PDA

View Full Version : Lawyer of baby Lisa's family sets up a website



nursebeeme
10-24-2011, 05:10 PM
Mo. - The local attorney for Lisa Irwin’s family, Cyndy Short, told NBC Action News a website has been set up to provide information about the case.
Short said there will soon be new flyers, t-shirts, and even wristbands passed out to try and keep a search going for the missing baby.
Short also said she is assembling a group of people to help support the family and provide spiritual guidance.
The new website, FindBabyLisa.com , also has a link to a Facebook page that is endorsed by the family.


Read more: http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/local-attorney-for-family-of-lisa-irwin-sets-up-website-website-to-provide-information-about-case#ixzz1bjjF1gg9

--------

nursebeeme
10-24-2011, 05:12 PM
http://findbabylisa.com/

lauriej
10-24-2011, 05:13 PM
...update to the family website-----

http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb474/lauriejcampbell/newflier.jpg

AngelWings444
10-24-2011, 05:20 PM
Here we go...

Murphismo
10-24-2011, 05:27 PM
Wow, what great parents to finally post a flyer for their missing baby almost a month later........:waitasec:

HatesSociopaths
10-24-2011, 05:29 PM
Talk about spin:

10/23/2011 (GMA-TODAY): No cadaver dog hit on carpet in Lisa Irwin’s parent’s bedroom – Cyndy Short

http://findbabylisa.com/

matou
10-24-2011, 05:30 PM
WTH? Short is saying "No cadaver dog hit on carpet in Lisa Irwin's parents bedroom" on that site.

luckyme
10-24-2011, 05:32 PM
Wow, what great parents to finally post a flyer for their missing baby almost a month later........:waitasec:

For the public to print out and post! :waitasec: moo

curiositycat
10-24-2011, 05:35 PM
I really can't get over this. Even Jose B. didn' t go this far. Is this okay for a lawyer to do, before anyone has even been named a suspect in this case?

Cyndy is no friend of LE. I wonder why?

Melanie
10-24-2011, 05:37 PM
Talk about spin:

10/23/2011 (GMA-TODAY): No cadaver dog hit on carpet in Lisa Irwin’s parent’s bedroom – Cyndy Short

http://findbabylisa.com/

Now what's all this about.

10/23/2011 (GMA-TODAY): No cadaver dog hit on carpet in Lisa Irwin’s parent’s bedroom – Cyndy Short

http://findbabylisa.com/

Now why hasn't LE said anything about this. Am I just to assume that this defense attorney is telling the truth because no evidence was seized? Does that mean the dog didn't hit?

Just cuz the carpet was intact, does that mean the doggie didn't hit?

Where's the LE spokesperson when I need him.

UGHHH!

MOO

Mel

anothersheart71
10-24-2011, 05:37 PM
Wow, what great parents to finally post a flyer for their missing baby almost a month later........:waitasec:

This fliers has been available since day 2.....I printed off 2000 copies and students at MWSU and I spent the second day canvassing the town putting them up....we also have had T-shirts since day 4....of course we had to pay for the printing of the shirt and send someone to KC to pick them up from the family member in charge but we did what we had to do to help spread the word....anything to bring BabyLisa home!

Katana
10-24-2011, 05:41 PM
Lawyers will ride out the abduction theory for as long as they can but, down the road the defense will claim accident + mental health issues. Will do whatever makes money or gets attention at this point.

Mountain_Kat
10-24-2011, 05:44 PM
Oh, I get it. Lawyer lady is trying to imply that LE created the fictitious cadaver dog hit as an excuse for the invasive search warrant.

Very clever.

cluciano63
10-24-2011, 05:45 PM
New era of missing babies and children...lawyers running websites...:(

josie1986
10-24-2011, 05:48 PM
so she's basically saying LE falsified a SW? i doubt it.

the carpet wasn't even mentioned in the SW :maddening:

barrysgirl
10-24-2011, 05:50 PM
Why is this website not a site about finding Lisa? What I see is a site for them to say the parents didn't do it.

Velouria
10-24-2011, 05:53 PM
Short said there will soon be new flyers, t-shirts, and even wristbands passed out to try and keep a search going for the missing baby.

Something tells me the only thing passed out will be MOM.

But the t-shirts and wristbands? More like sold.

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 05:54 PM
Why is this website not a site about finding Lisa? What I see is a site for them to say the parents didn't do it.

Well, let's see. It's called Find Baby Lisa, there is the information about the $100K reward, there are photos of her, first item up is the flyer posted in both English and Spanish.

Sounds to me it's about finding the baby.

They're looking, and praying, for a live baby. To work toward that end, the public has to be inspired to LOOK, believing there is a good chance the baby is out there and can be returned safely. If they don't work to dispell some of the misconceptions in the media and LE, then the public will stop looking.

BetteDavisEyes
10-24-2011, 05:55 PM
Why is this website not a site about finding Lisa? What I see is a site for them to say the parents didn't do it.

BINGO! This isn't about finding Baby Lisa: It's about defending the parents (who haven't been arrested or charged!) in the media and on-line! :banghead: :furious:

Talk about putting the cart before the horse... jmo

sarx
10-24-2011, 05:56 PM
Wow, how do these lawyers find the time to be experts in so many things???

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 05:56 PM
This fliers has been available since day 2.....I printed off 2000 copies and students at MWSU and I spent the second day canvassing the town putting them up....we also have had T-shirts since day 4....of course we had to pay for the printing of the shirt and send someone to KC to pick them up from the family member in charge but we did what we had to do to help spread the word....anything to bring BabyLisa home!

Anothersheart71 I just wanted to say Thank You

Karmaa
10-24-2011, 05:57 PM
Oh, I get it. Lawyer lady is trying to imply that LE created the fictitious cadaver dog hit as an excuse for the invasive search warrant.

Very clever.

She's not the only one who has questions about the cadaver dog "hit". There is no excuse at all for LE to have not taken the carpet where the hit was. None. Even if there was a rug over it. Even if the hit was on an object on the floor. They would have taken the carpet, or at least the part of it that was under and around the hit. So, why didn't they take it? Maybe because they knew the cadaver dog hit was a false positive? (Or maybe because the dog never actually hit there?)

And, no - it's not likely that LE took the carpet and replaced it with other carpet. They do not do that on a search. They do not fix their messes.

AngelWings444
10-24-2011, 05:58 PM
All this time doing media interviews, changing of the stories, false sightings, putting innocent people out for the public to investigate, setting up websites etc..and not cooperating with LE. Sounds SO familiar. Where HAVE I heard this before? :waitasec: :furious: :banghead:

josie1986
10-24-2011, 05:58 PM
Something tells me the only thing passed out will be MOM.

But the t-shirts and wristbands? More like sold.

oh my :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

if they expect people to pay for stuff thats vile,their daughter is "missing" its not a time to be trying to make as much $$ as you can

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:00 PM
Talk about spin:

10/23/2011 (GMA-TODAY): No cadaver dog hit on carpet in Lisa Irwin’s parent’s bedroom – Cyndy Short

http://findbabylisa.com/

Kinda pathetic spin, imo. The sw said the dog hit on the floor and did seize items that could have been on the floor such as blanket, clothes, comforter.

JMO

HatesSociopaths
10-24-2011, 06:03 PM
This case really makes me physically feel sick.

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:04 PM
This case really makes me physically feel sick.

I think all of us would agree with that.

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:04 PM
She's not the only one who has questions about the cadaver dog "hit". There is no excuse at all for LE to have not taken the carpet where the hit was. None. Even if there was a rug over it. Even if the hit was on an object on the floor. They would have taken the carpet, or at least the part of it that was under and around the hit. So, why didn't they take it? Maybe because they knew the cadaver dog hit was a false positive? (Or maybe because the dog never actually hit there?)

And, no - it's not likely that LE took the carpet and replaced it with other carpet. They do not do that on a search. They do not fix their messes.

The dog didn't hit on the carpet, it hit on the floor. No indication whatsoever that there was carpet or a rug where the dog hit.

JMO

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:06 PM
Wow, how do these lawyers find the time to be experts in so many things???

They speak to experts. Also, she looks like she's been an attorney for awhile - surely she has general experience with what happens in a suspect home if a cadaver dog hits on an item.

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:07 PM
The dog didn't hit on the carpet, it hit on the floor. No indication whatsoever that there was carpet or a rug where the dog hit.

JMO

From the video, the room is wall to wall carpet. So if the dog hit on the floor by the bed, it would have been on carpet. The carpet right now has not been cut and removed to the lab.

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:09 PM
They speak to experts. Also, she looks like she's been an attorney for awhile - surely she has general experience with what happens in a suspect home if a cadaver dog hits on an item.

Apparently not much experience at all. The lawyer is whining about carpet that wasn't seized.

JMO

sarx
10-24-2011, 06:10 PM
They speak to experts. Also, she looks like she's been an attorney for awhile - surely she has general experience with what happens in a suspect home if a cadaver dog hits on an item.

Then she should know that a well trained HRD dog would never hit on poop or baby spit up.

strach304
10-24-2011, 06:10 PM
Something tells me the only thing passed out will be MOM.

But the t-shirts and wristbands? More like sold.

Wow! Just Wow!:waitasec:

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:11 PM
From the video, the room is wall to wall carpet. So if the dog hit on the floor by the bed, it would have been on carpet. The carpet right now has not been cut and removed to the lab.

I haven't seen a video that shows the entire floor, including closets. There's no carpet over the threshold of the bedroom's doorway and no tack strip so apparently it is not wall-to-wall carpet.

JMO

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:12 PM
Apparently not much experience at all. The lawyer is whining about carpet that wasn't seized.

JMO

That answer is probably a google search away, her experience.

I think we all know, actually, that when cadaver dogs hit on things they are seized. Certainly in the crimes I've followed.

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:12 PM
I haven't seen a video that shows the entire floor, including closets. There's no carpet over the threshold of the bedroom's doorway and no tack strip so apparently it is not wall-to-wall carpet.

JMO

It was listed as "by the bed".

Karmaa
10-24-2011, 06:13 PM
The dog didn't hit on the carpet, it hit on the floor. No indication whatsoever that there was carpet or a rug where the dog hit.

JMO

There is wall-to-wall carpet over the floor! But assuming that it wasn't there before (and LE decided to be nice and carpet the room for them after the search), then why wouldn't LE have taken the FLOOR? That would be incredibly important evidence. I simply can't imagine them not taking the floor, the carpet, any rugs, blankets, toys or anything in the vicinity of where the "hit" was. The only possible explanation is because they knew there was not really any evidence there.

Karmaa
10-24-2011, 06:16 PM
Then she should know that a well trained HRD dog would never hit on poop or baby spit up.

I don't think anyone is trying to insult HRD dogs. But the other day you said yourself that "well-trained" dogs are reliable, but that many dogs are not well-trained. How do we know that LE didn't deliberately ask for a less-trained dog, hoping that they would get a false hit?

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:17 PM
That answer is probably a google search away, her experience.

I think we all know, actually, that when cadaver dogs hit on things they are seized. Certainly in the crimes I've followed.

Her lack of expertise is reflected in her need to misrepresent facts.

Most of us following this case know that items were seized such as blanket, clothes, comforter.

JMO

SyraKelly
10-24-2011, 06:17 PM
But-did 'nt JT say the dog hit on fecal and now she is saying no hits at all?

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 06:17 PM
Now what's all this about.

10/23/2011 (GMA-TODAY): No cadaver dog hit on carpet in Lisa Irwin’s parent’s bedroom – Cyndy Short

http://findbabylisa.com/

Now why hasn't LE said anything about this. Am I just to assume that this defense attorney is telling the truth because no evidence was seized? Does that mean the dog didn't hit?

Just cuz the carpet was intact, does that mean the doggie didn't hit?

Where's the LE spokesperson when I need him.

UGHHH!

MOO

Mel

I really hate to see an attorney losing credibility so early in an investigation.

Does she remind anyone else of another Cindy? How about this?
"nope, hunh uh it didn't happen." "she is mother of the year" "it was pizza"

I guess in a way it is a good thing. If she wasn't worrying about it, she wouldn't be lying about it.

sarx
10-24-2011, 06:20 PM
I don't think anyone is trying to insult HRD dogs. But the other day you said yourself that "well-trained" dogs are reliable, but that many dogs are not well-trained. How do we know that LE didn't deliberately ask for a less-trained dog, hoping that they would get a false hit?
It has been made public that they were FBI dogs, and they are well trained. And why would LE want to risk their case?

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:21 PM
Her lack of expertise is reflected in her need to misrepresent facts.

Most of us following this case know that items were seized such as blanket, clothes, comforter.

JMO

I think she's a fabulous strategist. The public will either now likely believe it didn't happen, or she will effectively "call out" LE for comment.

Mountain_Kat
10-24-2011, 06:21 PM
She's not the only one who has questions about the cadaver dog "hit". There is no excuse at all for LE to have not taken the carpet where the hit was. None. Even if there was a rug over it. Even if the hit was on an object on the floor. They would have taken the carpet, or at least the part of it that was under and around the hit. So, why didn't they take it? Maybe because they knew the cadaver dog hit was a false positive? (Or maybe because the dog never actually hit there?)

And, no - it's not likely that LE took the carpet and replaced it with other carpet. They do not do that on a search. They do not fix their messes.

Well, I don't know what LE knows, so I reserved judgement on them not taking the carpet.

nursebeeme
10-24-2011, 06:22 PM
imhoo this is all spin and damage control from all the parental-unit interviews.

have we heard LE say a word other than they are not cooperating? I do not for a second think they have stopped trying to find this little baby. MOO..


((and all this spin about the cadaver/hrd dog hits is really insulting to my intelligence))

moo

w1df10wr
10-24-2011, 06:22 PM
Well, let's see. It's called Find Baby Lisa, there is the information about the $100K reward, there are photos of her, first item up is the flyer posted in both English and Spanish.

Sounds to me it's about finding the baby.

They're looking, and praying, for a live baby. To work toward that end, the public has to be inspired to LOOK, believing there is a good chance the baby is out there and can be returned safely. If they don't work to dispell some of the misconceptions in the media and LE, then the public will stop looking.

Wouldn't the best way to find Lisa, release the newest photos that represent a 30 lb, 2" 6' 10 month old child ~info listed on flier~? Trying to understand how it helps find Lisa, if the cops are having to deal with "tips" based on months old photos & videos?

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:22 PM
It has been made public that they were FBI dogs, and they are well trained. And why would LE want to risk their case?

I don't think LE would purposely want to risk their case, but I do think dogs are fallable. It's not like DNA. They make mistakes, even the best.

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:23 PM
There is wall-to-wall carpet over the floor! But assuming that it wasn't there before (and LE decided to be nice and carpet the room for them after the search), then why wouldn't LE have taken the FLOOR? That would be incredibly important evidence. I simply can't imagine them not taking the floor, the carpet, any rugs, blankets, toys or anything in the vicinity of where the "hit" was. The only possible explanation is because they knew there was not really any evidence there.


LE seize items that so they can run DNA and forensic tests on them. If the dog hits upon the floor, they can run some of the tests right there and also take photos. Surely you don't believe LE would seize an entire bedframe/mattress if a dog hit upon the coverings? It makes no sense to seize a floor if the dog hit upon an item ON the floor.

JMO

AngelWings444
10-24-2011, 06:23 PM
I really hate to see an attorney losing credibility so early in an investigation.

Does she remind anyone else of another Cindy? How about this?
"nope, hunh uh it didn't happen." "she is mother of the year" "it was pizza"

I guess in a way it is a good thing. If she wasn't worrying about it, she wouldn't be lying about it.
Except what will it say this time, "there was a damn box of wine on the stove?" Or are DB's attorney's going to say she had an accident on the floor while passed out, drunk? Those darn dogs don't know a thing, but a mom who admits to being drunk and her daughter goes missing on her watch, that's the ticket. :innocent:

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:24 PM
Wouldn't the best way to find Lisa, release the newest photos that represent a 30 lb, 2" 6' 10 month old child ~info listed on flier~? Trying to understand how it helps find Lisa, if the cops are having to deal with "tips" based on months old photos & videos?

The new t-shirts might be the newest picture.

I wonder, though, about the newest pictures. You now how sometimes you can have a VERY recent photo of your child but that's not really what she looks like - she really looks more like a slightly older one? The newest one I've seen looks different enough from the slightly older ones - that maybe her expression or demeanor was "off" and they feel like the older ones represent her better.

I don't know.

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 06:24 PM
I don't think anyone is trying to insult HRD dogs. But the other day you said yourself that "well-trained" dogs are reliable, but that many dogs are not well-trained. How do we know that LE didn't deliberately ask for a less-trained dog, hoping that they would get a false hit?

BBM

And why would they do that?

SyraKelly
10-24-2011, 06:25 PM
I really think all the lawyers,PI,whoever is paying the lawyers,the Irwins and family should get together,go through all the interviews and get a grip on their case,b/c it looks to me-its a total mess!!!!!

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:26 PM
I think she's a fabulous strategist. The public will either now likely believe it didn't happen, or she will effectively "call out" LE for comment.

She may be a fabulous strategist but she's also supposed to be an adequate lawyer for her clients. I'm not seeing anything that impresses me as to her competency as a lawyer. Insulting the public's intelligence won't get her far.

JMO

sarx
10-24-2011, 06:28 PM
This is really quite simple, these lawyers NEED to contaminate the jury pool and cause doubt. They NEED people to believe that if that baby is dead it did NOT happen in that house, and certainly that there is no evidence of it happening in the parents bedroom. This is the only thing that will keep their stranger abduction theory alive.

I am going to put faith into what I believe. I believe that LE working this case knows what they are doing. That the FBI who are working this know what they are doing and are not going to make any rookie mistakes on this case that could cost them a verdict. I am going to believe that they have what they need or are well on their way but have no need to tell us or anyone else right now.

Maybe I'm wrong and they have completely hosed this case up and made massive mistakes and another one is going to walk away free and clear, but I don't think so. Time will tell.

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:29 PM
Okay. So Cindy's commentary made me look back at the timeline of the "hit".

It sounds like the "hit" was made on the carpet of Deborah's room, on Oct. 17 before there was a search warrant. They were allowed to search based on Jeremy's free will consent that day.

Then, they returned with the search warrant and another dog the most recent search? The search warrant stated that previously a dog had "hit" on the carpet, the Oct. 17 search and they were there to remove evidence. And also search the yard.

Did they bring a better dog for the search warrant search? I think that's what Cindy is implying. The first one "hit", causing the search warrant, the second one did not, thus no removal of the carpet.

Is that the timeline of the "hit" and search warrant?

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:30 PM
She may be a fabulous strategist but she's also supposed to be an adequate lawyer for her clients. I'm not seeing anything that impresses me as to her competency as a lawyer. Insulting the public's intelligence won't get her far.

JMO

Well she's saying things that bolster a position you don't agree with, I think.

So it comes across as kind of irritating.

I think she's doing a remarkable job.

But then, she's taking the position I agree with so maybe that's just human nature. I love her serious attitude, her careful choice of words, and her reasoning.

She's no Geragos.

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:30 PM
This is really quite simple, these lawyers NEED to contaminate the jury pool and cause doubt. They NEED people to believe that if that baby is dead it did NOT happen in that house, and certainly that there is no evidence of it happening in the parents bedroom. This is the only thing that will keep their stranger abduction theory alive.

I am going to put faith into what I believe. I believe that LE working this case knows what they are doing. That the FBI who are working this know what they are doing and are not going to make any rookie mistakes on this case that could cost them a verdict. I am going to believe that they have what they need or are well on their way but have no need to tell us or anyone else right now.

Maybe I'm wrong and they have completely hosed this case up and made massive mistakes and another one is going to walk away free and clear, but I don't think so. Time will tell.

<< ....applause....<< ITA and thank you!!

cluciano63
10-24-2011, 06:31 PM
Yes I believe the FBI and LE screwed up this search, used thier worst dog hoping for a false hit in order to obtain more rights to search...not. Good grief...

sarx
10-24-2011, 06:31 PM
It actually does NOT state that there was a hit on the carpet, it says floor. I think it is important to keep the wording just as it is stated. MOO

sarx
10-24-2011, 06:33 PM
Yes I believe the FBI and LE screwed up this search, used thier worst dog hoping for a false hit in order to obtain more rights to search...not. Good grief.

OMG Clu, I about had a heart attack when I started reading your post, lol. Then I got to the end.

AngelWings444
10-24-2011, 06:33 PM
OMG Clu, I about had a heart attack when I started reading your post, lol. Then I got to the end.
Me too!! :floorlaugh:

RANCH
10-24-2011, 06:34 PM
It actually does NOT state that there was a hit on the carpet, it says floor. I think it is important to keep the wording just as it is stated. MOO

I think that it's important to note that carpet covered the floor. JMO.

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:34 PM
Well she's saying things that bolster a position you don't agree with, I think.

So it comes across as kind of irritating.

I think she's doing a remarkable job.

But then, she's taking the position I agree with so maybe that's just human nature. I love her serious attitude, her careful choice of words, and her reasoning.

She's no Geragos.

She's doing a remarkable job of making her clients look like desperate baby killers and she's doing a good imitation of Geragos right down to insulting the dogs.

JMO

marycarney
10-24-2011, 06:35 PM
One question:
dot-com or dot-CON?

sarx
10-24-2011, 06:35 PM
I think that it's important to note that carpet covered the floor. JMO.

But we have no idea what else may have covered the carpet.

RANCH
10-24-2011, 06:36 PM
But we have no idea what else may have covered the carpet.

True. And that could be what the dog hit on.

Mountain_Kat
10-24-2011, 06:36 PM
Me too!! :floorlaugh:

Me three! :floorlaugh:

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:38 PM
I think that it's important to note that carpet covered the floor. JMO.

We don't know that is a fact nor is it relevant. LE did not mention carpet in the search warrant. And we know from other cases that LE doesn't seize the carpet even though they seize evidence they find on top of the carpet such as shoes, kwim?

HatesSociopaths
10-24-2011, 06:38 PM
It actually does NOT state that there was a hit on the carpet, it says floor. I think it is important to keep the wording just as it is stated. MOO

Hey sarx, you think it's possible that Debbie got the carpet in the bedroom replaced and that the roll of carpet they had in the backyard was the actual bedroom carpet?

http://i51.tinypic.com/2s92ik3.png

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:40 PM
It actually does NOT state that there was a hit on the carpet, it says floor. I think it is important to keep the wording just as it is stated. MOO

Since the floor is covered by carpet, I can't imagine the dog got a hit below the intact carpet. Doesn't add up.

I use "carpet" and "floor" interchangably. I need to vacuum this floor. Pick your socks up off the floor. They can be used interchangably.

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 06:41 PM
I don't think LE would purposely want to risk their case, but I do think dogs are fallable. It's not like DNA. They make mistakes, even the best.

Yes but this isn't even questioning the reliability of the dogs. This is saying that either LE lied on the search warrant or that they didn't correctly collect evidence. She didn't even mention the reliability of the dogs.

But she is definately damaging her credibility with me. She wasn't there during the SW. She has no way of knowing where the dog hit other than near the bed (doesn't a bed have 4 sides?). She has no way of knowing what evidence was taken, other than she didn't see any evidence that anything was taken. For all she knew one of the LE worked with carpet and took the time to repair any damages to the carpet as a result of collecting evidence. Or perhaps the area was on the other side of the bed from where the camera was and she just didn't show it (anyone willing to exaggerate events makes me believe they would outright lie also.)

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:41 PM
Hey sarx, you think it's possible that Debbie got the carpet in the bedroom replaced and that the roll of carpet they had in the backyard was the actual bedroom carpet?

http://i51.tinypic.com/2s92ik3.png

I've wondered the same thing.

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:42 PM
Hey sarx, you think it's possible that Debbie got the carpet in the bedroom replaced and that the roll of carpet they had in the backyard was the actual bedroom carpet?

http://i51.tinypic.com/2s92ik3.png

Not Sarx, but Between 10:30 in the evening and 4 in the morning while her children were in the house? No, I don't think that's likely. She'd have had to move out all the furniture and haul that carpet around. Look how it's taking two of them to manage it.

josie1986
10-24-2011, 06:42 PM
Me too!! :floorlaugh:

me three :eek:

Melanie
10-24-2011, 06:42 PM
Wouldn't the best way to find Lisa, release the newest photos that represent a 30 lb, 2" 6' 10 month old child ~info listed on flier~? Trying to understand how it helps find Lisa, if the cops are having to deal with "tips" based on months old photos & videos?

Does anyone know if the photos posted are from the Sunday birthday party that I've heard folks talk about. IMHO, those photos would be the latest greatest. Sorry that I haven't researched the photos, but know many of you have.

Thanks much!

Mel

Donjeta
10-24-2011, 06:44 PM
I can't see LE making up a cadaver dog hit. I hope not. It would be not only unethical but also very stupid IMO. It could bite them in the bottom. If they later solve the case and want to prosecute someone but the working theory what happened to Lisa doesn't include her lying dead in the bedroom at all they would be giving an out to the defendant. Their attorney would be all over this hit. "Yeah, so you say that my client killed Lisa in [insert place] but that can't be true, the cadaver dogs hit in her parents' bedroom. If the dogs hit you must acquit."

HatesSociopaths
10-24-2011, 06:44 PM
Not Sarx, but Between 10:30 in the evening and 4 in the morning while her children were in the house? No, I don't think that's likely. She'd have had to move out all the furniture and haul that carpet around. Look how it's taking two of them to manage it.

I was thinking more like after October 3rd. When did they move out?

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 06:49 PM
Okay. So Cindy's commentary made me look back at the timeline of the "hit".

It sounds like the "hit" was made on the carpet of Deborah's room, on Oct. 17 before there was a search warrant. They were allowed to search based on Jeremy's free will consent that day.

Then, they returned with the search warrant and another dog the most recent search? The search warrant stated that previously a dog had "hit" on the carpet, the Oct. 17 search and they were there to remove evidence. And also search the yard.

Did they bring a better dog for the search warrant search? I think that's what Cindy is implying. The first one "hit", causing the search warrant, the second one did not, thus no removal of the carpet.

Is that the timeline of the "hit" and search warrant?

Good theory.

It could also be that she plans to try to get the Oct. 17 search excluded from court and thus it is important to try to change people's memories that a cadaver dog hit in the bedroom.

If she can change peoples memories and keep the Oct. 17 search out of court then it is like it didn't happen.

RANCH
10-24-2011, 06:51 PM
We don't know that is a fact nor is it relevant. LE did not mention carpet in the search warrant. And we know from other cases that LE doesn't seize the carpet even though they seize evidence they find on top of the carpet such as shoes, kwim?

Not relevant? If the carpet was put in the room after the search, that would be relevant to me. The way they said "hit on the floor" doesn't sound like shoes or some other object, but you could be right.

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:51 PM
I was thinking more like after October 3rd. When did they move out?

afaik, the family has never returned to the house to spend the night but they have been there to allow reporters in, etc.

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 06:51 PM
I can't see LE making up a cadaver dog hit. I hope not. It would be not only unethical but also very stupid IMO. It could bite them in the bottom. If they later solve the case and want to prosecute someone but the working theory what happened to Lisa doesn't include her lying dead in the bedroom at all they would be giving an out to the defendant. Their attorney would be all over this hit. "Yeah, so you say that my client killed Lisa in [insert place] but that can't be true, the cadaver dogs hit in her parents' bedroom. If the dogs hit you must acquit."

I completely agree. I don't think they made up the hit at all, I think it was real. And it was the basis for them getting a search warrant to return with a team of white suits and another dog.

And during that search, they did not remove carpet from the area of the previous dog's "hit".

I think it's pretty clear that although the first dog hit there, the one they brought out to confirm did not. And so they dropped the investigation of that area of the carpet and left it intact.

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:55 PM
Not relevant? If the carpet was put in the room after the search, that would be relevant to me. The way they said "hit on the floor" doesn't sound like shoes or some other object, but you could be right.

The carpet in the shed may have relevance but I don't know for sure that it is tied to the dog's hit in the MBR or something else. LE isn't giving us all the evidence at this point.

JMO

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 06:58 PM
I can't see LE making up a cadaver dog hit. I hope not. It would be not only unethical but also very stupid IMO. It could bite them in the bottom. If they later solve the case and want to prosecute someone but the working theory what happened to Lisa doesn't include her lying dead in the bedroom at all they would be giving an out to the defendant. Their attorney would be all over this hit. "Yeah, so you say that my client killed Lisa in [insert place] but that can't be true, the cadaver dogs hit in her parents' bedroom. If the dogs hit you must acquit."

