Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Another baby lisa case solved?? This time at yahoo................ perhaps the examiner piece was a rerun off of this piece or vice versa....anyway.


news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by Xcathdra


I see what you're saying and it makes perfect sense. They've gathered all the info they can gather and now they're going to WORK it until they see what comes up. I hope that uncle Johnny is the same guy and he talks to kcpd and something comes of it. Even if it is only verifying that he's the same guy spouting on facebook, that'll be something.

OR proving he is NOT the same guy, so it can be put to rest once and for all.


OOPS, actually this is from the yahoo link above :

''''Johnny Chivalette: Chivalette is baby Lisa's great uncle, a maternal uncle to Deborah Bradley. Until recently, Chivalette purportedly maintained a Facebook page in which he posted and deleted posts stating his views of the case, including claims that the family knows Lisa to have accidentally died. Screenshots of some of those posts were preserved on other sites devoted to the case including Baby Lisa Irwin Updates. According to some of the posts, Bradley sought help from family members to cover-up the alleged accidental death, and failing that, got involved in a cover-up with unspecified members of Megan Wright's household. Another post stated that Jeremy Irwin is innocent. Chivalette said in a media interview that he encouraged Bradley to confess. Inconsistencies in the Chivalette Facebook posts have caused followers of the case to doubt his claims''''

So would yahoo verify ? It says reportedly,, so not factual, but doesnt' the fact it is mentioned AT ALL in a yahoo news article mean it's got POTENTIAL to be true?

reply to post by schmae


Its a he said they said situation. So until one side can prove its true, or the other side prove its not, its unconfirmed information. Runnig it using the word to place it into context for the viewers is a good idea.

The public can speculate all they want on the case. In order to be fall under libel / slander laws the person reporting the information must know what they are saying is false.

A media outlet repeating what someone else said has no way to know if the info is valid or not, so......

Having had investigations hat included the use of the media I see both sides of it. We have had cooperation with some outlets in terms of them running a story but not printing certain portions that could affect our investigation (facts not known to the general public type thing).

So ive seen from both sides how media stories represent information to the public. Its one of the reasons why I think its better to wait for law enforcement / prosecuting attorney announcement on charges or arrests rather than the media speculation.

Interesting updates - and again, the forest for the trees situation for me. They shut down the command post. The child is no longer missing. (Here's my) 'duh' moment. Of course that could mean they've got all the evidence they need and now it's just time to work it! Thank you to the rest of you for pointing that out.
Also - that makes sense while the parents are doing nothing - it's a waiting game, and, why their counsel advises don't do anything - (in other words give them no more ammo against you than they've already got).

Now we'll just have to wait and see what comes of the custody case!

peace

Disclaimer[/d] This is not my opinion but the opinion of others I'm posting for thread continuity.

Lisa Irwin Update: Case Solved?

Lisa Irwin remains missing and there appear to be no official updates in the case. However, some bloggers and news personalities feel that this case is actually, pretty much solved. In fact, one source mentions four individuals who seem to be rather close.
It seems that the common belief is that Lisa died, and is just simply waiting to be found so this investigation can begin. With Deborah Bradley's own flesh-and-blood saying she is guilty, it doesn't look good at all. Perhaps that is another reason why the woman and her boyfriend lawyered up?

More to the article - take a read.

Johnny Chivalette III is Deborah Bradley's maternal uncle. Although few news sources have made mention of this man lately, he is known to have made some very incriminating statements against the mother of missing baby Lisa Irwin. He publicly stated at one point that he believed that his great-niece died on accident in the home while her mother was intoxicated. He publicly urged Deborah Bradley to confess. He also claimed that when Lisa allegedly "died" that Deb tried to get members of the family to help her cover it up—until she got the help from someone in the Megan Wright home. It's important to note that some people doubt this man's story, but he is the maternal uncle of the missing baby's mother. He also states that Deborah Bradley's mother died at a young age from alcoholism, and that she does have a drinking problem.

peace

edit on 8-12-2011 by silo13 because: fix link

''"I sense this child is alive. Those victims abducted, especially so young and precious, to still be alive after this length of time - it's very rare. But Baby Lisa is being loved, and cherished, nurtured, cared for ... this I do see. The couple loves her so. Yes, a serious crime has been committed here. Not saying this is right or fair for the family from which she was taken, but karmic ... perhaps. I psychically sensed that Elizabeth Smart was also alive one month after her disappearance - recounted in detail about it on a morning radio program here in Los Angeles. Like I said, it is rare. But blissful when proven to be true."'''''

news.gather.com...

tks to gabby for this link

reply to post by silo13


A person has a right to not cooperate with law enforcement, although obviously it can come with consequences. In this case Jeremy and Deb are free to speak to the media and answer all the questions they want but it can be a massive double edged sword.

