IDI Theories (intruder did it)

[Cappuccino]

Jeremy's job the night Lisa went missing was at a Starbucks that was being constructed. It was not open to the public yet, so there weren't hundreds of customers. I guess it's possible that weeks or more before Lisa went missing, Jeremy was working at a Starbucks that was already open for business, and somehow managed to get a customer's hair on his clothing, despite, I'm assuming, working after business hours, and then that hair transferring from his clothing onto say, Lisa's crib. But if that scenario occurred, how is that going to solve this case? Unless this customer is already in the database somehow, LE is never going to make a match. It's just going to sit in some back-room. It won't find the killer or clear the parents.

Now that I think about it, if LE find one little strand of hair that didn't match the parents, but didn't have a match or any other evidence pointing towards an intruder, I could see why they wouldn't tell them. If they do, it would be all the parents would need to scream to the media that there's no way they could be guilty. It would be the equivalent of the touch DNA in the Ramsey case.

Maybe that's why they haven't told them anything. Or maybe there just was nothing, there frequently isn't in these types of cases, see Elizabeth Smart, Stephanie Crowe, Riley Fox.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

 

[brit1981]

But what sort of evidence is incriminating to an unknown person. Sure if they found a hair there and could identify it to a known person who has never been there and not come into contact with anyone who has any connection to the house, it might give them a lead, but it woudl be far from incriminating on its own. hairs and fibres do transfer, if one bumps into someone in a crowded place one could get a hair and fibre on you from them, then when you return home the fibre transfers to your home etc.
If an intruder cut themselve son awindow breaking in, or left fibres on a broken window then yes thta is incriminating, but otherwise any fibres or material they find will only be of help if they have other evidence and it all mounts up.

 

[cityslick]

Jeremy's job the night Lisa went missing was at a Starbucks that was being constructed. It was not open to the public yet, so there weren't hundreds of customers. I guess it's possible that weeks or more before Lisa went missing, Jeremy was working at a Starbucks that was already open for business, and somehow managed to get a customer's hair on his clothing, despite, I'm assuming, working after business hours, and then that hair transferring from his clothing onto say, Lisa's crib. But if that scenario occurred, how is that going to solve this case? Unless this customer is already in the database somehow, LE is never going to make a match. It's just going to sit in some back-room. It won't find the killer or clear the parents.

Now that I think about it, if LE find one little strand of hair that didn't match the parents, but didn't have a match or any other evidence pointing towards an intruder, I could see why they wouldn't tell them. If they do, it would be all the parents would need to scream to the media that there's no way they could be guilty. It would be the equivalent of the touch DNA in the Ramsey case.

I have no doubt there was dna/hair in that house that belonged to people other than the parents. I could think of at least 3 people, SB, SB's daughter and PN. Plus whoever else came and gone into that house recently up to that point. Even if there isn't any forensic evidence that ties to an unknown person, that's still not proof there was no intruder (see the Smart case)

I always thought it was curious that SB's husband had to take a lie detector test. Not that I think he had anything to do with anything, but I'm curious what led LE to have him come in. Did SB says things to LE that put her husband in LE's focus, enough to make him take an LDT?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Why are we even having a discussion about LE finding hair or fibers that matches someone who isn't an Irwin but isn't the intruder? Huh....

If the case is still unsolved in 5 years, are we still going to be discussing, "Maybe LE has evidence pointing towards an intruder that we don't know about it..."

If an intruder took Lisa, and left no evidence behind in the house, the chance of this person ever getting arrested is almost non-existant. If the intruder killed Lisa, her body will not yield any forensic evidence at this point. If Lisa is still alive, it's been 10 months so I am going to assume that no one who knows the intruder is still suspicious. I think the only way for the intruder to be caught would be for someone to report him or her. With the parents barely talking to the media, no one is even going to consider that their ______'s baby was kidnapped.

 

[Cappuccino]

Fair point. Although I think the chances of anybody considering it are pretty slim anyway, no matter what the parents do. Depressingly enough people just don't alot of the time. Look at how many people saw Shawn Hornbeck while he was kidnapped, even police officers came into contact with him. Nobody noticed the resemblance despite his parents doing everything possible to keep his name and picture out there, and the few who did never went to the police.

