Missing KC,MO baby

[MariannNOVA]

I don't think he ever said he refused a polygraph....did he? I thought he said he would do one. But, the police said he didn't have to. I don't know why.

 

The father said that he didn't have to because he had an alibi -- that is not verbatim but he did use the word alibi.

 

I meant 'didn't have to' as in 'it was not deemed necessary' -- not that he 'didn't' of his own accord or that he refused.

Edited October 9, 2011 by MariannNOVA

[livingnlearning]

gads, I'm not so sure these parents are the smartest tools in the shed.

[BatmansWife]

The father said that he didn't have to because he had an alibi -- that is not verbatim but he did use the word alibi.

 

I had to look at a few of those articles to see what I had read. "Jeremy Irwin said he has offered to take a lie detector test, but police said he did not have to." Maybe the reason he did not have to is because his alibi checked out. But....I just pointed this out because it's different than saying he 'refused a poly'.

Edited October 9, 2011 by ~AprilMay~

[LizzyBee]

According to that analysis if something happened to my kids I am doomed.

 

Me, too. If my child was abducted, I'd be too distraught to think, much less speak, in complete sentences. So that means I'm hiding something? If a reporter asked me a question about the child, I'd answer using pronouns because we've already established who the child is. I would also use pronouns because I constantly call my kids by each other's names. I say we all the time referring to activities or decisions that might only tangentially involve both dh and me.

 

I'd be doomed by more than my speech, though. I might hire a lawyer, because one of the biggest mistakes made by innocent people is speaking freely to the police without a lawyer. After all, innocent people have nothing to hide and they don't realize how police officers and prosecutors might twist their words. I might refuse a lie detector test because lawyers say that lie detector tests never work in favor of the person who takes it. If you fail it, you must be guilty, and if you pass it, you are a pathological liar and sociopath. If I thought the police were too busy accusing me to search for the real perpetrator, I might stop talking to them because it would feel like an exercise in futility.

 

A lot of the things people find odd in this case don't seem odd at all to me, and it's scary that people would assume I'm guilty if I forgot to lock the door or some such thing. A few years ago, our friends' daughter ran away from home, and I was appalled by the things people wrote on the internet. People who don't know these people or anything about them wrote mean-spirited things and made stupid assumptions. I have another friend whose dh got lost in the desert in CA about 10 years ago and was never found. The police accused her of killing him or having him killed, even though she was on the verge of death herself when she was found. The police used the media to pressure her, and things were written about her that were untrue and horrible. She ended up moving 3000 miles across the country to remove her daughter from the public eye. She could have collected social security for her daughter, but she refused to have her dh declared dead because she held on to hope that he would be found. Not exactly the action of a guilty person. I hate to think of the things that people will say and write about me if, God forbid, something were to happen to one of my children.

[BatmansWife]

The latest I heard today was that they are looking for a handyman that was working in the area. They can't seem to track him down.

One thing is for sure, if the parents are found to be innocent....there should be a lot of people making apologies to them. I don't mean here....but online there is an awful lot of accusations being made and finger pointing (such as the statement analysis website).

[Belacqua]

Me, too. If my child was abducted, I'd be too distraught to think, much less speak, in complete sentences. So that means I'm hiding something? If a reporter asked me a question about the child, I'd answer using pronouns because we've already established who the child is. I would also use pronouns because I constantly call my kids by each other's names. I say we all the time referring to activities or decisions that might only tangentially involve both dh and me.

 

 

Some of that Statement Analysis confused me. What does the author mean about "our daughter" not being something biological parents say? If my husband and I are together and refer to the kid, I'd say "our son." And I'm pretty sure we're his biological parents. Is the author suggesting it is more natural to say "my," even if the other parent is right there?

[kitten18]

Some of that Statement Analysis confused me. What does the author mean about "our daughter" not being something biological parents say? If my husband and I are together and refer to the kid, I'd say "our son." And I'm pretty sure we're his biological parents. Is the author suggesting it is more natural to say "my," even if the other parent is right there?

