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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
it feels to me that this article is an attempt to give DB sympathy incase she is arrested and then the cry will be that she shouldn't be held accountable because of a, b, or c.

until LE talks I will not assume that DB is being honest or dishonest, she's merely trying to paint a picture of herself and using family to do it so she can appear to be this sad pitiful pperson who should be pitied not held accountable if she did something. But the only real facts remain: Lisa is missing, the stories told make no sense, and children do not just disappear like Lisa did.

Nah, her family is just trying to humanize her. Remember, they love her and believe in her. Even her "ex" family. You would do the same for your daughter if you believed her. Or I would anyway.
 
Question about LDT--if LE are allowed to say whatever they want during interrogation, couldn't the just lie to DB about her failing polygraph questions?

Absolutely.

imo
 
Question about LDT--if LE are allowed to say whatever they want during interrogation, couldn't the just lie to DB about her failing polygraph questions?

yes. And LE has been known to say someone "Failed."
 
You know I use to think that, but after following some cases......you don't have to be smart. You really, really don't. All you have to do is stick to the same lame story over and over. Unless someone saw you committing the crime, odds are you are gonna walk. That sucks but it's so true for the majority of theses cases.

Yup, either that or hire an attorney to stop you from spouting said same lame story and incriminating yourself. MOO of course.
 
it feels to me that this article is an attempt to give DB sympathy incase she is arrested and then the cry will be that she shouldn't be held accountable because of a, b, or c.

until LE talks I will not assume that DB is being honest or dishonest, she's merely trying to paint a picture of herself and using family to do it so she can appear to be this sad pitiful pperson who should be pitied not held accountable if she did something. But the only real facts remain: Lisa is missing, the stories told make no sense, and children do not just disappear like Lisa did.

What reason would the KC Star have for being biased and un-objective in this case?
 
Forgive me if it has already been pointed out, but this article also answers the question of where PN lives. Which explains why he was at that house when detectives came to interview him.

So, the house on Walrond is not JI's parents home, it's PN's. Glad that's finally clarified.
 
Amy may have said that but Casey is not, in the least, stupid.



I get what you're saying....and, honestly, for all we know the police are thiscose to arresting DB. I just find it interesting that it's gone on this long with no arrest. It's simply my opinion that DB is either not responsible for Lisa's disappearance or she had some major help.

And for your statement about all you have to do is stick to the same lame story over and over. Hasn't DB been chastised here over and over and over and over again for changing her story too much? :crazy:

This case is beyond frustrating.

BBM. You got that right, I also find myself nodding yes to your other points.

I agree with Cityslick that it is refreshing to get an article painting a more positive human picture of DB, which is a mixed blessing in a way since it serves to keep me on the fence and I'm longing for a break either way to shove me off it. The thing is the more I look at many of the points people refer to as indicative of her 'guilt' the more I see them as easily explainable and thus equally indicative of her innocence.

The failed lie detector – she is the distraught mother of a missing child, a combination of anxiety meds, alcohol, mixed emotions of terror for her missing child and guilt because she was drunk while her child was taken and let’s not forget SHOCK, all or any of these combined could cause her to fail.

The changing statements – all or a combination of the same factors that could have caused her to fail a LDT could also explain gaps in her initial accounts that were later filled in as her memory of events improved.

The defiant attitude when challenged about ‘drinking on the job’ – I’m expecting contrition and self-flagellation which is a normal response to a feeling of guilt in that our irresponsible actions may have contributed to a terrible incident BUT it is not the only normal response. It is also normal, not commendable maybe but certainly human, to feel defensive when accused and to lash out in an effort to sublimate or deflect our feelings of guilt especially when we also know someone else is much MORE at fault, in this case the abductor of baby Lisa.

Puts Lisa down at 6.30 doesn’t check on her again, isn’t concerned about boys bedtime or getting up and ready for school – she was DRUNK. Why am I expecting normal or routine behavior from a drunk? What kind of mother does that? A drunk mother. It doesn’t make her MOTY, it doesn’t excuse her but it does explain WHY she didn’t check on Lisa and WHY she may have allowed the boys to stay up later than usual.


Wasn’t worried about JI being later than expected, went to bed at the time he was expected home invited the two boys to join her despite the fact JI would be getting in the bed too
– again she was DRUNK not rationalizing or logical and if she really had been drinking that much was probably at the stage she just wanted to fall into bed and ‘black out’.
 
yes. And LE has been known to say someone "Failed."

According to MK, LE also told her that DB failed the poly, and failed miserably. I doubt LE would have put that out there to a reporter, knowing full well the reporter was going to report that, if it wasn't true.

We still have laws against slander and defamation of character, don't we?
 
Because when you get pulled over, after looking at your license, one of the first things the officer asks is "is this still your address?" so they can confirm where to send the fine information.

I lived in my current house for two years before I changed the address on my license. I didn't bother until it was up for renewal, why spend the extra money?

Off topic, but I actually got a ticket once for not having the correct address on my license. I got pulled over and when the officer asked me if it was my current address, and I said no, he gave me a ticket which cost me $25. Apparently you only have like 30 days or something to update that info. Bad me.
 
bold by me

Did you all feel the chill on that one? :floorlaugh:

It feels like the whole world is judging his daughter without knowing anything about her, he says. He’s pained by Web postings that range from vitriol to know-it-all opinions by armchair sleuths.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/05/3250061/from-mother-hen-to-media-villain.html#ixzz1cwLfPWGi


I'd venture that he's been here. It comes up in google searches pretty routinely.
 
Well, I think Debbi is responsible for this article as it was created by her family members,

False. The article was created by the professional journalist who wrote it and the editors who authorized it to run.

The KC Star is a respected newspaper, one of the more well-respected newspapers in the country in terms of editorial and journalistic standards.

who would have authorized it with Debbi and her team. I'm not saying that's good or bad, and nobody said Debbi is to "blame" for the article, but certainly Debbi is involved in this attempt to portray her in a certain light.

What evidence do we have the DB or her team "authorized" anything? There is no quotes from DB, her "team" or anyone other than family.

What evidence is there that the paper went through the legal team at all for this article? The attorneys don't represent anyone but JI and DB.


There's absolutely nothing to state that the Star went through DB or her atty to "authorize" anything. I know editors at the Star, I've been interviewed by them for features before. They do not get "authorization" from the subject of an article before they print it.
 
Bottom line is that as of today November 6, 2011, there is no confirmed evidence linking these parents to the disappearance of their child.

They are not suspects. They haven't been arrested nor charged. So, imo they should be treated as victims of a child kidnapping.

If they have a lawyer, it's for a good reason. I would not have LE accuse me of killing my baby if I was innocent. I'd be just as hard *advertiser censored**ed as DB and JI. You want more, charge me.

But they want to interview the kids and this is not happening. Why? It's not about her or her innocence. It's about LISA.
 
Question about LDT--if LE are allowed to say whatever they want during interrogation, couldn't the just lie to DB about her failing polygraph questions?

They may have.
 
According to MK, LE also told her that DB failed the poly, and failed miserably. I doubt LE would have put that out there to a reporter, knowing full well the reporter was going to report that, if it wasn't true.

We still have laws against slander and defamation of character, don't we?

First, it would be libel. Second, a newspaper isn't going be sued - much less guilty of - defamation or libel if they are reporting the words from a source.

LE cannot be sued for defamation for a characterization like "miserably." If she "failed" one question, they are perfectly free to characterize that one failed answer as "miserable."
 
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/0...n-to-media-villain.html#.TrYDcX3KlkE.facebook

About three years ago, Debbie gave Irwin’s address for a traffic ticket

So, she can drive, but why "give" an address,it's it on the license?

I think they are just showing about the time that relationship began. It wasn't changed on her ID yet, but she gave it on the ticket which means she was there enough to give hat address out. They can't say when they married, right? I think they are just establishing alleged beginning of cohabitation.
 
It's been verified by 2 different people that DB drove. I'm still left wondering why she doesn't have her license right now...especially being the main caretaker of the children while JI works.

I guess if people like to drink regularly it's not a really good idea for them to drive.
 
Because when you get pulled over, after looking at your license, one of the first things the officer asks is "is this still your address?" so they can confirm where to send the fine information.

I lived in my current house for two years before I changed the address on my license. I didn't bother until it was up for renewal, why spend the extra money?

Weren't we discussing the issue of whether or not DB could drive the other day? Some thought that she couldn't drive so she couldn't have gone anywhere that night. I remember asking if she never had a license or had it suspended.

So this would prove that she did in fact have a license at one point, which means she could drive.
 
Regardless of innocence or guilt, for some people this is a witchhunt. Sorry but that's how I see it. There are some that think (want?) DB to be guilty so much that any story/article/quote get's framed to somehow make DB look bad.

It's refreshing to see positive stuff. And not surprisingly even positive stuff get's spinned into 'DB is painting herself in a positive light'. There's that 'framed to somehow make DB look bad' part.



I think you're assume a 'withhunt' when for the majority it's more of not being willing to automatically rule DB out because we feel sorry for her or because she once was able to call 911/take her stepbrother to the hospital. Many of us are unsure and not willing to rule her out. She's told to many mistruths and changed her wstorytoo much.

I have to ask, not picking of you but for you and all posters of every mind set,

if it were Jeremy instead of Debbie we were discussing, would you be so willing to rule him out and declare him innocent and victim of a 'witch hunt?
 
Regardless of innocence or guilt, for some people this is a witchhunt. Sorry but that's how I see it. There are some that think (want?) DB to be guilty so much that any story/article/quote get's framed to somehow make DB look bad.

It's refreshing to see positive stuff. And not surprisingly even positive stuff get's spinned into 'DB is painting herself in a positive light'. There's that 'framed to somehow make DB look bad' part.

BBM. Respectfully, I think DB is making herself look bad and doesn't need any help from any of us at all. I don't want her to be guilty, but color me jaded - parents of missing children do not act like this. Parents who have nothing to hide and/or are not complicit in the disappearance of their children, that is.

This isn't a witchhunt, it's people seeing through the BS DB and JI are selling. I for one ain't buying it. MOO.
 
You know with every new case the mindset behind them never getting solved becomes clearer. LE is prolly as divided as we are here. Shame really. I hate that politically correct gets in the way of solving crimes. Throw tomatoes....a care, I do not give. :floorlaugh:

I don't think it's political correctness, we have only heard the side of DB and her side of every story paints her either a a victim oof mean old LE or a poor picked on innocent, including the media portrayal by her family and attys. Which is to be expected :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
251
Total visitors
408

Forum statistics

Threads
606,586
Messages
18,206,388
Members
233,897
Latest member
sleuthchic
Back
Top