Deborah Bradley's Estranged Husband Speaks - Where Is Baby Lisa?

[anothersheart71]

Of course they are persons on interest in this case. They are the parents of the missing child and the owners of the home from which she went missing.

Sean Bradley, on the other hand, is a peripheral person who has nothing what-so-ever to do with the disappearance of this child, and therefore, imho, not fair game for trashing.

We're barely even allowed to discuss DB's brother, but somehow SB is just up for grabs?!

I have a problem with that.

MOO, JMO, IMO, and so on and so forth.

Do you have a link from the MSM where LE says that the parents are POI? I thought I had read everything possible on this case since day one being that it is taking place just miles from where I live. I would be interested in reading any links you may have. Here is a link from today's statement from LE where they state they have no suspects, maybe I am missing something here.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29581152/detail.html

I also heard it on NG's guest host tonight on HLH state that "there are no suspects and no persons of interest in this case"....not sure how long until the transcript is up.

MOO

 

[MamaK]

Of course they are persons on interest in this case. They are the parents of the missing child and the owners of the home from which she went missing.Sean Bradley, on the other hand, is a peripheral person who has nothing what-so-ever to do with the disappearance of this child, and therefore, imho, not fair game for trashing.

We're barely even allowed to discuss DB's brother, but somehow SB is just up for grabs?!

I have a problem with that.

MOO, JMO, IMO, and so on and so forth.

So, you mean "persons of interest" in regards to some predefined notion on websleuths, because they haven't been named as "persons of interest" by LE? I know we can discuss direct family members, such as the parents, as they come up. I believe it's supposed to be civil though. I guess I'm just trying to understand exactly where the line is drawn. I totally agree that SB should be off limits but I've seen quite a bit of negative/derogatory comments directed towards the parents.

I'm not trying to be snarky or rude... Maybe a mod can help explain it to me because I'm starting to get really confused. I just read the etiquette and it said we're supposed to be victim-friendly. We can discuss the behavior of family members as it relates to the case but if it's not constructive and it's just complete bashing, doesn't that cross the line. I've seen it throughout this forum. I'm new to WS though so I thought it was OK.

(OT: but I gave my little example earlier just because I didn't want people thinking that the US Army just sends soldiers overseas for 2 years without a way to contact their family. I especially didn't want our international posters to have that impression.)

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Do you have a link from the MSM where LE says that the parents are POI? I thought I had read everything possible on this case since day one being that it is taking place just miles from where I live. I would be interested in reading any links you may have. Here is a link from today's statement from LE where they state they have no suspects, maybe I am missing something here.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29581152/detail.html

I also heard it on NG's guest host tonight on HLH state that "there are no suspects and no persons of interest in this case"....not sure how long until the transcript is up.

MOO

BBM

It doesn't require a msm link.

"person of interest" has no legal definition, but generally refers to someone law enforcement authorities would like to speak with or investigate further in connection with a crime

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/person-of-interest/

 

[darnudes]

Do you have a link from the MSM where LE says that the parents are POI? I thought I had read everything possible on this case since day one being that it is taking place just miles from where I live. I would be interested in reading any links you may have. Here is a link from today's statement from LE where they state they have no suspects, maybe I am missing something here.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29581152/detail.html

I also heard it on NG's guest host tonight on HLH state that "there are no suspects and no persons of interest in this case"....not sure how long until the transcript is up.

MOO

"Person of Interest" is the politically correct way of saying suspect.

Ask anyone in LE - "Who are the suspects in a missing child case?"

Answer:

Parents
Custodial Guardians
People last seen with the child

All are considered suspect/suspects until it can be proven otherwise by investigation.

Due to the litigious nature in the US most LE offices had to change their terminology from suspects to persons of interest but it is just semantics.

Of course the parents are suspects and until the parents are able to give LE clear and consistent answers then they are the main suspects whether LE come out publicly and state this or not.

 

[ynotdivein]

AFAIK SB is neither a POI nor a suspect in this case. Therefore the only appropriate topic of discussion here is his statement in the link from the first post on this thread.

 

[Mojen]

oh pfffftttt...they can't afford a divorce. I divorced my ex and we did it all by ourselves with about 300 bucks. You're telling me that in 2 years the two of them couldn't scrape together enough funds for paperwork and a filing fee?

And he hasn't spoken to DB or his son (for goodness sake) for 2 years. How does he know she's a good mom? I wonder if he's even paying to support his son? It would be a good reason to give her a glowing review if he isn't.

I'm calling bull=chit.

MOO

Mel

They have a child so they can't represent themselves pro se. At least one would have to hire an attorney. We would charge a minimum of $1,200 retainer, and that is only if it is a non contested dissolution.

 

[Debthree]

So, you mean "persons of interest" in regards to some predefined notion on websleuths, because they haven't been named as "persons of interest" by LE? I know we can discuss direct family members, such as the parents, as they come up. I believe it's supposed to be civil though. I guess I'm just trying to understand exactly where the line is drawn. I totally agree that SB should be off limits but I've seen quite a bit of negative/derogatory comments directed towards the parents.

I'm not trying to be snarky or rude... Maybe a mod can help explain it to me because I'm starting to get really confused. I just read the etiquette and it said we're supposed to be victim-friendly. We can discuss the behavior of family members as it relates to the case but if it's not constructive and it's just complete bashing, doesn't that cross the line. I've seen it throughout this forum. I'm new to WS though so I thought it was OK.

(OT: but I gave my little example earlier just because I didn't want people thinking that the US Army just sends soldiers overseas for 2 years without a way to contact their family. I especially didn't want our international posters to have that impression.)

Great post! I'm confused too and really disappointed. I have been a lurker here for a long time but just started posting recently and I'm really shocked at some of the comments made about the parents - things that have nothing to do with Lisa's disappearance.

 

[lag28wa]

...or maybe he wants that extra $250/month in family separation pay. I bet his chain of command is not going to be happy about this and tell him he needs to get it taken care of ASAP. KWIM? MOO

OK, back to try and catch up...

I'm kind of jumping a few pages here, but I thought I read somewhere that they have filed for legal separation and that would void the FSP for him. And even if they had started the filing process for divorce (the proceedings of which would be held until he returned) that would also void the FSP.

 

[TheDuchess]

There's one big reason: $$$$

If he goes for the divorce, he has to pay child support (while getting a decrease in benefits).

While they are still married, he gets sufficient housing, rations (food), separation pay, to split with the ex.

Does DB get any benefits of still being married to him?

 

[darnudes]

AFAIK SB is neither a POI nor a suspect in this case. Therefore the only appropriate topic of discussion here is his statement in the link from the first post on this thread.

sorry ynot, my fault for going off topic

 

[EllaMae]

It's been 2 years. If there was a property settlement, or alimony/child support to sort out, I would hope DB would have taken care of it by now. If there's money to be had, custody issues to determine, I personally wouldn't wait 2 years or longer to bring it to resolution. Good night - the husband could just swing in and take the child since they are both in fact still married to each other.

In the back of my mind I think it may just be a paperwork thing that neither one of them can't be bothered to sort out.

I could be wrong, but that's how I'm taking it. Just my opinion, in my opinion only, etc., etc., etc.

Mel

I would NEVER get a divorce without a lawyer if a child was involved. And for some young people who are struggling financially, $200-300 is a lot of money.
He has no reason to lie about why they aren't divorced.

 

[lag28wa]

I thought I read they were high school sweethearts and got married when he joined the military and she wasn't even pregnant out of wedlock....

I had assumed this might be the case as this is a VERY common scenario in the military that- like in this case- doesn't always work out. So her getting married very young isn't at all startling to me.

And also:
:seeya: I am a native Washingtonian myself, though currently living in NC.

 

[EllaMae]

They have a child so they can't represent themselves pro se. At least one would have to hire an attorney. We would charge a minimum of $1,200 retainer, and that is only if it is a non contested dissolution.

Thank you. That's very good information. I think that's a significant amount of money for this couple.

 

[anothersheart71]

"Person of Interest" is the politically correct way of saying suspect.

Ask anyone in LE - "Who are the suspects in a missing child case?"

Answer:

Parents
Custodial Guardians
People last seen with the child

All are considered suspect/suspects until it can be proven otherwise by investigation.

Due to the litigious nature in the US most LE offices had to change their terminology from suspects to persons of interest but it is just semantics.

Of course the parents are suspects and until the parents are able to give LE clear and consistent answers then they are the main suspects whether LE come out publicly and state this or not.