I agree.

[BatmansWife]

Some of that Statement Analysis confused me. What does the author mean about "our daughter" not being something biological parents say? If my husband and I are together and refer to the kid, I'd say "our son." And I'm pretty sure we're his biological parents. Is the author suggesting it is more natural to say "my," even if the other parent is right there?

 

:iagree: too. The analyzer said that saying "our" indicates the parents have been talking about divorce. :confused: Saying, "I've, I've" and repeating it 3 or 4 times indicates anxiety. Well, duh! If the parents are innocent the mom is going through h*ll (actually, even if they aren't innocent).

I really don't find anything too unusual with the way the mother speaks (although, I don't analyze speech). I think I'd say a lot of the same things. I book marked that analysis website and check it daily. I think if it turns out the someone did take Lisa, then this lady needs to write a big fat apology on her website....because I think this would be slander.

I don't really know what to think about what really happened to baby Lisa. I certainly hope the parents aren't involved. But, it's awful to think someone could just come in and take your baby while you are sleeping (but it's been known to happen).

I really wish that since baby Lisa was sick that she would have slept with the mom that night, instead of a stray kitten they found that day. I'd be watching my baby like a hawk if they were sick.

I hope there will be some resolution soon. I keep thinking about Haleigh Cummings. I don't think they've ever found her yet.

[swellmomma]

I had to look at a few of those articles to see what I had read. "Jeremy Irwin said he has offered to take a lie detector test, but police said he did not have to." Maybe the reason he did not have to is because his alibi checked out. But....I just pointed this out because it's different than saying he 'refused a poly'.

 

I stand corrected. I thought I had heard last week that he had refused. My mistake.

[LidiyaDawn]

The analyzer said that saying "our" indicates the parents have been talking about divorce. :confused:

 

Weird. I say "our" kids all the time and we've never had any thoughts about divorcing!

[BatmansWife]

Weird. I say "our" kids all the time and we've never had any thoughts about divorcing!

 

And, actually as far as this couple goes....they aren't even married. I thought I heard them say that she is married to some guy who's in the army. :glare:

 

Some people lead really strange lives.

[AuntieM]

And, actually as far as this couple goes....they aren't even married. I thought I heard them say that she is married to some guy who's in the army. :glare:

 

Some people lead really strange lives.

 

WHAT????!!!!!! She's married to someone else? Link, please.... I need some evidence to believe that one.

[BatmansWife]

WHAT????!!!!!! She's married to someone else? Link, please.... I need some evidence to believe that one.

 

I didn't read it (well....I did when I looked for a link for you. :001_smile: )....I heard it on the news this morning (possibly The Today Show; I can't remember). Here's a link though.

ETA: This is why when Jeremy was questioned on who could possibly do this....one of his answers was something to the affect...'someone who's wife is having an affair'.

Edited October 10, 2011 by ~AprilMay~

[Supertechmom]

WHAT????!!!!!! She's married to someone else? Link, please.... I need some evidence to believe that one.

 

I don't have the link but I did hear that on the Today show I believe this morning. My hubby turned to me and said "wow!! That puts a new light On it"

 

 

..not horribly reliable but it is circulating Google it and everyone is chatting about it.

 

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/10/mother-missing-baby-lisa-irwin-reportedly-married-another-man-0

[AuntieM]

Thanks for the links. Wow, just... wow. I don't know what to think about this. Is it really common for people to not get around to making sure they're divorced before planning their next weddings and starting their new families? I must be waaaaaaay out of the loop. :tongue_smilie:

 

Of course this doesn't change the fact that a precious child has gone missing. I hope the attention can remain on the investigation and get that baby found.

[BatmansWife]

Thanks for the links. Wow, just... wow. I don't know what to think about this. Is it really common for people to not get around to making sure they're divorced before planning their next weddings and starting their new families? I must be waaaaaaay out of the loop. :tongue_smilie:

 

Of course this doesn't change the fact that a precious child has gone missing. I hope the attention can remain on the investigation and get that baby found.

