Interview with Mike Thompson

[Whisperer]

Bottom line: If you choose to believe the witnesses and this is your reasoning for the parents not being involved, so be it. I have learned that witnesses are notoriously incorrect about what they see or think they saw when they remember a possible crime being committed. If you believe this was Lisa, it is your right to do so. I understand that not all think alike, and that is good and makes for lively debate.

It is out there. Two people claim they may have seen baby Lisa being carried by a man. I bet dollars to donuts, there are more sightings. I also bet we will hear about a woman carrying "Lisa" too. In fact, I think there was one, but it has not made the big time. It may not be so good because people may assume it was DB...can't have that!

There are more sightings, you can count on it.

 

[Whisperer]

I don't believe that the husband ever did agree to be interviewed(on camera). My impression was that he was very uncomfortable having any attention on himself, maybe he is just one of those types of people. Though I may be wrong, if anyone knows of an interview with him feel free to link.

A 30 pound child could be carried this way. I carried my children this way when they were sleeping. Not when they were 30 pounds, but I am only 5'1", so it wouldn't really be feasible. Or maybe the guy was purposely holding the baby's head to his chest, I dont know. I also don't know if this baby was Lisa either. But it is something to ponder, and it is not impossible.

I carried my 30lb. sleeping baby too...but his head was over my shoulder not at my sternum.

 

[melissasmom]

I don't know what he saw or didn't see. But why did people believe they saw Laci Peterson after Scott Peterson went sturgeon fishing? When Tyler Dasher went missing, there were immediately reports of man seen with a baby (and we all know how that one turned out). Just because someone thinks they saw something doesn't necessarily makes it so.

But don't you think that's odd? I can see mistaken eyewitnesses, they see someone who may resemble the person, or they see that person, but it is a different day than what they thought. I mean, a pregnant woman walking a dog, people see that all the time. But a man carrying an almost naked baby down the street at 4 am? It seems that would be a strange thing to be mistaken about. Example "Oh wait no, I didnt see that baby on Main St. at 4 am, it was actually 2 weeks before that when I was at the beach." big difference. And like I said, I am not saying the baby WAS Lisa, but with so few leads, nothing should be disregarded.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I have no idea if it was Lisa, or was not Lisa. But I do believe that MT saw a man carrying a baby clad only in a diaper. And I believe that obviously it is something that needs to be investigated, if it is not currently already being investigated.

Why would he make it up? I guess he could, if he were an "odd" person. But why say the baby wasnt wearing any clothes? On a fairly chilly night? And who is to say that the man carrying the baby WAS a stranger to her? Maybe he wasn't. I just don't see disregarding it out of hand.

BBM: Thompson CHANGED his story :


snipped from : http://www.kmbc.com/news/29547997/de...#ixzz1kJDFror8

"I was going south on 435, I exited on 48th Street, and I see a man who was walking up Randolph carrying a baby," Thompson said. "And I looked at him, he was about 30 feet from me, he turned and looked at me, and I looked at him. It's 4 o'clock in the morning, 45 degrees and the baby doesn't have a blanket, a coat, nothing," Mike Thompson told ABC. "And this guy is walking down the street. I thought it was kind of weird."


http://www.youtube.com/Sierra1947#p/u/114/rBy1f04Pbx8

See Clip of Thompson's interview with HLN -- at appx. 11:33

In this interview he says that the "baby" he saw was wearing "... a t-shirt, and either training pants or a diaper on... "


Too many "inconsistencies" from Thompson ... :waitasec: and now he is claiming he "hollered" at this man walking down the street carrying a baby ...

MOO

 

[melissasmom]

Bottom line: If you choose to believe the witnesses and this is your reasoning for the parents not being involved, so be it. I have learned that witnesses are notoriously incorrect about what they see or think they saw when they remember a possible crime being committed.

It is out there. Two people claim they may have seen baby Lisa being carried by a man. I bet dollars to donuts, there are more sightings. I also bet we will hear about a woman carrying "Lisa" too. In fact, I think there was one, but it has not made the big time. It may not be so good because people may assume it was DB...can't have that!

There are more sightings, you can count on it.

Nope. My reason for not believing at this time that they are involved, is because there is no EVIDENCE that they were involved. If any comes up, then I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[hambirg]

I followed the Cooper case last year. I don't know if your familiar with it, but it was about a woman who was abducted/killed while allegedly jogging. Turns out she never went jogging, her husband killed her. But one of the defenses biggest witnesses was a lady who said she saw her go jogging that morning. Now, when she got up on the stand and testified, it was obvious after a while that she in fact, did not see Nancy Cooper. But this lady truly believed she did. She saw someone. She wasn't lying, she wasn't trying to lead LE on a wild goose chase. She was just a lady who believed in what she saw.

Not everything is a conspiracy if it goes against your frame of thinking.

I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think most people have good intentions, but eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. I think there are numerous cases where well intentioned eye witnesses believe they saw something, when in fact they didn't. It's just the way it works.

With this particular sighting, what bothers me most is that GA interfered with the witness. What if MT did see BL that night, but it wasn't Mr. Brando? I believe that LE did investigate this sighting. I know they looked closely at JB and he supposedly passed a LDT. So now what good can this sighting do? It's unfortunate if it was in fact BL.

A little OT, but I have a friend that witnessed a murder. She was in her car at the drive-up window at a bank when two men came out of the bank and one shot the other right there in front of her car. Her sister was in the car with her too. When the case finally came to trial, my friend was never called as a witness, but her sister was. She was kind of disappointed about it and since I know people, who know people , I found out the reason they didn't use her is because she picked the wrong guy out of the line-up. Her sister did pick the right guy though. It was a business deal gone bad and they apparently had a lot of other evidence against the defendant. . .but they couldn't use her eyewitness account. So it happens. Well intentioned people get it wrong sometimes.

 

[Whisperer]

Nope. My reason for not believing at this time that they are involved, is because there is no EVIDENCE that they were involved. If any comes up, then I reserve the right to change my mind.

There may never be any evidence to solve the crime. It is almost impossible to get evidence on a parent if they used a soft kill. Their DNA and the victim's DNA are all over the house. The best that can happen is that LE can crack the case in the first few days.

A benefactor stepped in and the parents lawyered up before LE could crack them. Happens more and more. Almost all hope is lost if LE can't get to them. Smart Defense Attorneys know this.

"No body; No crime" is the motto where children are concerned. Sometimes you have to connect the dots to figure out a case and a perp. This nation has got spoiled with this CSI and Bones mentality. People are screaming Hard Evidence...show us, and while you're showing us, we want to know how they did too. All this is a Defense Attorneys dream.

They had a cadaver dog hit inside the home...nope, that's not good enough for some. So, once again, we see a case where justice will not happen. In circumstantial cases, one needs to have the ability to connect the dots. I am grateful the Peterson Trial was held here and that jurors used their logic to convict Scott P. Logic seems to take second place with some and emotion is used to replace it.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

BBM: Thompson CHANGED his story :


snipped from : http://www.kmbc.com/news/29547997/de...#ixzz1kJDFror8

"I was going south on 435, I exited on 48th Street, and I see a man who was walking up Randolph carrying a baby," Thompson said. "And I looked at him, he was about 30 feet from me, he turned and looked at me, and I looked at him. It's 4 o'clock in the morning, 45 degrees and the baby doesn't have a blanket, a coat, nothing," Mike Thompson told ABC. "And this guy is walking down the street. I thought it was kind of weird."


http://www.youtube.com/Sierra1947#p/u/114/rBy1f04Pbx8

See Clip of Thompson's interview with HLN -- at appx. 11:33

In this interview he says that the "baby" he saw was wearing "... a t-shirt, and either training pants or a diaper on... "


Too many "inconsistencies" from Thompson ... :waitasec: and now he is claiming he "hollered" at this man walking down the street carrying a baby ...

MOO

BBM "30 feet from me" in that interview vs "carrying a baby was probably around 20 to 30 yards" in the article where Ron Rugen says what MT tells him is a big difference. Now the baby might have been up to 3 times as far from him as he first reported. Why this difference? Why has the story changed?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Nope. My reason for not believing at this time that they are involved, is because there is no EVIDENCE that they were involved. If any comes up, then I reserve the right to change my mind.

BBM: I believe that there IS evidence, however, LE has NOT released any information from the RESULTS of the tests that were done.

LE searched that house for hours and hours ... and they also brought in that CSI crew that takes those x-rays -- and those guys were going back and forth, to and from the house and to their work van, for hours ...

Also ... remember the HRD HIT in DB's bedroom.

Also ... the list of items taken from the house -- search warrant.

But LE is keeping :silenced::silenced::silenced:

JMO ... JMO ... but I believe LE has the evidence -- I believe they need the body.

MOO ...

 

[melissasmom]

I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think most people have good intentions, but eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. I think there are numerous cases where well intentioned eye witnesses believe they saw something, when in fact they didn't. It's just the way it works.

With this particular sighting, what bothers me most is that GA interfered with the witness. What if MT did see BL that night, but it wasn't Mr. Brando? I believe that LE did investigate this sighting. I know they looked closely at JB and he supposedly passed a LDT. So now what good can this sighting do? It's unfortunate if it was in fact BL.

A little OT, but I have a friend that witnessed a murder. She was in her car at the drive-up window at a bank when two men came out of the bank and one shot the other right there in front of her car. Her sister was in the car with her too. When the case finally came to trial, my friend was never called as a witness, but her sister was. She was kind of disappointed about it and since I know people, who know people , I found out the reason they didn't use her is because she picked the wrong guy out of the line-up. Her sister did pick the right guy though. It was a business deal gone bad and they apparently had a lot of other evidence against the defendant. . .but they couldn't use her eyewitness account. So it happens. Well intentioned people get it wrong sometimes.

Oh yes, I completely understand that eyewitness accounts are often unreliable. And yes, I do feel that GA should not have shown any pictures to MT. (for what it's worth, I really don't think the man with the baby was JB) The point I am trying to make, is that the attitude of "don't bother investigating", is not right, nor is it helpful. It just seems like people are of the mindset that DB did it, there is NO way any other scenario is possible, don't check out any leads or tips. This is an investigation, things need to be checked out.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

There is something so wrong with this article by Ron Rugen and I am still reviewing it to put my finger on all of it.

It is very important I believe to put this all in context with how things unfolded in the case and it is important to look at the questions Ron asked and the statements he reported MT told him. It is also important to look at the questions that were not asked and things that were not done in this interview.

I think one of the very last parts of the interview are interesting.

"Mike told me his heart really goes out to the family. He says he knows what he saw that night and wants to help in any way he can."

 

[Dr.Fessel]

He doesn't know if the guy was 30 feet from him or if he was 90 feet from him but:

"He guessed his height at around 5'7".

Now that is a real trick.

Where did that number come from? Did someone in one of his many interviews mention the neighbors height?

http://kansascitypi.blogspot.com/2012/01/confident-he-saw-live-baby-was-it-lisa.html

 

[melissasmom]

There may never be any evidence to solve the crime. It is almost impossible to get evidence on a parent if they used a soft kill. Their DNA and the victim's DNA are all over the house. The best that can happen is that LE can crack the case in the first few days.

A benefactor stepped in and the parents lawyered up before LE could crack them. Happens more and more. Almost all hope is lost if LE can't get to them. Smart Defense Attorneys know this.

"No body; No crime" is the motto where children are concerned. Sometimes you have to connect the dots to figure out a case and a perp. This nation has got spoiled with this CSI and Bones mentality. People are screaming Hard Evidence...show us, and while you're showing us, we want to know how they did too. All this is a Defense Attorneys dream.

They had a cadaver dog hit inside the home...nope, that's not good enough for some. So, once again, we see a case where justice will not happen. In circumstantial cases, one needs to have the ability to connect the dots. I am grateful the Peterson Trial was held here and that jurors used their logic to convict Scott P. Logic seems to take second place with some and emotion is used to replace it.

But that is exactly my point, Whisperer. EMOTION is what is causing this "lynch mob" mentality. Almost every time someone comments on this case, the standard line is "DB is doing nothing to find her baby!!!She did it!!!" And that is the basic argument.
Where are the FACTS? And yes, I am disregarding the cadaver dog hit. If that house was very new, or if the dog had hit in Lisa's crib for instance, then my view would change. But one cadaver dog hit in the master bedroom is not solid enough for me. In Bianca Jones case, I also dont really care too much about the hit in thehouse, but the dog also indicated decomp on the baby's car seat. There would be no other way for that to be unless someone previously put a dead baby in Biancas car seat. And I think that is pretty unlikely.
people are convicted every day on circumstantial evidence. And that is the way it should be. Because circumstantial evidence is good evidence. But you have to have enough circumstantial for that evidence to become SOLID.
And I'm sorry, there just is not any in this case. I am leaving out my emotion. You know, just because I am not calling for DB's head, does not mean I am some kind of dumb hick, saying "Well ye aint got 'er on videotape, so I dont think she done did it!" I have followed lots of cases, read lots of books, etc., and I am a fairly intelligent person. There is nothing that says to me that this poor child was not abducted.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

BBM "30 feet from me" in that interview vs "carrying a baby was probably around 20 to 30 yards" in the article where Ron Rugen says what MT tells him is a big difference. Now the baby might have been up to 3 times as far from him as he first reported. Why this difference? Why has the story changed?

BBM: I agree ... WHY have the "details" in Thompson's story CHANGED ?

There are "inconsistencies" with the "distance" ...

There are "inconsistencies" regarding the "clothing/diapers" the baby was wearing ...

JMO ... but I have never bought this guy's "story" and certainly am NOT buying it now ...

Oh ... how I wish LE would share something with the public -- even if it is a crumb !

MOO ...

 

[Dr.Fessel]

At the very first Ron says "Mike is one of what I think may be two credible sightings in the overnight hours that Lisa went missing." which to me is an affirmation statement that Ron believes MT saw Lisa that night being carried by a man 3 miles from Lisa's home.

 

[melissasmom]

Well, do you think that MT should be given a lie detector test? Or do you think he didn't really see the baby, and just thinks he did? And yes the involvement of Ron Rugen with this witness, I don't like. But I think time will tell.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

"The man turned toward Thompson, a baby clearly visible in his arms, only in a diaper, sitting straight up in his arms and alert."

Ok, you are 60 to 90 feet away from a man, it is late at night and you are sitting on a motorcycle having just stopped and you say the man is holding a baby and the baby is alert. What are the signs you saw that make you say the baby was alert? Why doesn't Ron ask him that question or why doesn't Ron tell us if he did ask?

http://kansascitypi.blogspot.com/2012/01/confident-he-saw-live-baby-was-it-lisa.html

 

[Whisperer]

But that is exactly my point, Whisperer. EMOTION is what is causing this "lynch mob" mentality. Almost every time someone comments on this case, the standard line is "DB is doing nothing to find her baby!!!She did it!!!" And that is the basic argument.
Where are the FACTS? And yes, I am disregarding the cadaver dog hit. If that house was very new, or if the dog had hit in Lisa's crib for instance, then my view would change. But one cadaver dog hit in the master bedroom is not solid enough for me. In Bianca Jones case, I also dont really care too much about the hit in thehouse, but the dog also indicated decomp on the baby's car seat. There would be no other way for that to be unless someone previously put a dead baby in Biancas car seat. And I think that is pretty unlikely.
people are convicted every day on circumstantial evidence. And that is the way it should be. Because circumstantial evidence is good evidence. But you have to have enough circumstantial for that evidence to become SOLID.
And I'm sorry, there just is not any in this case. I am leaving out my emotion. You know, just because I am not calling for DB's head, does not mean I am some kind of dumb hick, saying "Well ye aint got 'er on videotape, so I dont think she done did it!" I have followed lots of cases, read lots of books, etc., and I am a fairly intelligent person. There is nothing that says to me that this poor child was not abducted.

It is very difficult to prove a negative. I take the dog's word. I don't care if the house is old. There was a recent deceased body in the bdrm of the Irwin home. I am not buying JT's story of fecal matter or dogs would hit on many areas of the home where a baby lives. This was direct spin. Joe T. knew the cadaver dog hit was significant.

When you combine the facts of the parents NOT willing to go the extra mile with a cadaver dog hit and a stranger abducting a baby, the plot thickens. One has to come up with deductions of why a stranger would take this particular baby on this particular day. Furthermore, we have to assume it was no-good stranger who wants to harm the child because the perp took NOTHING for the child...not even an extra diaper, fgs! The comforter, toys, binkie and bottle were left behind. Not to mention the clothing which DB described as Lisa wearing. Why hasn't those clothes been spun? Why haven't we seen what Lisa was wearing? LE tells us they took the clothing that DB described from the house.

Why would a total stranger undress a baby before stealing it? They wouldn't if they have any sense of sanity. So that would leave us with a crazed/drugged/psycho/maniac/psychopath as a perp. It also could mean this person killed Lisa in the house in the master bdrm, but of course that is going to be dismissed by some because that particular cadaver dog must have smelled a dead body form eon years ago. Are many willing to go to that extent to defend the parents? I don't think so.

I appreciate the fact that many here are willing to go out on a limb and defend the parents due to lack of evidence. I really do understand what you are saying. As I said before there may never be any evidence and what evidence they have will be mutilated by their defense. So, in my mind, it is more likely to see the parents at fault here for various reasons than to ever see a drugged/maniac/psycho/ pedophile on the street that night stealing Lisa....for a deadly thrill. I doubt it. It is more likely a parent harmed lisa than the story they told.

 

[hambirg]

Oh yes, I completely understand that eyewitness accounts are often unreliable. And yes, I do feel that GA should not have shown any pictures to MT. (for what it's worth, I really don't think the man with the baby was JB) The point I am trying to make, is that the attitude of "don't bother investigating", is not right, nor is it helpful. It just seems like people are of the mindset that DB did it, there is NO way any other scenario is possible, don't check out any leads or tips. This is an investigation, things need to be checked out.

I don't think anybody said not to investigate. It was investigated. It didn't turn up anything though.

I don't think people are saying not to look at other scenarios, it's just that when all those other scenarios end in dead ends. . .we are right back to having to clear the parents. So far that hasn't happened. And the parents don't seem too interested in doing that. Yeah, that makes people suspicious.

Just as there hasn't been any evidence, in your eyes, pointing to the parents. I haven't seen any evidence pointing to any other scenario. All of the possible leads and possible SODDI theories have gone nowhere. There is no evidence of an abduction, there is no evidence that a SODDI did this.

 

[melissasmom]

[/B]
It is very difficult to prove a negative. I take the dog's word. I don't care if the house is old. There was a recent deceased body in the bdrm of the Irwin home. I am not buying JT's story of fecal matter or dogs would hit on many areas of the home where a baby lives. This was direct spin. Joe T. knew the cadaver dog hit was significant.

When you combine the facts of the parents NOT willing to go the extra mile with a cadaver dog hit and a stranger abducting a baby, the plot thickens. One has to come up with deductions of why a stranger would take this particular baby on this particular day. Furthermore, we have to assume it was no-good stranger who wants to harm the child because the perp took NOTHING for the child...not even an extra diaper, fgs! The comforter, toys, binkie and bottle were left behind. Not to mention the clothing which DB described as Lisa wearing. Why hasn't those clothes been spun? Why haven't we seen what Lisa was wearing? LE tells us they took the clothing that DB described from the house.

Why would a total stranger undress a baby before stealing it? They wouldn't if they have any sense of sanity. So that would leave us with a crazed/drugged/psycho/maniac/psychopath as a perp. It also could mean this person killed Lisa in the house in the master bdrm, but of course that is going to be dismissed by some because that particular cadaver dog must have smelled a dead body form eon years ago. Are many willing to go to that extent to defend the parents? I don't think so.

I appreciate the fact that many are willing to go out on a limb and defend the parents due to lack of evidence. I really do. As I said before there may never be any evidence and what evidence they have will be mutilated by their defense. So, in my mind, it is more likely to see the parents at fault here for various reasons than to ever see a drugged/maniac/psycho/ pedophile on the street that night stealing Lisa....for a deadly thrill.

But you don't know that it was a recent deceased body. It could have been a scent from many years ago. I don't believe there is any way to tell how old a decomp scent is. And I know it was not dirty diapers. But that is Tacopina for you. In no way am I defending him, I think he is sleazy.

According to the search warrant, LE took clothing from the house. No where have I seen that it was indeed the clothing that Lisa was wearing that night. If LE says that, then yes, I would take that into consideration.

And yes, statistics show that most of the time when a child is killed it is done by the parents/caregiver. MOST of the time, not 100% of the time. Sometimes, crazy, unbelievable things happen. And everyone goes, "Well, damn, who would have ever thought someone would DO that?"

But I can't connect the dots in this case, there are none to connect. Parents normally responsible for a child's death, cadaver dog hit. That's it. 2 dots if you go with the decomp. I would even be willing to come off my fence if there was something in the parent's background. Like past involvement with CPS for abuse, or drug convictions, or anything of that nature.

And don't get me wrong, I am in no way saying I am 100% certain that Lisa was abducted and that DB and/or JI are innocent of any wrongdoing. But there is just nothing to sway me to the other side. Yet(maybe)

ETA: Oh, I forgot, I DO NOT think it was some random stranger who took the baby. It was someone in that neighborhood/area/someone who knew of or were aquainted with DB and JI however periphially.