Police say parents are not answering vital questions #3

[melissasmom]

I know this because I have followed the case since day one. I know this because, rather than always asking for links, I read everything I can on a story when I am active on a forum.

I have read every thread on Lisas forum from day one. And about 90% of the posts. I have also read many many articles. A lot of us have. I do not recall ANYTHING being published which stated exactly what LE said to DB in their interviews. If you are claming something as a fact, and people don't recall it, it is nice to have a link to back up what you are saying.

 

[askfornina]

I do remember hearing about this, because I too have followed this case very heavily. Not from day one, but close. I have recently started going over all my links in the case for the third time. I know this case better than I know my own name. I remember it was a fox4kc video that mentioned the receipt, but it is no longer available on their website.

ETA: here it is on photobucket. [ame="http://media.photobucket.com/video/surveillance%20lisa%20irwin/crankycrankerson/Lisa%20Irwin%20%20-MO-/101011grocery-surveillance-wineman001.mp4?o=4"]Surveillance lisa irwin video by crankycrankerson on Photobucket@@AMEPARAM@@http://vid296.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Lisa%20Irwin%20%20-MO-/101011grocery-surveillance-wineman001.mp4@@AMEPARAM@@vid296@@AMEPARAM@@296@@AMEPARAM@@mm166/crankycrankerson/Lisa%20Irwin%20%20-MO-/101011grocery-surveillance-wineman001@@AMEPARAM@@mp4[/ame]

 

[melissasmom]

I do remember hearing about this, because I too have followed this case very heavily. Not from day one, but close. I have recently started going over all my links in the case for the third time. I know this case better than I know my own name. I remember it was a fox4kc video that mentioned the receipt, but it is no longer available on their website.

.

You might want to edit this to take out the FB info. I don't think you can discuss the Justice page. It's against TOS, considered rumor I believe.

 

[vlpate]

Where is it reported what they initially told police?

No disrespect meant here, but all of this has been reported numerous times and can easily be found by doing a quick google search.


Changed timeline
Nearly two weeks after her child was reported missing on Oct. 4, Bradley also has changed her story about when she last saw baby Lisa. She now says the last time she saw her daughter was at 6:40 p.m. on the night of her disappearance, nearly four hours earlier than the time of 10:30 p.m. that she originally told police. Irwin, the child’s father, was asked if he believed there was anything that Bradley was withholding from the police in light of this change in her story.

 

[DeAnn]

What do you mean, found the receipt? Like when they searched the house? I don't recall that.

The news may have "broke" in the Kansas City media a week or so later but the KCPD had found the receipt well beforehand.

Police initially released the home as a crime scene on Oct. 6 (the big news conference that Thursday night and taking down of crime tape as cameras rolled). They had the receipt in hand by then.

It was implied that Debbie didn't tell cops about the drinking and the wine purchase. Once they found the receipt while searching the home (she obviously didn't hide or destroy it or they wouldn't have found it) they went to the store and go info and then confronted DB about it. Sometime after that, is when the interviews stopped. The other argument is she didn't have anything to hide since she didn't take the time to destroy the receipt.

I think Jim Spellman has said this publicly. Most of the time in this case when reporters have talked to witnesses etc the cops were there doing the same thing long before the reporters.

Oh and I've been following this case relentlessly since the first breaking news crawl interrupted my morning TV watching.

 

[deoneta]

She lied about drinking wine? She corrected her timeline. What you see as as lie, I see as setting the record straight. If she truly was intoxicated, she may have become clearer on events that night as time goes on.

You'd think she might have gotten clearer as time went by, but instead, she forgot more and more, such as seeing Lisa at 10 PM, checking on her at 7:30 when she was standing up in her crib, both details retracted when she went back to 6:40 as the last time she saw Lisa. All MOO

 

[vlpate]

I do remember hearing about this, because I too have followed this case very heavily. Not from day one, but close. I have recently started going over all my links in the case for the third time. I know this case better than I know my own name. I remember it was a fox4kc video that mentioned the receipt, but it is no longer available on their website.

<snipped>

http://www.examiner.com/missing-per...ng-1-week-update-missing-baby-lisa-irwin-case

"A source with the store confirmed with Fox 4 News that police took the receipt to the store and asked to see surveillance video."

 

[DeAnn]

No disrespect meant here, but all of this has been reported numerous times and can easily be found by doing a quick google search.


Changed timeline
Nearly two weeks after her child was reported missing on Oct. 4, Bradley also has changed her story about when she last saw baby Lisa. She now says the last time she saw her daughter was at 6:40 p.m. on the night of her disappearance, nearly four hours earlier than the time of 10:30 p.m. that she originally told police. Irwin, the child’s father, was asked if he believed there was anything that Bradley was withholding from the police in light of this change in her story.

No disrespect here, but that's when the timeline changed publicly in interviews. We have no idea if/when the cops were told because neither they nor DB or her representatives have said. She could have changed her story to police to 6:30 p.m. the first day. she could have never officially changed it. We simply don't know. We only know when she first changed it on TV! A quick google search won't tell you that because few specific details of what was said during KCPD/FBI interviews have been disclosed.

 

[melissasmom]

No disrespect meant here, but all of this has been reported numerous times and can easily be found by doing a quick google search.


Changed timeline
Nearly two weeks after her child was reported missing on Oct. 4, Bradley also has changed her story about when she last saw baby Lisa. She now says the last time she saw her daughter was at 6:40 p.m. on the night of her disappearance, nearly four hours earlier than the time of 10:30 p.m. that she originally told police. Irwin, the child’s father, was asked if he believed there was anything that Bradley was withholding from the police in light of this change in her story.

Thanks for the link on the timeline. I think though, some of the other posters were talking about if Deb lied to police about the drinking, and that is what they wanted links for. Maybe not. I have too many tabs open.

 

[Meri]

BBM This is what I , and some others are referring to when we say facts are misrepresented. DEB said that police told HER she failed the poly. LE has neither confirmed nor denied this fact. Respectfully, when you are arguing a point facts should be used, unless you are clearly stating it is your own opinion.

I don't doubt that the police told DB she failed the polygraph. I do doubt, however, that she really did.

 

[Meri]

I'd worry more about what the cops think rather than the public. I don't believe cops are easily fooled.

JMO

But, what I mean is - I'd be doing everything most people on this board are complaining that she is NOT doing.

 

[RANCH]

I don't doubt that the police told DB she failed the polygraph. I do doubt, however, that she really did.

She could have "failed" the polygraph and not lied about anything. That's why you don't see polygraph's used in court.

 

[melissasmom]

You'd think she might have gotten clearer as time went by, but instead, she forgot more and more, such as seeing Lisa at 10 PM, checking on her at 7:30 when she was standing up in her crib, both details retracted when she went back to 6:40 as the last time she saw Lisa. All MOO

I believe what DB said is that she put Lisa to bed at 6:40, and then checked on her sometime after that, but she is not sure on the time. That is when she was standing up in her crib. I am not sure about the 7:30 time, I didn't think a time was ever stated.

 

[RANCH]

But, what I mean is - I'd be doing everything most people on this board are complaining that she is NOT doing.

Like I said before, you make a good point. When people decide to use their "hinkey meters" or their "gut feelings" and use only someones behavior to feed feelings instead of considering the evidence, how accurate is the conclusion?

A guilty person doing all of the right or correct things is viewed as innocent. An innocent person doings things that are considered wrong is viewed as being guilty.

Sorry, I'll stick with evidence myself.

 

[melissasmom]

She could have "failed" the polygraph and not lied about anything. That's why you don't see polygraph's used in court.

I think polygraphs are a good tool, but they really can't be used as evidence. They are sometimes wrong. Breanna Rodriguez's mother reportedly failed her polygraph, also, but she had nothing to do with her death. It was the neighbor.

 

[vlpate]

The news may have "broke" in the Kansas City media a week or so later but the KCPD had found the receipt well beforehand.

They did? We know this how?

Police initially released the home as a crime scene on Oct. 6 (the big news conference that Thursday night and taking down of crime tape as cameras rolled). They had the receipt in hand by then.

On October 10, police reenacted a crime scene scenario - remember the cops trying to get into the window? The story broke the next day about the receipt and a fence line was searched as a result of LE viewing the Fiesta Foods surveillance tape.

It was implied that Debbie didn't tell cops about the drinking and the wine purchase. Once they found the receipt while searching the home (she obviously didn't hide or destroy it or they wouldn't have found it) they went to the store and go info and then confronted DB about it. Sometime after that, is when the interviews stopped. The other argument is she didn't have anything to hide since she didn't take the time to destroy the receipt.

First of all, DB is probably not a fan of CSI and wouldn't think to destroy the receipt (especially tanked up, she didn't even turn off the lights), and, we don't know where the receipt was found - it could have been in a trash can. Further, why would she destroy a receipt? She, according to her, is innocent. IIRC, Deborah changed her story publicly about the timeline, which sparked another search by LE.

<respectfully snipped>

 

[vlpate]

She could have "failed" the polygraph and not lied about anything. That's why you don't see polygraph's used in court.

Q. When was the last time you saw Lisa?

A. 10:30 pm

Lie.

 

[vlpate]

Like I said before, you make a good point. When people decide to use their "hinkey meters" or their "gut feelings" and use only someones behavior to feed feelings instead of considering the evidence, how accurate is the conclusion?

A guilty person doing all of the right or correct things is viewed as innocent. An innocent person doings things that are considered wrong is viewed as being guilty.

Sorry, I'll stick with evidence myself.

Gosh, I'd be insulted if I thought all my opinions were viewed as merely "gut" feelings and dismissed. Of course, as I stated, that's part of it - and LE uses it all the time.

People who lie, refuse to search, become annoyed by vigils for their child, and then hide behind attorneys when their baby is missing would set off just about anyone's hinky meter...or I would think.

 

[In da Middle]

Ok, my take on the "found" receipt. LE is asking her about her day (as they SHOULD) and she mentions going to Festival. If I am at the station while they are asking me about it so they can see the tape to see who might be stalking them or whatever (standard operating procedure in a missing child case) they would then ask me where to FIND the receipt to get the exact time to give to the manager so we dont have to go through hours of tape. therefore "found". The media didn't know about this until days later, therefore "we" didn't know until days later.

 

[In da Middle]

Gosh, I'd be insulted if I thought all my opinions were viewed as merely "gut" feelings and dismissed. Of course, as I stated, that's part of it - and LE uses it all the time.

People who lie, refuse to search, become annoyed by vigils for their child, and then hide behind attorneys when their baby is missing would set off just about anyone's hinky meter...or I would think.

BBM Almost all of us in the neighborhood were annoyed at Edith and her so-called vigils. They were sweet at first, but Edith and a couple of others turned them into anything BUT a vigil. A prayer vigil for Lisa should have been kept at just that, not a biotch fest that was anything but about Lisa. Most vigils are held in a public place and not in somebody's yard anyway. They were kind enough to let her have the last one she had already scheduled there. If they were truly doing it out of spite they could have just told her to go away and not even let her have the last one.
I don't see them as lieing. We haven't heard anything from LE even stating this at all.
And searching, that would be a bad idea for them to do. What if they found something? A LOT of people would just be screaming that it was planted and not real evidence and all.