 

No, you aren't way out of the loop....you just have morals. :D

 

But, I think this kind of thing doesn't raise eyebrows as much anymore (sad).

[butterflymommy]

I hate to think of the things that people will say and write about me if, God forbid, something were to happen to one of my children.

 

Me too. I'm surprised by the rush to judgment and gossipy nature of this thread. :sad:

[LidiyaDawn]

No, you aren't way out of the loop....you just have morals. :D

 

But, I think this kind of thing doesn't raise eyebrows as much anymore (sad).

 

My mother and her husband have been together for eighteen years.. he is still, as far as I'm aware, legally married to his former spouse. There are reasons that people may not choose to (or may not be able to) get a divorce after separating - it doesn't imply that they don't have "morals". :)

[swellmomma]

Thanks for the links. Wow, just... wow. I don't know what to think about this. Is it really common for people to not get around to making sure they're divorced before planning their next weddings and starting their new families? I must be waaaaaaay out of the loop. :tongue_smilie:

 

Of course this doesn't change the fact that a precious child has gone missing. I hope the attention can remain on the investigation and get that baby found.

 

 

I don't think it is common, but not unheard of either. My ex and I have been separated for 10 yrs but are still married. He has a live in girlfriend and I know that eventually she wants to be married to him, though they will not be having kids of their own. I am still on my own, but can see being a in serious stable relationship with someone else before the divorce is final. THere is behind the scenes stuff as to why were are still married that have almost all been resolved. The final one is in the works and will eventually be settled so we can get it over with finally.

[MariannNOVA]

WHAT????!!!!!! She's married to someone else? Link, please.... I need some evidence to believe that one.

 

I don't have the link but it is true -- I read it and re-read it and read it again. Believe it -- it's true.

[MariannNOVA]

I don't think it is common, but not unheard of either.

 

I agree. Years ago when I lived in NJ, this was quite common where I lived -- I attributed it to folks who do not wish to divorce for religious reasons and I adopted a posture that it was their business.

[Donna A.]

Does anyone know if it's normal procedure for the P.A. to subpoena all the media news channels for video footage of all interviews and statements given by family, etc.? I could see it if they already have a suspect in custody and are preparing their case documents, but this soon? http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_missouri/northland/clay-co.-subpoenas-nbc-action-news-footage-in-irwin-case

[AuntieM]

I apologize if I appear judgmental. But really, I am somewhat removed from a lot of popular culture, and situations like this make me feel the need for a reality check. I just don't personally know anyone in this sort of situation, and find it honestly rather shocking.

 

Morality aside, it just seems.... complicated. Perhaps by choice, perhaps by necessity, but still complicated. In baby Lisa's case, I can imagine how the prior relationship may have added a whole level of possibilities to be investigated.

[MariannNOVA]

I apologize if I appear judgmental. But really, I am somewhat removed from a lot of popular culture, and situations like this make me feel the need for a reality check. I just don't personally know anyone in this sort of situation, and find it honestly rather shocking.

 

Morality aside, it just seems.... complicated. Perhaps by choice, perhaps by necessity, but still complicated. In baby Lisa's case, I can imagine how the prior relationship may have added a whole level of possibilities to be investigated.

 

I don't think you appeared judgemental. I think it was the Statement Analyzer who brought up the 'atypical' relationship. The SA indicated that when the couple was asked what kind of person might have done 'this' (abducted their child), the father of the baby said something about 'a husband angry with his wife for having a baby with another man' OR something like that. It's late -- I'm tired -- that's not the exact wording but that is the essence of what he said.

 

The SA noted that this was an interesting statement b/c the baby's parents were not married, the mother was still married to another man who is/was in the Army, and the couple was engaged.

