Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by wildtimes

On other matters, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

If we can agree that we want the real truth behind baby Lisa's disappearance....and to continue to search for her, and follow all leads till she is found..thats all we need to agree on..

We probably agree on much more than that in reality.. but that is what is important in this thread.

reply to post by silo13


Well its probable, thanks to Nancy, that Trenton will never be found !

Originally posted by gabby2011
I'm starting to smell a cover up here..and not by the Irwin's..

I really hope and pray I am wrong about that .

With all due respect - What the hell is up with the constant blame the police theme?

A cover up? based on what?

For what purpose?

The Erwins are innocent until proven guilty, which is the exact same for everyone else, including law enforcement.

Some of the comments I see are akin to people who think the Federal Government is out to get them. The question is what makes that person think the Feds are out to get them? What makes him, or the Erwins, special enough for the police / government to even care / notice who they are?

Again, all due respect.
To date there is nothing that would hint at a coverup. I will concede its a possibility since nothing in life is a guarantee, however, as I said, there is nothing to support that accusation.

If people are going to demand the Erwins be considered innocent until proven guilty, then by god extend the same courtesy for those on the other side of the street.

/end rant

reply to post by Xcathdra

I prefer to leave it to the judge to see through all the BS and make an appropriate ruling. Keep in mind right now there is no one in custody and no charged pending on anyone. It still irritates me to no end though.

As I said in an earlier post, the job of a defense attorney is to represent their clients with zeal and bravado in order to secure the best possible outcome for their client. If that means playing dirty on their part, they will do it.

Yet the police are condemened by some when they use the same zeal and bravado. It's a doublestandard.

The judge knows how the PA / defense attorney argue their points and how well they use case law or law interpreations to make their argument.

This is another point I've tried to link to why the big-city outsider?

Yes, the local attorneys and PAs and DAs and judges all know each other; they know each other's style, preferred tactics, skill-set, expertise, basic tendencies of exercising their judgment...and their typical 'next move". Some of the attorneys even sit on the bench from time to time in at least one local jurisdiction (not in Missouri)...

That's why I wonder why Lisa's parents didn't just hire a local successful defense attorney, who knows the ropes where they live, instead of this TV-head attorney. If he was "donated", well, they wouldn't have had much say-so, I guess, if they wanted someone besides a public defender. And they did not HIRE Short or Picerno, it was Tacopina who "retained" them, just so he could have a MO licensed attorney for an umbrella.
I think if Picerno screws up even once, he'll be gone, too.

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by silo13

 

And that little girl did NOT get JUSTICE.

I would assume that innocent children who are with Jesus, are not concerned so much about justice as they are forgiveness..

I really can't see children in heaven crying out for revenge and justice.. but I do see them praying and hoping that their killers would seek repentance.. and ask for forgiveness..which they know that jesus is ready to give..to anyone who is truly repentant.

Thats just my take on what these little souls are about..when they get to heaven..

Amen to this post, gabby.

I have missed a couple of days, and now I'm like 10 pages behind! I take it nothing has really broken in the last few days?

reply to post by Xcathdra

To date there is nothing that would hint at a coverup. I will concede its a possibility since nothing in life is a guarantee, however, as I said, there is nothing to support that accusation.

If people are going to demand the Erwins be considered innocent until proven guilty, then by god extend the same courtesy for those on the other side of the street.

EXACTLY RIGHT!!

I can't star your post more than once, so I'm just repeating it and making a great big supportive hooray...!!!!

THANK you for pointing out that there is nothing to support that accusation, nothing that would hint at a coverup by police. Conceding also, for my part, that anything is POSSIBLE, I just want to shake your hand for that statement.

*shakes virtual hand*

Just to throw another curve ball into the mix....and of course to play devil's advocate. That teen could very well have said exactly what he said. He could've been bragging it up to many a friend to make himself seem important that he had "inside info" in a high profile case. He/She (confused about which gender they are) is only 17 yrs old after all and a lot of kids that age want to feel like bigshots. So we can't jump to conclusions on whether or not the defense lied and/or spun that story.

BUT what we can say for sure is if they weren't sure of the actual story...or hadn't "secured", for lack of a better word, this witness they should NEVER have gone to the media with the story. They are worse than those FB pages that are throwing out wild theories and accusations without actually investigating and getting a sworn statement.



Michelle

reply to post by wildtimes

Which brings up something that bugged me the day they finally got to interview the boys...Picerno told the press, and claims he told Lisa's parents, NOT to question the boys about the interview. That seemed really, really suspicious to me. Those boys are not mentally retarded. Who knows who has been coaching them? If my kids were questioned by the authorities for ANY REASON AT ALL, I would be available for them to talk to about it. How they felt, were they upset, was it fun or scary...?

There could be a good reason for that.. and has to do with a trial and witnesses..

As far as the kids being filmed on Halloween how can you be so sure that Debbie arranged that.. and if she didn't (which I'm sure is the case) she supposed to disappoint her kids and not let them go..?

I think shes trying really hard to not let this event totally turn their lives upside down..though there is no denying it has...and if those kids wanted to go trick or treating.. why take away that one small joy for them?

Those who concentrate too much on the neglect.. and look for any little excuse to questioning the parenting.. can also be ones that use this to justify to themselves the reasons for taking a child.

Was it not you who mentioned in a post that it could be someone who wanted to teach them a lesson?..someone who wanted to scare them, but would eventually return the child?

Honestly..who would have that kind of selfrighteousness ? Who would not want to help parents get better at their jobs..and sincerely tell them they need to smarten up..or their children could be taken away legally.

reply to post by wildtimes


Ditto all of the above. The fact that police are quiet doesnt' necessarily imply they are bumbling fools. The fact they've told us nothing about what they have doenst mean they ahve nothing. Also all of the accusations about police misconduct etc are directly relying on the IRWIN ATTY's mouths. So if you believe everything the attorneys says, then yes you might thinkt he police are screwing up. But I'd rather trust the LE than the ATTY's. The attys job is to make it all look like a madhouse and to date they are taking this job seriously.

reply to post by wildtimes

To date there is nothing that would hint at a coverup. I will concede its a possibility since nothing in life is a guarantee, however, as I said, there is nothing to support that accusation.

First off..I never said that it was a cover up by the whole police department.. but there does seem to be evidence that they have not looked at other possibilities enough.. using the line up for mark as an example.. they only did that after.. it was made known to them who he ID'd..when looking at pics that someone showed him.

I am giving the police the benefit of the doubt..but none of us know who exactly could be protecting certain type circles interested in this child....and if indeed some of them may be in the police department.

reply to post by gabby2011


But Gabby, I mean we've had this talk and I don';t want a return to hostilities. So I will say Yes I believe there are huge big $$$ funded child sex/ slave rings that buya nd sell children like property. I also believe MOST of the children involved in these type of rings are probablyNOT from the US. In very poverty stricken nations, they can buy those children off of their parents in some cases and the police are so under funded they probably launch little to nothing by way of investigating a missing child. Maybe in those poor a nation police are even paid o ff to NOT look for missing kids. But I would think very few if any of those children come from the US. Could there be some from the US who make it into those rings......? Yes certainly it's possible.
In this particular case, stats are pointing to at very best a family member or close friend to the family and at very worst the parents themselves. Yes it could be something else, but it probably is not. It PROBABLY is not.
We want to believe the best in other people. We want to live in a safe place wehre mommies and daddies love their children. But unfortunately not every parent does. Not every parent cares . I think that's why it's hard to look at Deb and see how she could do it. I personally am still HOPING it was an accident and not intentional. I wnt to look at her face and think she did love her baby but a horrible accident happened and a coverup was the only option she saw out of it.

I would think were it an intl. child selling ring of some sort, this baby would have been snatched of f the street or from a park or something so much less ' personal'.

reply to post by gabby2011

Those who concentrate too much on the neglect.. and look for any little excuse to questioning the parenting.. can also be ones that use this to justify to themselves the reasons for taking a child.

*takes a deep breath and cautiously begins*

I'm not looking for "any little reason", gabby. I'm not. Honestly.

