what are your thoughts now? *re-re-poll*

Discussion in 'Lisa Irwin' started by nursebeeme, Oct 28, 2011.

?

What happened to baby Lisa?

  1. Mom did it

    255 vote(s)
    45.0%
  2. Dad did it

    6 vote(s)
    1.1%
  3. Mom and Dad did it

    97 vote(s)
    17.1%
  4. SODDI (some other dude did it)

    49 vote(s)
    8.6%
  5. I am up on that fence

    86 vote(s)
    15.2%
  6. I have no clue

    74 vote(s)
    13.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. redheadedgal

    redheadedgal Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,649
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    i was just going to post this exact thing -- asking for links to back up all the statements in that post. as it stands, it reads like rumor, innuendo and guessing, not substantiated fact.

    thanks expectingunicorns!!


    :seeya:
     


  2. RANCH

    RANCH Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,074
    Likes Received:
    4,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BBM

    I agree that LE never publicly said that Deborah Bradley failed a polygraph. I think that they purposely lied to her about failing the test to try and get her to confess to something that she probably didn't do.

    She did cooperate and subject herself to LE interrogations in this case.

    http://fox4kc.com/2011/11/11/baby-lisa-family-attorney-accusations-of-noncooperation-‘fantasy’/
     
  3. Inana

    Inana Member

    Messages:
    504
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    No links for each, but found all articles and interviews on the Media Links page on this forum.

    DB was interviewed right after the first police interview, crying and saying "they told me I failed the polygraph." So, the police told her she failed. Later in an interview (Youtube: GMA Dan Abrams talks with Lisa's parents) we hear DB passed the test and JI was never asked to take one.

    All the phone call business is from what the police told MW (another YouTube video: Lisa Irwin - MW Interview) the PD changed the time of the phone call: 8-8:30, 2:30, now 11:57, and a message check at 3:15-3:30. From a phone with no service.

    MWs phone number written on DBs hand was told to MW by the police. (October 31, 2011 HLN Special.)
     
  4. Inana

    Inana Member

    Messages:
    504
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Wptv.com: MW said police told her that the night Lisa disappeared, someone dialed her cell phone number using one of three phones the family reported taken Irwin home:
    Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/baby-lisa-irwin-case-suspicions-cause-mystery-phone-owner-megan-wright-to-defend-herself-on-facebook#ixzz2YtmYJt9r
    and
    http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/baby-lisa-irwin-case-suspicions-cause-mystery-phone-owner-megan-wright-to-defend-herself-on-facebook :
    Wright said she was not responsible for the changes in the timeline concerning the mystery call.
    “The only information I know is what police told me originally 8:00 p.m.,” Wright wrote. “Then it was 2:30 a.m. Now shortly before midnight. “Who friggen [sic] knows?”
     
  5. ExpectingUnicorns

    ExpectingUnicorns . . . only the pure of heart can see.

    Messages:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hi, RANCH. I'm pleased you agree. We all know (including me by personal experience) that LE has a legal right to claim false facts if they think it will advance their discovery of facts and I wouldn't be surprised if they did in this case. What I'm objecting to is Inana's statement that "based on information put out there by the Kansas City Police Department." They didn't put it "out there" ~ She did.

    The hours of D and J's cooperation are well documented and commented upon many times in numerous threads. I remain in the camp that feels this is still meager and very historical. I was thinking Inana had a more recent quote that reflected that LE now believes they are cooperating.
     
  6. Inana

    Inana Member

    Messages:
    504
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The lie detector sources are above.

    The LE statement on cooperation is here:
    http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_s...-police-are-trying-to-extract-confession.html
    Quote in the article from police spokesman Steve Young:
    "They’ve done other things, but when I say we’re not getting full cooperation, I’m saying we’re not getting what we need," Young said.
     
  7. ExpectingUnicorns

    ExpectingUnicorns . . . only the pure of heart can see.

    Messages:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thank you for your research, Inana, but I never questioned anything about the calls nor the timing. And the links you have provided do not support your statement that LE is based on information put out there by the Kansas City Police Department is "putting thing out there." Your quotes were all from M Wright.
     
  8. ExpectingUnicorns

    ExpectingUnicorns . . . only the pure of heart can see.

    Messages:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    We will, sadly, have to agree that we interpret things differently. To me, the above statement by Steve Young conveys the fact that the parents are not cooperating. Nothing more; nothing less.
     
  9. RANCH

    RANCH Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,074
    Likes Received:
    4,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure if it would matter to me if LE said that Deborah failed a polygraph or not. I don't feel that polygraphs are reliable enough to tell me if someone is lying or not.

    I'm not sure what KCPD considers to be cooperation. Does it have to be a confession? Or just talking?
     
  10. ExpectingUnicorns

    ExpectingUnicorns . . . only the pure of heart can see.

    Messages:
    4,286
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    63
    LOL, the point was not whether or not polygraphs are reliable. It was about what LE stated. So this statement is a diversion from the discussion.

    Many, many witnesses in many, many cases have been considered cooperative without giving confessions. I hardly think LE wants a false confession and a baby snatcher running around loose just so they don't look bad.
     
  11. RANCH

    RANCH Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,074
    Likes Received:
    4,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not trying to divert anything. I do believe that it's possible for LE to use coercion to get a suspect to confess. If KCPD thinks that Deborah is guilty of harming Lisa why wouldn't they do all they can to bring her to justice?
     
  12. Inana

    Inana Member

    Messages:
    504
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    My opinion is that the kcpd suspected JT--jersey--from the start, and found him through the ruse of the phone calls to MW. He is in jail for 5 years on unrelated charges, so at this point there is no hurry. Maybe waiting for him to brag in jail, or waiting for more evidence to appear--the body maybe.

    If LE really believed that DB hurt or killed her baby, CPS would not allow the two older boys to remain in the home. Yet two years later, they are still home.

    And yes, DB "put it out there" that she failed the polygraph, but because that's what LE told her.

    I'm simply saying that any information that originated by LE should be taken with a grain of salt. They can, and freely do, lie about any and everything to pursue their ideas.

    KCPD doesn't put anything out there. They lie to the principle players and let THEM put it out there.

    All my own opinion.
     
  13. redheadedgal

    redheadedgal Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,649
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    imo/jmo
     
  14. RANCH

    RANCH Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,074
    Likes Received:
    4,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. Inana

    Inana Member

    Messages:
    504
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
  16. RANCH

    RANCH Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,074
    Likes Received:
    4,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
  17. 4Jacy

    4Jacy New Member

    Messages:
    3,209
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :trainwreck:

    :bigfight::


    :chillout:
     
  18. Salem

    Salem Former Member

    Messages:
    29,160
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please remember we can't use unverified information for facts.

    Thanks,

    Salem
     
  19. ScarlettScarpetta

    ScarlettScarpetta When the going gets tough, drink coffee

    Messages:
    12,680
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I believe this child is alive and with her abductor.
     
  20. redheadedgal

    redheadedgal Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,649
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    and you believe both madeleine mccann and jonbenet met their fates by way of an intruder too, correct?

    let's look at the probability of all three of them being taken by an intruder:

    stats on child abduction:

    1) Research shows that of the 58,000 non-family abductions each year 63% involved a friend, long-term acquaintaince, neighbor, caretaker, baby sitter or person of authority; only 37% involved a stranger (aka intruder)

    2) Each year there are about 3,000 to 5,000 non-family abductions reported to police, most of which are short term sexually-motivated cases. About 200 to 300 of these cases, or 6%, make up the most serious cases where the child was murdered, ransomed or taken with the intent to keep

    http://www.infoline.org/InformationL...ntion%20fj.asp

    (taken from NCMEC and the US Dept. of Justice)


    the math: http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/v...nt_events.html

    P= probability all three crimes were committed by an intruder

    P of independent events = P(event a: JB "abducted"/intruder) x P(event b: MM abducted/intruder) x P(event c: LI abducted/intruder)

    P= P(.37) x P(.37) x P(.37)

    P= .0506

    therefore, there is a 5% chance all three crimes were committed by an intruder.

    hmmm.

    (i believe my theory and math is correct... but someone please tell me if i've erred -- thanks)


    now, if we take it one step further and use the second stat i've included above-- the one for "the most serious cases where the child was murdered, ransomed or taken with the intent to keep**" as seems to be the case for JB, MM and LI, where an intruder is involved in only 6% of these cases (**and so far each of the three cases mentioned in this post meet this criteria imo w/ both MM and LI being classified under "intent to keep" for this exercise):

    P of independent events = P(event a: JB murdered/ransomed/intruder) x P(event b: MM abducted/intruder) x P(event c: LI abducted/intruder)

    P= (.06) x (.06) x (.06)

    P= 0.000216

    therefore, a less than one percent chance exists that all three crimes were committed by an intruder who desired to murder, ransom or keep the child.


    ***and yes i know the MM crime occurred in portugal and not the US but i couldn't find stats for the country nor do i believe it would skew/change the results too much
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice