MO - Lisa Irwin, 10 months, Kansas City, 4 Oct 2011 - #3

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
nannymo said:
There have been many speculations about weather or not LE has tracked the cell phones. Maybe they have and not told anyone and that is why they are returning to the wooded area?? Maybe they tracked it there and cannot find it?
Click to expand...

Very true.

I confess it does bother me that LE is doing such a large search around the home. And that they have spent so much time in the home. More so than what is usual in missing kids cases.

Another thing that bothers me is that LE keeps offering the assurance that the parents are cooperating, and that they aren't suspects at this time.
That sounds too much like reassurance to the parents that they don't need to lawyer up. The more usual response from LE is to say something like "we haven't ruled anyone out at this point", but if they are pretty confident in the parents they might add "we also have no reason at this point to suspect the parents."
 
All phones would still ping when they are in range of a tower, I think...even Tracfones...JMO
 
tiredblondy said:
I still wonder if the pay as you go phones like one can buy at Wal-mart etc can be tracked?
Click to expand...

You can't track who's using it or who bought it (unless with a credit card) but it would still ping.
 
One thing that confuses me about the information given, and I assume it is poor reporting and nothing sinister, is the checking-on-kids thing. If he checked on the boys first as reported, why didn't he panic that the five year old wasn't in his bed but only when the 10 month old wasn't? I assume that it was actually along the lines of "I checked this side of the house, saw the boys in bed/in my bed, went to check on Lisa (knowing she wasn't with her mother at this point) and found her missing.", but since a few people seem bothered by the situation but couldn't articulate why I thought I would throw that out.
 
mrsu said:
From this I assume Lisa's room was at the back of the house.
Click to expand...

One possibility - the snatcher didn't come throught the window. THIS TIME.

That is, s/he had taken the grand tour on another occasion.

________

Now, what if the snatcher had a KEY. When were the locks ever changed? Would some former resident still have a spare to use?
 
mysteriew said:
Very true.

I confess it does bother me that LE is doing such a large search around the home. And that they have spent so much time in the home. More so than what is usual in missing kids cases.

Another thing that bothers me is that LE keeps offering the assurance that the parents are cooperating, and that they aren't suspects at this time.
That sounds too much like reassurance to the parents that they don't need to lawyer up. The more usual response from LE is to say something like "we haven't ruled anyone out at this point", but if they are pretty confident in the parents they might add "we also have no reason at this point to suspect the parents."
Click to expand...

I have never heard LE say that the parents are not suspects, only that they have been cooperative thus far but they don't have enough evidence/information to rule anyone out. MOO
 
raeann said:
According to the local poster who described the property.....the backyard is fenced and connects on all THREE sides to the neighbors yards. At least one or more of those is likely to have a dog even if this family did not. That would leave the only means of exit coming out a side gate and down through the front yard area anyway. Much easier and safer just to go out the front door and be gone rather than wander around looking for an unlocked gate in the dark back yard.


jmo
Click to expand...

I googled it and got a street view - the fence does appear to be on three sides of the back yard but it looks to me like the sides are not connected to the house - leaving at least that driveway to the garage/shop in back open and maybe the other side (can't tell.) I think the fence is also cedar or something - more solid than say chain link so maybe a neighbor dog wouldn't even notice someone slinking out. I don't think their is a gate across the driveway at all? I hope that made sense?
 
Shelby1 said:
snipped:


Jeremy Irwin, Lisa’s father, told local media that whoever took his daughter also took all three of their cell phones so they couldn’t call anybody, including 911.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this point was probably made a few times but I just got home so here it is: Why were ALL 3 of their cell phones taken? Did the father not have his own cell phone? Did he forget to bring it to work on his first day at the new job? I can't see that happening but then I have a partner who calls me multiple times a day when he is out. If he did have his own phone, then this family has 3 phones as well as the father's?

Were all 3 phones located in the same place right in the open for someone to see? Maybe it's someone who knows the inside of the house and where the phones would be. Sorry if this has been explained already.
 
I have a suggestion for LE if they're looking for cell phones in those woods and that would be a metal detector. I'm sure they've thought of that though.

It does cause the hinky meter to go up that they do keep searching in that same area.
 
The stolen cell phones don't seem weird to me.

If the abductor's aim was to give himself a couple of more minutes before they contacted police, then he would take the cell phones and simply dump them somewhere nearby (like a nearby wooded area?). Or if he was aware of the tracking potential and wished to confuse LE and prevent/delay capture, he would hide them somewhere (like a nearby wooded area?) where LE would have to search extensively, wasting loads of time and manpower.
 
Thoughts and prayers for Baby Lisa, her family and all who have her in their hearts. Be back later.
 
davehead21 said:
I have never heard LE say that the parents are not suspects, only that they have been cooperative thus far but they don't have enough evidence/information to rule anyone out. MOO
Click to expand...

But for some reason the way LE is wording it is bothering me. Too much emphasis on the fact that they are cooperating maybe?

I mean you expect parents who have a missing child to cooperate. Usually that isn't even mentioned unless they aren't cooperating.
 
mysteriew said:
Very true.

I confess it does bother me that LE is doing such a large search around the home. And that they have spent so much time in the home. More so than what is usual in missing kids cases.

Another thing that bothers me is that LE keeps offering the assurance that the parents are cooperating, and that they aren't suspects at this time.
That sounds too much like reassurance to the parents that they don't need to lawyer up. The more usual response from LE is to say something like "we haven't ruled anyone out at this point", but if they are pretty confident in the parents they might add "we also have no reason at this point to suspect the parents."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post. I am not happy that these parents talked about the cell phones being stolen when LE said nothing else was taken. LE may have thought that the phones might be used. Anyone watching the news would pitch them if they haven't already. Or did I get this wrong? Did LE release this info first?
 
NEW THREAD
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150751"]MO AMBER ALERT- Lisa Irwin, 10 months, Kansas City, 4 Oct 2011-- #4 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

This one is getting really, really long.
 
Celeste said:
The stolen cell phones don't seem weird to me.

If the abductor's aim was to give himself a couple of more minutes before they contacted police, then he would take the cell phones and simply dump them somewhere nearby (like a nearby wooded area?). Or if he was aware of the tracking potential and wished to confuse LE and prevent/delay capture, he would hide them somewhere (like a nearby wooded area?) where LE would have to search extensively, wasting loads of time and manpower.
Click to expand...

A really devious perp would stash them in the bumper of someone else's vehicle...
 
matou said:
Sorry, this point was probably made a few times but I just got home so here it is: Why were ALL 3 of their cell phones taken? Did the father not have his own cell phone? Did he forget to bring it to work on his first day at the new job? I can't see that happening but then I have a partner who calls me multiple times a day when he is out. If he did have his own phone, then this family has 3 phones as well as the father's?

Were all 3 phones located in the same place right in the open for someone to see? Maybe it's someone who knows the inside of the house and where the phones would be. Sorry if this has been explained already.
Click to expand...

Per Debbie (the mom) one of the cell phones didn't work. They were all 3 together on the counter because she was programming one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 132 more.
Total: 4,277 (members: 133, guests: 4,144)

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
4,144
Total visitors
4,277
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,405
Messages
17,968,466
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top