A baby changes alot in ten months, if Lisa ever is found alive it will most likely be when she's old enough to "find" herself. Which has also happened in previous cases, although rare. We can always hope though.

 

[Donjeta]

I have no doubt there was dna/hair in that house that belonged to people other than the parents. I could think of at least 3 people, SB, SB's daughter and PN. Plus whoever else came and gone into that house recently up to that point. Even if there isn't any forensic evidence that ties to an unknown person, that's still not proof there was no intruder (see the Smart case)

I always thought it was curious that SB's husband had to take a lie detector test. Not that I think he had anything to do with anything, but I'm curious what led LE to have him come in. Did SB says things to LE that put her husband in LE's focus, enough to make him take an LDT?

I imagine the police had little choice but to take notice of him because of the timing of their break-up which might have shaken something up and because Gil Abeyta pointed fingers at him. If the case ever goes to a trial against somebody else the defense atty would have a field day with the story that the witness allegedly identified SB as the man he saw, so they would have to have done something to try and rule him out.

 

[RANCH]

I imagine the police had little choice but to take notice of him because of the timing of their break-up which might have shaken something up and because Gil Abeyta pointed fingers at him. If the case ever goes to a trial against somebody else the defense atty would have a field day with the story that the witness allegedly identified SB as the man he saw, so they would have to have done something to try and rule him out.

If this case goes to trial at all, I don't think that anyone's LDT results will be used in any way at all.

As far as I know, LE hasn't ruled out anyone as a suspect in this case whether they have taken a LDT or not.
JMO.

 

[Donjeta]

I didn't say anything about using LDT results at a trial. Just that when somebody comes up with an alleged sighting and it's a neighbor who might have been going crazy that night due to a family crisis, and his family members were at the crime scene, I would expect it to be SOP to investigate that person.

LDT results aren't usually admissible evidence at a trial. It's an investigative tool at best.

 

[RANCH]

I didn't say anything about using LDT results at a trial. Just that when somebody comes up with an alleged sighting and it's a neighbor who might have been going crazy that night due to a family crisis, and his family members were at the crime scene, I would expect it to be SOP to investigate that person.

LDT results aren't usually admissible evidence at a trial. It's an investigative tool at best.

Well then I apologize for using LDT in my post. When you said "so they would have to have done something to try and rule him out" I thought that you were referring to cityslicks mention of LE's use of a LDT.

I see that I made a mistake.

So what I'm getting from your posts is that if someone other that JB is arrested in the disappearance of Lisa Irwin, a defense attorney could point the blame at JB? Sure, I guess that they could. Or they could point the blame at Jersey or an unknown intruder or who knows what.

To me it all depends on the evidence. Either it's strong enough to arrest and convict someone, or it's not. So far it's not been enough for an arrest let alone a conviction.
JMO.

 

[RANCH]

Jeremy's job the night Lisa went missing was at a Starbucks that was being constructed. It was not open to the public yet, so there weren't hundreds of customers. I guess it's possible that weeks or more before Lisa went missing, Jeremy was working at a Starbucks that was already open for business, and somehow managed to get a customer's hair on his clothing, despite, I'm assuming, working after business hours, and then that hair transferring from his clothing onto say, Lisa's crib. But if that scenario occurred, how is that going to solve this case? Unless this customer is already in the database somehow, LE is never going to make a match. It's just going to sit in some back-room. It won't find the killer or clear the parents.

Now that I think about it, if LE find one little strand of hair that didn't match the parents, but didn't have a match or any other evidence pointing towards an intruder, I could see why they wouldn't tell them. If they do, it would be all the parents would need to scream to the media that there's no way they could be guilty. It would be the equivalent of the touch DNA in the Ramsey case.

My using the name "Starbucks" was as an example of some of the jobs sites that Jeremy may have worked prior to Lisa being missing and possibly picking up hair or fiber that could have been transferred to his home.

I agree that if such a transfer of hair and fiber from an unknown source did occur and LE did collect samples of said transfer, that in of it's self will not solve this case. There has to be more that ties an intruder to the crime in order to say that any particular person is guilty of taking Lisa from her home.

Does LE have any evidence of an intruder? At this point we just don't know.

 

[brit1981]

At the moment I guess it is more a case of there being no evidence against an intruder being there. If they arrest someone then they might be able to work backwards and find the evidence against them. But at the moment it is like trying to find a needle in a haystack without knowing where the haystack is.

 

[RANCH]

I've been looking at the floor plan of Lisa's home again and I still can't get past the possibility of an intruder. If someone was familiar with this house and its occupants, they could know how to gain entry without being detected.

Another thing that came to my mind was the possibility that someone entered the house and took the cell phones to see what was on them. People have mentioned things like text messages, contacts, or pictures that could have been left on the phones.

Maybe the person who took the phones was interested in knowing what was on them and not there cash value on the used phone market. And after obtaining the phones they did in fact find something on them that confirmed their suspicions.

Perhaps what was found on the phones caused the person to toss the one used later to call MW aside in anger. Then someone who cruises around the neighborhood at night finds the phone and uses it to make the call.

Now that the individual has gained the information from the phones he/she is enraged. They know that they can reenter the house and exact their revenge.

They decide to take Lisa. And she is gone.

Is this a possible scenario? I think so.

 

[KsStormy]

I've been looking at the floor plan of Lisa's home again and I still can't get past the possibility of an intruder. If someone was familiar with this house and its occupants, they could know how to gain entry without being detected.

Another thing that came to my mind was the possibility that someone entered the house and took the cell phones to see what was on them. People have mentioned things like text messages, contacts, or pictures that could have been left on the phones.

Maybe the person who took the phones was interested in knowing what was on them and not there cash value on the used phone market. And after obtaining the phones they did in fact find something on them that confirmed their suspicions.

Perhaps what was found on the phones caused the person to toss the one used later to call MW aside in anger. Then someone who cruises around the neighborhood at night finds the phone and uses it to make the call.

Now that the individual has gained the information from the phones he/she is enraged. They know that they can reenter the house and exact their revenge.

They decide to take Lisa. And she is gone.

Is this a possible scenario? I think so.

No. Innocent people do not do what this clan has done in the last (almost) 11 months. That is classified under MOO, as the rules of this forum dictate that I cannot divulge personal experiences/social media events.
:moo:

 

[redheadedgal]

If they arrest someone then they might be able to work backwards and find the evidence against them.

LE needs to have evidence first before making an arrest in the US ... unless of course they're corrupt... which i don't believe the KCMOPD is...

 

[redheadedgal]

No. Innocent people do not do what this clan has done in the last (almost) 11 months. That is classified under MOO, as the rules of this forum dictate that I cannot divulge personal experiences/social media events. :moo:

also the KISS theory and occam's razor pretty much exclude such a complicated set of happenings/the multiple participants in post #352 imo.

 

[RANCH]

No. Innocent people do not do what this clan has done in the last (almost) 11 months. That is classified under MOO, as the rules of this forum dictate that I cannot divulge personal experiences/social media events.
:moo:

Why can't you say what "this clan" has done? Is it because it's a rumor and you have no way to substantiate your claim?

 

[RANCH]

also the KISS theory and occam's razor pretty much exclude such a complicated set of happenings/the multiple participants in post #352 imo.

Your certainly entitled to your opinion but I don't feel that my theory is overly complicated. Is there any part of it that you feel is impossible?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Your certainly entitled to your opinion but I don't feel that my theory is overly complicated. Is there any part of it that you feel is impossible?

The question wasn't directed towards me, but I'll answer anyway: Unless I'm reading your theory wrong, you believe the intruder could've have made two visits to the house? So they took the phones, found something on them, and then returned to the house to take Lisa? Why couldn't they just check the phone in the house?

 

[RANCH]

The question wasn't directed towards me, but I'll answer anyway: Unless I'm reading your theory wrong, you believe the intruder could've have made two visits to the house? So they took the phones, found something on them, and then returned to the house to take Lisa? Why couldn't they just check the phone in the house?

That would work too if the person felt comfortable enough to hang out inside the house while checking the phones.

 

[Donjeta]

What are you thinking Ranch? What was on the phones that motivated taking Lisa? The perp would be someone close or belonging to the family, presumably, to care about what's on the phones?