Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Baby Lisa's father claims negligence and fraud - but who's fraud?


MSNBC reports that the parents of missing baby Lisa Irwin are accusing police of neglecting a "fraudulent debit card charge" which they claim has gone uninvestigated.

"In early November, just over a month after Lisa vanished, Irwin said his debit card was stolen. The card was suspended for a fraudulent charge for $69.04 while two other charges were attempted. He said the charge was made to a British website that advertises a service to legally change your name or your child’s name online."

A quick google search and I found this:

A UK company which sells a document kit which allows you to create a document to accompany a birth certificate and to provide a complete change of name for a child.

It costs £33.00 which I believe is roughly equal to the $69 quoted.

Why would a baby thief do this?

1) You need an actual birth certificate to modify to use this kit. If you had an actual birth certificate why would you need to change it? I don't recall hearing them say they stole baby Lisa AND her birth certificate.. AND Jeremy's credit card!! oh my.

2) Purchased from England? One month after the kidnapping? A bizarre related, but illogical purchase, on the card of a father of a "stolen" baby?

Pop Quiz: Which scenario is more likely?

A baby thief steals a baby, and the baby's birth certificate, and the baby's father's credit card.. smuggles the baby to England and then only one month later uses father's card to purchase a cheap document kit to create a new false identity on top of stolen birth certificate for stolen baby ... to create a new fake identity which stolen baby won't need for five or six years until she is entering school.


Guilty parent, feeling unwanted attention upon him and feeling the pressure of disbelief of his story, uses his own credit card to make a bogus purchase of a useless document kit in order to make it appear that someone in England was trying to change the name of his baby?

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Spray Tan Murder


Adam Kaufman is being prosecuted in Florida for the accusation of the murder of his wife, Lina Kaufman, who was found dead in the bathroom in 2007 with severe bruising on her neck. Coverage appeared last night on the Nancy Grace show and fragments of the over 20 minute 911 call appeared. All I have are these few fragments, but there are issues in them which conflict with what is known about this case.

Cause of death was disputable, with a series of medical examiners unable to say more than "undetermined" - with at least one final examiner saying her death was due to "mechanical strangulation", no mention of allergic asphyxiation or congestive heart failure.

Responding officers reports Adam was fully dressed when they arrived, his side of the bed not slept in and the hood of his car still warm as if recently driven - despite his declaration that he had slept through the night to find his wife dead when he awoke.

Spray tan fluid appears splashed and poured all over the bathroom, yet spray tans are applied as an air brush mist in a salon, not at home by hand.

The magazine rack upon which she presumably received her bruising was leather covered and a mechanism from which she could have collapsed so precisely and with such extreme force to cause these bruises and suffocation is surely unlikely if not almost impossible.

From Nancy Grace show transcript:


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hurry, please! My wife`s in the bathroom, dying. I don`t know what`s going on!

[Caller does not begin with "Hi" or "Hello", not does he request help for himself. He does make his first declaration in the negative and could be possible alibi building in his need to assure the listener he doesn't know why his wife is dying.]

911 OPERATOR: Hello?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello? Please, my wife`s in the bathroom, dying. I don`t know what`s going on!

[Despite being apparently frantic, when the 911 operator doesn't hear him the first time he is able to repeat his entire introductory statement, word for word, including his claim of innocence. Very worrisome. This implies mental rehearsal before the call.]


911 OPERATOR: Sir, I need you to calm down. I can`t understand what you`re saying.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My wife is in the bathroom. (INAUDIBLE) get up! Please get up! She`s in the bathroom! She`s on the floor, dying. I don`t know what`s going on!

[Again the operator claims she did not hear him, and for the third time, with only a few changes he repeats his introductory statement, again including his claim of innocence. Here he tells the operator that she is on the floor, dying - not draped over the magazine rack and suffocated. He begs her to get up. Does this make sense? Why not "Wake up!" or "open your eyes!" or "breathe!" or "don't die!" or any one of a number of commands that would make sense. Who demands a critically injured person "get up!"? Pat Brown notices the inconsistency of his claim of the cause of his wife's death with this part of the 911 call and feels this is sufficient proof he is not being honest.]



911 OPERATOR: She`s not breathing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No! I don`t know what happened! She`s on the floor, dying!

[Some commentary claims that records show he called his brother before the 911 call. If his wife is now just "dying" instead of "dead" what excuse can he make for calling his brother first?]
911 OPERATOR: OK, what`s -- what`s...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my God! I don`t know what`s going on!

[Perhaps he is panic stricken and incoherent, or his primary thought is to claim over and over he is uninvolved and unaware of the circumstances of his wife's death.]

911 OPERATOR: I need you to calm down. 3112 -- what`s your address?


911 OPERATOR: OK, calm down. Is that an apartment number? I need this information...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a house! It`s a house!

911 OPERATOR: OK. So she`s not breathing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, she`s not breathing!

911 OPERATOR: Did something happen? Did she fall...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No! No! I don`t know what`s going on! Please -- can you please send (INAUDIBLE) Lina! Lina!

[He emphatically states "No! No!" when asked if something happened or if she fell - yet his defence claims, and his repitition claims that he has no idea what happened. How would he know if she had an accident or fell or not? Yet he emphatically declares she did not. This is the most telling point in this short section of transcript for me. His answer to remain consistent should have been "I don't know!"]

(end of transcript)

The trial continues.