Lisa has been missing over four months now (poll)

[dog.gone.cute]

Originally Posted by redheadedgal

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 !

As to the WHYS ...

First, let me say, WHAT do we REALLY KNOW about DB -- besides the basic "bio type info" and what she herself has stated ?

And Jeremy, he has said really nothing about her ... oh yes, DB does not let Jeremy talk ... now, that right there tells me Deb is "controlling" over Jeremy ... or is she controlling Jeremy because she wants him to keep his "stories" straight, or that she is afraid he will "crack" ...

And WHERE are her "friends" and "family" ? We heard some "rumblings" from some old "friends" from the military base, which MAY be "rumor" but if not ... hmmm ...

Another thing I would like to know : Was Lisa "planned" ... and did she want another baby ? And it would help to know the TRUTH ...

One thing we do know : DB wanted -- or should I say "demanded" -- that she have her "adult time" ... so HOW MUCH MORE adult time did she want ? What was MORE important -- her "adult time" or her "children" ?

That "wine run" just hours before Lisa went "missing" has always "bothered me" ... JMO ... but there is more to the "story" regarding the "wine run" ... I just can't put my finger on it ...

Wish there were more "answers" ...

Again ... JMO ... and MOO ...

[melissasmom]

Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute

As to the WHYS ...

First, let me say, WHAT do we REALLY KNOW about DB -- besides the basic "bio type info" and what she herself has stated ?

And Jeremy, he has said really nothing about her ... oh yes, DB does not let Jeremy talk ... now, that right there tells me Deb is "controlling" over Jeremy ... or is she controlling Jeremy because she wants him to keep his "stories" straight, or that she is afraid he will "crack" ...

And WHERE are her "friends" and "family" ? We heard some "rumblings" from some old "friends" from the military base, which MAY be "rumor" but if not ... hmmm ...

Another thing I would like to know : Was Lisa "planned" ... and did she want another baby ? And it would help to know the TRUTH ...

One thing we do know : DB wanted -- or should I say "demanded" -- that she have her "adult time" ... so HOW MUCH MORE adult time did she want ? What was MORE important -- her "adult time" or her "children" ?

That "wine run" just hours before Lisa went "missing" has always "bothered me" ... JMO ... but there is more to the "story" regarding the "wine run" ... I just can't put my finger on it ...

Wish there were more "answers" ...

Again ... JMO ... and MOO ...

But not hearing much about DB, to me at least, makes me sway more to her not being involved in Lisa's disappearance. If there were a bunch of people who came out saying all kinds of bad things about DB, and her past, she was a bad mother, she used drugs, she was a pathological liar, etc. then that would send up red flags for me. Now, you can't believe everything people say, people will lie, but if there were confirmed sources showing that DB had a pattern of "misbehavior" then yes that would add suspicion.

I would have to say that her family and friends belive her, they are sticking by her because THEY feel that DB would not have done this. I just don't think an entire circle of family/friends would "protect" her if they thought she did something horrible. Those who LIKE her aren't talking. And we aren't hearing anything bad about her. Well, unless you count that "crazy" uncle JC, who seems to have a screw loose somewhere.

I don't see why the "wine run" is mysterious. She wanted some wine because her friend was coming over, so she went and got some. It may have been an iresponsible and disgusting act on her part to DRINK most of that wine, but I don't see anything hinky about going and buying it. If LE feels that Lisa is deceased and it occured earlier in the day, I bet they would have made it known, because they are going to want to hear from someone who may have seen Lisa in the hours leading up to the store trip, or the day before.

[redheadedgal]

"other purposes"? "original purpose"? i'm lost. blamin' my headache lol

[melissasmom]

There are 14 guests down below. I wish they would join and let us know what THEY think. Always nice to have new thoughts and opinons.

[hambirg]

Originally Posted by RANCH

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.

I was reading somewhere that 90% of lies are lies by omission. When you omit something it's not because you just don't recall. . .you knowingly omit it to avoid consequence.

