Lisa has been missing over four months now (poll)

My beliefs on who is responsible for taking Lisa four months ago

  • My beliefs are firm.

    Votes: 49 56.3%

  • My beliefs are squishy (not undecided but not firm)

    Votes: 20 23.0%

  • My beliefs are undecided

    Votes: 18 20.7%
  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .

New Posts

redheadedgal said:
it seems sarx disagrees with oriah:

from the HRT thread pg. 1:

Originally Posted by nursebeeme

I will go first (based on some questions I have seen other posters ask on the other thread)

1) are there differences in cadaver dogs?

2) what kind do the fbi use?

3) can cadaver dogs hit on urine and blood?


oriah's responses:

1. The difference is in the training largely and level of training. Though there are historical remains detection dogs as well, which is a specialty of HRD and involves working with archeological aspects and remains that are hundreds of years old.

2. What kind don't the FBI use? They've got a lot of resources.

3. HRD dogs should not be hitting on anything that comes from a living body.
Click to expand...

Whew! This is too confusing to me....:waitasec:
 
Whisperer said:
I was reading that somebody thinks some or one of us think DB killed her baby. Here's my take. IF DB is guilty of hiding Lisa due to an accident, that'll be a first. One your baby gets hurt, 911 is called. Any loving parent will do that. Now if you caused the accident and hid it, you may fall in the homicide category...could be negligent, but it is homicide. It has been four months now and these parents have had plenty of time to come clean if they are involved in this mess.

You don't wait till your arrested and the body is decomposed and claim, "It was an accident". I am sure LE has told them that. I am also pretty sure that is what the parent/s will do...if charged.

Conclusion is if it was an accident, they should have told LE...since they didn't and evidence is found they will be charged with a homicide of sorts. I don't think I can think of a time a parent buried or hid a child because there was an accident.
Click to expand...

BBM

That is what Casey Anthony did, and she got away with it too...:maddening:
 
Donjeta said:
They saw SB before calling 911 so it's possible for DB to have told her, oh please don't tell them we were drinking, they'll say I'm a horrible mom. Whether SB is the kind of person who would go along with something like that I don't know. Then there is the other SB, and since they sat outside someone else might have seen them too. LE was bound to find out IMO so if she omitted the detail it was pretty pointless.

If she drank a lot and was still under the influence at 4 am the first responders might already have noticed her state.
Click to expand...

Totally possible, even likely. JI runs over to ask about baby, I'm sure SB followed him back to their house and talked with DB while they waited on cops, even while JI was looking around still. They had time to discuss it.

But if that were my friend, I might in the heat of the moment do what she requested, but by the next day I'd be saying - hey, I'm not lying to the cops - AND...exactly why do you want me to?!?!

There's lots of room for criticism for DB to be drinking while in charge of young children, one sick. But if she's completely innocent, it strikes me as odd that she'd even have the mental capacity to lie to the police about it, in the face of baby missing. She was reportedly in a heap on the floor crying.

I assume, they said, ok so what was happening last night, she'd say basically what she is saying now, baby was asleep in her room, kids watching movie, me and friend sat on porch and had a few. No big deal, really. SO why lie about it in the beginning? Makes no sense. :twocents:
 
Good afternoon gang. I have about 20 minutes if anybody wants to discuss this case.
Ron Rugen
 
Whisperer said:
I was reading that somebody thinks some or one of us think DB killed her baby. Here's my take. IF DB is guilty of hiding Lisa due to an accident, that'll be a first. One your baby gets hurt, 911 is called. Any loving parent will do that. Now if you caused the accident and hid it, you may fall in the homicide category...could be negligent, but it is homicide. It has been four months now and these parents have had plenty of time to come clean if they are involved in this mess.

You don't wait till your arrested and the body is decomposed and claim, "It was an accident". I am sure LE has told them that. I am also pretty sure that is what the parent/s will do...if charged.

Conclusion is if it was an accident, they should have told LE...since they didn't and evidence is found they will be charged with a homicide of sorts. I don't think I can think of a time a parent buried or hid a child because there was an accident.
Click to expand...


BBM

I agree with most of your post Whisp. However, I remember a time when a dear little girl was hidden after she was accidently killed. JonBenet Ramsey.
 
