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

[In da Middle]

She hasn't been in for an interview since Oct. 8. And the interviews before that time were restricted.

Interviews before the 8th were NOT restricted.

 

[In da Middle]

Yes, it does exist as you said, "VERY VERY few cases of poor LE judgment." So add to that very low statistic (rogue investigators/LE) another one of very low probability; the tiny percentage of stranger abduction of infants from a home. The likelihood that both occurred in the same case is even harder to conjure up. The stats, alone, would be minuscule; wouldn't they?

But miniscule does not equal zero does it? Miniscule does happen.

 

[BritsKate]

Honestly I think the content of what DB has told the media accounts for a lot of frustration in this case. What foods did Lisa like? Was she teething? Could she walk yet? Did she roll onto her side when she slept? Did she have a favourite blanket or did she snuggle up against someone's chest when drifting off to sleep?

Will my knowing that help bring her home...probably not. But then my knowing DB was drinking to 'blackout' status doesn't either. An abductor hearing about Lisa though could potentially have an impact. The more Lisa is humanised to an abductor all the better - the more he/she is assured that baby girl was loved and wanted - but instead?

As for histrionics (I never mentioned HPD though) in DB's initial media interviews she appeared to cry harder at each question she really didn't want to face head on. Now, this could be for any number of reasons so I don't put a lot of weight into it alone but it did strike a chord with me personally as manipulative. To tack that theory down a bit more we have the idealistic initial account of that evening being 'Mommy and Me' time - gave her a bath, fed her, put fresh clothes, etc to not being able to recall if she'd checked on her a mere two weeks into this.

That implies a level of manipulation to me. If DB is out in front of the cameras every day only to manipulate her version of the truth she does Lisa no favours. JMHO

 

[Donjeta]

JMO but I don't think there would be as many unsolved cases if all the guilty people were extremely likely to confess.

 

[cowtowner]

Yes, it does exist as you said, "VERY VERY few cases of poor LE judgment." So add to that very low statistic (rogue investigators/LE) another one of very low probability; the tiny percentage of stranger abduction of infants from a home. The likelihood that both occurred in the same case is even harder to conjure up. The stats, alone, would be minuscule; wouldn't they?

I don't think I'm arguing that anything about this case falls inside or outside of the range of probabilities. My personal opinion is that very little of this case falls within the realm of statistical certainty. And I also am of the opinion that if all we needed were statistics to solve cases we wouldn't have detectives we'd have mathematicians.

But my point was not to engage in tit-for-tat over statistics. My point is that the reason these defense strategies exist is because LE (and not just "rougue LE" but entire teams of police, forensics experts, and attorneys) do, in fact, wrongly accuse and convict people. Particularly people who cannot afford a crack defense team.

Given that this is a fact, it's understandable why people retain counsel, and why that counsel often advises them not to trust even the most well-meaning LE.

Even in cases where civilians are involved in shooting an intruder, the shooters attorney advises them "do not talk to police without me."

Even in cases of shootings where LE is being investigated, the LE attorneys advise their clients not to talk to LE without an attorney.

If these cases were THAT far outside the realm of probability, it's hard to see why attorney's of all stripe are so consistent in advising against talking to LE without them being there.

 

[Karmaa]

I don't think the Smart's went into hiding and lawyered up and/or or refused to cooperate with police, either. Neither did Mark Lunsford or Adam Walsh or Mark Klaas a whole host of other innocent parents.

Well, the Ramsey's did all three of those things, and they were innocent. And, as far as I know, Lisa's family is not in hiding or refusing to cooperate. As far as getting a lawyer, I personally think they waited way to long to get one.

People are different and they act differently depending on a whole bunch of factors. You CAN'T judge one person based on what another would do. I can tell you now that if I was in their shoes and I was innocent, I would have had a lawyer since the first day. Period. And a whole lot of people that I know would do the same, as would a whole lot of people on this message board.

 

[Paige SC]

If there were never consented searches done in the bedroom, how did a dog hit on it prior to the search warrant? :waitasec:The dog hit on it to get the search warrant and all searches prior to the warrant were consented to.

I'm not so sure that was the reason given for the search warrant? I think there is some missing info here but I'm too lazy to go dig it up. Maybe SARX will see this thread and fill in the timeline on the warrant.

 

[MissJames]

I don't think the Smart's went into hiding and lawyered up and/or or refused to cooperate with police, either. Neither did Mark Lunsford or Adam Walsh or Mark Klaas a whole host of other innocent parents.

ITA
Kyron Hormon's mother,Desiree' ,is a good example of what a mother would do. She's still out there ,trying to find out what happened to her son.

