Deborah Bradley & Jeremy Irwin - Dr. Phil Interview - 3 February 2012 #2

[CHERIE.T]

Deborah did an interview in the beginning of the case in which she stated that Baby Lisa had been sick. It's not new information & where I usually BLOG, those of us following the case closely had all read it.

I didn't save the link because I didn't see any reason too. You can probably unearth that interview but you are going to have to start at the begginng of the case. It is NOT new information unless you missed it the first time.

An ear infection was never mentioned. DB said Lisa was ill and had a bug bite near her ear. No ear infection mentioned until the Dr. Phil show.

imho

 

[CHERIE.T]

It was in the very interveiw that the thread is about. She said that Lisa was clearing an ear infection - almost over it. Was that lost in all of the hubbub over the lights?

DB said that on DR. Phil......not when Lisa first 'disappeared'.

imho

 

[CHERIE.T]

The parents did not write the Amber Alert. LE did. If it is anybody's fault it is not in the Amber Alert is it LE IMO. The parents were at the station for nearly the entire duration of the AA and probably were clueless as to what it even said. They were busy doing what they should have been doing and not lounging around, watching tv.

It is not LE's fault when DB is the one withholding info!

 

[CHERIE.T]

Right.

And the person who could help with information was too sloppy drunk to know what was up that night

That, in my opinion, is shameful.

It is shameful.

bbm-imho

 

[CHERIE.T]

Well the lawyers might. I can't think of a reason the parents would though.

I can think of a reason the parents 'may' benefit IF they -or one of them -is guilty. It keeps them out of jail.

imho

 

[CHERIE.T]

I was pulled over for speeding in New Brunswick on a trip halfway across Canada by the local RCMP. the officer asked me to step out of the jeep, which was a good distance higher from teh road than stock. I tried to stall a bit because my left foot was asleep but he demanded I get out NOW! I stepped out and dang near fell on my face b/c my foot felt like a big ball of numbness. Right there he wanted to charge me with a DUI. I asked him for 2 more minutes, paced back and forth til I finally got the feeling in my foot back. We both had a pretty good laugh over it until he issued the speeding ticket. :blushing:
just another example of how deceiving things can be to a LE officer.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[redheadedgal]

initial impression -- partway into the show:

she is SO focused on how others are talking about her, perceiving her, trashing her... all the "CRAZY and INSANE" internet stories, rumors, theories...

it makes it even MORE apparent, possible, probable that she is involved and at the very least a cover up took place...

and this is exactly why there would be a cover up in the first place: so others won't look at her badly, think poorly of her...

b/c she seems to care a lot about how others "see" her !!

according to deb, JT and dr phil, the couple appeared on the show in part to clear up some of these rumors, stories... which -to me- validates this impression/feeling.

if you are innocent and know nothing about the crime, would you really CARE what people you don't know are saying about you?! the focus would be on finding the baby and taking care of your other children !! and, once that missing baby is found and it's proven it wasn't you, it would shut those mean internet people up and prove them wrong. and that would be enough validation for me... b/c they'd be proven wrong and i'd be proven right. so finding the missing baby and not whining about all the meanies would/should be my focus!!!

 

[highflyer]

initial impression -- partway into the show:

she is SO focused on how others are talking about her, perceiving her, trashing her... all the "CRAZY and INSANE" internet stories, rumors, theories...

it makes it even MORE apparent, possible, probable that she is involved and at the very least a cover up took place...

and this is exactly why there would be a cover up in the first place: so others won't look at her badly, think poorly of her...

b/c she seems to care a lot about how others "see" her !!

according to deb, JT and dr phil, the couple appeared on the show in part to clear up some of these rumors, stories... which -to me- validates this impression/feeling.

if you are innocent and know nothing about the crime, would you really CARE what people you don't know are saying about you?! the focus would be on finding the baby and taking care of your other children !! and, once that missing baby is found and it's proven it wasn't you, it would shut those mean internet people up and prove them wrong. and that would be enough validation for me... b/c they'd be proven wrong and i'd be proven right. so finding the missing baby and not whining about all the meanies would/should be my focus!!!

There are people on this forum who care very much about what people say or think about them. That does not make them guilty of anything.

 

[Sabot]

initial impression -- partway into the show:

she is SO focused on how others are talking about her, perceiving her, trashing her... all the "CRAZY and INSANE" internet stories, rumors, theories...

it makes it even MORE apparent, possible, probable that she is involved and at the very least a cover up took place...

and this is exactly why there would be a cover up in the first place: so others won't look at her badly, think poorly of her...

b/c she seems to care a lot about how others "see" her !!

according to deb, JT and dr phil, the couple appeared on the show in part to clear up some of these rumors, stories... which -to me- validates this impression/feeling.

if you are innocent and know nothing about the crime, would you really CARE what people you don't know are saying about you?! the focus would be on finding the baby and taking care of your other children !! and, once that missing baby is found and it's proven it wasn't you, it would shut those mean internet people up and prove them wrong. and that would be enough validation for me... b/c they'd be proven wrong and i'd be proven right. so finding the missing baby and not whining about all the meanies would/should be my focus!!!

