‘Mother hen’ to media villain: The life of Debbie Bradley - Kansas City Star 11/5/11

[Wendy101]

What deal?

National media.

 

[Sparklin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeAnn
This is from an attorney who at least observed the Oct. 8 interview. Not sure about the Oct. 4-6 interviews.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20...ay-police.html

BBM

Thanks, had missed that one..

from that article:

Also from that article: Young acknowledged that the parents have been helpful.

“They’ve done other things, but when I say we’re not getting full cooperation, I’m saying we’re not getting what we need,” Young said.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html#ixzz1cy3EHsXs

So what I am getting is that they are cooperating, they just won't be subjected to individual interviews where the LE can lie to them again...hmmm

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Nobody can come on here and state something as fact and not back it up.

 

[cowtowner]

Know wonder reporters can't get it straight, can't blame them. The parents have changed their story how many times??

Also alot of people are blaming media - WHO called them and made a deal with them on what? Day 2 or 3 of Lisa missing??

What proof do you have that any "deal" has ever been made? And what proof do you have that it wasn't the medial who called them asking to talk to them?

And exactly how is it probative that a parent talks to any media outlet about the case of their missing daughter?


What evidence is there that parents in their situation who grant media interviews are more or less likely to be guilty? The research I've seen shows there's simply no commonality. Some innocent parent's have given interviews, and some guilty ones have not and vice versa.

Look, I understand and respect suspicion directed at the parents - statistics bear out they should be considered in this case. Nonetheless, there's simply no need to go looking at things like the fact that they did media interviews, paid or unpaid, exclusive or not, to infer that their "guilt" is more or less likely.

If we start saying that the fact that parent's of abducted children are more likely to be guilty simply because they granted media exclusives (paid or unpaid) then we're simply feeding into the reasons that people think the next set of parent's shouldn't give an interview to a big TV network.

Instead, wouldn't it be better to encourage parent's of missing children to do all the national media interviews they can? Paid or unpaid, exclusive or not?

There's also the VERY REAL FACT that parent's of missing children tend to not work because their child is missing. This means that often times, they tend not to get paid. I can tell you for a fact that KCPL, Missouri Gas Energy, etc. do not care if your daughter is missing when you don't pay your bill for a month. If the media outlets are paying for your interview, why would we want to discourage parent's of missing - who have no other income - from taking that income so they can pay their bills and feed their other kids?

Sorry, I don't want any part of an argument that says "you talked to a media outlet and got paid so you're guilty!"

 

[yllek]

I've read this thread and haven't perceived anyone indicating that the writer for the Kansas City Star shouldn't have written the article, or that it shouldn't have been published, or that the family shouldn't have provided the background information, or that there is anything wrong with the journalist or the paper. I don't see where there accusation is coming from, but we all read things differently I guess.

What would be wrong with a journalist writing a piece for the family? What if the family approached the journalist and said "we want to get the truth out there" and the journalist agreed that it was an interesting story with a market and should be told, thus using his/her high journalistic standards to do so. I think it's insulting to a journalist for anyone to imply that there's something wrong with the journalist's integrity if that were the case. Journalists are approached by folks with a story to tell all of the time. They don't always get stories by hounding unwitting parties for quotes and camping outside peoples' homes sniffing for photo ops; sometimes the story comes to them. Nothing wrong with that. But, thats only my opinion and I don't think others are wrong if they have a different one.

It may have happened that way, it may happened the other way around (where the journalist wanted to do the story and the family was eager for the opportunity to be interviewed). We can't really tell by the quote below and I don't see why it matters and why anyone would be upset one way or the other.

If some feel that the family's motives were to shed a certain light on Debbi, so what? Of course that's true, her father and mother-in-law want to show Debbi in the light that they see her in, because they feel she's been portrayed thus far in an inaccurate light and is being wrongly viewed by people who don't know Debbi. Not a damn thing wrong with that. So, they provided some personal background about her and it was an interesting read. Aknowledging some of the family's understandable motive for wanting to participate in this release (and assuming that her father would have been respectful enough to confer with his daughter and her support team before revealing such personal details) is in no way insulting to the family, imo. JMO...

“Most of my family says, ‘Trust nobody.’ But it’s making things get even worse, I think,” Netz says. So he and a couple other members of the extended family are speaking out, helping The Kansas City Star pull together some of the threads of Deborah Lee Netz Bradley’s life of 25 years.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/0...lain.html#.TrYDcX3KlkE.facebook#ixzz1cxz3VszA

I think there is a lot of undue fault-finding by a few aimed at other posters for simply giving their opinions about an article. JMO...

 

[belleyes]

How can you sleuth it in Missouri? Those records are closed in Missouri unless charges are filed or the case workers' actions become part of civil litigation.

Thank You
Jumping off your post: CPS has very strict confidentiality rules.Even inquiring directly will get you a "I cannot confirm or deny involvement with our agency"--I think this is national b/c it is juvenile proceedings (which are closed)

ex: My childs bio-mom contacted CPS(who we adopted through) asking questions about a name change we had made...she knew all info on this child and even called directly to the case-worker (who had worked with all of us when the children were still possibly returning home,) and she got "we can not confirm...." you get my point.

We will never know CPS involvement with this family unless we see them remove the children. For all we know they could have an open case with the family right now.(not saying they do just making a point)

 

[neese]

If you read the search warrant a box is checked. That box that KCPD wanted to search for? "Deceased fetus or corpse."


Read into that what you want. But helps explain why they asked the judge for a search warrant of the home and that's part of the reason X-Ray equipment was brought in and the backyard was dug up. They didn't just check the X by property. They checked the box by deceased fetus or corpse.

Shut the Front Door, WHAT??? Deceased fetus???? I must of missed that one. Will step away to other thread and see what it says. Thank you.

 

[uvamerica]

I meant no offense and can only speak to what I know from personal experience. I don't know anything about this young man or housing/rental costs in your area. If PN is paying rent, I would assume he is employed. I don't know how much rent would be, but most 20-year-olds that I know can't afford to rent a house. Depending on their individual circumstances, most are attending college part-time while living at home, working part-time while going to school, are full-time college students whose parents have the means to provide a college education, or they're working some type of low-paying job. Renting even a very small home anywhere in this area would be prohibitive for a 20-year-old. jmo

I have 2 sons , 23 and 26 yrs, just getting their own insurance w/o being under mine was difficult, both have worked hard since their teens. But many road blocks are put up b/c of their age. Getting credit and meeting the requirements to own or rent a house is definitely not easy at that age. Not to mention all the cost that go with it.

 

[Melanie]

Forgive me for not reading the responses to the link -- the article just made me very very sad. I see a woman who lost her mother and lost her way so to speak. IMHO I didn't read anything that would indicate that DB would ever kill her baby - I just didn't. If I look at it from my point of view, and also losing many family members, how does one go about killing their child? My son is the most wonderful person in my life and I treasure and protect him with all my might. I just can't see a mother who suffers loss like she did going and killing her child -- the one she named after her mother.

I do agree that she made bad decisions, just like myself. She may have brought people into her life that would think nothing of taking her child for nefarious reasons.

I'm sorry - I just can't see throught DB doing something to her beautiful child. There are no indications that she has or would do such a thing.

I'm still in great belief that there is someone outside the family that took Baby Lisa, and I pray that we'll find out soon eough.

this is just my opinion - thank you.

Mel

 

[mamamia54]

About the "white trash" comments. I used to advocate for victims of domestic violence and rape, and during the course of a case I would often deal with LE. I'll preface my comments by saying more times than often the police officers and detectives were hard-working, stand-up people. However, I've also heard LEOs use the above-mentioned term and much worse in regards to my clients, while referring to the alleged abuser/rapist in glowing terms. Folks, it does happen. It's sad when it does, because it means fewer victims coming forward and cooperating with LE.

eta: I'm not disputing whether or not LE used that term in this situation. Until it's shown for a fact they did or didn't, it's not for me to form a judgment or make an inference.

I have a question. Is it normally the case that LE will tape these vetting sessions such as Debbie went through? If so, then I would think they would have alot to answer to if the tapes ever got leaked and the public was shown proof that they not only called Debbie "white trash", but also told her that her baby was dead. Imagine, if she is actually innocent.

