PDA

View Full Version : Was the carpet removed from Lisa's room?


Pages : [1] 2

vlpate
02-29-2012, 07:56 AM
I'm almost convinced that the carpet, or "rug", as Cindy called it, was taken from Lisa's room.

Cindy Short made a point of showing no carpet was taken from the parent's room. She even demonstrated it. Her tour showed every floor in the Irwin house, except the floor in Lisa's room. In fact, the entire video by Short was in color and fairly clear - except Lisa's room, it's in a weird black and white. DB made a point of saying, on Dr. Phil that nothing was taken from their bedroom, nothing. She didn't say anything about the baby's room, that I can recall. It's obvious the bed was moved after the search and the furniture in the room taken apart by looking at the video and various pictures of the room. You'll notice the chest of drawers is taken apart and moved.

In this video, taken by Short, you see the chest of drawers, in tact - notice how the color of the photo is different from all the others - this is the only one in Short's video showing the floor.
.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13328

Here, drawers are taken out and at the end of the bed:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13332

______________________

Click here (http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/region_missouri/northland/nbc-get-its-first-look-inside-the-irwin-home)for the video to see how the floor looks bare where Peter is walking: 1:35
.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13329

A shot of the room prior to the search:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13330

Elley Mae
02-29-2012, 08:41 AM
I am starting to wonder if Lisa was asleep in the crib that night, seems there is something different in that crib with every flash besides Lisa.

Very good point.

Jacie Estes
02-29-2012, 08:58 AM
Not sure what point is being made about the floor. In the third pic down, the arrow is pointing to the portion of the wall under the window, not the floor.

You would expect the furniture to be moved, LE had searched the room.

redheadedgal
02-29-2012, 10:07 AM
what color is the carpet in the boys' room? the show logo is obscuring the view for me...

the carpet in the parent's rm is the typical beige... but lisa's "carpet" looks very dark - like a chocolate brown. why the stark color difference? was it laid down over beige carpeting? why? was a second carpet used to pad the floor for a baby?

from the last pic, it seems it doesn't go quite to the edge of the wall... there appears to be a gap b/w it and the white trim... not sure if there's beige carpet underneath...

what was the carpet roll that was shown being carried by LE during the search? did any media report on that? i don't remember...

interesting thread, vl!

redheadedgal
02-29-2012, 10:14 AM
and WHY are the garbage bags still over the window? if put there by LE, why wouldn't you pull them off before showing a room/house to media?

and all those short little sections of tape seem odd to me if put there by LE... if they were taping up a window, i don't think they'd do it like this... ???

norest4thewicked
02-29-2012, 10:37 AM
I don't know about the carpet, but I do know that the window was covered with garbage bags to darken the room for Luminol testing and the short pieces of tape are there to shut out the little shards of light that would come in from gaps in the bags. I don't think that anyone had any rights to remove or change anything from when LE left it that way. This is normal for a search.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 10:38 AM
It wasn't listed on the search warrant inventory. Do people think that LE would screw up such a potential important piece of evidence as not to list it in the inventory and take a chance that it would most very likely get dismissed as evidence by a judge for improper seizure? I don't think so.

hambirg
02-29-2012, 12:45 PM
what color is the carpet in the boys' room? the show logo is obscuring the view for me...

the carpet in the parent's rm is the typical beige... but lisa's "carpet" looks very dark - like a chocolate brown. why the stark color difference? was it laid down over beige carpeting? why? was a second carpet used to pad the floor for a baby?

from the last pic, it seems it doesn't go quite to the edge of the wall... there appears to be a gap b/w it and the white trim... not sure if there's beige carpet underneath...

what was the carpet roll that was shown being carried by LE during the search? did any media report on that? i don't remember...

interesting thread, vl!

It looks photoshopped out to me. They did the same thing with some of the surveillance pictures of Julia Biryukova in the Sky Metalwala case.

The carpet is not listed in the inventory on the affidavit. I can only think of two possibilities.

There was no evidence on the carpet. Since we know they took a comforter, a blanket and and outfit, it's not hard to come up with a scenario for that where the house would still be a crime scene. An example. . .the comforter is on the floor near the bed, they find the blanket and outfit rolled up and stuffed in a heating duct. We don't know what the dogs hit on and we don't know where any of the items were found.

The second scenario I'm not sure, so just theorizing and MOO. Could there have been a second SW? One that was sealed and granted on the testimony of an informant? We know this search was after Jersey was in custody. If there is any chance that he was a witness to anything that happened that night, it could be a possibility. Idk if I believe this, but it's not unheard of for a second SW to be granted. If it was based on informant information that they wanted to keep secret. . .it's a maybe.

Melon
02-29-2012, 12:46 PM
It wasn't listed on the search warrant inventory. Do people think that LE would screw up such a potential important piece of evidence as not to list it in the inventory and take a chance that it would most very likely get dismissed as evidence by a judge for improper seizure? I don't think so.

I have been mulling the bags and bags of stuff that was removed from the house the day of the warrant and truly wonder if the FBI didn't execute their own warrant at the same time. FBI documents on active cases can be sealed. Seriously curious if there is a FBI warrant return in existance listing everything removed over and above those 7 items listed on the PD warrant return.

hambirg
02-29-2012, 12:54 PM
I have been mulling the bags and bags of stuff that was removed from the house the day of the warrant and truly wonder if the FBI didn't execute their own warrant at the same time. FBI documents on active cases can be sealed. Seriously curious if there is a FBI warrant return in existance listing everything removed over and above those 7 items listed on the PD warrant return.

Ahhh. . .I didn't even think of that. It would make sense. I would be surprised if there wasn't a warrant for wiretapping and tracking too. We have never heard that, but I would expect it happened.

ETA- It bothers me that the baby bath is in the crib. It's out of place and odd. Is there some significance? Did they want us to see it for a reason?

dog.gone.cute
02-29-2012, 01:11 PM
I'm almost convinced that the carpet, or "rug", as Cindy called it, was taken from Lisa's room.




Respectfully Snipped :

:rocker: I believe you are on to something here, vlpate !

Thank You for this thread ... very interesting ...

JMO and MOO ...

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
02-29-2012, 01:17 PM
If FBI conducted a search why haven't we heard about it since some seem convinced if DB left the house to search we would hear about it?

dog.gone.cute
02-29-2012, 01:31 PM
The second scenario I'm not sure, so just theorizing and MOO. Could there have been a second SW? One that was sealed and granted on the testimony of an informant? We know this search was after Jersey was in custody. If there is any chance that he was a witness to anything that happened that night, it could be a possibility. Idk if I believe this, but it's not unheard of for a second SW to be granted. If it was based on informant information that they wanted to keep secret. . .it's a maybe.


Respectfully Snipped & BBM:

I agree ... and I think this is a good possibility ...

JMO ... the number of items that were taken from the home seem like a small amount of items when you compare it to the "time-frame" that they searched ... it seems like there would have been MORE items taken during that long, 17 hour search ...

And when you look at how "tight lipped" LE has been about this case, I bet LE did NOT want that "Original Search Warrant" released to the public in the first place ...

So is this possible :

LE was there for what was contained in the [original] Search Warrant ...

And AFTER LE had done some searching, could it be that they found "something" that was NOT contained in the Original Search Warrant, and so they had to get a "Second Search Warrant" to cover themselves ?

And LE wanted this "POSSIBLE" second warrant SEALED ... because they did NOT want to "let any more cats out of the bag" :waitasec:

Could this have been for the "carpet" -- or some other items ?

:maddening: I sure wish LE would tell the public something ... anything ... how about a "crumb" ...

JMO and MOO ...

krimekat
02-29-2012, 01:33 PM
Ahhh. . .I didn't even think of that. It would make sense. I would be surprised if there wasn't a warrant for wiretapping and tracking too. We have never heard that, but I would expect it happened.

ETA- It bothers me that the baby bath is in the crib. It's out of place and odd. Is there some significance? Did they want us to see it for a reason?

Didn't we discuss the items left in the crib AFTER the police search . . . along with the dark coverings over the windows?

IIRC in other threads that we determined:

LE could have placed the items in the crib while searching Lisa's room & LE could have left the dark covering on the windows after using Luminol in Lisa's room. We determined that LE does not clean up after searches & there are companies out there that specialize in "crime scene clean up", so . . .

If carpet was taken during the search, it would have been documented by LE. Otherwise, that is a huge piece of evidence to throw out of trial.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 01:36 PM
I am sure that if another search warrant was filed for that reporters would be clamoring over that info. It would be public info even if the actual document was sealed. That public info is exactly how we found out about the original warrant in the first place. We would have still known of a search warrant even if it had been sealed, the info for it was still filed.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 01:47 PM
It wasn't listed on the search warrant inventory. Do people think that LE would screw up such a potential important piece of evidence as not to list it in the inventory and take a chance that it would most very likely get dismissed as evidence by a judge for improper seizure? I don't think so.

I totally anticipated this response, and I asked AZLawyer about that. He said there could have been other search warrants that were not released - there could be inventory they had permission to take during the consented searches.

One thing is for sure, they took more out of the house than those 7 items listed on the inventory.

dog.gone.cute
02-29-2012, 01:59 PM
I totally anticipated this response, and I asked AZLawyer about that. He said there could have been other search warrants that were not released - there could be inventory they had permission to take during the consented searches.

One thing is for sure, they took more out of the house than those 7 items listed on the inventory.


BBM: I totally agree -- LE was there for over 17 hours -- JMO but they took MORE than just those 7 items listed ... and they also took hundreds of x-rays ...

LE and the DA can get a warrant SEALED by a Judge ... there ARE "exceptions" to the rule ...

MOO ...

vlpate
02-29-2012, 02:03 PM
Not sure what point is being made about the floor. In the third pic down, the arrow is pointing to the portion of the wall under the window, not the floor.

You would expect the furniture to be moved, LE had searched the room.

If you watch the link, you see it is not the wall. In the other pictures the wall is a mutstard looking color and there is crown moulding or a very wide, white trim - the carpet is dark. Look at the video that the still was taken from and you will see the bottom of the black bags are much lower to the floor than in the original pictures.

Forget the arrow, look at the video.

Of course some people aren't going to see it because they don't see anything that might lead to Lisa dying in her room.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 02:05 PM
I totally anticipated this response, and I asked AZLawyer about that. He said there could have been other search warrants that were not released - there could be inventory they had permission to take during the consented searches.

One thing is for sure, they took more out of the house than those 7 items listed on the inventory.
But the filings would still be public and I am sure reporters have went to district (Clay County) court and federal court (downtown KC) to find out. They have not found any to our knowledge.

Search warrant filings thus are court-related public records, and they can have very detailed information on a criminal case being investigated.

http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/police-records/search-warrants/

Another site for search and seizure requirements

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41

vlpate
02-29-2012, 02:07 PM
Didn't we discuss the items left in the crib AFTER the police search . . . along with the dark coverings over the windows?

IIRC in other threads that we determined:

LE could have placed the items in the crib while searching Lisa's room & LE could have left the dark covering on the windows after using Luminol in Lisa's room. We determined that LE does not clean up after searches & there are companies out there that specialize in "crime scene clean up", so . . .

If carpet was taken during the search, it would have been documented by LE. Otherwise, that is a huge piece of evidence to throw out of trial.

No, the items in the crib were not there after the search warrant search. These items were discussed after those first pictures of Lisa's room were released before the search warrant.

Clearly, if you watch the videos after the search, those items are gone from the bed and the bags are redone.

hambirg
02-29-2012, 02:09 PM
If FBI conducted a search why haven't we heard about it since some seem convinced if DB left the house to search we would hear about it?

We have.

Oct.19th the day of the search. . .

FBI spokeswoman Bridget Patton told ABC's Kansas City affiliate KMBC that no specific tip or lead brought them back to the Irwin home, but detectives are searching for anything to move the investigation forward.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-police-execute-search-warrant-family/story?id=14768710#.T052O4cXA6I

vlpate
02-29-2012, 02:13 PM
It looks photoshopped out to me. They did the same thing with some of the surveillance pictures of Julia Biryukova in the Sky Metalwala case.

The carpet is not listed in the inventory on the affidavit. I can only think of two possibilities.

There was no evidence on the carpet. Since we know they took a comforter, a blanket and and outfit, it's not hard to come up with a scenario for that where the house would still be a crime scene. An example. . .the comforter is on the floor near the bed, they find the blanket and outfit rolled up and stuffed in a heating duct. We don't know what the dogs hit on and we don't know where any of the items were found.

The second scenario I'm not sure, so just theorizing and MOO. Could there have been a second SW? One that was sealed and granted on the testimony of an informant? We know this search was after Jersey was in custody. If there is any chance that he was a witness to anything that happened that night, it could be a possibility. Idk if I believe this, but it's not unheard of for a second SW to be granted. If it was based on informant information that they wanted to keep secret. . .it's a maybe.

What looks photo shopped?

I'm not understanding about the Sky case - they took carpet and it wasn't on the search warrant?

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
02-29-2012, 02:14 PM
We have.

Oct.19th the day of the search. . .

FBI spokeswoman Bridget Patton told ABC's Kansas City affiliate KMBC that no specific tip or lead brought them back to the Irwin home, but detectives are searching for anything to move the investigation forward.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-police-execute-search-warrant-family/story?id=14768710#.T052O4cXA6I

Some here were eluding to a second search warrant being given, the 17 hour search and the evidence receipt was the last one MSM covered. Had there been another search we would have heard about it, and media trucks would have been blasting it on the airwaves as they did the one we do know about, was my point. I should have said "another search warrant" sorry, my bad. :blushing:

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 02:15 PM
No, the items in the crib were not there after the search warrant search. These items were discussed after those first pictures of Lisa's room were released before the search warrant.

Clearly, if you watch the videos after the search, those items are gone from the bed and the bags are redone.
The bags are redone and things are moved because they are between two different sets of searches. The first set was after LE had possession of the house (consented) and the second set is after the search warrant. LE would be busy moving stuff around during each and every search. The bags put up for the initial search would be re-done for the search warrant search to be thorough. IF they wouldn't have moved things and re did the window, that would have just been laziness and I sure did not see any sign of laziness in spending 17 hours in a small house. I am sure that virtually every single item in that house was not in it's original position after the initial (consented) searches.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 02:15 PM
But the filings would still be public and I am sure reporters have went to district (Clay County) court and federal court (downtown KC) to find out. They have not found any to our knowledge.



http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/police-records/search-warrants/

Another site for search and seizure requirements

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41

You know as well as I do they can be sealed. They could have taken the carpet by consent.

Any idea what they did with the roll of carpet we all saw then take out? I honestly don't know, I just saw them carrying it.

hambirg
02-29-2012, 02:16 PM
Didn't we discuss the items left in the crib AFTER the police search . . . along with the dark coverings over the windows?

IIRC in other threads that we determined:

LE could have placed the items in the crib while searching Lisa's room & LE could have left the dark covering on the windows after using Luminol in Lisa's room. We determined that LE does not clean up after searches & there are companies out there that specialize in "crime scene clean up", so . . .

If carpet was taken during the search, it would have been documented by LE. Otherwise, that is a huge piece of evidence to throw out of trial.

In the pictures for Dan Abrams AFTER the search warrant was executed, the baby bath is NOT in the crib. The mattress is clearly askew and the plastic bins are on the floor under the window near the dresser. . .no swing. The video with Cindy Short the bins have been moved to the crib with the baby bath set on top. The dresser has been moved and the swing was brought out of the closet and placed where the plastic bins had been.

The room was staged before part of Short's walk through. So my question is why is it important to move the baby bath to the crib and put it on the bins, as if to prop it up enough for it to be clearly seen and hard to miss.

MOO

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 02:20 PM
In the pictures for Dan Abrams AFTER the search warrant was executed, the baby bath is NOT in the crib. The mattress is clearly askew and the plastic bins are on the floor under the window near the dresser. . .no swing. The video with Cindy Short the bins have been moved to the crib with the baby bath set on top. The dresser has been moved and the swing was brought out of the closet and placed where the plastic bins had been.

The room was staged before part of Short's walk through. So my question is why is it important to move the baby bath to the crib and put it on the bins, as if to prop it up enough for it to be clearly seen and hard to miss.

MOO
And how are we to know who moved the items? It could have been any one of the media also - like sound and camera crews for more clearance or just plain nosiness. We don't know who moved anything around or when.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 02:23 PM
You know as well as I do they can be sealed. They could have taken the carpet by consent.

Any idea what they did with the roll of carpet we all saw then take out? I honestly don't know, I just saw them carrying it.
The carpet was shown on live tv as being taken back to the back yard. There is a pic on the search warrant thread plainly showing them walking towards the back with it in their arms - unless they like hauling carpet walking backwards, that is.
And even if other search warrants were granted and were sealed, the filings themselves are public. No way around that that I can find.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 02:25 PM
The bags are redone and things are moved because they are between two different sets of searches. The first set was after LE had possession of the house (consented) and the second set is after the search warrant. LE would be busy moving stuff around during each and every search. The bags put up for the initial search would be re-done for the search warrant search to be thorough. IF they wouldn't have moved things and re did the window, that would have just been laziness and I sure did not see any sign of laziness in spending 17 hours in a small house. I am sure that virtually every single item in that house was not in it's original position after the initial (consented) searches.

Yeah, it's not about why they moved the bags. I know why the bags are there -- got it. My point was to someone else about the length of the bags in relation to the bed.

As for moving stuff around - LE did not have possession of the house, nor did they do another search while Short and the reporter did their "exclusive" walk through videos - and things were moved all over the place in those.

The dark still of the room was a picture, and hard to tell when it was taken, but the plastic tub sitting there is only in that picture - and I wonder if it wasn't covering an area where the carpet may have been cut out.

Cindy Short was fired after her video, and it was rumored (can't prove it), that the video was the reason. Right after her video, DB and JI granted a tour to a reporter and things looked different, especially in the kitchen and part of the bedroom. DB's side of the bed was left alone, but I'm sure that was to show the possibility the dog picked up on a poopy diaper because she changed Lisa there.

I know LE moved things around - common sense. Who moved things around and why AFTER the on the 19th?

vlpate
02-29-2012, 02:28 PM
The carpet was shown on live tv as being taken back to the back yard. There is a pic on the search warrant thread plainly showing them walking towards the back with it in their arms - unless they like hauling carpet walking backwards, that is.
And even if other search warrants were granted and were sealed, the filings themselves are public. No way around that that I can find.

Exactly, why would they just walk around with a carpet?

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
02-29-2012, 02:30 PM
Yeah, it's not about why they moved the bags. I know why the bags are there -- got it. My point was to someone else about the length of the bags in relation to the bed.

As for moving stuff around - LE did not have possession of the house, nor did they do another search while Short and the reporter did their "exclusive" walk through videos - and things were moved all over the place in those.

The dark still of the room was a picture, and hard to tell when it was taken, but the plastic tub sitting there is only in that picture - and I wonder if it wasn't covering an area where the carpet may have been cut out.

Cindy Short was fired after her video, and it was rumored (can't prove it), that the video was the reason. Right after her video, DB and JI granted a tour to a reporter and things looked different, especially in the kitchen and part of the bedroom. DB's side of the bed was left alone, but I'm sure that was to show the possibility the dog picked up on a poopy diaper because she changed Lisa there.

I know LE moved things around - common sense. Who moved things around and why AFTER the on the 19th?

JMHO but I would imagine their DT was also in the home doing their own parallel investigation once the home was released back to the family.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 02:33 PM
And how are we to know who moved the items? It could have been any one of the media also - like sound and camera crews for more clearance or just plain nosiness. We don't know who moved anything around or when.

All the floors in the house are on the Cindy Short video except the baby's room. Find one shot of the floor in the baby's room in the Short walk through and I will concede to being wrong.

Do you think they moved the baseball bat,, the fan, the gun, and replaced a picture on Jeremy's bedside table with something totally different for sound? Did moving the pillows all around on the master bed help with sound?

vlpate
02-29-2012, 02:36 PM
JMHO but I would imagine their DT was also in the home doing their own parallel investigation once the home was released back to the family.

Yes, Wild Bill went through the house and didn't allow taping. Not sure what your point is? He wouldn't have come running out of the house screaming the carpet is missing.

The DT mentions nothing about what was taken from Lisa's room. CS stands by the crib, the shot is waist high, and she talks about what a sham the search was. That in itself makes no sense to me - what were we supposed to be seeing with her to tell us it was a sham?

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 02:37 PM
If you watch the link, you see it is not the wall. In the other pictures the wall is a mutstard looking color and there is crown moulding or a very wide, white trim - the carpet is dark. Look at the video that the still was taken from and you will see the bottom of the black bags are much lower to the floor than in the original pictures.

Forget the arrow, look at the video.

Of course some people aren't going to see it because they don't see anything that might lead to Lisa dying in her room.
On the picture in the post above with the arrow, you can see the floor molding between his legs much further down. That is clearly the wall the arrow itself is pointing to.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 02:40 PM
Exactly, why would they just walk around with a carpet?
They didn't just walk around with it. They brought it to the drive and we could see them doing something to it, like vacuuming it maybe, then they rolled it back up and took it to the back. Maybe Nina can rescue this with a media link if it is available. I can't find it as it might have just been live and not broadcast during the regular newstime.

hambirg
02-29-2012, 02:44 PM
What looks photo shopped?

I'm not understanding about the Sky case - they took carpet and it wasn't on the search warrant?

No, sorry. In Sky's case they blurred out and darkened the actual floor in some of the surveillance tapes of his mother. I'm not sure why they would do it, other than so people may not be able to figure out where it was taken.

I think the carpet looks photo shopped in this picture, like it is just darkened out so that we can't see what color the carpet is, if the carpet is still there, etc.

The only thing it makes me think is that the carpet must be relevant.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 02:45 PM
The carpet was shown on live tv as being taken back to the back yard. There is a pic on the search warrant thread plainly showing them walking towards the back with it in their arms - unless they like hauling carpet walking backwards, that is.
And even if other search warrants were granted and were sealed, the filings themselves are public. No way around that that I can find.

Lisa Irwin Search Warrant Reveals Cadaver Dog 'Hit' (http://www.kmbc.com/r/29552254/detail.html)

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/29552254/detail.html#ixzz1nnmAfqj7

"On Wednesday, investigators in white suits walked in and out of the Irwin home all day, carrying bags of evidence and what appeared to be X-ray equipment. They were also seen carrying carpets out of the home."

________________
Is everything they carried out on the search warrant inventory?

hambirg
02-29-2012, 02:46 PM
They didn't just walk around with it. They brought it to the drive and we could see them doing something to it, like vacuuming it maybe, then they rolled it back up and took it to the back. Maybe Nina can rescue this with a media link if it is available. I can't find it as it might have just been live and not broadcast during the regular newstime.

Interesting.

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 02:47 PM
.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13329


I watched the vid, it looks there is something stacked in front of the wall by the crib in the video, and what you are seeing is blurred stuff in the top of a box or a dresser drawer or something.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 02:48 PM
On the picture in the post above with the arrow, you can see the floor molding between his legs much further down. That is clearly the wall the arrow itself is pointing to.

Did you watch the video where he is walking? I don't clearly see the trim between his legs further down at all.

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 02:49 PM
Ok I watched again, the clear plastic totes that were in Lisa's crib in some of the pictures, are stacked under the window, which is what is making that weird color. I thought for a while that they had cut part of the wall out and patched it, but it's the totes stacked there.

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 02:51 PM
Did you watch the video where he is walking? I don't clearly see the trim between his legs further down at all.

I agree there is no trim to be seen. It would be clear down by his feet, not at his crotch.

I do not disagree that it's possible they took the carpet from Lisa's room.

hambirg
02-29-2012, 02:53 PM
But the filings would still be public and I am sure reporters have went to district (Clay County) court and federal court (downtown KC) to find out. They have not found any to our knowledge.



http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/police-records/search-warrants/

Another site for search and seizure requirements

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41

Would they even look for it? The first warrant was not sealed. It took us, what, four months to figure out there might be a second federal warrant.

hambirg
02-29-2012, 02:55 PM
Some here were eluding to a second search warrant being given, the 17 hour search and the evidence receipt was the last one MSM covered. Had there been another search we would have heard about it, and media trucks would have been blasting it on the airwaves as they did the one we do know about, was my point. I should have said "another search warrant" sorry, my bad. :blushing:

Not a second search. . .a second search warrant. . . .same day, different agency.

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
02-29-2012, 02:55 PM
Yes, Wild Bill went through the house and didn't allow taping. Not sure what your point is? He wouldn't have come running out of the house screaming the carpet is missing.

The DT mentions nothing about what was taken from Lisa's room. CS stands by the crib, the shot is waist high, and she talks about what a sham the search was. That in itself makes no sense to me - what were we supposed to be seeing with her to tell us it was a sham?

Let me try to explain, if DT did an investigation of their own, things would be moved again. Simple enough.

Did LE allow cameras to report their movements in the house? NO. Why would the DT not do the same. I've never heard of any investigators invite MSM in to film an investigation. so now I'm not sure what your point is. :waitasec:

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 02:57 PM
This is the only image I could find quickly. This is when they had the carpet on the drive and doing "something" to it. They then were shown taking it back around to the back. They got it from "somewhere" in the back also. IF they took it from one of the bedrooms, one would think they would have brought it out through the front door. IF they took it from the bedroom and brought it out through the back it would mean they maneuvered that roll of carpet throughout the entire house, down all of the stairs to the basement, maneuvered through the basement and then out when all they had to do is bring it straight out of the front door and only have to manage the 2-3 steps of the stoop.
http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/10/19/58fabd55-0d55-479f-b63c-9c5545172334_400.jpg

hambirg
02-29-2012, 02:57 PM
And how are we to know who moved the items? It could have been any one of the media also - like sound and camera crews for more clearance or just plain nosiness. We don't know who moved anything around or when.

Right, we don't know. So why were they moved and set up that way?

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 03:07 PM
This is the only image I could find quickly. This is when they had the carpet on the drive and doing "something" to it. They then were shown taking it back around to the back. They got it from "somewhere" in the back also. IF they took it from one of the bedrooms, one would think they would have brought it out through the front door. IF they took it from the bedroom and brought it out through the back it would mean they maneuvered that roll of carpet throughout the entire house, down all of the stairs to the basement, maneuvered through the basement and then out when all they had to do is bring it straight out of the front door and only have to manage the 2-3 steps of the stoop.
http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/10/19/58fabd55-0d55-479f-b63c-9c5545172334_400.jpg

Why couldn't they take it out the back door that leads out the computer room onto the deck? Isn't that the door closest to Lisa's room? I'm still a little fuzzy on the layout of the house.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 03:08 PM
I've watched this video until my eyes are crossed - and I am telling you, the carpet was removed, and here's proof.

Look very closely at the 1:32 - 1:34 point of the video in the middle of this page. (http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/region_missouri/northland/nbc-get-its-first-look-inside-the-irwin-home)

You will see CLEARLY that the chest of drawers are sitting on bare floor. There is black tape on the corner under the leg.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13337

vlpate
02-29-2012, 03:16 PM
Let me try to explain, if DT did an investigation of their own, things would be moved again. Simple enough.

Did LE allow cameras to report their movements in the house? NO. Why would the DT not do the same. I've never heard of any investigators invite MSM in to film an investigation. so now I'm not sure what your point is. :waitasec:

As far as I know, the DT does not have an investigator.

BEM: I didn't have a point, I was answering your question.

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 03:24 PM
I've watched this video until my eyes are crossed - and I am telling you, the carpet was removed, and here's proof.

Look very closely at the 1:32 - 1:34 point of the video in the middle of this page. (http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/region_missouri/northland/nbc-get-its-first-look-inside-the-irwin-home)

You will see CLEARLY that the chest of drawers are sitting on bare floor. There is black tape on the corner under the leg.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13337

I'm really not trying to argue with you, b/c I really think it's quite likely that the carpet was taken from her room. But the camera is just not down low enough in that picture. It's the wall behind the totes where that black tape is, behind the dresser.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 03:24 PM
They didn't just walk around with it. They brought it to the drive and we could see them doing something to it, like vacuuming it maybe, then they rolled it back up and took it to the back. Maybe Nina can rescue this with a media link if it is available. I can't find it as it might have just been live and not broadcast during the regular newstime.

Maybe they cut part of it out and re-laid it? They were there 17 hours, plenty of time to do that. Wasn't it the DT, CS maybe, who said the carpet came from the shed? Seriously, who keeps a roll of carpet in their shed. You save what's good and toss the rest. People replace carpet for a reason, it's nasty.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 03:25 PM
Not a second search. . .a second search warrant. . . .same day, different agency.
Again, the filing would be public even if the warrant itself was sealed. The media would have been all over this just as they were for the original warrant filing. My above post and link state that ALL search warrant filings are public information no matter which agency.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 03:28 PM
I'm really not trying to argue with you, b/c I really think it's quite likely that the carpet was taken from her room. But the camera is just not down low enough in that picture. It's the wall behind the totes where that black tape is, behind the dresser.

The picture is just telling you where to look, at which point to pause the video. Please, watch the video.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 03:30 PM
Maybe they cut part of it out and re-laid it? They were there 17 hours, plenty of time to do that. Wasn't it the DT, CS maybe, who said the carpet came from the shed? Seriously, who keeps a roll of carpet in their shed. You save what's good and toss the rest. People replace carpet for a reason, it's nasty.
Who said the carpet was ever used? That is assuming there. He redid his entire living room after he moved in. I could very well assume it was still good and he saved it. It was obviously not cut apart as it was a very large piece. All of the bedrooms are very small and it would not be a large roll if cut apart. Lisa's room is probably only about 8 x 10 ft or so. The littlest bedroom, as hers was, in these houses are tiny!

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 03:31 PM
The picture is just telling you where to look, at which point to pause the video. Please, watch the video.

I watched the video several times, there are no shots of the floor at all in that video. The closest it comes is when he gets over to the crib and you can see him lift his foot up to step over something and you can see the bottom of his pant leg/top of his sock. There is no floor shown in that video.

I do not think that proves that no carpet was taken, it just is what it is, it would be nice to have a video that included images of the floor, and maybe there is one, but that video just doesn't show the floor, it seemed almost intentional in zooming to avoid showing the floor in her room, yet it is show in most other rooms of the house.

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 03:33 PM
We have 2 rolls of new, unused carpet. One in the garage, and one still in the house b/c we haven't hauled it out to the garage. We had new carpet laid, they charged us for everything they brought, they asked if we wanted to keep the extra. Since we had already paid for it, we figured we should keep it, you never know when it might come in handy.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 03:34 PM
Who said the carpet was ever used? That is assuming there. He redid his entire living room after he moved in. I could very well assume it was still good and he saved it. It was obviously not cut apart as it was a very large piece. All of the bedrooms are very small and it would not be a large roll if cut apart. Lisa's room is probably only about 8 x 10 ft or so. The littlest bedroom, as hers was, in these houses are tiny!

You could be right, THAT carpet could have been from the parent's bedroom. It's never made sense to me why there was no tack-strip at the doorway where Cindy was picking the carpet up to show it had not been removed.

Just not sure, but I am sure the carpet under the chest of drawers and the bed was either cut out or removed.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 03:40 PM
You could be right, THAT carpet could have been from the parent's bedroom. It's never made sense to me why there was no tack-strip at the doorway where Cindy was picking the carpet up to show it had not been removed.

Just not sure, but I am sure the carpet under the chest of drawers and the bed was either cut out or removed.
But again, how would it make sense for them to bring it out from around back when that mean they maneuvered it through the entire house, down the basement steps, through the basement and out to the front? If they took it from any of the bedrooms it would make much more sense for them to take it out the front door and only have to go through the living room and down about 2-3 steps. It was shown that they brought it up the drive from the back then they took it back around to the back.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 04:01 PM
I watched the video several times, there are no shots of the floor at all in that video. The closest it comes is when he gets over to the crib and you can see him lift his foot up to step over something and you can see the bottom of his pant leg/top of his sock. There is no floor shown in that video.

I do not think that proves that no carpet was taken, it just is what it is, it would be nice to have a video that included images of the floor, and maybe there is one, but that video just doesn't show the floor, it seemed almost intentional in zooming to avoid showing the floor in her room, yet it is show in most other rooms of the house.

I honestly don't know how you are not seeing that the dresser/night stand is on the floor - it goes by quickly in the video, so here's another screen shot. There's a strip of tape beneath the foot of the dresser.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13338

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 04:06 PM
I honestly don't know how you are not seeing that the dresser/night stand is on the floor - it goes by quickly in the video, so here's another screen shot. There's a strip of tape beneath the foot of the dresser.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13338
That is not the bottom of the chest. If it was, the crib would have no legs and be sitting on the floor mattress high. Notice that the top of the chest is about even with the top of the crib. IF that was the bottom, then the crib and the chest are only about 2 ft high or less.

RANCH
02-29-2012, 04:10 PM
They didn't just walk around with it. They brought it to the drive and we could see them doing something to it, like vacuuming it maybe, then they rolled it back up and took it to the back. Maybe Nina can rescue this with a media link if it is available. I can't find it as it might have just been live and not broadcast during the regular newstime.
This video shows the techs with the rolled up carpet heading towards the back of the house. It's very brief, around the 50 sec mark.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-17-hour-search-family-home/story?id=14779537#.T06S5_V0TJc

vlpate
02-29-2012, 04:15 PM
But again, how would it make sense for them to bring it out from around back when that mean they maneuvered it through the entire house, down the basement steps, through the basement and out to the front? If they took it from any of the bedrooms it would make much more sense for them to take it out the front door and only have to go through the living room and down about 2-3 steps. It was shown that they brought it up the drive from the back then they took it back around to the back.

I don't know why they would do it that way, if, they did take it from Lisa's room. What they took from her room could have been just a cut out of the carpet. I do know, they took carpet from beside Lisa's bed. It was there before the searches, and now, at least part of it is gone.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 04:23 PM
I also find it very odd that October 28 was the last tweet from Peter Alexander on Lisa. I've not seen another story on the case from him since them. I have to wonder if the video, and this picture had something to do with it. Peter would have known the carpet was cut out.... Did someone tell him to go home and report on Sundusky? I don't know.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13329

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 04:39 PM
I think it looks weird b/c you think he is standing closer to the wall, he is not. There are totes next to the dresser, running long ways between the crib and dresser. So he's not up next to the wall, he's standing at least 2 feet from the wall. That is not the bottom of the dresser that you are seeing. It's the wall behind the dresser you are seeing. I wish the camera guy would just step back and show a good view of the room, so there was a better shot of the totes and dresser.

norest4thewicked
02-29-2012, 04:40 PM
It could possibly be just the way different eyes see things (for whatever reason). I see that area that has the arrow pointing to it as the wall. I could see that on the still photo and the video goes really quickly, but I think it is just the perspective that it is the floor. The tape is not under the dresser foot, it is on the wall, under the window. A lot has to do with the camera positioning and perspective. This isn't to say that the carpet wasn't removed. It still could have been removed even if there are no shots of the floor.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 04:40 PM
I don't know why they would do it that way, if, they did take it from Lisa's room. What they took from her room could have been just a cut out of the carpet. I do know, they took carpet from beside Lisa's bed. It was there before the searches, and now, at least part of it is gone.
The pic you are showing as "missing" carpet is the wall. The crib is not only a foot or two high. Your arrow is about mattress high. If they took a piece of carpet they are taking a chance for it to be thrown out by not listing it on the inventory. I am sure there were no "secret" search warrants that were sealed as the media would have been all over the filings. All filings for search warrants are public info whether local or federal. There was no other time when the house was tagged as being searched except for the first 3 days and no carpet was removed then as we saw it during the tours.

hambirg
02-29-2012, 04:41 PM
Again, the filing would be public even if the warrant itself was sealed. The media would have been all over this just as they were for the original warrant filing. My above post and link state that ALL search warrant filings are public information no matter which agency.

Again, would the media even know to look for it? They might have assumed there was only one SW. Federal SW's are often only filed by index number. If they didn't know to ask for the index number or if the FBI wasn't sharing, then they would have a difficult time finding it. . .that's if they even thought to look for one.

We know other things were taken that day. Did they just spend all that time doing stuff to not take it. If they were vacuuming that carpet, what did they do with the contents of the bag? Just dump it out and not take it? That doesn't make any sense.

MOO

vlpate
02-29-2012, 04:42 PM
Then there's the website set up by Cindy Short

http://www.findbabylisa.com/

There's not a single NBC video on this site - there was one, but it's been removed. Why? Where's Peter's tour of the home?