I would care about what people were saying if I was innocent. It's the guilty people who don't care.

 

[~n/t~]

Just out of curiousity. What were posters expecting from this interview with Dr. Phil?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

In the Phil interview the lawyer says the police have overlooked the garage door as a point of entry.

What he fails to mention is Deb and JI have a dog that barks in the backyard and when asked why the dog in the back did not bark they say because the window was in the front.

Part 2 video here:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/1...e-asks-if-they-sold-or-killed-their-daughter/

 

[~n/t~]

In the Phil interview the lawyer says the police have overlooked the garage door as a point of entry.

What he fails to mention is Deb and JI have a dog that barks in the backyard and when asked why the dog in the back did not bark they say because the window was in the front.

Part 2 video here:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/1...e-asks-if-they-sold-or-killed-their-daughter/

In my opinion, if JT wouldn't point out all the possible investigative errors done by LE, he wouldn't be doing his job and that is exactly what he's trying to prove here.

DB and JI perhaps have a theory that the abductor came in through the window based on the condition it was found.

One doesn't necessarily negate the other. I think he was just trying to point out that there were other points of entry that may have been overlooked by LE.

 

[Donjeta]

They gave VERY specific address and VERY specific time about the location. They said in the very first airing that it was at the BP at N Brighton and NE Parvin Rd and stated what time it was seen. How much more specific could it be?

I know you love to disagree with me about everything but read the context of the conversation first please so you know what you should be disagreeing with.
We were talking about the Dr. Phil show and whether the person at the gas station would watch the show and say, hey, it was me there at that time and announce himself.

JMO but I think it's doubtful because they did NOT get into any specifics about the sighting on Dr. Phil.

This is what they're saying about the sighting:

JoeT: Uh, Dr.Phil, I can enlighten you a little bit on that. There were, um, a lot of people coming forward, and, you know, there was some substantial leads that were developed including 3, and I repeat, 3 witnesses who saw an individual in the area, uh, walking around various parts of that suburb of Kansas City with a baby in a diaper and nothing more. At midnight, at two in the morning and four in the morning. Independent, absolutely credible witnesses who don't know the family or anyone else, made 3 independent sightings. To me, that is powerful evidence that there is leads that are out there that need to be followed.

Dr.Phil: Alright, now, let's talk about these sightings that you are talking about. I understand that, at least one of those, there's actually video tape, uh, of a person walking and it was forty-five degrees out, and I believe one of these sightings was a person in just a shirt and pants, carrying a baby. No coat, no blankets, not anything in forty-five degrees out. Is, is that true?

JoeT: That's accurate. Actually, it's a direct trajectory away from the house. The first sighting was around, you know, a little after midnight, close by to the, to uh, Deb and Jeremy's house. Uh, then we see that videotape around 2 in the morning at a gas station which is a little further away, but it's also near a wood-uh, wooded area, right behind the gas station where you see that individual disappear into. Very nearby a dumpster where there was a fire that night, and scorched baby clothes were in. Then, a little further down the road, about two hours later, Mike Thompson, another individual witness, driving, sees a man matching the same description as the individual by the Irwin home, carrying a baby with just a diaper on. That is- you know, I've been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, that is pretty powerful evidence that there are answers out there.

Dr.Phil: Alright, so, so your theory is that these three sightings are very likely the same person, and they are in a trajectory away from the house, that at a walking pace, would have put these people in position A, B, and C moving away from the home and with an eyewitness saying they had a baby in their arms?

JoeT: Uh, multiple eyewitnesses, that's right.

No adddress is given and there is no way that a person who was walking on the street and passed a gas station where no woods are nearby without a baby in his arms who is hearing about this for the first time would know that the reference to a person disappearing into the woods with a diapered baby near some unspecified gas station is a reference to him, based on Dr. Phil show, without looking for the original articles.

Edit:
I stole the transcript from an unlinkable site but I've edited to use askfornina's.

Thank you askfornina! You're amazing!

 

[Dr.Fessel]

In my opinion, if JT wouldn't point out all the possible investigative errors done by LE, he wouldn't be doing his job and that is exactly what he's trying to prove here.

DB and JI perhaps have a theory that the abductor came in through the window based on the condition it was found.

One doesn't necessarily negate the other. I think he was just trying to point out that there were other points of entry that may have been overlooked by LE.

and what I am pointing out is his clients already ruled that out because of the barking dog in the back.

 

[askfornina]

Just got caught up on this thread. I have absolutely nothing to do tonight so I've decided to transcribe the whole Dr.Phil interview. Hopefully that will help with the context of all of the answers and etc.

