MSM coverage of Baby Lisa, 10/29/11

[dog.gone.cute]

OMG ... very telling, Bill ... will NOT tell JJP where he brought the family last night ...

OMG ... BS is trying to CONVINCE Judge and AUDIENCE to consider these witnesses' accounts of "baby sightings" ... Sorry Bill -- I am NOT "buying" this "theory" !

IMO ... BS talks out of BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH ... "praises" LE and then "defends" DB and JI ... :furious:

And one more thing ... WHAT are YOU DOING, Bill, to FIND Baby Lisa ? NOT a da** thing !:furious:

MOO ...

 

[Sherbie]

BS said that Joe Tac (for short) would be the one to answer any questions regarding the boys being interviewed. He will not answer any questions re that subject.

I was able to watch the rerun and you were exactly right. He said, "That's Joe Tac - Joe Tacopina...." (just kinda stopped/restarted mid-word). Thank you!

 

[yllek]

I agree, Yllek. What you say makes sense.

The problem is: so much of what BS & JT have said DOES NOT benefit the parents of Lisa - in fact, it has done the opposite.

So much of what BS & JT have said has not fostered public favor of the parents, but has apparently turned the public against the parents.

At this juncture, it would appear that BS & JT are more of a liability than an asset.

BBM:

I agree, if their mission is simply to make the parents look good, they are not effective.

But, I think that they are trying to sell an obviously faulty product here. Makes it hard for some people to buy it, no matter how slick the sellers and how hard they try. JMO.

Imo, BS and JT aren't necessarily a liability to the parents. There are people convinced that the sightings by the neighbor couple, motorcycle man, and surveillance of blob point to an intruder. There are people still very suspicious that Jersey could be the intruder and his ex-girlfriend has the baby. Some think maybe MW, who received a phone call from the house that night, could be Jersey's gal. Some believe that Debbi's inconsistencies mean very little and she is being harshly judged for drinking too much in her own home (and that she must be honest to admit that she was possibly black-out drunk on national tv). Some feel that Lisa died in an accident due to Debbi's national admission to drinking so heavily; had to be a tragic accident for which she is racked with guilt. Heck, they could be right - I don't know where Lisa is or what happened to her. Point is, whether they're fact or fiction, some of these possibilities that support an intruder abduction or tragic accident have been introduced and/or propagated and reiterated by JT and BS.

If DB and JI are innocent, I agree that BS and JT are a liability, if they are behind the parents' decisions to date. The parents should be using the media and the public to help find Lisa. They should find out what the boys know in a child-friendly professionally-conducted interview. They should work with LE to iron out holes and inconsistencies in their previous accounts and advocate for finding Lisa with all their might. Imo, they are doing none of these things. JMO.

If DB and JI are guilty, I think that JT and BS have been an asset. The parents aren't answering LE questions that could only further incriminate themselves. The boys aren't giving LE information that could incriminate the parents. The parents are no longer talking to media, where changes in stories will be broadcast and could be used later in court. While the parents aren't looking so good to much of the public, what JT and BS are doing now could benefit the parents if Lisa is never found and/or if the parents are charged and tried in the future. JMO.

JMO...

 

[momtective]

I have just heard speculation that MW is the girl filmed with 'the teen' that is all. She is not the same person. I am in no way saying that nobody saw MW in the neighborhood.

I have searched high and low for the video I believe I saw her in. I think it was either day 1 or day 2 and it may have been on one of the live streaming feeds, but there was a teenage boy interviewed as well as other neighbors, she was in that video. The pink hair really stood out.

 

[mysteriew]

And to your point, I find it *really* odd that JT came on SO QUICKLY after the drunk confession.

I have this bad feeling that was a stretch that was endorsed strategically before he was "technically" hired. And I think it was the most damning thing in the court of public opinion.

But it's 100% a feeling, which means it isn't to be assumed accurate or probable.

What I can't figure out is who would have something to gain from these guys looking even worse on national television than they were managing themselves? Network? Bored rich kid? Wealthy kidnapper? (I know, I'm grasping- you don't have to tell me) :crazy:

I agree, I think that was a planned release. And I have a theory about why. LE never mentioned the drinking. If this ever goes to court and if it wasn't mentioned until then, think of the juror shock. But if it comes out really early, they have explanations for discrepancies in her statements. And it is early enough that potential jurors get used to the idea. So it will still be damaging if used in trial, but not as damaging as if it was a surprise.

 

[KCMommie]

Well I heard Deb say one son was in bed with her, Bill said both boys were. I heard Bill say the video showed a guy walking out of the woods with a baby. That was a lie too.

The now inconsistencies of what boy was in whose bed concern me. First, I heard that only the youngest was in mom's bed with a kitty. Now, we're hearing that at one time both boys were in mom's bed but the oldest got up and went to his own bed. JI found the oldest in his own bed.

This concerns me because if the latter story is correct - that puts the oldest boy up and walking around the house AFTER DB etal went to bed.

I really wish we could nail that part of the story down. Who was were and did anybody get up and move around later?

JMHO

There are actually several stories floating around re: where the boys actually were. I just posted in the comparison of parents statements to media thread of three versions (not including the nightmare version); however, "People" has a version, along with others. I've been trying to make sure I have the parents making the statements that account for these versions, amongst other story variations.

Personally, I think the time-line of last seen by anyone other than Jeremy and Lisa should be dug out. Then start there. Also, didn't I hear during the first week that Jeremy was working a day shift, then took on a "side job" unusually that evening?

I remember everyone asking who was watching the children while Deborah went to the store, and many stated that Jeremy was at work and went directly to his side job?

I don't find rushing to a phone in this scenario of crisis forgetting it does not work to be the problem.... Not sure why so much time was wasted on that? Must have missed something.

And For the LIFE of me I cannot figure why DB continues to reference "we" abnormally in her statements???

 

[justbetweenus]

I was able to catch the re run of JJ, and I must say BS did a terrible job. Most of the questions asked to him, he answered back with a question that wasn't relevent to the question he was asked to respond to. He contradicted, omitted, and just plainly didn't seem to know what he was talking about. Poor Lisa.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

Something that was very telling about BS and his investigation was brought out tonight.

Judge J asked BS if he has spoken to MW. This came on the heels of her saying that MW told the reporter that she has been interviewed by LE 4 times. so, Judge J asks "Have YOU talked to MW"?

And BS finally fessed up that "No, he hasn't spoken with her".

That tells me that BS didn't even know about MW. How this can be, I don't know. The parents would have access to their own phone records and that call would have been on there and BS, being the crack pot private eye he is, should have flagged that call and asked both DB and JI about it. Who knows what *advertiser censored*-a-maimee story they told him. Either way - BS hasn't done his job and found out about MW the same time we have.

Or, on the other hand - you wear a glove :floorlaugh: Seriously, it could also be a glaring flag that BS is lying.

Who knows at this point?

 

[Whisperer]

We learned one new fact today. All the lights were on in every room EXCEPT Lisa's. Her room was dark.

 

[Whisperer]

Something that was very telling about BS and his investigation was brought out tonight.

Judge J asked BS if he has spoken to MW. This came on the heels of her saying that MW told the reporter that she has been interviewed by LE 4 times. so, Judge J asks "Have YOU talked to MW"?

And BS finally fessed up that "No, he hasn't spoken with her".

That tells me that BS didn't even know about MW. How this can be, I don't know. The parents would have access to their own phone records and that call would have been on there and BS, being the crack pot private eye he is, should have flagged that call and asked both DB and JI about it. Who knows what *advertiser censored*-a-maimee story they told him. Either way - BS hasn't done his job and found out about MW the same time we have.

Or, on the other hand - you wear a glove :floorlaugh: Seriously, it could also be a glaring flag that BS is lying.

Who knows at this point?

None of us seem to know for sure but we do know that BS is not behaving like a P.I. He is behaving like he is a mouthpiece for the parents. So he was hired as a P.I. by ...?.. for the sake of bookkeeping, but in reality he is speaking for Joe T. and relaying the attorneys instructions to the parents.

There was a Spokesman at the beginning of this case. He was a relative but must have been replaced with BS. He was in the article I linked earlier this evening.

Is there a book for dummies on how to hide bodies? I am amazed at how good people are getting. Now, IF DB was in a black-out, I doubt she could hide anything well. Whatever she did would have been familiar. So the question is, "How drunk was she?"

 

[Whisperer]

I just heard a pink-haired gal say she got a call at 2:34am and doesn't know who answered it? Somebody needs to just shoot me and take me out of my confusion......

 

[loveandhugs]

Why doesn't the interviewer in these cases challenge when a person says something blatantly wrong or false? It makes them no better, as they are allowing false info to continue to be spread, rather than call them on it. If Fox or anyone else was really interested in helping to solve this case, rather than just put on whoever will come, they would make sure what was being said matched the known facts. JMO

I believe they don't confront anyone because they always hope they can get that "only here" interview from the "parties" involved. That is more important, so they don't ask the difficult questions.

 

[Twelve of One]

I think most of the TV interviewers don't know the details of the case, so they don't even spot inconsistencies or know which points to follow up on.

 

[Cazzie]

I have searched high and low for the video I believe I saw her in. I think it was either day 1 or day 2 and it may have been on one of the live streaming feeds, but there was a teenage boy interviewed as well as other neighbors, she was in that video. The pink hair really stood out.

I found that video (if it's the same one you're referring to), and there is no girl with pink hair in it. I didn't see a girl that looks like her either (with other hair color). If you want I will look it up again and post the link.

Just a thought: I wonder if it would be important to know when she colored her hair pink,and what color it was beforehand. Just for finding out where she's been seen, when.

 

[Sigh Sister]

I think most of the TV interviewers don't know the details of the case, so they don't even spot inconsistencies or know which points to follow up on.

This is so true and so annoying. Even NG (who really irritates me), can't keep facts straight, and she follows cases extensively.

 

[LaLaw2000]

http://www.examiner.com/missing-per...r-s-ex-sean-bradley-charged-drive-by-shooting
Baby Lisa's mother's ex, Sean Bradley, reportedly charged in drive-by shooting

Wonder why the Examiner pulled this article? I cannot get it to come up at all. Maybe it was an error because Sean Bradley has been out of the country with his unit.

(I am just now catching up here)

 

[Cazzie]

Wonder why the Examiner pulled this article? I cannot get it to come up at all. Maybe it was an error because Sean Bradley has been out of the country with his unit.

(I am just now catching up here)

A WSer posted that there are 2 SB's and they think it's a case of mistaken identity.

I've also seen it posted that SB's family told the media he was deployed.

I have no idea...

 

[Twelve of One]

A WSer posted that there are 2 SB's and they think it's a case of mistaken identity.

I've also seen it posted that SB's family told the media he was deployed.

I have no idea...

Yeah, I think they had the wrong one. And if so, that is such sloppy journalism and really inexcusable, to connect him with a crime he didn't commit. So unfair to him and his family.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Here is what bothers me about tonight's show.

Some rich person put up a 100k reward and hired Bill Stanton to find Lisa Irwin.

Bill Stanton is getting on tv and lying about facts in the case.

These are not mix ups or mistakes the guy makes a living on looking at facts and finding facts. He makes a lot of money.

He is still on the case after telling lies about it. How can I not think some rich person is paying him to get on tv and lie about the case?

Why would someone pay for this?

BBM:

Exactly, Dr. Fessel!

Something is just not right about BS and this benefactor. What is the real reason for BS misrepresenting the facts of the case? That certainly does not help find Baby Lisa.

Why do I feel this reward will never be paid out and they seem to know it?

:innocent:

MOO

 

[~n/t~]

Joe Tacopina states on Oct 25th that three witness see a man with a baby at midnight, 2 in the morning and 4 am. This is NOT TRUE. And he is the main lawyer (and only one now as far as I know). He is lying too. He is making "mistakes" about the facts in this case to cause confusion and to point the blame away from his clients. Lawyers do lie.

At 2:40 to 3 minute mark http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/baby-lisa-parents-attorney-eyewitness-claim-14808422

I mistakenly thought this interview was from the Judge Jeanine show last weekend but it was on ABC this past week.

How do you know this is not true? Is it because it wasn't revealed in the media? What if JT, as their lawyer, knows a lot more than the media, you, me and the rest of the public?