Lisa has been missing over four months now (poll)

My beliefs on who is responsible for taking Lisa four months ago

  • My beliefs are firm.

    Votes: 49 56.3%

  • My beliefs are squishy (not undecided but not firm)

    Votes: 20 23.0%

  • My beliefs are undecided

    Votes: 18 20.7%
  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .

New Posts

Whisperer said:
Why take anything if there is no comp on it? If they don't have DNA, they don't need to take it. Lisa was most likely on a throw rug, towels, or blankets.They didn't take anything from the bedroom? How do we know that the clothing they took wasn't from the bedrm?

They did take 2 blankets, a toy, the clothes DB described at Lisa last wearing. (plus tape) They took those items for good reason. Maybe the dogs hit on them. Chances are they did.
Click to expand...
The clothes described as last wearing were purple shorts and purple shirt with white kittens on it. The clothing taken was purple shirt and MULTICOLOR shirt with DISNEY character on it. Maybe the same, maybe not. And there are many reasons why to take evidence even if there is no comp on it. That would not be very good use of a 17 hour search if they were ONLY to take possible evidence that had decomp on it, would it?
 
Whisperer said:
Why don't people concentrate on what they did take and not what they didn't?
Click to expand...
Because we have no idea as to WHY they took it. There could have been many reasons as to why they took the so very few items they did take after going through the house for 17 hours with a fine-tooth comb. With only taking 7 items in that long of a search with all of the technology they used, the things they didn't take are just as, if not more than, important.
 
Dewey2Me1MoThyme said:
Maybe I should have written that differently, I mean the same dog hitting on multiple place or things in the home. So you are saying yes that LE may have lied by omission or not?
Click to expand...

Dewey, it's not a matter of lying - either by commission or omission. LE is only required to list (as I understand it) enough to meet the threshold for the SW to be granted. They might include other things at times, but they don't have to lay out the entire case.

In this instance, they wanted that info sealed from the public but knew their request might not be granted, so that could be an additional factor in not listing every single thing they had.
 
In da Middle said:
The clothes described as last wearing were purple shorts and purple shirt with white kittens on it. The clothing taken was purple shirt and MULTICOLOR shirt with DISNEY character on it. Maybe the same, maybe not. And there are many reasons why to take evidence even if there is no comp on it. That would not be very good use of a 17 hour search if they were ONLY to take possible evidence that had decomp on it, would it?
Click to expand...

No, what they took is more important than what they did not. Those clothes described taken is what Lisa was wearing when put to bed. DB would know. She doesn't talk to LE though.

Let's say they are the clothes Lisa WAS wearing. What happens to every one's take on the intruder removing the clothing before leaving with her? I contend these were the clothes Lisa wore and this is one of the reasons DB won't talk.
 
LE took these items because they were important. She wore purple shorts, a purple top with kittens on it.

LE took purple shorts and a multicolored top. Chances are the kittens were a different color (white) and LE is calling the top multi-colored. Either way, the clothing is significant. I would like to know where they found the clothes.
 
LE took potential evidence from that home. AFAIK, there were no signs of an intruder.

I suspect there is DNA/fingerprints on what they took and there was no strange prints, dna. There could have been DNA on the blankets or the clothing.

No matter how you slice it DB/JI didn't want to talk to LE AFTER the search. This is not okay and will be associated with guilt.
 
Whisperer said:
LE took these items because they were important. She wore purple shorts, a purple top with kittens on it.

LE took purple shorts and a multicolored top. Chances are the kittens were a different color (white) and LE is calling the top multi-colored. Either way, the clothing is significant. I would like to know where they found the clothes.
Click to expand...

I would love to know if the clothing they took matches the description of what Lisa was reportedly wearing as well.
 
Sherbie said:
I would love to know if the clothing they took matches the description of what Lisa was reportedly wearing as well.
Click to expand...
And if it was, where it was found would be telling. As in was it hidden? If they found it, let's say, stuffed in a heat duct, then she has a major problem.
 
Jeremy Irwin LIED on Dr. Phil. When they showed the new and improved version of Lisa's room, it was not "Pretty much the same" as JI said. It is very different.

Her old room looked like a storage shed.

Furniture added/rearranged. Swing gone, etc. ..make-over was done for the national show.
 
Did I read that Jersey has an alibi? If true, what happens to people's theory that he is the one who stole Lisa?
 
annalia said:
I'm still undecided. I think DB has said and done things that are inconsistent and puts the focus on her, makes you shake your head and wonder WTH is going on, but one of the reasons I can't say 100% that it's because of guilt is because of who her attorney is and how he operates, believing that he isn't really in this to find Lisa.

I don't know if what she does is due to guilt or bad advice. I know that it doesn't make it ok to take bad advice, it is her daughter and that should be first and foremost in her mind but I just can't decide if it proves guilt.

I have a hard time getting past the intruder entering the house with lights on but again, can't say that it's 100% false because stranger things have happened.

The one thing I do firmly believe is that LE didn't just decide to focus on DB just for the heck of it to be mean to them, or that they didn't want to look at anyone else but her. I firmly believe that LE's focus comes from inconsistencies that came from DB herself. LE doesn't have the luxury to just sit back and assume she's probably a nice person who wouldn't do such a thing, or try to decipher what they really might have meant when they say inconsistent things. They're going to keep the focus until they're convinced that they can move on. She wasn't helping them move on so the focus remained.

JMHO
Click to expand...


BBM: I remember when I saw the first interview DB did -- and my "radar" shot through the roof ! And from my "first impression" -- up through today -- my opinion has NOT changed at all ...

In fact, the more Deb talks, the more inconsistencies I see, which confirms even more of my initial reaction, which is that Deb REALLY KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED to Baby Lisa ...

I never bought that "intruder" poppycock for one minute ... my reaction to that was like : "Really ? Please don't insult my intelligence with that bull ..."

IF -- a BIG IF -- Deb was "telling the TRUTH" -- there would be NO inconsistencies ... the "times" in her timeline would not have changed, and the "details" of that night would not have changed, and she would KNOW if she was "drunk" or not" .... and the list goes on and on and on ...

LE "focused" on Deb not only because OF her "continuouos" inconsistencies ... but the "story" Deb told LE did NOT match what LE has uncovered during their investigation ...

And to top it off, she will not even cooperate with LE's SOP : which is to interview the husband/wife -- girlfriend / boyfriend -- SEPARATELY ... So again, WHY does she have to be with Jeremy -- who IS an adult, holding his hand, while LE interviews him ?

Because she is "scared" Jeremy may get the "story" wrong ... or ... he may even "crack" ... JMO ... but he is the weakest link ...

Unfortunately, LE is not sharing with the public what they know ... sure wish they would :innocent: ...

MOO MOO and MOO ...
 
If the same clothing ...The question is who removed the clothing and why? Did DB slip up? Did an intruder remove clothes and put them away? So what was she wearing when removed from the home?

We ran into this same scenario with the Cummings case. The clothing worn was found a week later but LE never said where. Mist C. probably lied and said they were in the laundry and she found them. Again, did the perp in Lisa's case undress her? Some want to believe they did. wow!
 
Whisperer said:
Jeremy Irwin LIED on Dr. Phil. When they showed the new and improved version of Lisa's room, it was not "Pretty much the same" as JI said. It is very different.

Her old room looked like a storage shed.

Furniture added/rearranged. Swing gone, etc. ..make-over was done for the national show.
Click to expand...

Similar to Connor's nursery in the Scott Peterson case. :maddening:
 
Whisperer said:
Jeremy Irwin LIED on Dr. Phil. When they showed the new and improved version of Lisa's room, it was not "Pretty much the same" as JI said. It is very different.

Her old room looked like a storage shed.

Furniture added/rearranged. Swing gone, etc. ..make-over was done for the national show.
Click to expand...


:what: Whoa ... I only read the transcripts -- did not watch the show ...

So Lisa's room has had a 'make-over' ? :waitasec: Did hgtv show up and do the make-over ? :innocent:

Oh -- and did they take that "garbage bag" that was taped over the window down ?

:waitasec: That "garbage bag" on the window bothered me ... I would really like to know HOW LONG that plastic trash bag was there, WHY it was there, and WHO put it up there ?

MOO ...
 
All the dots are around Jeremy and DB and they are starting to connect. They are both lying. It has been proven when you compare their statements to the media. They are both in this together. If JI doesn't really know what happened to his daughter and is closer to DB more now then hw was before, then people ought to be chasing him around with large nets...
 
Sherbie said:
Dewey, it's not a matter of lying - either by commission or omission. LE is only required to list (as I understand it) enough to meet the threshold for the SW to be granted. They might include other things at times, but they don't have to lay out the entire case.

In this instance, they wanted that info sealed from the public but knew their request might not be granted, so that could be an additional factor in not listing every single thing they had.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out what the term "lying by omission" really means. I've seen it used in some posts to suggest a fact when when there is none. I'm not sure how not saying something means your a liar. I'm guessing someone must come out with every single detail at the earliest point possible, or be subject to the "lying by omission" clause. I agree that LE obviously doesn't have to reveal anything at this point.
 
Whisperer said:
Did I read that Jersey has an alibi? If true, what happens to people's theory that he is the one who stole Lisa?
Click to expand...


If Jersey has an alibi or not -- is one little "nugget" of info I sure wish LE would release to the public ...

JMO ... but DB and her DT are trying to make Jersey the "Kronk" in this case ...

MOO ...
 
dog.gone.cute said:
Respectfully Snipped and BBM:

1st BBM: I totally agree ! And I sure hope that someone in KCPD has done some good profiling on DB and JI ... and since DB and JI are NOT talking to LE -- and NOT talking to LE SEPARATELY -- they need to profile ALL of their statements, their body language, etc.

Something I just thought of : We know that at the time Baby Lisa went "missing", DB was not working. In today's economy and with 3 children to raise, it has to be financially difficult. But WHY doesn't DB work ? Did she "ever" have a job before ? :waitasec: Even FCA had a job, even though it was for a month or two ...

2nd BBM: Great Catch -- that she is "being protected" ... :waitasec: but by WHO and WHY ?

MOO ...
Click to expand...

BBM - HOW? I'm not grasping how she is being protected. Can you share your thoughts on that please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 70 more.
Total: 3,944 (members: 71, guests: 3,873)

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
3,873
Total visitors
3,944
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,663
Messages
17,957,220
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top