Here are the links to the show, I don't believe these have been posted unless I missed them:

http://www.kmbc.com/video/30372784/detail.html
http://www.kmbc.com/video/30372784/detail.html
http://www.kmbc.com/video/30373097/detail.html
http://www.kmbc.com/video/30373144/detail.html
http://www.kmbc.com/video/30373144/detail.html

TRANSCRIPT:

Pt.1

Dr.Phil: Joining us via satellite from New York with their attorney, Joe Tacopina. So, folks, thanks so much for being here. Let me start out by asking you, Deb, you guys haven't done any talking about this for the last 90 plus days. Tell me why.

DB: Well, um, we wanted them to be able to investigate. Things to quiet down, have some leads looked into. And then, when we were ready to, if they were going to be exhausted or nothing came of them, then we started to do media again. So, that's why.

Dr.Phil: Alright, during that time, uh, did anything come up that has shed new light? Is there anything that we don't know that during that 90 days, did in fact develop?

DB: Yes. But I'm not going to speak about it.

JoeT: Uh, Dr.Phil, I can enlighten you a little bit on that. There were, um, a lot of people coming forward, and, you know, there was some substantial leads that were developed including 3, and I repeat, 3 witnesses who saw an individual in the area, uh, walking around various parts of that suburb of Kansas City with a baby in a diaper and nothing more. At midnight, at two in the morning and four in the morning. Independent, absolutely credible witnesses who don't know the family or anyone else, made 3 independent sightings. To me, that is powerful evidence that there is leads that are out there that need to be followed.

Dr.Phil: Alright, now, let's talk about these sightings that you are talking about. I understand that, at least one of those, there's actually video tape, uh, of a person walking and it was forty-five degrees out, and I believe one of these sightings was a person in just a shirt and pants, carrying a baby. No coat, no blankets, not anything in forty-five degrees out. Is, is that true?

JoeT: That's accurate. Actually, it's a direct trajectory away from the house. The first sighting was around, you know, a little after midnight, close by to the, to uh, Deb and Jeremy's house. Uh, then we see that videotape around 2 in the morning at a gas station which is a little further away, but it's also near a wood-uh, wooded area, right behind the gas station where you see that individual disappear into. Very nearby a dumpster where there was a fire that night, and scorched baby clothes were in. Then, a little further down the road, about two hours later, Mike Thompson, another individual witness, driving, sees a man matching the same description as the individual by the Irwin home, carrying a baby with just a diaper on. That is- you know, I've been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, that is pretty powerful evidence that there are answers out there.

Dr.Phil: Alright, so, so your theory is that these three sightings are very likely the same person, and they are in a trajectory away from the house, that at a walking pace, would have put these people in position A, B, and C moving away from the home and with an eyewitness saying they had a baby in their arms?

JoeT: Uh, multiple eyewitnesses, that's right.

Dr.Phil: Three different eyewitnesses, okay. Jeremy, what is your theory about what happened here?

JI: All I know is that someone came into our house and took her for some reason. And all I know is that she is still out there. Somewhere.

Dr.Phil: And how is the community treating you two as a couple at this point? Uh, are they supportive? Are the suspicious?

JI: Um, it's a little bit of both. There is a lot of people that are coming forward and helping, supporting, etc. Uh, there is also a lot of people that are out there and don't have a lot of information and make ridiculous accusations. But, uh.

Dr.Phil: It's been reported that police have tried to get the two of you to interview separately from each other. Has this happened yet?

JoeT: Not only has it happened, it's happened repeatedly. Five times. We've totaled it, it's about 40 hours of interviews, both separate and apart. They've asked every question twice and three times. They have no other information. And they have repeatedly given the same information to authorities. And here is the problem: we're working both with the FBI and local law enforcement is involved as well, and I don't know how well those two organizations are working together. The feds have been very open with us. The FBI has done I think a good job in trying to track down and eliminate certain things but, uh, the Kansas City PD have not been, you know, open with this family. I mean, it's okay for law enforcement to start with Deb and Jeremy as suspects, if you will, by looking at them. But to jump to conclusions within an hour without having any information, you know, I'm not going to let them sit prey to some uh, you know, accusation-

Dr.Phil: Of course-

JoeT: -you know, session.

Dr.Phil: Of course. And I understand. This is exactly why I want to ask these
questions. Because if there is misinformation out there, then you are clearing it up in a major way here. So-

JoeT: And that is why they are here. That is why they're here, by the way-

Dr.Phil: But they are not talking. You're talking. So-

JoeT: Well, because you are asking certain questions that we have decided are going to be handled by me. Now, if your producers had a problem with that, then, you know, (inaudible) we're here.

Dr.Phil: I, uh, we wanted you to be here but I do want to know what they have to say about the situation as well. And, um, I'm curious. At this point, Deb, Jeremy, do ya'll feel that you've gotten a fair shake from the Kansas City Police Department?

DB: No. I don't.

Dr.Phil: So you think they jumped to conclusions about you in the beginning as your attorney points out?

DB: Yeah. And there is nothing but misinformation out there. That's all there is. There is nothing but theories and accusations and..I mean, the internet, there is just people making outright lies. That they seen me do this, or they seen me here. I mean, it's just became a circus. And it's not a joke. It's not a circus. It is not a game. This is my baby.

