View Poll Results: My beliefs on who is responsible for taking Lisa four months ago

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • My beliefs are firm.

    49 56.32%
  • My beliefs are squishy (not undecided but not firm)

    20 22.99%
  • My beliefs are undecided

    18 20.69%
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 269

Thread: Lisa has been missing over four months now (poll)

  1. #176
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    6,243
    Quote Originally Posted by oh_gal View Post
    Here's an example. I used to help a couple with their monthly budget. I would go to their home, and we'd go over their bills, pay them, etc.

    In the course of the evening, we would add up all their incoming money. Unbeknownst to me, they had been receiving gift cards (with a cash value) for the grocery store. When I would ask them if this was all the money they had to pay their bills (including groceries), they would "omit" the gift cards. They wouldn't tell me they had them, so that they would have extra cash that I didn't know about. (They also got other forms of money (like for gas) to help them, and they told me about this). They lied "by omission."

    DB, in retelling the events of the evening Lisa "disappeared" neglected to tell the police she had been drinking. She didn't think it was "important." When they said to her, "And nothing else went on that night?", and she knew she had been drinking, she lied "by omission." She knew what they were getting at -- they needed the most clear picture she could give them, to determine how to proceed with their investigation. If she truly wanted her daughter "found" (if someone had, indeed taken her) she wouldn't have left anything out.
    Thanks for your reply. At this point we're not sure what LE asked Debbie and what her answers were. So saying she omitted anything is premature. JMO.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RANCH For This Useful Post:


  3. #177
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, Penninsula
    Posts
    17,667
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    I agree. LE had a search warrant that allowed them the opportunity to do a through search. Why would they not remove the garbage bags and inspect what was behind? Blocking light from coming in for testing purposes is the most plausible reason. JMO.
    LE doesn't duct tape black garbage bags on windows and leave them up. They have screens for testing.

    ...All they had to do was lift up the duct tape and look. Not difficult.

    Why all this interest in what was on the window? Why not interest on why JI lies and DB lies. Why not comparing their own words and how they change?

    Instead of jumping on LE for everything. Why not start jumping on the parents, for once. They're the ones with the lies....proven lies.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Whisperer For This Useful Post:


  5. #178
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, Penninsula
    Posts
    17,667
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    Thanks for your reply. At this point we're not sure what LE asked Debbie and what her answers were. So saying she omitted anything is premature. JMO.
    Wasn't this just proven that she did lie? IIRC, she, herself, admitted she didn't tell them right away.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Whisperer For This Useful Post:


  7. #179
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, Penninsula
    Posts
    17,667
    Have fun guys, this is just getting silly...BBL

  8. #180
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Centered
    Posts
    2,916
    I think the ones who would be implying that LE did a bad job would be the ones thinking that if the bags were there before that they didn't take them down and the ones that think LE only took evidence if the dogs hit on it and nothing else. I personally think LE did a very thorough job by being there for 17 hours and put the bags up for processing other evidence besides just what the dogs hit on and took things for processing other than just what the dogs hit on. As they should.

  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to In da Middle For This Useful Post:


  10. #181
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    6,243
    Quote Originally Posted by In da Middle View Post
    I think the ones who would be implying that LE did a bad job would be the ones thinking that if the bags were there before that they didn't take them down and the ones that think LE only took evidence if the dogs hit on it and nothing else. I personally think LE did a very thorough job by being there for 17 hours and put the bags up for processing other evidence besides just what the dogs hit on and took things for processing other than just what the dogs hit on. As they should.
    I agree IdM. I think the bags on the windows were to help LE do their job and not a sign of uncaring parents using garbage bags as window coverings. JMO.

  11. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to RANCH For This Useful Post:


  12. #182
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    6,243
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    Thanks for your reply. At this point we're not sure what LE asked Debbie and what her answers were. So saying she omitted anything is premature. JMO.
    And just to make my point more clear, adding information at a later date is not omitting something, it's still adding to the story.

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to RANCH For This Useful Post:


  14. #183
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    BC -- for now
    Posts
    4,318
    Quote Originally Posted by In da Middle View Post
    IMO believing the dogs would also mean that one would have to assume that the baby did not die in the crib or the bed because if they did, LE should have taken them for testing. The beds and crib are all still there. If the dogs did hit there and LE did not take them then we would have to assume bad investigation IMO.

    i posted this earlier before the post you copied. guess you missed it?
    Last edited by redheadedgal; 02-09-2012 at 09:06 PM. Reason: spelling
    *** THIS POST IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***




    Rest in peace Cpl Nathan Cirillo

  15. #184
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    BC -- for now
    Posts
    4,318
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    This part also speaks volumes:

    not when there's a missing child and two parents who can't keep their stories straight
    *** THIS POST IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***




    Rest in peace Cpl Nathan Cirillo

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to redheadedgal For This Useful Post:


  17. #185
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,544
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    Thanks for your reply. At this point we're not sure what LE asked Debbie and what her answers were. So saying she omitted anything is premature. JMO.
    Did she tell them, in initial questioning, that she had been drinking? I was under the impression that she didn't tell them that until much later. I guess that's where I got the "omitting" idea from. Am I mistaken? I thought that was was was so startling about that interview they did, where she admitted that a) she had been drinking (and didn't tell the police); and b) she had been drinking so much, she was drunk (and also, didn't tell the police).

    Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to oh_gal For This Useful Post:


  19. #186
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    BC -- for now
    Posts
    4,318
    Quote Originally Posted by melissasmom View Post
    ETA: This theory would make no sense however, if you think that DB purposely killed Lisa. I know some here think that.

    i haven't seen one person say this... can you link the posts? i'd be interested in knowing why they thought this... TIA.
    Last edited by redheadedgal; 02-09-2012 at 09:06 PM. Reason: add "s"
    *** THIS POST IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***




    Rest in peace Cpl Nathan Cirillo

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to redheadedgal For This Useful Post:


  21. #187
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,544
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    And just to make my point more clear, adding information at a later date is not omitting something, it's still adding to the story.
    Doesn't "omit" mean to leave out? She left it out of her initial statement. Who knows why she threw it in later. Guilty conscience? Faulty memory? Or was someone else going to tell, and she knew it would look better coming from her, first?

    Why would she leave this bit of info out? Maybe because it made her look "better" to say she was innocently asleep in her bed, after a typical day of housecleaning and cooking, and someone took her baby vs. saying, "I drank 8-10 glasses of wine and passed out, and when I woke up, my baby was gone, and I can't remember what happened, but I know that I didn't hurt her because I don't think alcohol affects people that way, even 8-10 glasses of wine." Note: I paraphrased here.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to oh_gal For This Useful Post:


  23. #188
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,544
    Quote Originally Posted by RANCH View Post
    And just to make my point more clear, adding information at a later date is not omitting something, it's still adding to the story.
    .........except that "adding" to the story enhances it. Omitting something changes the tone of it.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to oh_gal For This Useful Post:


  25. #189
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    BC -- for now
    Posts
    4,318
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    This part also speaks volumes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Oriah

    There are many ways that human decomp can be present, and not involve a death
    . So an HRD alert does not necessarily rule in or out whether a death has occured. Hope this helps with some questions.
    it seems sarx disagrees with oriah:

    from the HRT thread pg. 1:

    Originally Posted by nursebeeme

    I will go first (based on some questions I have seen other posters ask on the other thread)

    1) are there differences in cadaver dogs?

    2) what kind do the fbi use?

    3) can cadaver dogs hit on urine and blood?



    oriah's responses:

    1. The difference is in the training largely and level of training. Though there are historical remains detection dogs as well, which is a specialty of HRD and involves working with archeological aspects and remains that are hundreds of years old.

    2. What kind don't the FBI use? They've got a lot of resources.

    3. HRD dogs should not be hitting on anything that comes from a living body.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to redheadedgal For This Useful Post:


  27. #190
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    6,243
    Quote Originally Posted by oh_gal View Post
    Doesn't "omit" mean to leave out? She left it out of her initial statement. Who knows why she threw it in later. Guilty conscience? Faulty memory? Or was someone else going to tell, and she knew it would look better coming from her, first?

    Why would she leave this bit of info out? Maybe because it made her look "better" to say she was innocently asleep in her bed, after a typical day of housecleaning and cooking, and someone took her baby vs. saying, "I drank 8-10 glasses of wine and passed out, and when I woke up, my baby was gone, and I can't remember what happened, but I know that I didn't hurt her because I don't think alcohol affects people that way, even 8-10 glasses of wine." Note: I paraphrased here.
    I don't know what is in her initial statement. And I don't see how waiting until a later time to admit she was drinking helps her case.

    If she was really trying to avoid the drinking issue, why bring it up at all? LE hasn't' even admitted she's taken a polygraph so why bring it up at all?

    If you say you were asleep and unaware of what was happening wouldn't that work better than saying you were drunk. Wouldn't that leave people feeling more sympathetic to your point of view?

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to RANCH For This Useful Post:


  29. #191
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post
    i haven't seen one person say this... can you link the posts? i'd be interested in knowing why they thought this... TIA.
    Well, I can try to find some. But there are sooooo many posts to sort through. Just for you though, I will look.

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to melissasmom For This Useful Post:


  31. #192
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    BC -- for now
    Posts
    4,318
    Quote Originally Posted by melissasmom View Post
    Well, I can try to find some. But there are sooooo many posts to sort through. Just for you though, I will look.
    aww... you're sweet!

    i AM sincere with this request...

    the thought never occurred to me that anyone killed lisa on purpose...

    so, i'm genuinely interested in how anyone would think she was killed on purpose (and why!)... thanks MM!!
    *** THIS POST IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***




    Rest in peace Cpl Nathan Cirillo

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to redheadedgal For This Useful Post:


  33. #193
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post
    it seems sarx disagrees with oriah:

    from the HRT thread pg. 1:

    Originally Posted by nursebeeme

    I will go first (based on some questions I have seen other posters ask on the other thread)

    1) are there differences in cadaver dogs?

    2) what kind do the fbi use?

    3) can cadaver dogs hit on urine and blood?



    oriah's responses:

    1. The difference is in the training largely and level of training. Though there are historical remains detection dogs as well, which is a specialty of HRD and involves working with archeological aspects and remains that are hundreds of years old.

    2. What kind don't the FBI use? They've got a lot of resources.

    3. HRD dogs should not be hitting on anything that comes from a living body.


    I am seeing conflicting information on the HRD dogs. Here is another repost of a post I brought over from the HRD thread. In this one, Oriah seems to be indicating that if you had an accident and bled on a surface, an HRD dog might hit on that



    :Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abby Normal
    So they hit on decomposing humans AND blood that came from a living human being? In the two years we've lived here, we had a fall which resulted in stitches (head wound) as well as a bad bloody nose that occurred while I was in the shower (meaning I didn't get there quick enough). So at my house there are at least two spots on our floor that may get a "hit" by a cadaver dog even though everyone in our home is living?
    Possibly. It would largely depend on what kind of surface the blood was deposited on.
    For example, I too had an injury in the past year that produced a lot of blood inside a residence. Actually it was a trail from outside to inside, which may help explain even further.

    In my situation; there was blood deposited on grass, then on dirt, then on cement, then on sealed hardwood floors, then on tile, then on a towel, then on stainless steel.

    We cleaned everything up, of course- but certain surfaces retain HR scent particles (such as blood) much longer than others. The concrete, for example. Scrubbed it with bleach and can't see a thing. But one of our HRD dogs will still hit on it if we put him to work.The tile? Scrubbed that too- but the grout retains the scent. He'll hit on that also. The sealed hardwood floors- no. The towel we threw away, so I've no idea, lol. If we hadn't thrown it away, I guarantee he'd be hitting on that. The stainless steel- no. But that's because it is a sink, and not a sealed stainless steel container.



    Sorry about all the bolded, but read this post carefully.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to melissasmom For This Useful Post:


  35. #194
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    11,089
    Quote Originally Posted by melissasmom View Post
    Well, I can try to find some. But there are sooooo many posts to sort through. Just for you though, I will look.
    Quote Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post
    aww... you're sweet!

    i AM sincere with this request...

    the thought never occurred to me that anyone killed lisa on purpose...

    so, i'm genuinely interested in how anyone would think she was killed on purpose (and why!)... thanks MM!!



    First ... let me say MOO MOO and MOO ...

    Second ... let me say that it is NOT out of the realm of possibilities that it could have been "on purpose" ... and two people come to mind :

    1. Susan Smith
    2. Casey Anthony

    And there are more "mothers" out there who have killed their children ... just saying that it IS a POSSIBILITY ... it has HAPPENED ... and UNFORTUNATELY, it will happen again ...

    Another point -- and this has "bothered me" from the beginning :

    We heard over and over that it was the "first time" Jeremy worked one of these "night shifts" -- "this graveyard shift" -- whatever they call it ...

    And it just so HAPPENS that THAT is the night that Baby Lisa goes "missing" ... JMO ... but I do NOT believe in "coincidences" ...

    And JMO ... but I am CERTAIN that LE has CONSIDERED this POSSIBILITY -- they HAVE TO -- that's what they do ...

    Again, it is a POSSIBILITY ... not saying it was "on purpose" ... just saying it has happened before ...

    MOO ...

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dog.gone.cute For This Useful Post:


  37. #195
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Whisperer View Post
    [/B]

    What do you mean LE didn't look? Why the outrage?

    Is this misinforming us? We didn't care about the trash bag? I tend to care a lot more about the cadaver dog hit and DB/JI's lies than what is under the trash bag on a nursery window. I am confident in LE and I am sure they investigated it over and under. It stood out like an Eskimo in winter gear sitting on a beach in California.

    I never got the impression that there was ever any love for Law Enforcement coming from the posts. So now we are to believe that LE didnt look under the garbage window dressing and that is the excuse for not wanting to believe them?
    resp. bbm = Of course they did, since they are the ones that put it up.
    Praying for our lost babies ~ Come home Lisa!!

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sparklin For This Useful Post:


  39. #196
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    BC -- for now
    Posts
    4,318
    i totally get what you're saying dgc... and i know it's possible... just haven't seen anyone say anything like this before in THIS case... so i'm curious.

    we know WHY SS wanted her kids gone (new man) and we know WHY KC did (freedom/to piss off CA/keep her from getting custody?)... but i have no idea WHY DB would want to get rid of lisa... i'm all ears for hearing the WHYS !
    *** THIS POST IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***




    Rest in peace Cpl Nathan Cirillo

  40. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to redheadedgal For This Useful Post:


  41. #197
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    BC -- for now
    Posts
    4,318
    mm-- i agree it's odd that both dog experts contradict each other... shall we ask them about it in their thread??


    (in all the years i've been reading and studying crime/forensics i've always been led to believe cadaver dog means "cadaver" aka DEAD body or parts of... fwiw)
    *** THIS POST IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***




    Rest in peace Cpl Nathan Cirillo

  42. #198
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post
    aww... you're sweet!

    i AM sincere with this request...

    the thought never occurred to me that anyone killed lisa on purpose...

    so, i'm genuinely interested in how anyone would think she was killed on purpose (and why!)... thanks MM!!
    Sometimes it's just about reading between the lines ~ they don't have to come right out and say it in those words...but it's hard not to miss the posts that accuse Deb of killing Lisa on purpose or otherwise. I believe there are some 'why' posts too - If I come across them, I'll point you to them.
    Praying for our lost babies ~ Come home Lisa!!

  43. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sparklin For This Useful Post:


  44. #199
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post
    mm-- i agree it's odd that both dog experts contradict each other... shall we ask them about it in their thread??


    (in all the years i've been reading and studying crime/forensics i've always been led to believe cadaver dog means "cadaver" aka DEAD body or parts of... fwiw)
    Yes, exactly! That's why I was suprised to see this from Oriah. And yes, I think the question should be asked in that thread. hopefully one of our experts will see it and clarify.

    Also, I have been finding posts from people who feel that yes, DB did intentionally harm Lisa. Now I just have to figure out how to link those posts into one post of mine. I will figure it out eventually.
    Oh, and like Sparklin said above, for some of those people you kinda have to read between the lines, but it is there.
    Here is one I found, I just did copy/paste for now until I figure out the linking.

    Tuffy-Post #118, A month later,where is Lisa?
    Sadly, I believe Lisa is deceased. I believe that her mother caused her death. I don't believe it was an accident either. I don't think that dad played a part in it. At this point, with no body, and no witnesses, I fear that this will end up a cold case. JMO

  45. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to melissasmom For This Useful Post:


  46. #200
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,899
    Backtracking a bit here guys. Regarding the black garbage bag on Lisa's window, it was put there by LE for luminol testing. I know this for a fact and you can either choose to believe me or not, but I'm telling you that it was. I can't tell you how I know, okay, but that is what it was there for. Others may have used it for other purposes, but this is the original purpose.

  47. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to norest4thewicked For This Useful Post:


Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 181
    Last Post: Yesterday, 12:31 AM
  2. Websleuths Radio Poll. Are Lisa Irwin's Parent's Involved in her Disappearence?
    By Tricia in forum The Poll Forum! Public Welcome To Participate
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 05-27-2012, 06:44 PM
  3. Lisa Irwin missing 3 months now - Poll
    By w1df10wr in forum Lisa Irwin
    Replies: 226
    Last Post: 02-07-2012, 02:22 PM
  4. MO Lisa Irwin (10 months) - Kansas City MO, 2011
    By SheWhoMustNotBeNamed in forum Missing Children in America - A Profile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-10-2011, 03:01 AM
  5. Did Lisa's Mom do it? Poll
    By SilkySifaka in forum Lisa Irwin
    Replies: 564
    Last Post: 10-22-2011, 12:45 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •