Lisa Irwin missing 3 months now - Poll

[norest4thewicked]

The work van was there for many days after the 4th, but I don't recall if it was before or after the 17 hour search. It was around that time anyway. I *think* it was still there on the 17th when the voluntary search was there, but I really don't remember. At the first, dogs were reported as going through the van, but we don't know what kind of dogs they were to be able to say.
Same with SB's car as the van as in dogs reported as there at the first, but no clue as to what kind of dogs.

And with all of the handling that would be required in your above idea, I would think there would have to be more than one place a dog would hit.

BBM

It most likely was searched by the dogs, I would hope. But I still would be curious about a definite positive in this.

I certainly don't see the second scenario as a probability, however with everything else so crazy in this case, I do see it as being as possible as anything else. If everything involved in this "packaging" was brought to the area on the floor by the parents bed where the HR dog "hit," I see it as a possibility. If little Lisa had laid on that spot and everything else was brought there to that spot and packaged in that area, why would it have been a spread out scene? Perhaps there would have been something on the final tape dispenser, but maybe that is why LE took it for further testing. We really don't have any idea after that dispenser was taken what has become of the testing on it.

 

[In da Middle]

BBM

It most likely was searched by the dogs, I would hope. But I still would be curious about a definite positive in this.

I certainly don't see the second scenario as a probability, however with everything else so crazy in this case, I do see it as being as possible as anything else. If everything involved in this "packaging" was brought to the area on the floor by the parents bed where the HR dog "hit," I see it as a possibility. If little Lisa had laid on that spot and everything else was brought there to that spot and packaged in that area, why would it have been a spread out scene? Perhaps there would have been something on the final tape dispenser, but maybe that is why LE took it for further testing. We really don't have any idea after that dispenser was taken what has become of the testing on it.

But with the son in the bed and not be aware of all of this movement and disruption? And somebody to come in and find what all have reported as a much coveted baby and not make some kind of movement to see if there was life, just not move her at all and leave her there and bring all that was needed in one spot? Not seeing it as very possible (not to say totally impossible, but think about it.)

But yes, totally agree ALL is crazy here.

 

[iamnotagolem]

But with the son in the bed and not be aware of all of this movement and disruption? And somebody to come in and find what all have reported as a much coveted baby and not make some kind of movement to see if there was life, just not move her at all and leave her there and bring all that was needed in one spot? Not seeing it as very possible (not to say totally impossible, but think about it.)

But yes, totally agree ALL is crazy here.

We don't know what time the son came into bed. Even if he was, he could be a heavy sleeper.

 

[In da Middle]

We don't know what time the son came into bed. Even if he was, he could be a heavy sleeper.

And the same could also be said of DB being a heavy sleeper to sleep through everything. Just as, if not moreso, likely. Somebody sleeping while things happening in another room is more likely than somebody sleeping while all of that commotion happening as described. As in somebody coming into the house quietly is going to be quieter than the above described actions.

 

[norest4thewicked]

But with the son in the bed and not be aware of all of this movement and disruption? And somebody to come in and find what all have reported as a much coveted baby and not make some kind of movement to see if there was life, just not move her at all and leave her there and bring all that was needed in one spot? Not seeing it as very possible (not to say totally impossible, but think about it.)

But yes, totally agree ALL is crazy here.

We only have DB's statement that the son was in the bed. Just thinking outside the box here, but what if the son told LE or whoever he talked to that he had not gone into moms bed? Maybe there are statements like this that explain why LE thinks something is hinky.

What if Lisa died in the bathtub and was brought into the parents room and laid on the floor where the hit was? What if the packaging was done right there? Perhaps the son was either not in the bed or brought in later as a sort of "cover?" Would there be a hit on the bathtub? What if the dogs were never taken to the bathtub or, what if there was a hit there and we as the public aren't aware? If Lisa went from the tub to moms arms to a towel on the floor and this was all packaged up, how would we know?

This might seem far-fetched, but I just believe that it was something simple like that. I do believe it was an accident and a cover-up that just worked...at least so far. I think that LE knows what happened, but is just putting things together and perhaps don't have enough proof to make an arrest.

 

[norest4thewicked]

And the same could also be said of DB being a heavy sleeper to sleep through everything. Just as, if not moreso, likely. Somebody sleeping while things happening in another room is more likely than somebody sleeping while all of that commotion happening as described. As in somebody coming into the house quietly is going to be quieter than the above described actions.

Do you remember one or both of the boys saying that they heard some type of sound? I can't remember if it was described as a clicking sound or what, but what about the sound of tape being wrapped around a package? If they were still in their room and heard this sound, it easily could have been coming from the parents room. Honestly, to me this is more plausible than a stranger coming into the house while the mother was on the front porch...it just does.

