Baby kidnapped from home in KC

[Iowanian]

How is this not a topic of discussion on a KC message board?

[evenfall]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

I got to say we all know how this is gonna end. The only real question is how and why.

With another Casey Anthony verdict?

[4th and Long]

Originally Posted by evenfall

With another Casey Anthony verdict?

Completely off base at this point.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by evenfall

With another Casey Anthony verdict?

Sadly yes. The lawyers have done a remarkable job throwing enough mis information out there to create reasonable doubt to the general public that thinks a video tape is needed to covict.

[Huffmeister]

Originally Posted by Stewie

You mean like baby Lisa?

Police rarely share crucial information while they build a case.

I don't know much about criminal investigations, but are you saying that it's possible that the police have already found a body, and are keeping it under wraps while they build a case? Seems like that would be highly illegal.

Or I could have completely missed your point, which is a distinct possibility.

[evenfall]

Originally Posted by kstater

Sadly yes. The lawyers have done a remarkable job throwing enough mis information out there to create reasonable doubt to the general public that thinks a video tape is needed to covict.

Casey Anthony proved to the general public that if you keep a body hidden long enough for it to decompose you can get away with it, even when its obvious you are guilty. It's nothing high powered lawyers can't fix once they talk a jury into thinking they have to have the murder on tape to convict.

I wondered if we wouldn't see copycats or people who were emboldened by Anthony.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Huffmeister

I don't know much about criminal investigations, but are you saying that it's possible that the police have already found a body, and are keeping it under wraps while they build a case? Seems like that would be highly illegal.

Or I could have completely missed your point, which is a distinct possibility.

I'm not saying they found a body. I'm saying they have far more information on what happened than anyone outside the investigation knows. They won't make an arrest until they think they have a rock solid case. Someone said earlier, "innocent until proven guilty." The police have to know (and be able to prove) guilt of the innocent and then go to trial.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by evenfall

Casey Anthony proved to the general public that if you keep a body hidden long enough for it to decompose you can get away with it, even when its obvious you are guilty. It's nothing high powered lawyers can't fix once they talk a jury into thinking they have to have the murder on tape to convict.

I wondered if we wouldn't see copycats or people who were emboldened by Anthony.

Why Can’t Some Juries Convict on Circumstantial Evidence?



Michelle Fabio, Esq. - Nov 2011






The jury's finding that Casey Anthony was not guilty of murdering her two-year-old daughter Caylee had many people confused as to how she “walked free” (not withstanding her convictions for lying to authorities). There were similar feelings when O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson in 1995. On the flip side, however, 10 years later, many spectators rejoiced when Scott Peterson was found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn child.



What do these high-profile murder cases have in common? All three juries were presented with a mountain of circumstantial evidence in support of conviction—but only one, the Peterson jury, found that proof of guilt was beyond a reasonable doubt. How is that possible?


The bottom line is that in each case, it was up to the members of the jury—as agreed upon by both the prosecution and defense—to weigh all the evidence presented and come to its decision. Indeed, this is the job of every criminal trial jury. And while different juries on the same set of facts and evidence could come to different conclusions, they all operate under the same judicial framework, as described below.


Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
As you probably know, the standard of proof in criminal trials is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is, the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged to the extent that no reasonable person could have a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.



Types of Evidence
The prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by building a case through direct and/or circumstantial evidence.


Direct evidence “directly” shows the defendant's guilt, for example, a witness who testifies he saw the defendant committing a crime. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is indirect evidence that may lead to the inference that the defendant committed a crime even though there is no direct proof, for example, a washcloth with the murder victim's DNA found at the defendant's house if the two didn’t live together.


Of course not all circumstantial evidence is created equal; some is stronger or weaker than others, and this is where jury discretion comes in. It is up to the individual members to weigh the importance of each piece of evidence and then come to a conclusion together as to whether the prosecution has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


One other important fact about circumstantial evidence: you may have heard somewhere that "there's only circumstantial evidence," implying that such proof isn’t enough to support a conviction, but that simply isn’t true. A defendant may be found guilty of a crime based solely on direct or circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two.


Jury’s Role in Criminal Trials
As noted above, a jury’s job is to weigh all the evidence presented at trial. The jury is permitted to draw inferences from evidence, so long as they arise from proven facts and are logical and reasonable—they cannot be based on speculation. Indeed, juries are instructed that legally speaking, there is no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.


Circumstantial Evidence and Reasonable Doubt in Action
Taking the Anthony case as an example, the prosecution’s theory was that Casey Anthony used chloroform to suffocate her daughter.


Unfortunately for the prosecution, though, the state of decomposition of Caylee’s body prohibited a definitive determination on the cause of death. Moreover, the prosecution had no “smoking gun” for the chloroform theory such as a bottle of the organic compound with Casey Anthony’s fingerprints on it. That could have been strong circumstantial evidence of guilt, but it just didn’t exist.