Even if LE is coming out and saying "we have no suspects"? I understand the PC term of POI but I do not understand WS definition as they are both listed. I guess maybe I am like a few others needing clarification on the TOS regarding who is a POI and who is not. If we can't back it up with a MSM link stating they are a POI then can't we say anyone we want is a POI? The reason I ask is that I think "Jersey" is still a POI and even a possible suspect now based on what was on NG tonight but not sure if we can do any sleuthing yet until LE states it as fact. (I hope that made sense, I think I may have just confused myself a little...lol!)

Thank you for your help in trying to get me on the same page (heck, just in the same book would be great!)

 

[~n/t~]

Even if LE is coming out and saying "we have no suspects"? I understand the PC term of POI but I do not understand WS definition as they are both listed. I guess maybe I am like a few others needing clarification on the TOS regarding who is a POI and who is not. If we can't back it up with a MSM link stating they are a POI then can't we say anyone we want is a POI? The reason I ask is that I think "Jersey" is still a POI and even a possible suspect now based on what was on NG tonight but not sure if we can do any sleuthing yet until LE states it as fact. (I hope that made sense, I think I may have just confused myself a little...lol!)

Thank you for your help in trying to get me on the same page (heck, just in the same book would be great!)

Police also announced that a handyman known as "Jersey" is not a suspect in Irwin's disappearance.

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-lis...ated-federal-warrant-20111015,0,6040126.story


LE has not named anyone as a POI nor a suspect.

 

[MsDetective]

If SB had said anything even remotely negative about DB, you know the network would have been falling all over themselves to get it on the air.

Apparently he didn't. That all they got was that he thinks she was a good mother says a lot in DBs favor, IMO.

Yes and I hope if he does he doesn't make it public out of respect for his son.

 

[panthera]

As a 'brat', I can attest to the fact that military is NOT paid well and I understand the financial issue delaying a divorce. SB has been deployed and if he has boots on the ground in the Middle East, a divorce stateside is the last of his worries. 'Duck and cover' more so.

Also, I think we should be grateful to SB for his service to this country.

Amen to that last statement!

His service in the military and consideration for the care of his son while he is deployed could also be a reason they haven't divorced. Also, when custody issues are involved, it's wise not to seek a divorce without legal counsel. Until now, he may not have thought a formal divorce was that important, and believed his son was being well cared for. He may be changing his mind now, however.

MOO

 

[belleyes]

Maybe this was already asked and answered but, IF DB and SB were to divorce would SB have to pay child support for Baby Lisa, since he is the "legal" father? My head it spinning from this thread so I am sorry if it was already discussed. I know he could request paternity testing but if he didnt would he be responsible? IF baby Lisa were to return could he fight for custody? I am in no way sleuthing him in a negative way.

*Just dreaming of a military hero jumping in and saving the day*


(I ask this b/c I know of a situation where the wife went to another state got pregnant by bf and abused the baby. Baby was taken away and when CPS found out she was married the "legal" father was tracked down and was able to obtain custody over the "putitive" father as long as he(legal daddy) didnt request paterity.{which he didnt, b/c he didnt want the child in the system} It was quite shocking for this guy, as he was unaware of the wife's whereabouts or her pregnancy, but he raised the child issues and all)
This is all just my opinion and should not be mistaken as any kind of accusation against ANYONE

 

[secretagent]

While I am not sleuthing SB here (honey currently in Afghanistan as I type) I do have one question pertaining to this marriage.
Since DB and SB are still legally married, under the law, can Lisa be the legal child of SB?

When I was getting my divorce, I had to attest to the fact that I was not pregnant. If I had been, the divorce would have been delayed UNTIL paternity of said child was established.

 

[KittyTwist]

While I am not sleuthing SB here (honey currently in Afghanistan as I type) I do have one question pertaining to this marriage.
Since DB and SB are still legally married, under the law, can Lisa be the legal child of SB?

I guess it would depend on the laws in that state. In Texas, if the mother is still married and has a child by another man, her husband that she is married to is automatically the LEGAL father until an acknowledgement of paternity has been filed. If this were the law in DB's state, then JI and SB would have to sign paperwork stating that JI was the father. Only then would Lisa be legally JI's baby. This is just if that is the specific law in their state though. MOO

ETA: I didn't realize this question had been answered as well, sorry about that. Also, I apologize for being off topic. Won't happen again.