A search warrant is the same as any sworn testimony made to a Judge. It has to be truthful or there would be consequences to the LE who signed it.

JMO

Donjeta
10-24-2011, 06:59 PM
I completely agree. I don't think they made up the hit at all, I think it was real. And it was the basis for them getting a search warrant to return with a team of white suits and another dog.

And during that search, they did not remove carpet from the area of the previous dog's "hit".

I think it's pretty clear that although the first dog hit there, the one they brought out to confirm did not. And so they dropped the investigation of that area of the carpet and left it intact.

I'm not so sure... why would they think the second dog's got to be right and the first one wrong? Why wouldn't they want to examine the carpet anyway to find out if there was something that could cause one dog to alert?

I still think the dogs alerted to something that was in the area of the floor but not the carpet.

HatesSociopaths
10-24-2011, 07:00 PM
I completely agree. I don't think they made up the hit at all, I think it was real. And it was the basis for them getting a search warrant to return with a team of white suits and another dog.

And during that search, they did not remove carpet from the area of the previous dog's "hit".

I think it's pretty clear that although the first dog hit there, the one they brought out to confirm did not. And so they dropped the investigation of that area of the carpet and left it intact.

Actually that's not clear at all. I didn't see ANY dogs the day of the 17 hour search.

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 07:01 PM
I completely agree. I don't think they made up the hit at all, I think it was real. And it was the basis for them getting a search warrant to return with a team of white suits and another dog.

And during that search, they did not remove carpet from the area of the previous dog's "hit".

I think it's pretty clear that although the first dog hit there, the one they brought out to confirm did not. And so they dropped the investigation of that area of the carpet and left it intact.

I'm getting confused. I hadn't read that LE brought in another dog. Or that the dog didn't hit on the area. Can you point out to me where LE said they said they brought in another dog and it didn't hit on the area? Linky???

RANCH
10-24-2011, 07:04 PM
A search warrant is the same as any sworn testimony made to a Judge. It has to be truthful or there would be consequences to the LE who signed it.

JMO

Yes your right. If LE makes a mistake on the SW, the evidence collected may not be used at trial. Pretty big gamble to do something wrong on purpose.

alwaysonmymind
10-24-2011, 07:05 PM
I'm not so sure... why would they think the second dog's got to be right and the first one wrong? Why wouldn't they want to examine the carpet anyway to find out if there was something that could cause one dog to alert?

I still think the dogs alerted to something that was in the area of the floor but not the carpet.

Agreed, like maybe a blanket or purple shorts? jmo

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 07:10 PM
I'm getting confused. I hadn't read that LE brought in another dog. Or that the dog didn't hit on the area. Can you point out to me where LE said they said they brought in another dog and it didn't hit on the area? Linky???

No, LE hasn't said anything about anything. All we have to go by is that their statement in the search warrant based on the Oct. 17 search, that the cadaver dog hit on the floor by Deborah's bed. So that we know, from LE, their cadaver dog hit on the floor near Deborah's bed on the 17th.

You really have to kind of just piece the rest of this together. LE is mum.

I watched the search on live cam, and I saw another dog in the house briefly. I think others have alluded to seeing that too, saying "no that dog wasn't exhausted, it was in and out quickly". At that point, people were saying hey why aren't there dogs in the yard to help out with the yard search, I believe the one and only dog used that day was used very briefly in the house, first thing, and was gone. The day of the search warrant, white suits were there forever, but the dog was there only briefly. If I recall correctly.

So I don't have a link. This is all based on what I think are logical conclusions, based on the little we have.

1. They obtained a search warrant from the Oct. 17 search, when they didn't have a warrant, and state (I'm sure truthfully) that a dog hit on the floor next to Deborah's bed.

2. They brought the search warrant, guys in white suits, and briefly a dog the day they did the search backed by the warrant.

3. They did not remove carpeting from the floor next to Deborah's bed.

My conclusion is the second dog (probably the best they could get) didn't confirm the hit.

Sorry, no link. It's a thought process.

If you want to watch Cindy go through this thought process (I think this is what she's saying) go to findbabylisa.com and you can watch her interview.

Quiche
10-24-2011, 07:12 PM
New post is up there.

http://www.findlisa.com/?p=10

The tone is a little rah-rah for the parents, again, and I resent the "let's" phrasing too...

Whatever lady, I'm not interested in mopping up their image, I'm just watching and learning. mo

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 07:17 PM
The tone is a little rah-rah for the parents, again, and I resent the "let's" phrasing too...

Whatever lady, I'm not interested in mopping up their image, I'm just watching and learning. mo

I don't see that as rah rah for the parents necessarily. She's calling Deborah ignorant and naive, and saying virtually no one will come forward with information about them. I didn't find that flattering at all, more a call for opinions from their acquaintances. She's saying no one is offering any opinions to "flesh out" what they are like. That's neutral, at best, to me. It's like, hey where are your friends?

Karmaa
10-24-2011, 07:17 PM
Yes your right. If LE makes a mistake on the SW, the evidence collected may not be used at trial. Pretty big gamble to do something wrong on purpose.

That's not correct. The courts have consistently held that even if LE out and out lies on the SW, it doesn't invalidate it. The officers could be sanctioned if they were caught, but they rarely ever get caught. This is easy enough to say "the dog made a mistake.. too bad."

scmom
10-24-2011, 07:17 PM
Seems I also remember LE requesting that the media retreat to a distance on the day of that search. And wasn't there some talk of not wanting to reveal every tool and method they were using so as not to help the criminal element? (Paraphrasing here.)

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 07:19 PM
No, they haven't said anything about anything. All we have to go by is that they obtained a search warrant based on the Oct. 17 search that the cadaver dog hit on the floor by Deborah's bed. So that we know, from LE, their cadaver dog hit on the floor near Deborah's bed.

You really have to kind of just piece all this together. LE is mum.

I watched the search on live cam, and I saw another dog in the house briefly. At that point, people were saying hey why aren't there dogs in the yard to help out with the yard search, I believe the one and only dog used that day was used very briefly in the house, and was gone. The day of the search warrant, they were there forever, but the dog was there only briefly.

So I don't have a link. This is all based on what I think are logical conclusions, based on the little we have.

1. They obtained a search warrant from the Oct. 17 search, when they didn't have a warrant, and state (I'm sure truthfully) that a dog hit on the floor next to Deborah's bed.

2. They brought the search warrant, guys in white suits, and briefly a dog the day they did the search backed by the warrant.

3. They did not remove carpeting from the floor next to Deborah's bed.

My conclusion is the second dog (probably the best they could get) didn't confirm the hit.

Sorry, no link. It's thought process.

If you want to watch Cindy go through this thought process (I think this is what she's saying) go to findbabylisa.com and you can watch her interview.

So you think a dog was there briefly and that is what you base it on, that a dog was there? LOL LE drops by scenes all the time when they are between assignments. Maybe he came by to ask if his dog was needed. Or maybe he just wanted to say hi or see how things were going.

Or maybe that dog hit too! Unless we hear it from LE, it isn't fact.

I got to thinking about the "if it hit, they had to take the carpet idea." Besides the fact that the attorney didn't have them show the whole room so we really don't know if there was any carpet missing, there is also the possibility that the carpet area was dry and not stained. Maybe it didn't floresce under luminol. So they vaccumed the carpet and took that back to the lab to look at fibers.

When a dog gets a hit in the woods, they may collect twigs and stones from the area for testing. But they don't usually dig the area up and take it back to the lab. So IMO the same principle would apply here. If they can collect the evidence without tearing up the carpet, you would think they would do so.

Basically we don't know what they did, and won't unless/until they get to trial.

MyBelle
10-24-2011, 07:20 PM
That's not correct. The courts have consistently held that even if LE out and out lies on the SW, it doesn't invalidate it. The officers could be sanctioned if they were caught, but they rarely ever get caught. This is easy enough to say "the dog made a mistake.. too bad."

BBM. Link, please. Thank you.

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 07:21 PM
So you think a dog was there briefly and that is what you base it on, that a dog was there? LOL LE drops by scenes all the time when they are between assignments. Maybe he came by to ask if his dog was needed. Or maybe he just wanted to say hi or see how things were going.

Or maybe that dog hit too! Unless we hear it from LE, it isn't fact.

I got to thinking about the "if it hit, they had to take the carpet idea." Besides the fact that the attorney didn't have them show the whole room so we really don't know if there was any carpet missing, there is also the possibility that the carpet area was dry and not stained. Maybe it didn't floresce under luminol. So they vaccumed the carpet and took that back to the lab to look at fibers.

When a dog gets a hit in the woods, they may collect twigs and stones from the area for testing. But they don't usually dig the area up and take it back to the lab. So IMO the same principle would apply here. If they can collect the evidence without tearing up the carpet, you would think they would do so.

If that dog hit too, there would have been carpet removed. IMHO.

And yes, that's what I base it on. The dog went into the house at the first of the search that morning, was dispatched after a short length of time, and they dropped the apparent need to research the area the first dog hit on.

They came for that search with the big guns - LOTS of white suits, lots of hours, and I suspect the best dog they have.

And although they had a hit on the 17th, they didn't act on that by removing the carpet after the second (I believe better) dog left the scene.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

RANCH
10-24-2011, 07:24 PM
That's not correct. The courts have consistently held that even if LE out and out lies on the SW, it doesn't invalidate it. The officers could be sanctioned if they were caught, but they rarely ever get caught. This is easy enough to say "the dog made a mistake.. too bad."

What part of my post is incorrect? You did see my use of the word may right?

dog.gone.cute
10-24-2011, 07:24 PM
here we go...

again !

moo ...

Quiche
10-24-2011, 07:25 PM
I don't see that as rah rah for the parents necessarily. She's calling Deborah ignorant and naive, and saying virtually no one will come forward with information about them. I didn't find that flattering at all, more a call for opinions from their acquaintances. She's saying no one is offering any opinions to "flesh out" what they are like. That's neutral, at best, to me. It's like, hey where are your friends?

Yes, but why is this lawyer concerned about that while an innocent baby is missing??? She needs to load up her clients and get them down to LE-- that's what her real job is. Everything else is designed to confuse the issue.

I could care less about DB's flattery. mo

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 07:27 PM
Yes, but why is this lawyer concerned about that while an innocent baby is missing??? She needs to load up her clients and get them down to LE-- that's what her real job is. Everything else is designed to confuse the issue.

I could care less about DB's flattery. mo

Because she's trying - as hard as she can - to keep the focus off Deborah and Jeremy and on to making the public look for a live baby Lisa.

The way it was going a couple days ago, people who might have a very nagging feeling that a friend's baby is Baby Lisa might have been lulled into thinking Deborah killed her, no point in possibly embarrassing myself and hurting my friend by calling in this tip.

I couldn't care less about DB's flattery. I do take exception to the thought that article was a rah rah article about them. Neutral, at best.

alwaysonmymind
10-24-2011, 07:28 PM
The tone is a little rah-rah for the parents, again, and I resent the "let's" phrasing too...

Whatever lady, I'm not interested in mopping up their image, I'm just watching and learning. mo

ITA.

I find it very offensive.

BetteDavisEyes
10-24-2011, 07:29 PM
I don't see that as rah rah for the parents necessarily. She's calling Deborah ignorant and naive, and saying virtually no one will come forward with information about them. I didn't find that flattering at all, more a call for opinions from their acquaintances. She's saying no one is offering any opinions to "flesh out" what they are like. That's neutral, at best, to me. It's like, hey where are your friends?

Well, the two women from DB's past (at Fort Bragg) weren't exactly well-received by many folks, so I doubt that other friends or acquaintances want to enter their comments or opinions into the mix.

I feel like the attorney is making too much of an effort to make her client look like she was somehow incapable of committing a crime or covering up for a horrific accident - ignorant, naive, overly intoxicated, etc. jmo

JeannaT
10-24-2011, 07:32 PM
I don't see that as rah rah for the parents necessarily. She's calling Deborah ignorant and naive, and saying virtually no one will come forward with information about them. I didn't find that flattering at all, more a call for opinions from their acquaintances. She's saying no one is offering any opinions to "flesh out" what they are like. That's neutral, at best, to me. It's like, hey where are your friends?

Well, the two women from DB's past (at Fort Bragg) weren't exactly well-received by many folks, so I doubt that other friends or acquaintances want to enter their comments or opinions into the mix.

I feel like the attorney is making too much of an effort to make her client look like she was somehow incapable of committing a crime or covering up for a horrific accident - ignorant, naive, overly intoxicated, etc. jmo

I don't think the public at large would ever believe that ignorant intoxicated people aren't capable of committing crimes. Probably most of the crimes in the country are committed by ignorant intoxicated people. She's saying that would explain why they are not savvy enough to gather resources and wits about them quickly to defend themselves against a growing tide of public doubt.

madge
10-24-2011, 07:42 PM
I live in a very small town and most all of our crime is commited by intoxicated, probably ignorant people. Intoxication usually lessons your inhabitions (or so I'm told). My bottle of wine the other night got me nowhere near intoxicated.

dog.gone.cute
10-24-2011, 07:42 PM
snipped from : http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/local-attorney-for-family-of-lisa-irwin-sets-up-website-website-to-provide-information-about-case#ixzz1bkGTvNSb

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - The local attorney for Lisa Irwin’s family, Cyndy Short, told NBC Action News a website has been set up to provide information about the case.

B&RBM:

:waitasec: So ... WHY would a "defense attorney" set up a website to provide information about the "case" ?

IMO ... this is purely a DEFENSE STRATEGY ... ATTORNEY SPIN ... and DAMAGE CONTROL ...

I am "guessing" that attorney Short "suspects" her client or clients will be charged ...

I am also wondering if the attorney is "taking a shot" at LE as well as the msm ?

MOO ... I do NOT want an update on the case from a "defense attorney" or the "parents" ... I want to hear what LE has to say ...

Let me remind CS that it was HER CLIENT, DB, who has repeatedly inserted her "foot in mouth" ... it was DB who went on NATIONAL TELEVISION and stated that she failed a poly, was drunk, etc.

NONE of this info came from LE ! It came out of the MOUTH of DB !


MOO ...

Mountain_Kat
10-24-2011, 07:44 PM
I live in a very small town and most all of our crime is commited by intoxicated, probably ignorant people. Intoxication usually lessons your inhabitions (or so I'm told). My bottle of wine the other night got me nowhere near intoxicated.

How many glasses were in that bottle of wine? Was it more than 5 but less than 10? :crazy:

madge
10-24-2011, 07:46 PM
How many glasses were in that bottle of wine? Was it more than 5 but less than 10? :crazy:

:woohoo: LOL definitely more than 5 and less than 10.

strach304
10-24-2011, 07:53 PM
So you think a dog was there briefly and that is what you base it on, that a dog was there? LOL LE drops by scenes all the time when they are between assignments. Maybe he came by to ask if his dog was needed. Or maybe he just wanted to say hi or see how things were going.

Or maybe that dog hit too! Unless we hear it from LE, it isn't fact.

I got to thinking about the "if it hit, they had to take the carpet idea." Besides the fact that the attorney didn't have them show the whole room so we really don't know if there was any carpet missing, there is also the possibility that the carpet area was dry and not stained. Maybe it didn't floresce under luminol. So they vaccumed the carpet and took that back to the lab to look at fibers.

When a dog gets a hit in the woods, they may collect twigs and stones from the area for testing. But they don't usually dig the area up and take it back to the lab. So IMO the same principle would apply here. If they can collect the evidence without tearing up the carpet, you would think they would do so.

Basically we don't know what they did, and won't unless/until they get to trial.


If a cadaver dog hit on dirt they most certainly would dig that area up expecting a body to be buried there. Many times dogs alert and there is no body but that doesn't mean one wasn't there previously and then moved. Then sometimes the dog is just downright wrong. If indeed a dog alerted to the floor I think it would be a good idea to take that carpet.

stilettos
10-24-2011, 07:53 PM
How many glasses were in that bottle of wine? Was it more than 5 but less than 10? :crazy:

I don't know but I have declared myself the "hypothetical wine investigator". I have opened a bottle of wine (don't do boxes, sorry) and shall endeavor to let you all know if I get black out drunk. I will be tipsy, that can be assured. One bottle of wine...yep, toasted. Updates to follow...please don't hold me accountable for my drunk posting..I shall be rendered incapable of uttering a coherent thought. I guess since I will be drunk, that gives me a pass on all illegal and inappropriate behavior. Ya, that's the ticket.:waitasec:

strach304
10-24-2011, 08:00 PM
snipped from : http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/local-attorney-for-family-of-lisa-irwin-sets-up-website-website-to-provide-information-about-case#ixzz1bkGTvNSb

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - The local attorney for Lisa Irwin’s family, Cyndy Short, told NBC Action News a website has been set up to provide information about the case.

B&RBM:

:waitasec: So ... WHY would a "defense attorney" set up a website to provide information about the "case" ?

IMO ... this is purely a DEFENSE STRATEGY ... ATTORNEY SPIN ... and DAMAGE CONTROL ...

I am "guessing" that attorney Short "suspects" her client or clients will be charged ...

I am also wondering if the attorney is "taking a shot" at LE as well as the msm ?

MOO ... I do NOT want an update on the case from a "defense attorney" or the "parents" ... I want to hear what LE has to say ...

Let me remind CS that it was HER CLIENT, DB, who has repeatedly inserted her "foot in mouth" ... it was DB who went on NATIONAL TELEVISION and stated that she failed a poly, was drunk, etc.

NONE of this info came from LE ! It came out of the MOUTH of DB !


MOO ...

Someone needs to be the one appealing to the public for help in trying to find Lisa. LE is not doing the media angle asking for the publics help in locating Lisa or calling in tips. If Lisa was abducted LE doesn't know where to look, it will be a private citizen that solves this. The LE can go ahead and focus on getting forensics from the house and following up on tips. No reason to write this child off as dead just yet imo.

BetteDavisEyes
10-24-2011, 08:00 PM
Yes, but why is this lawyer concerned about that while an innocent baby is missing??? She needs to load up her clients and get them down to LE-- that's what her real job is. Everything else is designed to confuse the issue.

I could care less about DB's flattery. mo

ITA. If DB's attorney is attempting to garner sympathy for her client who is undereducated and drinks heavily, her plea is lost on me. This is no different than David Westerfield's legal team trying to convince the public (and a jury) that their client was well-to-do, an upstanding citizen, a member of Mensa (high IQ society), etc., so there was no way that he could have been involved in the disappearance/death of Danielle Van Dam. jmo

Velouria
10-24-2011, 08:04 PM
That's not correct. The courts have consistently held that even if LE out and out lies on the SW, it doesn't invalidate it. The officers could be sanctioned if they were caught, but they rarely ever get caught. This is easy enough to say "the dog made a mistake.. too bad."


Could you cite some cases that illustrate your point, please?

Amster
10-24-2011, 08:06 PM
I think she's a fabulous strategist. The public will either now likely believe it didn't happen, or she will effectively "call out" LE for comment.

Like a game?

Velouria
10-24-2011, 08:13 PM
Because she's trying - as hard as she can - to keep the focus off Deborah and Jeremy and on to making the public look for a live baby Lisa.

The way it was going a couple days ago, people who might have a very nagging feeling that a friend's baby is Baby Lisa might have been lulled into thinking Deborah killed her, no point in possibly embarrassing myself and hurting my friend by calling in this tip.

I couldn't care less about DB's flattery. I do take exception to the thought that article was a rah rah article about them. Neutral, at best.

Ohhhhh, is THAT what she's doing? Because I was under the impression that defense attorneys are in the business of keeping their clients from winding up in jail, and not in the business of bringing home missing children.

Angleena
10-24-2011, 08:16 PM
"The cadaver dog indicated a positive "hit" for the scent of a diseased human in the area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed"

This to me does not say "on" the floor itself but rather an area of the floor near the bed. Anything in that area of the floor is subject to be the object of the "hit" in my opinion, including objects laying on the floor.

I think we also need to look at the fact that this search when the dog hit was done with the permission of the Irwin's and it's possible that one of the family members was present during that search. Considering that no one has been cleared in the abduction of Lisa, it would make sense that LE wouldn't make a huge deal of it...simply because the Irwin's could have stopped the search at any time and removed any items that the dog hit on before a legal search warrant was obtained.

It is very possible that the dog hit in an area with several things in that area, but they were not exactly sure what the dog was hitting on if there were blankets, toys, and other objects on the floor.

Just my opinion of course.

RANCH
10-24-2011, 08:21 PM
"The cadaver dog indicated a positive "hit" for the scent of a diseased human in the area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed"

This to me does not say "on" the floor itself but rather an area of the floor near the bed. Anything in that area of the floor is subject to be the object of the "hit" in my opinion, including objects laying on the floor.

I think we also need to look at the fact that this search when the dog hit was done with the permission of the Irwin's and it's possible that one of the family members was present during that search. Considering that no one has been cleared in the abduction of Lisa, it would make sense that LE wouldn't make a huge deal of it...simply because the Irwin's could have stopped the search at any time and removed any items that the dog hit on before a legal search warrant was obtained.

It is very possible that the dog hit in an area with several things in that area, but they were not exactly sure what the dog was hitting on if there were blankets, toys, and other objects on the floor.

Just my opinion of course.
Where is this quote from? I haven't seen the word area used before.

Angleena
10-24-2011, 08:26 PM
Where is this quote from? I haven't seen the word area used before.

It's quoted from the affidavit.

http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552734.pdf

~n/t~
10-24-2011, 08:31 PM
Is there a list of items LE took from the home?

Angleena
10-24-2011, 08:34 PM
Is there a list of items LE took from the home?

multi-color comforter
purple shorts
multi-color Disney character shirt
glow worm toy
"cars" themed blanket
roll of tape
tape dispenser

Listed in the Return/Receipt for search warrant.

http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552734.pdf

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 08:40 PM
Because she's trying - as hard as she can - to keep the focus off Deborah and Jeremy and on to making the public look for a live baby Lisa.

The way it was going a couple days ago, people who might have a very nagging feeling that a friend's baby is Baby Lisa might have been lulled into thinking Deborah killed her, no point in possibly embarrassing myself and hurting my friend by calling in this tip.

I couldn't care less about DB's flattery. I do take exception to the thought that article was a rah rah article about them. Neutral, at best.

Speaking of that, did you notice the wording about the tipline?
'If you see baby Lisa call.' Nothing at all about if you believe you may have info about the baby, nothing about I believe someone I know may have harmed her. You are only supposed to call if you "see" the baby.

LOL I guess I should be grateful that at least they did put the tipline on there. Has anyone checked to see if the number is correct?

PlainJaneDoe
10-24-2011, 08:42 PM
For the public to print out and post! :waitasec: moo

So...nothing new on this website, is that correct? Just interviews and posters which have been readily available elsewhere?

Melanie
10-24-2011, 08:44 PM
How many glasses were in that bottle of wine? Was it more than 5 but less than 10? :crazy:

a 750 ml. bottle of wine will last me 2-3 days. You should be able to squeeze 3-4 glasses out of it. A box o' wine is equivalent to 6 bottles of wine, or 18-24 glasses IMHO.

:crazy:

MOO

Mel

RANCH
10-24-2011, 08:44 PM
It's quoted from the affidavit.

http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552734.pdf

Thanks for your reply. I don't believe that the dog "hit" on the floor itself. It had to be the carpet or something lying on the floor. LE wrote "in an area of the floor" because they didn't want to release a specific location or object of the dogs "hit" to the public.

~n/t~
10-24-2011, 08:50 PM
multi-color comforter
purple shorts
multi-color Disney character shirt
glow worm toy
"cars" themed blanket
roll of tape
tape dispenser

Listed in the Return/Receipt for search warrant.

http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552734.pdf

Thank you. After 16 - 17 hours, I must admit I'm surprised and confused by how little was taken. I'm also surprised they didn't take the carpet or flooring. No bedding from Lisa's room? Nothing taken from the backyard? Nothing from the shed? No bedding from the master bedroom? None of DB's or JI's clothing? No baby products? Were the items taken located in the master bedroom?

Do we have any attorneys here who can explain if this makes any sense? Would LE have another return/receipt that we are not privy to ? Can they go in again? If so, do they need another search warrant?

HatesSociopaths
10-24-2011, 08:50 PM
This isn't the same website linked in the OP?

Thanks - makes a lot more sense now.

~n/t~
10-24-2011, 08:54 PM
Speaking of that, did you notice the wording about the tipline?
'If you see baby Lisa call.' Nothing at all about if you believe you may have info about the baby, nothing about I believe someone I know may have harmed her. You are only supposed to call if you "see" the baby.

LOL I guess I should be grateful that at least they did put the tipline on there. Has anyone checked to see if the number is correct?

They think she's alive and have no idea who took her. Why would they say I believe someone may have harmed her?:waitasec:

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 08:55 PM
There are two different websites. Note the differences in the url

http://findbabylisa.com/ attorney site

http://www.findlisa.com/ unknown contributor. lol I actually kinda like this site. In the about section the author says she is not affiliated with anyone in the case. The only thing I don't like about this case is the person doesn't list the tipline prominently. Though I did find it posted in the about page. I would think that would be paramount if your only motive was that you wanted the baby found.

Karmaa
10-24-2011, 08:57 PM
BBM. Link, please. Thank you.

United States v. Gonzalez, 969 F.2d 999,1002 (11th Cir.1996)
Ortega v. Christian. 85 F.3d 1521,1525 (11th Cir. 1996)
Skop. 485 F.3d at 1137
Dahl v. Holley. 312F.3d 1228,1235 (11th Cir. 2002)

carole
10-24-2011, 08:59 PM
Thank you. After 16 - 17 hours, I must admit I'm surprised and confused by how little was taken. I'm also surprised they didn't take the carpet or flooring. No bedding from Lisa's room? Nothing taken from the backyard? Nothing from the shed? No bedding from the master bedroom? None of DB's or JI's clothing? No baby products? Were the items taken located in the master bedroom?

Do we have any attorneys here who can explain if this makes any sense? Would LE have another return/receipt that we are not privy to ? Can they go in again? If so, do they need another search warrant?

BBM

The document filed on Friday is State's Motion to Seal Court Records - http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf

This is to keep evidence that was found on Wed. from being leaked to media, etc. The several items were listed, I suppose, to show the court that there was evidence collected. In my opinion, there is much, much, much more evidence that was obtained on Wed.

I watched the live feed and there were many bags of evidence taken from the house and many x rays of the inside of the house taken.

ETA - I am not a lawyer.

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 09:09 PM
Thanks for your reply. I don't believe that the dog "hit" on the floor itself. It had to be the carpet or something lying on the floor. LE wrote "in an area of the floor" because they didn't want to release a specific location or object of the dogs "hit" to the public.

Someone in another thread suggested that maybe there were two carpets in the bedroom, one on top of the other. That maybe the carpet in the shed used to be in the bedroom.

mysteriew
10-24-2011, 09:11 PM
They think she's alive and have no idea who took her. Why would they say I believe someone may have harmed her?:waitasec:

Poor wording on my part.

Sometimes there are people who may call the tipline and say I think I know who harmed baby XXX and give a name. But according to the tipline they are only interested in people who actually see baby Lisa.

nursebeeme
10-24-2011, 09:12 PM
http://findbabylisa.com/

this is the lawyer's website... any others with the combination of baby and lisa, etc.. are not the same..

just bumping this up.

Angleena
10-24-2011, 09:14 PM
Thank you. After 16 - 17 hours, I must admit I'm surprised and confused by how little was taken. I'm also surprised they didn't take the carpet or flooring. No bedding from Lisa's room? Nothing taken from the backyard? Nothing from the shed? No bedding from the master bedroom? None of DB's or JI's clothing? No baby products? Were the items taken located in the master bedroom?

Do we have any attorneys here who can explain if this makes any sense? Would LE have another return/receipt that we are not privy to ? Can they go in again? If so, do they need another search warrant?

I am not a lawyer.

But some items do not have to be listed on the warrant return. A few items that wouldn't have to be listed are lose hair strands, fibers, and fingerprint lifts. I think they spent a great deal of their time digging in the back yard and taking x-rays inside the house.

cachmo
10-24-2011, 09:14 PM
If the web site is to find baby Lisa IMO there would be less of who did what wrong and more about LISA.JMO

Angleena
10-24-2011, 09:18 PM
Someone in another thread suggested that maybe there were two carpets in the bedroom, one on top of the other. That maybe the carpet in the shed used to be in the bedroom.