 

[DeAnn]

As to the neighbor's vehicles I have seen some state yes, but don't have any documentation to be for sure.
As to all of the families vehicles, there are many reports of multiple dog searches to them and it is listed on the search warrant that they are to search any and all vehicles.
As to PN's vehicle. There are twitter reports (reporters were not allowed to film) that on the 17th the same dogs that got the hit at the house were at PN's house (voluntarily) right before they went to the families house. Reporters were tweeting play-by-play as to where the dogs were and it included the vehicles at his house that day.
But it would be hard (not impossible though) for her to call anybody for help as they had no working phones either.

I know this is an important point to hardly anyone else but me but......reporters were asked not to show pictures in an effort not to compromise the investigation. They agreed to do so out of an abundance of caution and being good citizens.

But the Fifth Amendment prevent government censorship. They cannot order reporters not to take pictures of a search if the pictures were taken in a way on private property (with owner's consent) or on public property that did not interfere with the investigation.

Off my soap box now

 

[In da Middle]

I know this is an important point to hardly anyone else but me but......reporters were asked not to show pictures in an effort not to compromise the investigation. They agreed to do so out of an abundance of caution and being good citizens.

But the Fifth Amendment prevent government censorship. They cannot order reporters not to take pictures of a search if the pictures were taken in a way on private property (with owner's consent) or on public property that did not interfere with the investigation.

Off my soap box now

I was glad they, well most of them anyway, did as they were asked. I only mentioned it as to explain why there was nothing on film even though they had detailed reports. I did see this respect for LE's investigation in several aspects and was very glad they did respect this. I should have worded it as 'asked' not to film.

 

[Oriah]

I know this is an important point to hardly anyone else but me but......reporters were asked not to show pictures in an effort not to compromise the investigation. They agreed to do so out of an abundance of caution and being good citizens.

But the Fifth Amendment prevent government censorship. They cannot order reporters not to take pictures of a search if the pictures were taken in a way on private property (with owner's consent) or on public property that did not interfere with the investigation.

Off my soap box now

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case here. Working dogs and handlers 'own' their privacy, and reporters and others can be ordered to not make public any photos taken while working. That would fall under the SW order.
Assumption of privacy is a tricky thing for sure- but even trickier in a professional capacity. Thus the no fly.
There are many ways to invade privacy these days... But a reporter violating a court order such as a SW, would (hopefully) be in big trouble, in both criminal and civil court.

 

[In da Middle]

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case here. Working dogs and handlers 'own' their privacy, and reporters and others can be ordered to not make public any photos taken while working. That would fall under the SW order.
Assumption of privacy is a tricky thing for sure- but even trickier in a professional capacity. Thus the no fly.
There are many ways to invade privacy these days... But a reporter violating a court order such as a SW, would (hopefully) be in big trouble, in both criminal and civil court.

The particular day being mentioned here was on the first day of the no-fly, but prior to the search warrant. The day of the search that led to the search warrant. LE was REALLY enforcing the no filming on the day of the search warrant, though from what I could observe and this explains why to me.

 

[DeAnn]

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case here. Working dogs and handlers 'own' their privacy, and reporters and others can be ordered to not make public any photos taken while working. That would fall under the SW order.
Assumption of privacy is a tricky thing for sure- but even trickier in a professional capacity. Thus the no fly.
There are many ways to invade privacy these days... But a reporter violating a court order such as a SW, would (hopefully) be in big trouble, in both criminal and civil court.

The FAA put in place a no-fly order.

To my knowledge, there was no "order" about taking ground pictures. It was a voluntary agreement. Do you mean SW order? If you do, there was no order in this case. A search warrant isn't the same thing ...maybe I'm missing something.

There was a grand jury subpoena and it was fought for raw footage.

 

[RANCH]

The FAA put in place a no-fly order.

To my knowledge, there was no "order" about taking ground pictures. It was a voluntary agreement. Do you mean SW order? If you do, there was no order in this case. A search warrant isn't the same thing ...maybe I'm missing something.

There was a grand jury subpoena and it was fought for raw footage.

What is a SW order? You say it's not the same as a search warrant.

 

[DeAnn]

What is a SW order? You say it's not the same as a search warrant.

Orian said SW. So what is a SW order would be up to him to explain.

If that's a search warrant...a search warrant would NOT be used by a judge to order the media not to video tape or take still photos. That would be a separate order/motion.

There was a no-fly zone in this case. The FAA does this all the time and doesn't need the courts permission to do this.

There was a search warrant in this case. Police tried to keep the RETURN sealed and it was denied.

There was a grand jury subpoena in this case and it was fought.

If there was an order by a judge to the media regarding the search, it's news to me. My understanding is the media voluntarily compiled. If someone has different information they can find on casenet, feel free to post. I am aware of no media coverage on such an order because I don't think it exists.

 

[Oriah]

The FAA put in place a no-fly order.

To my knowledge, there was no "order" about taking ground pictures. It was a voluntary agreement. Do you mean SW order? If you do, there was no order in this case. A search warrant isn't the same thing ...maybe I'm missing something.

There was a grand jury subpoena and it was fought for raw footage.

I mean that working dogs and their handlers are considered 'professionals' in LE. The reasonable expectation of privacy falls under the fourth amendment, and in court that makes everything even more...messy.

Yes, the FAA would have to be the responsible party for a no fly. But not responsible for ground footage.
The fighting for footage, I would think would be an issue regarding previous orders under the no fly.

Hypothetical analogy:
Let's say someone is scheduled to have surgery on *** date. It is a huge violation of privacy for both the physician and patient, if both have not already agreed to conditions of media exposure in a contract. If a reporter has an excellent lens that can creep into the OR and take pics of someone having surgery and a dr operating- well, that's a bit of a problem... and it's going to be a huge problem in court if something goes wrong. Kwim?

In this instance I think it was likely a request by LE- and that a request was granted by a court.
But maybe an attorney could weigh in here? I am not an attorney.

 

[DeAnn]

I mean that working dogs and their handlers are considered 'professionals' in LE. The reasonable expectation of privacy falls under the fourth amendment, and in court that makes everything even more...messy.

Yes, the FAA would have to be the responsible party for a no fly. But not responsible for ground footage.
The fighting for footage, I would think would be an issue regarding previous orders under the no fly.

Hypothetical analogy:
Let's say someone is scheduled to have surgery on *** date. It is a huge violation of privacy for both the physician and patient, if both have not already agreed to conditions of media exposure in a contract. If a reporter has an excellent lens that can creep into the OR and take pics of someone having surgery and a dr operating- well, that's a bit of a problem... and it's going to be a huge problem in court if something goes wrong. Kwim?

In this instance I think it was likely a request by LE- and that a request was granted by a court.
But maybe an attorney could weigh in here? I am not an attorney.

If there had been a court order, it would be in casenet. There would have been a hearing (because the media almost certainly would have fought it like they did the raw video request) and that would have gotten publicity.

Didn't happen.

A request was made. Media honored request. There was no written anything. There was no judge's order. It was a voluntary request that the media voluntarily complied with.

We can talk about what might be done in other cases but I'm talking about what was done in this case in mid-October 2011.

 

[Oriah]

I see what you're saying. I guess I'm just thinking about it from a handlers perspective- if it even involved working dogs at all?

To my understanding, no flys instituted during searches of private property involved in an active investigation have to be requested by LE to the FAA. So if the FAA grants a no fly, then pilots who violate it (including media choppers, etc) can be subject to penalties- which (depending on the situation) can be something like losing professional licenses. So I guess, to my way of thinking, it seems unlikely that LE just nicely asked the media to go away and they complied out of respect. Seems more like the media realized they could be legally held accountable- perhaps personally or professionally. Kwim? So I guess I assumed it was part of the condition of the SW.

That's kind of a ramble (sorry!) and just my opinion of course. I think we might actually be talking about the same thing!

Do you know if there were any RO's taken out against media? That's something I've seen happen on other searches where LE requested a no fly due to harassment of dog handlers. TIA if you know.

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

I think police should change the way they have been investigating all missing babies and little kids from their home,there´s been lots of pretty similar cases of children that vanished at home, a lot of them remind unresolved



http://insideedition.com/news/7085/baby-lisa-case-echoes-another-missing-child.aspx

 

[DeAnn]

I see what you're saying. I guess I'm just thinking about it from a handlers perspective- if it even involved working dogs at all?

To my understanding, no flys instituted during searches of private property involved in an active investigation have to be requested by LE to the FAA. So if the FAA grants a no fly, then pilots who violate it (including media choppers, etc) can be subject to penalties- which (depending on the situation) can be something like losing professional licenses. So I guess, to my way of thinking, it seems unlikely that LE just nicely asked the media to go away and they complied out of respect. Seems more like the media realized they could be legally held accountable- perhaps personally or professionally. Kwim? So I guess I assumed it was part of the condition of the SW.

That's kind of a ramble (sorry!) and just my opinion of course. I think we might actually be talking about the same thing!

Do you know if there were any RO's taken out against media? That's something I've seen happen on other searches where LE requested a no fly due to harassment of dog handlers. TIA if you know.

No, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

There was a no fly by the FAA. It was honored.

There was a voluntary request to ground crews (not chopper crews, ground crews). That was honored. Neither the FAA or the courts had anything to do with the ground request. You are saying there was a court order that ground crews take no pictures. That's simply false. I've since gathered more info and am 100 percent certain of this.

Restraining order? None in this case.

The media is not mentioned in the search warrant other than the reason the KCPD wanted it sealed by a judge. And that request was denied.

 

[octobermoon]

To the mods and others... not sure where to post this.

I brought up fence sitters. It is/has been a term used for years. Not an insult, at least not to me. And I in no way meant it as such. We all bring our own points of view, life experience and "hinky detectors".

I will refrain from using the term. And apologize for starting a problem. I truly didn't mean it to be an insult.

(off to see if I have enough clothes packed for the dungeon. )

 

[Whisperer]

Political correctness has now reached WS.