Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Ok, my brain is in overdrive and I don't start work for another hour or two...so something just came to me. See what if anything you guys can come up with.

I noticed that several articles state that in the call logs of DBs phone the person using it tried to access voicemail usin *86

I got to thinking....realistically the only person that would be interested in DB's voicemail would be DB herself...so this is pretty incriminating. (i'm sure everyone can come up with several other reasons/people but just for sake of argument I'm saying DB would be the only one interested in her own voicemail).

Anyhow, I was thinking who else would want those voicemails....JI is ruled out as not having enough time and his proven schedule vs calls made - doesn't match. So, then I started thinking...maybe this caller person dialed the wrong * code...like maybe meant to use *67 which (here anyhow) blocks your number on the other end. And/or perhaps they are with a different cell phone carrier and *86 means something completely different on their own phone.

That makes a whole lot of sense to me. I've been trying to research it and so far i've found 3 websites that list "*" codes differently than verizon's *86 = voicemail

Bell's Star codes

*86 DeActivate Busy Call Return

Telephone Star Codes

Call Park Deactivate *86

I'm still searching here...none of the above seem to make much sense...but there is a question posted on Answer.com where the person asks:

"I know you dial star 86 to forward calls TO cellphone but I need to know how do you reverse call BACK to landline?"

Now, answer.com is a waste of breath really...but in this context...perhaps there is at least one phone comp out there uses *86 as a call forwarding to cell phone code? I'm going to dig further

Michelle

reply to post by Michelle129th


I thought that Jeremy might want access to her voicemails, especially if he thought something was going on that night, like an affair or drug use, etc. He might want to check and see if her sweetheart or dealer left a message. As for * 86,, I cannot help you .

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by Michelle129th

 

I thought that Jeremy might want access to her voicemails, especially if he thought something was going on that night, like an affair or drug use, etc. He might want to check and see if her sweetheart or dealer left a message. As for * 86,, I cannot help you .

Jeremy was verified as being at work...on camera until 3:30 am. 15 min drive home puts us at 3:45am...past all of the phone calls made, so that rules him out completely

Michelle

reply to post by schmae

You know, I accept I might be way off base here but unless Deborah had just started 'using' ('hard' drugs) - I just don't see her as the 'type'. Booze, marijuana? Sure. But 'hard core' (meth) - I just don't see it.

Just sayin'...

peace

reply to post by Michelle129th

Jeremy was verified as being at work...on camera until 3:30 am. 15 min drive home puts us at 3:45am...past all of the phone calls made, so that rules him out completely

Unless they lied about the phones being stollen?

peace

Silo, definitely a possibility they are completely lying about the phones. Speaking of which, here's some new info about the phones.

Mobile Forensic Examiner Discusses What Cell Phone May Reveal in Case of Lisa Irwin

A few key points in the video:

"why are they showing a 50 second phone call...attempted at least on the night the baby disappeared?"

"someone could've called in via a spoof card using their number"
"cell phones can be unpredictable. Two things could've happened. Number 1, the call could've gone to an automated service that tells her "hey you need to pay your bill in order to get your service back up". And then that recording goes on and they just hold on there hoping that that recording will stop and that they'll put them through anyway"
"Second scenario could be we have seen in the past where a cell phone that was supposed to be disconnected from the service got one last call out of it before the network kind of caught up with it and shut it down"

The video goes on from there

Michelle

Regarding Jahessye Shockley. I pulled a paragraph out of an article they posted just today in regards to the mother being arrested

Jhessye (JES'-ee) Shockley has been missing since Oct. 11, and police have said they believe she wandered from her Glendale apartment while Hunter was running an errand. The girl's three older siblings were the last to see her. Police have repeatedly said they had no evidence, suspects or promising leads.

They are also saying they have no suspects and no leads in Lisa's case.

Michelle

Wanted to expand on last post but was called from computer. There are not too many similarities between Lisa's and Jahessye's cases other than young girls missing from home. There have been many posts regarding how Deborah Irwin should or shouldn't be acting. Well comparing the two cases I noticed something.

Jerice Hunter (Jahessye's mother) was VERY vocal, attending rallies, family handing out fliers, posters etc. Allowing the case to be broadcase on America's Most Wanted tv show and website, begging on media for her daughter to be brought back, and very loudly proclaiming to media that the police aren't doing enough to help find her daughter.