It didn't appear to me that LE treated that carpet as if it were a critical piece of evidence. My thoughts are that it was carpeting that was rolled up in the shed or garage that was brought out to the driveway and unrolled to see if something had been rolled up inside it. I can see why they would be interested in a rolled piece of carpet, many things can be hidden inside a roll of carpet, including a body. moo

Boytwnmom
10-24-2011, 09:18 PM
while refusing to TALK to the interviewer who's taking us on a tour of the damn house-who cares? All I can think, cynically, is licensing fees for the video. So, it's on at least two networks and we get a "tour" of the house but no words from the parents about their daughter or pleading for their daughter....hinky is an understatement.

And the attorney's...please. JT says not to get focused on "details" like the cadaver hit and the woman says there was no hit and I guess the police are just big fat liars. The lawyers for innocent parents would be saying how their clients were hysterical over that news. Since they supposedly don't know what happened and since she didn't see her child from 6:40 on how the hootin heck could they know that their child wasn't killed in the room.

If these people are completely innocent they should sue these lawyers for malpractice.


afaik, the family has never returned to the house to spend the night but they have been there to allow reporters in, etc.

Wendy101
10-24-2011, 09:30 PM
She's not the only one who has questions about the cadaver dog "hit". There is no excuse at all for LE to have not taken the carpet where the hit was. None. Even if there was a rug over it. Even if the hit was on an object on the floor. They would have taken the carpet, or at least the part of it that was under and around the hit. So, why didn't they take it? Maybe because they knew the cadaver dog hit was a false positive? (Or maybe because the dog never actually hit there?)

And, no - it's not likely that LE took the carpet and replaced it with other carpet. They do not do that on a search. They do not fix their messes.

Just bouncing off your post.

I was thinking maybe the "hit" was not on a carpet but a blanket that was on the floor near the parents bed... in this situation, wouldn't they just have to photograph the scene, and collect the blanket?

Just wondering, did the LE say the dog hit onthe carpet???

strach304
10-24-2011, 09:36 PM
Ohhhhh, is THAT what she's doing? Because I was under the impression that defense attorneys are in the business of keeping their clients from winding up in jail, and not in the business of bringing home missing children.

Finding Lisa alive would accomplish that. Win, win situation.

strach304
10-24-2011, 09:37 PM
Just bouncing off your post.

I was thinking maybe the "hit" was not on a carpet but a blanket that was on the floor near the parents bed... in this situation, wouldn't they just have to photograph the scene, and collect the blanket?

Just wondering, did the LE say the dog hit onthe carpet???

An area of the floor by the parents bed.

Abby Normal
10-24-2011, 09:38 PM
OR one dog hit on it and the second round of dogs (the double checkers) did not. Or they took the carpet and whomever laid it left the previous carpet down as the pad (to save money, etc) because the carpet that was there was not tacked in at the doorway. Maybe it was that way before, I can't know.

There are million and one possibilities. I personally do not feel that LE lied... maybe it's naive, but especially with the FBI there I have some amount of respect and faith in the process.

I believe that at the end of this, when more science is released, we will all have a clearer understanding of whether or not one of the parents were involved. Until then all we have is gut feelings, theories and speculation.

frankie069
10-24-2011, 09:40 PM
She's not the only one who has questions about the cadaver dog "hit". There is no excuse at all for LE to have not taken the carpet where the hit was. None. Even if there was a rug over it. Even if the hit was on an object on the floor. They would have taken the carpet, or at least the part of it that was under and around the hit. So, why didn't they take it? Maybe because they knew the cadaver dog hit was a false positive? (Or maybe because the dog never actually hit there?)

And, no - it's not likely that LE took the carpet and replaced it with other carpet. They do not do that on a search. They do not fix their messes.

IF i am not mistaken here, I did see this on another post on this site, but apparently the hit was on a comforter that was on the floor, they took the comforter. i dont believe the hit was on their carpet. There was nothing false about this, this is a clear case of needing to make sure people see their lies so when jury selection comes up, hopefully they will get some numbnuts like CA did.

Wendy101
10-24-2011, 09:40 PM
snipped from : http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/local-attorney-for-family-of-lisa-irwin-sets-up-website-website-to-provide-information-about-case#ixzz1bkGTvNSb

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - The local attorney for Lisa Irwin’s family, Cyndy Short, told NBC Action News a website has been set up to provide information about the case.

B&RBM:

:waitasec: So ... WHY would a "defense attorney" set up a website to provide information about the "case" ?

IMO ... this is purely a DEFENSE STRATEGY ... ATTORNEY SPIN ... and DAMAGE CONTROL ...

I am "guessing" that attorney Short "suspects" her client or clients will be charged ...

I am also wondering if the attorney is "taking a shot" at LE as well as the msm ?

MOO ... I do NOT want an update on the case from a "defense attorney" or the "parents" ... I want to hear what LE has to say ...

Let me remind CS that it was HER CLIENT, DB, who has repeatedly inserted her "foot in mouth" ... it was DB who went on NATIONAL TELEVISION and stated that she failed a poly, was drunk, etc.

NONE of this info came from LE ! It came out of the MOUTH of DB !


MOO ...

ITA: Sure is a difference between this lawyer and Terri Hormans lawyer, Stephen Houze!!

BTW: Has Dehrah even been charged with anything ...... :floorlaugh: .. this lawyer is doing Debrah no good at all IMO...

katydid23
10-24-2011, 09:43 PM
Yes, it is telling, imo, that the DT instantly tries to discount the reliability of the dog hit. How does mom know for sure whether someone came in and killed her child while was she was out on the stoop, or passed out on her bed?She does not know, she admits she does not know because she blacked it all out.

rosetattoo
10-24-2011, 09:54 PM
That's not correct. The courts have consistently held that even if LE out and out lies on the SW, it doesn't invalidate it. The officers could be sanctioned if they were caught, but they rarely ever get caught. This is easy enough to say "the dog made a mistake.. too bad."

But if there's no probably cause for the warrant, the search would be illegal and the court could suppress evidence obtain from the search. If the dog hit was completely fabricated (which I can't imagine it was) there might not be enough basis for probable cause.

rosetattoo
10-24-2011, 09:56 PM
Just bouncing off your post.

I was thinking maybe the "hit" was not on a carpet but a blanket that was on the floor near the parents bed... in this situation, wouldn't they just have to photograph the scene, and collect the blanket?

Just wondering, did the LE say the dog hit onthe carpet???

The affidavit just says the dog hit on the "floor." I'm beginning to wonder if LE wasn't intentionally vague in the affidavit for the SW because they didn't want to give away what the dog hit on.

w1df10wr
10-24-2011, 10:03 PM
Finding Lisa alive would accomplish that. Win, win situation.

Its possible people are looking at the months old photos on the available flyer & t shirt, that lists Lisa as 2" 6', and 30 lbs & 10 almost 11 months old and confused? I know people who have a hard time, "baby" image they've been shown, doesn't match with what has been descripted to look for. There is a missing child - " infant" , "baby" pic plastered everywhere is a lot different than the actual 10 almost 11 month old.

Finding Lisa means having the most recent image of her available, imo.

strach304
10-24-2011, 10:04 PM
IF i am not mistaken here, I did see this on another post on this site, but apparently the hit was on a comforter that was on the floor, they took the comforter. i dont believe the hit was on their carpet. There was nothing false about this, this is a clear case of needing to make sure people see their lies so when jury selection comes up, hopefully they will get some numbnuts like CA did.

That was speculation from posters trying to understand why LE didn't take the carpet and based on what items were taken listed in the search warrant.

strach304
10-24-2011, 10:06 PM
Its possible people are looking at the months old photos on the available flyer & t shirt, that lists Lisa as 2" 6', and 30 lbs & 10 almost 11 months old and confused? I know people who have a hard time, "baby" image they've been shown, doesn't match with what has been descripted to look for. There is a missing child - " infant" , "baby" pic plastered everywhere is a lot different than the actual 10 almost 11 month old.

Finding Lisa means having the most recent image of her available, imo.

Makes no damn sense, I agree. :seeya:

cluciano63
10-24-2011, 10:07 PM
Just seems to me that a reaction to learning that a trained HRD dog hit in my bedroom while my child is missing would be absolute panic at the thought that my child might be dead...and that my "team" would also feel that panic. Instead we hear only reasons why LE didn't do their job correctly...:(

sorrell skye
10-24-2011, 10:11 PM
BBM

The document filed on Friday is State's Motion to Seal Court Records - http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf

This is to keep evidence that was found on Wed. from being leaked to media, etc. The several items were listed, I suppose, to show the court that there was evidence collected. In my opinion, there is much, much, much more evidence that was obtained on Wed.

I watched the live feed and there were many bags of evidence taken from the house and many x rays of the inside of the house taken.

ETA - I am not a lawyer.

There was definitely much more taken. I watched the live feed that day, and @ one point I saw the CSIs carry at least 4 or 5 evidence bags from the backyard.

alwaysonmymind
10-24-2011, 10:20 PM
Just seems to me that a reaction to learning that a trained HRD dog hit in my bedroom while my child is missing would be absolute panic at the thought that my child might be dead...and that my "team" would also feel that panic. Instead we hear only reasons why LE didn't do their job correctly...:(

I know, right??

I suppose this could be the reaction if one already knows what happened to the child. moo

LancelotLink
10-24-2011, 10:24 PM
You know, if I had been the reporter going along on this tour of the house and this lawyer was standing there looking around the bedroom, perplexed at why the carpet was still in tact, I think as I watched her coming from the left side of the bed to the dresser, nearly having to step over a laundry basket sitting in the floor, with a line of clothes on hangers streaming over it, covering about five or 6 feet by three to four feet, I would have asked, "Hey! What's under here? "

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/lancelotlink2/Clipboard212-1.jpg

matou
10-24-2011, 10:24 PM
Just seems to me that a reaction to learning that a trained HRD dog hit in my bedroom while my child is missing would be absolute panic at the thought that my child might be dead...and that my "team" would also feel that panic. Instead we hear only reasons why LE didn't do their job correctly...:(

Instead, DB lawyered up and claimed she was drinking.

matou
10-24-2011, 10:27 PM
[quote=LancelotLink;7277355]You know, if I had been the reporter going along on this tour of the house and this lawyer was standing there looking around the bedroom, perplexed at why the carpet was still in tact, I think as I watched her coming from the left side of the bed to the dresser, nearly having to step over a laundry basket sitting in the floor, with a line of clothes on hangers streaming over it, covering about five or 6 feet by three to four feet, I would have asked, "Hey! What's under here? "


Hence, the dog hitting on an area of the floor? If everything is on the floor, I guess it increases the chance for a dog to hit?

sorrell skye
10-24-2011, 10:31 PM
Belimom captured this image from the live feed of the search on 10/19.


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=19312&stc=1&d=1319042536

These evidence bags were brought from the backyard - so yes, more was collected during the 10/19 search than Ms. Short is aware. Wasn't a portion of the SW return sealed?

LancelotLink
10-24-2011, 10:33 PM
Hence, the dog hitting on an area of the floor? If everything is on the floor, I guess it increases the chance for a dog to hit?

I'm just wondering why, if she wants people to believe LE did not take a swatch of carpet, that she would leave this area covered up. It is located at the bottom corner of the bed. She was having to practically step over it. :floorlaugh:

If I wanted to get anyone to believe the police or FBI had not taken a swatch, you can bet that carpet would be clear of anything, especially something that takes up just enough of the carpet to be a swatch cut out. Geez, Cyndy.

LancelotLink
10-24-2011, 10:36 PM
Belimom captured this image from the live feed of the search on 10/19.


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=19312&stc=1&d=1319042536

These evidence bags were brought from the backyard - so yes, more was collected during the 10/19 search than Ms. Short is aware. Wasn't a portion of the SW return sealed?

I also noticed on JVM, one of the CS folks carrying what looked like a swatch of carpet about four feet by five or six feet. He was carrying it by holding both ends together. It was so quick, but it is what made me search out this lady's video. Hopefully, Patty G will have it tomorrow and I can SG it.

And as for being sealed, I'm not sire, but I don't know when they took the carpet swatch either. They have the hard drive, but I have never seen a receipt for that either.

LancelotLink
10-24-2011, 10:42 PM
Matou,
I'm going to try and crop that photo, so not to blow the margins. Can you edit your post?

rosiebean
10-24-2011, 10:45 PM
IIRC, the wording was 'area of the floor' not 'on the floor'. That leads me to speculate that the hit was on an object on the floor (such as a comforter, blanket, or toy), not the floor itself.

LE were seen removing a carpet and bringing it (was it into the garage?) somewhere else out of sight. It could be that LE wanted to see if dogs hit on the carpet separately from the floor (as the carpet is 'new' and the floor part of a 50 or so year home...a hit on the carpet alone indicates a 'newer' death while a hit on both carpet and floor indicate a possible historic death from a previous owner). I'm not sure if dogs would hit on a floor through a carpet...but if it's a possibility, maybe LE wanted to separate the two.

Or, maybe the dog hit on an object on the floor, and LE wanted to test the carpet and floor to see if there were residual fluids (i.e., blood). If they were able to do so on site and if they found NO fluids...why on earth would they take the carpet? Their documentation that the carpet/floor was 'clean' of blood/bodily fluid would meet a legal standard I presume. I mean, if a body lies on a carpet and leaves scent but nothing SOLID such as blood or bile, etc., why take the carpet? What would it prove, if there's not a visual test for scent?

OR, maybe they only brought in a second dog after the search warrant was issued (really shoddy LE work in that case, IMHO), and the second dog didn't hit on the floor.

There's no way to tell knowing the little we know, and everything else is speculation...and the lawyer in this case is speculating in a way that's most favorable to her clients, even if her 'most favorable' speculation doesn't help their credibility . As a previous person stated, if mom was so drunk that she was maybe blacked out, how the blankety blank does she know there's NOT the possibility of a hit on the carpet? The 'perp' could have done something in her room, and she wouldn't have known. And THAT kind of blanket 'oh, I was blacked out, but still this thing that might be possible but would make me maybe look bad is therefore impossible' statement is nothing but hinky and speaks to the fact that the lawyer is covering her clients rear ends, NOT trying to find that little girl. IMO.

cluciano63
10-24-2011, 10:51 PM
I think LE was as vague as possible as to where the hit was, knowing that the warrant would end up being made public, against their wishes.

alwaysonmymind
10-24-2011, 11:11 PM
From Peter Alexander

Photo from bedroom- does that look like a huge stain on the carpet between the end of the bed and the pile of laundry?

http://yfrog.com/o0q4aqj

lauriej
10-24-2011, 11:17 PM
From Peter Alexander

Photo from bedroom- does that look like a huge stain on the carpet between the end of the bed and the pile of laundry?

http://yfrog.com/o0q4aqj

..it looks like a shadow from the pile of "stuff"------you can also see the shadow of the bed ( on the right side of the bed ) on the floor..

