Why hasn't there been an arrest?

[Cappuccino]

yet on dr phil (i think) she stated she only drank after the kids were in bed... we know this is a lie as the boys were not in bed the evng before lisa "disappeared"... so, what else are you lying about, deb? oh never mind-- we know the answer to that...

how anyone can argue her innocence with this type of concrete proof that she lies still boggles my mind...

I'm not arguing for her innocence because I don't know what happened to Lisa Irwin, or who is responsible, (and nor do you).

However, concrete proof that someone lied about their drinking habits is not concrete proof of guilt in the child's disappearance. Its perfectly possible that she lied simply because she's ashamed of her drinking habits. If she's an habitual binge drinker who frequents her front porch, its quite likely that she lied through shame, and also possible that someone was watching her.

As to the question in the OP - there hasn't been an arrest because there isn't enough evidence to issue an arrest warrant. Lying about your drinky habits on the Dr Phil show is not evidence of anything.

 

[redheadedgal]

I looked at the Dr Phil show transcript and couldn't find where DB said the boys were in bed. She did say something similar.

Is this the "concrete proof" that you speak of or is it something else? Do we know for a fact that the boys were not laying down watching a movie?

in some interview her words maintained she only drank -had her adult time- when the kids were in bed/asleep... this obviously wasn't the case that night. iirc, they were watching tv with the neighbor's daughter aka not alseep

I'm not arguing for her innocence because I don't know what happened to Lisa Irwin, or who is responsible, (and nor do you).

Lying about your drinky habits on the Dr Phil show is not evidence of anything.

i know a baby is missing. i know a cadaver dog hit in the home. i know DB lies. i know that no evidence of SODDI was found. i know some cockamamie tale was told about a stolen card and a name change website. i know their lawyer represented a man who killed two women. i know their lawyer told lies when he represented said murderer. i know LE has problems with their story which is why LE wants to interview them separately. i know the parents refuse to be interviewed separately. i know that no innocent parent would refuse to do anything that might help LE find their "missing" child. i know these parents are doing very little to help find lisa. therefore, i believe i know enough to know who was responsible for lisa's disappearance. DB might not have disposed of the body but it was b/c of her that the body needed to be disposed. that i am sure of.

lying about "drinky habits" is evidence of an ability to be deceitful.
lying about "drinky habits" is evidence of wanting to hide the truth.
lying about "drinky habits" is evidence of caring more about yourself than about your "missing" daughter.

therefore, imo, lying about "drinky habits" = all the more reason one should do those interviews with LE if you are innocent to show LE and the world you are not really a liar nor are you the reason your child is "missing". to not do so just illuminates and amplifies that your lie about "drinky habits" is most likely not the only lie you've told.

 

[RANCH]

in some interview her words maintained she only drank -had her adult time- when the kids were in bed/asleep... this obviously wasn't the case that night. iirc, they were watching tv with the neighbor's daughter aka not alseep




i know a baby is missing. i know a cadaver dog hit in the home. i know DB lies. i know that no evidence of SODDI was found. i know some cockamamie tale was told about a stolen card and a name change website. i know their lawyer represented a man who killed two women. i know their lawyer told lies when he represented said murderer. i know LE has problems with their story which is why LE wants to interview them separately. i know the parents refuse to be interviewed separately. i know that no innocent parent would refuse to do anything that might help LE find their "missing" child. i know these parents are doing very little to help find lisa. therefore, i believe i know enough to know who was responsible for lisa's disappearance. DB might not have disposed of the body but it was b/c of her that the body needed to be disposed. that i am sure of.

lying about "drinky habits" is evidence of an ability to be deceitful.
lying about "drinky habits" is evidence of wanting to hide the truth.
lying about "drinky habits" is evidence of caring more about yourself than about your "missing" daughter.

therefore, imo, lying about "drinky habits" = all the more reason one should do those interviews with LE if you are innocent to show LE and the world you are not really a liar nor are you the reason your child is "missing". to not do so just illuminates and amplifies that your lie about "drinky habits" is most likely not the only lie you've told.

So with this abundance of evidence pointing to DB and no evidence of SODDI, why has there been no arrest yet?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

in some interview her words maintained she only drank -had her adult time- when the kids were in bed/asleep... this obviously wasn't the case that night. iirc, they were watching tv with the neighbor's daughter aka not alseep




i know a baby is missing. i know a cadaver dog hit in the home. i know DB lies. i know that no evidence of SODDI was found. i know some cockamamie tale was told about a stolen card and a name change website. i know their lawyer represented a man who killed two women. i know their lawyer told lies when he represented said murderer. i know LE has problems with their story which is why LE wants to interview them separately. i know the parents refuse to be interviewed separately. i know that no innocent parent would refuse to do anything that might help LE find their "missing" child. i know these parents are doing very little to help find lisa. therefore, i believe i know enough to know who was responsible for lisa's disappearance. DB might not have disposed of the body but it was b/c of her that the body needed to be disposed. that i am sure of.

lying about "drinky habits" is evidence of an ability to be deceitful.
lying about "drinky habits" is evidence of wanting to hide the truth.
lying about "drinky habits" is evidence of caring more about yourself than about your "missing" daughter.

therefore, imo, lying about "drinky habits" = all the more reason one should do those interviews with LE if you are innocent to show LE and the world you are not really a liar nor are you the reason your child is "missing". to not do so just illuminates and amplifies that your lie about "drinky habits" is most likely not the only lie you've told.

There's no way innocent parents would've let all that media attention from October and November fade away. I'm becoming convinced that D&J decided to go three months without talking to make their Dr. Phil interview more exclusive.

 

[Kos]

Hey everyone, I'm new here, I'm from New Zealand, and saw the Irwins on Dr Phil yesterday. That was the first I had ever heard of this case. I was shocked at how fake the mother's grief appeared to be, and how composed the father was. I could not believe for one second that they were innocent, which is what prompted me to research, and how I ended up here.

I am convinced that sadly, their darling little girl is not coming home, and they know that. I'm still working my way through theories and facts (how often have they changed their stories??), so will have more of an idea of why I think what I do, soon!!

Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself and put my opinion forward!

 

[redheadedgal]

So with this abundance of evidence pointing to DB and no evidence of SODDI, why has there been no arrest yet?

you will have to ask KCMOPD... but maybe b/c LE doesn't know whether to arrest the perpetrator for murder one (premeditated), murder two (unpremeditated) or involuntary manslaughter (neglect). they cannot arrest without knowing exactly what to charge someone with (right?) and it seems there's no evidence of how or why lisa died...

??


btw, fwiw-- many people theorize this is one of the reasons the ramsey's were never charged with jonbenet's death... it couldn't be determined if it was patsy or john and what type of charge it would be...

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Hey everyone, I'm new here, I'm from New Zealand, and saw the Irwins on Dr Phil yesterday. That was the first I had ever heard of this case. I was shocked at how fake the mother's grief appeared to be, and how composed the father was. I could not believe for one second that they were innocent, which is what prompted me to research, and how I ended up here.

I am convinced that sadly, their darling little girl is not coming home, and they know that. I'm still working my way through theories and facts (how often have they changed their stories??), so will have more of an idea of why I think what I do, soon!!

Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself and put my opinion forward!

Hi Kos; welcome to our group! :greetings:

 

[RANCH]

you will have to ask KCMOPD... but maybe b/c LE doesn't know whether to arrest the perpetrator for murder one (premeditated), murder two (unpremeditated) or involuntary manslaughter (neglect). they cannot arrest without knowing exactly what to charge someone with (right?) and it seems there's no evidence of how or why lisa died...

??


btw, fwiw-- many people theorize this is one of the reasons the ramsey's were never charged with jonbenet's death... it couldn't be determined if it was patsy or john and what type of charge it would be...

I guess that its possible that LE has enough evidence at this point for a manslaughter charge and their working on getting more evidence to support a murder charge.

Or maybe they don't have enough evidence to support even a child neglect charge at this point. Hard to say without knowing what evidence LE has.

I believe that it will take more than catching DB in a couple of lies for us to see her arrested for anything. JMO.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

you will have to ask KCMOPD... but maybe b/c LE doesn't know whether to arrest the perpetrator for murder one (premeditated), murder two (unpremeditated) or involuntary manslaughter (neglect). they cannot arrest without knowing exactly what to charge someone with (right?) and it seems there's no evidence of how or why lisa died...

??


btw, fwiw-- many people theorize this is one of the reasons the ramsey's were never charged with jonbenet's death... it couldn't be determined if it was patsy or john and what type of charge it would be...

LE not being able to figure out what parent to charge what with is called the cross-fingerprinting defense.

 

[RANCH]

LE not being able to figure out what parent to charge what with is called the cross-fingerprinting defense.

I've never heard of a "cross-fingerprinting defense". I Googled the term but didn't come up with anything.

Why would LE be in a position for a defense like this to work? Either they have evidence that one or both parents committed a crime or they don't. The evidence should point to who is the guilty party. If it doesn't, then it's not very good evidence in my book. JMO.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I've never heard of a "cross-fingerprinting defense". I Googled the term but didn't come up with anything.

Why would LE be in a position for a defense like this to work? Either they have evidence that one or both parents committed a crime or they don't. The evidence should point to who is the guilty party. If it doesn't, then it's not very good evidence in my book. JMO.

OOPs, it's called cross-fingerpointing. Here's a description of it from the JBR forum:

Simply put, with no legal-beagle mumbo-jumbo, the cross-fingerpointing defense is where two people are involved in a crime, one as the leader and one as the accomplice, but the evidence is structured in a way that LE can't be sure which one was in the driver's seat and which one was along for the ride. Under the law as it is in America today, a prosecutor cannot--CANNOT--go before a jury and say "one of these people killed such and such, the other helped cover it up. You make up your mind as to which is which." No way! A prosecutor MUST, MUST bring specific charges against each person.

You can read an entire discussion about it: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84675"]The cross-fingerpointing defense - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Hey everyone, I'm new here, I'm from New Zealand, and saw the Irwins on Dr Phil yesterday. That was the first I had ever heard of this case. I was shocked at how fake the mother's grief appeared to be, and how composed the father was. I could not believe for one second that they were innocent, which is what prompted me to research, and how I ended up here.

I am convinced that sadly, their darling little girl is not coming home, and they know that. I'm still working my way through theories and facts (how often have they changed their stories??), so will have more of an idea of why I think what I do, soon!!

Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself and put my opinion forward!

:seeya: :wagon::wagon: Hello and Welcome !


BBM: I totally agree ... and great first post !


There is a Timeline here that goes back to the beginning went Lisa first went missing :

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150977"]Lisa Irwin-Timeline - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


I hope this helps ...

:seeya:

 

[Little Ol Me]

you will have to ask KCMOPD... but maybe b/c LE doesn't know whether to arrest the perpetrator for murder one (premeditated), murder two (unpremeditated) or involuntary manslaughter (neglect). they cannot arrest without knowing exactly what to charge someone with (right?) and it seems there's no evidence of how or why lisa died...
??


btw, fwiw-- many people theorize this is one of the reasons the ramsey's were never charged with jonbenet's death... it couldn't be determined if it was patsy or john and what type of charge it would be...

Exactly!! ,... and if there is no evidence of how or why she died, then why do some assume that she did? That's what boggles my mind.

 

[redheadedgal]

Exactly!! ,... and if there is no evidence of how or why she died, then why do some assume that she did?

oh--you might not have heard, but... an FBI-trained cadaver dog (with an accuracy rate of 90+%) alerted in bedroom :what:

(and again-- no it wasn't b/c of dirty poopy diapers, toe nail clippings or a decades old death as JT tried to "spin" it)

(he never did mention the name of the person who died in the house all those decades ago, did he? ... which would've brought some credibility to his assertion lol)


if you can indicate one case (just one!) where a cadaver dog hit in the home of a missing child but that child later turned up alive and was proven to have been taken by a SODDI...

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Mark Fuhrman wrote a book about how the media covers these cases. One thing he brought up was that the media will advance the idea that the missing child is alive until the body is found. They know that statistics show that the vast majority of missing children are murdered within a few hours of their abduction, but the longer they can milk, "The Search for _______" the better. In Lisa's case, we have the cadaver dog hit which is pretty damning evidence that Lisa has died. And yet, the media STILL puts forth the idea that Lisa could still be alive.

For example, the cadaver dog hit came out on October 21. On October 25, there was an article published in numerous newspapers with the headline: "Missing Baby's Age Makes Her Harder to Find" WHAT? :waitasec:

The media knows what they are doing. There's no story if Lisa is dead, unless Deborah is arrested.

 

[RANCH]

Mark Fuhrman wrote a book about how the media covers these cases. One thing he brought up was that the media will advance the idea that the missing child is alive until the body is found. They know that statistics show that the vast majority of missing children are murdered within a few hours of their abduction, but the longer they can milk, "The Search for _______" the better. In Lisa's case, we have the cadaver dog hit which is pretty damning evidence that Lisa has died. And yet, the media STILL puts forth the idea that Lisa could still be alive.

For example, the cadaver dog hit came out on October 21. On October 25, there was an article published in numerous newspapers with the headline: "Missing Baby's Age Makes Her Harder to Find" WHAT? :waitasec:

The media knows what they are doing. There's no story if Lisa is dead, unless Deborah is arrested.

Why is LE participating in this charade with the media? If there is evidence that Lisa is dead, why not make that public knowledge and say that they believe she is dead? They don't have to disclose the actual evidence, they just need to let the public know that they have it.

The cadaver dog hit isn't enough to say to me that Lisa is in fact dead. Maybe this is why there hasn't been an arrest yet. LE may not know if Lisa is alive or dead. JMO.

 

[Little Ol Me]

redheadedgal,
I've been wanting to tell you, that is a beautiful dog.

I never did like merry-go-rounds, still don't.

 

[Kos]

:seeya: :wagon::wagon: Hello and Welcome !


BBM: I totally agree ... and great first post !


There is a Timeline here that goes back to the beginning went Lisa first went missing :

Lisa Irwin-Timeline - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


I hope this helps ...

:seeya:

Thank you for that!! I had found it already and have been studying everything! You guys are super sleuths! LOVE IT!

 

[krimekat]

no arrest for what? a missing baby . . .

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Why is LE participating in this charade with the media? If there is evidence that Lisa is dead, why not make that public knowledge and say that they believe she is dead? They don't have to disclose the actual evidence, they just need to let the public know that they have it.

The cadaver dog hit isn't enough to say to me that Lisa is in fact dead. Maybe this is why there hasn't been an arrest yet. LE may not know if Lisa is alive or dead. JMO.

I'm not talking about LE here. I'm just referring to the media's actions. I don't even think LE has made any (or barely any) statements or held any press conferences in a long time. What I'm saying is after the cadaver dog hit came out, the media is still pushing the theory that Lisa could be alive. They barely even mention the hit anymore. If the media started to aggressively mention the hit, what else is there to talk about? They need to keep the idea out there that Lisa could be alive, that someone else could have taken her, that Deborah could have sold her, etc because that will keep the story going. What's the point of having D&J on their shows if a cadaver dog hit in their house? There is NO point; So the cadaver dog hit isn't even mentioned during their appearances. "Here's D&J to talk about how someone tried to change their daughter's name...even though a cadaver dog hit in their house!" Yeah, no.

How many high-profile cases can you name where the child was missing, whether they were found alive, dead, or never found? I can think of many. And in all of those cases, pleas from the parents, press conferences from LE for help, searches with thousands of people, sightings across the US, reports on whether findings were legitimate or not, etc fueled the media coverage. Now, how many high-profile cases can you name where the child was never missing and always known to be killed? I can only think of two. Mark Fuhrman's revelation that the media "needs" the child to be missing for as long as possible made a lot of sense to me when I consider how just a few days after the cadaver dog hit, the media is back to the usual, "The Search for Lisa"