Inconsistencies in DB's Story

[redheadedgal]

No new evidence as promised. No mind-blowing revelations, non-event. Why did they even do the show?

JT did state they were following "new leads" !!!

guess that's something lol


interesting how all these "leads" go nowhere :waitasec:

 

[cityslick]

http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/baby-cover/125139/
How About $6 Million? People Latest Mag Set to Shell Out Big for First Snaps of Celeb Spawn


http://askville.amazon.com/People-M...lina-twins/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=13751612

PEOPLE paid millions for Brangelina's baby's photos


http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/photo_freeze_c2bgT5j73FYaEBDlNBFFbM

People Mag paid for the wedding pictures of Eva Mauri



People Mag paid Paris Hilton for the first interview after she left jail. They also pay a lot for celebrity baby pictures.


http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/go...-300-000-first-post-jail-print-interview.html

Those are all celebrity related stories though. I think the rule of thumb (at least on here) is if it isn't verified that they have been paid, you can't bring it up as a fact.

 

[cityslick]

ABC is not respectable media? Barbara Walters? Doesn't get much more respectable than that. Local media is jealous of their deep pockets. ABC wines and dines and pays for pictures. Caylee Anthony's pictures went for over $200,000. It's no coincidence that the attorney for the Ramesys gave exclusives to ABC anytime there was news.

Filming their kids at Halloween was ridiculous - unless there was money involved. JMO

Deborah Bradley is not Casey Anthony. Again, if it's not verified, it's not a fact. That means it's a rumor.

 

[cityslick]

No offense, folks, but I really couldnt give ***** if the parents have been paid for photos or not. Too many distractions in details on this case diverting our attention from what actually happened that night.

You're right, but it's being used as an attack on DB when it's not even a fact in the first place.

 

[beach]

Why the speculation about DB and/or JI being paid for photos? I thought Nursebeeme advised that we were not to discuss payment unless some evidence came forth.. :waitasec:

Has there been any and I missed it? If not, the speculative $$$ for interview/photos needs to stop NOW.

 

[kansascitypi]

Why does it even matter? There are too many (in my opinion) queries to minute, insignificant details that are distractions. No offense, but I just don't care. There are more important details to worry about involving what may have happened to Lisa.

I stood outside the home with Peter Alexander from NBC the morning after he and a few others got a tour of the home back in October. Peter told me he had spoke on the phone to the benefactor. I asked him if he knew who she was. He replied he really didn't care....that's not the story here. He was right.

The point I'm making is not about the benefactor. It's about unnecessary distractions that are minute details that really don't matter.

 

[kansascitypi]

For the record, the National Enquirer offered to pay me to talk about my conversations with Deborah Bradley. It's not going to happen. Interesting. Kind of diffuses those who think I'm in this for myself. However, as much pro bono time over the last four months I have spent on this case, I have not made one cent. I know I have been criticized by both a few persons and a couple of jealous PIs for the interviews I've done on Fox News and Jane Velez-Mitchell, but I think IF anything residual in terms of visibility comes my way for that, it wouldn't be like I don't have it coming. Conversely, if Megyn Kelly's folks or JVM's folks call and ask to interview me on the air should I tell them no and then Ron Rugen refused to talk to us (rhetorical question)? If this were twitter, the hash mark would be followed by #cantwineitherway.

 

[GoodGurl]

For the record, the National Enquirer offered to pay me to talk about my conversations with Deborah Bradley. It's not going to happen. Interesting. Kind of diffuses those who think I'm in this for myself. However, as much pro bono time over the last four months I have spent on this case, I have not made one cent. I know I have been criticized by both a few persons and a couple of jealous PIs for the interviews I've done on Fox News and Jane Velez-Mitchell, but I think IF anything residual in terms of visibility comes my way for that, it wouldn't be like I don't have it coming. Conversely, if Megyn Kelly's folks or JVM's folks call and ask to interview me on the air should I tell them no and then Ron Rugen refused to talk to us (rhetorical question)? If this were twitter, the hash mark would be followed by #cantwineitherway.