MissJames
10-24-2011, 11:20 PM
I think she's a fabulous strategist. The public will either now likely believe it didn't happen, or she will effectively "call out" LE for comment.

Or........the public will consider the source.
She's a defense lawyer trying to take the focus off the parents,who have been inconsistent ,at best.
The hit could have been on a pile of clothes on the floor.Maybe clothes someone was wearing when they "disposed" of the body.Maybe a baby blanket .Any number of items could have been on the floor by the corner of the bed.

Defense attorneys always try to discredit whatever it is that points the finger at their client. Scientific tests,eye witnesses,experts,and cadaver dogs,etc.That doesn't make them any them any less valid. JMO

mrye4709
10-24-2011, 11:24 PM
Well, I don't know what LE knows, so I reserved judgement on them not taking the carpet.

But, the bedding from Lisa's crib wasn't taken UNTIL the SW and I don't think that is excusable. It was speculated that someone made up the crib after the original search (before the first video of her room) and now that bedding is gone (per the video last night or this morning). I don't care who LE think is guilty, they should have taken that first thing and had it tested.

rosiebean
10-24-2011, 11:27 PM
But, the bedding from Lisa's crib wasn't taken UNTIL the SW and I don't think that is excusable. It was speculated that someone made up the crib after the original search (before the first video of her room) and now that bedding is gone (per the video last night or this morning). I don't care who LE think is guilty, they should have taken that first thing and had it tested.
We don't know if the bedding was taken or not. It's been discussed on here numerous times, that during the 'consent' searched, LE was seen taking bags with what looked like pink bedding outside of the house. It was speculated that the bedding seen in the video was put on AFTER LE too the original (by family/friends) so that the parents wouldn't be upset to see a bare crib.

LancelotLink
10-24-2011, 11:38 PM
Or........the public will consider the source.
She's a defense lawyer trying to take the focus off the parents,who have been inconsistent ,at best.
The hit could have been on a pile of clothes on the floor.Maybe clothes someone was wearing when they "disposed" of the body.Maybe a baby blanket .Any number of items could have been on the floor by the corner of the bed.

Defense attorneys always try to discredit whatever it is that points the finger at their client. Scientific tests,eye witnesses,experts,and cadaver dogs,etc.That doesn't make them any them any less valid. JMO

Yep. I've got Short's number. That didn't take long.

mrye4709
10-24-2011, 11:48 PM
We don't know if the bedding was taken or not. It's been discussed on here numerous times, that during the 'consent' searched, LE was seen taking bags with what looked like pink bedding outside of the house. It was speculated that the bedding seen in the video was put on AFTER LE too the original (by family/friends) so that the parents wouldn't be upset to see a bare crib.

In the most recent video the THAT bedding is now gone. I'm assuming it was taken for evidence now. I was saying it should have already been taken. It makes me think that that was Lisa's bedding and it was not taken on the first search, but is now gone. JMO

vlpate
10-24-2011, 11:49 PM
But, the bedding from Lisa's crib wasn't taken UNTIL the SW and I don't think that is excusable. It was speculated that someone made up the crib after the original search (before the first video of her room) and now that bedding is gone (per the video last night or this morning). I don't care who LE think is guilty, they should have taken that first thing and had it tested.

Come on, these are not the keystone cops - we don't know what they did or did not take. They are not showing their hand, nor should they. The defense would just come right back with media spin dirtying the jury pool.

You've never seen a detective working on a case on the NG show or JVM talking about evidence in his/her active investigation. Thank goodness.

Short's appearance on abc this morning was to cast doubt on LE and reel in more believers - and from reading posts on many of the LI sites tonight, she caught a lot of fish.

I'm glad they've finally set up a website....about time.

CHICANA
10-24-2011, 11:51 PM
The dog didn't hit on the carpet, it hit on the floor. No indication whatsoever that there was carpet or a rug where the dog hit.

JMO

Isn't the entire room carpeted ?

AngelWings444
10-24-2011, 11:54 PM
I have confidence in LE and the FBI. I'm hoping they don't disappoint. Wonder how the GJ is doing?

LancelotLink
10-24-2011, 11:55 PM
I'll bet underneath that laundry basket is bare floor. Any takers? :crazy:

MissJames
10-25-2011, 12:10 AM
If a cadaver dog hit on dirt they most certainly would dig that area up expecting a body to be buried there. Many times dogs alert and there is no body but that doesn't mean one wasn't there previously and then moved. Then sometimes the dog is just downright wrong. If indeed a dog alerted to the floor I think it would be a good idea to take that carpet.
bbm
Unless the dog hit on something that was on the floor at the corner of the bed,on top of the carpet.

I'm sure many of you have heard stories of children and young adults ,who have autism,getting lost,sometimes for days.If they are non-verbal,or unlikely to answer you,it can be terrifying ,calling over and over,with no answer back.

I count on our service dog, who also tracks,to find my child.It can literally be a life and death situation. I have complete trust that he will get it right.My son's life could depend on it .

A LOT of time and effort goes into training working dogs. They are so good at what they do that we count on them to find bombs,or other explosive devices and keep citizens safe. That's life and death.
They are so good they can lead the blind around a busy city ,crossing streets only when it's safe, while ignoring distractions .

They can be trained to alert to oncoming seizures because scent,only a dog could detect ,is present shortly before a seizure begins. This can prevent falls .The seizure alert dogs can alert the caregiver ,getting help .Pretty important job,IMO.

The hearing impaired count on them to alert when a smoke alarm goes off,giving them the time to get to safety.

There's any number of jobs dogs (the ones that make the cut)can be trained to do. There's a lot riding on their ability to get it right. Cadaver dogs aren't a whim or a passing fad .They are a very important tool that LE invests in because it works.
JMO

MyBelle
10-25-2011, 12:21 AM
United States v. Gonzalez, 969 F.2d 999,1002 (11th Cir.1996)
Ortega v. Christian. 85 F.3d 1521,1525 (11th Cir. 1996)
Skop. 485 F.3d at 1137
Dahl v. Holley. 312F.3d 1228,1235 (11th Cir. 2002)

None of those cases have to do with LE lies on search warrants. The Ortega case had to do with sentences running concurrently, Ortega and Dahl were both cases about probable cause to make an arrest. You called out another poster as being incorrect, it is always helpful if you provide a link instead of just listing cases that have nothing to do with the subject. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Karmaa
That's not correct. The courts have consistently held that even if LE out and out lies on the SW, it doesn't invalidate it. The officers could be sanctioned if they were caught, but they rarely ever get caught. This is easy enough to say "the dog made a mistake.. too bad."

MissJames
10-25-2011, 12:23 AM
I'll bet underneath that laundry basket is bare floor. Any takers? :crazy:

Maybe :seeya:

I firmly believe that if a cadaver dog hit on the carpet at the corner of the bed,then the carpet would have been removed.
Even if a second dog did not hit (there is NO evidence of this ) The one hit would be enough to further analyze that carpet .

That leaves me to {logically} conclude that there was something on the floor near the bed and it was taken as possible evidence.

OR it WAS carpet,but exactly where everyone's focus is. Maybe it's under the basket.

MyBelle
10-25-2011, 12:23 AM
Isn't the entire room carpeted ?

No carpet on the ceiling or walls that I could see.

vlpate
10-25-2011, 12:25 AM
She's not the only one who has questions about the cadaver dog "hit". There is no excuse at all for LE to have not taken the carpet where the hit was. None. Even if there was a rug over it. Even if the hit was on an object on the floor. They would have taken the carpet, or at least the part of it that was under and around the hit. So, why didn't they take it? Maybe because they knew the cadaver dog hit was a false positive? (Or maybe because the dog never actually hit there?)

And, no - it's not likely that LE took the carpet and replaced it with other carpet. They do not do that on a search. They do not fix their messes.

And the spin works it's magic. They were in that house for 17 hours. From the looks the bedroom it probably took a while to GET the floor. They have ways off testing the carpet without removing it, and maybe there was another layer of carpet that they did take.

Their carpet looked very loose to me, as if it needed to be stretched. They could have looked at the back of the carpet and the pad for stains and found none. The dog could have hit on a pile of clothes, like someone else here said.

Short making a big deal over the carpet was just ridiculous, what did she suppose they were doing in there all that time? Eating donuts and playing nickels? I'll tell you what this does tell me, no one died in that house - at least not in that room or we'd have heard about it by now.

marge_rita
10-25-2011, 12:27 AM
Someone in another thread suggested that maybe there were two carpets in the bedroom, one on top of the other. That maybe the carpet in the shed used to be in the bedroom.

Great thought. I wondered about a throw rug at the foot of the bed but a carpet on top of another carpet---I betcha you're right.

imo

marge_rita
10-25-2011, 12:29 AM
If the web site is to find baby Lisa IMO there would be less of who did what wrong and more about LISA.JMO
bbm
You'd think. (It doesn't surprise me though.)

imo

marge_rita
10-25-2011, 12:35 AM
IF i am not mistaken here, I did see this on another post on this site, but apparently the hit was on a comforter that was on the floor, they took the comforter. i dont believe the hit was on their carpet. There was nothing false about this, this is a clear case of needing to make sure people see their lies so when jury selection comes up, hopefully they will get some numbnuts like CA did.
frankie,
Your post are always so right on for me. :seeya:


As far as the blankets go, in the SW there was mention of at least one comforter taken.

imo

marge_rita
10-25-2011, 12:37 AM
Yes, it is telling, imo, that the DT instantly tries to discount the reliability of the dog hit. How does mom know for sure whether someone came in and killed her child while was she was out on the stoop, or passed out on her bed?She does not know, she admits she does not know because she blacked it all out.

:bowdown:

MyBelle
10-25-2011, 12:37 AM
You know, if I had been the reporter going along on this tour of the house and this lawyer was standing there looking around the bedroom, perplexed at why the carpet was still in tact, I think as I watched her coming from the left side of the bed to the dresser, nearly having to step over a laundry basket sitting in the floor, with a line of clothes on hangers streaming over it, covering about five or 6 feet by three to four feet, I would have asked, "Hey! What's under here? "

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/lancelotlink2/Clipboard212-1.jpg

Maybe the reporter was already knocked speechless from the multiple assaults on our collective intelligence?

JMO

marge_rita
10-25-2011, 12:41 AM
Its possible people are looking at the months old photos on the available flyer & t shirt, that lists Lisa as 2" 6', and 30 lbs & 10 almost 11 months old and confused? I know people who have a hard time, "baby" image they've been shown, doesn't match with what has been descripted to look for. There is a missing child - " infant" , "baby" pic plastered everywhere is a lot different than the actual 10 almost 11 month old.

Finding Lisa means having the most recent image of her available, imo.

That's bothered me since the infant pictures were released. Look at the picture of Lisa sitting on the couch and standing at the glass door. She is a big 10-11 month old. She looks at least the size of a child 3-4 months older.

Did the parents release infant pictures to purposely cause confusion?

IDK

imoi

marge_rita
10-25-2011, 12:43 AM
Just seems to me that a reaction to learning that a trained HRD dog hit in my bedroom while my child is missing would be absolute panic at the thought that my child might be dead...and that my "team" would also feel that panic. Instead we hear only reasons why LE didn't do their job correctly...:(

Simply sad. Complaining about LE makes D and J look guilty in many eyes.

imo

SmoothOperator
10-25-2011, 12:52 AM
The website having flyers to print off and post is not unusual AT ALL!! many missing children cases and websites have this.. Hailey Dunn as well as Kyron Horman.. FYI.

ThoughtFox
10-25-2011, 01:08 AM
Hey sarx, you think it's possible that Debbie got the carpet in the bedroom replaced and that the roll of carpet they had in the backyard was the actual bedroom carpet?

http://i51.tinypic.com/2s92ik3.png

Thank you so much for posting that picture! I knew I had seen them carrying out a carpet on the day of the search, so this whole debate about carpets versus floor seems like a moot point.

Anyone who watched them searching that day knows that they went over the house and yard with a fine-toothed comb. A 17-hour search, which we hardly ever see, even in missing child cases!

The family attorney can spin this with semantics like "the dog didn't hit on the carpet in such-and-such room." But the dog must have hit on something! And now they know the police and FBI have tons of evidence taken from that house and grounds - I remember watching one person raking under the bushes and trees.

LE left no stone unturned, so this new website is all about PR and damage control because the family is running scared, I think. :twocents:

Hallow
10-25-2011, 01:34 AM
Well, since they've sold out in other areas, you'd think they could have bought a good designer/programmer to do this website too :snooty:

/end of snark

Littleone48
10-25-2011, 01:58 AM
Just seems to me that a reaction to learning that a trained HRD dog hit in my bedroom while my child is missing would be absolute panic at the thought that my child might be dead...and that my "team" would also feel that panic. Instead we hear only reasons why LE didn't do their job correctly...:(

Maybe the reason they are not feeling "panic" is because they know the last time they saw baby Lisa she was very much alive and they know there is no way that a HRD dog could have hit on Lisa.

sarx
10-25-2011, 02:08 AM
Maybe the reason they are not feeling "panic" is because they know the last time they saw baby Lisa she was very much alive and they know there is no way that a HRD dog could have hit on Lisa.

Well, that certainly would have been a better spin than the "they didn't take the carpet, therefore..."angle. Oh and of course the poop and baby vomit spin.

Donjeta
10-25-2011, 04:05 AM
[quote=BetteDavisEyes;7276563]

I don't think the public at large would ever believe that ignorant intoxicated people aren't capable of committing crimes. Probably most of the crimes in the country are committed by ignorant intoxicated people. She's saying that would explain why they are not savvy enough to gather resources and wits about them quickly to defend themselves against a growing tide of public doubt.

But they were savvy enough to get a team of attorneys on their case anyway. One is DP qualified, another is NG qualified, there was even a law professor involved, not sure if he still is. Would a couple of ignorant intoxicated bumpkins have managed that so easily?


Thank you. After 16 - 17 hours, I must admit I'm surprised and confused by how little was taken. I'm also surprised they didn't take the carpet or flooring. No bedding from Lisa's room? Nothing taken from the backyard? Nothing from the shed? No bedding from the master bedroom? None of DB's or JI's clothing? No baby products? Were the items taken located in the master bedroom?