RANCH said:
Ok. So your saying that Debbie didn't tell LE that she was drinking that night. She purposely left that out of any early interviews with LE. She lied by omission. Why did she talk to the media about her drinking? Why even bring it up? Why not try to cover it up? LE hasn't released anything that DB/JI have said.. I'm still not seeing any proof of "lying by omission".
Click to expand...

Obviously, LE had the box of wine, and later, the receipt. SB had her own liquor. I'm sure they deduced, after the receipt was found, by comparing it to the leftover wine, how much DB had drank.

She changed her timeline and admitted she was drunk AFTER the receipt. I am not going to go digging through links again, they've been posted here countless times. Seems to be an argument for arguments sake at this point.
 
vlpate said:
Obviously, LE had the box of wine, and later, the receipt. SB had her own liquor. I'm sure they deduced, after the receipt was found, by comparing it to the leftover wine, how much DB had drank.

She changed her timeline and admitted she was drunk AFTER the receipt. I am not going to go digging through links again, they've been posted here countless times. Seems to be an argument for arguments sake at this point.
Click to expand...

Since it was reported that DB liked to watch the shows/trials on missing children on TV, how did she ever think that the police would not find out about her drinking. She should have known enough to tell them immediately. I can't understand her logic at all.
 
I posted a week or two ago that they finally put up a missing poster for Lisa at our "local" walmart. Today when I went, it was no longer there.
 
iamnotagolem said:
I posted a week or two ago that they finally put up a missing poster for Lisa at our "local" walmart. Today when I went, it was no longer there.
Click to expand...

My wife was in our local WalMart last week and there was one. If it does go away I hope someone will make sure it gets put back up.
 
I wonder why they took it down?! I'm going to Sam's Club tomorrow, where I saw one last time I was there. I'll see if it's still there.
 
Don't know where to post this but there was some buzz about the case because the body of an 11 month old was discovered in Virginia. Police are saying it isn't Lisa but I don't know when the remains were found but it states the discovery is recent. Not much info. Maybe they know it isn't Lisa because of sex or skin color. It does say remains though.

http://www.kmbc.com/r/30457917/detail.html
 
Yeah, what tests did they do to determine it's not Lisa and how do they know the age so accurately of the remains? Virginia is far away though.
 
this is perhaps the weirdest story of them all in the baby Lisa saga.


http://www.kctv5.com/story/16935107/dna-tests-reveal-remains-found-in-va-not

The remains of an infant found in Virginia were not that of missing Kansas City baby Lisa Irwin.

Kansas City Police Department spokesman Darin Snapp said Tuesday afternoon that Lisa's DNA was not used because authorities compared the DNA of the remains to the baby's father.

Rumors had spread on the internet Tuesday that the remains were Lisa's.
 
DeAnn said:
this is perhaps the weirdest story of them all in the baby Lisa saga.


http://www.kctv5.com/story/16935107/dna-tests-reveal-remains-found-in-va-not

The remains of an infant found in Virginia were not that of missing Kansas City baby Lisa Irwin.

Kansas City Police Department spokesman Darin Snapp said Tuesday afternoon that Lisa's DNA was not used because authorities compared the DNA of the remains to the baby's father.

Rumors had spread on the internet Tuesday that the remains were Lisa's.
Click to expand...

WHAT???? They need to use the mother's DNA to compare. There is no doubt who the mom is, IMO. The dad should not be the source for comparative DNA, are you kidding me???
 
is there a connection between anyone is this case to Virginia? TIA
 
DeAnn said:
this is perhaps the weirdest story of them all in the baby Lisa saga.


http://www.kctv5.com/story/16935107/dna-tests-reveal-remains-found-in-va-not

The remains of an infant found in Virginia were not that of missing Kansas City baby Lisa Irwin.

Kansas City Police Department spokesman Darin Snapp said Tuesday afternoon that Lisa's DNA was not used because authorities compared the DNA of the remains to the baby's father.

Rumors had spread on the internet Tuesday that the remains were Lisa's.
Click to expand...

They mean the deceased baby's father, right? They compared the deceased baby's remains DNA to that of her father, and we assume it was a match, and that's how we know it's not Lisa?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 196 more.
Total: 3,844 (members: 197, guests: 3,647)

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
3,647
Total visitors
3,844
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,820
Messages
17,959,599
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top