I'm looking at what Deborah appears to have allowed regarding her children. She may not have set up the cameras.. and of course they would want to go trick-or-treating, EVERY little kid wants to do that. My point is that having a camera crew following them is not NORMAL. If they want return to normal....why did they not say "NO. You can NOT follow us around while we do this."

The other two parenting fails, in MY OPINION, were

a) the drunkeness while in charge, and

b) the unavailability Iapparently imposed by counsel) of Mom/Deborah for the kids to talk to after what was probably a harrowing interview. I believe kids need to feel safe talking to their parents about ANYTHING. And for them to not ask the boys how it went (and I'm not saying they didn't WANT to) makes them effectively "unavailable" emotionally. Whatever the reasons were, all the kids know is Mom/Dad didn't ask them how it went.

I've no idea if they asked them later, or promised they could talk about it later, or what have you. Possibly even the boys ASKED to talk about it. Did Deborah/Jeremy listen? With supportive and unconditional regard for them? Or did they (by choice or imposed by counsel) tell them they did not want to talk about it?

Those are my points. My thinking is that if I were told to do these things, I would not automatically do them just because some attorney told me to. I hope SOMEONE is allowing these boys to openly wonder, question, speak, cry, whatever. Chldren have a remarkable way of "processing" trauma. In MY OPINION, it is the parents' job to NOTICE when they are doing so, and to VALIDATE their child's concerns.

I hope I have written that in a way that you understand it for what it means.

Was it not you who mentioned in a post that it could be someone who wanted to teach them a lesson?..someone who wanted to scare them, but would eventually return the child?

It was I, yes. And the reason that possibility occurred to me is because there are two estranged parents also connected to that family; there are known alcohol and criminal factors in Deborah's extended family; she was indisputably drinking while on duty with a sick baby and 3 youngsters under her care, and APPARENTLY makes a routine thing of it.

BTW, I don't consider having some wine twice a week "alcoholic".

(And I also want to clarify that someone else stated that anti-anxiety meds make one feel "false calm" and prevent them from reacting normally. That is true for SOME types of medications. NOT the kind Deborah was taking.)

So. We have possibly disgruntled estranged parents; we have family nearby who may be aware of Deborah's style, which, while not criminally neglectful or abusive, is certainly toeing the line. If they for ANY REASON wanted to defame Deborah -- perhaps, say, they had called CPS and been told there wasn't enough to take the boys away (which we don't know might have happened in the past or not) --
out of anger, helicopter concern for the boys, wanting to disrupt custody, pissed that they aren't even done with their own relationship....

who knows??

It was just a "what-if" thought, gabby. Just a melodramatic story idea.
Please tell me you are not implying (as it has seemed before) that I know something, or had something to do with this. In comparison, I never thought of the Illumaniti or police corruption child-porn possibility. YOU introduced that one. I never for one moment suspected you KNEW that had happened. Please do not project onto me that I am describing something I know to have happened. I don't.

Get what I mean?

reply to post by gabby2011


Take a breath, gabby. No one said YOU thought that. and I did not make that statement. That was Xcathdra who said it. If you want to ask him about why he said it, please do so.

I happen to agree with him is all.

Honestly..who would have that kind of selfrighteousness ? Who would not want to help parents get better at their jobs..and sincerely tell them they need to smarten up..or their children could be taken away legally.

An angry person close to the family.

As for who would NOT WANT TO HELP parents get better at their jobs...and sincerly tell them....
uh, that would be people like SOCIAL WORKERS with expertise in Children and Families. People who have worked with poor parenting clients (EDIT: That is,clients with poor skills), helping them try to get their kids back. People who are case workers with CPS, whose first move is ALWAYS to help the parents KEEP their kids. People who work as Parent Educators.

Those are the people. Those are the people among whom I worked, and while I never worked for CPS, I did work parallel to them...helping clients who were in CPS supervision to improve their parenting. I also worked with first-time parents, teaching them parenting skills and about early childhood development.

But you've already dismissed my credentials out of hand. Just thought I might gain a little more ground with you in the credibility area if I brought it up again. If not, so be it.

And yes, we agree that we want the TRUTH, no matter what it is.

WILD BILL was brought in to find Lisa and he said at the onset that he would follow every lead no matter where it took him and if that meant it implicated the parents, then that is what he would do. His job find LISA, nothing else. So what has he been doing? Does anyone know of any leads he 's looked at of any kind? Is he still around day to day .
To me Bill Stanton looks sincere. He looks like a standup guy and I hope he is. I hope he told the truth and possibly just possibly if we see a sudden EXIT by him from the legal ' team', it would be a very telling sign. I like to gauge a person by their face and eyes and if they seem sincere or not. Stupidly, I guess I base a lot on that. That's why Deb's sort of an enigma to me. I cant' figure her out really. But Stanton to me may be a good guy in all this.

reply to post by schmae


I agree on the "probable " part.. and I also agree that other possibilities could exist.

Honestly if there had not been "eye witnesses" with 3 different sitings , I would be inclined to be much more suspicious of the parents...as well as the fact that Debbie was allegedly in no shape to cover up an accident, which would make her husband responsible for it..and I just don't see that.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by gabby2011

 

Take a breath, gabby. No one said YOU thought that. and I did not make that statement. That was Xcathdra who said it. If you want to ask him about why he said it, please do so.

I happen to agree with him is all.

OOps..I was replying to him.. but used his quote in your post to do so.. ..my bad..

reply to post by wildtimes

Those are my points. My thinking is that if I were told to do these things, I would not automatically do them just because some attorney told me to. I hope SOMEONE is allowing these boys to openly wonder, question, speak, cry, whatever. Chldren have a remarkable way of "processing" trauma. In MY OPINION, it is the parents' job to NOTICE when they are doing so, and to VALIDATE their child's concerns.

I agree totally with the above..but.. if the time comes for the children to testify in court..and they are asked.. have you talked to your mom and dad about this much.. have they helped you understand what has been going on?..well that could come back to haunt them, if a jury feels they coached their kids in any way.. do you understand what I mean?

As far as the irwin's not stopping the cameras.. do they even have right to go up and tell them to stop filming them?..and if they did ask.. and were told ..NO.. would the media even show us that footage?

reply to post by gabby2011


Before the police said they discounted the sightings and before the motorcycle guy's statemetn was 'tainted' by aABYEYTO.. I was never feeling they were valid. The surveillance cam from the store,,,,,,,,,,, that is ridiculous. NO one can say they see a person there holding or looking like anything and its' by a store, so who knows who comes and goes at what time near a store within walking distance from neighborhoods, etc. The second I saw that fuzzy pic I thought you gotta be kidding me !
The motorcyle guy coming forward a week or two later????? whats up with that?
I think out of the 3, at best ONE sighting might be al there is and then there is the at nigth in the dark part of it, who knows what they were carrying or what they looked like. I have very little faith in the eyewitnesses.
About the time this story began , we were watching a show on NAT GEO called brain games. or something like this. The episode that was on that same week just about wwas about mistaken MEMORY. If you watch that show, I'll try to find a link, you wouldnt' believe these accounts either. It was about how easily your memory can be manipulated. They specificallyt alked about eyewiness to crimes. Its so unreliable I don't even know why they use them for anything. I guess because years ago before they knew so much about memory , they didnt realize how easily you can SUGGEST something else an the memory changes.

reply to post by gabby2011

As far as the irwin's not stopping the cameras.. do they even have right to go up and tell them to stop filming them?..and if they did ask.. and were told ..NO.. would the media even show us that footage?

In my experience (yeah, I've been interviewed on camera a couple times for various local issues like school closures and parks built on Indian burial grounds)..
you have the right to say NO. And they can't use your image or follow you around without your written consent.

?..well that could come back to haunt them, if a jury feels they coached their kids in any way.. do you understand what I mean?

Yes, I do understand what you mean.

reply to post by schmae


fair enough..that's how you see it.. and you are entitled to your opinion...

I myself would very much like to talk to the couple a block away who saw a man with a child in a diaper in his arms

I would very much like to hear what they think about this case.. and what their eyes saw..