 

[Wendy101]

What proof do you have that any "deal" has ever been made? And what proof do you have that it wasn't the medial who called them asking to talk to them?

And exactly how is it probative that a parent talks to any media outlet about the case of their missing daughter?


What evidence is there that parents in their situation who grant media interviews are more or less likely to be guilty? The research I've seen shows there's simply no commonality. Some innocent parent's have given interviews, and some guilty ones have not and vice versa.

Look, I understand and respect suspicion directed at the parents - statistics bear out they should be considered in this case. Nonetheless, there's simply no need to go looking at things like the fact that they did media interviews, paid or unpaid, exclusive or not, to infer that their "guilt" is more or less likely.

If we start saying that the fact that parent's of abducted children are more likely to be guilty simply because they granted media exclusives (paid or unpaid) then we're simply feeding into the reasons that people think the next set of parent's shouldn't give an interview to a big TV network.

Instead, wouldn't it be better to encourage parent's of missing children to do all the national media interviews they can? Paid or unpaid, exclusive or not?

There's also the VERY REAL FACT that parent's of missing children tend to not work because their child is missing. This means that often times, they tend not to get paid. I can tell you for a fact that KCPL, Missouri Gas Energy, etc. do not care if your daughter is missing when you don't pay your bill for a month. If the media outlets are paying for your interview, why would we want to discourage parent's of missing - who have no other income - from taking that income so they can pay their bills and feed their other kids?

Sorry, I don't want any part of an argument that says "you talked to a media outlet and got paid so you're guilty!"

BBM: here is one for starters... I haven't enough time righ tnow to search for more...
http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-lisa-irw...1703.story


At a press conference on Thursday evening, KCPD spokesperson Capt. Steve Young says that parents Jeremy Irwin and Debbie Bradley are no longer cooperating with the investigation into their daughter's alleged kidnapping. Capt. Yound did not elaborate, and it remains unclear as to the reason why, or what this means for the direction of the police investigation.

On Thursday night, FOX 4 attempted to contact the family at their Northland home, where an unidentified woman claimed that the family had "a deal" with a national news network and refused to talk to the media

 

[matou]

<modsnip> Lets just all say we're on Lisa's side OK. I happen to be a parent who spend tons of time on the internet, no gaming, and still manage to get a ton of other stuff done in my day and work full time too. My priority is my child.

I did notice something from the article that made me think:

&#8220;She was absolutely beautiful, and she was always cooing and laughing and chewing on her hand. I used to tease Debbie and say, &#8216;That kid is just hungry. Give her a pork chop, will ya?&#8217;&#8194;&#8221;

Lisa was likely teething, the hand in the mouth is classic teething behavior. What if Lisa put something in her mouth and she choked? Still wouldn't explain any cover up behavior afterwards, though.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/0...lain.html#.TrYDcX3KlkE.facebook#ixzz1cy8g1eJD

 

[neese]

Nevermind... found it.

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-10/65573109-21124623.pdf

Ewe. I would think they would list a deceased fetus in it's own check off list (tick), and then human corpse in another tick. I guess that means that a HRD dog is used specifically for corpse and dead fetus only. Ok, that still doesn't make sense. Dead fetus?? Really??? That just seems to be a weird thing on a search warrant. If someone has a miscarriage in the middle of the floor, is that a crime? Maybe it's just the wording. Maybe it's just that I'm messed up from changing the clocks back. As if we didn't already have enough time line issues with this case. Now I have a time line issue with my Dalmatian and his internal clock telling him it's time to eat, with me telling him, no it's not time yet dude. UGH. But anyway, ok, if a dead fetus is something a search warrant is supposed to have on it, then I guess it is what it is. I wouldn't think they find those very often. :waitasec:

 

[BritsKate]

Instead, wouldn't it be better to encourage parent's of missing children to do all the national media interviews they can? Paid or unpaid, exclusive or not?

RSBM

I don't believe there should be any media exclusion in missing persons cases. If national media are going to pay for exclusives and interviews in these cases though I would actually like to see the funds go to an established MP organisation like NCMEC. That money could be used for printing costs, mailings, commercials, billboards, direct appeals and so much more. Further, it would help the hundreds of missing that never even get mentioned on a national level.

As you stated so eloquently in your post all too often there is parental involvement in these types of cases and in the initial, hectic days of the reported missing information being released there is sometimes no way of law enforcement ascertaining whether a parent could be involved.

I understand your point about bills still needing to be paid but there are several other ways of raising donations and support for families going through such a difficult period without the media footing the bill. Their money, I believe, could go to a greater national cause without unnecessarily supporting those whom are guilty of murder.

JMHO

 

[highflyer]

The article says that Hazel was promised that if she signed an exclusive agreement with one show she wouldn't be bothered by other media. Perhaps to shelter themselves from media onslaught Deborah and Jeremy made the same deal.

 

[mck16]

Ewe. I would think they would list a deceased fetus in it's own check off list (tick), and then human corpse in another tick. I guess that means that a HRD dog is used specifically for corpse and dead fetus only. Ok, that still doesn't make sense. Dead fetus?? Really??? That just seems to be a weird thing on a search warrant. If someone has a miscarriage in the middle of the floor, is that a crime? Maybe it's just the wording. Maybe it's just that I'm messed up from changing the clocks back. As if we didn't already have enough time line issues with this case. Now I have a time line issue with my Dalmatian and his internal clock telling him it's time to eat, with me telling him, no it's not time yet dude. UGH. But anyway, ok, if a dead fetus is something a search warrant is supposed to have on it, then I guess it is what it is. I wouldn't think they find those very often. :waitasec:

My two dogs just did the same thing. lol

 

[neese]

I'm wary about this article-taking it a face value if you will-but i can see why le may have referred to DB as w trash, Sitting on the stoop, drinking wine while having a ciggy and talking with neighbors isn't a good picture to paint. Heck it's against the law here to drink in your front yard.

Well, I'd be in a state prison I reckon.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash"]White trash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

FWIW: White trash is an American English pejorative term referring to poor white people in the United States, suggesting lower social class and degraded living standards. The term suggests outcasts from respectable society living on the fringes of the social order who are seen as dangerous because they may be criminal, unpredictable, and without respect for authority whether it be political, legal, or moral.[1] The term is usually a slur, but may also be used self-referentially by whites to jokingly describe their origins.

 

[Wendy101]

Well, I for one would certainly have my local media involved as my top media outlet. Yes, National is awesome too.. but chances these children will be found in their own area...IMO ...

 

[mentalsolstice]

Dang, we tap a keg in our front yard. People roll in with their homemade trailers for sleeping over and we party down!! We call them campout/passouts. If you don't pass out, you're camping out.

I know this is OT, but it does give a perspective of different local customs and what is accepted behavior. Our neighborhood is on the Nat'l Historic Register. Thus we have large lots with old growth trees. Being in the deep south we're smack dab in SEC college football land. One of our neighbors has a TV projector and a large screen he can move around on a truck. On Sat. nights, one of us will host a football party, in our front yards or driveways. Surrounding neighbors will load up their wheeled cooler with wine and beer and chairs, and drag them up or down the hill. Even if you aren't a football fan, who can't resist getting together with neighbors under the stars. As far as we know, we're on board to host the Alabama-Auburn game. There will be the projector/screen in the front yard, and our big screen TV for those who want to watch inside, and the fenced backyard for the kiddies to play in. Y'all are welcome to stop by!

 

[NancyA]

I'm wary about this article-taking it a face value if you will-but i can see why le may have referred to DB as w trash, Sitting on the stoop, drinking wine while having a ciggy and talking with neighbors isn't a good picture to paint. Heck it's against the law here to drink in your front yard.

BBM. This sounded so out there to me I just had to google it and lo and behold it is illegal here in CA too!! Who knew? My husband, a lifelong CA resident, certainly didn’t. Seems front lawns, driveways and front porches are considered ‘public’ places and therefore the open container and public intoxication laws apply. I’m officially so gobsmacked I’m gonna need a stiff cap’n ‘n’ coke after dinner.…um I’ll have it on the back porch of course and make sure my dinner guests stay there with their drinks too. :innocent: