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

[MissJames]

Did she do this on camera every time for all the world to witness and verify that she was doing so suitably?

The point stands, the parents of this missing girl have been on camera begging for the return of their daughter. Whether or not they have done subsequent begging of God, police, or anyone else is (1) unknown to us and (2) something they shouldn't have to do publicly to anyone's satisfaction.

Frankly, the way some people have been judging them based on some arbitrary and subjective standards, it's just as likely that if they were still begging on camera people would be saying "see, look at the histrionics! These attention *advertiser censored*! They did it!"

BBM
Somebody did something with the baby. There are several theories and opinions on this forum. Everyone has different life experiences and knowledge that leads them to form an opinion.
I've followed enough cases to form an opinion based on seeing it happen over and over .
It's based on my experience as a foster parent for 17 years . Mothers ,fathers and even grandmothers hurt their babies. It happens every day in every community. The public doesn't hear a fraction of it because protective services can't comment. I have seen what sweet faced ,quiet young mothers can be capable of .
My opinion is based on my experience of death of my son. I've pretty much exhausted that subject so I won't go into it again,but I make no apologies for being suspicious of DB because she is NOT acting like a mother who is desperate to get her baby back,safe at home. If that's arbitrary and subjective ,so be it.
It's my opinion . Mom is involved ,somehow.

 

[Donjeta]

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.

Some break by walking out of the interview. JMO.

I haven't seen studies in which they correlate the number of hours an interrogation lasted without a confession to the subject's guilt or innocence but it sounds like you are aware of some?

 

[Karmaa]

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.

I agree! Didn't Beth Holloway have an exclusive relationship with Greta? She talked to other stations, but all the big news went through GVS first. I don't remember if she was being paid, but it doesn't matter - the Holloways were not lower middle class people who NEED money during their crisis. I am pretty sure that JI can't work now. Come to think of it - I am going to go look for where to send donations, and send them some. I have only done that once in 25+ years, and that was after Shasta Groene came home.

 

[Karmaa]

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.

July 2008. Link above.

 

[cowtowner]

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.

The fact that you would behave differently than Karmaa (and me) sort of proves Karmaa's point, no?

Karmaa: 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.​

 

[Paige SC]

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

there's no statute of limitations on murder though. So I'm not sure being "cleared" means free from future prosecution (however unlikely) in this case.

 

[Paige SC]

The fact that you would behave differently than Karmaa (and me) sort of proves Karmaa's point, no?

Karmaa: 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.​

In all of the missing childrens cases covered by the media over the past 20 or so years, it is clear to me that guilty parents behave one way and innocent parents behave another way. I can't recall ever thinking an innocent parent was guilty or a guilty parent was innocent from my observations of them. They act basically the same way. An innocent parent has never acted guilty from my POV.

 

[Donjeta]

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

My point was that when we're talking about "guilty/innocent people will/will not break in an interrogation" we're not talking about presumed guilt and innocence in the court of law, we're talking about factual innocence, those people being interrogated know if they did it even if the courts don't. Everyone is presumed innocent at that point in time but yet someone is guilty. The point stands IMO regardless of what happened to JBR. (She has her own forum if people want to continue the discussion about the Ramseys.)

 

[shufly]

The fact that you would behave differently than Karmaa (and me) sort of proves Karmaa's point, no?

Karmaa: 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.​

in my post i said that i do agree that people act different in different situations. i'm not disputing that. however, give me some reasons on getting an attorney the very first day your child has been kidnapped. i mean factually, literally, kidnapped like elizabeth smart was. i personally can't come up with any reasons except like i said - to pull some strings, make my case priority number 1, put heat on the police dept. to get moving and solve the crime, etc. other than that, the thought of a lawyer would never cross my mind. so i'm not really arguing your point, i'm more or less interested in the reasons why someone would want a lawyer if they have nothing to hide and want their child home safe and sound

 

[MissJames]

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.

The OP stated "the Ramsey's were innocent". That was stated as a fact,not an opinion. This isn't a court of law,it's a missing person's forum ,so the terms that apply in a court of law don't apply to our personal opinions.

The fact is ,the Ramsey's were never found innocent or guilty,so for the purpose of this discussion,using their behavior as an example of someone who was innocent isn't accurate ,IMO.

As a matter of fact ,Baby Lisa's family could end up in the same boat ,with nothing resolved one way or another. There are still plenty of people who think the Ramsey's are guilty.

 

[Karmaa]

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.

Which part of my post did you disagree with? That I would get a lawyer? That most people I know would get a lawyer? That many people on WS would get a lawyer? Or that you can't judge others based on what you would do yourself?

I understand that many people have very strong emotions based on what they personally believe, but that doesn't take into consideration that a whole lot of people think differently. Even if we are all WRONG - the fact remains that we say we would do ____whatever___ if we were innocent. Therefore you can't ASSUME that because someone does ____whatever____ they are guilty. See what I mean?

And, since you have lawyers at your disposal, you should ask them what you should do in case something like this happened to you. I would bet ya a dollar they will say "GET A LAWYER!" You should take their advice, too.

 

[Paige SC]

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.

I'm referring to the term Factually Innocent. It doesn't mean someone IS in fact, innocent - nor does it prove guilt.

 

[ynotdivein]

*pokes head out door, checks to make sure we're still in the "Mother Hen to Media Villain" thread in the Lisa Irwin forum, closes door*

We've allowed quite a bit of topical leeway here, peeps. But it seems that we've wrung every last productive drop of conversation out of the article that is the subject of this thread. At this point, we're so far afield, I'm not even sure whose field we're in!

As Nurse pointed out above, there are existing threads for each of the non-Mother-Hen-article discussions that have sprouted up here. She was good enough to bump them up for us, so you should find them on the first page of the forum.

Locking up here in 5... 4.... 3..... 2......