LE Serves Warrant on Family Home #6

New Posts

FWIW, this is the earliest mention I could find about the phones being missing. Post #83 in the first general discussion thread

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7185559&postcount=83"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - MO - AMBER ALERT: Lisa Irwin, 10 months, Kansas City, 4 Oct 2011 - #1[/ame]

So if the police knew as much as the media they would have known the phones were gone the first day and they'd have known they didn't take them.
 
Donjeta said:
FWIW, this is the earliest mention I could find about the phones being missing. Post #83 in the first general discussion thread

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - MO - AMBER ALERT: Lisa Irwin, 10 months, Kansas City, 4 Oct 2011 - #1

So if the police knew as much as the media they would have known the phones were gone the first day and they'd have known they didn't take them.
Click to expand...

Thanks, what I heard at 1:07 is that police did take there cell phone. could that have been jeremy's phone?
 
In the whole news report there is NO mention of the phones being taken with her. I think that would have been mentioned
 
I found this in our discussion thread #3:
10-06-2011, 07:29 AM davehead21
Registered User Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 948

Baby Lisa's parents were just interviewed this morning. I saw it on KMBC but the video isn't yet up on their website. It was really difficult to watch-- the mother was, understandably, very emotional.

One new piece of information-- their phones were taken as well. The mother said, "So we couldn't call 911." She said there were, I believe, 3 cell phones on the counter that were missing as well.
Click to expand...

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7192819&highlight=cell#post7192819
 
Donjeta said:
FWIW, this is the earliest mention I could find about the phones being missing. Post #83 in the first general discussion thread

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - MO - AMBER ALERT: Lisa Irwin, 10 months, Kansas City, 4 Oct 2011 - #1

So if the police knew as much as the media they would have known the phones were gone the first day and they'd have known they didn't take them.
Click to expand...

That's when AI says LE took the phones. I know it's been generally considered either misreporting or misunderstanding on her part. I'm sure her info came from the parents who may have said the phones are gone and she assumed LE took the phones. AI didn't turn out to be the best spokesperson, what with the DB expecting to be arrested comment. People have pointed to LE's calling MW's number that morning as evidence that LE knew the phones were missing. Either way, the phones were gone and LE got MW's number through the phone records. Does LE have to have permission or a warrant to access records in a case like this? Would exigent circumstances override the need for permission or a warrant? The first the public knows of the phones being stolen is 10-06. I think it's possible, not likely I admit, but possible that for the first several hours of the investigation, the cell phones could have been maybe in DB's purse with their batteries removed and LE might not have been informed initially that the phones were missing. All MOO
 
I think they probably told LE that the phones were missing right away. I just don't see how they could have explained not telling. Granted, it might have been one of the gaps in the story... but I think LE would probably have asked to see their phones pretty early on as SOP and if they couldn't produce them they'd have had to explain why.
 
The search warrant indicates that the home was searched for Lisa initially. The next paragragh in thw warrant states that "interviews revealed that the baby was missing along with three cell phones." The search for the cell phones occurred after the search for Lisa and was revealed to police, after they were told about Lisa. The term "investigative interviews" appears just after this, in contrast perhaps, to the simpler term interviews. The "investigative interviews" showed conflicting information for clear direction in the investigation. I'm gonna wager that this was on the sixth, the date LE stated that the parents were no longer cooperating with the investigation. I also wonder if the "interview" indicated on the warrant was the interview with media where we first found out about the missing cell phones.

http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552734.pdf
 
matou said:
I found this in our discussion thread #3:


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7192819&highlight=cell#post7192819
Click to expand...
10-06-2011, 07:29 AM davehead21
Registered User Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 948

Baby Lisa's parents were just interviewed this morning. I saw it on KMBC but the video isn't yet up on their website. It was really difficult to watch-- the mother was, understandably, very emotional.

One new piece of information-- their phones were taken as well. The mother said, "So we couldn't call 911." She said there were, I believe, 3 cell phones on the counter that were missing as well.
Click to expand...
Notice the date and time on this post. The house was still under the control of LE and not the parents. Whether LE knew about the phones at the very first, (which I believe they did by statements made about DB being questioned about the phones pinging) or not, LE definitely had this information while they had control of the house. The house wasn't even released at the time of this post.

And just because this was the first "public" revealing of the phone info, does not in any way mean that it was new to LE.
 
I think it was new to LE based on the wording of the document. JMO
 
So IF the phone info didn't come up from the get go then it does make you go wow!@@
 
In da Middle said:
Notice the date and time on this post. The house was still under the control of LE and not the parents. Whether LE knew about the phones at the very first, (which I believe they did by statements made about DB being questioned about the phones pinging) or not, LE definitely had this information while they had control of the house. The house wasn't even released at the time of this post.

And just because this was the first "public" revealing of the phone info, does not in any way mean that it was new to LE.
Click to expand...

I am confused, maybe. When you say "control" do you mean by way of warrant?
Le was allowed in the home without a warrant and with the parents blessings at first, or so I thought.
I was under the impression that the warrant was not served until Oct 18th.
I have been staying in two states and missing some stuff, maybe I missed something.
 
Elley Mae said:
I am confused, maybe. When you say "control" do you mean by way of warrant?
Le was allowed in the home without a warrant and with the parents blessings at first, or so I thought.
I was under the impression that the warrant was not served until Oct 18th.
I have been staying in two states and missing some stuff, maybe I missed something.
Click to expand...
In "control" as in LE has the house roped off and deemed a crime scene and it was being processed until the late evening of the 6th. No access to the house other than LE and the entire street was closed down during this time. This was done with the blessing of the parents.
 
Why are we questioning when LE knew about the phones where every timeline I have seen states 'JI came home and found the cell phones were missing'.

Do we really believe the parents didn't tell LE this info initially?
 
When LE questions a mother about baby clothes, they get everything they can out of the mother. material, size, manufacturer, where it was purchased, how oftern it was worn, etc.

You can bet your bippy that those clothes were most likely the clothes DB described.
Click to expand...


Whisperer said:
If LE knew it wasn't the exact outfit DB described, they wouldn't have taken it. DB has managed to sway people's minds with her word trickery, but she's not going to sway mine. This gal is a piece of work..
Click to expand...

I don't know even one person who would have the material or manufacturer though.
I would find it hard to believe that DB would think to get rid of the phones, but not the clothes ~ why take the clothes off? Why describe the clothes that she took off and then leave them in the house for LE to find?
My nieces have two of a couple different outfits. Seems like every Christmas they get two of the same pj's and/or outfits AT least.
I haven't hear any trickery from DB at all so she can't sway mine either. When something is said that DOESN'T make any sense or is totally contradictory, then I would question it. Haven't seen/heard that as of yet.
 
Elley Mae said:
In the whole news report there is NO mention of the phones being taken with her. I think that would have been mentioned
Click to expand...

Just because it wasn't in the news doesn't mean LE didn't know about it. The search warrant clearly states that they did know about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 75 more.
Total: 3,408 (members: 76, guests: 3,332)

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
3,332
Total visitors
3,408
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,428
Messages
17,986,970
Members
229,131
Latest member
Migrant
Back
Top