How much does Jeremy know?

[Donjeta]

I think JI's middle initial is L. and Jeremy W is someone different, different address and birth year.

There are cases for Jeremy L Irwin, his address is listed as North Lister and there's also a case with Rasleen Raim.

 

[Detective Klimpt]

I think JI's middle initial is L. and Jeremy W is someone different, different address and birth year.

There are cases for Jeremy L Irwin, his address is listed as North Lister and there's also a case with Rasleen Raim.

Oh thanks Donjeta. Now I am sorry I wrote that. Should I delete it? I thought they were all Jeremy W. I'll have to go back and look again.

 

[RANCH]

These posts leave me a bit confused. Does the Jeremy Irwin in this case have record of a DUI or not? And if so, what would it mean in this case? That he condones child neglect by Debbie? Help me out here.

 

[askfornina]

These posts leave me a bit confused. Does the Jeremy Irwin in this case have record of a DUI or not? And if so, what would it mean in this case? That he condones child neglect by Debbie? Help me out here.

not on casenet, nope. the only source is Megyn Kelly apparently, and she has been known to get things wrong in this case.

 

[highflyer]

It has been said also that they own two cars. One is a large SUV and the other is a large white sedan. I saw that JI drove a company car that morning. The company I read about only has three (two are husband and wife) people in it and one is Jeremy...kind of surprised he was driving the company vehicle. I will be challenged for being surprised..count on it.

In the interview referenced above, it was stated that LE took evidence from the neighbor's house. These interviews were very good. Jeremy was arrested for DUI a few years ago. Maybe both of them have drinking problems.

How much does Jeremy know? I say a lot.

Jeremy has nothing on Casenet for DUI. Was this in another state than Missouri?

 

[cityslick]

not on casenet, nope. the only source is Megyn Kelly apparently, and she has been known to get things wrong in this case.

Yea, I must of been asleep the day MK became the shining beacon of fact on here or anywhere else.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Yea, I must of been asleep the day MK became the shining beacon of fact on here or anywhere else.

If we had to certify all sources as shining beacons of facts before we quoted them ~ we would have zero to discuss.

 

[JudysSisterMaureen]

I just hope that both of them start telling the whole truth soon. Like that's going to happen with that slimeball lawyer of theirs ... how can anyone believe a word they say when they hire big name, big-case lawyers? They're just going to wait it out? Until when? what is it going to take-- someone finding poor little lisa's remains and bringing it in front of them for them to deny??

 

[Whisperer]

I've seen cases disappear from the web before. Sometimes an attorney can make them vanish from view. It is all part of rehabilitating their client. Nowadays, they even hire people to post on social networking sites.

To say Megan Kelly got it wrong but believe Deborah Bradley tells the truth is quite a leap IMO. MK is not the first reporter to not like DB or JI. They all don't have it wrong. It seems to be most all are suspicious of the parents. When you see this in the reporting, it is likely a very good reason they have their doubts...as they have better sources than we do.

As far as JI drinking, my money is on he does. It may be the reason he excuses DB for drinking and getting sloshed while watching his children. He doesn't see any wrong in it. A person who didn't drink and found out the sitter was passed out drunk while watching the children, and one got stolen would be pizzad to high heaven...not Jeremy. He supports DB.

Something is wrong with his loyalty.

 

[Whisperer]

I clearly recall Jeremy telling us he woke up deb and ask her what is going on? This was in reference to the lights and the kitten and the boy/s in the bed. deb tells us later she said, "What do you mean she isn't in the crib?" This indicates Jeremy informed her lisa was missing. Later they both change it to a shared experience found in a search. Both recall checking on the boys first in both of their stories. DB recalls putting the boys to bed but not checking lisa. JI recalls checking on the boys but not lisa when he got home. It appears Lisa is always a second thought.

HOWEVER...jeremy later tells us that both (WE) went into the room and saw she wasn't there. Which is it?

Both parents are lying and covering up as they both shift their stories to accomodate facts. Both parents used the word "She" and "her" when the story broke...never calling Lisa by name.

Later as the press and media grew, they started calling her 'Baby Lisa"...a name the press gave her. I see no bonding with these two parents and their daughter, but have observed their words and they distance themselves from their daughter. Both have information about what happened, imo...this was no stranger abduction as they would like the public to believe.