Do we have any attorneys here who can explain if this makes any sense? Would LE have another return/receipt that we are not privy to ? Can they go in again? If so, do they need another search warrant?

Do we know what evidence, if anything, was taken when LE first arrived or on the earlier search of the home that happened with the parents' consent? I haven't seen any documents about that. If they took DB and JI's clothing, for instance, it would have made sense to take it straight away when the first responders came and not weeks afterwards when the clothes may have been washed or exchanged to some other items of clothing that look a bit alike.



You know, if I had been the reporter going along on this tour of the house and this lawyer was standing there looking around the bedroom, perplexed at why the carpet was still in tact, I think as I watched her coming from the left side of the bed to the dresser, nearly having to step over a laundry basket sitting in the floor, with a line of clothes on hangers streaming over it, covering about five or 6 feet by three to four feet, I would have asked, "Hey! What's under here? "

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m635/lancelotlink2/Clipboard212-1.jpg

Brilliant, thank you.



I tell this story just to illustrate a point. Deborah is poorly educated. Her marriage license shows only 10th grade. If she dropped out in 10th grade, I’m sure she wasn’t performing well and at grade level. So imagine she is in fact an innocent victim of a child abduction. She is thrust into the national spotlight. She is poorly educated with a low self esteem. Could she possibly be projecting an image of what she sees on TV, thinking it is the norm, and trying to fit in? Illogical conclusion? Definitely. But illiteracy and logic don’t usually appear in the same sentence.
http://www.findlisa.com/?p=10

Who wrote this? I'm confused. This is not the attorney's site, is it? Find Baby Lisa dot com is?

I don't think we should blame her for this bit of spin if it's not her site. It doesn't sound like a lawyer speaking to me.

carole
10-25-2011, 04:22 AM
Thank you. After 16 - 17 hours, I must admit I'm surprised and confused by how little was taken. I'm also surprised they didn't take the carpet or flooring. No bedding from Lisa's room? Nothing taken from the backyard? Nothing from the shed? No bedding from the master bedroom? None of DB's or JI's clothing? No baby products? Were the items taken located in the master bedroom?

Do we have any attorneys here who can explain if this makes any sense? Would LE have another return/receipt that we are not privy to ? Can they go in again? If so, do they need another search warrant?

BBM

There was much, much more evidence taken from the house and yard than shown in the court document. I watched the live feed on the front of the house off and on for several hours.

There were lots of small, medium, and large brown paper bags brought out and put in the evidence vehicles. I saw what looked like couch pillows, small square pillows brought out.

I saw what has been reported by media as hundreds of x-rays taken of the insides of the house, brought out to the ATF vehicle and screened on their x-ray reading machines.

The ends of shovels that were used to dig in the yard were covered with cloth so that the soil clinging could be analyzed. The search lasted approx. 17 hours. It was more than thorough, it was amazing to watch. At any given time there were 15-20 CSIs working.

The several things listed were only a very small part of what was found.

If they can't determine what happened to Baby Lisa from all this evidence, I don't think we'll ever know what happened to her.

Twelve of One
10-25-2011, 05:52 AM
15-20 CSIs searching the house for 17 hours, wow. Hope they get some good leads and are able to eventually recover Lisa alive and return her safely home.

2goldfish
10-25-2011, 06:53 AM
Oh, I get it. Lawyer lady is trying to imply that LE created the fictitious cadaver dog hit as an excuse for the invasive search warrant.

Very clever.


total spin. the warrant never specifies carpet, it only says next to or by the bed (I dont have it in front of me) ......


why the need to spin, already? what do they know that they arent telling?

Kat
10-25-2011, 06:55 AM
Brilliant, thank you.



http://www.findlisa.com/?p=10

Who wrote this? I'm confused. This is not the attorney's site, is it? Find Baby Lisa dot com is?

I don't think we should blame her for this bit of spin if it's not her site. It doesn't sound like a lawyer speaking to me.

The portion that Donjeta snipped from the website she linked did not carry over when I quoted it---it reads as follows:


I tell this story just to illustrate a point. Deborah is poorly educated. Her marriage license shows only 10th grade. If she dropped out in 10th grade, I’m sure she wasn’t performing well and at grade level. So imagine she is in fact an innocent victim of a child abduction. She is thrust into the national spotlight. She is poorly educated with a low self esteem. Could she possibly be projecting an image of what she sees on TV, thinking it is the norm, and trying to fit in? Illogical conclusion? Definitely. But illiteracy and logic don’t usually appear in the same sentence.

What? Dropping out of high school does not equate illiteracy. JMHO.

I snipped this myself:


So today, let’s focus on those directly involved. If you know, or know of someone that is related or has a direct connection to this family, please identify them for me. Give as much detail as you have, specifically names, ages, and locations...

Yikes.

Donjeta
10-25-2011, 07:22 AM
What year did she drop out of school? Becoming a military wife at 17 might have something to do with it IMO.

Truthwillsetufree
10-25-2011, 08:02 AM
bbm
Unless the dog hit on something that was on the floor at the corner of the bed,on top of the carpet.

I'm sure many of you have heard stories of children and young adults ,who have autism,getting lost,sometimes for days.If they are non-verbal,or unlikely to answer you,it can be terrifying ,calling over and over,with no answer back.

I count on our service dog, who also tracks,to find my child.It can literally be a life and death situation. I have complete trust that he will get it right.My son's life could depend on it .

A LOT of time and effort goes into training working dogs. They are so good at what they do that we count on them to find bombs,or other explosive devices and keep citizens safe. That's life and death.
They are so good they can lead the blind around a busy city ,crossing streets only when it's safe, while ignoring distractions .

They can be trained to alert to oncoming seizures because scent,only a dog could detect ,is present shortly before a seizure begins. This can prevent falls .The seizure alert dogs can alert the caregiver ,getting help .Pretty important job,IMO.

The hearing impaired count on them to alert when a smoke alarm goes off,giving them the time to get to safety.

There's any number of jobs dogs (the ones that make the cut)can be trained to do. There's a lot riding on their ability to get it right. Cadaver dogs aren't a whim or a passing fad .They are a very important tool that LE invests in because it works.
JMO

FWIW...I trust dogs more than I trust (most) people, they have no hidden agendas.

LillieBelle
10-25-2011, 08:44 AM
wouldn't the best way to find lisa, release the newest photos that represent a 30 lb, 2" 6' 10 month old child ~info listed on flier~? Trying to understand how it helps find lisa, if the cops are having to deal with "tips" based on months old photos & videos?

thank you!!!!!

vlpate
10-25-2011, 09:07 AM
And the spin works it's magic. They were in that house for 17 hours. From the looks the bedroom it probably took a while to GET the floor. They have ways off testing the carpet without removing it, and maybe there was another layer of carpet that they did take.

Their carpet looked very loose to me, as if it needed to be stretched. They could have looked at the back of the carpet and the pad for stains and found none. The dog could have hit on a pile of clothes, like someone else here said.

Short making a big deal over the carpet was just ridiculous, what did she suppose they were doing in there all that time? Eating donuts and playing nickels? I'll tell you what this does tell me, no one died in that house - at least not in that room or we'd have heard about it by now.

I meant no one who lived there prior to Lisa Irwin. Sorry.

Truthwillsetufree
10-25-2011, 09:24 AM
BBM

There was much, much more evidence taken from the house and yard than shown in the court document. I watched the live feed on the front of the house off and on for several hours.

There were lots of small, medium, and large brown paper bags brought out and put in the evidence vehicles. I saw what looked like couch pillows, small square pillows brought out.

I saw what has been reported by media as hundreds of x-rays taken of the insides of the house, brought out to the ATF vehicle and screened on their x-ray reading machines.

The ends of shovels that were used to dig in the yard were covered with cloth so that the soil clinging could be analyzed. The search lasted approx. 17 hours. It was more than thorough, it was amazing to watch. At any given time there were 15-20 CSIs working.

The several things listed were only a very small part of what was found.

If they can't determine what happened to Baby Lisa from all this evidence, I don't think we'll ever know what happened to her.

Yes, it appears that LE did a very thorough search. In questioning what LE did or did not do, take or did not take into evidence we will not know for the time being. One thing that that is glaringly obvious but I guess DB's lawyers overlooked this point, LE has not released any information that they (LE) found any evidence to support the intruder/kidnapping theory and for citizens to lock their houses down, lock the windows and keep careful watch on their children.

Camille
10-25-2011, 10:26 AM
Wow, how do these lawyers find the time to be experts in so many things???

Lawyers that take their job seriously very often have to do tons of research in many different areas to help their clients out. My sister is a civil attorney and it never ceases to amaze me the things that she comes across in civil matters and has to be able to talk intelligently about it court. She spent hours ans hours researching Münchausen syndrome for one trial.


It's not at all surprising to me that this attorney would know something about cadaver dogs. Heck anyone that followed the Casey Anthony trial would probably qualify as an expert in cadaver dogs. :floorlaugh:



I'll be honest, after following this web site for the past couple of years, if I had children and one of them turned up missing, right after I dialed 911 I would call an attorney and I would never, ever speak to the police without my attorney present.

LancelotLink
10-25-2011, 10:42 AM
And the spin works it's magic. They were in that house for 17 hours. From the looks the bedroom it probably took a while to GET the floor. They have ways off testing the carpet without removing it, and maybe there was another layer of carpet that they did take.

Their carpet looked very loose to me, as if it needed to be stretched. They could have looked at the back of the carpet and the pad for stains and found none. The dog could have hit on a pile of clothes, like someone else here said.

Short making a big deal over the carpet was just ridiculous, what did she suppose they were doing in there all that time? Eating donuts and playing nickels? I'll tell you what this does tell me, no one died in that house - at least not in that room or we'd have heard about it by now.

I also noticed the kick plate at the threshold was gone and the door frame looks like it was removed. Who would have carpet that was loose at the threshold to trip over. Makes no sense. Something was removed.

alwaysonmymind
10-25-2011, 11:02 AM
Donjeta and Kat -

I'm also curious as to the owner of the website you referenced earlier- findlisa.com

This stood out to me in the 'About' section -

On Thursday a website was created called Lisa-Irwin.com. I intentionally left the www off. I will not create a link to that site. It contains zero useful information and is full of advertising. The owner gets paid for each view of that page. I will not put money in Deborah Bradley’s pocket.

I’ve just seen the family has a second website up now after the press outed the first one. It is findingbabylisa.com. It is my understanding that this new website is maintained by the families attorney.

This case gets stranger each day.....

dog.gone.cute
10-25-2011, 11:59 AM
Someone needs to be the one appealing to the public for help in trying to find Lisa. LE is not doing the media angle asking for the publics help in locating Lisa or calling in tips. If Lisa was abducted LE doesn't know where to look, it will be a private citizen that solves this. The LE can go ahead and focus on getting forensics from the house and following up on tips. No reason to write this child off as dead just yet imo.

MOO ...

BBM: :waitasec: The HRD Dog "HIT" in DB's bedroom ... I have a lot of "faith and trust" in the dog because the "dog" was performing his job that he is trained to do ... And also, the "dog" does NOT have any agenda ...

MOO ... As to this website, IMO it is about the "parents" and NOT about finding Baby Lisa ...

MOO ...

Dr.Fessel
10-25-2011, 12:34 PM
Have they set up the Catholic School Trust fund for the boys on that website yet?

.............................

Short said the couple is trying their best to keep life as normal as possible for the boys as the search for their missing 11-month-old sister continues.

“We had a talk just yesterday about her wanting to provide the kids a Catholic education, and how important that would be to her,” Short said.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/29579101/detail.html#ixzz1boNi9AHr

mysteriew
10-25-2011, 12:40 PM
Have they set up the Catholic School Trust fund for the boys on that website yet?

.............................

Short said the couple is trying their best to keep life as normal as possible for the boys as the search for their missing 11-month-old sister continues.

“We had a talk just yesterday about her wanting to provide the kids a Catholic education, and how important that would be to her,” Short said.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/29579101/detail.html#ixzz1boNi9AHr

I love the timing of this. They could have put the boys into Catholic school at any time just by paying for it. But they didn't. Now they have a missing child, suddenly it is important to put them into a Catholic school?

Do they suddenly have the money to do it? Or are they hoping that some school will suddenly take sympathy on her children and step forward to offer them a scholarship?

Nannn
10-25-2011, 12:53 PM
They took a comforter, which could fully be reasonably on the floor "near" the bed, they brought in the second dog to have a check on the carpet that was under the comforter, no hit, so no reason to take the carpet up, for all we know there are 20 dogs "hitting" on that comforter in the LE labs right now.. a body would not be in a decomposing stage (sorry) in that short of time to have soaked through to the carpet or floor, but there could be plenty of evidence of death on a comforter that a body lay on for a few hours (or less) I wish I could believe that Lisa was abducted and will turn up alive but my thoughts can't help returning to either an accident occurred by mom (in a drunken state) or an angry mom (in a drunken state) harmed this child and proceeded to cover it up (in a drunken state)...

BetteDavisEyes
10-25-2011, 12:54 PM
I love the timing of this. They could have put the boys into Catholic school at any time just by paying for it. But they didn't. Now they have a missing child, suddenly it is important to put them into a Catholic school?

Do they suddenly have the money to do it? Or are they hoping that some school will suddenly take sympathy on her children and step forward to offer them a scholarship?

Deborah is not the mother (or even step-mother) of JI's son, and I'm getting pizzed upon hearing how DB wants to control Jeremy's son's life. Is the Catholic School something that JI wants, too, or is this DB's brainchild?

In one of the Fox interviews with MK, Deborah referred to the male children as "her boys", and I thought, WTF! Sorry, folks, but Deborah seems very controlling and manipulative. I would like to hear from her estranged husband about DB's true character. jmo

MrsStevens
10-25-2011, 01:02 PM
Deborah is not the mother (or even step-mother) of JI's son, and I'm getting pizzed upon hearing how DB wants to control Jeremy's son's life. Is the Catholic School something that JI wants, too, or is this DB's brainchild?

In one of the Fox interviews with MK, Deborah referred to the male children as "her boys", and I thought, WTF! Sorry, folks, but Deborah seems very controlling and manipulative. I would like to hear from her estranged husband about DB's true character. jmo

I'm not on the "DB is innocent" bandwagon, but I just want to say that I refer to my stepsons as "my boys". I love them and think of them as my own. Is that strange?

RANCH
10-25-2011, 01:08 PM
Have they set up the Catholic School Trust fund for the boys on that website yet?

.............................

Short said the couple is trying their best to keep life as normal as possible for the boys as the search for their missing 11-month-old sister continues.

“We had a talk just yesterday about her wanting to provide the kids a Catholic education, and how important that would be to her,” Short said.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/29579101/detail.html#ixzz1boNi9AHr
This doesn't necessarily mean that she wants to put the kids in Catholic school. There is a program called Catholic Faith Formation or Children Faith Formation for kids that attend public school. In some cases the cost is free or only a small amount. See this link for a Catholic church in Kansas City MO.

http://saintpatrick-kc.com/children/

BetteDavisEyes
10-25-2011, 01:09 PM
I'm not on the "DB is innocent" bandwagon, but I just want to say that I refer to my stepsons as "my boys". I love them and think of them as my own. Is that strange?

Not strange in your case, I'm sure, if you're in a permanent relationship with the father of your stepsons: DB is not. jmo

BetteDavisEyes
10-25-2011, 01:19 PM
This doesn't necessarily mean that she wants to put the kids in Catholic school. There is a program called Catholic Faith Formation or Children Faith Formation for kids that attend public school. In some cases the cost is free or only a small amount. See this link for a Catholic church in Kansas City MO.

http://saintpatrick-kc.com/children/

BBM. That's a good possibility, but then I'd wonder why Deborah hasn't enrolled the boys in Religious Education classes if this was important to her? I taught catechism for many years in two different parishes, both of which offered assistance for any family that could not afford the modest tuition/book fees. Both parishes were relatively affluent, but there were probably some families who struggled with payment of the annual tuition/book fees but wanted their children in the program. The only requirement was for the parents to be registered parishioners.

jmo

rosepetal1065
10-25-2011, 01:39 PM
I love the timing of this. They could have put the boys into Catholic school at any time just by paying for it. But they didn't. Now they have a missing child, suddenly it is important to put them into a Catholic school?

Do they suddenly have the money to do it? Or are they hoping that some school will suddenly take sympathy on her children and step forward to offer them a scholarship?

I bolded it all, because this is digusting to me...<modsnip>.
I too, would bet the farm on her hoping to "gain" a "free" education for the boys...all while the precious 11 month old is missing. I guess you have to strike while the iron is hot.
imo
Edited to add..why was that even being discussed at this point?

frankie069
10-25-2011, 01:48 PM
Just so you know, not that it means anything but there is a tracker on the findbabylisa.com page..

HatesSociopaths
10-25-2011, 01:52 PM
I think a detailed log with all kinds of compensation (whether it's money or a free haircut, all of it) Debbie has received for this case should be kept. Perhaps it's own thread. This is just the beginning.

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
10-25-2011, 01:57 PM
I'm not on the "DB is innocent" bandwagon, but I just want to say that I refer to my stepsons as "my boys". I love them and think of them as my own. Is that strange?

My DW refers to my children and grandchildren from a previous marriage as hers. My oldest daughter is "in a relationship" with a man and refers to his 2 children as hers, same with my youngest daughter. I guess I'm surrounded by murderers in that case. :floorlaugh:

Emeralgem
10-25-2011, 02:38 PM
I love the timing of this. They could have put the boys into Catholic school at any time just by paying for it. But they didn't. Now they have a missing child, suddenly it is important to put them into a Catholic school?

Do they suddenly have the money to do it? Or are they hoping that some school will suddenly take sympathy on her children and step forward to offer them a scholarship?

Somewhat O/T...
All my children went to Catholic schools. Two of them went from kindergarten thru 12th grade. One went from kindergarten thru 7th grade when we made a decision to send her to another private school in the area... To my knowledge catholic schools do not give scholarships. You can apply for financial assistance but you have to prove you need it...
Tuition in our city at this time to attend the Catholic High School is close to $10,000.00 and thats IF you are Catholic and support your Parish Church. Non Catholics pay close to $12,000.00.
Tuition at the Catholic grade schools in our area are about $6,000.00 IF you are Catholic.. $8,000.00 for non catholics...JMHO

wildchild1961
10-25-2011, 04:29 PM
Well, let's see. It's called Find Baby Lisa, there is the information about the $100K reward, there are photos of her, first item up is the flyer posted in both English and Spanish.

Sounds to me it's about finding the baby.

They're looking, and praying, for a live baby. To work toward that end, the public has to be inspired to LOOK, believing there is a good chance the baby is out there and can be returned safely. If they don't work to dispel some of the misconceptions in the media and LE, then the public will stop looking.

I have been on the fence about this and pretty much.. still am. However when I look at that website.. I see one very short little paragraph about how and when she went missing and then I see two extremely large "commercials" aka videos emblazoned with the words "Today" shows and one video touting how she was potentially spotted somewhere else. I would never say this is a pro site for DB's innocence.. however I would also never say that this is a honest site about how that child was taken or about finding that baby. If someone who didn't have background on that story looked at that website. What information does it actually give? That "Lisa Irwin was kidnapped October 4, 2011 in Kansas City. She has blond hair, blue eyes, and a birthmark on her right outer thigh. She's 11 months old." that's pretty much it.. ESPECIALLY for those of us folks on computers who don't handle watching videos easily. Does this missing child Lisa even have parents? I can't even tell from the website.. because I can't watch videos. If I didn't know the background I wouldn't even know she has parents. Do they miss her? Where was she kidnapped from? What were the circumstances???? I dunno.. nothing there tells me so unless I watch those videos which my computer can't do.

No attempts to personalize her (if someone has taken her).. no stories of what she is like.. how sweet.. how her family misses her.. why they miss her.. no interactive photos with her mom and dad.. showing how they love her, etc. Instead.. it just points to some videos promoting the Today show and they let those videos attempt to do the work for them. Where is the plea plastered all over the website to return the baby... help us find her.. please please please.. we want our baby back.. we need our baby back. There really is nothing there.

The website just strikes me as something an outsider threw together with a minimum amount of parental input or concern, more for show.. rather than an actual attempt to find her because their lives and souls have been ripped apart.

Once I found out the lawyer did this.. it truly becomes what it looks like on the surface.. a half a$$ PR attempt.

I completely agree with your statements that the public needs to be inspired to look for Lisa... however this website could be any missing child and falls far short of inspiring anyone to do anything other than print off some photocopies. And frankly.. just because someone thinks that the parents have done something to the child doesn't mean people stop looking. Just check out how many folks showed up to search swamps and dump sites to look for a deceased baby.. as per Casey Anthony. Those folks sure as heck weren't tromping around in all that swamp mess thinking that a two year old was sitting on a tree stump crying her eyes out and waiting for rescue.

IMO.. spinning that this website has to portray what it does in order to promote DB's innocence is just as useless as spinning it to say that all it is used for is to show how much she doesn't care. I much prefer letting things stand as they actually are.. and then putting a whole picture together from all of the information.

Bottom line is.. this website has very little useful info in it about how or why you should help find this missing child.

just my two cents.
pat

josie1986
10-25-2011, 07:39 PM
i dont know where to post this now cause the MSM thread is closed but is this a new flyer?

the large photo is meant to have been taken 2days before lisa disappeared?

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/291761_137056296400314_125929840846293_129534_5098 6460_n.jpg

1&2&3
10-25-2011, 09:34 PM
Oh no! Hearing Deborah's remark about Catholic School for the boys gives me a chill to the bone. Is this the beginning of her extended plan to prosper off Lisa's disappearance as some have speculated? Please don't let this be the case!!

vlpate
10-25-2011, 10:03 PM
i dont know where to post this now cause the MSM thread is closed but is this a new flyer?

the large photo is meant to have been taken 2days before lisa disappeared?

snipped


Website for flyers: http://findbabylisa.com/flyer-downloads

1tasha
10-25-2011, 10:29 PM
Not impressed with their lawyers and bewildered by the parents. But regardless: it's a site with Lisa's stats and an easy way to print out flyers. It's not enough but it's something. IMO.

RANCH
10-25-2011, 11:11 PM
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-American-priest-defends-expelling-schoolchild-of-lesbian-couple--87102197.html

I stand corrected.

BetteDavisEyes
10-25-2011, 11:34 PM
RE: Lisa Irwin being kidnapped. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a ransom note in the case, so I'd like to know why the parents of Baby Lisa believe that their daughter may have been kidnapped and who they think might have done this? This family does not appear to have money or status, so what reason would there be for someone to "kidnap" Lisa?

If someone sought revenge on one or both of Lisa's parents, that should be known - or at least suspected - by DB and JI, and they should have already reported this to LE as a possibility for an abduction. Again, I haven't heard/read about any threats to the parents regarding their child, so I'm skeptical about the kidnapping claim. jmo

RANCH
10-25-2011, 11:40 PM
RE: Lisa Irwin being kidnapped. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a ransom note in the case, so I'd like to know why the parents of Baby Lisa believe that their daughter may have been kidnapped and who they think might have done this? This family does not appear to have money or status, so what reason would there be for someone to "kidnap" Lisa?

If someone sought revenge on one or both of Lisa's parents, that should be known - or at least suspected - by DB and JI, and they should have already reported this to LE as a possibility for an abduction. Again, I haven't heard/read about any threats to the parents regarding their child, I'm skeptical about the kidnapping claim. jmo

I'm not sure that all kidnappings involve ransom or revenge. Perhaps there are other motives in an abduction of a 11 month old child?

vlpate
10-25-2011, 11:57 PM
I'm not sure that all kidnappings involve ransom or revenge. Perhaps there are other motives in an abduction of a 11 month old child?

So the question remains, why? Pedophiles may take advantage, unfortunately, of a convenient baby, but they would likely never kidnap an infant for sex. It's not money, unless they keep her until the books come out. Doesn't seem likely there's a lonely woman who wants a child involved - just makes no sense. As far as kidnapping a baby to sell - why a 30 lb 10 month old? People who buy babies want a new baby, one that doesn't already know it's name.

I can't help but feel Lisa is alive and whomever took her couldn't have thought it would garner this much attention.

That 2:30 call was discovered very early on....do we know yet which phone this call originated from? Jeremy's phone? "Ready when you are...." I don't know if the rumor is true about those words being in a text - but, in my scenario, it would make sense.

RANCH
10-26-2011, 12:05 AM
So the question remains, why? Pedophiles may take advantage, unfortunately, of a convenient baby, but they would likely never kidnap an infant for sex. It's not money, unless they keep her until the books come out. Doesn't seem likely there's a lonely woman who wants a child involved - just makes no sense. As far as kidnapping a baby to sell - why a 30 lb 10 month old? People who buy babies want a new baby, one that doesn't already know it's name.

I can't help but feel Lisa is alive and whomever took her couldn't have thought it would garner this much attention.

That 2:30 call was discovered very early on....do we know yet which phone this call originated from? Jeremy's phone? "Ready when you are...." I don't know if the rumor is true about those words being in a text - but, in my scenario, it would make sense.

I don't have any theories of what happened myself. I do share in the hope that baby Lisa is safe and alive somewhere. This site doesn't like discussions on rumors so I'll have to pass on that one.

Salem
10-26-2011, 12:24 AM
HEADS UP! The school the boys attend has no bearing on baby Lisa missing. Discussing the school is very close to sleuthing the minor boys and that is against TOS. Leave the boys and their school out of the discussion please.

We don't sleuth minors or their schools. LE has said nothing about this school being connected to the baby's disappearance.

If you can't link - don't discuss it, please.

Thank you,

Salem

cluciano63
10-26-2011, 12:28 AM
I am watching some new show on Discovery channel about a former homicide investigator and his cases, and he says one thing they look for is the first lie; as soon as a person close to the victim changes or adds a detail, their interest is peaked. He says that the timeline is one of the major things in any case and when that changes in any way, often there is a sinister reason. JMO

angelainwi
10-26-2011, 12:49 AM
what Discovery show?

vlpate
10-26-2011, 12:50 AM
I don't have any theories of what happened myself. I do share in the hope that baby Lisa is safe and alive somewhere. This site doesn't like discussions on rumors so I'll have to pass on that one.
There was a 2:30 phone call, that's been in several MSM reports. So, I'm saying I think that call had to do with setting someone up to either buy drugs, or take the baby out of the house. I'd have to assume words were spoken or texted, we just don't know for certain what those words were....

I TOTALLY agree, NO ONE should sleuth the boys....whether you are a member of this forum or any other, sleuthing children should be out of bounds.

Link for catholic school statement by Short, attorney for JI and DB (discussed earlier today here):

“We had a talk just yesterday about her wanting to provide the kids a Catholic education, and how important that would be to her,” Short said.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/29579101/de...#ixzz1boNi9AHr

vlpate
10-26-2011, 12:53 AM
I am watching some new show on Discovery channel about a former homicide investigator and his cases, and he says one thing they look for is the first lie; as soon as a person close to the victim changes or adds a detail, their interest is peaked. He says that the timeline is one of the major things in any case and when that changes in any way, often there is a sinister reason. JMO

The family must be confused as well - the first posters stated the last time she was seen was 10:30 p.m., and then they had to change them to no time at all -- those on the website now.

cluciano63
10-26-2011, 01:02 AM
what Discovery show?

A new show called "Homicide Hunter"; it wasn't about this case, did not mean to infer that it was, just talking about general homicide cases.

vlpate
10-26-2011, 01:05 AM
I stand corrected.

About?

RANCH
10-26-2011, 01:24 AM
There was a 2:30 phone call, that's been in several MSM reports. So, I'm saying I think that call had to do with setting someone up to either buy drugs, or take the baby out of the house. I'd have to assume words were spoken or texted, we just don't know for certain what those words were....

I TOTALLY agree, NO ONE should sleuth the boys....whether you are a member of this forum or any other, sleuthing children should be out of bounds.

Link for catholic school statement by Short, attorney for JI and DB (discussed earlier today here):

“We had a talk just yesterday about her wanting to provide the kids a Catholic education, and how important that would be to her,” Short said.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/29579101/de...#ixzz1boNi9AHr

Yes, I've read about the 2:30 phone call. You used the word "rumor" not me. I can't speculate what this phone call was about. Sorry, I'ts just not in my character to do that.

vlpate
10-26-2011, 01:52 AM
Yes, I've read about the 2:30 phone call. You used the word "rumor" not me. I can't speculate what this phone call was about. Sorry, I'ts just not in my character to do that.

:rocker: