The most recent development in the Baby Lisa case revolves around strange calls. These calls were made from the cell phones that were reported stolen from the parents’ home, the night of Baby Lisa’s disappearance.

This is what we supposedly know: At 11:57pm a call was made from one of the stolen cell phones to a young woman, Megan Wright who lives about a mile away. Megan claims to have not been the recipient of that call. Megan states, however, that she did date the local handyman called Jersey, whose name has arisen several times during this investigation. Jersey is incarcerated on unrelated charges. According to police, Jersey is not a suspect. The person who received this call is known as Dane. According to reports, Dane is not a suspect in Baby Lisa’s disappearance. There were also two attempts to connect to voicemail and the internet, from that cell phone later that night. Neither Dane, nor Megan, nor Jersey knows Baby Lisa’s parents.

Do these calls exonerate the parents? No, they do not.

When this story first broke, Baby Lisa’s mom Deborah Bradley spoke of these three cell phones that had been stolen. There was something disingenuous about that statement. I could never put my finger on it, but it just seemed like information that Deborah wanted to put out there. The other obvious question was why they had three cell phones, and not one in the bedroom?

Would an abductor, while sneaking Baby Lisa out of the house, really stop to round up the three cell phones? While possible, it does not sound likely. All this happened while mom passed out from drinking plenty of wine. And weren’t those phones turned off for non-payment?

In the affidavit to support the search warrant of Baby Lisa’s home, the police mentioned the missing cell phones. In a previous blog, I noted that the mention of the phones in the affidavit was unusual. The purpose of the affidavit was to establish probable cause that evidence of the crime would be found in the house at that time. That the phones were still missing after the police had conducted an earlier search did not provide probable cause to search the house. But it did reflect that the police found something suspect about those phones at the outset of this matter.

There are many questions that need to be answered. But the lack of answers certainly does not prove anybody’s innocence. As I have always stated, we should not accuse and convict before all the evidence is in. Mom and dad need to sit down with the police with no pre-conditions, and get these questions answered. Until they do that, they will remain suspect by the police and convicted in the court of public opinion.