And here we are today finding out that Jerice has been arrested and the police and FBI are using a search warrant to search her apt yet again. Her formal charges are child abuse to Jahessye. I would think a routine child abuse case would not warrant FBI using a search warrant or even have FBI involved. It's pretty clear that they are hoping to stick the abuse charges to keep her confined until they can get more or some evidence she had an involvement in jahessye's disappearance (as they stated in the live media interview which I will post when it comes online).

So, now all those that proclaimed what Deborah would or should be doing...do you feel the same way? Here's a mother that's done all those things you said an innocent mother would do...and yet, at the very least LE think she's guilty. I'm wondering if you think differently now about how people handle things...and making judgements about how they handle them showing guilt or innocence?

Michelle

reply to post by Michelle129th

So, now all those that proclaimed what Deborah would or should be doing...do you feel the same way? Here's a mother that's done all those things you said an innocent mother would do...and yet, at the very least LE think she's guilty. I'm wondering if you think differently now about how people handle things...and making judgements about how they handle them showing guilt or innocence?

Fair enough, I'll take that question, Michelle.
LE apparently thinks she's guilty of child abuse. They have not charged her anything more than that. I remember the grandmother of this girl coming onto one of the media channels (HLN?) and stating she wanted attention paid to Jahessye's case. She seemed really sort of "dead-eyed" to me (but that's very likely just camera-shyness, so don't think I'm saying anything except she seemed sort of "off")

Yes, I feel the same way I did when I suggested how I would react.

Have you ever seen the TV movie (Lifetime) about Natalee Holloway's disappearance and how her mom was so pushy with the police? That was what I imagine I would be doing.

Teenager Natalee Holloway vanished in 2005 while visiting Aruba on a senior class trip. In a passionate and relentless effort to discover the truth behind her daughter’s disappearance, Beth Holloway captured the nation’s attention by working tirelessly to solve the mystery that shattered her family’s life. Today, Holloway continues to speak publicly about the potential dangers of international travel. Her resolve and unwavering strength are at the center of this emotional story...

My only point of reference is what I would do if I were NOT guilty of anything, and my baby was missing.

reply to post by Michelle129th


Unless he had the phones with him.......... :O

Wildtimes, I do agree with you...at this point they have only charged her with child abuse. But I have serious doubts that when charged with child abuse they crime scene tape off your apartment, don white suits and have the FBI do a search. It's obvious they are trying to go further with the abuse and find some evidence showing her involvement in the disappearance itself.

My point wasn't to call people out, but just to show that we can all say "if I were innocent I would do XYZ...not like DB has done". But here we have a mom that did do XYZ and is now in jail. I guess we will have to find out how the court case goes and what further evidence they can dig up.

schmae, the phones pinged within 1/3 mile of the house. I believe JI's work is much further than that (15-20 min drive). So that really only leaves a thief, stranger, abductor...or Deborah. Some people were talking about a possible two separate case thing...as in someone stole the phones and someone else took Lisa...that would have to be a HUGE stretch and incredible bad luck...but not entirely out of the realm of possibilities either.

What if the phones were stolen by say this Shane guy. Not for anything more nefarious then wanting 3 cell phones to sell/use. Maybe he saw DB programming them earlier in the evening and made a plan to steal them. He saw how drunk DB was and after hanging out on Samantha's porch knew DB's lights were off and snuck in after Samantha went to bed and grabbed the phones. Or, went in while on the porch with the women and took them before he'd even left DB's house. According to everyone Shane was new to the neighbourhood so it wasn't like he was a longtime friend that would never consider it. That could account for the calls made in the close proximity of DB's house. If he waited for Samantha to go to bed that makes it 11:30 he went to grab phones...got them out of the house and made the call at 11:57. But now it's back to how/if Shane knew Megan, Dane or Jersey to sell the phones to them. But, In the morning being awoken to FBI all over the neighbourhood regarding missing Lisa he panics and ditches them not wanting to be implicated in a kidnapping.

It would be a case of incredible coincidence...but could have happened that way. I'm not necessarily implicating that Shane did anything...we haven't even seen him in media so I can't judge him either way. I just needed some suspect to stick in there. It could've been some other neighbour or a random kid in the area

Michelle

Jerice Hunter (Jahessye's mother) was VERY vocal, attending rallies, family handing out fliers, posters etc. Allowing the case to be broadcast on America's Most Wanted tv show and website, begging on media for her daughter to be brought back, and very loudly proclaiming to media that the police aren't doing enough to help find her daughter.

