1409 users online (317 members and 1092 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 88 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1316
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,182

    Police say parents are not answering vital questions #3

    Please continue here.

    The parents of missing toddler Lisa Irwin haven't submitted to an interview with detectives for the last 10 days to answer questions about things "they might only know," police said today.

    The 11-month-old girl vanished from her crib Oct. 3. Police have not named any suspects in the girl's disappearance, but the story of mother Deborah Bradley has altered somewhat and she has admitted to being drunk that night, possibly even blacking out.

    Kansas City Police Capt. Steve Young expressed some frustration today with Bradley and the girl's father, Jeremy Irwin.

    "The last time that the mom and dad sat down with detectives to answer questions about things they might only know was Oct. 8," Young told ABCNews.com.

    "And that time, and previous times, there came a point when Deborah became uncomfortable and stopped the questioning," Young said.

    Young conceded that the parents have spoken with detectives since Oct. 8, but only to clarify information about tips that have come in.

    "We strongly believe that that parent's cooperation and involvement is critical [in finding Lisa]," Young said.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-parents-dodge-questions-police/story?id=14760706

    PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE FROM OUR MOD ADNOID and apply it to your posting. Please don't attack others for their opinions.

    ~Respectfully snipped w/minor editing changes and some highlighting by me~
    Quote Originally Posted by adnoid View Post
    I have never understood the concept of being afraid to voice an opinion, especially here on a discussion board. I cannot answer for all boards as this is the only crime discussion board I'm a member of where I'm also privy to the behind the scenes stuff, but I can state categorically that nobody has ever been banned from posting here based on their opinion. People certainly HAVE been banned for the manner in which they express themselves, and we will continue to do that no matter what side they pick, if any. If you come on here and call the members who disagree with you a mob of koolaid-drinking sheep who just want to be in the majority, and when told to not do it you respond that you have the absolute right to post that way because you are right and everyone else is wrong, you're going to get the boot and your point of view has nothing to do with it.

    From a logical standpoint the number of people that hold a particular view is totally irrelevant to the process used to substantiate that view. With that in mind, if someone were to come on here and try to argue that [JI/DB are] innocent because [Baby Lisa] never existed and was just a figment of everyone's imagination, they would be immediately challenged with the ample evidence of [Lisa]'s existence. So that fact that a post is challenged does not automatically mean that the challenge is invalid. Nor does it mean the theory posted is invalid.

    In my professional life I live in a world where, on a regular basis, people from outside come in to look at my work and question what I am doing, so I am used to justifying my decisions and actions without taking offense. I'm not an attorney, but I've paid a few attorney bills in my time and I understand the adversarial system - you've got to either be able to back up your position to the trier of fact OR convince your opponent that they will not prevail if they push it if you think can't back it up. Like poker. The same thing works here on the board - if you feel strongly about your position, post it and defend it. You may be right.

    The moderators here are not in a position to pad the world's corners for the meek. We are all known here only by a random name we have chosen unless we chose to reveal more about ourselves. Anyone here can take a position they feel is true and back it up with facts and passion as long as the TOS is followed - which in general is that you give others the respect that you would expect to receive.

    People leave this board every day. People join this board every day. There are lots of crime discussion sites out there, and if someone feels they can only express themselves through profanity, belittling and insult there are lots of places where they can do that. I'm sure there are boards out there somewhere that support [JI/DB] and remove people that do not - I remember that situation vividly with the Scott Peterson case where I was, in fact, removed from a couple of boards for stating that I felt Scott was guilty.

    There are a lot of people posting here who have been touched by crime. Some talk about it openly, some I just know about from private conversations. This board is biased, and it's no secret - it's in the mission statement. We are here for the victims, the innocents, the ones who have been hurt by the evil that is criminal behavior. The anger you will see expressed on these pages against players such as criminal defense attorneys is based on the knowledge that, in our system, they can consider their day a success if an individual that actually committed the criminal acts with which they have been charged is found "not guilty" because they can pick apart the efforts of the police. But that's how our system works, and if I was ever unjustly accused I'd want to be afforded the best opportunity possible to clear my name.

    I hold my fellow posters in very high esteem. It pains me when they attack each other. I don't care if they attack me, I'm tough and I can take it. But before anyone launches an insult at a fellow poster, realize what that really means - it means you don't think you are able to argue your point, so maybe you would be better served reflecting on your position and the weaknesses in it.
    Thanks,

    Salem

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    582
    Brought from other thread: In response to Salem asking about the rolled-up rug and the bedroom carpet:

    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    Thanks - I wasn't aware of that. I don't have time at the moment, but later I'll do some checking. It seems there was something about the hit on the carpet in the bedroom but I can't remember at the moment. I have that problem sometimes

    Salem
    There may be more, but here is what we know about the carpet, based on facts and not speculation:

    A rolled up rug was taken out of the garage. It was visible to the media. I don't believe anything was done to it (I may be wrong - there was talk about the possibility that LE let the HRD dog sniff it). It was then returned to the garage.

    The carpet inside the parent's bedroom at the foot of the bed, where the HRD hit allegedly took place, did not appear disturbed after the warrant search. The carpet had not been removed in whole or in part, and neither had any flooring by appearances. The wall next to the area had also not been removed or apparently disturbed.

    That is all verified by video of the events. What ELSE happened to the rolled-up rug or the bedroom carpet, we just don't know.
    In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth and have begun striving for ourselves. ~Buddha~

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Karmaa View Post
    I totally disagree. It is similar in the scheme of things to telling a suspect that they failed a polygraph, or that there is a video of them when there isn't. It is an easy, "mostly legal", means to an end.

    To put this in perspective just answer one question: how would LE have gotten probable cause for a search warrant in this case, otherwise?

    Seriously, PC is one of the hardest things to get, and judges shoot down requests all the time. A missing baby is not enough. Holes in the mom's story is not enough. But a cadaver dog hit? Oh yeah - that's enough!
    I don't think falsifying a dog hit in a search warrant application is "mostly legal" on the part of LE or the dog handler. It's not only unethical, it's illegal to do so. Lying to the court is a totally different ball of wax than telling a suspect they've failed a polygraph when they didn't. Totally different.

    Of course there are bad apples in every profession, but since we've absolutely no indication that anything hinky (much less illegal) happened with LE or the dog handler, I can't entertain that premise. Same way I'm not going to entertain the thought that DB overdosed or drowned Lisa without one iota of evidence.

    IMO, LE deserves the benefit of the doubt for being truthful in their statements to the court at least as much as the parents deserve to be believed about what they claim. In other words, I think it's a road we don't need to go down unless and until there's some indication LE was dishonest with the court.

    I enjoy your posts even when I don't agree. Debate is good!

    "We have only this moment, sparkling like a star in our hand...and melting like a snowflake." - Marie Beynon Ray



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,250
    Quoting cityslick:

    Here is what I think. I think I only know there is a dog hit and nothing else. I also think that LE and the FBI must not be fully confident of BL dead in the house since they were following up on tips on the east coast after the dog hit happened.
    Thanks
    I think they would have to rule out tips in any case. If they get enough evidence to charge someone some day it'll look better at the trial if they can say they ruled out n+1 tips and none of those produced Lisa.

    The cadaver dog hit doesn't have Lisa's name in it so even if they were very confident that it was a real hit by several dogs who only alert to cadaver smell and nothing else it could have been somebody else who died there or just partial remains that happened to decompose there or even a transferred smell from a death that happened somewhere else. If I'm understanding correctly the dogs can't tell if it's a dead body or a lost fingertip or another body part that one could live without.

    Moreover, if someone reports a suspiciously behaving person with a baby IMO they should check it out because it could solve some other case. Even if they're sure it's not Lisa's abductor it could be somebody else who had something to hide. Maybe a parent who lost custody etc.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    294
    I honestly think LE messed up with their initial search by not searching the house better. If the parents are guilty they had time to remove things, if they aren't then LE lost a valuable window of time to find her. I am not sure why they didn't but I think Jeremy did sign a warrant giving them permission just seems like if he didn't give them full access they could have gotten pretty quickly based on the fact the house is a crime scene. A kidnapping is a crime so I would think a judge would sign off based on that fact and allow them full access.
    So much speculation on things that may or may not have happened is good, its what this site is all about,and I love to read peoples speculation even if I disagree. Its good that people think about things and come up with so many theories I never would have even considered.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,250
    Would a HRD dog alert to a tooth?

    That's something IMO that very possibly could decompose unnoticed in a bedroom if there are children in tooth-losing age.

    More so than a poopy diaper, anyway. I wouldn't keep those in my bedroom.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixie View Post
    I honestly think LE messed up with their initial search by not searching the house better. If the parents are guilty they had time to remove things, if they aren't then LE lost a valuable window of time to find her. I am not sure why they didn't but I think Jeremy did sign a warrant giving them permission just seems like if he didn't give them full access they could have gotten pretty quickly based on the fact the house is a crime scene. A kidnapping is a crime so I would think a judge would sign off based on that fact and allow them full access.
    So much speculation on things that may or may not have happened is good, its what this site is all about,and I love to read peoples speculation even if I disagree. Its good that people think about things and come up with so many theories I never would have even considered.
    I totally agree and have felt since early days that LE believed the parents and only accepted the agreement to check a few areas because they actually felt it was a kidnapping. Upon hearing the changing timelines and lies did they IMHO reacess the situation. I also knew I had read that JI only allowed certain areas to be done in the early days.

    I have questions about what access the family had to the house especially in the early early hours of the investigation. The phones especially would have been so easy to sneak out of the house in a purse, a jacket, in luggage to another home.

    Another thing that has my radar up is that Jim Spellman from CNN seems to have dropped out rather quickly. Following his Twitter he kept indicating that LE had much more and then poof he was gone. I wonder if they asked him to leave because he was starting to tread on info they wanted to keep close to the vest.

    I still think LE knows what happened and they are just biding the time. I think they know the baby is no longer among the living, they don't have all the info to a T just yet but they know much more than we do. These detectives are trained pro's not armchair like I am.

    I trust them and have a gut the person or persons responsible are gonna stand trial.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    624
    Quote Originally Posted by Donjeta View Post
    Would a HRD dog alert to a tooth?

    That's something IMO that very possibly could decompose unnoticed in a bedroom if there are children in tooth-losing age.

    More so than a poopy diaper, anyway. I wouldn't keep those in my bedroom.
    That's a good one. There must be some way to find out what things, other than a dead body, a HRD dog could hit on. I think we all pretty much agree that human or animal feces/urine is not something they would hit on. What about vomit?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Detective Klimpt View Post
    That's a good one. There must be some way to find out what things, other than a dead body, a HRD dog could hit on. I think we all pretty much agree that human or animal feces/urine is not something they would hit on. What about vomit?
    The impression I get from reading our HRD experts here and some other research over the years is that it all comes down to what the dogs are trained TO detect and what they're trained NOT to detect; seems the possibilities are virtually limitless.

    "We have only this moment, sparkling like a star in our hand...and melting like a snowflake." - Marie Beynon Ray



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    497
    From my understanding the body starts to decay within minutes and it starts to shed cells and emit gases. The HRD scents these gas odors. I don't think vomit, poopy, snot, sour milk, etc would emit the gases that the decaying body puts off.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Centered
    Posts
    2,916
    Quote Originally Posted by madge View Post
    I totally agree and have felt since early days that LE believed the parents and only accepted the agreement to check a few areas because they actually felt it was a kidnapping. Upon hearing the changing timelines and lies did they IMHO reacess the situation. I also knew I had read that JI only allowed certain areas to be done in the early days.

    I have questions about what access the family had to the house especially in the early early hours of the investigation. The phones especially would have been so easy to sneak out of the house in a purse, a jacket, in luggage to another home.

    Another thing that has my radar up is that Jim Spellman from CNN seems to have dropped out rather quickly. Following his Twitter he kept indicating that LE had much more and then poof he was gone. I wonder if they asked him to leave because he was starting to tread on info they wanted to keep close to the vest.

    I still think LE knows what happened and they are just biding the time. I think they know the baby is no longer among the living, they don't have all the info to a T just yet but they know much more than we do. These detectives are trained pro's not armchair like I am.

    I trust them and have a gut the person or persons responsible are gonna stand trial.
    I think CNN had Jim leave because they had been parked there for about if not over a month. They have other stories to pursue and to keep that many resources here when not much is happening would not make good business sense.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,250
    Quote Originally Posted by madge View Post

    I have questions about what access the family had to the house especially in the early early hours of the investigation. The phones especially would have been so easy to sneak out of the house in a purse, a jacket, in luggage to another home. .
    I have had the fleeting thought that if DB was the one calling her voice mail shortly before JI came home there was not a lot of time to get rid of the phones and if SB is a really good friend the phones could possibly have ended up at SB's home when they went there before calling LE, supposedly to ask her if she had Lisa. I presume that JI and DB were busy with LE for quite some time so SB could have had more time to get rid of them.

    I don't know why she'd have agreed to hide them though... so, maybe not.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by madge View Post
    I totally agree and have felt since early days that LE believed the parents and only accepted the agreement to check a few areas because they actually felt it was a kidnapping. Upon hearing the changing timelines and lies did they IMHO reacess the situation. I also knew I had read that JI only allowed certain areas to be done in the early days.

    I have questions about what access the family had to the house especially in the early early hours of the investigation. The phones especially would have been so easy to sneak out of the house in a purse, a jacket, in luggage to another home.

    Another thing that has my radar up is that Jim Spellman from CNN seems to have dropped out rather quickly. Following his Twitter he kept indicating that LE had much more and then poof he was gone. I wonder if they asked him to leave because he was starting to tread on info they wanted to keep close to the vest.

    I still think LE knows what happened and they are just biding the time. I think they know the baby is no longer among the living, they don't have all the info to a T just yet but they know much more than we do. These detectives are trained pro's not armchair like I am.

    I trust them and have a gut the person or persons responsible are gonna stand trial.
    Jeremy gave permission to search the entire house. LE, believing it was a kidnapping only took fingerprints from Lisas room and the computer room. Why not the light switches? That doesn't make sense, when they were told it was unusual for the lights to be on. The counter where the cell phones were? Did they suspect the parents immediately and just not bother?

    As for Jim Spellman, I think like all other reporters, he just got moved along to another hot story. He had said he was going to be back there after Thanksgiving, but what else was there for him to do? If there wasn't much happening and he had spoken to everyone he could (they wouldn't allow him to speak with Jersey) there really didn't seem much point in him being there anymore.

    I truly don't think LE have any idea what happened. I think they have a whole lot of info that adds up to nada at this point.

    At this point, in my mind, both an intruder and/or DB/JI having anything to do with Lisa being gone is hard to figure. Like someone magically picked her up and disappeared into thin air.

    ALL moo
    Praying for our lost babies ~ Come home Lisa!!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    497
    But would LE even think to search DB purse that day?? Or jackets, pants, kids luggage, etc. See where I'm going with this? Doesn't seem the LE actually "searched" much at all in the home within those very early days and even though they did accompany the Irwins back to the home on several occasions I am sure they were not frisking them every time.


    They were investigating a kidnapping and a theft of phones. I'm sure if I reported my phone missing and my son kidnapped the local SP would not immediately search my purse. I'm most positive I'd have time to remove a bunch of stuff if I wasn't the focus of attention.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Centered
    Posts
    2,916
    Quote Originally Posted by madge View Post
    I totally agree and have felt since early days that LE believed the parents and only accepted the agreement to check a few areas because they actually felt it was a kidnapping. Upon hearing the changing timelines and lies did they IMHO reacess the situation. I also knew I had read that JI only allowed certain areas to be done in the early days.

    I have questions about what access the family had to the house especially in the early early hours of the investigation. The phones especially would have been so easy to sneak out of the house in a purse, a jacket, in luggage to another home.

    Another thing that has my radar up is that Jim Spellman from CNN seems to have dropped out rather quickly. Following his Twitter he kept indicating that LE had much more and then poof he was gone. I wonder if they asked him to leave because he was starting to tread on info they wanted to keep close to the vest.

    I still think LE knows what happened and they are just biding the time. I think they know the baby is no longer among the living, they don't have all the info to a T just yet but they know much more than we do. These detectives are trained pro's not armchair like I am.

    I trust them and have a gut the person or persons responsible are gonna stand trial.
    Where was this read? I have only seen that LE made the decision to only process certain areas of the house.
    and as for early hours of the investigation, the family was WITH LE at the station for the entire first day. The house was not released as a crime scene until later.

Page 1 of 88 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 223
    Last Post: 10-03-2016, 02:47 PM
  2. 100 questions from the jury: Arias answering on her 17th day on the stand #78
    By nursebeeme in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1567
    Last Post: 03-08-2013, 01:41 PM
  3. 100 questions from the jury: Arias answering on her 16th day on the stand #74
    By nursebeeme in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 3726
    Last Post: 03-06-2013, 08:09 PM
  4. Replies: 1250
    Last Post: 12-04-2011, 07:53 PM
  5. Police say parents are not answering vital questions
    By nursebeeme in forum Lisa Irwin
    Replies: 780
    Last Post: 11-22-2011, 02:03 PM

Tags for this Thread