MSM coverage of Baby Lisa, 11/13/11

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
yllek said:
Imo, the "woods" mischaracterization is actually significant. Since LE searched "wooded areas" many times in the initial searches and that was mentionied many times in the media, it sounds much more ominous to say that a video capturing a man coming out of the woods was discovered in connection to the case. When, in reality, it is a person walking near a tree in a gas station lot.

I couldn't get the volume to work on the video, but hoping that at least the parents' team have dropped the "man carrying a baby" from the statement. That was repeated in media over and over and simply isn't what is reflected in the video. That bothers me more than the "woods" mischaracterization. Just the facts would be nice.

JMO...
Click to expand...

in the video, Picerno says that you cannot tell if it is a man or a woman in the video, or if they are carrying anything.
 
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45277244/ns/today-today_people/#.Tr_2y3JIuOd

The couple said their three cell phones were also missing. One phone was used at 11:57 p.m. October 3 to call the number of a woman the couple does not know, lawyer John Picerno said Saturday on the "Justice with Judge Jeanine" show on Fox News. The FBI told him of the call, Picerno said.
Click to expand...

this link includes a video apparently posted today with some new footage of BS, and in the article it says this. nothing was posted in yesterdays MSM thread about Picerno on Judge Jeanine, about to look for a video of that on Fox.
 
Lawyer: Phone call clears Baby Lisa's parents
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45277244/ns/today-today_people/#.Tr_6qrJ_ywC

It points to certain interesting possibilities but I think "clears" is stretching it a bit thin. It is not physically impossible for the parents to have called Megan Wright's number. If it clears them then I think everybody who is up to no good will start calling the numbers of people they don't know before ditching their phones.
 
neese opened a topical thread regarding the possbile custody battle. :tyou:

Here is the link: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154589"] Possible Custody Battle over JI's Son[/ame]
 
WOW, what the heck is going on in KC, yes BL case will take a backburner for a bit.

• 8:30 p.m. Friday: Firefighters responding to a house fire in the 5400 block of East 28th Street found a body inside.
• 10:15 p.m. Friday: Responding to reports of gunfire, police found three people dead in the house on Lister
• 6:30 a.m. Saturday: After receiving a call about a body found in a home in the 2500 block of Benton Boulevard, police arrived — and found two bodies.

That made six violent deaths to investigate in a 10-hour period for Detective Roy Rogers

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/12/3262183/two-dead-found-in-homicide.html#ixzz1dbuT67Zb
 
Those incidents are no where near here. they are on the other side of town. On Lister NOT N Lister. Totally different crime make up between the two.
 
yllek said:
Imo, the "woods" mischaracterization is actually significant. Since LE searched "wooded areas" many times in the initial searches and that was mentionied many times in the media, it sounds much more ominous to say that a video capturing a man coming out of the woods was discovered in connection to the case. When, in reality, it is a person walking near a tree in a gas station lot.

I couldn't get the volume to work on the video, but hoping that at least the parents' team have dropped the "man carrying a baby" from the statement. That was repeated in media over and over and simply isn't what is reflected in the video. That bothers me more than the "woods" mischaracterization. Just the facts would be nice.

JMO...
Click to expand...

here is a transcript for you and anyone else who can't get the video to work, i know i was having trouble as i was transcribing. mods if this shouldn't go here please move or delete, i wasn't sure where else to post this.

Part 1:
Q: What is your approach in handling this case, vs the previous attorney CS? How is your approach different? Why were you brought into this case?

JP: I can't answer why Cyndy is no longer involved, that is obviously between she and Joe. Every attorney is different, my approach to it is that I'm not going to be speaking to the media consistently, and the only time I will speak to the media is when there is something to report, when there is a new development in the case. And mainly, I see my role as helping the parents through the process, helping them in the search for Baby Lisa as much as I can help them, you know, I'm a criminal defense attorney, I'm not an investigator. So this is a little bit unique for us. And obviously, to make sure that her constitutional rights are protected.

Q: She's not been charged, he's not been charged. The perception out there is: Why lawyer up? Why do you need a lawyer if you haven't been charged and are supposedly cooperating?

JP: Sure. I have this discussion all the time with my father, and with other people. It's a common question, and I think it's a good question. Generally speaking, someone who is going to be interrogated by the police should have a lawyer to give them advice on what their rights are, when they can refuse to answer questions and when they should answer questions. In this case, JI and DB subjected themselves to 5 different interviews/interrogations. Two without attorneys, where they agreed to waive their Miranda rights, or at least Debbie did, and speak to LE on their own, the first time was 8 hours for JI and 11 hours for DB, they did so. And then they went back a second time, and they did so again without a lawyer. It wasn't until the third time that a family member who is also a law student suggested to them "hey, next time you talk to the police, it would be a good idea to have a lawyer go with you."

Q: I want to talk about that third interview, because I think there are some interesting developments there and how the case perhaps turned. But, again, public perception. You've said that the family is cooperating, the public perception is you know what? If it's my baby, I'll talk to the police any time, any day, 24/7. You're not allowing them to talk to police right now. Why?

JP: Well, first of all, I don't think an attorney can allow or not allow somebody to do anything. What our role is is to give them advice about what is in their best interest. My advice is not to talk- so is Joe's, I mean, our advice is for them not to talk because there is nothing beneficial to be gained from it. Like I said, 30 hours of interviews. Everything that they have wanted to get, by way of information, they already have. And it's the tone and the nature of the interviews. They have turned into interrogations, and they have been in the accusatory fashion. That is really why we have advised our clients that no further interrogation is advisable to them. As far as the questions they want answered - they obviously love their child and want their child to be returned to them, they want to help the police. Joe and I are free any time. Any questions that any LE official has, they should send it our way, we will get an answer for them.

Q: Do you forsee a time when they might sit down with police again?

JP: It's possible. Yes, I wouldn't rule anything out.

Q: Let's talk about the Oct.8th interview, because I think you've explained that was where the tone changed. Sean O'brien, a local attorney went with them. What happened there? Were they told at that point that they were suspects?

JP: Well I don't know necassarily that they've ever been told that they were suspects, and the accusations, it is my understanding, specifically from KCPD detectives, began in the first interrogation of DB, hours after in began. But, what specifically happened in that third interrogation that Mr.Obrien attended, was that, they went down there with the understanding that they were going to see some new evidence, some new leads that might help them find their child. And what happened was, they were shown photographs from the home, and they were shown photographs of the window specifically, and they were told that basically- no one went in through the window, that it couldn't have happened the way that Debbie in particular had said that it happened. They didn't buy that there was a person that entered the home. It began down the path of "we know that you are a good mom, it may have been an accident, or the boys may have been too rough with the child, but now is the time and you need to tell us now." and it got quite heated. It is my understanding at that point, Debbie just lost it and broke down because she was expecting to hear some good, positive news and instead they are back to the same thing that ended the other interrogations, in that they were accusing her.

Q: Your view is that they were lured down there under false pretenses?

JP: Absolutely.

Q: And then, the accusation-

JP: Exactly.

Q: We know you did something, something happened.

JP: Exactly.

Part 2:

Q: Was that the last time they talked to police?

JP: No, there were two other occasions that they then cooperated, I think they went down there a fourth and fifth time, for very short amounts of time, to give prints -fingerprints, one time and then one additional time.

Q: Here is another thing people have a hard time believing. The statistics show that these kind of abductions are very rare, and men don't fit the profile. How do you get past that perception?

JP: I think the statistics are- and I read, the person who is the head of the nation center for child abuse and abductions, I think it was posted a few weeks ago. He is quoted as saying there are approx. 115 abductions a year in which approx. 50 of them are actually returned to the parents. You know, we've experienced in this community, the Elizabeth Montgomery case where a child was taken, under the most gruesome of conditions, a pregnant mom. So, statistically if it can happen one time, it could happen. I really don't think that is the way to approach it.

Q: Do you view your role at this point as keeping DB, JI from being charged?

JP: Absolutely, and it's a dual role. Usually when a criminal defense attorney gets involved- there is specific, uh, they are not trying to help the police to find any body. In this case, it's a bit different because our clients very much want to help the police in the search for the child. They have cooperated completely, and we need to sort of balance the two. It's a delicate balance, but I just want to stress to everybody out there, my father included, that hey, we have cooperated. At some point, there is no other answers that you can provide. It's a helpless feeling that they have, and it's especially tough on a day like today where they should be celebrating Lisa's first birthday.

Q: Let's talk a little bit about the timeline- there are a number of sightings, a couple of sightings overnight, there is the BP survellaince video of a shadowy figure. Two sightings of a man carrying a baby. One around 12:15, one around 4am quite a distance from the home. Then there is the dumpster fire that occured. There are attempts to make phonecalls. Do you believe that timeline helps your cause? If so, how?

JP: I don't know that we have a cause. I believe that the timeline is very suspicious. I don't know how many times that you've seen a man walking down the street with a naked baby at midnight or 4am. The man and the wife that saw the person walking down the street a little after midnight, and the individual that was on his way home on his motorcycle at 4am: they are not connected to our clients in any way. They told the police what they had seen on their own. And then on the BP video, you know, it's difficult to discern whether that is a man or a woman and whether they are carrying anything but the important thing about the BP video is that they are coming out of the woods there, which backs up to the residence.

Q: Two men that have come up here, too. Handyman/homeless man in the area, and a next door neighbor that you don't believe police have spent enough time looking into. Police have said, we've looked at them, they cooperated, we've moved on. Should they go back to them, focus harder on those men?

JP: We certainly believe so. And you brought up the fire and the dumpster that happened, and that was also in the same area. There was clothing that was on fire in that dumpster. Coincedentially, this individual dated this Megan Wright, this Jersey person.

Q: MW, getting this phone call from DB's phone, correct?

JP: Right. And, coincidentally, her car was set on fire a few days after she broke up her relationship with this Jersey person. The other thing about Jersey that is interesting is that another unrelated person who lives in the neighborhood has given police information that he was seen hunkering in the neighborhood, you know, lurking around homes and had actually gone into an abandoned home I think, through a window. So that is highly suspicious. When you combine all of these things, that they all happened on one night and this was the one night that a child went missing, everyone should be invesigated for it.

Part 3:

Q: This is a lawyer question for you. It sounds to me like, and nobody has been charged, no indication charges are coming, it sounds like you're building a case for reasonable doubt here. Just in case.

JP: Well, what lawyers do in general, a criminal defense lawyer in general is, we are always looking out for our clients best interest. Certainly, that is the goal, you are always thinking down the road if the worst of worst thing happens and your client gets charged. But right now, we are having a discussion about the investigation and the evidence. Much of it which comes from the KCPD as well as the FBI. We're trying to analyze it and put it in the proper perspective, and also in the context of what our client had told us happened. And DB and JI- they've never been involved in any criminal contact, they each have a child, they live together, wonderful parents. I've spent time in the home, I've spent time with the boys. The six year old and eight year old boy. There is no reason to believe that they are anything other than a loving family, and obviously love Lisa very very much.

Q: As we remember Lisa on her birthday, one year, how is her family doing? How are they holding up? You were with them yesterday, last night. What is their state of mind?

JP: Since I've been involved, which is since Nov.1st, and I've been around them on numerous occasions, I think they go through- particularly Debbie- goes through a range of emotions. JI is a little more stoic, he's a little more level-headed, he seems to be constantly subdued and depressed, and again I don't have any baseline because I didn't know what he was like before this time. I think Debbie is like any mom. She is all over the place. Like I said- if you see them interact the way I have with the children, you've been in the home- these are nice little polite boys, the first night I met them, the first thing they said to me was "You're going to help us bring Lisa home, aren't you?" I don't have any reason to doubt them, one way or the other about their family structure.

Q: You've said you believe the police are focusing on DB. Do you think she will be charged?

JP: I don't anticipate that she is going to be charged. I don't think Mr.Tacopina believes that they are going to be charged either, unless there is some more evidence that comes forward. Nor do we think she should. I mean, we just don't think that she's had any part of this in any way.

Q: Is there an endgame here? I think a lot of people are asking what is going to happen? How does this play out? Obviously the search continues for a one year old baby, the public seems to be focusing and the police seem to be focusing on a mother, how does this play out?

JP: Well, hopefully it plays out that we find Lisa in the near future and that she is healthy and safe. That is everyones hope and dream. What's going to happen in the future? I don't have a crystal ball, I wish I could tell you.

Q: Your approach will continue to be to focus on investigating, the facts, and keeping the family from being charged?

JP: Absolutely.

http://fox4kc.com/2011/11/11/exclusive-irwin-family-attorney-john-picerno-talks-to-fox-4s-john-holt/
 
JeannaT said:
Thanks. I had missed this earlier, or maybe this is actually new.

The two phone checks after 3 a.m., were definitely NOT made inside the Irwin home?
Click to expand...

I think he made it sound that way. From what I've read, it seems that the distance is more of a radius from phone towers surrounding the home. So within 1/5-1/3 mile of, and including inside, the home?
 
"...and it got quite heated. It is my understanding at that point, Debbie just lost it and broke down because she was expecting to hear some good, positive news and instead they are back to the same thing that ended the other interrogations, in that they were accusing her."=============================================

So, THIS ^^^^^ may be the reason they have stopped being interviewed. The last time the cops had DB in the interrogation room she pretty much broke down and lost it.
And she has not gone back since.
 
In da Middle said:
Those incidents are no where near here. they are on the other side of town. On Lister NOT N Lister. Totally different crime make up between the two.
Click to expand...


Also seeing more confusion here. The homicide detectives or murder squad would work the killings.

The crimes against children unit detectives are handling the case of missing baby Lisa Irwin. The unit is overseen by Capt. Mark Folsom who also oversees the sex crimes unit. To say the killings will cause the baby Lisa case to take a backburner is based on lack of information about the operations of the detective units in the KCPD. The lead detectives in baby Lisa's case have nothing to do with homicide detectives. If there were enough Amber Alert case or another Waldo rapist case then I'd be concerned.
 
Thanks Askfornina!

I'm playing serious catch-up as I haven't read all the latest news. I didn't know MW car was torched right after she broke up with Jersey. And now I know for sure that the burnt clothing came from the dumpster. Lots of tidbits in this interview!
 
yllek said:
Imo, the "woods" mischaracterization is actually significant. Since LE searched "wooded areas" many times in the initial searches and that was mentionied many times in the media, it sounds much more ominous to say that a video capturing a man coming out of the woods was discovered in connection to the case. When, in reality, it is a person walking near a tree in a gas station lot.

I couldn't get the volume to work on the video, but hoping that at least the parents' team have dropped the "man carrying a baby" from the statement. That was repeated in media over and over and simply isn't what is reflected in the video. That bothers me more than the "woods" mischaracterization. Just the facts would be nice.

JMO...
Click to expand...

It bothers me more that this video surveillance was released without a time stamp. Has anyone seen a copy of it with the time stamp in from the camera?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 163 more.
Total: 4,517 (members: 164, guests: 4,353)

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
4,353
Total visitors
4,517
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,601
Messages
17,971,626
Members
228,840
Latest member
WhatHappenedToJAB
Back
Top