What the prosecution did have was Internet searches for information on chloroform from a computer in the Anthony house and traces of the substance in the trunk of her car. While the jury could have drawn an inference that these taken together, along with the fact that Anthony didn’t report that her child was missing for a month, proved that Casey Anthony used chloroform to suffocate her daughter—but they just didn’t feel they could find as such beyond a reasonable doubt.



At least one jury member has stated that the prosecution’s failure to definitively establish a cause of death created doubt in their minds.


Moreover, regarding the chloroform specifically, Casey’s mother testified that it was she who had performed the searches, and an expert forensic witness for the defense refuted the prosecution’s experts’ testimony that claimed “shockingly high” levels of chloroform in the trunk by saying he only found low levels of it.


Accordingly, the jury concluded it was left with reasonable doubt regarding Anthony’s guilt of the most serious crimes charged and had no choice but to find her “not guilty.” Whether this decision was reasonable is likely to be debated for years to come.


Final Thoughts
It is important to note that our justice system is one that is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and Blackstone’s formulation that it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”



Thus, the burden of proof for the prosecution is quite high; sometimes even with amazing advancements in technology, prosecutors aren’t able to convince a jury that the defendant’s guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt—and sometimes the public disagrees with that decision. But public opinion doesn't matter to the justice system, and where there's reasonable doubt in the jury's collective mind, there simply can be no conviction.

[Huffmeister]

Originally Posted by Stewie

I'm not saying they found a body. I'm saying they have far more information on what happened than anyone outside the investigation knows. They won't make an arrest until they think they have a rock solid case. Someone said earlier, "innocent until proven guilty." The police have to know (and be able to prove) guilt of the innocent and then go to trial.

Gotcha.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by evenfall

Casey Anthony proved to the general public that if you keep a body hidden long enough for it to decompose you can get away with it, even when its obvious you are guilty. It's nothing high powered lawyers can't fix once they talk a jury into thinking they have to have the murder on tape to convict.

I wondered if we wouldn't see copycats or people who were emboldened by Anthony.

The mom in this case is much more likely to be found guilty than Casey Anthony was. The reasons are obvious.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Stewie

I'm not saying they found a body. I'm saying they have far more information on what happened than anyone outside the investigation knows. They won't make an arrest until they think they have a rock solid case. Someone said earlier, "innocent until proven guilty." The police have to know (and be able to prove) guilt of the innocent and then go to trial.

This guy Mike Thompson claims hes already picked the man carrying a baby around the neighborhood that night out of a lineup.









GRACE: OK. Well, as a matter of fact, Virginia in Florida, with me right now, joining us exclusively tonight is Mike Thompson. He`s joining us. And he says that he saw the man carrying the baby wearing only the diaper at 4:00 AM.

Mike, thank you for being with us.

MIKE THOMPSON, SAW MAN CARRYING BABY (via telephone): Yes, ma`am.

GRACE: Mike, could you describe for me what you observed the night baby Lisa goes missing?

THOMPSON: Yes. I`d just got off work, and I was going down the highway. And I exited on 48th Street. I go over to see my cousin after work on Tuesday mornings. And I was going down 48th Street, and I see a man carrying a baby about 30, 40 foot up one street.

GRACE: And what did the baby have on?

THOMPSON: A diaper and a T-shirt.

GRACE: Diaper and a T-shirt.

THOMPSON: And he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt. Huh?


GRACE: OK, so the baby`s wearing diapers and a T-shirt. And what did the man look like?

THOMPSON: Oh, about 5-7, 5-8, kind of salt-and-pepper hair. Yes. He`s pretty well built. He had a T-shirt on and white pants.

GRACE: Mike Thompson joining us, claims he sees the baby being carried by a man around 4:00 AM when baby Lisa goes missing. Mike Thompson, is it true that you have identified a man in a photo line-up?

THOMPSON: Yes, ma`am.

GRACE: Repeat?

THOMPSON: Huh? Yes, I...

GRACE: Have you identified a man in a photo line-up?

THOMPSON: Yes, ma`am.

GRACE: Do you know who the man is?

THOMPSON: No, I don`t. It`s the man I seen that night, I`m sure.

GRACE: And let me go to Matt Zarrell. Do we know who the man is in the photo line-up that Thompson identified?

ZARRELL: We do believe it`s a resident in the area. But right now, his name has not been publicized and we`re not releasing the name at the moment, Nancy.

GRACE: The tip line, 816-474-8477. Joining me tonight, the man who sees a man carrying a baby at 4:00 AM the night baby Lisa goes missing. This as we learn Mommy may have imbibed much more than we believe originally. And the timeline changes. Mommy`s brother taken in for interrogation as the parents refuse to sit down with cops. Tip line, 816- 474-8477. Where is this baby?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../02/ng.01.html

[doomy3]

The story I heard from people directly involved in this thing is that the person carrying the baby is completely irrelevant to this case. The baby that was being carried was black, apparently.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

This guy Mike Thompson claims hes already picked the man carrying a baby around the neighborhood that night out of a lineup.









GRACE: OK. Well, as a matter of fact, Virginia in Florida, with me right now, joining us exclusively tonight is Mike Thompson. He`s joining us. And he says that he saw the man carrying the baby wearing only the diaper at 4:00 AM.

Mike, thank you for being with us.

MIKE THOMPSON, SAW MAN CARRYING BABY (via telephone): Yes, ma`am.

GRACE: Mike, could you describe for me what you observed the night baby Lisa goes missing?

THOMPSON: Yes. I`d just got off work, and I was going down the highway. And I exited on 48th Street. I go over to see my cousin after work on Tuesday mornings. And I was going down 48th Street, and I see a man carrying a baby about 30, 40 foot up one street.

GRACE: And what did the baby have on?

THOMPSON: A diaper and a T-shirt.

GRACE: Diaper and a T-shirt.

THOMPSON: And he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt. Huh?


GRACE: OK, so the baby`s wearing diapers and a T-shirt. And what did the man look like?

THOMPSON: Oh, about 5-7, 5-8, kind of salt-and-pepper hair. Yes. He`s pretty well built. He had a T-shirt on and white pants.

GRACE: Mike Thompson joining us, claims he sees the baby being carried by a man around 4:00 AM when baby Lisa goes missing. Mike Thompson, is it true that you have identified a man in a photo line-up?

THOMPSON: Yes, ma`am.

GRACE: Repeat?

THOMPSON: Huh? Yes, I...

GRACE: Have you identified a man in a photo line-up?

THOMPSON: Yes, ma`am.

GRACE: Do you know who the man is?

THOMPSON: No, I don`t. It`s the man I seen that night, I`m sure.

GRACE: And let me go to Matt Zarrell. Do we know who the man is in the photo line-up that Thompson identified?

ZARRELL: We do believe it`s a resident in the area. But right now, his name has not been publicized and we`re not releasing the name at the moment, Nancy.

GRACE: The tip line, 816-474-8477. Joining me tonight, the man who sees a man carrying a baby at 4:00 AM the night baby Lisa goes missing. This as we learn Mommy may have imbibed much more than we believe originally. And the timeline changes. Mommy`s brother taken in for interrogation as the parents refuse to sit down with cops. Tip line, 816- 474-8477. Where is this baby?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../02/ng.01.html

What kidnapper carries a baby around and around a several block area? I guess it could be the baby is dead and he's looking for a place to dispose of the body.

[SLAG]

Originally Posted by 4th and Long

The police are no longer actively searching for the child. This would lead me to believe they have some knowledge of the child's demise.

Looks like that was a false report

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15962122/...r-missing-baby

[ForeverChiefs58]

Missing Baby Lisa Irwin: New Names, New Details Emerge


New names and new details coming to light about the missing baby Lisa Irwin case could upend the story familiar to the public. One new witness has come forward and placed himself at the Irwin-Bradley home on the evening on Oct. 3. Megan Wright, the woman whose phone received an 8:30 p.m. phone call that night from Deborah Bradley's phone says she knows who took the call. Wright has taken to Facebook to answer questions posed by the public.

Here's some of that potentially game-changing new information reported:

* Neighbor Shane Beagley now says he was at the Irwin-Bradley home in the hours before baby Lisa is said to have disappeared, according to media reports. As described by the Examiner, Beagley claims to have smoked and chatted with Bradley and her next-door-neighbor Samantha Brando on Bradley's front stoop from about 7 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. He left the Bradley house about 8:30 p.m. or 9 p.m., he told CNN correspondent Jim Spellman. He also claims to have seen Brando at her own home at 10:30 and says he didn't see Bradley at that time. Beagley said he didn't see baby Lisa and no one went inside to check on the kids during the hours he was present.


* Local residents writing on a Facebook page dedicated to finding baby Lisa noted that Beagley was interviewed in the early days of the case and didn't mention being at the Irwin-Bradley home that night. His claim is inconsistent with the timeline of events provided by Deborah Bradley.

* Megan Wright, the woman whose phone received the 8:30 p.m. phone call from Bradley's phone, has opened herself up to public questions on the Justice for Lisa Irwin Facebook page. Wright spent time last night answering questions posed by friends of the page. The page administrator promised to accept friend requests from anyone.

* Wright says the person who had her phone at 8:30 p.m. is a man who temporarily stayed in the house where she was living with seven other people. He has since disappeared. She identified him as Dane L. Greathouse, aka Dane Diggler.

* Fox News reported that a member of Wright's household it didn't identify disputes Wright's claim that household residents all shared her phone.

* Bradley and baby Lisa's father Jeremy Irwin started a new Facebook page devoted to finding their daughter.

* Fox News says the police interviews of Bradley's and Irwin's sons will be held this week. The interviews were previously scheduled in canceled. The family's attorney Joe Tacopina had promised to reschedule the interviews last week but didn't follow through.

[Deberg_1990]

Good grief....these peoples stories change more often than Claythan flip flops....