If a police officer pulls somebody over on suspicion of drunk driving and asks, "So what have you been doing tonight?" And the driver responds that they came home from work, went to the grocery store, then to the bank and are on their way home now, but they omit that they also went to the bar and had 7 shots of tequila. . .that's a lie by omission. They knowingly omit it to avoid the consequence. It's why police officers almost always will ask in this situation, "Have you been drinking tonight?" Most people are much more uncomfortable telling a bold face lie.

I don't believe that DB did not know she drank that night. . .so she lied by omission. Why? To make herself look better and because she believes that the drinking IS important to whatever happened that night. If she really didn't think it was important she wouldn't have omitted it. Just like the driver above knows that going to the bar and having 7 shots IS important to the situation he/she finds himself/herself in.

The other problem with lies of omission is that they create gaps. The liar feels compelled to fill in those gaps with things that may not have happened. It was the first thing that made me suspect DB when she said in one of the earliest interviews, “Just change her, you know, put fresh clothes on her, and get her ready for bed, and gave her her bottle, and made sure her binky was in her crib in case she needed it, and she sleeps with her Barney, and she sleeps with her GloWorm and her blanket and that was, that was it.” She is filling in the gaps here. . .she doesn't say "I" and she doesn't even speak in past tense for most of it. It's weird. Another thing. . .she says "that was it." Big red flag saying that was NOT it.

It would be like the driver above feeling compelled to fill in the gap in his/her story by adding some extra stuff that didn't happen. . ."just go to the gas station, you know, and then go to McDonald's. I had french fries and a strawberry milk shake. I love their strawberry milkshakes. And that was it." They know that that was not it. They know the part they omitted was actually important.

MOO

[DeAnn]

Originally Posted by Whisperer

Why don't people concentrate on what they did take and not what they didn't?

Because we don't know everything.

Like the wine. They took the contents. But they took it when they had voluntary access so it wasn't listed on the search warrants.

Paper bag after paper back was taken out the first day or two. No idea what was in the bag.

We know the crib wasn't taken. And some legal experts have said that was a mistake by police since she was supposedly taken from the crib. Some experts have said the crib should have gone to the crime lab to be processed for finger prints and DNA. Others have said it could be done at the scene and wood doesn't show finger prints.

We know what was listed in the search warrant. We know what wasn't taken that could be seen during the house tours. But we don't know everything that was taken.

[DeAnn]

Originally Posted by norest4thewicked

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.

I also think they helped keep the pesky media folks and their cameras from both on the ground and in the air from seeing into the room.

As I'm sure InDaMiddle can attest from the thump thumps that the two news helicopters in town were flying a lot over the home. Yes, there were no fly times but they weren't constant. And as soon as the Amber Alert went out, the choppers were called and were flying over Lister that very morning.

[RANCH]

Originally Posted by hambirg

I was reading somewhere that 90% of lies are lies by omission. When you omit something it's not because you just don't recall. . .you knowingly omit it to avoid consequence.

If a police officer pulls somebody over on suspicion of drunk driving and asks, "So what have you been doing tonight?" And the driver responds that they came home from work, went to the grocery store, then to the bank and are on their way home now, but they omit that they also went to the bar and had 7 shots of tequila. . .that's a lie by omission. They knowingly omit it to avoid the consequence. It's why police officers almost always will ask in this situation, "Have you been drinking tonight?" Most people are much more uncomfortable telling a bold face lie.

I don't believe that DB did not know she drank that night. . .so she lied by omission. Why? To make herself look better and because she believes that the drinking IS important to whatever happened that night. If she really didn't think it was important she wouldn't have omitted it. Just like the driver above knows that going to the bar and having 7 shots IS important to the situation he/she finds himself/herself in.

The other problem with lies of omission is that they create gaps. The liar feels compelled to fill in those gaps with things that may not have happened. It was the first thing that made me suspect DB when she said in one of the earliest interviews, “Just change her, you know, put fresh clothes on her, and get her ready for bed, and gave her her bottle, and made sure her binky was in her crib in case she needed it, and she sleeps with her Barney, and she sleeps with her GloWorm and her blanket and that was, that was it.” She is filling in the gaps here. . .she doesn't say "I" and she doesn't even speak in past tense for most of it. It's weird. Another thing. . .she says "that was it." Big red flag saying that was NOT it.

It would be like the driver above feeling compelled to fill in the gap in his/her story by adding some extra stuff that didn't happen. . ."just go to the gas station, you know, and then go to McDonald's. I had french fries and a strawberry milk shake. I love their strawberry milkshakes. And that was it." They know that that was not it. They know the part they omitted was actually important.

MOO

Ok. So your saying that Debbie didn't tell LE that she was drinking that night. She purposely left that out of any early interviews with LE. She lied by omission. Why did she talk to the media about her drinking? Why even bring it up? Why not try to cover it up? LE hasn't released anything that DB/JI have said.. I'm still not seeing any proof of "lying by omission".

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Originally Posted by RANCH

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.

thanks Ranch, that was my point, if DB doesn't disclose to the media every single detail it is called "lying by omission" by sum, but if LE doesn't give every detail it's not the same to those above. Seems like a double standard to me.

[RANCH]

Originally Posted by DeAnn

Because we don't know everything.

Like the wine. They took the contents. But they took it when they had voluntary access so it wasn't listed on the search warrants.

Paper bag after paper back was taken out the first day or two. No idea what was in the bag.

We know the crib wasn't taken. And some legal experts have said that was a mistake by police since she was supposedly taken from the crib. Some experts have said the crib should have gone to the crime lab to be processed for finger prints and DNA. Others have said it could be done at the scene and wood doesn't show finger prints.

We know what was listed in the search warrant. We know what wasn't taken that could be seen during the house tours. But we don't know everything that was taken.

BBM
DeAnn you have to explain this sentence "paper bag after paper back was taken out the first day or two".

In two days bag after bag of evidence was removed? And you have no idea what was in the "bag"?

[hambirg]

Originally Posted by RANCH

Ok. So your saying that Debbie didn't tell LE that she was drinking that night. She purposely left that out of any early interviews with LE. She lied by omission. Why did she talk to the media about her drinking? Why even bring it up? Why not try to cover it up? LE hasn't released anything that DB/JI have said.. I'm still not seeing any proof of "lying by omission".

That's what DB says. She said it on Dr.Phil.

So when did she tell LE about the drinking? Idk, but I suspect it was when they confronted her about it. I'm pretty sure it didn't take LE too long to figure it out. She omits it this first interview too. Idk if LE already knew or not at that point. She had to address it when the video from Festival Foods was made public. I would have to go back and look at the early timeline to see just how that all transpired. But she did say on Dr. Phil that she omitted it until she was confronted about it.

[Whisperer]

I was reading that somebody thinks some or one of us think DB killed her baby. Here's my take. IF DB is guilty of hiding Lisa due to an accident, that'll be a first. One your baby gets hurt, 911 is called. Any loving parent will do that. Now if you caused the accident and hid it, you may fall in the homicide category...could be negligent, but it is homicide. It has been four months now and these parents have had plenty of time to come clean if they are involved in this mess.

You don't wait till your arrested and the body is decomposed and claim, "It was an accident". I am sure LE has told them that. I am also pretty sure that is what the parent/s will do...if charged.

Conclusion is if it was an accident, they should have told LE...since they didn't and evidence is found they will be charged with a homicide of sorts. I don't think I can think of a time a parent buried or hid a child because there was an accident.

[Donjeta]

Originally Posted by Dewey2Me1MoThyme

thanks Ranch, that was my point, if DB doesn't disclose to the media every single detail it is called "lying by omission" by sum, but if LE doesn't give every detail it's not the same to those above. Seems like a double standard to me.

It's SOP and totally expected for LE not to share all of their evidence with the general public (including the perp). They have some very good reasons for not giving out too much info because it can potentially make their investigation more difficult and ruin the chances of getting the perp convicted. They are protecting the investigation. (Sunshine laws may make a difference in different states in how far they go doing this.)

If the parents of a missing child do not tell that they got sloshed and may have passed out leaving the doors and windows open giving the perp free access to their child they're probably mostly protecting themselves.

It's not a double standard if you're not comparing players in similar circumstances doing exactly the same thing but players in totally different roles and with different motivations. Apples and oranges, and all that.

Anyway, I think most are more concerned because it seems that DB may not have disclosed everything to LE, not so much because of the media.

[oh_gal]

Originally Posted by Dewey2Me1MoThyme

thanks Ranch, that was my point, if DB doesn't disclose to the media every single detail it is called "lying by omission" by sum, but if LE doesn't give every detail it's not the same to those above. Seems like a double standard to me.

DB is a key player in a missing person's investigation, possibly even a murder investigation, for the simple reason that she is the child's mother, and was her caregiver and in the home when the crime occurred. As it stands right now, her level of involvement isn't known. It's not realistic for LE, who are in charge of investigating this case and hopefully finding this child and bringing those responsible, to justice, to show their hand. That could hinder their efforts. It is, however, totally realistic, to expect that a missing child's parent, especially when they keep insisting that they are innocent, would relate to the investigators who could bring their child home, every detail of their daily life, as many times as necessary, so as not to hinder (or slow down) the investigation. The more truthful information LE has, the better they can do their job.

There is no double standard. A double standard would exist between equal parties, which DB and LE are not, by the very nature of their roles in this investigation.

[Donjeta]

Imo this discussion is a bit like a health inspector who said that the drinking water in the community was undrinkable due to too high chlorine levels and then he pointed out that the local swimming pool has too low chlorine levels. Someone then notices that the drinking water and the swimming pool had exactly the same chlorine levels and accuses him of having double standards, like it's a bad thing, when in fact he is supposed to have different standards to evaluate the useability of water for different purposes, and what is excellent for drinking water is not OK for pool water and vice versa.

[oh_gal]

Originally Posted by Whisperer

I was reading that somebody thinks some or one of us think DB killed her baby. Here's my take. IF DB is guilty of hiding Lisa due to an accident, that'll be a first. One your baby gets hurt, 911 is called. Any loving parent will do that. Now if you caused the accident and hid it, you may fall in the homicide category...could be negligent, but it is homicide. It has been four months now and these parents have had plenty of time to come clean if they are involved in this mess.

You don't wait till your arrested and the body is decomposed and claim, "It was an accident". I am sure LE has told them that. I am also pretty sure that is what the parent/s will do...if charged.

Conclusion is if it was an accident, they should have told LE...since they didn't and evidence is found they will be charged with a homicide of sorts. I don't think I can think of a time a parent buried or hid a child because there was an accident.

(above bbm)
If that is indeed how it plays out, I think we'll hear something along the lines of...."I/We wanted to tell when it happened, but I/we were too scared....and then everything just snowballed, and then I/we were more scared....etc, etc."

[cityslick]

Originally Posted by norest4thewicked

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.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was getting tired of the insinuation that the bags were on the windows by the parents to keep BL in the dark.

[cityslick]

Originally Posted by hambirg

That's what DB says. She said it on Dr.Phil.

So when did she tell LE about the drinking? Idk, but I suspect it was when they confronted her about it. I'm pretty sure it didn't take LE too long to figure it out. She omits it this first interview too. Idk if LE already knew or not at that point. She had to address it when the video from Festival Foods was made public. I would have to go back and look at the early timeline to see just how that all transpired. But she did say on Dr. Phil that she omitted it until she was confronted about it.

