MSM coverage of Baby Lisa, 10/31/11

[AngelWings444]

Just caught BS and his BS on the Joy Behar show. His new answer is "that's a JT question, not a defense attorney" etc. :banghead: When he talked about Lisa, I wanted to scream for some reason, "bouncing baby"? I hope someone can link his interview here. Unreal! I suspect, there is a darn good reason why he wore mirrored sunglasses. :sigh:

 

[jjenny]

jjenny, there is a lot of conflicting information in this case. I don't know what to believe. The transcript is up now: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/31/ng.01.html

Here are the two items I referenced:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE [Thompson]: Seen this guy walking with -- carrying something. Maybe. I got off work about 4:00. And on Tuesday mornings I go visit my cousin here on 48 Terrace. And I was on the way down. I was on my bike. And I came down this exit. And I seen a guy walking over here.

.....

SPELLMAN [Reporter]: So he -- he has no connection to these people at all and he picked this person out. Cindy Short, the attorney until the other day, of Deborah and Jeremy, took him to the police. He was interviewed for two hours and showed a mugshot. He specifically said a mugshot by police. And ID`d the same man to the police.

So now the defense lawyer took him to police? How did she find out about him? And what in the world does it even mean-he was showed a mugshot and picked the same man? The same man as what? What are they talking about?
Here is what was reported previously about a photo line up he picked someone from. I don't see anything in there about a "mugshot." He didn't even call it a "photo," he called it a "picture." I presume he meant a photo. And he also claims he picked somebody "they had been showing pictures of."

"Yesterday they showed me a paper with six pictures on it," Thompson said. "And I picked out the man they had been showing pictures of."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-ba...gh-questions-parents/story?id=14810300&page=2

 

[sorrell skye]

I don't know anyone who visits their *cousin* @ 4:00 a.m., unless they're :silenced: nope - I'm not gonna say it!

This MT dude's testimony didn't sound very reliable to begin with. It sounds even less reliable now.

I've posted 2 other comments abut this dude & have deleted them. I'm leaving this one.

Suffice it to say, I don't trust what this dude says.

 

[Sherbie]

jjenny, just before that passage, the reporter said Thompson had positively identified a man who lives in the community. When he said Thompson picked that same man from the mug shots LE showed him, he was referring to his (reporter's) own mention of said man.

Apparently, the man in the photo is unknown to Thompson as he lives 90 miles away, but he is someone known by media to live in the area. They didn't say who that man is on the show, citing legal reasons.

I don't know how CS came to know about this witness. That's what my posts on this subject have been about - wondering how that came to be. The transcript didn't clarify that, but there are a few other tidbits within. It's worth a read if you have the time (if you search the page for the word "Tuesday," it will put you at the beginning of that particular exchange): http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/31/ng.01.html

Maybe someone will have an answer for us in the morning.

 

[jjenny]

What the motorcycle guy previously described appears to be a standard photographic line up. He never mentioned anything about a "mugshot" and in fact he called "pictures" what I presume to be photos. He said that he picked one person out of six. To not be unduly suggestive, a photo line up should have five fillers (persons who look similar to the subject of interest) and the subject. So I am really confused as to where this reporter got the idea from that the motorcycle guy picked a "mugshot."

 

[Prentiss]

I have a question

my phone is a android and it has wifi calling, would the wifi work with a free wifi connection if the phone was turned off for no payment ?

I have an Android.
I never get to use the Computer as my DD has all her study notes etc on it, so everything I used to do on the Computer I now do on my Android using WiFi.
My Brother taps into WiFi all the time and his Android isn't connected through a server.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

 

[Kat]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/31/ng.01.html

Aired October 31, 2011 - 20:00 ET

SPELLMAN: The pink haired woman, Megan Wright, told me last night that police told her that on Deborah Bradley`s hand was written in pen her phone number. Megan Wright`s phone number. Now Megan says she doesn`t know Deborah or she doesn`t know anybody involved in the family.

We know that police don`t have to tell truth in these interviews but that`s what Megan told me that police told her. Cindy Short, the attorney until the other day of Deborah Bradley told me that she ran this by Deborah Bradley and Deborah Bradley said it`s not true. So --

 

[GEORGIAGIRL69]

If you were smart you would refuse to let your child be interviewed. Want proof? Take a look at this video of a young boy being interrogated by a "psychologist": http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6207937

This boy was pushed into saying something somewhat negative about his father - in order to get away from this horrid woman. This case is important because the father, who was railroaded and FRAMED by LE for the murder/rape of his own baby has been 100% proven innocent. (Most parents aren't so lucky - they may be "cleared" but there is always still suspicion.)

Anyway, watch the video. See how this woman pushes the child. Look at how upset this boy is. Look how she twists his headnods and answers around. And, understand that she was NOT going to let up until he said something - anything- negative about his father. And, then remember that we now know that his father was completely, totally innocent.

Would you REALLY let your children go through that?


ETA: this video is really heartwrenching. Be warned.

So parents should not allow their children to be interviewed because of this one rogue psychologist? Really? There are bad people everywhere and in every profession. I stand behind my statement: If my child were missing, I would do everything possible, including answering all questions and being truthful, and allowing my children to be interviewed by LE in an effort to help the investigation. MOO.

 

[Donjeta]

How would CS know about the phone number on DB's hand and have asked her about it? LE wouldn't have told her, so it must have come from DB. And how would DB know that MW was told by LE that MW's phone number was on DB's hand? Either MW told DB what LE said (and if that is the case, when would DB and MW have talked since they didn't know each other) or the neighbor mentioned seeing it written there.

It makes no sense that the phone number written on DB's hand got back to CS, unless DB brought it up. My guess is the neighbor ratted her out.

If DB didn't bring it up, another possibility is that it came up in the interviews.
There was an attorney present in the October 8th interview and if LE asked DB about it O'Brien might have discussed it with CS later.

 

[~n/t~]

So parents should not allow their children to be interviewed because of this one rogue psychologist? Really? There are bad people everywhere and in every profession. I stand behind my statement: If my child were missing, I would do everything possible, including answering all questions and being truthful, and allowing my children to be interviewed by LE in an effort to help the investigation. MOO.

No way would I let them be interviewed if I was accused of murdering my child during interrogations.

 

[Sigh Sister]

So now the defense lawyer took him to police? How did she find out about him? And what in the world does it even mean-he was showed a mugshot and picked the same man? The same man as what? What are they talking about?
Here is what was reported previously about a photo line up he picked someone from. I don't see anything in there about a "mugshot." He didn't even call it a "photo," he called it a "picture." I presume he meant a photo. And he also claims he picked somebody "they had been showing pictures of."

"Yesterday they showed me a paper with six pictures on it," Thompson said. "And I picked out the man they had been showing pictures of."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-ba...gh-questions-parents/story?id=14810300&page=2

BBM

I'm thinking she found out about him because of his initial interview with the media. IIRC he came forward a week after Lisa went missing and later was shown pictures of possible suspects. IDK....This whole case is like the old "who's on first" thing.

 

[Whisperer]

Has any of the three witnesses described baby Lisa? Was she awake, alert? Was she carried in both arms? Did she make any noise? A ten month old baby being carried, and if alert and awake, could obscure the face of the man carrying her.

 

[Donjeta]

So now the defense lawyer took him to police? How did she find out about him? And what in the world does it even mean-he was showed a mugshot and picked the same man? The same man as what? What are they talking about?
Here is what was reported previously about a photo line up he picked someone from. I don't see anything in there about a "mugshot." He didn't even call it a "photo," he called it a "picture." I presume he meant a photo. And he also claims he picked somebody "they had been showing pictures of."

"Yesterday they showed me a paper with six pictures on it," Thompson said. "And I picked out the man they had been showing pictures of."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-ba...gh-questions-parents/story?id=14810300&page=2

I didn't like hearing he came forward a week later because he "didn't make the connection" and now I don't like hearing that CS was involved.

He may be a totally reliable witness for all I know but I just don't like it that the family defense team has had a chance to tamper with this witness.

 

[Sigh Sister]

Agreed about CS being involved. If there is ever a case, prosecution will be all over that. Wonder if he contacted her through the website or just called her? Was he afraid to go to LE? I can understand that some people are, just see it as a problem when it is one of the attorneys involved.

He had more than one interview with the police, right? He came forward a week after Lisa went missing. He was shown pictures at a later time. Where does it say the CS took him to the police the first time? Or am I confused?

 

[greenpalm]

I have a question

my phone is a android and it has wifi calling, would the wifi work with a free wifi connection if the phone was turned off for no payment ?

Absolutely. My sons share my husbands old iPhone, because he got a new one. It doesn't have a phone number connected to it at all anymore. No account associated with it. It still works with wifi, and all the games, and, I assume would still call 911. Though I haven't tested that.

 

[greenpalm]

Has any of the three witnesses described baby Lisa? Was she awake, alert? Was she carried in both arms? Did she make any noise? A ten month old baby being carried, and if alert and awake, could obscure the face of the man carrying her.

I have wondered this too, particularly the awake (alive?) alert part. A baby awake at that age would sit on your hip and look around if awake, not be cradled so much.

 

[natsound]

Quite a few interesting developments... my random thoughts:

* While all of this is new information to us here at WS, it is certainly not new information to Law Enforcement. They would have already searched MW's house and spoken to everyone with access to that phone.

* I HIGHLY doubt Deborah had this number written on her hand. No freaking way. People write a number on their hand when it's a number that is new to them, they dont have anything better to write it on, and they don't have a phone to program it into -- if this is so, who gave that number to Deborah that night, and why?

* I wonder who else called that number that evening. Could Debby's drinking buddy be on that list?

* The Juggalo thing means nothing.

* I think it is still likely that the simplest explanation is the correct answer, and that Deborah (drunk or high or depressed or whatever) did something to that baby.

* We do not really know what time this call took place.

* I think we will see an arrest very very soon here.

I agree, Chris. What resonates with me is that Jersey was cleared, and I'm wondering if this is some idiotic attempt by MW to inject herself into this case. There would be no reason for a call to come from one of the Irwin's phones if they truly did not know MW. Has MW shown any media this call on her phone, or is that call mysteriously gone?

 

[natsound]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/31/ng.01.html

Aired October 31, 2011 - 20:00 ET

If DB had this number written on her hand, wouldn't police have called the number that night, or the next day, and not wait until they saw an ad for electronics connected to the number? IMO this is more distraction from what's really going on.

 

[Oriah]

I saw that too and it reminded me of my neighbor saying something one morning that made no sense an she said that she must have heard me say it on the baby monitor since there’s picked up mine. Well, we never owned one so we tried to figure out who she was hearing talk to their toddler. It did creep me out that she thought it was us since I don’t know what was going on on it. Glad now that I never owned one and will mention this if I ever become a grandmother.

We don't have a baby monitor, but we do have a similar surveillance system we use for dogs in the kennels.
Wouldn't a baby monitor with the capabilities described, have a memory card? Ours does.

 

[neesaki]

The way I understood it, the FBI did not know who the phone belonged to. Then MW posted a GPS on Craigslist and gave that number as the contact. The FBI called MW's number and found out where she lived.

Seems really weird to me the FBI had not called that number before. I thought they would have all that info already from the phone company. :waitasec: