As we write this post we are shaking our heads, after returning from Kansas city, Mo. We are almost at a loss for words.
We have seen people,go on television and lie, but we have a real problem with the truth.
The disappearance of baby Lisa Irwin brings some logistics into play.
Either the parents are lying or the police are lying. we firmly believe that the mother killed the child accidentally and then with her husband covered it up or the mother couldn’t afford to raise the child and gave the child up for money then covered it up by claiming a kidnapping had taken place.
Whether that means they buried the infact, trashed the infacts body or whatever, we don’t know, but the truth will come out very soon.
Regarding a missing infact, the police have no, and we repeat no reason to lie about a child they don’t even know and have never met.
Let us go back to Friday, And See What The Police Said
New York lawyer Joe Tacopina called off the interviews, but did not give a reason, said Darin Snapp , a spokesman for the Kansas City Police Department . Tacopina said he would contact police next week to reschedule, Snapp said. Hmmm, it does not seem to be wildly inaccurate Joe.
Another Reason Joe Needs To Keep Notes Of What Has Been Said
This is Joe, again on Good Morning America, this morning,
The attorney for baby Lisa Irwin’s parents said on Monday that his clients are fully cooperating in the search for their missing 11-month-old daughter and the public fails to realize it. Attorney Joe Tacopina said the family will continue to cooperate with authorities and that they have been compliant from the beginning of the investigation.
When you here a report that says baby Lisa Irwin’s parents are not cooperating with the police, please not that the police want the parents to cop a pleas to murderibng the child & the parents refuse to cop this plea.
Oct 25,2011 Investigators want the parents of missing 11-month-old Lisa Irwin to submit to separate interviews and answer a list of “tough questions” that detectives “need answered.” “We need them to sit down apart from each other, with detectives, and answer the tough questions detectives have for them concerning what they may or may not know about anything, who came and went [the night Lisa disappeared],” Young told ABCNews.com. “There’s a whole list of things that they may know.” Young said he is “not disputing” family attorney Joe Tacopina that the family has cooperated and answered other questions, such as specific questions regarding tips and leads. But that is not sufficient, he said. “The bottom line is detectives need to sit down with them unrestricted and they need to answer questions that we need answered,” he said. Again, Joecchio, what do we not understand?
Thank Goodness, This Is The Last One
“One of the issues we are having right now is the way this case has been handled & giving too much time to the media.
This is a search for an 11-month-old missing baby. We have two parents who are either lying or absolutely devastated and grieving. To me, notifying the press every time we have a meeting set up is not something I think is advantageous to either side or this investigation,” Tacopina said.
The parents are grieving, well might it be that they could be helping police, because if the baby were kidnapped, time would be of the utmost importance. As we can see from the examples above, they have been doing anything but cooperating.
To Show Just What Is Going On Here
As we toured the parents home we looked at the window where the kidnapper was said to have entered and then crawled back out the window with the infact baby Lisa Irwin.
First of all the window is to far from the dam ground to successfully crawl out of with a baby in you arms.
Secondly someone had to know the mother was drunk and standing in the front of the yard.
Thirdly the kidnapper turns on the light in baby Lisa Irwin’s room. Now lets ask our selves this. the smartest robber is not going to turn on lights, at best they will use a flash light.
As we interviewd the parents we didn’t feel in our hearts that they we’re telling the truth.
The parents seemed to have been coached by their attorneys as to what to say to the media.
We also didn’t sense a grieving mother or father.
These parents are now just going on as if they never had a child.
We want you the read the following about a grand mother who accidentally killed her grandchild by shaking the child to stop the child from crying. But unfortunately for the grand mother her shaking the child killed the child.
The supreme court even got involved in this case.
We are mentioning this story to say that we believe that baby Lisa Irwin’s mother accidently killed the child or sold the child for money.
SEE BELOW.
The Supreme Court issued a final, stinging rebuke of a lower court’s decision on three separate occasions to dismiss the assault conviction of a grandmother in the shaking death of her 7-week-old grandson.
The justices in an unsigned opinion Monday said the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals “plainly erred in concluding the jury’s verdict was irrational.” The high court for the last time reinstated the conviction of Shirley Ree Smith, ending a 15-year legal fight.
Prosecutors alleged Smith lost her temper and violently shook Etzel Dean Glass III when he woke up crying and in need of a diaper change in Van Nuys, California, in 1996. The boy’s mother had put him to sleep on a sofa, and the grandmother was sleeping on the floor next to Etzel.
An initial diagnosis of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was changed to shaken baby syndrome (SBS) after an autopsy. That conclusion formed the basis of the government’s case, but was strongly challenged by the defense. A jury convicted her, and Smith, then 37, was sentenced to 15 years to life.
After subsequently losing in state courts, Smith’s lawyers asked for a federal appellate review. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit overturned the conviction, saying her case was probably a “miscarriage of justice.”
In one opinion, the judges ruled government experts “reached [their] conclusion because there was no evidence in the brain itself of the cause of death.”
That assessment, said the high court on Monday, “is simply false. There was evidence in the brain itself … these affirmative indications of trauma formed the basis of the experts’ opinion that Etzel died from shaking so severe that his brainstem tore.”
A key government witness, Dr. David Chadwick of the San Diego Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, testified the child suffered brain contusions that bled into his optic nerves, a result of a “violent shaking,” and that death occurred quickly after the trauma began.
“Doubts about whether Smith is in fact guilty are understandable,” said the justices. “But it is not the job of this court, and was not that of the 9th Circuit, to decide whether the state’s theory was correct. The jury decided that question, and its decision is supported by the record.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the majority for “its misuse of discretion” by agreeing to take the case, then summarily disposing of Smith’s appeal.
“I would not ignore Smith’s plight and choose her case as a fit opportunity to teach the 9th Circuit a lesson,” she said.
“What is now known about shaken baby syndrome (SBS) casts grave doubt on the charge leveled against Smith; and uncontradicted evidence shows that she poses no danger whatever to her family or anyone else in society.”
Added Ginsburg, “By taking up the case, one may ask, what does the court achieve other than to prolong Smith’s suffering and her separation from her family. Is this Court’s intervention really necessary? Our routine practice counsels no.”
The court’s oldest member was supported by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Smith, who had been released from custody after the earlier appeals court victories, will now likely be returned to prison to serve the rest of her sentence.
The case is Cavazos v. Smith (10-1115).