Dr.Phil: Alright, listen, that's exactly uh, what I want us to talk about. Because those things that are out there that are misinformation and, you know, Joe, you've been on both sides of, of, these situations. That's nothing but distraction. If they are going down the wrong road then that means they are not going down the right road. And what we want is to find this precious child.

Most parents say they would do anything to find their child. So why have Lisa's parents been accused of being uncooperative with police? What really happened on the night of October 3rd? I have some serious questions and I want some serious answers.

Pt.2

(the KMBC videos do not include some of the footage of the inside of the house)

Dr.Phil: That was baby Lisa's mom showing us the home where she says her 10 month old daughter was sleeping and abducted. She says an intruder must have broken through a torn screen and taken the infant from her crib that fateful night back in October. Now, I'm talking to Lisa's parents, Deborah and Jeremy, today along with their attorney Joe Tacopina from New York. Deb, you said there has been a lot of lies out there and misinformation. Uh, what primarily comes to mind, and lets clear those things up now so people don't have the wrong impression of you or your husband.

DB: Well, pretty much, the only thing that I'm guilty of is, um, drinking too much. And, even when she comes back, that's something that I have to live with. That I might have heard something and been able to stop them. But, that has been blown so far out of proportion, to me being an alcoholic, which I'm not. Or me being a neglectful parent, which I'm not. I have always put my kids first. And, all three of my kids mean everything to me. And um, just that entire scenario of me drinking outside with a friend, when Lisa was sleeping, my boys were laying down watching a movie, has been blown into such a theatrical giant theory-fest. I mean, everything from I did drugs and then I drank, and something about my anxiety medication mixing with the alcohol which it, it didn't, and it's not a narcotic. Uh, there's theories online that my brother was involved, that he came back over after he left that day, that, um, Jeremy left work early. I mean, it's just, it's insane. It's- what blows my mind, is that the internet can be so helpful in spreading the word, but it can also make- make way for giant rumor mills. And, it doesn't really hurt what they say to me, but when they spread this gossip and these lies, and these insane theories, it keeps people from paying attention when they are at Walmart. When they're at the drugstore. Because somebody is out there with my daughter. And we just want her to come home. And somebody will see her eventually.

Dr.Phil: Think people jumped on this alcohol thing because you gave an interview on the 5th of October, and you did not mention it at all that you have been drinking-

DB: No, because it has absolutely nothing to do with her being missing. It's, it's totally irrelevant information as far as I'm concerned. As soon as I was asked about it, I told the truth. I didn't have to-I could have avoided it. I told the truth because I have nothing to hide.

Dr.Phil: I understand. But on the 5th you didn't mention, and on the 12th there was a video in the store of you buying the alcohol, then on the 17th, you were asked by NBC did you have enough to be drunk and you said I don't know that alcohol changes a person enough to do something like that, uh, so, but you do know uh- you're saying that 5 to 10 glasses of wine that night, uh, were you drunk that night?

DB: Uh, to me, more than two drinks in an hour means you're drunk.

Dr.Phil: Okay. But-

DB: So yes-

Dr.Phil: You were drunk-

DB: -I mean-

Dr.Phil: -do you remember, uh, you reported that the lights in the house were turned off and you went to bed, Jeremy comes home at 4am and all the lights were on. Now, obviously whoever took the baby wouldn't go through the house and turn the lights on-

DB: No.

Dr.Phil: -were you just wrong about that? Was Jeremy wrong?

DB: Here's another thing- here's the thing with that that nobody knows. Because I'm not going to sit on TV, until now when I'm being asked a specific question, and rebuttal it because to me it's just nonsense. It's just picking my words apart and the story apart. But, we didn't compare stories and tell each other about anything that- how we felt, I mean, until days, days later. I mean, our, our daughter is missing, the last thing we are going to sit there and do is talk about it. But when he came in the bedroom that morning and woke me up, and said all the lights are on in the house, it was a total exaggeration. We had, um, track lighting on in the computer room, we had- I had a little tiny lamp that is literally no bigger than this, on in the living room. And then, we had a stove light, the above the stove light on, and the clock radio light on. I mean, there was not a whole lot of lights on at all.

Dr.Phil: So, Jeremy, you came home at 4 o'clock, is that right?

JI: Right. I got home about 3:45.

Dr.Phil: 3:45? Alright. And you didn't have any trouble waking Deborah up at the time, did you?

JI: Not really. She woke up, and we talked a little bit. She was a little sleepy until I told her to, you know, we need to go ahead and get uh, our youngest boy in his own bed. And uh, then when I said, you know, what's going on with the lights being on and stuff, and the windows open, that's when she kind of snapped too and we realized something was wrong.

Dr.Phil: Were there more lights on then you had left on, Deb?

DB: No. Those are all the lights I leave on at night time. And, he follows me around turning them all off. And, he's an electrician so I get complaints a lot about lights being on and things like that, and he wasn't there that night. So.

Dr.Phil: You do remember this, though?

DB: Yes sir.

Dr.Phil: Okay, good. What ya'll are saying is that this is two different descriptions of the same lighting pattern, so to speak?

DB: Absolutely.

Dr.Phil: So you don't see this as an inconsistency at all?

DB: No.

Dr.Phil: Okay, we have to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

Mike Lerette: The most difficult part of this whole ordeal has been the juggling act between the media, law enforcement, the lawyers. Trying to keep some kind of normalcy. Every day it's a trial. We're not giving up and uh, we'll find her.

Dr.Phil: Well, that was baby Lisa's uncle talking about how hard it's been since she went missing almost 4 months ago. Now, today, I'm talking to Lisa's parents Deborah and Jeremy via satellite and their attorney, Joe Tacopina, about what happened that horrific night and why they believe baby Lisa is still out there. One of the big things that jumps out is, and let me kind of go through the progression, Deb, on the 11th, in a Fox news interview, you say you checked in on baby Lisa around 10:30. But then, on October 17th, six days later, you told Megyn Kelly that you put her down at 6:40 and that was the last time you saw her and you don't remember checking on her or not. So, there's been a lot made of that inconsistency, did you see her for the last time at 6:40 or did you see her the last time at 10:30?

DB: I don't think it's an inconsistency when I say I put her to bed at 6:40 and I possibly checked on her at 10:30. I don't think that's an inconsistency, I think that I'm being honest and saying I'm not sure if I checked on her or not but I know she went to bed at 6:40.

Dr.Phil: Is that a normal bedtime for her?

DB: Um, usually she goes to bed around eight. Um, all my kids do. But she hadn't been feeling well, she wasn't super sick or anything, she was clearing up an ear infection and a cold. And she seemed to be doing okay but, I put her down a little bit early that night because she was kind of fussy and she was rubbing her eyes and stuff, so she went to bed a little bit early but other than that she was fine.

Dr.Phil: But, you don't recall whether you checked on her at 10:30 or not?

DB: No. People don't understand just how difficult it is to wake up and find that somebody has came into your house, taken your baby and then you are accused of doing something to her or covering something up or whatever theories, insane theories they come up with, or have come up with, and then I do all this media and be on TV for the purpose, of hoping and praying that somebody sees it, that has seen someone with her, and it is literally impossible to remember every single detail and say it exactly the same every single time and there are so many hateful people or negative people who have picked all that apart, and I understand the looking at the mother thing because the world we live in today isn't always a safe and happy place, there are a lot of crazy people, there are a lot of bad parents, and a lot of things happen, accidents happen, so I understand why they looked at me in the beginning, and I also understand with the drinking why some of the public had made accusations and drew that out and made scenarios with it and all that, I understand it, but it's time to come to a reasoning that enough is enough, that my daughter is missing, that she is okay somewhere because nobody kidnaps a ten month old, beautiful little girl to hurt her, she is out there somewhere and I am desperate to find her, I am clinging on to a shred of sanity here, I just want my daughter home. I want people to realize to take a step back and look, if I had done something I'd be in jail right now, Joe doesn't save me from jail, it doesn't work that way. And I understand that most of America doesn't understand the justice system, or understand how this stuff happens or how media works until something terrible happens to them, or they have to use law enforcement, or use the media, but it is so much bigger, and so much more different than you could even imagine. And I just wish people would open up their minds to the entire bigger picture here. And just help me find my daughter. That's all I want.

Dr.Phil: Were you told that you failed a LDT?

DB: I was told that.

Dr.Phil: -Do you know whether you did or not-

DB: -I have not seen the results. And my lawyer - they would- they did not confirm it with my lawyer, and they did not show me the results.

JoeT: No. I spoke to them about that, Dr. Phil, and, of course, you know, they said, "Well, we never said she failed a polygraph test." We never said she failed a polygraph test. Well, somebody did tell her that. And, you know, I understand LE tactics. As a former LE official, I would oftentimes - and understand that detectives are permitted to give misinformation to people during interviews for interrogation purposes. I thought maybe, perhaps they thought if they told her that, she would crumple onto the floor and say, "Okay, fine, I did it." That didn't happen. She didn't fail a polygraph test, number one. Number two, you know, whether or not they did tell her that or they were authorized to, it was confirmed to me that, in fact, there was no failed polygraph by Deborah. And again, that's just another one of those facts that was put out there and, unfortunately, bandied about for about a week, which gives people a misperception and also distract, distracts from the real evidence in this case.

Dr.Phil: So let me be very clear, she did not fail a polygraph when they asked her, "Do you know what happened to your baby?" She did not fail that polygraph, although it's been reported that she was told she did?

JoeT: That is 100% accurate. She did not fail a polygraph, and I defy them to show us a failed polygraph. They told me she didn't.

