Your opinion matches mine pretty close. I don't put as much emphasis on statistics as most others though. Everything else is spot on.
Lisa has been missing over four months now (poll)
- Thread starter nursebeeme
- Start date
Your opinion matches mine pretty close. I don't put as much emphasis on statistics as most others though. Everything else is spot on.
In da Middle
of everything
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,916
- Reaction score
- 37
Yes, and since the 'statistics' are not 100% means, in fact, improbable does indeed happen.
Sherbie
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 1,888
- Reaction score
- 16
In the realm of all that is possible in the world, almost everything is. No one can say *I* wasn't in the area that night, but the statistical likelihood is extremely low. Statistical improbability of a kidnapping is only one of the things that gives me pause. It isn't a definitive indicator by any means, but it gains a little more significance when considered in conjunction with the suspect behavior/statements and implausible intruder theory, IMO.
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,947
Snipped and BBM: :rocker: Great Questions -- and none of these ?s have EVER been answered ...
JMO ... but I believe that the time-frame BEFORE a person goes "missing" is CRITICAL -- at least 48 hours prior to being reported "missing".
Baby Lisa was reported "missing" on Tuesday October 4 at appx 4:00 A.M.
So, the boys went to school on Monday October 3 -- WHAT DID Deb do that day -- besides the "wine run" with her brother ?
JMO ... but I do think her brother PN is the one who helped her dispose of the phones and ... :waitasec:
MOO ...
Sherbie
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 1,888
- Reaction score
- 16
I agree, and that's why I won't discount entirely an intruder scenario; nor that DB was too unfit to walk any distance; nor that there might've been more than one dog hit, etc. I have suspicions, but I am not gonna completely exclude anything on the basis of improbability. I'll go where the evidence eventually leads us.
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,947
Respectfully Snipped and BBM:
1st BBM: I totally agree ! And I sure hope that someone in KCPD has done some good profiling on DB and JI ... and since DB and JI are NOT talking to LE -- and NOT talking to LE SEPARATELY -- they need to profile ALL of their statements, their body language, etc.
Something I just thought of : We know that at the time Baby Lisa went "missing", DB was not working. In today's economy and with 3 children to raise, it has to be financially difficult. But WHY doesn't DB work ? Did she "ever" have a job before ? :waitasec: Even FCA had a job, even though it was for a month or two ...
2nd BBM: Great Catch -- that she is "being protected" ... :waitasec: but by WHO and WHY ?
MOO ...
melissasmom
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,201
- Reaction score
- 6
DB at some point had at least one job. Didn't she and Jeremy meet when she worked at Payless? I thought I heard that somewhere. Sorry don't have a link off hand.
As far as not working, maybe she just wanted to a be stay at home mom. I didn't work for the most part before my kids started school. There was a time when I HAD to work, but when a had a spouse working, I stayed home. And yes, our income wasn't real great, but sometimes being with your kids is worth the financial loss. Or maybe DB is lazy. Who knows.
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,947
Yes, you are correct -- I remember something about DB working at a place where she met JI.
JMO ... but I don't see DB as wanting to be a "stay at home mom" -- remember that "adult time" statement ?
MOO ...
I'm still undecided. I think DB has said and done things that are inconsistent and puts the focus on her, makes you shake your head and wonder WTH is going on, but one of the reasons I can't say 100% that it's because of guilt is because of who her attorney is and how he operates, believing that he isn't really in this to find Lisa.
I don't know if what she does is due to guilt or bad advice. I know that it doesn't make it ok to take bad advice, it is her daughter and that should be first and foremost in her mind but I just can't decide if it proves guilt.
I have a hard time getting past the intruder entering the house with lights on but again, can't say that it's 100% false because stranger things have happened.
The one thing I do firmly believe is that LE didn't just decide to focus on DB just for the heck of it to be mean to them, or that they didn't want to look at anyone else but her. I firmly believe that LE's focus comes from inconsistencies that came from DB herself. LE doesn't have the luxury to just sit back and assume she's probably a nice person who wouldn't do such a thing, or try to decipher what they really might have meant when they say inconsistent things. They're going to keep the focus until they're convinced that they can move on. She wasn't helping them move on so the focus remained.
JMHO
I don't know if what she does is due to guilt or bad advice. I know that it doesn't make it ok to take bad advice, it is her daughter and that should be first and foremost in her mind but I just can't decide if it proves guilt.
I have a hard time getting past the intruder entering the house with lights on but again, can't say that it's 100% false because stranger things have happened.
The one thing I do firmly believe is that LE didn't just decide to focus on DB just for the heck of it to be mean to them, or that they didn't want to look at anyone else but her. I firmly believe that LE's focus comes from inconsistencies that came from DB herself. LE doesn't have the luxury to just sit back and assume she's probably a nice person who wouldn't do such a thing, or try to decipher what they really might have meant when they say inconsistent things. They're going to keep the focus until they're convinced that they can move on. She wasn't helping them move on so the focus remained.
JMHO
Meri
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 654
- Reaction score
- 7
And...that is why I am very skeptical that they got a hit at all.
Sherbie
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 1,888
- Reaction score
- 16
I don't doubt that they got the hit they cited in their search warrant application. But we have no way to know what (if anything) subsequent testing of the item(s) showed.
hambirg
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,380
- Reaction score
- 21
I don't think LE is in the habit of lying on affidavits. I think they got the hit. Now whether that hit was valid or not is up for debate. We really don't have much info one way or the other.
Meri
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 654
- Reaction score
- 7
I think if it is important enough they certainly will. And, I don't blame them. Use whatever it takes as long as the focus is not just on one person and investigation carries on in other ways at the same time.
Dewey2Me1MoThyme
Have clue will sleuth!
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,004
- Reaction score
- 52
BBM: So by this do you think LE would lie by ommission? Claiming one dog hit if there were multiple dog hits?
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 516
I think LE is allowed to write affidavits in which they state only as much information as they need to get the warrant they search. Giving out too much information could affect the investigation negatively.
That said, I thought the other dogs came in during the search and whether they hit or not it wouldn't have happened yet when the affidavit was written. It's not a lie not to be able to tell what's going to happen in the future.
Dewey2Me1MoThyme
Have clue will sleuth!
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,004
- Reaction score
- 52
Maybe I should have written that differently, I mean the same dog hitting on multiple place or things in the home. So you are saying yes that LE may have lied by omission or not?
Whisperer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2008
- Messages
- 17,542
- Reaction score
- 64
Why take anything if there is no comp on it? If they don't have DNA, they don't need to take it. Lisa was most likely on a throw rug, towels, or blankets.They didn't take anything from the bedroom? How do we know that the clothing they took wasn't from the bedrm?
They did take 2 blankets, a toy, the clothes DB described at Lisa last wearing. (plus tape) They took those items for good reason. Maybe the dogs hit on them. Chances are they did.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 516
It is imo possible that they didn't state everything they know about all the evidence they have in the affidavit but I wouldn't consider it lying, I'd rather construe it as protecting the evidence.
IIRC the affidavit didn't state anything about whether there were any items or how many in the area of the floor that the dog hit on.
Whisperer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2008
- Messages
- 17,542
- Reaction score
- 64
LE would never lie on an affidavit. People are willing to believe LE lies but DB tells the truth...hmm
This particular department has done an outstanding job in this case and searched for this baby tirelessly. DB and her team do not like LE, not at all. DB says she is not being treated fairly. No thanks to the dept for their searching for her child...just complaints about them. It is always about DB.