"Jersey" and MW #2

[Abby Normal]

She claims she was looking through the blinds on her window. I really don't know how good a look she has gotten. She apparently could not see the guy's face at all. What if this guy was carrying a small dog instead of a baby, but when next morning they heard the baby was missing they decided what they saw was a baby?

Just in case you, or anyone, has missed the post of mine that you quoted. I am going to bold parts for clarity

Originally Posted by Abby Normal
absolutely possible.

I think an interesting thing though is that Lisa P concentrated on a portion of the arm and the bare leg hanging down the man's side. The way she described/demonstrated it, and the way she was concentrating when she did, led me to believe she was recalling a visual. It's not just she saw something in his arms, you know? I would find this theory more likely if she had said "and he was carrying a baby in his arms" or something more vague. That's the only thing that leans me in the direction of thinking that, in this case, it wasn't a dog.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/miss...speak-14785603

One thing you can't say about my post that you questioned is that it wasn't written with an open mind. I held all possibilities open, and only indicated what I found interesting and what headed the direction of my train of thought. I'm not even sure how else to respond here, honestly.

 

[vlpate]

Right, but the car break-in was a month or so before DB asked LE to check the butts. Strange to think they would still be on the ground.

I doubt they would have picked them up, judging by the mess on the side of DB's bed, being tidy is not a priority.

 

[Niner]

He's been incarcerated for arson in NJ - there was a dumpster fire (not sure of the time, but significant)
He dated MW whose phone recieved a call from one of the missing <modsnip> phones
He was seen in the neighborhood that day
He's in jail for tampering with a car - JI's car had been broken into
Conjecture on my part
He was a handyman in the neighborhood and there's a good chance he's asked the <modsnip> if they needed anything done

LE may have "moved on", but I just can't yet.

respectfully snipped - re bold,

fire at 2:19am October 4th... had the link, but now can't find it... :seeya:

 

[gliving]

I doubt they would have picked them up, judging by the mess on the side of DB's bed, being tidy is not a priority.

I think the mess by Deborah's bed is post search. Her home has been described as very tidy in it's normal state.

*glances at the pile of books by my bed*

KCMO was in a drought this summer. It's possible the lawn hadn't been mowed and the butts could still be there.

 

[Sparklin]

I doubt they would have picked them up, judging by the mess on the side of DB's bed, being tidy is not a priority.

During the tour of the house and any photos I've seen elsewhere (before BL went missing) the house and her kids looked VERY well looked after and spotless clean.

 

[Tuffy]

I'm basing my suspicion on the fact that he did once live across the street from DB, and one of the Irwin phones dialed his former girlfriend's number the night before the abduction, and seemingly the former girlfriend does not know DB.

I'm in the camp that believes "moved on" is symantics. They've never used the word "cleared", and that could be key here.

I'm still catching up with this thread, so forgive me if the point has been beaten to death. I took the phrase "moved on" to mean just that. The individual has been investigated, then the detectives moved on.

If I say that I dated a guy, then moved on. To me, that wouldn't lead people to believe there is still a relationship. The same reason, I wouldn't think that SY used the phrase "moved on" to let the public know that JT is still being looked at as a POI in this case. To me, it sounds like he's no longer of interest.

Does that make sense?

 

[hambirg]

I think the mess by Deborah's bed is post search. Her home has been described as very tidy in it's normal state.

*glances at the pile of books by my bed*

KCMO was in a drought this summer. It's possible the lawn hadn't been mowed and the butts could still be there.

Then only thing that doesn't make sense to me about the butts, is if somebody is planning on breaking into your car, we are suppose to believe they stand out there and have more than one cigarette? I smoke and it takes roughly at least 6 mins to have a quick smoke. Why would a car prowler stand out by the car for longer than that, casually smoking several cigarettes? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[gluestk]

For those who might be interested in where the information is coming from about the parents changing timeline, here are all the videos. All the videos are here - it's pretty eye opening.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/tag/deborah-bradley/

Terrific, ty.

 

[Sparklin]

I think its motorcylce guy :waitasec:

As far as im aware SBs husbands photo hasnt been in MSM is that right? So its not like he coukd have recognized him from a news report but i do agree,i wouldnt take what he says as the gospel. Did he not change what he saw to a baby in a diaper and a tshirt instead of a diaper? Go figure :waitasec:

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

My take on MT's change in statement:

Only had a diaper on = no pants
She = this should be obvious since he is being questions in the case of a missing baby girl, so it would just be automatic, not necessarily 'fact'.

Not every bit of every interview he did is shown to us. Who knows how prompted he is by reporter. ie: MT: only wearing diaper Rep: nothing else but a diaper? No shirt? MT: oh yes a tshirt, but no pants.

This MT and his explanations of coming forward later on and his info, seem plausible to me. JMO

 

[gluestk]

Vengeance.

I watched The Devil Within last night and the featured stories were Betty Broadrick and Mary Winkler. Both women at one time were called loving devoted wives. Somewhere along the lines they were done wrong and they took vengeance or took revenge on men in their lives.

