Why have Lisa's parents stopped talking to the media?

Concerning JI's work hours, I attempted to look for them and found this article. I hope the rest of the media hasn't derived their articles and reporting based on this.


Found this article detailing the timeline. This was put in print as fact and they will not name the SOURCE. I call BS on the entire article. If the source is anonymous then we don't have to accept the article as true or factual.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15940122/source-says-4-hour-window-for-abduction?clienttype=printable
 
Concerning JI's work hours, I attempted to look for them and found this article. I hope the rest of the media hasn't derived their articles and reporting based on this.


Found this article detailing the timeline. This was put in print as fact and they will not name the SOURCE. I call BS on the entire article. If the source is anonymous then we don't have to accept the article as true or factual.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15940122/source-says-4-hour-window-for-abduction?clienttype=printable

BBM

Since when are news source identities actually revealed? The journalism business runs off of getting news/tips off of unidentified (to the public) but reliable (to them) sources. In fact journalists have went to court in the past and risked going to jail rather than reveal identities of their sources.
 
We havent heard the Anthonys make much of a change either and they collected mega bucks. I think they are advised to lay low and not flaunt money till the case is completely out of the public eye.

That would make sense, but the Irwin case is pretty much out of the public eye by now. If D&J got a new, expensive car, I could see it making local news, but not national. Also, Jeremy has been back at work since the Fall, so how much money could they really have made?

ETA: So I think it's way more likely that the parents have been using the $$$ to pay bills, help with finances, etc than it is that they are just waiting around until they can buy a huge house. I doubt they made enough to make a purchase that will require payments over a period of years. And let's pretend, they did go on a pretty luxurious vacation over the summer. Would the local media even know/report on it? Although, we would've probably heard about it on social media.
 
BBM

Since when are news source identities actually revealed? The journalism business runs off of getting news/tips off of unidentified (to the public) but reliable (to them) sources. In fact journalists have went to court in the past and risked going to jail rather than reveal identities of their sources.
I get your point City. And on the reverse side of this, if a politician is quoted in the news does that mean that what he/she says is a fact because their named in the article or report? Not in my opinion.
 
That would make sense, but the Irwin case is pretty much out of the public eye by now. If D&J got a new, expensive car, I could see it making local news, but not national. Also, Jeremy has been back at work since the Fall, so how much money could they really have made?

ETA: So I think it's way more likely that the parents have been using the $$$ to pay bills, help with finances, etc than it is that they are just waiting around until they can buy a huge house. I doubt they made enough to make a purchase that will require payments over a period of years. And let's pretend, they did go on a pretty luxurious vacation over the summer. Would the local media even know/report on it? Although, we would've probably heard about it on social media.

We do know they did some remodeling, per the photo from Rugen & the large dumpster in the driveway.
 
BBM

Since when are news source identities actually revealed? The journalism business runs off of getting news/tips off of unidentified (to the public) but reliable (to them) sources. In fact journalists have went to court in the past and risked going to jail rather than reveal identities of their sources.

I don't accept these articles as factual. I realize they can be but w/o a source, they are just not credible. It is your choice to accept them. I seldom will ever use these type of articles to make a point. If I don't hear it from the person themselves or from an identified source, I consider the reporter has an agenda to get the news out and it might not necessarily be accurate.

In the particular article I identified...it was a very long one regarding the timeline of the crime, yet she wasn't going to name her source?
 
I don't accept these articles as factual. I realize they can be but w/o a source, they are just not credible. It is your choice to accept them. I seldom will ever use these type of articles to make a point. If I don't hear it from the person themselves or from an identified source, I consider the reporter has an agenda to get the news out and it might not necessarily be accurate.

In the particular article I identified...it was a very long one regarding the timeline of the crime, yet she wasn't going to name her source?

Weren't we already told by Jim Spellman that it was Bill Stanton that put the timeline out there, but didn't want to be named as the source? Jim wouldn't print it for that reason, but obviously some did.
 
I remember that.

If it was Bill Stanton (and I have no reason to doubt JS's word) I wonder what this means.

The source requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

When we first discussed the article way back when I initially read this as a family member or friend who didn't want their name associated with the whole damn notorious mess but Stanton's name was already out there, he had held a presser and put his name and face out there, the sensitivity of the case notwithstanding.

Did he want to be anonymous just because people would make the same assumption I did? That it was from a source who actually witnessed some of the goings on and not just a second hand account from someone who was never there and whose information was just as reliable as the people telling their story to him. Telling BS was the source would have been equal to saying, "this is what the defense team wants out there."
 
I remember that.

If it was Bill Stanton (and I have no reason to doubt JS's word) I wonder what this means.



When we first discussed the article way back when I initially read this as a family member or friend who didn't want their name associated with the whole damn notorious mess but Stanton's name was already out there, he had held a presser and put his name and face out there, the sensitivity of the case notwithstanding.

Did he want to be anonymous just because people would make the same assumption I did? That it was from a source who actually witnessed some of the goings on and not just a second hand account from someone who was never there and whose information was just as reliable as the people telling their story to him. Telling BS was the source would have been equal to saying, "this is what the defense team wants out there."
I can understand peoples problems with the KCTV article if the source of the timeline was Bill Stanton. What I was wondering, is there parts of this timeline that are known to be wrong? Are there sources that are independent of Bill Stanton that can verify some or all of the timeline presented in the article?

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15940122/source-says-4-hour-window-for-abduction
 
I can understand peoples problems with the KCTV article if the source of the timeline was Bill Stanton. What I was wondering, is there parts of this timeline that are known to be wrong? Are there sources that are independent of Bill Stanton that can verify some or all of the timeline presented in the article?

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15940122/source-says-4-hour-window-for-abduction

I don't think so. Besides the time DB and PN went to Festival Foods, I don't think LE has ever confirmed any of these times. We have never heard anything officially about what SB had to say. LE only confirmed that JI was at work that night, but we never heard for what times exactly or what was revealed on the Starbucks tape.

MOO
 
I don't think so. Besides the time DB and PN went to Festival Foods, I don't think LE has ever confirmed any of these times. We have never heard anything officially about what SB had to say. LE only confirmed that JI was at work that night, but we never heard for what times exactly or what was revealed on the Starbucks tape.

MOO

We also know that Jeremy called police around 4:00AM based on the released dispatch tapes and dash cam video of officers responding.

So with LE not releasing any information on the timeline, we don't know if the articles time of events between 4:45PM and 4:00AM are accurate or not. It could be correct in its entirety, or could be off a little bit, or it could have major flaws.

Unless LE releases more information, we may never know. JMO.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15699795...old-of-theft-complaint-involving-babys-father

http://www.kctv5.com/story/16612025/dashcam-baby-lisa
 
We also know that Jeremy called police around 4:00AM based on the released dispatch tapes and dash cam video of officers responding.

So with LE not releasing any information on the timeline, we don't know if the articles time of events between 4:45PM and 4:00AM are accurate or not. It could be correct in its entirety, or could be off a little bit, or it could have major flaws.

Unless LE releases more information, we may never know. JMO.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15699795...old-of-theft-complaint-involving-babys-father

http://www.kctv5.com/story/16612025/dashcam-baby-lisa

How would LE determine that he was at Starbucks the whole time? Doing electrical work would mean shutting OFF the electricity, at least for part of the time, I would assume, so no way to verify he was there via video... correct? So how would they verify his alibi? How long was he reportedly at this first-time night job? If he was "supposed" to get home at 10:30, if memory serves me, and it took an additional FIVE hours, and he din't notify Deb... I would think she would be livid, or worried sick. The whole dang thing makes no logical sense.
 
both Haleigh and baby Lisa,missing
3:30 and 4:00 a.m reported abducted from bed
both mums alcoholic/drugs addicted sleeping
back door ajar,front door unlocked,window is open,lights on both
both dads return home after work at around 4:00 a.m.
both dads call 911
both families do not search/go to media
so sad!
IMO both mums did it
 
How would LE determine that he was at Starbucks the whole time? Doing electrical work would mean shutting OFF the electricity, at least for part of the time, I would assume, so no way to verify he was there via video... correct? So how would they verify his alibi? How long was he reportedly at this first-time night job? If he was "supposed" to get home at 10:30, if memory serves me, and it took an additional FIVE hours, and he din't notify Deb... I would think she would be livid, or worried sick. The whole dang thing makes no logical sense.
Do we know that LE used video to determine that Jeremy was at the Starbucks until 3:30AM? Do we know if Jeremy worked alone that night? If Debbie went to bed at 11:30PM how would she know that Jeremy was five hours late getting home?
 
Do we know that LE used video to determine that Jeremy was at the Starbucks until 3:30AM? Do we know if Jeremy worked alone that night? If Debbie went to bed at 11:30PM how would she know that Jeremy was five hours late getting home?

I thought she said she went to bed at 10:30? Not sure what/who is Jeremy's "alibi", but if it's his boss he lost all credibility. LOL :seeya:
 
I thought she said she went to bed at 10:30? Not sure what/who is Jeremy's "alibi", but if it's his boss he lost all credibility. LOL :seeya:

If she went to bed at 10:30 and Jeremy was supposed to be home at 10:30 how would she know that he was late getting home at all?

Why would it have to be Jeremy's boss who provided an alibi? Do we know the nature of the work being done that night? There could have been workers from a totally different company doing work that night who could provide an alibi. Would they be considered as being credible, or are they in on the conspiracy also? JMO.
 
What media outlets do you guys think D&J will speak to for the 1st anniversary? My guesses are: GMA, Today, People Magazine, Megyn Kelly, Judge Jeanine, or JVM. I'm not saying they will talk to ALL of those shows, just that the shows they talk to will be one of them, IMO. My hinky meter will also go way up if a network doesn't mention the anniversary. I wonder if the parents will speak to local media? I could see them getting snubbed because the "big boys" are back in town.
 
What media outlets do you guys think D&J will speak to for the 1st anniversary? My guesses are: GMA, Today, People Magazine, Megyn Kelly, Judge Jeanine, or JVM. I'm not saying they will talk to ALL of those shows, just that the shows they talk to will be one of them, IMO. My hinky meter will also go way up if a network doesn't mention the anniversary. I wonder if the parents will speak to local media? I could see them getting snubbed because the "big boys" are back in town.
BBM
If the networks don't mention the anniversary, what do you think it would mean?
 
BBM
If the networks don't mention the anniversary, what do you think it would mean?

I'm not sure what it would mean, but take ABC, they covered the case every day for about a month. They followed the family on Halloween and took their cameras into their home. They showed an incredible amount of interest in the case, so much that some people speculated that ABC was the benefactor or was the network involved in the unconfirmed media deal. If they ignore the anniversary, combined with the fact that they also ignored the debit card story, I would be saying, "WTH?"

I can't think of any reason for ABC to ignore the anniversary, and I don't think they will. But I have always wanted to know the "truth" behind their coverage. I looked on their website, and GMA mentioned the case EVERY day from October 4-October 26. Then, they gave coverage on October 31, November 2, November 11, and November 16. Only one mention since then. I feel like ABC wanted this to become the new huge case, like Anthony level, but something happened. The only non-conspiracy explanation I can think of is the case was simply replaced by the Penn State scandal, which broke on November 4, and it was never able to gain traction again.
 
I'm not sure what it would mean, but take ABC, they covered the case every day for about a month. They followed the family on Halloween and took their cameras into their home. They showed an incredible amount of interest in the case, so much that some people speculated that ABC was the benefactor or was the network involved in the unconfirmed media deal. If they ignore the anniversary, combined with the fact that they also ignored the debit card story, I would be saying, "WTH?"

I can't think of any reason for ABC to ignore the anniversary, and I don't think they will. But I have always wanted to know the "truth" behind their coverage. I looked on their website, and GMA mentioned the case EVERY day from October 4-October 26. Then, they gave coverage on October 31, November 2, November 11, and November 16. Only one mention since then. I feel like ABC wanted this to become the new huge case, like Anthony level, but something happened. The only non-conspiracy explanation I can think of is the case was simply replaced by the Penn State scandal, which broke on November 4, and it was never able to gain traction again.
Thanks for your reply Eileen. I can seen a reason why the networks and other national shows may ignore the anniversary of Lisa's disappearance. You mention the Penn State scandal as a possible reason why ABC lost interest in the Lisa Irwin case.

If another big story breaks at the time of the anniversary and no new information is available in the Lisa Irwin case, I wouldn't be surprised if an anniversary recap show would be bumped by the major media players. Then you have the presidential election on Nov. 6 drawing a lot of attention. So I don't know, I guess we'll have to wait and see. JMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
964
Total visitors
1,092

Forum statistics

Threads
589,930
Messages
17,927,806
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top