It was my understanding Jahessye’s mother had been charged with child abuse in 2005. Also her (sex offender) boyfriend/husband at the time for corporal punishment. They both never did much ‘sparing the rod’ it seems. source

Six years alter? It also ‘seems’ the police believe the missing girls mother was directly involved in her death. Articles are coming right out and saying so. But I want to get back to Lisa a moment.

Michelle asked how we feel about this woman’s comportment compared to Lisa’s mother who hasn’t spoken with the police in what - 46 days now? (Last part is mine, days may not be perfectly correct but you get the idea).

First, we have to assume Jahessye's mother is innocent - just as we have to assume Deborah is. Deborah, a mother exhibiting very poor choices. Jahessye's even more so, and a verified past of abuse.

If there’s anyone I would think would be closed mouthed? It’s Jahessye's mother - not Deborah. but look what we’re seeing. Jahessye's mom is accusing the police of not doing enough. Begging (repeatedly) on camera for her baby to be found/brought home/etc. Handing out flyers, banging on police doors, etc.

That’s how I picture parents should be acting. No matter their past, no matter what they (might) have to loose, no matter the scrutiny of their own life, no matter their past mistakes, no matter what kind of ‘trouble’ it might get them into.

Jahessye's mother is the ‘picture perfect’ ideal I have of how a parent should act - a very selfless - ‘I don’t care what you think of me or do to me or want to write about me or how many of you point the finger at me - just find my baby’!

Deborah’s behavior, in my opinion, is exactly opposite. Closed mouth and trying her best to ‘get back to normal’.

Problem is? It ‘seems’ the Jahessye's mother is also guilty of killing her child.

But again, we don’t ‘know’ that - yet.

And two little babies missing, possibly dead.

Originally posted by gabby2011
Can we just agree on one thing here X..and that is we BOTH want the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to eventually come out about the Irwin case.. whatever that may be..?

That truth and outcome is for the judge and jury to decide when they hear all of the evidence, presented by both sides.

Originally posted by gabby2011
That is all I want.. and sometimes I think the real truth is a little harder to get at in some cases, and even harder to get into court..

Of course its hard to get truth, especially when people who are suspected of a crime are guaranteed the right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However unfair or inefficient you may see the judicial system, we cant take short cuts or throw the system off the the side when it appears its not working, which respectfully, I belive you have done.

Originally posted by gabby2011
whether you agree with me or not.. is really not the issue.. the issue here is finding the real truth, and having it exposed....and we both know that justice has not always been served concerning cases such as this...as well as other type cases...and that isn't always the the fault of the police...but has to do with other factors.

And what good is the truth if its not something you will accept? Our system has falws, as all systems do. Its designed and expected to error on the side of caution. It would rather see 10 criminals go free than 1 innocent person being convicted wrongly. When their is a lack of cooperation from key suspects / witnesses we must rely on the evidence and information present. If people involved in the case want to see justice, then maybe they should supply answers when asked.

Absent that, it is what it is.


The problem I see is the lack of understanding and knowledge of not only the investigative process, but the rules and laws that go along with it by people in this thread. You are more than entitled to your opinion however opinion and law are not the same thing. Just because you dont agree with or understand police procedure doesnt equivelate into wrong doing or conspiracies.

You have completely agreed that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I just dont understand why you cant extend that view to the Police. I dont understand why, when you don't understand an action by the police, instead of researching and learning about it you just jump to the conclusion of incompetance and wrong doing and cover up.

I agree the goal is to find the truth, regardless of whether or not we like what that truth may be. However, in the search for that truth we shouldnt continually step on the necks of the people we dont agree with or understand.

REspects

Originally posted by gabby2011
I find it amazing that a LEO (who has just recently joined the thread)..would make assumptions and accusations based on a half a dozen pages.... but hey.. I guess police aren't always so keen on seeing the whole truth at times..and jump to assumptions as well..after all they certainly aren't perfect.

I dont need a half dozen pages to make any assumptions. All I needed to do was read a few of your posts to see that not only do you not understand what law enforcement is or how it works, you understand even less about the procedures and laws in place when an investigation is on going.

Based on my experience and background (and the fact I carry a Class A for the State of MO), I am more than able to disect your poss and point out exactly the places you are wrong in, where as all you have is a blind hatred towards law enforcement, ALL law enforcement, by your continual accusations of conspiracy, wrong doing and coverup.

I have made an allowance on more than one occasion now that has stated there is always a possibility of wrong doing by the police. However, going back and looking at a few donzen pages, there is absolutely no concenssions at all on your part about the possibility of the family being invovled in the disappearence.

You are more than welcome to continue your game accusing and then denying you ever said this or that. It doesnt hide the fact that you have made your position on the topic of law enforcement very clear, and anyone who doesnt agree with your position is somehow part of the conspiracy or covering up for the police.

Let me be blunt - The difference between your opinion and my opinion - In a court of law my opinion is allowed by virtue of my experience and training and knowledge of the subject matter coupled with being considered an expert witness where as your opinion is not allowed by virtue of your lack of understanding about the law, lack of understanding about how investigations occur, lack of understanding about the collection of evidence, the lack of understanding about search and arrest warrants, the lack of understanding regarding miranda compounded with a general ignorance of anything law enforcement related due to a one sided myopic view that has seriously compromised your ability to understand let alone allow for the possibility of wrong doing by any person other than law enforcement.

As I said before if you wish to continue down this road I have no problems disecting your posts and pointing out each and every mistake you have made, pointing out each time you make a comment or accusation that is wrong and not supported by law or even common sense.

I am done with peolpe like you who want to play the blame game on while offering up absolutely no evidence to support your false, blanket accusations against law enforcement.

[snipped]

Regards

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by schmae

 

You know, I accept I might be way off base here but unless Deborah had just started 'using' ('hard' drugs) - I just don't see her as the 'type'. Booze, marijuana? Sure. But 'hard core' (meth) - I just don't see it.

Just sayin'...

peace

We also dont view frail 89 year old female senior citizens as dangerous, however the Michigan State Police officer who was shot and killed by one on a "routine" traffic stop begs to differ. My point is we dont have all of the info about exactly what the Erwins were into drug related, if they ever were at all. Having friends who engage in illegal drug use doesnt mean guilt by association.

What it does do however is forces a more indepth look at those relationships and the possible effect it might have on children.

If you associate with people who do drugs in a manner where your children are present when its occuring, it doesnt matter if the parents are partaking or not. Its still a danger to the children by exposing them to that situation.

If its determined the parents allowed people to do drugs in proximitey (same house) as their children are, then you can question the motives of the parents in terms of them stating they would never place their children in harms way.

You can find the most stable, down to earth, normal mother on the planet who has never cussed in their life, drank anything alcoholic in their life etc etc etc and place them into a situation where one of her children is in danger, and the response ytou could get from her would put the Terminator to shame in terms of possible destruction that can be caused.

Its is easier to treat every single encounter as having the potential for violence, and be happy nothing occured, than treat every single encounter as mother of the year and end up on the 6 oclock news as another law enforcement officer death statistic.

REspects

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Michelle129th

 

Jeremy was verified as being at work...on camera until 3:30 am. 15 min drive home puts us at 3:45am...past all of the phone calls made, so that rules him out completely

Unless they lied about the phones being stollen?

peace

edit on 21-11-2011 by silo13 because: (no reason given)

The other thing to look at is what time the first 911 call came in about the missing child. If I remember right it was about 4-4:30 am. It is entirely possible to have an alabis and still be involved in a crime. That situation goes back to the timelines, which we have discrepancies in. Just because a person states they last saw a child at such and such time, doesnt neccissarily mean they are being truthful.

There are to many discrepancies in the timeline, in my opinion, to take it seriously at this point, or to even rule the parents out as possible suspects.

reply to post by Xcathdra

We also dont view frail 89 year old female senior citizens as dangerous, however the Michigan State Police officer who was shot and killed by one on a "routine" traffic stop begs to differ. My point is we dont have all of the info about exactly what the Erwins were into drug related, if they ever were at all. Having friends who engage in illegal drug use doesnt mean guilt by association.

No, we can't judge books by the cover can we. But meth users? It shows. I don't know how soon, but, it does show. From what I understand you can't hide meth use for long. My only point was I just don't see her as a hard core user. Not really much more than that and only an opinion. I do have some experience (12 years total) in 'observing' people in distress and the gut instinct that paramedics reply highly on to enhance their learned knowledge.
But really your point is what I failed to get around to.
Associating with people who choose to live outside the law? What the old saying about laying down with dogs and getting fleas?

I'll continue after your next quote.

What it does do however is forces a more indepth look at those relationships and the possible effect it might have on children.

Exactly. I was amazed when asked by the police for names of people who might have wished the family or Lisa harm the parents responded with NINE names/people.
I can't imagine living a life where my children's safety was paramount while at the same time 9 possibly dangerous people are in direct contact with the family.

If you associate with people who do drugs in a manner where your children are present when its occuring, it doesnt matter if the parents are partaking or not. Its still a danger to the children by exposing them to that situation.
If its determined the parents allowed people to do drugs in proximitey (same house) as their children are, then you can question the motives of the parents in terms of them stating they would never place their children in harms way.

Very questionable indeed.

Its is easier to treat every single encounter as having the potential for violence, and be happy nothing occured, than treat every single encounter as mother of the year and end up on the 6 oclock news as another law enforcement officer death statistic.

Something I believe gets misunderstood in this thread especially. When the life of a child (in this case) is at stake - everyone in the proximity of that child should be viewed as a possible suspect. We all know this. Innocent until proven guilty, yes. But turn your back on them? No.

peace

reply to post by Xcathdra

The other thing to look at is what time the first 911 call came in about the missing child. If I remember right it was about 4-4:30 am. It is entirely possible to have an alabis and still be involved in a crime. That situation goes back to the timelines, which we have discrepancies in. Just because a person states they last saw a child at such and such time, doesnt neccissarily mean they are being truthful.

Something else to consider also.
How long does it take to walk/run a third of a mile and toss something into a river, and run back?

On another point.

I've read many times the police do what they can - using the media as a tool - to put suspects at ease. Once at ease and as time passes and people become lax they tend to loosen up. To grow confident or at least complacent.

Is it my opinion that's what we're seeing? Yes.

Keeping this in mind - do you think from there the police would tap phones, etc, to get the information they suspect is out there?

Thank you,

Originally posted by silo13
No, we can't judge books by the cover can we. But meth users? It shows. I don't know how soon, but, it does show. From what I understand you can't hide meth use for long. My only point was I just don't see her as a hard core user. Not really much more than that and only an opinion. I do have some experience (12 years total) in 'observing' people in distress and the gut instinct that paramedics reply highly on to enhance their learned knowledge.

What most people dont know about meth is its origions. Its not new, and was actually developed and used by Nazi Germany to assist in experminets to find a way to allow their soldiers to be more aggressive, require less food and even less sleep. As we can see, it didnt work. The first time a person tries meth, that is the highest they will ever get from it use. Everything after that results in higher, more frequent uses but it doesnt acheive the same affect as the first time.

From the very first moment a person takes meth, their behavior is a giveaway. Constant use results in rotting teeth, sores / bruises all over, track marks on the arms or legs, paranoia, weight loss etc etc etc.

Originally posted by silo13
But really your point is what I failed to get around to.
Associating with people who choose to live outside the law? What the old saying about laying down with dogs and getting fleas?

I get what your saying and that is true. However sometimes a person must take into account that the people they surround themselves with who do drugs might be because they are very close friends / family / grew up together / in denial and one is trying to help out the other.

Originally posted by silo13
Exactly. I was amazed when asked by the police for names of people who might have wished the family or Lisa harm the parents responded with NINE names/people.
I can't imagine living a life where my children's safety was paramount while at the same time 9 possibly dangerous people are in direct contact with the family.

Agreed

Originally posted by silo13
Very questionable indeed.

Absolutely, and it requires the police to take a closer look at the family and their choice of and interaction with some of those friends. My irritation is when certain people object to that portion of an investigation. People dont seem to understand the difference between an investigation and drum head (not you).

Originally posted by silo13
Something I believe gets misunderstood in this thread especially. When the life of a child (in this case) is at stake - everyone in the proximity of that child should be viewed as a possible suspect. We all know this. Innocent until proven guilty, yes. But turn your back on them? No.

Completely agree - The other thing people should take into consideration that even if the child was kidnapped, it doesnt completely exhonerate the parents. An investigation would be done to ensure the parents didnt endanger the welfare of the child by their own actions that resulted in an abduction.


If baby lisa is ever found or a break in the case comes, we have no idea what occured. All we know is we have a missing child, missing facts and nothing to go on.

allied soldiers used meth as well.

don't just throw in the nazi part for effect.