Wouldn't you think that LE would found out pretty quick about the drinking from SB, even before finding the receipt though? I can defend some of the things that DB has said, but this stuff about not telling LE she was drinking doesn't sit well. My hesitation on it is we don't know exactly when she told LE this, it's speculation. Was it during the initial discussions with LE about everything that happened the night before? Days later? etc.

[Donjeta]

They saw SB before calling 911 so it's possible for DB to have told her, oh please don't tell them we were drinking, they'll say I'm a horrible mom. Whether SB is the kind of person who would go along with something like that I don't know. Then there is the other SB, and since they sat outside someone else might have seen them too. LE was bound to find out IMO so if she omitted the detail it was pretty pointless.

If she drank a lot and was still under the influence at 4 am the first responders might already have noticed her state.

[natsound]

Originally Posted by Donjeta

They saw SB before calling 911 so it's possible for DB to have told her, oh please don't tell them we were drinking, they'll say I'm a horrible mom. Whether SB is the kind of person who would go along with something like that I don't know. Then there is the other SB, and since they sat outside someone else might have seen them too. LE was bound to find out IMO so if she omitted the detail it was pretty pointless.

If she drank a lot and was still under the influence at 4 am the first responders might already have noticed her state.

Even if she drank 7, 8, 9 glasses of wine, she may have been "scared straight" when first responders arrived. Some drinkers are pretty good at functioning when they need to.

[norest4thewicked]

Originally Posted by redheadedgal

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.

Whew! This is too confusing to me....

[norest4thewicked]

Originally Posted by Whisperer

I was reading that somebody thinks some or one of us think DB killed her baby. Here's my take. IF DB is guilty of hiding Lisa due to an accident, that'll be a first. One your baby gets hurt, 911 is called. Any loving parent will do that. Now if you caused the accident and hid it, you may fall in the homicide category...could be negligent, but it is homicide. It has been four months now and these parents have had plenty of time to come clean if they are involved in this mess.

You don't wait till your arrested and the body is decomposed and claim, "It was an accident". I am sure LE has told them that. I am also pretty sure that is what the parent/s will do...if charged.

Conclusion is if it was an accident, they should have told LE...since they didn't and evidence is found they will be charged with a homicide of sorts. I don't think I can think of a time a parent buried or hid a child because there was an accident.

BBM

That is what Casey Anthony did, and she got away with it too...

[GoodGurl]

Originally Posted by Donjeta

They saw SB before calling 911 so it's possible for DB to have told her, oh please don't tell them we were drinking, they'll say I'm a horrible mom. Whether SB is the kind of person who would go along with something like that I don't know. Then there is the other SB, and since they sat outside someone else might have seen them too. LE was bound to find out IMO so if she omitted the detail it was pretty pointless.

If she drank a lot and was still under the influence at 4 am the first responders might already have noticed her state.

Totally possible, even likely. JI runs over to ask about baby, I'm sure SB followed him back to their house and talked with DB while they waited on cops, even while JI was looking around still. They had time to discuss it.

But if that were my friend, I might in the heat of the moment do what she requested, but by the next day I'd be saying - hey, I'm not lying to the cops - AND...exactly why do you want me to?!?!

There's lots of room for criticism for DB to be drinking while in charge of young children, one sick. But if she's completely innocent, it strikes me as odd that she'd even have the mental capacity to lie to the police about it, in the face of baby missing. She was reportedly in a heap on the floor crying.

I assume, they said, ok so what was happening last night, she'd say basically what she is saying now, baby was asleep in her room, kids watching movie, me and friend sat on porch and had a few. No big deal, really. SO why lie about it in the beginning? Makes no sense.

[kansascitypi]

Good afternoon gang. I have about 20 minutes if anybody wants to discuss this case.
Ron Rugen

[Little Ol Me]

Originally Posted by kansascitypi

Good afternoon gang. I have about 20 minutes if anybody wants to discuss this case.
Ron Rugen

Can you tell us what if anything, you learned from Megan's cell phone records, pertaining to this case? Thank you