IDI Theories (intruder did it)

[In da Middle]

They would have to be SO Barney Fife-ish to screw up that badly. I just can't see that level of incompetence in a fairly metropolitan department. Let's hope that's not the case. Like you, I want whoever did whatever to Lisa to be brought to justice...and for it to stick.

My question is did they screw up that badly or was the search warrant purposely vague, to the point of being misleading if they didn't screw up that badly. Not really expecting an answer - just pondering out loud.

 

[redheadedgal]

It doesn't say that the parents restricted the search...

it doesn't??

bottom paragraph pg 3:

"the extent of the search had been limited in nature with consent although each search has recovered evidence helpful to further progress the investigation. however, the type of search required at this time would not be conducive to being revoked at any time by the owners, and/or their attorney."

exactly what do the underlined lines imply if not that a search had previously been restricted? lol

 

[In da Middle]

it doesn't??

bottom paragraph pg 3:

"the extent of the search had been limited in nature with consent although each search has recovered evidence helpful to further progress the investigation. however, the type of search required at this time would not be conducive to being revoked at any time by the owners, and/or their attorney."

exactly what do the underlined lines imply if not that a search had previously been restricted? lol

It only really implies that LE wanted to do more extensive searching and MIGHT have to use machinery. They didn't want to take the chance of it being denied for any reason in the middle of an extensive search for any reason. As in the limited nature was that they couldn't destroy anything while they looked. This gave them permission to do such if they felt it was needed. If you read the complete warrant it states they checked the entire house and property before this.

It seem obvious to me that they were not limited in the consented searches as they were allowed to bring in the cadaver dog in the first place. That by itself means that they searched the bedroom. If they were denied access to the bedroom, how did the dog get in there to make the hit?

 

[vlpate]

BBM
And they wait nearly 3 week for that??? Remember also the initial search that produced the 'hit' was a consented search, which was not an "initial" search at all. It was after many consented searches. LE had no probable cause until this consented search. If they had no consent to do this search, there would probably not have been enough info to even get a search warrant in the first place.

And nowhere does the search warrant state that they never searched the bedroom.

The dog hit on a scent, and in order to thoroughly search the master bedroom and gather DNA evidence, etc., they needed a search warrant even if there was consent - they didn't want to risk having evidence thrown out.

AGAIN, I was answering the probable cause question - just because it's a crime scene does not negate LE's duty to show probable cause in order to obtain the search warrant.

 

[redheadedgal]

actually, they looked through the entire house for the baby. only. (how i read it). i would take this to mean a simple visual search.

i'll give you the point about the dog...

i wonder if there's an attorney here who can weigh in on the rest...

 

[Minette]

it doesn't??

bottom paragraph pg 3:

"the extent of the search had been limited in nature with consent although each search has recovered evidence helpful to further progress the investigation. however, the type of search required at this time would not be conducive to being revoked at any time by the owners, and/or their attorney."

exactly what do the underlined lines imply if not that a search had previously been restricted? lol

What IDM stated: that a search with consent could be revoked if, for instance, LE started ripping up carpets or cutting holes in walls. In other words, when LE was there searching with the parents' permission if LE started ripping up floor boards (and there is no indication that any 'destructive' searches of this kind were or had to be done, btw) under a consent search the parents could have just said "stop." And then, unless there was something in plain sight that indicated criminal activity LE would have to stop mid-search and go get a warrant. So they obtained the search warrant that gave them the legal right to go dig up the yard, tear down walls, etc. without the parents' consent if necessary.

 

[vlpate]

]It only really implies that LE wanted to do more extensive searching and MIGHT have to use machinery.[/B] They didn't want to take the chance of it being denied for any reason in the middle of an extensive search for any reason. As in the limited nature was that they couldn't destroy anything while they looked. This gave them permission to do such if they felt it was needed. If you read the complete warrant it states they checked the entire house and property before this.

It seem obvious to me that they were not limited in the consented searches as they were allowed to bring in the cadaver dog in the first place. That by itself means that they searched the bedroom. If they were denied access to the bedroom, how did the dog get in there to make the hit?

Seriously, it's not this difficult. They wanted unfettered access. They got a search warrant, they obviously had their reasons.

 

[In da Middle]

The dog hit on a scent, and in order to thoroughly search the master bedroom and gather DNA evidence, etc., they needed a search warrant even if there was consent - they didn't want to risk having evidence thrown out.

AGAIN, I was answering the probable cause question - just because it's a crime scene does not negate LE's duty to show probable cause in order to obtain the search warrant.

I know that part. I wasn't arguing with you at all. I was mostly correcting the "initial" part. It was far from the first search done. And yes, the entire purpose of the search warrant was so that evidence (all of the whopping 7 items of it) wouldn't get thrown out.

 

[Minette]

Good to know more thorough reading was done.

?

I did re-read the search warrant tonight. It was helpful to once again look at the few actual pieces of information LE has released on this case.

 

[vlpate]

I know that part. I wasn't arguing with you at all. I was mostly correcting the "initial" part. It was far from the first search done. And yes, the entire purpose of the search warrant was so that evidence (all of the whopping 7 items of it) wouldn't get thrown out.

I think those seven may end up being important if Lisa's body is found. It would mean she had died in the house. I know there have been cases with more evidence where LE sat on it for a while, not saying a word, waiting on someone to make a mistake. I hope that's the case here. I just wish they were looking harder for Lisa.

 

[vlpate]

?

I did re-read the search warrant tonight. It was helpful to once again look at the few actual pieces of information LE has released on this case.

I know - I saw it differently there for a minute - I deleted this but you were to quick lol

 

[Minette]

I am all over this forum like a duck on a june bug tonight.

It gets so frustrating with this huge cast of characters trying to figure out what is extraneous weirdness and what is an actual (and relevant) fact.

 

[In da Middle]

I think those seven may end up being important if Lisa's body is found. It would mean she had died in the house. I know there have been cases with more evidence where LE sat on it for a while, not saying a word, waiting on someone to make a mistake. I hope that's the case here. I just wish they were looking harder for Lisa.

Why would those 7 items necessarily mean she died in the house? We don't know the reason why they were took or what the results were of any processing was. It COULD mean she died in the house, but 'would' mean is assuming that the dog hit on all of those items and they all tested positive for her cadaver scent. We dont have enough to definitely say that yet. IMO. And from looking at all of the dog info threads, it definitely seems that if a dead baby was in that house, the dogs should have hit on more things than those 7. That scent is, for lack of a better word, tracky. The dogs should have hit on anything that anybody that handled a dead body would touch or the body laid on.

I am not saying it definitely doesn't mean that though.

 

[In da Middle]

?

I did re-read the search warrant tonight. It was helpful to once again look at the few actual pieces of information LE has released on this case.

hehe and they sure didn't even want to release that, either!
:denied:

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I know that part. I wasn't arguing with you at all. I was mostly correcting the "initial" part. It was far from the first search done. And yes, the entire purpose of the search warrant was so that evidence (all of the whopping 7 items of it) wouldn't get thrown out.

Jumping off your post, wasn't one of the items (1 out of the 7) a glow worm stuffed toy? IIRC it was, so did they release some of the items back to the family b/c I was sure I saw JI holding that stuffed toy during the Dr. P show. :what: It's 1:30 am so I'm not unlazyfied (thanks for the new word Sherbie lol) enough to go searching right now. :great:

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I am all over this forum like a duck on a june bug tonight.

It gets so frustrating with this huge cast of characters trying to figure out what is extraneous weirdness and what is an actual (and relevant) fact.

BBM: OT but I have to ask; is that a regional saying? The only other time I've seen this was in a bluegrass banjo book, it's the name of a tune written by Tony Trishka (sp?) to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Whisperer]

Jumping off your post, wasn't one of the items (1 out of the 7) a glow worm stuffed toy? IIRC it was, so did they release some of the items back to the family b/c I was sure I saw JI holding that stuffed toy during the Dr. P show. :what: It's 1:30 am so I'm not unlazyfied (thanks for the new word Sherbie lol) enough to go searching right now. :great:

I saw JI holding a small purple barney not a glow worm...but I don't even know what a Glo worm is..

 

[Whisperer]

Anyone is allowed representation in this country. It is a right. They shouldn't be judged because of that IMO.

Yeah, yeh, yeh..constitutional rights..know all about it. But it ain't stopping me from saying Phooey on that. How many innocent parents need four Criminal Defense attorneys to protect their rights. GMAB.

Yes, they should be judged. They are hiding behind attorneys and not cooperating. We can all judge their behavior and should.

 

[Whisperer]

Deleted posts to get back on track and see theories of an intruder did this..

 

[Whisperer]

They had unfettered access to the house for 3 days. It was considered a crime scene. They were not limited in any way with that designation. They took bags of evidence during that time. LE should have processed it for either designation -parents did it AND intruder did it. Why would they only process it as intruder did it AND interrogating her as a suspect while they had complete control of the house? That doesn't make sense.

I think their cooperation has been greatly exaggerated.