Just have to remember it's all for Baby Lisa. Where is Lisa?

Any indications that DB might be having an 'emotional affair' of her own? In thinking either PDI (parent did it) or SODDI (some other dude did it) a motive has been very elusive.

 

[nursebeeme]

Okay, what did we all get from the Dr. Phil interview?

I heard DB make an inconsistency in that now she says that "the boys" were sleeping with her that night. In the beginning, only her youngest son was said to have been in the parents bedroom. Anything else?

opening post bump ^^^^

This thread is about inconsistencies in DB's statements.. It is not about anything else... If you wish to discuss other topics please find the appropriate threads. And do not discuss rumors.

 

[kansascitypi]

A couple of networks and local reporters told you this? How do we confirm it so it can be discussed? I do think it's important, if true.

This was discussion way back in October. I'm not sharing specific names only out of respect. Another network employee told me it was hard to compete against GMA since they were said to be paying for access by paying bills. GMA's defense is said to be they are an entertainment program, not a news show. I guess it's not a place to get our news then.

The Halloween trick or treating was also staged. The family lives in KC, Mo, north of the river. GMA taped the Halloween in the Overland Park, KS, area...a much nicer neighborhood.

As for rumors, I don't report what you would call rumors. As a former journalist, now a PI and blogger, if I discuss information, there's really good reason to believe it's factual.

 

[vlpate]

Deborah Bradley is not Casey Anthony. Again, if it's not verified, it's not a fact. That means it's a rumor.

Thank you - I do know the difference between fact and rumor....I stated nothing concerning DB and money as a fact.

Here are the facts though. DB and Jeremy have not been on local media for almost three months, and then they did their Halloween video (ABC). Deborah said on Dr. Phil the reason was they waited until the leads ran out - they were doing the show for new, fresh leads. I find that statement condescending to a group of people who would love to know Lisa's mother has been doing everything she can to find her child. To me, the biggest inconsistency of all is saying they have new leads and then saying (DB), she's not going to talk about them. Why announce there are going to be new leads and blockbuster information when there was neither? Why DID she go on the show if not to find Lisa?

 

[SyraKelly]

The thing that gets me-Is DB is claiming now the lights where on,but JI was exaggerating-BUT if she is claiming this now-then she is going against what SB has said-SB has said the lights were off.To me-it sounds like DB is trying to make a story fit with what everyone is saying-but she doesn't realize some of us see through that.-The above to me was a big foot in the mouth and why I don't believe DB's story!!=JMO

ETA-I don't mean to bring the light thing up again-but this is just a glaring red flag to me!!!

 

[vlpate]

The thing that gets me-Is DB is claiming now the lights where on,but JI was exaggerating-BUT if she is claiming this now-then she is going against what SB has said-SB has said the lights were off.To me-it sounds like DB is trying to make a story fit with what everyone is saying-but she doesn't realize some of us see through that.-The above to me was a big foot in the mouth and why I don't believe DB's story!!=JMO

ETA-I don't mean to bring the light thing up again-but this is just a glaring red flag to me!!!

Well there's another inconsistency - she said she didn't remember what she did. Selective blackout - you've heard of those, right?

 

[hambirg]

The thing that gets me-Is DB is claiming now the lights where on,but JI was exaggerating-BUT if she is claiming this now-then she is going against what SB has said-SB has said the lights were off.To me-it sounds like DB is trying to make a story fit with what everyone is saying-but she doesn't realize some of us see through that.-The above to me was a big foot in the mouth and why I don't believe DB's story!!=JMO

ETA-I don't mean to bring the light thing up again-but this is just a glaring red flag to me!!!

It's simple.

Their patsy of choice is alibied for the time frame of 11:30pm to 3:45 am. They have to open up that time frame.

So now the story is that DB did leave some lights on, even though the initial story was that she had turned them off, verified by SB, and that JI found them all on when he came home at 3:45am. So. . .it was evidence that an abductor had been in the house "during that time." Now the time doesn't fit. . .so I guess the light story can't be the evidence that the abductor was there "during that time."

So now the lights story becomes fuzzy. . .they're irrelevant. .. she might have left them on. . .ad naseum.

MOO

ETA-And in case that doesn't stick, let's throw the neighbor under the bus as well. He's not alibied for that time frame, as far as we know.

 

[vlpate]

Okay, what did we all get from the Dr. Phil interview?

I heard DB make an inconsistency in that now she says that "the boys" were sleeping with her that night. In the beginning, only her youngest son was said to have been in the parents bedroom. Anything else?

DB said she waited until now to speak publicly because the leads had run out - yet, on the show she said (adamantly), she wasn't going to discuss leads....the ones they don't have any of.

 

[Jacie Estes]

Lights, again. This is treated as an inconsistency when it may be SB that is wrong/waffling, not DB.

When looking out the window can anyone see the lights on on the opposite side of their neighbor's house? Remember SB was drinking, what has Shane or JB, for that matter, said about the lights? I am waiting to see what jersey has to say. NO ONE is talking about him.

 

[madge]

I am waiting to see what jersey has to say. NO ONE is talking about him.
Possibly no one is talking about him because the police say they have moved on from him. He interviewed with the police and they seem satisfied enough to say they have "moved on". They have NOT said they have been satisfied with the information they ahve from the parents

Jersey most likely found the phones, that is about the jist of his involvement. LE knows this, LE is most likely doing what they did in Josh Powell's case, they KNEW he was guilty but they are afraid to try to take a circumstantial case and are simply waiting this out.

Baby Lisa is dead IMHO. The parents are not going anywhere so LE is just giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

Hubby said the other day, the reason that they did the Phil interview was because JT needed$$$$$ or else he was quitting most likely. When the $$$$ runs out you'll see JT slither away.

 

[vlpate]

Lights, again. This is treated as an inconsistency when it may be SB that is wrong/waffling, not DB.

When looking out the window can anyone see the lights on on the opposite side of their neighbor's house? Remember SB was drinking, what has Shane or JB, for that matter, said about the lights? I am waiting to see what jersey has to say. NO ONE is talking about him.

Jeremy has also said the lights were ALL on - he was IN the house. The lights were of the utmost importance until the Dr. Phil show. Wonder why not so much now?

 

[cityslick]

It's simple.

Their patsy of choice is alibied for the time frame of 11:30pm to 3:45 am. They have to open up that time frame.

So now the story is that DB did leave some lights on, even though the initial story was that she had turned them off, verified by SB, and that JI found them all on when he came home at 3:45am. So. . .it was evidence that an abductor had been in the house "during that time." Now the time doesn't fit. . .so I guess the light story can't be the evidence that the abductor was there "during that time."

So now the lights story becomes fuzzy. . .they're irrelevant. .. she might have left them on. . .ad naseum.

MOO

ETA-And in case that doesn't stick, let's throw the neighbor under the bus as well. He's not alibied for that time frame, as far as we know.

Did DB/JI actually accuse/insinuate something about JB? I'd like to hear it from their own mouths first.

They cannot open up the time frame. They cannot try to float the story that BL was abducted prior to 11:30pm because that puts awake human beings in the house at that time (two boys, one girl at certain times).

 

[iamnotagolem]

Did DB/JI actually accuse/insinuate something about JB? I'd like to hear it from their own mouths first.

They cannot open up the time frame. They cannot try to float the story that BL was abducted prior to 11:30pm because that puts awake human beings in the house at that time (two boys, one girl at certain times). Unless you believe SB was bold faced lying about seeing BL at 6:40pm (what motive for that lie?), the baby was alive and well when DB went outside to drink.

BBM, IIRC SB has never said she saw Lisa at 6:40, she has said her 4 y/o did. I believe SB said she saw Lisa at 4:30