MO - Lisa Irwin, 10 months, Kansas City, 4 Oct 2011 - #13

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with the fishing after I looked at the subpoena and saw that they aren't meeting until Oct. 18. I thought they were meeting sooner. Then at the bottom it says the subpoena may be satisfied by relenquishing said information to the server. Seems it is not definite her case will go before the gj.
My hopes just sank a bit.

http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111010_KSHBIrwinSubpoena_1.pdf

which means:

1)the GJ is hearing the case (and nbc says the prosecutor is involved)

2)so they just would open a case to the GJ and get a judge to sign off on the subpoena (along with the prosecutor who decides a case is worth persuing) to get some willy nilly news footage that they (investigators) most likely have seen already and compared to any hard copy statements given by the parents?

-----

probable cause... there had to be that to fit all of the above.


and who knows maybe they are searching news videos/interviews for someone lurking in the background???

but a family member has already made statements that there are gaps in the timeline and a failed poly..

who knows at this point but things being things.. a GJ being involved at this point along with the prosector.. well they have rules they follow.. so they have something we don't know....

:twocents::twocents::twocents:

1) The GJ not being in session until 10/18 tells me they are still fishing
2) The supoena being satisfied by relinquishing said info to the server...they are still adding up info.

Not before the GJ at this time.
 
Raw footage - unedited. I wonder what we didn't see? Someone must have told LE. Doesn't sound good for the family.

Or maybe they want to see who might be lurking around in the background on the vids.
 
Just out of curiosity, how fast can DNA results come in if they are rushed?

Depends on what they are testing. It could take 4 weeks to a few years. We've had positive IDs made on located deceased in which DNA was already in the system which escalates getting results back sooner, but to start from scratch...it depends on the methodology used..a minimum of a month.
 
Regarding the raw footage, I'm sure there are many clips that never make it to the air. As with photography, there's a video news editor somewhere trying to find something exciting or pertinent or whatever and that can be edited into the timeframe needed. And editors like to be given lots of footage to choose from.

So I wonder if someone didn't tell LE something like "well, I told that reporter blah blah blah", or LE knows that the news station interviewed certain folks who may have said something on tape that they have since changed or haven't repeated.
 
One thought I had. I know scary. Is it possible GJ subpeopna's are harder to get out of than the standard issued subpeopna? I'm thinking back on Lisa Stebics case. IIRC, her husband and his attorneys blocked all legal attempts to interview the children. It was only through a grand jury subpeopna that LE was able to get information from the kids.

Maybe Just a guy can weigh in on this.


I don't think that's what this is about. A subpoena is pretty much a subpoena. And yes, a GJ is a powerful device...but it's also the proper mechanism for this stage of a case...if they have anything. And if they don't, there's really not another mechanism for issuing subpoenas.

There's really no reason to go to the GJ except for an indictment. Investigative tools are available to LE prior to the GJ stage. If there's really a GJ presentation here, I would expect an indictment soon.
 
There is one interview with a neighbor from the first day with a dad talking about his son purchasing a car from Mr. Irwin a few years ago......I can no longer find that interview, but that is probably my lack of skill, not because it has disappeared.

jmo
 
Grand juries are not usually "fishing". If they're really taking this to a grand jury, it likely means they think they have enough for an indictment. (Google "ham sandwich" and "grand jury".) This involves not just the police (who I have gradually come to dislike), but also the DA's office, so it has more than one check point. It's not a good sign, for Baby Lisa, as others have noted.

However, given the behavior of LE in this case, I am willing to withhold judgment.

That is absolutely lovely to think and well, wrong. Grand Juries are tools when a case is weak - it's used to build a case, or rather, CAN be used to build a case and I think that's what is going on here (It can also be used to "get rid" of a case a prosector doesnt want to try) Sure they, the PD or prosecutor might think they have something. But they are trying to get things they can't get without the GJ.
 
Just lurking here, but am wondering why they would wait until October 18th for the Grand Jury?
 
No, not necessarily.....need the lawyers in here, but the GJ may be just to compel the media to turn over their interviews and notes, etc. It would work as a means to protect the media from litigation from their interviewees, too, I believe because they were turning it over due to the requirement of the GJ not voluntarily. Media tends to be protective of their freedom of the press rights unless compelled by law to give up their info.

jmo


Fair enough, definitely a possibility.
 
EricKCTV5 Eric Chaloux

A grand jury will hear evidence in #LisaIrwin case.KCTV5 asked to provide interviews and video. twitpic.com/6yir5i

37 seconds ago

Still catching up with the thread, but all I can say right now is :eek:

A grand jury??? We didn't even know one had convened!
 
In my opinion, this is what LE does when they have absolutely NOTHING to go on.

I've only seen this done once - in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Oh wait, I was reminded they did this in the Terri Horman case.

Again, nothing. LE wants to appear to be moving ahead, but sadly, there is nothing to base a case on.
Interesting. Thank you.
 
In my opinion, this is what LE does when they have absolutely NOTHING to go on.

I've only seen this done once - in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Oh wait, I was reminded they did this in the Terri Horman case.

Again, nothing. LE wants to appear to be moving ahead, but sadly, there is nothing to base a case on.

You've only seen a prosecutor take a case before a grand jury twice?
 
If they are subpenaing the records of all interviews it is to analyze the information for inconsistencies, things they said, etc.
Thanks! :) Yes, I figured that.

The other part of my post ("has anyone been arrested?") was asking sleuthers to check the appropriate site(s) for bookings/arrests. ;)
 
While I believe body language & statement analysis can be useful tools, both are dependent upon the observer's subjective interpretation as well as the observer's skill in reading the signals.

Speaking from personal experience, as I've grown older (and hopefully wiser), I've learned to accurately detect the warning signs of a potential abuser, and I've counseled young women on how to recognize these same signs (both covert & overt) so they don't fall victim to abusive partners.

I've also learned to be aware of the subtle cues of danger (after finding myself in more than one life-threatening predicament over the course of my days). Gavin DeBecker has an excellent book on the subject: The Gift of Fear.

I don't discount body language analysis or statement analysis, because I believe we all use these innate tools in our daily interactions, whether consciously or subconsciously.

I think we need to use these tools wisely, though, and not use them as a stone to hurl at someone in the absence of solid, physical evidence.

In addition to the observer's immediate skill in interpreting a verbal or written statement, I think it's equally important to know how the individual under scrutiny ordinarily expresses him/herself while speaking and/or writing. We all have personal nuances in communicating with others depending on language use in our childhood homes, as students in school, in our careers, and in our daily lives as we talk, text, write to others. jmo
 
Thank you for the answer however how would the PD know who this guy is in the first place to get a Mug shot...probably nothing but something stood out to me in the interview...and then the PD not even commenting about it. Probably nothing but something just didn't seem right to me

Not sure who mentioned the guy was a homeless guy on a bike, but if that is the case...the police already know him. Many PD are familiar with those homeless that are on the streets a lot...and I'm not saying that as the person did something wrong...just the police are aware of them.
 
Probably a mugshot. I don't believe any info has been released about the teen that gave the dna sample.

Oh....he would have a record then. In that newscast from one of the first newscasts a couple posts up, that neighbor said he saw a man walking down the street about midnight with a baby, and he was holding the baby's face firmly in his chest (so no crying). How many times do men walk down a street a midnight with a baby at the same time a baby is missing on that street?

I'm not ready to think the parents did it yet. I've got too much suspicion with this report of the man and also maybe the teen neighbor.

I just remember that girl missing from Portugal and that friend of theirs saying she passed a man walking very quickly past her holding a young child in the PJ's that the parents later said she was wearing that night.
 
Maybe they are looking for certain statements that the parents made...... IDK.
 
I think a teen could take a baby for sexual purposes, and I worry that this might just be what happened to baby Lisa. NOT that a teen took her, but that someone in the neighborhood might have done this, perhaps while under the influence of drugs?

I do not think baby Lisa is alive. How I hope I am wrong.

Lord,luv a duck,how are you ,housemouse?

I hope you are wrong ,also. Scary stuff.

Do you think that LE is looking for someone like that on the tapes that were requested?
 
Regarding the raw footage, I'm sure there are many clips that never make it to the air. As with photography, there's a video news editor somewhere trying to find something exciting or pertinent or whatever and that can be edited into the timeframe needed. And editors like to be given lots of footage to choose from.

So I wonder if someone didn't tell LE something like "well, I told that reporter blah blah blah", or LE knows that the news station interviewed certain folks who may have said something on tape that they have since changed or haven't repeated.

In order for LE to supoena the raw, unedited tapes....they have to know somehow that there is something on said tapes that helps their case. How do they know?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
4,611
Total visitors
4,789

Forum statistics

Threads
592,362
Messages
17,968,098
Members
228,760
Latest member
Chelsea Briann
Back
Top