY of whether or not the neighbors DID see "a man walking around the neighborhood with a baby" ...

- whether or not these neighbors are "friends" of DB and JI ...

- if the neighbors wanted their "15 minutes" and inserted themself into the case ...


All JMO and MOO ...

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Somehow I don't think LE needs our help in telling them how to run an investigation.

And sometimes LE DOES need HELP from the public ...

Hmmm ... I guess that is why they read here at WS ...


JMO and MOO ...

 

[highflyer]

And sometimes LE DOES need HELP from the public ...

Hmmm ... I guess that is why they read here at WS ...


JMO and MOO ...

They read many places now as they are tuned into social media as a networking tool.

 

[hambirg]

The difference in our thinking is you attribute the cadaver dog hit to A) a dead body and B) that decaying/dead matter is attributed to BL.

I don't think either is a 100% certainty. So therefore, I'm not convinced a dead BL lay next to the bed in the master bedroom. I need more evidence (more hits perhaps).

That's up to you. If and when there is a trial we will learn more. I'm going to consider it, since the timeline change came on the same day. LE said on an affidavit that they got a hit. I'm not going to dismiss the possibility that it was valid. We can discuss that it may not be, but as of yet we don't know that, so we can't just dismiss it totally. . .the possibility that it is valid must be taken into consideration at least. If some people want to wait until there is more evidence to support it that is fine. But people can also consider the possibility that it is valid.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

:seeya: LOL ... it made sense to me :innocent: LOL

My last comment :

And : the neighbor sighting at around midnight ... I am not completely sold on it ... but not ruling it out until I know IF Jeremy's "work alibi" is confirmed by LE


First, I am NOT sure IF the neighbor who spoke to the media even saw a "man walking around with a baby" --

Remember : she spoke on behalf of her husband -- who she says supposedly saw a man walking around midnight with a baby ... and then she "claimed" she was "peeking through the window blinds", so not sure what she even saw ...

Many times, "eye witness testimony" is inaccurate -- one person saw one thing and another saw something else, so it is not 100% reliable ...

Now : IF Jeremy WAS at work the entire time -- and this is confirmed by LE -- then it was NOT Jeremy walking around the neighborhood carrying a baby ... JMO ... but that would rule out Jeremy as the person who seems to "FIT" the description of the man walking around the n-hood at midnight as described by this female neighbor ...

Which then questions :

- the CREDIBILITY of whether or not the neighbors DID see "a man walking around the neighborhood with a baby" ...

- whether or not these neighbors are "friends" of DB and JI ...

- if the neighbors wanted their "15 minutes" and inserted themself into the case ...


All JMO and MOO ...

Thanks for taking the time to explain exactly what you meant. I still don't get why their credibility is in question though, and especially only if JI was at work and is proven beyond 100%. As I said before, they either saw something or they didn't no matter where JI was. I do get that eye witness accounts aren't always dead on, but I also know they reported it early. As for 15 mins of fame, if thats what they wanted the husbanded would have got his face in front of the camera as well since anyone who knows her would know who he is. I personally think having two witnesses seeing a man carrying a baby about midnight, fron two different angles, adds credibility that someone, a male, had baby Lisa at that time. JMHO