99% of the videos are from ABC. Peter Alexander was there and reporting on this case since October 6.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 04:47 PM
The pic you are showing as "missing" carpet is the wall. The crib is not only a foot or two high. Your arrow is about mattress high. If they took a piece of carpet they are taking a chance for it to be thrown out by not listing it on the inventory. I am sure there were no "secret" search warrants that were sealed as the media would have been all over the filings. All filings for search warrants are public info whether local or federal. There was no other time when the house was tagged as being searched except for the first 3 days and no carpet was removed then as we saw it during the tours.

I'm sorry, but sometimes people are wrong about how high something is - understandable. The picture is a still from the video, and the angle is deceiving - watch the video, it's clear, the carpet has been cut or removed.

Arguing about a search warrant doesn't change the fact that the table in Peter Alexander's video is sitting on a cement floor.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 04:54 PM
I'm sorry, but sometimes people are wrong about how high something is - understandable. The picture is a still from the video, and the angle is deceiving - watch the video, it's clear, the carpet has been cut or removed.

Arguing about a search warrant doesn't change the fact that the table in Peter Alexander's video is sitting on a cement floor.
I did watch the video, as many on here have that have also stated that it is the wall. Nothing deceiving at all for me in it. There are no cement floors on that level so that would be impossible to see one. That is the second level of the house.

SyraKelly
02-29-2012, 04:54 PM
I don't know if this will help-but I found 2 videos-1 on Oct 8 and the other on the 14-bothof this videos have different carpet TO ME- and the second video you can clearly see a piece of carpet missing by her crib..

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/lisa-irwin-inside-home-14695353

the other video is posted on pg 4

hambirg
02-29-2012, 05:08 PM
It could possibly be just the way different eyes see things (for whatever reason). I see that area that has the arrow pointing to it as the wall. I could see that on the still photo and the video goes really quickly, but I think it is just the perspective that it is the floor. The tape is not under the dresser foot, it is on the wall, under the window. A lot has to do with the camera positioning and perspective. This isn't to say that the carpet wasn't removed. It still could have been removed even if there are no shots of the floor.

It really is quite the optical illusion. I was seeing it the way vlpate was. I had to look several times till I realized that the black plastic was not extending all the way to the floor. It took looking at the feet of the crib to get the right perspective. That black mark that makes it look like that is the bottom of the dresser is actually the handle on the top tote, cutting off the bottom part of the dresser and giving the illusion.

hambirg
02-29-2012, 05:17 PM
I don't know if this will help-but I found 2 videos-1 on Oct 8 and the other on the 14-bothof this videos have different carpet TO ME- and the second video you can clearly see a piece of carpet missing by her crib..

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/lisa-irwin-inside-home-14695353

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/baby-lisa-irwin-video_n_1011232.html

Is that second link wrong? It takes me to a video of the home videos. :confused:

SyraKelly
02-29-2012, 05:19 PM
Is that second link wrong? It takes me to a video of the home videos. :confused:

hmm-hang on ham-let me look..

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
02-29-2012, 05:27 PM
Is that second link wrong? It takes me to a video of the home videos. :confused:

I was wondering the same thing, and most of the shots looked lie they were taken in the spare livingroom as they call it, judging by the wood on the walls.

SyraKelly
02-29-2012, 05:36 PM
OK-I think I found it..http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/baby-lisa-exclusive-tour-irwin-house-14801121

I can clearly see where at the foot of her crib on the floor the carpet is missing..also in the other video a nightstand was here.
sorry about the confusion-I am just trying to help

SyraKelly
02-29-2012, 05:43 PM
Also-wasn't her crib on the other wall-I don't remember ever seeing it in front of the window

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
02-29-2012, 05:44 PM
OK-I think I found it..http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/baby-lisa-exclusive-tour-irwin-house-14801121

I can clearly see where at the foot of her crib on the fllor the carpet is missing..also in the other video a nightstand was here.
sorry about the confusion-I am just trying to help

To me it looked like a lid off one of the clear totes that are stacked against the wall, really hard to tell since they cut the colour in the last portion of the video from the point it showed DB onward.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 05:49 PM
Just wondering, if they showed these videos then, wouldn't it have been noticed then that carpet was missing? I see absolutely no carpet missing on any video today and didn't then either. Nobody noticed missing carpet in 4 months?? I don't think so. It would have been discussed ad nauseum then.

Melon
02-29-2012, 05:55 PM
Again, would the media even know to look for it? They might have assumed there was only one SW. Federal SW's are often only filed by index number. If they didn't know to ask for the index number or if the FBI wasn't sharing, then they would have a difficult time finding it. . .that's if they even thought to look for one.

We know other things were taken that day. Did they just spend all that time doing stuff to not take it. If they were vacuuming that carpet, what did they do with the contents of the bag? Just dump it out and not take it? That doesn't make any sense.

MOO

It certainly seems like there were more than 7 items taken and it seems like a really bizarre (and/or possibly detrimental) investigative technique to package up evidence, remove it from the house and then change your mind about it and decide to leave it. KWIM? There has got to be a piece of the puzzle missing.

ETA: watching the footage the day of the warrant execution, there was a tech that photographed the ground by the fence in the back or side yard and then noted something on a clipboard, along with a person in street clothes. I watched it on the live feed. That certainly looked like evidence recovery to me. I suppose it's possible that recovery was one of the 7 items listed on the warrant return but it kind of seems odd to think any of those items listed on the warrant return were out in the yard by the fence.

norest4thewicked
02-29-2012, 06:06 PM
It really is quite the optical illusion. I was seeing it the way vlpate was. I had to look several times till I realized that the black plastic was not extending all the way to the floor. It took looking at the feet of the crib to get the right perspective. That black mark that makes it look like that is the bottom of the dresser is actually the handle on the top tote, cutting off the bottom part of the dresser and giving the illusion.

I agree. I can totally see it from the same way that vlpate sees it. I also had to look at the perspective of the things around it. I think that the key is the plastic doesn't come to the floor.

But, really, I don't think that this really matters as to what we see because it is very possible that they LE did take a piece of the carpet.

Does anyone know if luminol testing was done in the parents bedroom?

melissasmom
02-29-2012, 06:32 PM
Again, the filing would be public even if the warrant itself was sealed. The media would have been all over this just as they were for the original warrant filing. My above post and link state that ALL search warrant filings are public information no matter which agency.

I agree on this, IDM. This article you posted: http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/police-records/search-warrants/

is specifically for journalists. It is basically detailing that ALL search warrants have to be filed with the court (within 10 days) even if they are sealed. If there were more search warrants out there (including from the FBI) I am quite sure the media would have gotten ahold of that fact and been all over it. They WOULD have checked, in my opinion. And reported it.

JMO

Jacie Estes
02-29-2012, 06:38 PM
If you watch the link, you see it is not the wall. In the other pictures the wall is a mutstard looking color and there is crown moulding or a very wide, white trim - the carpet is dark. Look at the video that the still was taken from and you will see the bottom of the black bags are much lower to the floor than in the original pictures.

Forget the arrow, look at the video.

Of course some people aren't going to see it because they don't see anything that might lead to Lisa dying in her room.

I may have a retinal tear right now but I can tell the difference between a wall and a floor. IMHO I don't need to 'forget the arrow'. The color variation is in the pic, not the actual subject of the pic. IMHO

As for the part I bolded; we each have an opinion, <modsnip> IMHO

vlpate
02-29-2012, 06:44 PM
Ok, I see now, please forgive me, I believe I am wrong about the bottom of the chest of drawers - that's what this site is for, smart people letting the idjuts know what's what - my apologies imnotagen and In Da Middle - I see what you are saying now.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13340

The totes are running along side the chest. Here's what threw me off - I wasn't even thinking about the totes being there when I started looking at this. They don't show up clearly in the videos and in all the pictures we have seen, except for the photo Cindy Short had in her story, there were no totes or a dresser - there was just a swing. So, why did they put those totes and that dresser there? Are they covering something up? A piece of cut out carpet? There's a reason for everything they do - even inviting Peter in, there had to be a reason. What was it?

I have a friend who teaches at the art institute looking at this picture to see if the carpet has been photo-shopped.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13330

Here's where you can just barely make out a tote, ignore the top circle:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13339

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 06:48 PM
Ok, I see now, please forgive me, I believe I am wrong about the bottom of the chest of drawers - that's what this site is for, smart people letting the idjuts know what's what - my apologies imnotagen and In Da Middle - I see what you are saying now.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13340

The totes are running along side the chest. Here's what threw me off - I wasn't even thinking about the totes being there when I started looking at this. They don't show up clearly in the videos and in all the pictures we have seen, except for the photo Cindy Short had in her story, there were no totes or a dresser - there was just a swing. So, why did they put those totes and that dresser there? Are they covering something up? A piece of cut out carpet? There's a reason for everything they do - even inviting Peter in, there had to be a reason. What was it?

I have a friend who teaches at the art institute looking at this picture to see if the carpet has been photo-shopped.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13330

Here's where you can just barely make out a tote, ignore the top circle:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13339

No need to apologize at all!! I saw exactly what you did the first couple of times I watched it. Then I thought there was a hole in the wall. The camera angle, distance, everything makes the whole room wonky, especially since everything is moved around in every video.

redheadedgal
02-29-2012, 06:50 PM
It looks photoshopped out to me. They did the same thing with some of the surveillance pictures of Julia Biryukova in the Sky Metalwala case.

There was no evidence on the carpet...

i'm confused... why would they photoshop the carpet out if there was no evidence on it... or did i completely misread your post? lol... thnx.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 06:50 PM
I may have a retinal tear right now but I can tell the difference between a wall and a floor. IMHO I don't need to 'forget the arrow'. The color variation is in the pic, not the actual subject of the pic. IMHO

As for the part I bolded; we each have an opinion, for me my opinion doesn't affect my eyesight. IMHO

It isn't the wall, I don't think - apparently that is a tote.

As for the part you bolded, I agree, you are right.

In da Middle
02-29-2012, 06:51 PM
Ok, I see now, please forgive me, I believe I am wrong about the bottom of the chest of drawers - that's what this site is for, smart people letting the idjuts know what's what - my apologies imnotagen and In Da Middle - I see what you are saying now.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13340

The totes are running along side the chest. Here's what threw me off - I wasn't even thinking about the totes being there when I started looking at this. They don't show up clearly in the videos and in all the pictures we have seen, except for the photo Cindy Short had in her story, there were no totes or a dresser - there was just a swing. So, why did they put those totes and that dresser there? Are they covering something up? A piece of cut out carpet? There's a reason for everything they do - even inviting Peter in, there had to be a reason. What was it?

I have a friend who teaches at the art institute looking at this picture to see if the carpet has been photo-shopped.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13330

Here's where you can just barely make out a tote, ignore the top circle:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13339
Thank you for taking the time to look again! I really think if there was ANY missing carpet in the entire house, Peter Alexander, at least, would have mentioned it. I can see a defense attorney glossing over it, but not a journalist. It is obvious that people were in there moving things around. We just dont know who did it or why. It could have just been nosy people looking with their hands and not their eyes.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 06:51 PM
i'm confused... why would they photoshop the carpet out if there was no evidence on it... or did i completely misread your post? lol... thnx.

They would photo shop it out to show nothing was taken, to cover for something being taken....however, someone were to see it in person, they wouldn't be able to photo-shop it, they'd have to cover whatever was taken out.

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 06:53 PM
I have often wondered why the floor in Lisa's room is not the same beige carpet as the rest of the house. Did they never put new carpet in there? Did the carpet get removed at some point by the parents? Was it removed by the police?

redheadedgal
02-29-2012, 06:53 PM
Would they even look for it? The first warrant was not sealed. It took us, what, four months to figure out there might be a second federal warrant.


i must've missed this discussion... can someone elaborate or point me to the proper thread? pls and thx :D

vlpate
02-29-2012, 07:00 PM
Thank you for taking the time to look again! I really think if there was ANY missing carpet in the entire house, Peter Alexander, at least, would have mentioned it. I can see a defense attorney glossing over it, but not a journalist. It is obvious that people were in there moving things around. We just dont know who did it or why. It could have just been nosy people looking with their hands and not their eyes.

You're welcome...hands you a virgin mary :) Now, I do know that Peter was invited in by Jeremy and Deborah, not the attorney. After Peter went in, Cindy did her video and promised another tour at a later date, which, for obvious reasons, never happened.

Peter wouldn't have seen carpet missing beneath the totes and the dresser. A dresser is not something one just moves around willy-nilly...IMO. Unless they have those handy-dandy moving men things. I can move a high-boy dresser from one side of the room to the other without breaking a sweat, but I digress.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 07:06 PM
No need to apologize at all!! I saw exactly what you did the first couple of times I watched it. Then I thought there was a hole in the wall. The camera angle, distance, everything makes the whole room wonky, especially since everything is moved around in every video.

:) That's what made me start looking at it, for days I've been trying to figure out why the heck everything keeps getting moved. I understand after the search things would be moved, but one would think to a state of disarray more than these pictures depict.

Would LE search the room Lisa vanished from and then put a dresser and plastic bins, all nice and neat, someplace they hadn't been there before? If so, they should be spanked for the mess they left in the Irwin's room!

vlpate
02-29-2012, 07:08 PM
I don't know if this will help-but I found 2 videos-1 on Oct 8 and the other on the 14-bothof this videos have different carpet TO ME- and the second video you can clearly see a piece of carpet missing by her crib..

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/lisa-irwin-inside-home-14695353

the other video is posted on pg 4

Syra, thank you!

vlpate
02-29-2012, 07:14 PM
Again, the filing would be public even if the warrant itself was sealed. The media would have been all over this just as they were for the original warrant filing. My above post and link state that ALL search warrant filings are public information no matter which agency.

What about consensual searches - are they recorded somewhere? We have no idea what went on in that house during the very first searches. Maybe LE took that piece of carpet with Jeremy's consent before the dog hit in DB's bedroom. The baby's room was a crime scene and I believe any evidence that was out in the open was their's for the taking.

I could be wrong, God knows lol

vlpate
02-29-2012, 07:52 PM
one of the reporters would've mentioned it too, right?

there couldn't be a "carpet" gag order no one outside media knows about?

Dan Harris did a tour of the home on October 12 - and look at what is beside the bed! A SMALLER side table - like one that would go with the larger chest. No way this is the same chest in Peter's video or the still in Cindy Short's video presentation, it doesn't have the lip on the top. Now I'm wondering if half the stuff on the floor by DB's bed came out of the taller chest that is shown in the late October videos. Everything was moved around between October 12 and 24th.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13341



CS photo

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13328

redheadedgal
02-29-2012, 08:04 PM
that would be very sneaky to photoshop to cover up holes and also use furniture and whatnot else to hide holes... surely if family saw this they'd speak up? or do you think this has been hidden from family too?

and, WHY didn't they take down the hideous garbage bags asap? why leave it up?

vlpate
02-29-2012, 08:09 PM
that would be very sneaky to photoshop to cover up holes and also use furniture and whatnot else to hide holes... surely if family saw this they'd speak up? or do you think this has been hidden from family too?

and, WHY didn't they take down the hideous garbage bags asap? why leave it up?

Exactly Red, why leave them up? So no one can look inside? Would they keep it from family? IMO, yes. They kept Lisa and the other child from family - DB kept her pregnancy from her husband.

I find it incredible that the first time BS stepped foot in their house was on October 31st. What's up with that?

redheadedgal
02-29-2012, 08:11 PM
"so no one can look inside" eh? ... i see where you're going... hmmm.

i never really followed the BS thing... so i can't answer... sorry.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 08:23 PM
"so no one can look inside" eh? ... i see where you're going... hmmm.

i never really followed the BS thing... so i can't answer... sorry.

Bill Stanton, their hired, ahem, PI. Lisa goes missing October 4, Bill Stanton enters the home for the first time on October 31st.

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 08:36 PM
Dan Harris did a tour of the home on October 12 - and look at what is beside the bed! A SMALLER side table - like one that would go with the larger chest. No way this is the same chest in Peter's video or the still in Cindy Short's video presentation, it doesn't have the lip on the top. Now I'm wondering if half the stuff on the floor by DB's bed came out of the taller chest that is shown in the late October videos. Everything was moved around between October 12 and 24th.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13341



CS photo

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13328

The thing to the left of the crib in the first picture is a stack of dresser drawers. I assume they go in the dresser that is on the left in the 2nd picture, but where is that dresser in the first picture? IIRC from the video it is to the left of the stack of drawers.

All the moving of stuff feels like some magician trick to make us crazy.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 08:50 PM
Look all the way to the left, and under the bed - looks like a rug to me.

http://i52.tinypic.com/53k5qp.jpg

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 08:51 PM
is that a piece of carpet missing by her crib?

In the 2nd pic? I'm not sure, I don't understand why it's in B&W

vlpate
02-29-2012, 08:55 PM
is that a piece of carpet missing by her crib?

or the edge of the rug?

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 08:56 PM
Horrible thought. Would Lisa fit in one of those totes?

vlpate
02-29-2012, 09:00 PM
The thing to the left of the crib in the first picture is a stack of dresser drawers. I assume they go in the dresser that is on the left in the 2nd picture, but where is that dresser in the first picture? IIRC from the video it is to the left of the stack of drawers.

All the moving of stuff feels like some magician trick to make us crazy.

That's what I thought too, but it looks smooth on top - my computer is a small notebook, so it's hard as he** for me to see - obviously. You're right, why all the moving everything around? They did the same thing in the master, but not so much with furniture. CS spent most of her time in the master, trying to show LE found nothing. They've never said nothing was taken from Lisa's room - just the master.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13332

melissasmom
02-29-2012, 09:14 PM
Look all the way to the left, and under the bed - looks like a rug to me.

http://i52.tinypic.com/53k5qp.jpg

I think it looks like a rug also. Hard to see from the quality of the picture, but it seems to have a "diamond" pattern to it?

norest4thewicked
02-29-2012, 09:14 PM
That's what I thought too, but it looks smooth on top - my computer is a small notebook, so it's hard as he** for me to see - obviously. You're right, why all the moving everything around? They did the same thing in the master, but not so much with furniture. CS spent most of her time in the master, trying to show LE found nothing. They've never said nothing was taken from Lisa's room - just the master.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1516&pictureid=13332

Don't we know that several things were taken from Lisa's room? I can't remember exactly, but I thought they took several garbage bags out including blankets.

DeAnn
02-29-2012, 09:33 PM
Just curious....

Why would Short, Tacopina and Picerno make such a big issue about no carpet being removed if it was? Why would they specifically criticize this and risk police firing back either officially on the record or off the record that carpet was removed?

Police have scoffed at the "poopy" diaper theory, why would they not scoff at the no carpet removed?

Why would they take carpet and not the crib? (not taking the crib has drawn criticism of police)

Regarding search warrants in Missouri, the search warrant returns are public record unless a judge seals them. In this case, police sought to have the return sealed and the request was denied.

However, if a search warrant IS sealed the media doesn't know what is in the sealed document but they know the document was sealed. I could give you examples if you really, really want them.

I don't know about federal search warrants but the FBI has been assisting. The lead investigative agency is KCPD. And Clay County prosecutor is the one who will decide if and when to file charges. I have never heard anyone suggest that this would be a case for a U.S. Attorney's Office. I'm not an attorney but interjecting an FBI search warrant at the house (as opposed to out of state or for something else) could create jurisdictional issues and chain of custody issues if/when charges are filed in connection with Lisa's disappearance.

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 09:42 PM
My personal theory on why the crib wasn't taken? She was never in it. It's not hard to see that the crib was way too high for any child over 4-5 months old.

SyraKelly
02-29-2012, 09:47 PM
My personal theory on why the crib wasn't taken? She was never in it. It's not hard to see that the crib was way too high for any child over 4-5 months old.

Where do you think she was?

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 09:52 PM
Where do you think she was?

I don't know, I wish I did. I wish I knew where she typically slept.

I realize not everyone is big on safety, there were pictures of Lisa in a forward facing carseat, which is not only illegal, but extremely dangerous. So I guess it is possible that they were just too lazy or didn't care and left her crib up higher. I have no idea how on earth they managed to keep her in her crib all evening.

melissasmom
02-29-2012, 10:04 PM
I don't know, I wish I did. I wish I knew where she typically slept.

I realize not everyone is big on safety, there were pictures of Lisa in a forward facing carseat, which is not only illegal, but extremely dangerous. So I guess it is possible that they were just too lazy or didn't care and left her crib up higher. I have no idea how on earth they managed to keep her in her crib all evening.

I have been looking at pictures of the crib, and to be honest, I don't think the mattress IS set that high. Look at the black and white pic posted above. The top of the mattress would be right there where the bottom of the bumper pad is. I don't think it looks too high. When you look at the crib from other angles, I think it appears the mattress is set higher. But I think it is just from those certan angles.

If they had Lisa in a crib that had a mattress at the highest or close to the highest setting, then she would have been falling out of it every day, you would think. I just don't see them doing that. DB/JI may not be perfect, but I am giving them some credit as to not have their baby falling out of her crib repeatedly and doing nothing about it.

I am not sure what you are referring to as far as the car seat. I have only seen one picture of Lisa in a car seat, and she seemed large enough to be in a forward facing seat. I thought babies were supposed to be rear facing up to 20 pounds and then switched to the forward facing? It has been many years since I had an infant, but I seem to recall my kids were in the "toddler" type seats before they were one year.

Sparklin
02-29-2012, 10:12 PM
hmm...not sure how to post a picture from my computer - but the carpet is def. still there when Peter walks towards the crib. That weirdish coloured thing is actually 'something' and not the floor. Help on posting pic??

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/Dreamer636/lisafloor.jpg

Right below the 'Today' tag - carpet - same carpet as was in original pics.

norest4thewicked
02-29-2012, 10:13 PM
I have been looking at pictures of the crib, and to be honest, I don't think the mattress IS set that high. Look at the black and white pic posted above. The top of the mattress would be right there where the bottom of the bumper pad is. I don't think it looks too high. When you look at the crib from other angles, I think it appears the mattress is set higher. But I think it is just from those certan angles.

If they had Lisa in a crib that had a mattress at the highest or close to the highest setting, then she would have been falling out of it every day, you would think. I just don't see them doing that. DB/JI may not be perfect, but I am giving them some credit as to not have their baby falling out of her crib repeatedly and doing nothing about it.

I am not sure what you are referring to as far as the car seat. I have only seen one picture of Lisa in a car seat, and she seemed large enough to be in a forward facing seat. I thought babies were supposed to be rear facing up to 20 pounds and then switched to the forward facing? It has been many years since I had an infant, but I seem to recall my kids were in the "toddler" type seats before they were one year.

http://www.carseat.org/Resources/FAQs.htm

2 years and preferably longer.

melissasmom
02-29-2012, 10:19 PM
http://www.carseat.org/Resources/FAQs.htm

2 years and preferably longer.

Thanks. I have never seen a rear facing car seat for a 2 year old. Didn't even know they made them. My granddaughter has been in a forward facing seat long before she turned 2 (she just turned 3) and nobody better say my daughter does not love her or is "too lazy" to care about her safety or whatever, or this grandma will get to scrappin'. ;) Just my opinion.

Dr.Fessel
02-29-2012, 10:35 PM
Where do you think she was? If that baby bed is the way it was when she went missing then it had been a long time since she slept there. She had been sleeping with mom and dad. No doubt in my mind.

Sparklin
02-29-2012, 10:39 PM
This video shows the techs with the rolled up carpet heading towards the back of the house. It's very brief, around the 50 sec mark.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-17-hour-search-family-home/story?id=14779537#.T06S5_V0TJc

Yes, not 100% but I think Jim S can confirm that carpet came from the shed and was returned to the shed.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 10:54 PM
Just curious....

Why would Short, Tacopina and Picerno make such a big issue about no carpet being removed if it was? Why would they specifically criticize this and risk police firing back either officially on the record or off the record that carpet was removed?

Because police don't fire back. Because they can. Because they are trying this case in the court of public opinion and causing reasonable doubt. There's not a high profile case that it hasn't been done.

Police have scoffed at the "poopy" diaper theory, why would they not scoff at the no carpet removed?

Really? I missed the police scoffing at the poopy diaper. Do you have a link? They haven't scoffed at anything....and if they were going to, it would have been the silly blob video - or the guy that paid Jersey - or the DT telling the public how their clients have cooperated in every way.

Why would they take carpet and not the crib? (not taking the crib has drawn criticism of police)

They took evidence from the crib. Let me ask you, why did they rearrange the room? Why did Short get fired after this video?

Regarding search warrants in Missouri, the search warrant returns are public record unless a judge seals them. In this case, police sought to have the return sealed and the request was denied.

I understand that. There were consensual searches prior to the warrant search.

However, if a search warrant IS sealed the media doesn't know what is in the sealed document but they know the document was sealed. I could give you examples if you really, really want them.

I understand, but we saw them put way more than what was on the search warrant receipt - that tells me those seven items could not have been all the took during the multiple searches.

I don't know about federal search warrants but the FBI has been assisting. The lead investigative agency is KCPD. And Clay County prosecutor is the one who will decide if and when to file charges. I have never heard anyone suggest that this would be a case for a U.S. Attorney's Office. I'm not an attorney but interjecting an FBI search warrant at the house (as opposed to out of state or for something else) could create jurisdictional issues and chain of custody issues if/when charges are filed in connection with Lisa's disappearance.

All greek to me, but the information is greatly appreciated ;)

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 10:58 PM
I have been looking at pictures of the crib, and to be honest, I don't think the mattress IS set that high. Look at the black and white pic posted above. The top of the mattress would be right there where the bottom of the bumper pad is. I don't think it looks too high. When you look at the crib from other angles, I think it appears the mattress is set higher. But I think it is just from those certan angles.

If they had Lisa in a crib that had a mattress at the highest or close to the highest setting, then she would have been falling out of it every day, you would think. I just don't see them doing that. DB/JI may not be perfect, but I am giving them some credit as to not have their baby falling out of her crib repeatedly and doing nothing about it.

I am not sure what you are referring to as far as the car seat. I have only seen one picture of Lisa in a car seat, and she seemed large enough to be in a forward facing seat. I thought babies were supposed to be rear facing up to 20 pounds and then switched to the forward facing? It has been many years since I had an infant, but I seem to recall my kids were in the "toddler" type seats before they were one year.


Children should remain rear facing as long as possible, for a minimum of 1 year and 20 lbs. The AAP recommends 2 years old, but all carseats recommend rear facing until the maximum capabilities of the carseat. Most limits are now 35-45 rear facing.

iamnotagolem
02-29-2012, 11:01 PM
Thanks. I have never seen a rear facing car seat for a 2 year old. Didn't even know they made them. My granddaughter has been in a forward facing seat long before she turned 2 (she just turned 3) and nobody better say my daughter does not love her or is "too lazy" to care about her safety or whatever, or this grandma will get to scrappin'. ;) Just my opinion.

Most parents just aren't educated on carseat safety, which is a tragedy. Auto accidents are the leading cause of death in children, most of which are preventable by educating parents on proper carseat safety. :(

vlpate
02-29-2012, 11:03 PM
If that baby bed is the way it was when she went missing then it had been a long time since she slept there. She had been sleeping with mom and dad. No doubt in my mind.

Those are bumper pads around the crib....and they are so dangerous for a child her size.

Sparklin
02-29-2012, 11:06 PM
Why couldn't they take it out the back door that leads out the computer room onto the deck? Isn't that the door closest to Lisa's room? I'm still a little fuzzy on the layout of the house.

IIRC it came from the shed.

melissasmom
02-29-2012, 11:16 PM
Most parents just aren't educated on carseat safety, which is a tragedy. Auto accidents are the leading cause of death in children, most of which are preventable by educating parents on proper carseat safety. :(

I agree more people should be educated on car seat safety. However, if the forward facing seats are only supposed to be used for children ages 2+, why do they even make them? Mostof the forward facing that I looked at (yes, I did look) say "for children over 20 pounds" Technically, my almost 13 year old should be in a booster seat (he is not 4'9" yet) But do I make him use a booster? No, I don't. I think I stopped using a booster seat when he was maybe 7 or so. The new "guidelines" for cribs and infant sleeping say that you should put your baby to sleep with NOTHING-just the crib, mattress, and a sheet. No blanket, stuffed animal, nothing. How many people actually do this? I am not trying to make light of safety, but I would be interested in knowing how many people follow the guidelines that are continuously put out there and changed all the time. Are all these people (including me and many people I know) horrible parents? Are they stupid? Lazy? Anyone can cast judgements on what they think is bad parenting and pick everything apart. I personally, don't see anything wrong with that crib or the car seat that I saw. But that is just my opinion.

Sparklin
02-29-2012, 11:26 PM
link from SyraKelly post #72: Carpet
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/Dreamer636/lisaroom1bmp.jpg

link from vplate post #49: Same carpet
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/Dreamer636/lisafloor.jpg

hambirg
02-29-2012, 11:32 PM
As far as the search warrant. . .I spoke with a "friend" that is in the criminal justice system and he said that yes, it is not unheard of to have 2 search warrants served at the same time. He suggested that anything having to do with the phones might be better served under a Federal warrant, for example.

If the FBI did file one and was granted it be sealed. . .it would simply state the "file number-sealed". The example I was given was it would say 9-XXX sealed (I don't know how many actual numbers it would have. I was told "it would only say 9-123 sealed, for example."


As an aside, he said that it is even possible to ask that the filing be delayed. It is up to the judge to rule on that. As long as there is probable cause, the party it is served on is notified, it is specific enough in scope and the items seized are disclosed to the party. . .basically all the rules of a lawful search warrant. . .the judge can decide if enough cause is shown to grant the request.

vlpate
02-29-2012, 11:56 PM
link from SyraKelly post #72: Carpet
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/Dreamer636/lisaroom1bmp.jpg

link from vplate post #49: Same carpet
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/Dreamer636/lisafloor.jpg

Yes, I think we got past there being no carpet there - but this is a rug, and I wonder why there's a rug and why they felt the need to move a huge chest and the stackable storage there. As you can see from your own picture, there was only a swing before.

Ty :)

ETA: I still think they cut something out where the rug and the dresser are.

vlpate
03-01-2012, 12:10 AM
Thanks. I have never seen a rear facing car seat for a 2 year old. Didn't even know they made them. My granddaughter has been in a forward facing seat long before she turned 2 (she just turned 3) and nobody better say my daughter does not love her or is "too lazy" to care about her safety or whatever, or this grandma will get to scrappin'. ;) Just my opinion.

Me either! I drive my little pea (almost 3), around in a forward facing and I always have. 26 years ago, when my daughter was a baby, we didn't do that, so I just didn't know. The baby's mom has a forward facing too - I just sent her this information! I'm sure she just didn't know.

That's not a car seat in the bed, is it? That thing looks way too small for Lisa, whatever it is.

hambirg
03-01-2012, 12:31 AM
Yes, I think we got past there being no carpet there - but this is a rug, and I wonder why there's a rug and why they felt the need to move a huge chest and the stackable storage there. As you can see from your own picture, there was only a swing before.

Ty :)

ETA: I still think they cut something out where the rug and the dresser are.

Is this the rug you think you are seeing?

vlpate
03-01-2012, 12:53 AM
Is this the rug you think you are seeing?

I don't know, I don't see any specks in the other ones. This is a super clear picture though - makes you wonder why all the others of the room are so blurry.

iamnotagolem
03-01-2012, 01:57 AM
Lisa wasn't even one when she went missing so we can say for a fact that she was illegal in a forward facing car seat. So it's not even saying they aret safety conscience or educated. They were breaking the law and Putting Lisa at unnecessary risk.

I dont understand your forward facing question.

I honesty dont understand why most parents don't do everything they can to protect their children. You know your child's risk of dying in a car accident far exceeds the chanc elf them being shot by a gun but don't you teach your kids not to play with guns? Why not keep them protected in a car?

Eta: All "you's" general.

I just turned my kids rearfacing a couple of weeks ago b/c they outgrew the heightrestrictions of their car seats for rear facing. They are 2.5 and almost 4.

Google internal decapitation. If that doesn't scare you into rearfacing our babies I dont know what will. Some countries rearface until 4 y/o. I wish we could buy foreign car seats.

But I will leave the subject all now. I know it's way off topic. It just pains me to see parents who don't protect their kids.


I agree more people should be educated on car seat safety. However, if the forward facing seats are only supposed to be used for children ages 2+, why do they even make them? Mostof the forward facing that I looked at (yes, I did look) say "for children over 20 pounds" Technically, my almost 13 year old should be in a booster seat (he is not 4'9" yet) But do I make him use a booster? No, I don't. I think I stopped using a booster seat when he was maybe 7 or so. The new "guidelines" for cribs and infant sleeping say that you should put your baby to sleep with NOTHING-just the crib, mattress, and a sheet. No blanket, stuffed animal, nothing. How many people actually do this? I am not trying to make light of safety, but I would be interested in knowing how many people follow the guidelines that are continuously put out there and changed all the time. Are all these people (including me and many people I know) horrible parents? Are they stupid? Lazy? Anyone can cast judgements on what they think is bad parenting and pick everything apart. I personally, don't see anything wrong with that crib or the car seat that I saw. But that is just my opinion.

iamnotagolem
03-01-2012, 01:58 AM
One last thing. Children are 500% safer rearfacing.

vlpate
03-01-2012, 02:30 AM
Lisa wasn't even one when she went missing so we can say for a fact that she was illegal in a forward facing car seat. So it's not even saying they aret safety conscience or educated. They were breaking the law and Putting Lisa at unnecessary risk.

It's not illegal in Texas or Missouri not to have the infant in a rear facing car seat, just that a car seat is used. This is as of March 2012:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/childsafety_laws.html



Respectfully snipped. I never see anyone's kids in rear facing seats. If it's a law in your state the sight must be commonplace. I'm reading now where it is recommended, and that's good to know, thank you!

melissasmom
03-01-2012, 08:09 AM
It's not illegal in Texas or Missouri not to have the infant in a rear facing car seat, just that a car seat is used. This is as of March 2012:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/childsafety_laws.html



Respectfully snipped. I never see anyone's kids in rear facing seats. If it's a law in your state the sight must be commonplace. I'm reading now where it is recommended, and that's good to know, thank you!

Yes, it is good to know. My only "beef" with the whole car seat issue was the insinuation that DB/JI didn't care about Lisa or her safety because of the car seat thing. I strongly disagree with this characterization based on THAT. And that is it, as this subject is indeed o/t for this thread.

JMO

Melon
03-01-2012, 08:43 AM
As far as the search warrant. . .I spoke with a "friend" that is in the criminal justice system and he said that yes, it is not unheard of to have 2 search warrants served at the same time. He suggested that anything having to do with the phones might be better served under a Federal warrant, for example.

If the FBI did file one and was granted it be sealed. . .it would simply state the "file number-sealed". The example I was given was it would say 9-XXX sealed (I don't know how many actual numbers it would have. I was told "it would only say 9-123 sealed, for example."


As an aside, he said that it is even possible to ask that the filing be delayed. It is up to the judge to rule on that. As long as there is probable cause, the party it is served on is notified, it is specific enough in scope and the items seized are disclosed to the party. . .basically all the rules of a lawful search warrant. . .the judge can decide if enough cause is shown to grant the request.

The media cannot sensationalize that much, can they? *booming newscaster voice* "The week of the warrant there were x amount of federal warrants issued and sealed." */booming newscaster voice* You just can't make compelling news out of that information with no way to tie it back to BL.

A sealed federal warrant doesn't seem out of the realm of likely to me. If more than 7 items were taken, they had to go somewhere.

I spoke with someone who has executed hundreds of warrants and they said if the stuff was packaged as evidence, it would be taken. If for some reason, they decided they no longer needed those items (which would be highly unlikely in an open investigation, especially one like this) the owners would have to come pick them up from the department who served the warrant. *shrugs*

In da Middle
03-01-2012, 08:58 AM
As far as the search warrant. . .I spoke with a "friend" that is in the criminal justice system and he said that yes, it is not unheard of to have 2 search warrants served at the same time. He suggested that anything having to do with the phones might be better served under a Federal warrant, for example.

If the FBI did file one and was granted it be sealed. . .it would simply state the "file number-sealed". The example I was given was it would say 9-XXX sealed (I don't know how many actual numbers it would have. I was told "it would only say 9-123 sealed, for example."


As an aside, he said that it is even possible to ask that the filing be delayed. It is up to the judge to rule on that. As long as there is probable cause, the party it is served on is notified, it is specific enough in scope and the items seized are disclosed to the party. . .basically all the rules of a lawful search warrant. . .the judge can decide if enough cause is shown to grant the request.
By Federal law they can only be delayed for up to 10 days (link provided upstream). Even if the warrants were sealed, the filings would be public and they would be able to see the address and/or name of where it was served. I am pretty sure we have local reporters that would have sought out this info.

norest4thewicked
03-01-2012, 10:06 AM
I also don't understand why anyone would take chances with their baby not in a rear facing car seat when the data is out there that it is the safest way to travel for a little one. Too many babies die in car accidents that could have been prevented by them being in a rear facing seat or having the seat attached properly. I didn't give any "special instructions" to my two daughters that have my two little grand-babies and I know that they didn't take any special classes to find out that babies are supposed to stay in a rear facing car seat. They do it and so does every other person that I know who has little ones. I think that saying a person "just didn't know" is negligence. But, then again, we already know that DB was not known for her wonderful mothering skills. I'm sure that a lot of parents don't put their kids into rear facing car seats for as long as the federal guidelines suggest, but to me this is just taking unnecessary chances with your child's life.

highflyer
03-01-2012, 03:15 PM
I also don't understand why anyone would take chances with their baby not in a rear facing car seat when the data is out there that it is the safest way to travel for a little one. Too many babies die in car accidents that could have been prevented by them being in a rear facing seat or having the seat attached properly. I didn't give any "special instructions" to my two daughters that have my two little grand-babies and I know that they didn't take any special classes to find out that babies are supposed to stay in a rear facing car seat. They do it and so does every other person that I know who has little ones. I think that saying a person "just didn't know" is negligence. But, then again, we already know that DB was not known for her wonderful mothering skills. I'm sure that a lot of parents don't put their kids into rear facing car seats for as long as the federal guidelines suggest, but to me this is just taking unnecessary chances with your child's life.

And the carpeting?

vlpate
03-01-2012, 03:26 PM
I also don't understand why anyone would take chances with their baby not in a rear facing car seat when the data is out there that it is the safest way to travel for a little one. Too many babies die in car accidents that could have been prevented by them being in a rear facing seat or having the seat attached properly. I didn't give any "special instructions" to my two daughters that have my two little grand-babies and I know that they didn't take any special classes to find out that babies are supposed to stay in a rear facing car seat. They do it and so does every other person that I know who has little ones. I think that saying a person "just didn't know" is negligence. But, then again, we already know that DB was not known for her wonderful mothering skills. I'm sure that a lot of parents don't put their kids into rear facing car seats for as long as the federal guidelines suggest, but to me this is just taking unnecessary chances with your child's life.

This really bothers me - I swear, I did not get the memo about the rear facing car seat. When I bought mine for the 2 1/2 yr. old, I don't recall even seeing "rear-facing" on the instructions - and trust me, I had to read them thoroughly. Her mother straps the baby into the car seat in my car almost every time I go to pick the baby up, so I am really irritated she hasn't said anything. The thing is, I receive growth updates from one of the baby sites about once per month. I forward them to the mother because I know she doesn't research anything on her own, I'm anal about keeping up - I don't recall ever seeing anything about the car seat! The car seat in the mother's car has been forward facing as long as I can remember, but I can't say I am surprised....her baby is just an annoyance that interrupts her schedule three times a day to eat. I will be buying a new car seat before I pick the baby up again, and no doubt will need to buy one for her mother's car.

What I don't understand, this baby was a preemie, when the parents left the hospital they had to show the staff that they had a properly installed car seat, wonder why they didn't say anything then? It makes perfect sense after researching, why this is a requirement, I feel guilty for not having her in one this last year. Her other grandmother has a forward facing as well. I'm calling her now!

It's ok with me that this got off-topic, the information was worth it.

Back to topic now though....

If carpet was not cut out by the bed, why did they move the furniture there? Any ideas? Why is the picture of the baby's room, from Cindy Short's video, in black and white? IMO, there's something there.

beach
03-01-2012, 03:40 PM
Drop the front/rear facing carseat debate on this thread. Completely off topic.

I have strong feelings about it too, but I know it has NOTHING to do with WHY Lisa is missing. I also know others have strong feelings that oppose my own. Therefore, it serves no purpose to debate it here.

Talk about the carpet. Please and thank you. :)


Was the carpet removed from Lisa's room?

norest4thewicked
03-01-2012, 03:41 PM
<modsnip>

Back to topic now though....

If carpet was not cut out by the bed, why did they move the furniture there? Any ideas? Why is the picture of the baby's room, from Cindy Short's video, in black and white? IMO, there's something there.

<modsnip>

Back on topic. I agree with you that it does seem strange. But, often simple things seem really complicated. My guess would be that they moved everything out of the room for the luminol testing and then when they put it back in, they just put it wherever. Nothing nefarious here, but that's my take on it.

I have no clue why CS has a black and white video. It could be something as simple as the person operating the video camera was not familiar with it and it somehow was on the black and white setting accidentally. You can change color into black and white, but not black and white into color.

I generally lean toward the simplest scenarios...so that's just my thoughts on this.

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
03-01-2012, 04:01 PM
Per the B&W portion of the video, it seems to be the new "in thing" with some journalists too, especially when showing clips of the past (although that's not really the case here) but I think it was done as a wow factor by the camera operator more than anything. Just like a few years ago movies were shown in B&W with only colour being the reds. Was cool when it first came out in a movie about WWII if I remember correctly but soon became an over used technique. I'm guessing that's all this was for as well.

hambirg
03-01-2012, 05:52 PM
By Federal law they can only be delayed for up to 10 days (link provided upstream). Even if the warrants were sealed, the filings would be public and they would be able to see the address and/or name of where it was served. I am pretty sure we have local reporters that would have sought out this info.

BBM1

What can only be delayed for 10 days?

From Rule41.

(A) Warrant to Search for and Seize a Person or Property. Except for a tracking-device warrant, the warrant must identify the person or property to be searched, identify any person or property to be seized, and designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned. The warrant must command the officer to:

(i) execute the warrant within a specified time no longer than 14 days;. . . .

(3) Delayed Notice. Upon the government's request, a magistrate judge—or if authorized by Rule 41(b), a judge of a state court of record—may delay any notice required by this rule if the delay is authorized by statute.]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41


Link to a 2008 reporting of delayed-notice warrants and extensions:

The periods of delay specified ranged from 3 days to 365 days. The most frequently reported period of delay was 90 days. . .Extensions to the period of delay numbered from 1 to 21, with 1 being the most frequently reported number of extensions.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SneakAndPeakReport.pdf


BBM2

Not always the case:

In other cases the index may just be numerically arranged by a number the court assigns for each warrant.

Search warrants are not indexed according to the names of the people whose property is being searched or seized, which can make it difficult for a reporter to track down the files.

Thus you’ll often need to ask a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor for the search warrant file number, or for the date a search was approved by a judge and a description of what was searched, in order to dig the search warrant records out of the court clerk's files.
http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/police-records/search-warrants/


ETA- Now did the FBI do all that, idk. But they CAN. I would not be surprised if they had an early warrant for electronic surveillance of those phones. They can amend that warrant before it is executed or they can simply file for an additional one.

Back to the carpet. . .there are many things that LE can gather that don't have to be listed as inventory. . . fingerprints, blood, photographs (taken by LE), swabs, and fibers. So just because the entire carpet wasn't listed in the inventory does not suggest that there was no evidence related to it.

MOO

In da Middle
03-01-2012, 06:47 PM
Even IF a delay was granted, it would be a public filing of such action (see link below) and it is past the date for doing this. But yes, there are some things they can do with listing it on the inventory. The above (swabs, etc) do not involve taking items from the property. The carpet itself would have to be listed.
And even if some filings are "difficult" to find, a good reporter will take that challenge and a LOT of them have friends in the court clerks offices to help them out.
From the Cornell link quoted above (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41)
21070

DeAnn
03-01-2012, 07:15 PM
Even IF a delay was granted, it would be a public filing of such action (see link below) and it is past the date for doing this. But yes, there are some things they can do with listing it on the inventory. The above (swabs, etc) do not involve taking items from the property. The carpet itself would have to be listed.
And even if some filings are "difficult" to find, a good reporter will take that challenge and a LOT of them have friends in the court clerks offices to help them out.
From the Cornell link quoted above (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41)
21070

Several Kansas City news organizations literally were making daily if not twice daily trips to the Clay County courthouse in Liberty to physically look for any search warrant applications or search warrant returns in the Lisa Irwin case. This went on for weeks.

You can look through casenet yourself for search warrants. It's not easy and it's best to know a property description. I did it daily for weeks when my friend was murdered. But if have the motivation you can do it from your home.

But ultimately it's best to go physically to the courthouse and as In Da Middle said have sources.

Plus there were news organizations in town such as Inside Edition and People who were willing quite openly to pay for information. I'd eat my purse if there were a hidden state warrant. I won't say no to FBI because I don't know enough about that system but I have a hard time believing that wouldn't have leaked to a local or national reporter or blogger.

A lot of things have been leaked that haven't been made public and it wasn't always by the defense team. Some things can be checked out. (for example, DB on surveillance video.) Some can't. And some things can't be said publicly because law enforcement fears it will compromise their investigation.

hambirg
03-01-2012, 11:37 PM
Even IF a delay was granted, it would be a public filing of such action (see link below) and it is past the date for doing this. But yes, there are some things they can do with listing it on the inventory. The above (swabs, etc) do not involve taking items from the property. The carpet itself would have to be listed.
And even if some filings are "difficult" to find, a good reporter will take that challenge and a LOT of them have friends in the court clerks offices to help them out.
From the Cornell link quoted above (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41)
21070

Again. . .if it was sealed a federal warrant may not say anything other than. . 9-xxx-sealed.

How would the media know if they weren't given the file number or what day it was granted, and what would they have to report if the warrant is sealed?

"Breaking news! The feds filed sealed warrant #9-xxx!"

We don't know what happened, but we do know the FBI was present and actively participating in the search that day per their spokesperson. We also know that there were lots of items tagged and bagged leaving that house. There are only 7 items listed on the non-sealed KCPD warrant inventory. What do you suggest is the case with all those other items? KCPD and the FBI seized them illegally? They just forgot to list them in the inventory? They tagged and bagged all that stuff only to turn around and put it back?

I don't believe any of those. JMHO.

MOO and all that.

hambirg
03-01-2012, 11:59 PM
Several Kansas City news organizations literally were making daily if not twice daily trips to the Clay County courthouse in Liberty to physically look for any search warrant applications or search warrant returns in the Lisa Irwin case. This went on for weeks.

You can look through casenet yourself for search warrants. It's not easy and it's best to know a property description. I did it daily for weeks when my friend was murdered. But if have the motivation you can do it from your home.

But ultimately it's best to go physically to the courthouse and as In Da Middle said have sources.

Plus there were news organizations in town such as Inside Edition and People who were willing quite openly to pay for information. I'd eat my purse if there were a hidden state warrant. I won't say no to FBI because I don't know enough about that system but I have a hard time believing that wouldn't have leaked to a local or national reporter or blogger.

A lot of things have been leaked that haven't been made public and it wasn't always by the defense team. Some things can be checked out. (for example, DB on surveillance video.) Some can't. And some things can't be said publicly because law enforcement fears it will compromise their investigation.


District court is in Wyandotte county. A federal warrant would be filed there.

How would you account for all of those things that left the house that day?

ETA- the point is, the argument is that only those things listed on that specific warrant were the things seized. That simply can't be stated as fact. My "friend" said it is not uncommon at all to have multiple warrants executed on the same day. . .even by the same agency. Just as a hypothetical. If LE had an informant say they saw a deceased BL laying on the floor in her room, LE could seek a warrant specifically for her room or the carpet and ask to have it sealed to protect the informant's identity. The judge has the authority to grant that. Then LE discovers something else, let's say the dog hit in the bedroom, so they seek another warrant on the rest of the house and grounds, cars etc. The judge grants the warrant, but doesn't find cause to seal it. Hypothetical I know, but not impossible and from the sounds of it, not that unheard of.

vlpate
03-02-2012, 12:04 AM
Several Kansas City news organizations literally were making daily if not twice daily trips to the Clay County courthouse in Liberty to physically look for any search warrant applications or search warrant returns in the Lisa Irwin case. This went on for weeks.

You can look through casenet yourself for search warrants. It's not easy and it's best to know a property description. I did it daily for weeks when my friend was murdered. But if have the motivation you can do it from your home.

But ultimately it's best to go physically to the courthouse and as In Da Middle said have sources.

Plus there were news organizations in town such as Inside Edition and People who were willing quite openly to pay for information. I'd eat my purse if there were a hidden state warrant. I won't say no to FBI because I don't know enough about that system but I have a hard time believing that wouldn't have leaked to a local or national reporter or blogger.

A lot of things have been leaked that haven't been made public and it wasn't always by the defense team. Some things can be checked out. (for example, DB on surveillance video.) Some can't. And some things can't be said publicly because law enforcement fears it will compromise their investigation.

Entire Search Warrant files can be sealed, including the application and affidavit. Partial SW files can be sealed as well if there's an ongoing investigation or if revealing those pages would reveal sources, etc. They were taking things out of the house before the SW, I don't know where one would find a list for those things.

Would you happen to know who went into the house first to do their tour during the weekend of 10/22-10/23, Peter Alexander or Cindy Short?

DeAnn
03-02-2012, 12:13 AM
District court is in Wyandotte county. A federal warrant would be filed there.

How would you account for all of those things that left the house that day?

I'm sorry but what?! Wyandotte County is in Kansas. Specifically, Kansas City, Kan. Why would a case in which a girl goes missing from her Kansas City MO, home be filed in Kansas????

I can't imagine under any circumstances a search for a residence in Missouri would be filed in Kansas.

Which day? That's very important in this case.

hambirg
03-02-2012, 12:21 AM
I'm sorry but what?! Wyandotte County is in Kansas. Specifically, Kansas City, Kan. Why would a case in which a girl goes missing from her Kansas City MO, home be filed in Kansas????

I can't imagine under any circumstances a search for a residence in Missouri would be filed in Kansas.

Which day? That's very important in this case.

:doh:

You're right. It's in Jackson County. I'm not local and Googled. I'm not sure why it gave me the Wyandotte County address. The federal district court is in Jackson County. Sorry.

We don't know which day. . .that's kind of the point. I suspect there could have been a federal warrant very early on because of the phones. Any thing having to do with those phones would fall under federal jurisdiction. I suspect that LE believes a crime was committed involving those phones.

DeAnn
03-02-2012, 12:21 AM
Entire Search Warrant files can be sealed, including the application and affidavit.

I know and have dealt with returns being sealed. I have never ever heard of an application being sealed in Missouri. Because it's frustrating to know there's a search warrant there but you can't get your hands on it.

Do you have any specific details to share to back up that search warrant applications can be sealed in Missouri? I know returns can be sealed. That's not my question.

DeAnn
03-02-2012, 12:23 AM
:doh:

You're right. It's in Jackson County. I'm not local and Googled. I'm not sure why it gave me the Wyandotte County address. The federal district court is in Jackson County. Sorry.

We don't know which day. . .that's kind of the point. I suspect there could have been a federal warrant very early on because of the phones. Any thing having to do with those phones would fall under federal jurisdiction. I suspect that they believe a crime was committed involving those phones.

A federal warrant for phones is completely different than a search warrant for physical property or in this specific case a residence. And I thought the supposition on this thread was there was a secret federal search warrant for the residence as opposed to any ole federal search warrant for the phones or whatever.

hambirg
03-02-2012, 12:31 AM
A federal warrant for phones is completely different than a search warrant for physical property or in this specific case a residence. And I thought the supposition on this thread was there was a secret federal search warrant for the residence as opposed to any ole federal search warrant for the phones or whatever.

There's no hard and fast rule of law that says the physical property can't be included on the SW with the phones. A crime involving the phones could include a search on the property. As long as it follows the federal laws to search and seizure, the judge is free to grant it as he sees fit.

ETA-We know vice was there that day. Why?

RANCH
03-02-2012, 12:34 AM
:doh:

You're right. It's in Jackson County. I'm not local and Googled. I'm not sure why it gave me the Wyandotte County address. The federal district court is in Jackson County. Sorry.

We don't know which day. . .that's kind of the point. I suspect there could have been a federal warrant very early on because of the phones. Any thing having to do with those phones would fall under federal jurisdiction. I suspect that LE believes a crime was committed involving those phones.

BBM.
Does this mean that only Federal LE agency's can get search warrants in regards to phones? I would hope that local LE could get the same information or wire taps as the Feds.

highflyer
03-02-2012, 12:36 AM
There's no hard and fast rule of law that says the physical property can't be included on the SW with the phones. A crime involving the phones could include a search on the property. As long as it follows the federal laws to search and seizure, the judge is free to grant it as he sees fit.

ETA-We know vice was there that day. Why?

Good question. I've wondered that too.

DeAnn
03-02-2012, 12:45 AM
There's no hard and fast rule of law that says the physical property can't be included on the SW with the phones. A crime involving the phones could include a search on the property. As long as it follows the federal laws to search and seizure, the judge is free to grant it as he sees fit.

ETA-We know vice was there that day. Why?

Because there was a baby missing and literally hundreds of officers were involved in the search for her?

I don't know. Why were homicide detectives there? Why were assault squad detectives there? I could go on and on. There were a lot of officers there those first days. They weren't undercover officers that much is for sure.

I do know that there was grousing about all the resources being put into finding a missing white baby when some African-American leaders complained about why similar resources weren't put to solve black on black crime in the inner city. That was a simmering issue that first week when an unprecedented amount of officers, FBI agents and KCFD folks were swarming the Northland for a single missing baby. Upwards of 500 officers were involved. Let me repeat. 500. There were jokes that if you wanted to commit a crime south of the river that that was the time to do it because no one was around to investigate.

Someone can start a thread on why was vice there that day and the speculation can begin. But the lead detectives remain crimes against children.

But here's my question...if the feds executed a search warrant on the home, why are Picerno and Tacopina going out of their way repeatedly to praise the FBI's handling of this case???

RANCH
03-02-2012, 12:45 AM
[/B]
Good question. I've wondered that too.

Are you talking about the one LE officer who was seen wearing a "vice" T-shirt? I just thought that she was there to help search and that was her only Police shirt. If an officer had a "Bomb Squad" T-shirt on during a search, would it mean they were looking for a bomb?

askfornina
03-02-2012, 12:50 AM
There's no hard and fast rule of law that says the physical property can't be included on the SW with the phones. A crime involving the phones could include a search on the property. As long as it follows the federal laws to search and seizure, the judge is free to grant it as he sees fit.

ETA-We know vice was there that day. Why?

BBM. Here is a quote re: VICE. http://www.kmbc.com/r-video/29386705/detail.html

At about :27 into this video from Oct 4th, SY says "Right now we're getting help from FBI, the ATF, the Marshal's office, ICE, Clay County. Uh, we have all of our narcotics and VICE division out here...<snipped>...So we are just expanding and doing everything we can."

DeAnn
03-02-2012, 12:59 AM
BBM. Here is a quote re: VICE. http://www.kmbc.com/r-video/29386705/detail.html

At about :27 into this video from Oct 4th, SY says "Right now we're getting help from FBI, the ATF, the Marshal's office, ICE, Clay County. Uh, we have all of our narcotics and VICE division out here...<snipped>...So we are just expanding and doing everything we can."

Thank you. I had forgotten about the Clay County Sheriff's Office involvement.

500 officers. Not just vice. Homicide, you name it. They threw everything out that they could to find Lisa who has just disappeared into the night.

hambirg
03-02-2012, 01:01 AM
BBM.
Does this mean that only Federal LE agency's can get search warrants in regards to phones? I would hope that local LE could get the same information or wire taps as the Feds.

I'm not sure how it applies to local LE. I guess it would depend on the state statutes. What I do know that a crime involving cell phones can fall under Federal Jurisdiction.

Here's an interesting article that explains it well, better than I can in this limited space. . . .

The presence of "interstate commerce" is thought to render the crime at issue a federal crime - since under the Constitution, the involvement of "interstate commerce" gives Congress a right to legislate.

But what counts as "interstate commerce"? In the federal murder-for-hire statute, interstate travel and interstate commerce - which can merely be the use of the mail, or a telephone - can both count.

. . .. For it ensures that the mere act of picking up a phone (and cellphones count), or dropping a letter in one's own mailbox, can transform an alleged state crime into an alleged federal crime.

The breadth of the statute's reach has inevitably led to some strange scenarios for the courts. The Fifth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit, for instance, both had to consider whether an intrastate call could still count as interstate commerce for the purpose of the federal murder-for-hire statute.

The Fifth Circuit decision simply said yes.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20031015.html

It's a really good read. It even speaks to the fact that you can be tried both on the state level and federal level without invoking double jeopardy. :what:

highflyer
03-02-2012, 01:07 AM
Are you talking about the one LE officer who was seen wearing a "vice" T-shirt? I just thought that she was there to help search and that was her only Police shirt. If an officer had a "Bomb Squad" T-shirt on during a search, would it mean they were looking for a bomb?

Yes, that is who I was referring to. And yes simple minded fool that I am, would think that a bomb squad t-shirted individual was either looking for a bomb or explosives.

highflyer
03-02-2012, 01:09 AM
Because there was a baby missing and literally hundreds of officers were involved in the search for her?

I don't know. Why were homicide detectives there? Why were assault squad detectives there? I could go on and on. There were a lot of officers there those first days. They weren't undercover officers that much is for sure.

I do know that there was grousing about all the resources being put into finding a missing white baby when some African-American leaders complained about why similar resources weren't put to solve black on black crime in the inner city. That was a simmering issue that first week when an unprecedented amount of officers, FBI agents and KCFD folks were swarming the Northland for a single missing baby. Upwards of 500 officers were involved. Let me repeat. 500. There were jokes that if you wanted to commit a crime south of the river that that was the time to do it because no one was around to investigate.

Someone can start a thread on why was vice there that day and the speculation can begin. But the lead detectives remain crimes against children.

But here's my question...if the feds executed a search warrant on the home, why are Picerno and Tacopina going out of their way repeatedly to praise the FBI's handling of this case???

What was so exciting was to see the inter agency cooperation and teamwork.

hambirg
03-02-2012, 01:15 AM
Thank you. I had forgotten about the Clay County Sheriff's Office involvement.

500 officers. Not just vice. Homicide, you name it. They threw everything out that they could to find Lisa who has just disappeared into the night.

Then don't you think it's safe to assume, with all those resources thrown at this case, that there would be a SW for electronic surveillance of those phones that went missing with the baby? That would have been really foolish if there wasn't. Imagine if those phones would have started pinging a few days late in Puerto Rico!

RANCH
03-02-2012, 01:21 AM
I'm not sure how it applies to local LE. I guess it would depend on the state statutes. What I do know that a crime involving cell phones can fall under Federal Jurisdiction.

Here's an interesting article that explains it well, better than I can in this limited space. . . .

The presence of "interstate commerce" is thought to render the crime at issue a federal crime - since under the Constitution, the involvement of "interstate commerce" gives Congress a right to legislate.

But what counts as "interstate commerce"? In the federal murder-for-hire statute, interstate travel and interstate commerce - which can merely be the use of the mail, or a telephone - can both count.

. . .. For it ensures that the mere act of picking up a phone (and cellphones count), or dropping a letter in one's own mailbox, can transform an alleged state crime into an alleged federal crime.

The breadth of the statute's reach has inevitably led to some strange scenarios for the courts. The Fifth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit, for instance, both had to consider whether an intrastate call could still count as interstate commerce for the purpose of the federal murder-for-hire statute.

The Fifth Circuit decision simply said yes.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20031015.html

It's a really good read. It even speaks to the fact that you can be tried both on the state level and federal level without invoking double jeopardy. :what:
Thanks for the info. I'm sure that KCPD can get search warrants for phone records and phone taps when necessary. I'm not so sure why the FBI would have their own secret warrants and investigation aside of the local police.

vlpate
03-02-2012, 01:26 AM
Because there was a baby missing and literally hundreds of officers were involved in the search for her?

I don't know. Why were homicide detectives there? Why were assault squad detectives there? I could go on and on. There were a lot of officers there those first days. They weren't undercover officers that much is for sure.

I do know that there was grousing about all the resources being put into finding a missing white baby when some African-American leaders complained about why similar resources weren't put to solve black on black crime in the inner city. That was a simmering issue that first week when an unprecedented amount of officers, FBI agents and KCFD folks were swarming the Northland for a single missing baby. Upwards of 500 officers were involved. Let me repeat. 500. There were jokes that if you wanted to commit a crime south of the river that that was the time to do it because no one was around to investigate.

Someone can start a thread on why was vice there that day and the speculation can begin. But the lead detectives remain crimes against children.

But here's my question...if the feds executed a search warrant on the home, why are Picerno and Tacopina going out of their way repeatedly to praise the FBI's handling of this case???

BEM: How does black on black crime compare to a helpless, missing 10 month old baby?

BEM 2: Are you saying they would be upset if the FBI executed a search warrant?

vlpate
03-02-2012, 01:44 AM
Thanks for the info. I'm sure that KCPD can get search warrants for phone records and phone taps when necessary. I'm not so sure why the FBI would have their own secret warrants and investigation aside of the local police.

I don't think anyone suggested there was a "secret" warrant or investigation going on by the FBI aside from the police.

The FBI is involved because this is an alleged kidnapping. We are just trying to figure out if it would be possible for there to be other search warrants not made public yet. The reason we're trying to figure that out is because I started this thread to discuss whether or not carpeting might have been removed from beside the baby's bed.

Now I'm trying to figure out if there was a rug under the bed with hardwood beneath it?

vlpate
03-02-2012, 01:49 AM
I'm not sure how it applies to local LE. I guess it would depend on the state statutes. What I do know that a crime involving cell phones can fall under Federal Jurisdiction.

Here's an interesting article that explains it well, better than I can in this limited space. . . .

The presence of "interstate commerce" is thought to render the crime at issue a federal crime - since under the Constitution, the involvement of "interstate commerce" gives Congress a right to legislate.

But what counts as "interstate commerce"? In the federal murder-for-hire statute, interstate travel and interstate commerce - which can merely be the use of the mail, or a telephone - can both count.

. . .. For it ensures that the mere act of picking up a phone (and cellphones count), or dropping a letter in one's own mailbox, can transform an alleged state crime into an alleged federal crime.

The breadth of the statute's reach has inevitably led to some strange scenarios for the courts. The Fifth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit, for instance, both had to consider whether an intrastate call could still count as interstate commerce for the purpose of the federal murder-for-hire statute.

The Fifth Circuit decision simply said yes.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20031015.html

It's a really good read. It even speaks to the fact that you can be tried both on the state level and federal level without invoking double jeopardy. :what:

Very interesting, I wish the Feds would try KCA :please: (j/k)

askfornina
03-02-2012, 02:02 AM
Now I'm trying to figure out if there was a rug under the bed with hardwood beneath it?

respectfully snipped by me.

That is what it looks like to me. Chocolate brown rug with hardwood underneath.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-17-hour-search-family-home/story?id=14779537#.T1Bwpnn7mOd

:22 seconds into the third video on the sidebar.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/NinaRoses/screenshotcrib2.png

highflyer
03-02-2012, 02:16 AM
Very interesting, I wish the Feds would try KCA :please: (j/k)

What is kca?

highflyer
03-02-2012, 02:58 AM
What is kca?

bump.....

askfornina
03-02-2012, 03:02 AM
bump.....

Casey Anthony.

vlpate
03-02-2012, 03:05 AM
bump.....

Sorry, working with the Internet connection from hades. TY Nina ;)

vlpate
03-02-2012, 03:07 AM
respectfully snipped by me.

That is what it looks like to me. Chocolate brown rug with hardwood underneath.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-17-hour-search-family-home/story?id=14779537#.T1Bwpnn7mOd

:22 seconds into the third video on the sidebar.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/NinaRoses/screenshotcrib2.png

Makes you wonder why in the world they would cover this floor up in the bedroom - maybe they didn't have hardwood there.

Which room is this:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=21060&d=1330579853

askfornina
03-02-2012, 03:15 AM
Judging by the hallway and the blueish gray color of the walls, that is the boys room. Same color as the boys room in the house tours. Looks like the man is standing in the spot I have circled on this floorplan:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/NinaRoses/floorplan-1.jpg

twall
03-02-2012, 04:24 AM
I agree with askfornina, it is the boys bedroom. As for why they would cover it up-all (3) of our bedrooms have hardwood floors and I have area rugs in my kids rooms because like most kids do, as shown in the picture of the boys, they like to play on the floor and I didn't want them playing on a cold hard floor so I put down a rug. It is also easier to keep clean, I was very thankful for the hard floors the other night when my 7yo dd woke up with the stomach bug, leaned over the edge of her bed and vomited, much easier to clean up and she missed the rug!
IMO Lisa's br has hardwood floors and an area rug as shown in the video and photos on Amanda's photobucket and no carpet was taken from her room by LE.

eileenhawkeye
03-02-2012, 06:24 AM
Because there was a baby missing and literally hundreds of officers were involved in the search for her?

I don't know. Why were homicide detectives there? Why were assault squad detectives there? I could go on and on. There were a lot of officers there those first days. They weren't undercover officers that much is for sure.

I do know that there was grousing about all the resources being put into finding a missing white baby when some African-American leaders complained about why similar resources weren't put to solve black on black crime in the inner city. That was a simmering issue that first week when an unprecedented amount of officers, FBI agents and KCFD folks were swarming the Northland for a single missing baby. Upwards of 500 officers were involved. Let me repeat. 500. There were jokes that if you wanted to commit a crime south of the river that that was the time to do it because no one was around to investigate.

Someone can start a thread on why was vice there that day and the speculation can begin. But the lead detectives remain crimes against children.

But here's my question...if the feds executed a search warrant on the home, why are Picerno and Tacopina going out of their way repeatedly to praise the FBI's handling of this case???

How does 500 compare to other high-profile missing person cases? I did some searching and found that was the same number of officers who searched for Jessica Lunsford.

vlpate
03-02-2012, 02:29 PM
Judging by the hallway and the blueish gray color of the walls, that is the boys room. Same color as the boys room in the house tours. Looks like the man is standing in the spot I have circled on this floorplan:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/NinaRoses/floorplan-1.jpg

Does this house not have bathrooms? I've thought maybe DB did give Lisa a bath, and maybe she was so drunk she left her in the tub and she drowned. It sure seems like I remember her saying that very early on but haven't been able to find it.

Is there a bathroom off the parent's bedroom?

redheadedgal
03-02-2012, 02:56 PM
Does this house not have bathrooms? I've thought maybe DB did give Lisa a bath, and maybe she was so drunk she left her in the tub and she drowned. It sure seems like I remember her saying that very early on but haven't been able to find it.


according to the HM, one of the earliest version was there was a bath given... i couldn't find a msm link either... but look under "what did deborah do while jeremy was at work"

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/10/18/lisa-irwin-case-version-4-0-1-a-lawyer-still-no-baby/

vlpate
03-02-2012, 03:55 PM
according to the HM, one of the earliest version was there was a bath given... i couldn't find a msm link either... but look under "what did deborah do while jeremy was at work"

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/10/18/lisa-irwin-case-version-4-0-1-a-lawyer-still-no-baby/

I know I heard it early on - and I also remember this from your link:

Did anybody hear anything?
No.
No, and Deborah had a baby monitor in the room with her.
No, but Deborah’s bedroom is all the way on the other side of the house and she sleeps with the fan on high.

First of all- Deborah's bedroom? Secondly - Other side of the house? The master is next to the baby's room.

vlpate
03-02-2012, 05:17 PM
On the 19th the police were seen with a carpet - and it looks very dark to me. I don't think it is the rug from that room because it looks too big - but then I don't do measurements well and the rug in her room covered a pretty large area. Anyone?

Cindy short calls it a "rolled up rug".
http://www.christianpost.com/news/missing-baby-lisa-irwin-clashes-between-cops-attorneys-a-preview-of-heated-legal-battle-59548/
CS: ""It was interesting to watch the activity outside of this house when they were conducting the search. There were so many crime scene people that were seen outside, and seen coming in and out of this house…carrying a rolled up rug," Short said. "It really gave the impression that there was a lot going to be removed from this house."
________
I have a tiny screen, can anyone see the color of the rug? Looks dark brown to me.

Here's a better look at the rolled up carpet from crankycrankerson's site:

This carpet looks much too stiff to have been sitting around in a shed for any length of time. We used to save carpets when charging a resident and after a while, they start to become very pliable and limp.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Lisa%20Irwin%20%20-MO-/th_101911carpet.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Lisa%20Irwin%20%20-MO-/?action=view&current=101911carpet.jpg)

norest4thewicked
03-02-2012, 05:39 PM
On the 19th the police were seen with a carpet - and it looks very dark to me. I don't think it is the rug from that room because it looks too big - but then I don't do measurements well and the rug in her room covered a pretty large area. Anyone?

Cindy short calls it a "rolled up rug".
http://www.christianpost.com/news/missing-baby-lisa-irwin-clashes-between-cops-attorneys-a-preview-of-heated-legal-battle-59548/
CS: ""It was interesting to watch the activity outside of this house when they were conducting the search. There were so many crime scene people that were seen outside, and seen coming in and out of this house…carrying a rolled up rug," Short said. "It really gave the impression that there was a lot going to be removed from this house."
________
I have a tiny screen, can anyone see the color of the rug? Looks dark brown to me.

Here's a better look at the rolled up carpet from crankycrankerson's site:

This carpet looks much too stiff to have been sitting around in a shed for any length of time. We used to save carpets when charging a resident and after a while, they start to become very pliable and limp.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Lisa%20Irwin%20%20-MO-/th_101911carpet.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Lisa%20Irwin%20%20-MO-/?action=view&current=101911carpet.jpg)

It looks dark brown to me.

redheadedgal
03-02-2012, 06:00 PM
It looks dark brown to me.


i think it's the same beige as in "deborah's" bedroom

http://james-boylan.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/0e7eb_abc_baby_lisa_carpet_nt_111020_wg.jpg

norest4thewicked
03-02-2012, 06:03 PM
i think it's the same beige as in "deborah's" bedroom

http://james-boylan.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/0e7eb_abc_baby_lisa_carpet_nt_111020_wg.jpg

Are you looking at the inside where it is rolled up or the outside? It looks beige on the outside, but dark brown to me on the inside.

redheadedgal
03-02-2012, 06:13 PM
um, inside :D

it does not look like dirt or chocolate to me...

norest4thewicked
03-02-2012, 06:27 PM
um, inside :D

it does not look like dirt or chocolate to me...

I think you are right. I was just looking at the smaller photo, and I enlarged it like 10 x and it does look like a beige carpet...

Sparklin
03-02-2012, 06:42 PM
I know I heard it early on - and I also remember this from your link:

Did anybody hear anything?
No.
No, and Deborah had a baby monitor in the room with her.
No, but Deborah’s bedroom is all the way on the other side of the house and she sleeps with the fan on high.

First of all- Deborah's bedroom? Secondly - Other side of the house? The master is next to the baby's room.

I think they meant with the window in the computer room.

vlpate
03-02-2012, 07:26 PM
I think they meant with the window in the computer room.

Then what significance would there be to the baby monitor?

SmoothOperator
03-03-2012, 04:28 AM
There were so many crime scene people that were seen outside, and seen coming in and out of this house…carrying a rolled up rug," Short said. "It really gave the impression that there was a lot going to be removed from this house."
According to an affidavit regarding the search, a cadaver dog searching for evidence "indicated a positive 'hit' for the scent of a deceased human" next to her mother's bed. Questions have arisen about the accuracy of the scent dogs.

Short pointed out in her walk-through of the house that the carpeting in Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin's room was intact.

"The number one thing in walking through this room and having an opportunity to look at it that stood out to me, is that the carpet has not been collected. There are no swatches of the carpet taken out," Short said. "There's no evidence of where in the world this dog was supposed to have alerted."

Video footage had previously showed investigators carrying a rolled up carpet out of the home, but Short said the carpet had been sitting in the garage and while searchers did look at it, they did not ultimately take it with them from the house.
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/tag/baby-lisa

The carpet that was in question..seen on video during sw..the carpet that in the end just like every other fiber of carpet in/around the Irwin home WAS NOT COLLECTED BY LE..

hambirg
03-03-2012, 03:52 PM
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/tag/baby-lisa

The carpet that was in question..seen on video during sw..the carpet that in the end just like every other fiber of carpet in/around the Irwin home WAS NOT COLLECTED BY LE..

I disagree. They may not have taken the carpet, but they most definitely took fibers. Why did they vacuum it if not? And what did they do with what was collected in the vacuum bag? Were they just being nice and doing a little housekeeping? I doubt it. Interestingly enough that article does say that the FBI was searching that day.

The family moved out of the house after the disappearance, and the home became the site of multiple police and FBI searches that included cadaver dogs and agents in hazmat suits.
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/tag/baby-lisa

twall
03-03-2012, 04:38 PM
Does this house not have bathrooms? I've thought maybe DB did give Lisa a bath, and maybe she was so drunk she left her in the tub and she drowned. It sure seems like I remember her saying that very early on but haven't been able to find it.

Is there a bathroom off the parent's bedroom?

Floor plan thread, final diagrams towards end of thread.

FLOOR-PLAN of Baby Lisa Irwin's home likelihood of this being stranger abduction - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

norest4thewicked
03-03-2012, 04:59 PM
I disagree. They may not have taken the carpet, but they most definitely took fibers. Why did they vacuum it if not? And what did they do with what was collected in the vacuum bag? Were they just being nice and doing a little housekeeping? I doubt it. Interestingly enough that article does say that the FBI was searching that day.

The family moved out of the house after the disappearance, and the home became the site of multiple police and FBI searches that included cadaver dogs and agents in hazmat suits.
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/tag/baby-lisa

Oh yes, you can definitely believe that LE took fibers. No doubt about that.

Jacie Estes
03-04-2012, 01:38 PM
Just curious....

Why would Short, Tacopina and Picerno make such a big issue about no carpet being removed if it was? Why would they specifically criticize this and risk police firing back either officially on the record or off the record that carpet was removed?

Police have scoffed at the "poopy" diaper theory, why would they not scoff at the no carpet removed?

Why would they take carpet and not the crib? (not taking the crib has drawn criticism of police)

Regarding search warrants in Missouri, the search warrant returns are public record unless a judge seals them. In this case, police sought to have the return sealed and the request was denied.

However, if a search warrant IS sealed the media doesn't know what is in the sealed document but they know the document was sealed. I could give you examples if you really, really want them.

I don't know about federal search warrants but the FBI has been assisting. The lead investigative agency is KCPD. And Clay County prosecutor is the one who will decide if and when to file charges. I have never heard anyone suggest that this would be a case for a U.S. Attorney's Office. I'm not an attorney but interjecting an FBI search warrant at the house (as opposed to out of state or for something else) could create jurisdictional issues and chain of custody issues if/when charges are filed in connection with Lisa's disappearance.

Any evidence removed would have to be kept in a chain of custody; if not the risk of evidence thrown out will have an impact at trial. Who is the big dog here? KCMOPD. They take the lead and they are the agency to remove evidence; some of the evidence may be sent to FBI labs or Quantico but it all has to go through the KCMOPD entity.

hambirg
03-04-2012, 07:02 PM
Any evidence removed would have to be kept in a chain of custody; if not the risk of evidence thrown out will have an impact at trial. Who is the big dog here? KCMOPD. They take the lead and they are the agency to remove evidence; some of the evidence may be sent to FBI labs or Quantico but it all has to go through the KCMOPD entity.

We don't know that. Chain of custody is passed from Federal to State and vice versus in gun/firearms cases quite often. The prosecutor will have to decide at some point where the accused will be tried. Federal charges usually carry a stiffer penalty. But sometimes the prosecutor will use that in a plea agreement. . .ie. . agree to charge on the state level if the defendant agrees to plead guilty. The agencies work together and the evidence would pass from one chain of command to the other at the appropriate time, when jurisdiction is determined.

There could be evidence kept within the federal chain of command, especially anything involving those phones. There is no hard and fast rule that that evidence can't be properly passed to state officials if need be. Like I said, it happens all the time in drug and firearms cases.

askfornina
03-08-2012, 07:45 AM
Screenshot from second video on sidebar:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-irwin-infants-brothers-submit-dna/story?id=14817602#.T1iqGXn7mOd

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/NinaRoses/lisafloorscreenshot.png

hambirg
03-08-2012, 09:10 AM
Thanks Askfornina!

I think that might be Lisa's room in the pic with the boys. . .possibly before she was born (?) Or at least it looks like the same set-up, wood floors with a thin, dark rug over it.

DeAnn
03-08-2012, 01:12 PM
some of the evidence may be sent to FBI labs or Quantico but it all has to go through the KCMOPD entity.

Some of the evidence was sent to Quantico for analysis and review.

I would also guess (Criminal Minds is one of my favorite shows) that their profilers, analysts etc have analyzed the 911 call, interviews etc etc etc.

vlpate
03-08-2012, 01:57 PM
Screenshot from second video on sidebar:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-irwin-infants-brothers-submit-dna/story?id=14817602#.T1iqGXn7mOd

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/NinaRoses/lisafloorscreenshot.png

All of the stuff on the side of the bed, the plastic tubs and the little car seat or whatever it is, are the items that were previously in the crib.

I'm convinced this is the large rug that was carried outside during the search warrant search. I think they took fibers or maybe cut a piece out of it for testing.

We don't know where else, if anywhere else, the dogs hit.

vlpate
03-08-2012, 02:01 PM
Just curious....

Why would Short, Tacopina and Picerno make such a big issue about no carpet being removed if it was? Why would they specifically criticize this and risk police firing back either officially on the record or off the record that carpet was removed?

Respectfully snipped


I know I answered a lot of this before, but go back and watch the video of Short in the house. She points out ONLY the carpet in the master - she says nothing about the baby's room. She references LE taking out a "rug". She corrected herself later and said carpet. The "rug" reference was during an interview outside of the house.

vlpate
03-08-2012, 02:07 PM
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/tag/baby-lisa

The carpet that was in question..seen on video during sw..the carpet that in the end just like every other fiber of carpet in/around the Irwin home WAS NOT COLLECTED BY LE..


BEM: We can't possibly know that. There's not a list of fibers taken, and you can be sure fibers were taken. All that has to be listed on the return are items that may be returned to the owner - it's like a receipt. Carpet fibers would not be listed anymore than hair and fibers from other sources.

vlpate
03-08-2012, 02:12 PM
Thanks Askfornina!

I think that might be Lisa's room in the pic with the boys. . .possibly before she was born (?) Or at least it looks like the same set-up, wood floors with a thin, dark rug over it.

I'm fairly sure that's the boy's room. When Peter Alexander walks into Lisa's room her closet is to his right and her room is in the middle of the hallway. This room is to the right of either the computer room or the kitchen, IIRC. The intruder would have passed their room first if he/she came in through the computer room window.

redheadedgal
03-08-2012, 07:47 PM
I'm convinced this is the large rug that was carried outside during the search warrant search. I think they took fibers or maybe cut a piece out of it for testing.


this rug looks pretty thin though and if it were rolled up it would appear much thinner imo than the one seen during the search... plus the other one appeared lighter in color to me...

wasn't it reported the rug from the search came from the garage/shed out back? does anyone have that link handy?

do you think this one used to be in her room, but after the night of the 3rd/4th it was put in the shed then put back in lisa's room later on?

RANCH
03-08-2012, 08:38 PM
this rug looks pretty thin though and if it were rolled up it would appear much thinner imo than the one seen during the search... plus the other one appeared lighter in color to me...

wasn't it reported the rug from the search came from the garage/shed out back? does anyone have that link handy?

do you think this one used to be in her room, but after the night of the 3rd/4th it was put in the shed then put back in lisa's room later on?
From what I can find, it appears that Cyndy Short is the source saying that the rolled up carpet seen outside of the house came from the shed. I'm not sure why she would lie about that fact but everyone can put their own take on her truthfulness.

"The carpet that was paraded in and out that we were allowed to see actually came from the shed at the back of the house, and it was not inside the house at all. There is no carpeting that was removed from any portion of the house," said Short.


http://www.kctv5.com/story/15788106/local-attorney-we-might-not-get-the-happy-ending-that-we-want

redheadedgal
03-08-2012, 08:53 PM
The search was conducted Wednesday and police left with several items, including a large portion of carpet.


has anyone seen this reported before? first i've read of it...


http://news.yahoo.com/baby-lisa-irwin-surveillance-footage-mystery-man-115216718.html

RANCH
03-08-2012, 09:09 PM
The search was conducted Wednesday and police left with several items, including a large portion of carpet.


has anyone seen this reported before? first i've read of it...


http://news.yahoo.com/baby-lisa-irwin-surveillance-footage-mystery-man-115216718.html

That's the first time I've seen that reported. I wonder if they were referring to the carpet that was brought out front and then returned to the back. That's the only "large" portion of carpet that we know was handled by LE.

redheadedgal
03-08-2012, 09:31 PM
it's possible the reporter got it wrong (i wonder where yahoo got the report from?)... but it does say LE "left" with it... like it was put into a vehicle... but the large rolled up carpet/rug was seen being put back in the back which is totally opposite of "left with it"...

hambirg
03-08-2012, 10:34 PM
I guess the short answer is we don't know. If KCPD left with it, it would be on the inventory. But the FBI could have left with it too. OR neither left with the rug. But they could have taken evidence off of it. . .swabs, fibers or samples from it. I was just reading about how they can actually lift blood stains from carpeting and leave the carpet, so the technology is there.

hambirg
03-08-2012, 10:36 PM
From what I can find, it appears that Cyndy Short is the source saying that the rolled up carpet seen outside of the house came from the shed. I'm not sure why she would lie about that fact but everyone can put their own take on her truthfulness.




http://www.kctv5.com/story/15788106/local-attorney-we-might-not-get-the-happy-ending-that-we-want

Sorry, but really? :rolleyes:

RANCH
03-08-2012, 10:44 PM
Sorry, but really? :rolleyes:

I wrote that because I don't know why she would lie about something that LE could easily rebut without disclosing any information that could compromise their investigation.

Feel free to state why you believe Cyndy Short lied about the roll of carpet coming from the shed and not from inside the house.

hambirg
03-08-2012, 10:56 PM
I wrote that because I don't know why she would lie about something that LE could easily rebut without disclosing any information that could compromise their investigation.

Feel free to state why you believe Cyndy Short lied about the roll of carpet coming from the shed and not from inside the house.

It's not that I know she lied, or that it was a bold faced lie, but surely somebody could understand why she would spin in the direction of defending her clients. That is what she was hired for.

The only reason I can think of, is the same reason JT does it, to create reasonable doubt in a potential jury pool.

We all know just because she says the roll came from the shed, doesn't mean it wasn't in the house first. .. it's a not an out and out lie. It's arguing your point. . . eh. .. it's an untruth. LOL!

That's the way I see it. She may be being totally honest, but a defense attorney is going to not lie by thinking we can't reason what they are saying sometimes. They can say. . ."My client did not shoot the victim!" And they wouldn't be lying if their client stabbed the victim to death. It's kinda like politics. ;)
MOO

ETA-when Short goes into the bedroom and says LE didn't take the carpet and lifts a piece of it, what she hopes we are buying is that there must have been no evidence on the carpet. My answer to Ms.Short is that there could be hundreds of luminol photos, LE could have taken swabs, lifted blood stains. LE took fibers, and they could have even snipped of bit of the carpet. She's selling false logic. .. and some people might buy it, but not me. MOO

RANCH
03-08-2012, 11:13 PM
It's not that I know she lied, or that it was a bold faced lie, but surely somebody could understand why she would spin in the direction of defending her clients. That is what she was hired for.

The only reason I can think of, is the same reason JT does it, to create reasonable doubt in a potential jury pool.

We all know just because she says the roll came from the shed, doesn't mean it wasn't in the house first. .. it's a not an out and out lie. It's arguing your point. . . eh. .. it's an untruth. LOL!

That's the way I see it. She may be being totally honest, but a defense attorney is going to not lie by thinking we can't reason what they are saying sometimes. They can say. . ."My client did not shoot the victim!" And they wouldn't be lying if their client stabbed the victim to death. It's kinda like politics. ;)
MOO

Thanks for your reply.
So Cyndy either told the truth or put some lawyer spin on it. If it was spin, she gambled that LE wouldn't call her on it.

I imagine that LE isn't worried about a potential jury at this point or spin like this by lawyers would be addressed by them.

vlpate
03-08-2012, 11:44 PM
Thanks for your reply.
So Cyndy either told the truth or put some lawyer spin on it. If it was spin, she gambled that LE wouldn't call her on it.

I imagine that LE isn't worried about a potential jury at this point or spin like this by lawyers would be addressed by them.

I don't believe I have ever seen LE address DT spin in the media directly to the spinners (DT). They could have taken carpet from the shed that we didn't see. There are many ways to lie by omission and side-step the truth.

Picerno said on one of the morning shows that the area the blob came out of backed up to the Irwin home. Absolute nonsense, far from it. Spin or lie? I'm sure, if asked, he would simply say he was mixed up....or misinformed.

vlpate
03-09-2012, 12:11 AM
The search was conducted Wednesday and police left with several items, including a large portion of carpet.


has anyone seen this reported before? first i've read of it...


http://news.yahoo.com/baby-lisa-irwin-surveillance-footage-mystery-man-115216718.html

Even more interesting, IMO, is this from your link:

"On Friday, cadavar dogs had a "positive hit" at the foot of their bed. But last night, the rug was still there, in tact.

_______
BEM: What rug?

hambirg
03-09-2012, 12:12 AM
Thanks for your reply.
So Cyndy either told the truth or put some lawyer spin on it. If it was spin, she gambled that LE wouldn't call her on it.

I imagine that LE isn't worried about a potential jury at this point or spin like this by lawyers would be addressed by them.

Yes, she knows LE isn't going to call her on it, just like JT knows they aren't going to call him on the LDT nonsese. LE is only concerned about one thing. . .finding Lisa and presenting a case to the prosecutor so that he/she can nail the perp. OK make that two things. It's all going to come out in the wash if there is a trial.

Think about this! How does Cindy Short know about the carpet? She wasn't there. She's not on the LE team that was there. There was a no-fly zone and I believe that LE had the street barricaded off. She doesn't know any more about that search than you and I do. Maybe JI or DB told her the carpet was in the shed, but she doesn't really know that. For all we know, she was in her office, or at home, or in Africa when LE was going over that house with a fine tooth comb for 17 hrs. :what:

But she sure talks like she was right there working along side the FBI , doesn't she? She gives us a premise. . the carpet is still here. . .and then she wants us to follow her conclusion,. . so that means there was no evidence. But it doesn't work that way. There are a gazillion different conclusions based on that premise. She hopes we are stoooopid and just follow right along.

vlpate
03-09-2012, 12:17 AM
this rug looks pretty thin though and if it were rolled up it would appear much thinner imo than the one seen during the search... plus the other one appeared lighter in color to me...

wasn't it reported the rug from the search came from the garage/shed out back? does anyone have that link handy?

do you think this one used to be in her room, but after the night of the 3rd/4th it was put in the shed then put back in lisa's room later on?

Ok, having a hair-brained Lucy moment here, and your statement above gave me the idea.

I've never seen a rug at the foot of the bed, or even beside the bed in the master bedroom. What IF Lisa did drown - DB grabs her from the tub, lays her on one of those flimsy bathroom rugs and carries her into the bedroom where she has more room to try and revive her, and she can't. Of course I have nothing after this point, but she would have left the rug, never dreaming a dog would hit on it. JMHBT (just my hair brained theory)

RANCH
03-09-2012, 12:27 AM
Yes, she knows LE isn't going to call her on it, just like JT knows they aren't goiong to call him on the LDT nonsese. LE is only concerned about one thing. . .finding Lisa and presenting a case to the prosecutor so that he/she can nail the perp. OK make that two things.

Think about this! How does Cindy Short know about the carpet? She wasn't there. She's not on the LE team that was there. There was a no-fly zone and I believe that LE had the street barricaded off. She doesn't know any more about that search than you and I do. Maybe JI or DB told her the carpet was in the shed, but she doesn't really know that. For all we know, she was in her office, or at home, or in Africa when LE was going over that house with a fine tooth comb for 17 hrs. :what:

Your right. Cyndy was probably lying/spinning/conniving with JI/DB about the carpet coming from the shed. I just wish that LE would not allow the jury pool to be contaminated and stop these lawyers from putting out unverified information.

LE could easily put out a press release saying that the roll of carpet seen on video came from inside the house and not the shed. Why they would allow this disinformation to be public and contaminate potential jurors is beyond me.

hambirg
03-09-2012, 12:38 AM
Your right. Cyndy was probably lying/spinning/conniving with JI/DB about the carpet coming from the shed. I just wish that LE would not allow the jury pool to be contaminated and stop these lawyers from putting out unverified information.

LE could easily put out a press release saying that the roll of carpet seen on video came from inside the house and not the shed. Why they would allow this disinformation to be public and contaminate potential jurors is beyond me.

They care less about the jury pool then they do about showing their hand to the defense.

The jury pool is a wild card. . .they could get an excellent jury. But they know that whatever they let the defense know. . .the defense will be diligently working to rebut. JMHO

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
03-09-2012, 12:46 AM
Am I the only one that remembers the aerial coverage and the reporter saying they were carrying what appeared to be a roll of carpet from the shed that day, before they were asked to pull the choppers back so they could bring in the k9s? Maybe it's my senility kicking in though. :D

RANCH
03-09-2012, 12:53 AM
They care less about the jury pool then they do about showing their hand to the defense.

The jury pool is a wild card. . .they could get an excellent jury. But they know that whatever they let the defense know. . .the defense will be diligently working to rebut. JMHO
I'm talking about the spin that the lawyers put out to the media that a potential jury would take as fact. LE can stop the spin about were that roll of carpet came from without tipping their hand to any defense lawyer. Why don't they?

hambirg
03-09-2012, 12:55 AM
Am I the only one that remembers the aerial coverage and the reporter saying they were carrying what appeared to be a roll of carpet from the shed that day, before they were asked to pull the choppers back so they could bring in the k9s? Maybe it's my senility kicking in though. :D

Link?

I certainly don't remember that. Not saying you are not right. But it really means very little. . the carpet still could have came from inside the house.. . .from the house. . .to the shed. . .to the driveway. Unless LE or the FBI that was investigating that day, leak that it was never inside the house, than it could have still come from inside the house.

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
03-09-2012, 12:58 AM
Link?

I certainly don't remember that. Not saying you are not right. But it really means very little. . the carpet still could have came from inside the house.. . .from the house. . .to the shed. . .to the driveway. Unless LE or the FBI that was investigating that day, leak that it was never inside the house, than it could have still come from inside the house.

It was live footage, I'm not sure there would be a link.

hambirg
03-09-2012, 12:59 AM
I'm talking about the spin that the lawyers put out to the media that a potential jury would take as fact. LE can stop the spin about were that roll of carpet came from without tipping their hand to any defense lawyer. Why don't they?

How would they do that? If LE says the carpet came from inside the house, how is that not going to tip the defense? Now the defense comes up with some story that DB thought she heard something from inside the house at 8:30pm. If LE allows the defense to believe that the carpet came from inside the shed. .. the defense isn't prepared to rebut that. A jury is going to find it totally bizarre that DB only remembered hearing something inside the house. . what? . .6 months later.

RANCH
03-09-2012, 01:09 AM
How would they do that? If LE says the carpet came from inside the house, how is that not going to tip the defense? Now the defense comes up with some story that DB thought she heard something from inside the house at 8:30pm. If LE allows the defense to believe that the carpet came from inside the shed. .. the defense isn't prepared to rebut that. A jury is going to find it totally bizarre that DB only remembered hearing something inside the house. . what? . .6 months later.

Your losing me. If Cyndy Short says that the roll of carpet came from the shed when it really was inside of the house, how does LE acknowledging that it was inside the house help the defense?

hambirg
03-09-2012, 01:31 AM
Your losing me. If Cyndy Short says that the roll of carpet came from the shed when it really was inside of the house, how does LE acknowledging that it was inside the house help the defense?

Because it allows the defense to come up with an explanation.

Just like they did after they learned about the dog hit. The timeline changed at that point.

DB says she saw an alive BL at 10:30pm.

Dogs hits in house in bedroom.

It makes no sense that a SODDI would take a deceased BL into the bedroom where DB says she was sleeping from 10:30pm on.

So DB says she doesn't remember if she checked on BL at 10:30pm

New timeline is BL alive at 6:40pm :doh:


See how that works? Action, reaction. Statement. . . rebuttal.

If LE doesn't let the defense know what they know, then the defense will have to build their case around some false assumptions.

Take Jersey for example. We can all agree that he is not a boy scout. He has a long rap sheet. Neighbors didn't trust him. He was around that neighborhood for some time. Bad guy.

Once LE took him into custody NOBODY has been able to get to him. Good. The defense can build their whole defense around this creepy guy as the SODDI. He's a defense attorney's wet dream.

Flash forward to a trial.

Prosecution is vague during their opening.

Defense opens with all the stuff pointing at Jersey.

Prosecution counters with a tape of Jersey in an emergency room all night. OR he was incarcerated in the neighboring town's drunk tank.

Defense is screwed.

Prosecution rests. Prosecutor's wet dream. ;)

End of story,

RANCH
03-09-2012, 01:41 AM
Because it allows the defense to come up with an explanation.

Just like they did after they learned about the dog hit. The timeline changed at that point.

DB says she saw an alive BL at 10:30pm.

Dogs hits in house in bedroom.

It makes no sense that a SODDI would take a deceased BL into the bedroom where DB says she was sleeping from 10:30pm on.

So DB says she doesn't remember if she checked on BL at 10:30pm

New timeline is BL alive at 6:40pm :doh:


See how that works? Action, reaction. Statement. . . rebuttal.

If LE doesn't let the defense know what they know, then the defense will have to build their case around some false assumptions.

Take Jersey for example. We can all agree that he is not a boy scout. He has a long rap sheet. Neighbors didn't trust him. He was around that neighborhood for some time. Bad guy.

Once LE took him into custody NOBODY has been able to get to him. Good. The defense can build their whole defense around this creepy guy as the SODDI. He's a defense attorney's wet dream.

Flash forward to a trial.

Prosecution is vague during their opening.

Defense opens with all the stuff pointing at Jersey.

Prosecution counters with a tape of Jersey in an emergency room all night. OR he was incarcerated in the neighboring town's drunk tank.

Defense is screwed.

Prosecution rests. Prosecutor's wet dream. ;)

End of story,

I have to commend you on a nice well thought out post that covers a lot of ground.

However I still don't see where Cyndy Short saying that the carpet came from the shed out back vs inside the house is addressed.

Why can't LE state that the roll of carpet came from inside of the house if that's where it originated from?

I don't see how releasing that fact could hurt their investigation or possible prosecution.

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
03-09-2012, 01:43 AM
If the parents are charged with a crime, anything the prosecution brings in has to be given to the defense ahead of trial anyway, so not sure why them holding that info back now would affect a trial.

RANCH
03-09-2012, 01:55 AM
If the parents are charged with a crime, anything the prosecution brings in has to be given to the defense ahead of trial anyway, so not sure why them holding that info back now would affect a trial.

I know what you mean Dewey. But specifically in regards to the roll of carpet seen being brought outside by LE, obviously JI/DB know were it was found. And in turn so did their lawyers. And so did LE when they picked it up and carried it outside.

The only ones who are unsure of it's location when picked up by LE and brought outside for the cameras is us the public. And the potential jury pool.

vlpate
03-09-2012, 01:59 AM
If the parents are charged with a crime, anything the prosecution brings in has to be given to the defense ahead of trial anyway, so not sure why them holding that info back now would affect a trial.

LE may be looking for JI or DB to do something, go to a location, you never know, but they wouldn't want to tip either of them off. IMO anyway.

hambirg
03-09-2012, 02:09 AM
I have to commend you on a nice well thought out post that covers a lot of ground.

However I still don't see where Cyndy Short saying that the carpet came from the shed out back vs inside the house is addressed.

Why can't LE state that the roll of carpet came from inside of the house if that's where it originated from?

I don't see how releasing that fact could hurt their investigation or possible prosecution.

Well, let's try what I did above.

Cyndy Short spins the story that the carpet came from the shed (remember she wasn't there.. . she doesn't know anymore than you and I know.

LE Counters with the carpet came from. . .eh. . pick one. . .DB's bedroom.

Defense comes with since DB was drinking that night, she forgot to tell us that she went to SB's house. She doesn't know if some SODDI snuck in at 7:50pm. . cause she wasn't really on the stoop! :what:

Blech. . .problem for LE

Now if LE keeps their mouth shut and doesn't say that the carpet came from the bedroom. . then the defense doesn't explain it with some "new" revelation. Their story is that the carpet came from the shed.

MOO. .. and all that.

4Jacy
03-09-2012, 02:09 AM
LE may be looking for JI or DB to do something, go to a location, you never know, but they wouldn't want to tip either of them off. IMO anyway.

BBM

LE may be looking for them to do that but dollars to donuts they never will. If they are responsible they would be scared out of their wits to do that. Of course, just my opinion.

vlpate
03-09-2012, 02:13 AM
I have to commend you on a nice well thought out post that covers a lot of ground.

However I still don't see where Cyndy Short saying that the carpet came from the shed out back vs inside the house is addressed.

Why can't LE state that the roll of carpet came from inside of the house if that's where it originated from?

I don't see how releasing that fact could hurt their investigation or possible prosecution.

They just don't go on TV and spar with Defense teams. If they disputed everything the DT said that was spin or just incorrect, it would start to sound petty and not very professional - then it would really be tried in the court of public opinion. Deann has asked them to confirm or deny certain things and they will not.

Why wouldn't they correct the DT on their assertion that there are three credible witnesses/sightings of Lisa. I think they've probably figured out who all three are but they are under no obligation to call the DT on it. LE has never put out a plea for the public to come forward if they know who the blob is. They likely know.

Same old story, different missing baby.

hambirg
03-09-2012, 02:14 AM
If the parents are charged with a crime, anything the prosecution brings in has to be given to the defense ahead of trial anyway, so not sure why them holding that info back now would affect a trial.

It has to come out in discovery, but it seriously hampers the DT in their spinning of the story for a potential jury pool. .. .let alone they might be caught in some lies and have to back track and eat their words. ;)

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
03-09-2012, 02:15 AM
Well, let's try what I did above.

Cyndy Short spins the story that the carpet came from the shed (remember she wasn't there.. . she doesn't know anymore than you and I know.

LE Counters with the carpet came from. . .eh. . pick one. . .DB's bedroom.

Defense comes with since DB was drinking that night, she forgot to tell us that she went to SB's house. She doesn't know if some SODDI snuck in at 7:50pm. . cause she wasn't really on the stoop! :what:

Blech. . .problem for LE

Now if LE keeps their mouth shut and doesn't say that the carpet came from the bedroom. . then the defense doesn't explain it with some "new" revelation. Their story is that the carpet came from the shed.

MOO. .. and all that.

BBM: Now I'm even more confused :blushing: So DB says I went over to SB's and a perp snuck in and removed the rug to a different room or to the shed? :what:

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
03-09-2012, 02:17 AM
It has to come out in discovery, but it seriously hampers the DT in their spinning of the story for a potential jury pool. .. .let along they might be caught in some lies and have to back track and eat their words. ;)

ITA: Which is why I can't see them lying to the public now about the rugs / carpeting.

hambirg
03-09-2012, 02:18 AM
I know what you mean Dewey. But specifically in regards to the roll of carpet seen being brought outside by LE, obviously JI/DB know were it was found. And in turn so did their lawyers. And so did LE when they picked it up and carried it outside.

The only ones who are unsure of it's location when picked up by LE and brought outside for the cameras is us the public. And the potential jury pool.

You better believe JI and Db know where that carpet came from. .. just like they knew about whether that dog hit was valid or not. ;)

The question is what is their "story: to justify it.

We know with the dog hit, they changed their timeline. What does that tell you? If they were innocent and thought the dog hit was invalid. . they wouldn't have changed the timeline. . but they did. They know the hit is valid. :D

hambirg
03-09-2012, 02:23 AM
BBM: Now I'm even more confused :blushing: So DB says I went over to SB's and a perp snuck in and removed the rug to a different room or to the shed? :what:

No. DB explains how a SODDI could have took a deceased BL into her bedroom without her knowing. Just like she described how the SODDI couldn't have brought a deceased BL into her bedroom while she was sleeping there at 10:30pm. She's changes her story. ;)

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
03-09-2012, 02:25 AM
You better believe JI and Db know where that carpet came from. .. just like they knew about whether that dog hit was valid or not. ;)

The question is what is their "story: to justify it.

We know with the dog hit, they changed their timeline. What does that tell you? If they were innocent and thought the dog hit was invalid. . they wouldn't have changed the timeline. . but they did. They know the hit is valid. :D

BBM: The onus is on LE / prosecution to justify the hit, not DB, JI or the DT, it's the Prosecutions "evidence" they are the ones who will have to prove the dog hit was legit by backing it up with more solid evidence.

hambirg
03-09-2012, 02:31 AM
ITA: Which is why I can't see them lying to the public now about the rugs / carpeting.

They have already been caught in many lies. . like DB saw BL at 10:30pm. .. like it was a "normal" night where DB fed, bathed changed and put Lisa to bed. She has changed all of that. . .the spin is that she is NOW coming clean. She has nothing to hide.

My response to that is that a parent who's baby is missing and has nothing to hide, doesn't change their story. They tell the truth the first time. . .and they keep telling it however many times they need to. They are on the steps of the police station everyday saying. .. help me find my baby. .. this is what I know. Have you learned anything new? I lay awake at night knowing that there must be something else I have forgotten.

An innocent parent NEVER says I have already told you everything.. . NEVER!!!! They are laying awake at night racking their brains trying to come up with anything new they can remember. There surely must be something they have overlooked. It's NEVER over. EVER.

MOO

hambirg
03-09-2012, 02:33 AM
BBM: The onus is on LE / prosecution to justify the hit, not DB, JI or the DT, it's the Prosecutions "evidence" they are the ones who will have to prove the dog hit was legit by backing it up with more solid evidence.

Do they want to find their baby or not?

An innocent parent would be horrified by a cadaver dog hit. It would imply their precious child is dead. Their attitude isn't. . .well prove it.

I can guarantee you, if my child was stolen out of their crib in the middle of the night and LE told me they got a cadaver dog hit in my house. I would be afraid to be there. I would be a mess. I would probably not even fathom how I could possibly go on. My reaction wouldn't be to say. .did you verify that with another dog?

Dewey2Me1MoThyme
03-09-2012, 02:36 AM
Do they want to find their baby or not?

An innocent parent would be horrified by a cadaver dog hit. It would imply their precious child is dead. Their attitude isn't. . .well prove it.

I didn't realize this thread was about their attitude, I thought it was about where the carpet came from? I'm calling it a night.

4Jacy
03-09-2012, 02:37 AM
They just don't go on TV and spar with Defense teams. If they disputed everything the DT said that was spin or just incorrect, it would start to sound petty and not very professional - then it would really be tried in the court of public opinion. Deann has asked them to confirm or deny certain things and they will not.

Why wouldn't they correct the DT on their assertion that there are three credible witnesses/sightings of Lisa. I think they've probably figured out who all three are but they are under no obligation to call the DT on it. LE has never put out a plea for the public to come forward if they know who the blob is. They likely know.

Same old story, different missing baby.

BBM

Yes, sadly we go down this road again.

RANCH
03-09-2012, 02:38 AM
Well, let's try what I did above.

Cyndy Short spins the story that the carpet came from the shed (remember she wasn't there.. . she doesn't know anymore than you and I know.

LE Counters with the carpet came from. . .eh. . pick one. . .DB's bedroom.

Defense comes with since DB was drinking that night, she forgot to tell us that she went to SB's house. She doesn't know if some SODDI snuck in at 7:50pm. . cause she wasn't really on the stoop! :what:

Blech. . .problem for LE

Now if LE keeps their mouth shut and doesn't say that the carpet came from the bedroom. . then the defense doesn't explain it with some "new" revelation. Their story is that the carpet came from the shed.

MOO. .. and all that.


Why would LE have to say the carpet came from a specific room to counter the spin from Cyndy?

When LE stays quite about this, it makes me believe it's true.

I can't believe that LE is so inept, to let the potential jury believe it to be factual when they knew it to be false.

vlpate
03-09-2012, 03:02 AM
[/B]

BBM

LE may be looking for them to do that but dollars to donuts they never will. If they are responsible they would be scared out of their wits to do that. Of course, just my opinion.

There was a case a while back where a woman called police and said she had been hit in the head by someone when her car was out of gas or something - anyway, they found her baby dead on the side of the road. Seemed to everyone they had her dead to rights, but they waited months to arrest her - do you know which case I am talking about? It was a very interesting case, but I can't remember the names.

hambirg
03-09-2012, 03:14 AM
Why would LE have to say the carpet came from a specific room to counter the spin from Cyndy?

When LE stays quite about this, it makes me believe it's true.

I can't believe that LE is so inept, to let the potential jury believe it to be factual when they knew it to be false.

BBM1

I find that pretty offensive. I would bet my last pay check that LE has had this case solved since early on. They KNOW what happened. Now it is just a matter of naming the perp and putting together a strong enough case to get a conviction.

LE doesn't have to worry about a jury pool. If the jury follows instructions and the law, they should base their decision on the evidence that is presented in court. Only the defense team is worried about a jury pool. .. and especially if their clients are guilty, because they wouldn't want it to come down to the evidence in court, would they?

LE doesn't owe anybody an explanation. They don't have to tell any of us ANYTHING. They can save it all for the judge and jury. They are going to conduct their investigation on their own terms. They have more resources than anybody else. They know more than any of us. Why on gawd's green earth would LE feel inclined to try anything in the court of public opinion?

hambirg
03-09-2012, 03:18 AM
I didn't realize this thread was about their attitude, I thought it was about where the carpet came from? I'm calling it a night.

Cyndy Short doesn't have a clue where the carpet came from, because she wasn't there. LE doesn't have to tell us where the carpet came from and I believe they won't until there is a trial.

Nite.:D

4Jacy
03-09-2012, 03:19 AM
They have already been caught in many lies. . like DB saw BL at 10:30pm. .. like it was a "normal" night where DB fed, bathed changed and put Lisa to bed. She has changed all of that. . .the spin is that she is NOW coming clean. She has nothing to hide.

My response to that is that a parent who's baby is missing and has nothing to hide, doesn't change their story. They tell the truth the first time. . .and they keep telling it however many times they need to. They are on the steps of the police station everyday saying. .. help me find my baby. .. this is what I know. Have you learned anything new? I lay awake at night knowing that there must be something else I have forgotten.

An innocent parent NEVER says I have already told you everything.. . NEVER!!!! They are laying awake at night racking their brains trying to come up with anything new they can remember. There surely must be something they have overlooked. It's NEVER over. EVER.

MOO

:goodpost:

BBM

Thank you, my thoughts exactly!!

RANCH
03-09-2012, 03:36 AM
BBM1

I find that pretty offensive. I would bet my last pay check that LE has had this case solved since early on. They KNOW what happened. Now it is just a matter of naming the perp and putting together a strong enough case to get a conviction.

LE doesn't have to worry about a jury pool. If the jury follows instructions and the law, they should base their decision on the evidence that is presented in court. Only the defense team is worried about a jury pool. .. and especially if their clients are guilty, because they wouldn't want it to come down to the evidence in court, would they?

LE doesn't owe anybody an explanation. They don't have to tell any of us ANYTHING. They can save it all for the judge and jury. They are going to conduct their investigation on their own terms. They have more resources than anybody else. They know more than any of us. Why on gawd's green earth would LE feel inclined to try anything in the court of public opinion?
I apologize for posting something that you find offensive. That was not my intention. I would like to respond to some of your thoughts but perhaps later would be better as I don't care to have a conflict with you.

cityslick
03-09-2012, 08:58 AM
You better believe JI and Db know where that carpet came from. .. just like they knew about whether that dog hit was valid or not. ;)

The question is what is their "story: to justify it.

We know with the dog hit, they changed their timeline. What does that tell you? If they were innocent and thought the dog hit was invalid. . they wouldn't have changed the timeline. . but they did. They know the hit is valid. :D

DB has told anyone that will listen that she thinks the child is still alive. Therefore, to the public, she has dismissed the dog hit. She obviously does not attribute the dog hit to BL because the dog hit is not proof of a dead BL.

Sparklin
03-09-2012, 09:35 AM
The search was conducted Wednesday and police left with several items, including a large portion of carpet.


has anyone seen this reported before? first i've read of it...


http://news.yahoo.com/baby-lisa-irwin-surveillance-footage-mystery-man-115216718.html

I've inquired as to whether YAHOO is acceptable MSM here except with the one (name eludes me) reporter. I haven' seen that info in any other MSM so I'm discounting it altogether until verified by a reliable source :)

nursebeeme
03-09-2012, 09:41 AM
Link?

I certainly don't remember that. Not saying you are not right. But it really means very little. . the carpet still could have came from inside the house.. . .from the house. . .to the shed. . .to the driveway. Unless LE or the FBI that was investigating that day, leak that it was never inside the house, than it could have still come from inside the house.

it was live coverage. (no link)

I remember it as well.