People do evil scary things when they are mad.
Mad and drinking, takes it all up a notch. IMO

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

My take on MT's change in statement:

Only had a diaper on = no pants
She = this should be obvious since he is being questions in the case of a missing baby girl, so it would just be automatic, not necessarily 'fact'.

Not every bit of every interview he did is shown to us. Who knows how prompted he is by reporter. ie: MT: only wearing diaper Rep: nothing else but a diaper? No shirt? MT: oh yes a tshirt, but no pants.

This MT and his explanations of coming forward later on and his info, seem plausible to me. JMO

Yes it is interesting how people add or change things once they start giving multiple media interviews.

I think that at the minute, I still trust what MT told LE and the very early media interviews.

The interview with Jim Spellman where he showed MT a picture on his phone? and MT confirmed it was the same guy makes me believe his description was solid.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Then only thing that doesn't make sense to me about the butts, is if somebody is planning on breaking into your car, we are suppose to believe they stand out there and have more than one cigarette? I smoke and it takes roughly at least 6 mins to have a quick smoke. Why would a car prowler stand out by the car for longer than that, casually smoking several cigarettes? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Thank you!

 

[Elley Mae]

I watched The Devil Within last night and the featured stories were Betty Broadrick and Mary Winkler. Both women at one time were called loving devoted wives. Somewhere along the lines they were done wrong and they took vengeance or took revenge on men in their lives.

People do evil scary things when they are mad.
Mad and drinking, takes it all up a notch. IMO

you are right about people doing evil scary things

Betty was a whack job, jmo but,I felt sorry for Mary and am glad she got her girls back.

 

[justamommy]

Then only thing that doesn't make sense to me about the butts, is if somebody is planning on breaking into your car, we are suppose to believe they stand out there and have more than one cigarette? I smoke and it takes roughly at least 6 mins to have a quick smoke. Why would a car prowler stand out by the car for longer than that, casually smoking several cigarettes? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Bouncing off your post here...

I've been thinking as the cigarettes are being questioned again. I wonder if she wanted the cigarettes from someone that stopped by that night tested. Just a thought. moo jmo :twocents:

 

[Abby Normal]

Then only thing that doesn't make sense to me about the butts, is if somebody is planning on breaking into your car, we are suppose to believe they stand out there and have more than one cigarette? I smoke and it takes roughly at least 6 mins to have a quick smoke. Why would a car prowler stand out by the car for longer than that, casually smoking several cigarettes? It doesn't make any sense to me.

It doesn't make sense, I agree. Nothing makes any sense anymore. I'm beginning to own a skewed sense of reality.

 

[gluestk]

you are right about people doing evil scary things

Betty was a whack job, jmo but,I felt sorry for Mary and am glad she got her girls back.

Betty was crazy as a loon. I think Mary did what she had to do at the time. I was estatic when she got her girls back.

 

[whodidit]

Wow, this case is really something, huh? I can't figure out which way is up with all of these characters, situations, sightings, etc. Usually I have a gut reaction on these kind of cases, and I really don't here.

I do think that MW and Jersey are involved, at least peripherally, maybe all in. Not sure about that. I have noticed that a lot of people in the "parents did it" camp have mentioned that it is so statistically rare to have a stranger abduction, which is a good point. However, all of these "coincidences" that point back to MW and J? MAYBE if one or two of them were there (like JUST the phone number, or JUST seen in that neighborhood, OR just fitting the description of the neighbor sighting, or JUST the handyman, or JUST a firebug, or, or, or, etc), I could see it. All of it together? That's almost statistically impossible, and if we are going on pure mathematics here, the stranger abduction, while statistically rare, is still more likely than the nearly statistically impossible scenario that all of those other things just happened to line up on that one particular night, kwim?

I know I'm joining the discussion kind of late here, but I have been lurking and trying to keep up on all of the threads. Obviously, this all JMO (since actual facts seem to be a pretty big rarity in this case LOL).

 

[21merc7]

:wagon: to WS whodidit. Great 1st post, keep 'em coming!

 

[whodidit]

BEM: Infanticide, by definition, is always maternal. Infanticide would not apply in Deborah Bradley's case...Lisa was 10 months old at the time.

Infanticide is the homicide of a human infant from birth to 12 months by anybody. I think you are thinking of neonaticide, which is the killing of a newborn, birth to 24 hours old, and is done almost always by the mother. Filicide is the killing of any child at the hands of his/her parent (either mother or father). Filicide can apply to any age, even adult children.

 

[vlpate]

Infanticide is the homicide of a human infant from birth to 12 months by anybody. I think you are thinking of neonaticide, which is the killing of a newborn, birth to 24 hours old, and is done almost always by the mother. Filicide is the killing of any child at the hands of his/her parent (either mother or father). Filicide can apply to any age, even adult children.

You are right, I took my information from the recent case of the 22 yr old woman who killed her newborn. Even Dr. Drew was saying infanticide..

Thanks