Britanee,Drexel's mother and Natalee Holloway's mother,both out there every chance someone would listen.

Natalee's mother,Beth, was tireless,even though the Aruba LE possibly helped cover for JVS. She went to JVS's home and confronted his father,a respected official in the Aruban justice system. Beth gave multiple interviews every day for months .She tracked the down one of the suspects in Natalee's disappearance ,at his job and questioned him.

 

[Paige SC]

Well, the Ramsey's did all three of those things, and they were innocent. And, as far as I know, Lisa's family is not in hiding or refusing to cooperate. As far as getting a lawyer, I personally think they waited way to long to get one.

People are different and they act differently depending on a whole bunch of factors. You CAN'T judge one person based on what another would do. I can tell you now that if I was in their shoes and I was innocent, I would have had a lawyer since the first day. Period. And a whole lot of people that I know would do the same, as would a whole lot of people on this message board.

The Ramsey's being innocent is not a proven fact as clearly demonstrated by the WS thread dedicated to JonBenet. Skippy on over and read up if you haven't yet had the chance. And yes, LE has said parents have REFUSED to sit down and talk with them and have not done so since the week after their daughter went missing. There is a way to behave when you are innocent and there is a way to behave when guilty. It is my opinion that these parents are guilty based on their behavior and time will tell the story.

 

[MissJames]

Well, the Ramsey's did all three of those things, and they were innocent. And, as far as I know, Lisa's family is not in hiding or refusing to cooperate. As far as getting a lawyer, I personally think they waited way to long to get one.

People are different and they act differently depending on a whole bunch of factors. You CAN'T judge one person based on what another would do. I can tell you now that if I was in their shoes and I was innocent, I would have had a lawyer since the first day. Period. And a whole lot of people that I know would do the same, as would a whole lot of people on this message board.

First, Jon Benet was found . They were grieving ,no longer looking for her ,and
Second, I didn't realize LE cleared the Ramsey's .When did that happen?

 

[Karmaa]

JMO but I don't think there would be as many unsolved cases if all the guilty people were extremely likely to confess.

Most of the guilty people don't sit in the interrogation room for 11+ hours being interrogated. Most guilty people are going to say "LAWYER" pretty quick. If they stick it out for hour after hour, it's pretty likely that they will break.

 

[cowtowner]

I believe that analysis of the parents behavior is valid. Body language, whether they are or are not cooperating fully with LE and yes, even their media appearances asking and pleading (or not) for the safe return of their child are fair game. As are paid media exclusives, parading your other children before the camera, etc, etc. JMO

I do not know if DB has histrionic personalty disorder as I am not a psychiatrist. I do find her behavior puzzling regarding her defense of her "adult" "black out" time.

I can respect that they are valid suspects because they've changed their story, or were non-cooperative with LE. But the argument that how many times they go through the grim process of publicly groveling for the return of their daughter is indicative of any kind of possible guilt is obtuse.

This whole concept of media exclusivity = sign of guilt is simply rubbish. There are criminals who've given media exclusives. There are parent's who've never harmed their missing loved one who have given media exclusives. There are also people we are very comfortable calling "victims' families" and "innocent victims" who have given media exclusives.

 

[Paige SC]

Most of the guilty people don't sit in the interrogation room for 11+ hours being interrogated. Most guilty people are going to say "LAWYER" pretty quick. If they stick it out for hour after hour, it's pretty likely that they will break.

I disagree! Most guilty people think they are smarter than LE and take their sweet time before hiring counsel. Scott Peterson, etc. 11 hours isn't SQUAT in terms of time given to LE when it comes to interrogation. Especially when you have your spouse/baby daddy next to you the entire time.

 

[Karmaa]

The Ramsey's being innocent is not a proven fact as clearly demonstrated by the WS thread dedicated to JonBenet. Skippy on over and read up if you haven't yet had the chance. And yes, LE has said parents have REFUSED to sit down and talk with them and have not done so since the week after their daughter went missing. There is a way to behave when you are innocent and there is a way to behave when guilty. It is my opinion that these parents are guilty based on their behavior and time will tell the story.

Which did you mean then? Refusing to cooperate, or refusing to sit in an interview room at a police station? The family has been cooperating but won't agree to an unrestricted interview. They are two different things. Refusing to cooperate at all would raise my eyebrows, but refusing to be interrogated AGAIN? not so much.

It is a FACT that the Ramsey's were CLEARED, and apologized to by the Denver Prosecutors for the unfair treatment they received. People may want to argue about it, but they were officially cleared.

 

[cowtowner]

The Ramsey's being innocent is not a proven fact

Excuse me, but the Ramsey's do not have to be proven innocent. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negate is the basis for our criminal justice system.

One NEVER has to be "proven innocent" in America because one is assumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Karmaa]

First, Jon Benet was found . They were grieving ,no longer looking for her ,and
Second, I didn't realize LE cleared the Ramsey's .When did that happen?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2560854...-cleared-jonbenet-ramseys-death/#.TrmrX3LL93c

7/9/2008

DENVER — Prosecutors cleared JonBenet Ramsey's parents and brother Wednesday in the 1996 killing of the 6-year-old beauty queen, saying they were "deeply sorry" for putting the family under a cloud of suspicion for more than a decade.

New DNA tests, which focus on skin cells left behind from a mere touch, point to a mysterious outsider. They came too late to clear the name of JonBenet's mother, Patsy, who died of cancer in 2006.

"To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry," Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy wrote in a letter to the child's father, John Ramsey. "No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion."

 

[Paige SC]

Which did you mean then? Refusing to cooperate, or refusing to sit in an interview room at a police station? The family has been cooperating but won't agree to an unrestricted interview. They are two different things. Refusing to cooperate at all would raise my eyebrows, but refusing to be interrogated AGAIN? not so much.

It is a FACT that the Ramsey's were CLEARED, and apologized to by the Denver Prosecutors for the unfair treatment they received. People may want to argue about it, but they were officially cleared.

Cooperate means sitting down in an interview room with police. If they won't agree to an unrestricted interview they are NOT cooperating.

Please provide a link to the Ramsey's being officially cleared. It was only a few months back LE was asking Burke to consent to another interview. When did this happen? I hadn't heard they were officially cleared, let alone apologized to.

 

[shufly]

Well, the Ramsey's did all three of those things, and they were innocent. And, as far as I know, Lisa's family is not in hiding or refusing to cooperate. As far as getting a lawyer, I personally think they waited way to long to get one.

People are different and they act differently depending on a whole bunch of factors. You CAN'T judge one person based on what another would do. I can tell you now that if I was in their shoes and I was innocent, I would have had a lawyer since the first day. Period. And a whole lot of people that I know would do the same, as would a whole lot of people on this message board.

with all due respect i have to disagree with you on this. i work for attorneys and i cannot imagine even thinking i would need an attorney if somebody kidnapped my child other than to pull strings and get the cops moving. when my dog gets out, i spend hours going thru surrounding neighborhoods, putting up flyers, placing ads on craigslist, never leaving my phone in case somebody calls to say they have found him (happened twice. i'm not totally irresponsible) but my point is i think i would be at that police station every single day all day long if that's what it took to find my child. they could tear my house apart bit by bit and brick by brick if it would aid in finding my child. they could call me any name they wanted to, they could spit in my face if it would help find my child. i would stop at nothing and would more than willingly do anything the police asked me to do if it meant there was even 1/1000000th of a chance that it would lead to finding my child. the ramseys did lawyer up and stop cooperating and they were cleared. they were not found innocent, if i remember correctly, but they were cleared. how do we know that they weren't hiding something else? we don't know what went on in that house, the business, the financial situation, or anything else. there could be a number of things they were hiding that had nothing to do with JB yet they didn't want them to become publice and that's why they lawyered up and stop cooperating. and i do agree that people act differently in different situations but if my child ever went missing and i didn't do everything and anything within my power to find her 24/7, i would hope somebody would have the guts to shoot me in the head because i obviously don't deserve to be a parent to begin with. and if i have something else to hide that i don't want the cops to find out about so i lawyer up or stop cooperting, then whatever it is i'm hiding is obviously more important than the safe return of my child and, once again, i don't deserve to be a parent.

 

[Donjeta]

Excuse me, but the Ramsey's do not have to be proven innocent. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negate is the basis for our criminal justice system.

One NEVER has to be "proven innocent" in America because one is assumed innocent until proven guilty.

While true, IMO this is irrelevant to the topic of the conversation because IMO the point was whether the Ramseys were FACTUALLY innocent and not whether they should be PRESUMED innocent in the criminal justice system before they have been convicted of anything.

 

[cowtowner]

While true, IMO this is irrelevant to the topic of the conversation because IMO the point was whether the Ramseys were FACTUALLY innocent and not whether they should be PRESUMED innocent in the criminal justice system before they have been convicted of anything.

The Ramsey's were "FACTUALLY innocent." Beyond (1) never being brought to trial and (2) being cleared -- what more do we need?