Dr.Phil: Okay, uh, gonna talk a quick break and then we'll move on. An anonymous benefactor hired an investigator to help find baby Lisa, and he says as far as he is concerned, baby Lisa is still out there. We're going to find out what he has to say about that next. And I've got some questions about some of the police investigation. We'll be right back.


Pt.3

BS: First, I want to thank you, because you've obviously done your homework. And you are really dedicating time to this case. I really appreciate it as I'm sure the family does. The anonymous benefactor, uh, it is a female and she is a philanthropic person and there is a connection to a family member of the Irwin family. I was watching just like everyone else, and she called me up and she said, "You know someone. I introduced you to this person." and she said, "I want you to go out there and find that baby." She said, "You do what you do and get this baby back." And she has been behind this effort with me 110%, the whole way.

Dr.Phil: It is my understanding that you said you would take this case, with the understanding that if it leads right back to these parents, that's just where it leads.

BS: That's right. I did not want to take this case for the parents. Because, quite frankly, I went- when I got on the plane, I thought they did it. Uh, uh, you all know statistically, people who are in this game know, there is a high percentage that it was more than likely mother and/or father. And I said I will take the case if my client is the truth. And I will go where that takes me. And, it's important to note, when I first got boots on the ground and I met the Irwin family, both Jeremy and Deborah, I said to them, sat on the couch and looked them right in the eye, and I said "I'm not here for you. I'm here for Lisa." and if that takes me to you as the guilty party, I'm going to come for you. And without hesitation they said "Help us find our baby."

Dr.Phil: You said whenever you got on the plane you thought they did it?

BS: Yes. Investigators are human beings. We all go in with our inherent prejudices. But fact patterns are fact patterns, facts are facts, timeline is timeline. And the deeper I drill down into this case, the more it comes from outside the home.

Dr.Phil: Deb, the police came in with cadaver dogs. Uh, and it has been reported that they had a hit in the bedroom on the rug in the master bedroom, where you say you fell asleep. So, what actually took place there, and what do you have to say about the fact that they say the cadaver dogs had a positive hit?

DB: Well, I'll let Joe take this, but I want to say this first. That nothing is missing from my bedroom where this supposed hit happened, um, they didn't take not a thing from my room. That carpet, that everybody seen on the news being hauled up from the bottom of my driveway, came from a barn in the back of the house. So if a cadaver dog hit, why didn't they take anything with them? Why is there no evidence?

JoeT: We brought in the nations number one cadaver dog expert, if you will, and what he told me was that there's no such thing as a hit for a dead body. What a cadaver dog can detect is uh, basically, dead skin cells, or deteriorating or not living DNA, so what the d- the expert told me, was that if there was a diaper in that room, when she changed her babies diaper, some fecal matter got onto the rug, even the slightest bit, not even detectable by the human eye, that is enough to cause a dog to wag his tail or do what he does.

Dr.Phil: Let's talk about your phones. It was reported, and again, I'm prefacing this with what was reported, at 11:57 pm, a 50 second phone call was made or attempted to be made from Deborah's cellphone to the phone of a woman named Megan Wright. Now, I understand that you can't make outgoing calls on your cellphone, is that correct, Deb?

DB: That's correct. At that point in time the phone was, what they call uh, hotlined or redlined. Which means that we hadn't paid the bill so the only thing that could be done with that phone is incoming texts and incoming phone calls. And let me just say this: I do not know Megan Wright. I do not know the people she associates with. There would be absolutely not a reason in this world for me to call her, and all of my phone records back up the fact that number was never called from my phone, in a text, or calling directly.

Dr.Phil: Now, we do know on two other occasions, that, according to reports, that Verizon confirms that someone tried to access voice mail and internet at like 2 or 3 in the morning, a couple of hours after this, and were unable to do so. So apparently, someone had the phones, were the phones on the counter when you went to bed?

DB: Yes sir.

Dr.Phil: And they were gone when you got up?

DB: Yes sir.

Dr.Phil: So, someone took the baby and the cell phones.

DB: Yeah, and the cell phones are right there. Right underneath the clock radio where the light shines directly on them. And, I'm sorry, go ahead Joe.

Dr.Phil: Go ahead Joe.

JoeT: Well, doctor, what I want to say is we are missing a vital point on these phones. The person who was called, this Megan Wright, not only does Deb not know her, she has gone on national TV and told law enforcement that she doesn't know Deborah. Once you start investigation by narrowly focusing on one thing, you get pigeon holed in that investigation. You're supposed to start investigation by casting a wide net, letting the evidence take you in a direction. But if you start with a conclusion, and then look for evidence to back it up, that is where you fail. And, unfortunately, in this case, that is clearly what happened.

Dr.Phil: Okay, we have to take a quick break. We're going to take a look at a police reenactment of how someone may have gotten into this house the night the baby went missing. We'll be right back.

Pt.4

Dr.Phil: Jeremy, when you came home that night, the front door was open, correct? It was unlocked?

JI: It was unlocked, yeah.

Dr.Phil: Why would the theory be that they went through the window when the door was open?

JoeT: Exactly. And they've never actually said "Here's what happened, they went in through the window." But I will tell you this, there was also another point of entry, that no one seemed to focus on, you know, the garage door, was actually off the tracks, it was a door that all you had to do was, with a pinky, lift it up. It hadn't been locked, it was a very light aluminum garage door in the back of the house. Even if the door was locked when Deborah went to bed, obviously someone could unlock it and leave the house, as they did with those phones and unfortunately Lisa.

Dr.Phil: Bill, what is your theory? What happened here?

BS: Well doc, I have a multitude. And, they'll be talking heads, and they'll stay focused on Deborah, they'll say "she's guilty, she did it." My counter to that is okay, tell me how. And guess what? You hear crickets. What I look at, is I'm looking at a character, who had been known to break into houses. Guess how? Through windows. So, and we don't know if it's just one person. I think someone either went through the window or the door, and they saw a crime of opportunity. I think they saw that Jeremy's work van was gone, and it was frequented by someone that would see the pattern, and want more than a homeless person or a petty criminal. And I think they saw the phones, and they take cash and carry, and then they saw that child. And, that child was taken for a reason. You don't take a child, at that age, to abuse it. You take it to covet it, or to sell it. And that is where my head is at.

Dr.Phil: So, come on, what is the theory, if all of this is true: we've got three independent eyewitnesses with a matching description of this person, come on, why are they not doing something?

BS: Well, I'd like to believe- I'm not going to condemn any law enforcement. I'd like to believe that they know stuff that we don't. I wish they would share it, but that is their call. Uh, it's obviously, by law enforcement, my guess would be a cold case, so release what you have. But that is up to them. But the facts that you are presenting is what every body knows. There is a hundred thousand dollar reward for information leading to the return and/or resolution of this case. And, the fact that there is the baby out there still, and still getting attention, I put it all as positive, and I do thank you for this.

Dr.Phil: Why did you wait a long time before the other two boys were allowed to speak to the police?

JoeT: Well, that's another, Dr.Phil, another real misstatement of information that has been floated out there to sort of condemn them, and these two guys here, Deborah and Jeremy, have never refused anything. They let them search there house, repeatedly, as often as they wanted without a warrant.

DB: They still have my house keys.

JoeT: Their cars, they wanted to search them? Sure, come in. They wanted to take hair samples from family members, from them. They didn't say no to anything and then when the boys were interviewed, initially, both independently, they were interviewed for a period of about 5 and a half hours. What we simply said was this: we want to make sure that the best interest of the children, our priority here, make sure this is not done by law enforcement, but a child psychiatrist, someone who understands how to communicate with children without traumatizing them. And in fact, that is what they did. They went back, uh, without us there, they did another question and answer period with a very qualified individual from the FBI, who questioned the two boys. Again, we put no limitations on anything. They questioned them and were satisfied. So, nothing they have been holding back, except they wanted this to be done in a way that was productive and not harmful to those boys.

Dr.Phil: I have to take a break and I understand Jeremy and Deborah, very understandably, have some questions for me when we come back.

Pt. 5

Dr.Phil: Deb, and Jeremy, do you have any questions for me?

DB: Um, it's really really hard. Um, because everyday I wake up and I think about her. And when I go to sleep I think about her. And, it's almost everything I can do to stay sane. And then my boys, um, they talk about her all the time, and they ask about her. And I just keep telling them, you know, we're never going to stop looking. We're going to find her. She's coming home. I just don't know when. And, my question is, when they do bring it up, and they talk about her, um, how do I, how do I help them get through this? Because I'm really scared that this is going to do permanent damage to them. Even when she comes home, I know they are going to need therapy and we're going to have to work together to bring our family back as a unit and try to find normalcy again someday, but what do I do in the meantime to help them get through all this?

Dr.Phil: Well, you are asking a very relevant question and you're quite right. You guys are hoping for a new normal because when something like this happens to you, normal as you knew it is a thing of the past. And, what I would encourage you to do, uh, with these boys, is to be open about this. I would have pictures of her around the house. If they want to cry about her, that's okay. You shouldn't hide your tears. You also want to celebrate her as well, and let them tell funny stories. You don't want to focus just on the pain of her missing, but also on the celebration of her life. Honor her memory and pray that she is going to return, but you've got to have an open dialogue with them about this. And Deborah, you do feel guilty if you're not thinking about her for a minute, don't you?

DB: Yeah. All the time.

Dr.Phil: And you might find yourself laughing at something silly that's on television in the background or something and you go oh my god, how could I do that? You can do it because there is a part of us that finds a way to strike a balance. To strike a balance so we can survive our suffering. You shared with us some never before seen photos when baby Lisa was first born. And I do want to honor her and focus on her some. Let's take a look at these pictures and talk to me about what your feelings were at that time and what your hopes and dreams were. What did you think when you held her in your arms for the first time?

DB: How lucky I was. How beautiful she was. How I've always wanted a little girl and I finally got her.