 

[Whisperer]

I don't care if he doesn't have a DUI on record now or in the past. Something is wrong with the guy. It is not normal to behave the way he does. If he knew about DB and her drinking and accepts it and continued to let her watch the kids, then he has more problems than drinking alcohol. This won't be the first time records vanish.

The whole case has been cleaned up and presented to the public as accurate by their attorneys. I say and will continue to say, "That something smells in Denmark". From the Walrond addy (safe house) to the employment and Deb's drinking to their explanations to the media of what happened. Something is very wrong with these two parents.

Where is this benefactor and what is the status today? What is her connection with DB? Why hasn't $100K brought in one clue? Why is not one person in this family talking to the media and putting Lisa out there if they believe she was kidnapped. Simple for me: None of them believe she was kidnapped. All the answers lie within the walls of the North Lister addy...imo.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I've seen cases disappear from the web before. Sometimes an attorney can make them vanish from view. It is all part of rehabilitating their client. Nowadays, they even hire people to post on social networking sites.

To say Megan Kelly got it wrong but believe Deborah Bradley tells the truth is quite a leap IMO. MK is not the first reporter to not like DB or JI. They all don't have it wrong. It seems to be most all are suspicious of the parents. When you see this in the reporting, it is likely a very good reason they have their doubts...as they have better sources than we do.

As far as JI drinking, my money is on he does. It may be the reason he excuses DB for drinking and getting sloshed while watching his children. He doesn't see any wrong in it. A person who didn't drink and found out the sitter was passed out drunk while watching the children, and one got stolen would be pizzad to high heaven...not Jeremy. He supports DB.

Something is wrong with his loyalty.

I'm going to assume that the cases you saw disappear online were pretty low profile/obscure. There are lots of cases where there's only 1-2 websites that mention them. But a case that's gotten this much media attention? I don't think so. How would a lawyer remove all the news articles, the forum posts, the social media posts, etc? It's not like the Internet is run by some company, and a lawyer just has to make a phone call, and BOOM, every reference to Lisa Irwin online is GONE.

Also, what are these lawyers' credentials that even the possibility of them making this highly-publicized case disappear is brought up? I feel like I've stepped into the "Twilight Zone" with this case. I thought the Irwins were your average middle-class family, but I've read posts suggesting that they control the media and the Internet.

Also....What were the names of cases that you've seen completely disappear from the Internet?

 

[cityslick]

If we had to certify all sources as shining beacons of facts before we quoted them ~ we would have zero to discuss.

So are you saying anything that comes from msm, a talking head, or show host should be taken as a fact when there is nothing to back it up? Especially what someone (mk) who for a fact has misreported/misstated information about this case? Mk first priority is ratings, not accurately report the news. She's not a news anchor or reporter.

 

[Whisperer]

How many excuses have to made for Lisa'sparents? Talk show hosts don't like them. There is a reason for that. When the media turns on you, it is probably because you have done something that is frowned upon by society. In this case, we have two people that refuse to be interviewed, are not pleading for Lisa's return and are in hiding from the public

Now we have Megan Kelly painted as the "bad guy" in all this. First it was mean Popo, then it was the Constitution and the rights of the parents, then it was not enough cadaver dogs used and now it is a talk show host that is lying....all this being done because they are picking on Lisa's parents.

DB and JI brought all this on themselves. No innocent parent needs several high profile Criminal Defense Attorneys when their child is missing. No innocent parent continues to hide from the public and not plead for their child if they truly believed the baby was kidnapped. These parents don't care to use the media and find their daughter....quite the opposite from concerned parents who take every opportunity to get their child's face "out there".

 

[Whisperer]

So are you saying anything that comes from msm, a talking head, or show host should be taken as a fact when there is nothing to back it up? Especially what someone (mk) who for a fact has misreported/misstated information about this case? Mk first priority is ratings, not accurately report the news. She's not a news anchor or reporter.

Being a news anchor or reporter doesn't matter much anymore. All get the info from the same sources. They copy and grab what they can and they can't verify with LE because LE no longer helps out reporters. Those days are gone.

I've heard enough about facts with the jurors in the Anthony case. In a circumstantial case, one has to have the ability to connect the dots. There isn't usually a video of the crime. Circumstantial is also strong evidence. Eye witnesses are notoriously mistaken in a lot of cases when the suspects is not known to them. Sometimes the body isn't found and sometimes the evidence/BODY is degraded. a COD is not necessary...though the Pinellas crowd insisted on it. Some seem to demand it. I don't think it matters.

This doesn't mean the suspect cannot be convicted. It appears though that the jurors from Pinalles wanted the video...and nothing less would satisfy them. I hope that doesn't happen here. Granted we don't know all the specifics but I bet LE does...or has a lot of info. The preponderance of what I do know, tells me that the parents are suspects and should be. The fact that they lawyered up so quickly makes it now unlikely that Lisa will be found.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

How many excuses have to made for Lisa'sparents? Talk show hosts don't like them. There is a reason for that. When the media turns on you, it is probably because you have done something that is frowned upon by society. In this case, we have two people that refuse to be interviewed, are not pleading for Lisa's return and are in hiding from the public

Now we have Megan Kelly painted as the "bad guy" in all this. First it was mean Popo, then it was the Constitution and the rights of the parents, then it was not enough cadaver dogs used and now it is a talk show host that is lying....all this being done because they are picking on Lisa's parents.

DB and JI brought all this on themselves. No innocent parent needs several high profile Criminal Defense Attorneys when their child is missing. No innocent parent continues to hide from the public and not plead for their child if they truly believed the baby was kidnapped. These parents don't care to use the media and find their daughter....quite the opposite from concerned parents who take every opportunity to get their child's face "out there".

Where is the proof that talk show hosts don't like the Irwins? The reason the case isn't in the national news anymore has to do with A.) NO ONE...not the parents, LE, or the lawyers....talking to the media anymore B.) No new developments C.) VERY FEW cases get months of coverage and D.) Other cases have replaced it.

Also, I can't help but remember back in October, when this case was hot in the media, all this talk about a media deal that the Irwins had....and now we're going on two months without a word from the parents. So which one is it? Are the parents looking to get rich and infamous from this case....or do they want it to all go away?

I also don't see why it matters if the media has turned on the Irwins or not. And what does that even mean? The media won't report on the case anymore because they think the parents were involved? That the media won't allow the Irwins to be on their shows because they think they are guilty?

 

[Minette]

Good grief, what I want to know is what connections Jeremy supposedly has to get public records expunged or covered up?? I believe this is a case of mistaken identity, like the rumors that spread like wildfire that DB had drug & other criminal charges in her past because there is another Deborah Bradley on Casenet that does. The other Deborah Bradley was something like 20 years older than DB, but that did not stop people from spreading that rumor like it was gospel. There is another Jeremy Irwin on Casenet, BTW.

To me the easiest explanation is that a researcher for MK's show did a quick search and didn't perform thorough due diligence in the rush to get something on the air.

 

[Whisperer]

So all this defense about poor jeremy and his having or not having a DUI is another example of how far people will go in defending the parents. I, of course, will go far in the other direction. There is more information for them being involved and covering up a crime than them being innocent.

All this need to correct every little thing about the parents is exhausting. These two do not care to plea for their alleged kidnapped daughter. That says it all. Why waste time in defending them?

As far as the question about the media and them employing the ABC. They did that. But when the thunder and rain came pouring down on their pathetic attempts at defending their behavior. Their attorney has shut them up for fear of pitchforks and torches headed their way.

This couple is not endearing...not in the least. I am sure they collected money for their pics/videos they shared with ABC. It is out of the limelight for now though...they have to save themselves because Lisa is gone for good and they know it.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I don't see how pointing out that it was a different Jeremy Irwin who has a DUI is defending the real JI. It's not relevant to the case at all, so we should throw out that rumor. Having a discussion about this mythical DUI is what the Irwins would want since it distracts us from the actual case.

I also don't understand how asking for clarification for statements about the Irwins' supposed control over the media and the Internet is defending them. Personally, I think they are guilty and I hate reading posts that make this average couple sound like they are something special.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

So are you saying anything that comes from msm, a talking head, or show host should be taken as a fact when there is nothing to back it up? Especially what someone (mk) who for a fact has misreported/misstated information about this case? Mk first priority is ratings, not accurately report the news. She's not a news anchor or reporter.

No, I'm not saying everything from those sources should be taken as fact. But I don't automatically discount every report from one specific person exclusively because they made an error in reporting.

For example, I don't discount everything that JI and DB have said, even though their statements have changed.

It's never 100% either way. I believe bias in either direction is wrong.