 

Here -- here is where I read it on the Statement Analysis blog:

 

When asked who might have done this, among other things, Jeremy said, "a woman who has cheated on her husband." This certainly suggests something between the two, as language does not come from a vacuum. Even in lies, there is truthful words chosen.

 

and here:

 

As to the baby "tying them together" indicates that they have been "untied" or ripped apart in some form. We know that Deborah is engaged to one man, while being married to another. The tension between them may have led one to explode in anger if Lisa had interrupted their arguing.

 

And, here is the link so you do not have not have to hunt for it:

 

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

 

 

[swellmomma]

I keep hoping that when I see more activity on this thread it is to say they have fouond her safe and sound

 

I was reading the SA link again. The post I was reading was about the police reenactment of the kidnapping. The assumption has been that the kidnapper went through the window to get in and out. What if the kidnapper only went in the window and walked right out the front door, which would explain why it was unlocked. I don't see someone climbing back out the window with the baby, but I can see getting in quietly, grabbing baby while keeping her asleep and just walking right out the front door. The SA says that because the police were able to show in the reenactment that climbing back out a window with the baby quietly without waking her would be impossible. Have they explored that the reason the front door was unlocked was because this person walked right out?

 

I am picturing someone cases the house for some time. Climbs in through the window. Turns on lights on way to baby's room, grabs baby, being careful not to jostle and waken her. Turn on lights walking right back through the livingroom and out the front door. SA keeps saying that all the lights were on, but in the initial reports they said most not all, and the bedroom doors were shut. I am picturing the path the intruder would have to take, and it seems to me that other than the bathroom, boys room and parents room they would have to pretty much walk through every other room in that house to get in the window, through the house and out the door. Turning on the lights seems logical to me if you are trying to be quiet. Much easier to be quick and quiet if the lights are on, than if you are stumbling around in the dark. It seems it was a risk the person was willing to take if it was in fact a kidnapper.

[elegantlion]

Does anyone know if it's normal procedure for the P.A. to subpoena all the media news channels for video footage of all interviews and statements given by family, etc.? I could see it if they already have a suspect in custody and are preparing their case documents, but this soon? http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_missouri/northland/clay-co.-subpoenas-nbc-action-news-footage-in-irwin-case

 

I'll ask. My dad used to work as a broadcast engineer. He would have handled and edited most of the news footage. I'll see if there is a precedent for that type of thing.

[Trish]

I keep hoping that when I see more activity on this thread it is to say they have fouond her safe and sound

 

I was reading the SA link again. The post I was reading was about the police reenactment of the kidnapping. The assumption has been that the kidnapper went through the window to get in and out. What if the kidnapper only went in the window and walked right out the front door, which would explain why it was unlocked. I don't see someone climbing back out the window with the baby, but I can see getting in quietly, grabbing baby while keeping her asleep and just walking right out the front door. The SA says that because the police were able to show in the reenactment that climbing back out a window with the baby quietly without waking her would be impossible. Have they explored that the reason the front door was unlocked was because this person walked right out?

 

I am picturing someone cases the house for some time. Climbs in through the window. Turns on lights on way to baby's room, grabs baby, being careful not to jostle and waken her. Turn on lights walking right back through the livingroom and out the front door. SA keeps saying that all the lights were on, but in the initial reports they said most not all, and the bedroom doors were shut. I am picturing the path the intruder would have to take, and it seems to me that other than the bathroom, boys room and parents room they would have to pretty much walk through every other room in that house to get in the window, through the house and out the door. Turning on the lights seems logical to me if you are trying to be quiet. Much easier to be quick and quiet if the lights are on, than if you are stumbling around in the dark. It seems it was a risk the person was willing to take if it was in fact a kidnapper.

 

I don't think an intruder came in that way because why would you replace the screen? It was the back of the house. (also where the dog happened to be, BTW) I mean, if you're not bothering to even turn any lights off, who would fiddle with replacing a screen?

[Trish]

Me too. I'm surprised by the rush to judgment and gossipy nature of this thread. :sad:

 

Indeed, it's all about the forensics. No DNA, no case!

 

Usually it turns out to be a Mysterious Stranger in Thailand, anyway, like the JonBenet Ramsey case.

 

:glare:

[angela in ohio]

Me, too. If my child was abducted, I'd be too distraught to think, much less speak, in complete sentences. So that means I'm hiding something? If a reporter asked me a question about the child, I'd answer using pronouns because we've already established who the child is. I would also use pronouns because I constantly call my kids by each other's names. I say we all the time referring to activities or decisions that might only tangentially involve both dh and me.

 

I'd be doomed by more than my speech, though. I might hire a lawyer, because one of the biggest mistakes made by innocent people is speaking freely to the police without a lawyer. After all, innocent people have nothing to hide and they don't realize how police officers and prosecutors might twist their words. I might refuse a lie detector test because lawyers say that lie detector tests never work in favor of the person who takes it. If you fail it, you must be guilty, and if you pass it, you are a pathological liar and sociopath. If I thought the police were too busy accusing me to search for the real perpetrator, I might stop talking to them because it would feel like an exercise in futility.

 

A lot of the things people find odd in this case don't seem odd at all to me, and it's scary that people would assume I'm guilty if I forgot to lock the door or some such thing.

 

I agree.

 

Statistically, yes, it's probably one of the parents (although, statistically, it would be more likely to be the man harming on of her other children.) BUT we don't really know that yet. I think we all need it to be the parents, though, because if it isn't the parents, that means that some stranger could come into our home and steal our child. I think that is the psychology behind the rush to judgment even more than the statistics. It also turns out top be someone known to the family at times, which makes me wonder if mom had someone else in the home and they did it?

Edited October 11, 2011 by angela in ohio

[TravelingChris]

I don't care what this couple calls it, you can't be engaged while married to someone else.There are all sorts of people calling all sorts of things engagements and each other fiance, fiancee. But in the mind of the public currently, an engagement consists of two currently unmarried people with a commitment to marry and an approximate if not specific date to marry. SO no engagements for 8 years and no engagements for those who are currently married.

 

I do suspect the parents. Why? Because the story is strange- delay in reporting- and the age of the child. There have been many cases of (mostly) women stealing newborns or very soon after. Just today I was reading in the paper about another woman who cut out a fetus from a pregnant woman (both fetus and woman died). The sexual perverts who steal children usually want older children - preschool age and up. Her age is just not a common age for stranger abductions.

[Trish]

I don't care what this couple calls it, you can't be engaged while married to someone else.There are all sorts of people calling all sorts of things engagements and each other fiance, fiancee. But in the mind of the public currently, an engagement consists of two currently unmarried people with a commitment to marry and an approximate if not specific date to marry. SO no engagements for 8 years and no engagements for those who are currently married.

 

I do suspect the parents. Why? Because the story is strange- delay in reporting- and the age of the child. There have been many cases of (mostly) women stealing newborns or very soon after. Just today I was reading in the paper about another woman who cut out a fetus from a pregnant woman (both fetus and woman died). The sexual perverts who steal children usually want older children - preschool age and up. Her age is just not a common age for stranger abductions.

 

Maybe they have a date?

 

I will grant you the parents' behavior has been strange. But, remember the case in Australia where the dingo really DID eat the woman's baby! (Meryl Streep played her in the movie)

 

But I imagine if they don't find a body (or the baby turns up alive) no one will ever know what happened, and these people will move on to the Wedding Reception. Do you invite your current husband to your next wedding?

[swellmomma]

I don't think an intruder came in that way because why would you replace the screen? It was the back of the house. (also where the dog happened to be, BTW) I mean, if you're not bothering to even turn any lights off, who would fiddle with replacing a screen?

 

 

I didn't realize the screen was replaced. Okay so new scenario, wife leaves window open, intruder walks right in the front door and right back out. I keep trying to find an answer that makes it plausible it was a kidnapping and not the parents, but it is getting harder and harder.

[Murphy101]

I apologize if I appear judgmental. But really, I am somewhat removed from a lot of popular culture, and situations like this make me feel the need for a reality check. I just don't personally know anyone in this sort of situation, and find it honestly rather shocking.

 

Morality aside, it just seems.... complicated. Perhaps by choice, perhaps by necessity, but still complicated. In baby Lisa's case, I can imagine how the prior relationship may have added a whole level of possibilities to be investigated.

 

Well hooking up with another guy was by choice for sure. I'm with you. Even if my marriage went in the toilet, no way would I seek another relationship until I was completely detached from the current one. No way I would want to add a layer of complication to the mess, kwim? But apparently you and I are in the minority. Dh and I are constantly astonished by people who do just that.:confused:

[amy g.]

Wow, I didn't even know itwas possible to have a "husband" who is married to someone else.

[BarbecueMom]

Have the two older boys been interviewed yet? I know they are only six and eight, but I can't imagine this little girl being killed in her own home with two other children there not hearing or seeing a thing. I think it was in KC recently where a 5-6 year old girl intentionally drowned a sibling in a bathtub. Honestly, the half-siblings would have a clearer motive, jealousy, than the parents do.

Edited October 11, 2011 by BarbecueMom

[Trish]

The "statement anaylisis" site (blog cited earlier) says the mother/family is preparing for her to be charged with a crime. I still don't see how that happens without a body. No one knows what happened to the baby.

 

Like that missing Utah woman (dad takes boys camping at midnight on a cold night while mom is left home and "disappears"), all signs point to the husband, but without a body there's nothing to accuse him of.

[Xuzi]

The "statement anaylisis" site (blog cited earlier) says the mother/family is preparing for her to be charged with a crime. I still don't see how that happens without a body. No one knows what happened to the baby.

 

Like that missing Utah woman (dad takes boys camping at midnight on a cold night while mom is left home and "disappears"), all signs point to the husband, but without a body there's nothing to accuse him of.

But wasn't Brooke Wilburger's killer tried and convicted without a body? (she was a college student from Utah who went missing while visiting friends in Portland, OR. No body found, last I heard, but there's a man sitting in prison right now for the crime)

[Murphy101]

Wow, I didn't even know itwas possible to have a "husband" who is married to someone else.

 

That's because it isn't. They can call him whatever they want, but it doesn't make it so.

 

ETA: But this is completely off topic bc it doesn't mean anyone is a child killer either.

 

But wasn't Brooke Wilburger's killer tried and convicted without a body? (she was a college student from Utah who went missing while visiting friends in Portland, OR. No body found, last I heard, but there's a man sitting in prison right now for the crime)

 

They don't have to have a body, but they do have to have compelling evidence that there is a body rotting somewhere and that a certain someone is the cause.

 

In theory anyways. Sometimes our judicial system does some screwy stuff.:glare:

Edited October 11, 2011 by Martha

[TravelingChris]

THey don't have to have the body but do have to have very compelling evidence otherwise like evidence of lots of blood spilled and a clean-up- that sort of thing.

[elegantlion]

I talked to my dad who said it was unusual for them to request all footage from all the stations. They are asking for raw footage, not just aired segments. It's not unusual to have 20 minutes or more of raw footage that gets edited to a two minute segment.

 

One reason they are looking is a latest clue. Mom was seen at a grocery store in the area buying wine and other "picnic supplies" (this was my mom's words) with another man. This happened approx two hours before she said she put the baby down. I don't think the baby was in the footage. Sigh, things are looking murky.

 

I'll try to find a news links to the story.

 

ETA: here it is. http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-police-review-grocery-surveillance-deborah-bradley-20111010,0,3702048.story

 

My guess is that they are looking through the footage to help identify the man.

[AuntieM]

The "statement anaylisis" site (blog cited earlier) says the mother/family is preparing for her to be charged with a crime. I still don't see how that happens without a body. No one knows what happened to the baby.

 

Like that missing Utah woman (dad takes boys camping at midnight on a cold night while mom is left home and "disappears"), all signs point to the husband, but without a body there's nothing to accuse him of.

 

The sister of the mom was just jabbering in a national news interview this morning. Supposedly she said something like she wouldn't be surprised if the mom were arrested any minute. I did not hear the interview first hand, but a summary by a local radio news anchor. Sounds like she was implying a police harrassment issue.

 

Cpt Young of the KCMOPD, who has been the police department spokesperson all along, came out after the interview, denying it, saying there are currently no plans to arrest anyone.

 

We'll see what shapes up by five o'clock news time.

[Donna A.]

Have the two older boys been interviewed yet? I know they are only six and eight, but I can't imagine this little girl being killed in her own home with two other children there not hearing or seeing a thing. I think it was in KC recently where a 5-6 year old girl intentionally drowned a sibling in a bathtub. Honestly, the half-siblings would have a clearer motive, jealousy, than the parents do.

 

You know, I wondered this myself, but I haven't heard a THING here about whether the boys have been interviewed, or what they said. It's very likely that the police DO have that on their radar, but just haven't leaked it to the media. In my mind, I'd rather be falsely accused than to have my child falsely accused, kwim? I'm not suggesting it isn't possible that one of the boys did something.... but if they did, I think they would've found the body by now. And in fact, maybe that's one reason the police searched the woods and manholes so intently on day 1. Plus, for a 6 or 8yo boy to do something horrible to their baby sister would've caused some loud noise, I'd think. I could see a 12 or 14yo boy knowing how to do it quietly, but not likely a 6 or 8yo.

 

The other possible scenario I'm wondering about that I haven't heard mentioned is the *real* husband. (I had heard last week that Lisa's mom is married to someone else, but didnt know until this week that he's in the Army and overseas.) I know he's not physically here to do it himself, but he has friends and relatives here. And do those two boys belong to him? If so, then he probably knows the layout of the house. It would be very easy for him to pay someone here to do the dirty job for him.... just to get back at his wife and the baby's dad. Kind of a "You took my kids, now I'm taking yours" type of thing. Him being overseas would be the perfect alibi... until they figure out that he paid someone else to do it. That dude's making a lot of money while he's over there. Check his bank accounts, phone and email records.

 

(And I know nothing about Deborah's husband... maybe he's a super nice guy who would never seek revenge like that. But it IS a possible scenario that they shouldn't overlook.)

[LidiyaDawn]

Wow, I didn't even know itwas possible to have a "husband" who is married to someone else.

 

As I stated on the other page, my mother does. They have been together for EIGHTEEN years and that is how they refer to each other and how they present themselves to their community - as a committed married couple. I respect and honour them by following their lead. :001_smile:

[Donna A.]

I talked to my dad who said it was unusual for them to request all footage from all the stations. They are asking for raw footage, not just aired segments. It's not unusual to have 20 minutes or more of raw footage that gets edited to a two minute segment.

 

Thanks. I thought it was odd because I used to work for defense lawyers at the 3rd largest law firm in Chicago, and I don't remember ever seeing subpoenas issued this early in a case unless they have someone or something very specific in mind. IOW, they're close to nailing a suspect, but need that extra piece of written evidence before they can make an arrest. (As in, grounds for arrest.)

 

 

One reason they are looking is a latest clue. Mom was seen at a grocery store in the area buying wine and other "picnic supplies" (this was my mom's words) with another man. This happened approx two hours before she said she put the baby down. I don't think the baby was in the footage. Sigh, things are looking murky.

 

I'll try to find a news links to the story.

 

ETA: here it is. http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-poli...,3702048.story

 

My guess is that they are looking through the footage to help identify the man.

 

 

:confused: Uh oh, breaking news.... They're searching a well close to the family's home. The house where the well is located is vacant. They've got all kinds of equipment, fire trucks, tons of people/search crews....

[AuntieM]

Now they're dismantling a deck in a backyard near the Irwin home. Apparently there's an old well beneath the deck that they intend to search. The news chopper (Ch 9 for you locals) is on its way over now, I'm about to turn on the tv. Seems like they'd need a tip to direct them to an old covered well.

 

Okay, Donna, I'll add another crazy plot to yours. The whole thing was engineered by Jeremy. He knew babymom was cheating on him and he orchestrated the kidnapping to frame the cheating mom. In my story baby Lisa will be found safe and sound. Unless he's not actually the biological father....

 

See how carried away we could get? Yet I confess, my imagination runs away with my logic at times. But the truth is often so much stranger than fiction.

 

Off to turn on Channel 9 now and see what good ol' Jonny Rowlands can see from his helicopter.

Edited October 11, 2011 by AuntieM
Autocorrect is out to get me...

[Donna A.]

Now they're dismantling a deck in a backyax near the Irwin home. Apparently there's an old well beneath the deck that they intend to search. The news chopper (Ch 9 for you locals) is on it's way over now, I'm about to turn on the tv. Seems like they'd need a tip to direct them to an old covered well.

 

Okay, Donna, I'll add another crazy plot to yours. The whole thing was engineered by Jeremy. He knew babymom was cheating on him and he orchestrated the kidnapping to frame the cheating mom. In my story baby Lisa will be found safe and sound. Unless he's not actually the biological father....

 

See how carried away we could get? Yet I confess, my imagination runs away with my logic at times. But the truth is often so much stranger than fiction.

 

Off to turn on Channel 9 now and see what good ol' Jonny Rowlands can see from his helicopter.

 

Beat ya. NBC was faster than ABC. :lol:

[AuntieM]

Beat ya. NBC was faster than ABC. :lol:

 

 

I saw it on KMBC's web page. I may have to switch station loyalties!

:lol:

 

But yeah, this looks serious, they've brought out the big guns.

[MariannNOVA]

Yikes! I'm leaving for cc shortly -- I won't know anything that happens for HOURS!

 

Do you think the father has hidden the baby to punish the mom for having an affair? My imagination is on over-time.

[Donna A.]

Have they explored that the reason the front door was unlocked was because this person walked right out?

 

I am picturing someone cases the house for some time. Climbs in through the window. Turns on lights on way to baby's room, grabs baby, being careful not to jostle and waken her. Turn on lights walking right back through the livingroom and out the front door.

 

My guess is this is EXACTLY how it happened, regardless of who's behind it... Deborah or Jeremy or the dh in Afghanistan, or a complete stranger) had someone else do the job.

 

I keep thinking that *whoever* took her knew the house. That person KNEW the computer room window was at the opposite end of the house from the bedrooms. That person also KNEW that there was a dog in the back yard, and a dog next door. That person also KNEW that they could get in through the computer room window which is actually at the FRONT of the house facing the street. (And then went out the FRONT door, not the back.)

 

 

SA keeps saying that all the lights were on, but in the initial reports they said most not all, and the bedroom doors were shut.

Right. The author of the SA doesn't know everything, or is making a few misstatements of her own. :glare: Ahh, the Hive analyzes the statements of the author of the Statement Analysis. :lol:

 

 

I am picturing the path the intruder would have to take, and it seems to me that other than the bathroom, boys room and parents room they would have to pretty much walk through every other room in that house to get in the window, through the house and out the door. Turning on the lights seems logical to me if you are trying to be quiet. Much easier to be quick and quiet if the lights are on, than if you are stumbling around in the dark. It seems it was a risk the person was willing to take if it was in fact a kidnapper.

Wanting not to trip over baby and kid toys all over the house? Again, I'm thinking that whoever did this knew the house.

[aggieamy]

:confused: Uh oh, breaking news.... They're searching a well close to the family's home. The house where the well is located is vacant. They've got all kinds of equipment, fire trucks, tons of people/search crews....

 

Oh no. That sounds bad. Very bad. Poor baby girl.