Dr.Phil: Jeremy, this is you holding her, I believe for the first time.

JI: Yeah.

Dr.Phil: What were you thinking in that moment?

JI: I was just uh, she was perfect. And uh, it was uh, emergency c-section, so they made me wait out in the hallway. And uh- I was just, uh, I was hysterical. And uh, it seemed like everything was going to be alright from there on out. That our family was complete. And..just, my little girl.

Dr.Phil: We're seeing a wonderful picture of her now, with her big bright eyes and her little hat on. What a cutie pie. What a cutie pie. If, whatever took place here, took place, and someone has this baby right now, you can imagine how much they would fall in love with this baby, and how much they would want to have this baby. But it's not their baby.

DB: No. She's not.

Dr.Phil: So Deb, if someone has this baby, what would you say to them?

DB: Please look beyond what you want and what you need. And what- and look at what she needs. What she wants. And she needs and wants to be with her parents and with her brothers. And um, we love her and her brothers more than anything in this world. And, we are dying here. It's been over three months and I would do anything to see her again. And, there's a hundred thousand dollars of reward for anybody that knows anything. You could be doing Lisa justice in bringing her back to her family where she belongs. All you have to do is call 816-474-TIPS. And, to the people that have her, you can take her to a church, a hospital, any where and just drop her off, no questions asked. We don't want you. We want her. Just please, please bring her home.

 

[natsound]

Maybe because she simply mis-spoke? I believe on the DrP show she said that she KNEW what time she put to bed - but wasn't sure, thought, possibly, she checked on her at 10:30 ish?

I kind of felt like what she was TRYING to say (and yes, she does a poor job of getting things out IMO) was this "I KNOW what time I put her to bed. I know that I probably checked on her at some point - but I'd been drinking and I just don't really remember -- I think around 10:30?"

On that piece - she sounded to me - like she was trying to be SO honest and trying NOT to mis-speak.....

......but I could be very wrong. Again, just MOO.

bbm

If investigators ignored red flags like this, and chalked it up to the mom "misspeaking", then investigations would get nowhere. Guilty people would be walking free all over the place. IMO, it's important to scrutinize contradictory statements like this.

 

[natsound]

Two things:

1. You're in Baltimore... I like you already!

2. Some of us strongly believe DB is guilty, and is lying. So yes, we are not giving her the benefit of the doubt in any aspect. If she is guilty, which I believe and some others do, then the only right thing she can do is admit it and face the consequences. Anything else she does is wrong. So yes, you will see some extreme criticism.[/QUOTE]

But, they way I see it, people who are criticizing her no matter what she does seem to want it both ways. ( I am not directing this at you specifically, just jumping off this part)

If DB cries, it's "OMG, she is faking! Gulity!"
If DB doesn't cry "OMG! Look at her she is emotionless! Guilty!"So no matter what she does, once some people have their minds made up, that's it. I like to take in all the facts, see things from all sides, etc. And that is why I'm on the fence. I just don't see evidence in this case of DB /JI being involved. I can't call someone guilty of a crime because of a feeling, or I don't like them, etc. I just can't, in good conscience, accuse someone of murder when I don't see enough evidence to support it.
JMO

bbm

Can you point out where the same person has said both of these things? People are going to analyze the interviews in different ways. If you're seeing contradictory opinions regarding the interviews from one poster, then I can see your point. But we're all watching her closely, even those who are on the fence, and we're all going to come up with differing opinions on her behavior and what it means.

 

[NFYIAMY]

bbm

If investigators ignored red flags like this, and chalked it up to the mom "misspeaking", then investigations would get nowhere. Guilty people would be walking free all over the place. IMO, it's important to scrutinize contradictory statements like this.

I don't think they should ignore anything.

I bet that after all the interviews with her, however, that they've come to realize she's just not a very eloquent speaker - we've seen that she isn't.

I think spending TOO much time focused on things that aren't helping them figure out what happened, that keep them from looking at other and ALL possibilities - do not do justice to finding the missing child either.

I do NOT think they are not looking at other options (MOO) I think the FBI at the very least - is looking at everything they can.

 

[cityslick]

I would care about what people were saying if I was innocent. It's the guilty people who don't care.

I said this earlier. Why do folks think guilty people care what is said of them?

 

[natsound]

BBM

And that's ultimately where we agree to disagree. Many of those that think she is guilty (of something) have a preconceived notion of what an innocent person does versus a guilty person in the aftermath of something like this. But yet I have seen those perfectly act the role of innocent, do everything asked of them, plead in front of cameras, only to be guilty of a crime.[/QUOTE]

bbm

I agree with that, but we're comparing apples and oranges. A comparison of what guilty people do, and what innocent people do, is not a good comparison. Guilty people might search to look innocent (Scott Peterson, for example). Innocent people would search, I would think, because they genuinely want to find their loved one. (Beth Twitty comes to mind). What can we say about the couple who claims innocence, but doesn't search? Why don't they search? I want to know.