When it comes to incriminating statements, the only time one can be used is if its stated in a spontaneous manner (term is called spontaneous utterance). The court acknowledges that a person who makes incriminating statement in the heat of the moment without law enforcement mirandizing them or asking them guilt seeking questions can be used in court against the individual who stated it. Defense will do their game of trying to get the statements suppressed and thrown out.

The flip side - The longer a person lies about the same topic, the harder it is to remember the specifics.

Example:
When Deb flip flopped on the time she last saw Lisa. She told the police one thing and told the media something different. If they speak to the media and answer questions, anything they say can be used in court since they are disclosing it to media outlets.

It always amazes me when people wont speak to or "confess" to the police, yet they will do it when speaking to the media.

Hence the lawyers position that they dont speak to anyone with a lawyer present.

When you cross the bridge of the person giving conflicting information it always resorts to this question -

Prosecutor -
So Ms. Bradley, you told the police you last saw lisa at 11:30pm, and you told the media in an interview the last time you saw Lisa was at 05:45pm.

So which is it? Were you lying then or are you lying now?

I found this just a few minutes ago:

Missing baby Lisa Irwin family custody battle gag order likely, Jeremy Irwin's lawyer says

It goes on to discuss the Gag order, but I found it interesting that is stated:

A court appointed advocate for the child filed for the gag order to prevent the two sides from discussing the case in the media.

Even though I would like to know more about the case dealing with Lisa, I applaud the advocate in asking for the order to try to keep the media circus out of these proceedings. From what I have read, and you all have listed (please correct me if I am wrong) the mothers lawyer did not show up for this appearance either.

IWOH

reply to post by Xcathdra


That used to be called an 'excited utterance' or maybe it's regionally called something else?

reply to post by IwasOnceHappy


That article said mom's attorney did not show up LAST week for the hearing but could not be reached this week, so hard to say. Also it says Jeremy's lawyer called her deadbeat mom etc,, but in her own video released shortly after Lisa disappeared she said she had not been ALLOWED to talk to the boy. So I guess another round of he said she said.

Also who's paying for her attorney ? I get the feeling its a pro bono thing for some little attorney to get themself some PRESS since the case is so well known, but if that were the case, why not SHOW UP for court? Otherwise the reputation you'll get is a lazy or forgetful attorney and who wants that?

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by IwasOnceHappy

 

That article said mom's attorney did not show up LAST week for the hearing but could not be reached this week, so hard to say. Also it says Jeremy's lawyer called her deadbeat mom etc,, but in her own video released shortly after Lisa disappeared she said she had not been ALLOWED to talk to the boy. So I guess another round of he said she said.

Also who's paying for her attorney ? I get the feeling its a pro bono thing for some little attorney to get themself some PRESS since the case is so well known, but if that were the case, why not SHOW UP for court? Otherwise the reputation you'll get is a lazy or forgetful attorney and who wants that?

edit on 8-12-2011 by schmae because: (no reason given)

My apologies, I knew the attorney did not show up for the last date, I guess I was under the impression that the attorney did not show up for this one as they were unable to be reached. I thought the media would have showed that they had appeared this time when they did not last.

While searching for who might be paying for her attorney, I found that the mother used to live at the same house (the one Lisa went missing from). I did not realize this. I need to take some time and re read the thread as I think I must have missed that.

IWOH

Originally posted by IwasOnceHappy
While searching for who might be paying for her attorney, I found that the mother used to live at the same house (the one Lisa went missing from). I did not realize this. I need to take some time and re read the thread as I think I must have missed that.

I read somewhere that Jeremy was pretty young when he bought that house...I think he was only 18. It seems likely his first family would've lived there.

It's possible LE has the cooperation of family members who could testify to a cover up. LE also has the cadaver dog hit in the bedroom/clothing etc. but what about the Megan Wright phone/household connection?

LE needs to prove that Deborah actively sought out assistance from someone in the Megan household or explain the phone activity. The defense could argue that Megan & company are the kidnappers and not simply accomplices. The jury isn't going to just ignore the Megan connection...they'll want an explanation. Unless LE/PA can provide one I'm afraid without good solid evidence to back up their claims the jury could find reasonable doubt.

Megan's group is going to self-protect they'll be a tough nut to crack. Imo LE needs evidence or leverage to get their full cooperation. Imo they're the loose end LE needs to tie up.

Arrest Imminent In the Baby Lisa Case? Speculation Swirls...

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI---It has been over two months since baby Lisa Irwin disappeared from her crib located inside her suburban Kansas City home.

Since the infant's disappearance, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin have remained under an umbrella of suspicion by law enforcement, due in large part to inconsistencies in each of the parent's stories and the couple's reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement.

Recent developments, however, have led to speculation that an arrest in the case may be imminent.

According to a recently published article by Yahoo News, Ron Rugen, a Kansas City based private investigator working the case, claims that police have disclosed that not only did a cadaver dog hit on the floor of the parent's bedroom, as originally reported, but that the specially trained cadaver dogs also picked up the scent of human decomposition on a blanket, toy and several articles of clothing belonging to baby Lisa.

*****

Any news yet 'leaking' from the custody hearing???

peace

And now for a totally different story concerning the above - and more!

Twisted words wreak havoc in missing Baby Lisa case

source

You’ll have to read it - I can’t cut post anymore I’m about to loose my internet, the lights are flickering.

Hopefully someone else will post from this link or I’ll have time to edit before the timer runs out!

peace

reply to post by silo13


Uncle Johnny """"I don't think she'd do something on purpose," Chivalette says, "but I can see her hiding something after that. ...

"Look, I hope they find baby Lisa with a clean diaper and a full tummy, but with my family, it'll probably end worse.''''

VS. Facebook Uncle Johnny who says She basically admitted to an accident and begged them for a coverup, NOT quite the same story as guessing it may have gone that way.

So it sounds to me like fb uncle johnny is a drama queen with lots of airtime cards and a flare for the center of attention ! and NOT the actual uncle johnny of Deb.

Hey team.
Not much going on to update, but I did find a link via FB to this article about John Picerno. It's a transcript of a court proceeding back in the 1990s, when he was a beginning public defender. Interesting read. I haven't finished it completely, yet, but thought I'd give you all a chance to read it through while I do so.

Mauer made other references to problems with attorneys in the Public Defender's Office being habitually unprepared for trial. He listened to comments by the prosecutor suggesting that Picerno habitually refused to prepare for trial.

Picerno argues that Mauer's basing part of his contempt order on past conduct will not support a finding of direct criminal contempt, and the matter should have been treated as a case of indirect contempt. We disagree that Mauer based his contempt order on conduct which did not occur in his presence.

Mauer's findings of fact and order are clear that Picerno's contemptuous conduct was his refusal to remain in the courtroom. Mauer's decision to order Picerno to remain may have been motivated by Picerno's previous conduct, or Mauer's perception of Picerno's previous conduct. It makes no difference. Picerno's past conduct may have made Mauer less patient with him, but, in any case, Mauer held Picerno in contempt for refusing to remain in the courtroom, not for his previous conduct.

We sympathize with public defenders for the workload they must undertake. The issue of this case, however, is not the public defenders' workload--or even docket control. The sole issue in this case is whether Picerno committed direct contempt. His refusal to remain in the courtroom was direct contempt of Mauer's order.

www.johnpicerno.com...

"We" are the court of appeals which decided Picerno was, in fact, in contempt of court when the defendant to whose case he had been assigned (the third defender to have been appointed) had been held in jail for over a year. Picerno said he was leaving the courtroom because he wasn't "ready."

reply to post by wildtimes


I read some of that and actually agreed with him, Picerno that is. He had been given the case last minute , like a week or two before trial . He told the judge he was recieving a HUGE file, ( like 5 or 600 pages i think) and did not have time to look at it all before trial and was therefore not going to be able to provide a fair defense. Did you read the exchange with the judge? He said I need time to be able to defend this man and if I go today with no more preparation time than I've had there is NO way this defendant will get a fair trial. The jduge said we are going ahead with trial anyway so be ready.
I'm not saying Picerno a good guy or bad guy because I know nothing about him. But from this one exchange I thought he was doing what he thought was right ! Wanting a defendant who he has no previous workign relationship with to get a fair trial and admitting he's not prepared instead of forging ahead and KNOWING it would be cause for another appeal later due to inadequate defense.
Did you see that defendant;'s list of charges though? He can burn for all I care, lol!

reply to post by schmae


I did read that, and I agree with you that he seemed to be doing what he thought was right. The judge appeared to have either an issue with Picerno and/or the Public Defender's team in general; or he was concerned the defendant had been put off for long enough.

It was hard to tell...
on the one hand, I admire someone saying "oh well. I'm not gonna." I've done that myself when under pressure to behave in a way that I felt was unethical and improper (not in a courtroom). And he did also say if he had to do that, he "maybe didn't want to be a lawyer after al."

On the other, the story goes to show just how convoluted the entire system is. Eventually it became a power struggle between judge and lawyer; A lawyer who needed his own lawyer? That seems weird. I wonder if it's a speciality for law -- similar to choosing to be a family lawyer, personal injury lawyer, tax lawyer, criminal defense lawyer....as in, "I'm gonna be a lawyer's lawyer. That way I'll ALWAYS have clients."; and then more judges to review the judge. Judge needs to be judged. And it all dissolved not into what was best for the defendant and justice, but who had followed the letter of the law.

In any case, he DID become a criminal defense lawyer "after all". I actually couldn't tell if the document upheld that the judge was right, or Picerno was right.

But yeah, the defendant's charges? Ew..

When a Child Vanishes in the Night

Here's an interesting similar case and its results, out of Chicago. Very similar...and the outcome was eerily even a possibility here in light of uncle Johnny's behavior...

As I've watched the drama unfold surrounding 11-month old Lisa Irwin, who vanished overnight on Oct. 3, my thoughts have turned to an eerily similar case. The ordeal (described above) began on Sept. 10, 1988, when seven-year-old Jaclyn Dowaliby was reported missing in the Chicago suburb of Midlothian. She must have been abducted from her bed the night before, her frantic parents told disbelieving police.

It only got worse from there. Four days later, Jaclyn's body was discovered behind an apartment complex in a nearby suburb. She had been murdered. A resident of the complex would claim he had seen Jaclyn's adoptive father, David Dowaliby, at the very spot where Jaclyn's body was later found. That was enough for police to arrest David and his wife, Cynthia, Jaclyn's biological mother.

While the parents were being interrogated separately, Jaclyn's half-brother was questioned by child protective services. Disappointed that they did not get confessions, the authorities turned up the heat on the family by placing the half-brother in an orphanage.

Nineteen months after Jaclyn's death, David and Cynthia Dowaliby were tried for her murder. Cynthia, whose case was strictly circumstantial, was acquitted by the judge. But David's case had additional evidence -- the eyewitness's testimony -- and that was enough for a jury to find David guilty. He got 45 years.

Now, IF I were only interested in posting things that point to guilt, I would not post this article. In fact, it states that the guilty finding was wrong and later overturned.

The contributor of the article ends with a warning to LE:

The public wants to believe that a child's bedroom is a safe haven from predators. It's reassuring to think that family members are responsible when a child vanishes, especially from her home. And that's often true. The family should be questioned as possible suspects under these circumstances.

But when the primary focus is on the parents, tunnel vision can take hold and the trail for other suspects can grow cold. Putting the parents under a cloud of suspicion will also prompt lawyers to insulate even innocent clients, depriving the authorities of information that might prove useful in their investigation.

I don't know whether parents Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley are truly innocent, as they have said, or what fate has befallen their baby. But I certainly know that if they played no role in Lisa's disappearance, they are being doubly victimized -- first by a kidnapper, and then by law enforcement.

We have no idea if police protocol is routinely updated when this sort of thing happens . One would hope so, so that current cases are handled BETTER than the ones that were glitched up in the past. Unfortunately, we don't know what the LE has or has not done; I have faith that they are doing their best, and remembering to keep their focus on verifiable information and objective clues.

Still, I doubt we will EVER really know the truth. And there is the Fort Bragg story also....eerily similar. And DB was acquainted with the mother in that case...

reply to post by wildtimes

The Fort B story just makes this case the ultimate in weird doesn't it.
Talk about casting doubt!

I keep hoping to find some news, any new news about Lisa or the custody case and I've yet to hear a peep either way.

Maybe we'll learn something more today!?

peace