Police say parents are not answering vital questions #3

[vlpate]

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.

So, she changed her timeline prior to LE finding the receipt? No she didn't. Not sure why this would even be disputed given the abundance of reports, including Deborah's own words.

BEM: "We" don't know any such thing. The story broke a week before she was on TV feigning indignant and telling her drunk story.

In their interview with JP, both DB and JI said no one could have come in the window -- three times. In their interview with MK, they insisted someone could have and probably did. TV.

No disrespect here - no way she changed her story at 6:30 pm on the first day.... at least not about the timeline.

 

[vlpate]

My heart broke for her at this point....

She doesn't mention drinking...just talking....boys watching a fairy tale....mommy telling a fairy tale.....crying really hard to avoid answering questions about the timeline. :waitasec:

[ame="http://video.foxnews.com/v/1208764392001/exclusive-parents-of-missing-baby-lisa-speak-out/"]http://video.foxnews.com/v/1208764392001/exclusive-parents-of-missing-baby-lisa-speak-out/[/ame]

 

[vlpate]

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.

If I were there, I'd probably be arrested for standing on their front lawn demanding they talk, help find Lisa, instead of doing absolutely nothing.

They didn't lie??? How can that even be disputed at this point?

LE would not come out and unprofessionally call them liars.

 

[MyBelle]

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.

BBM. What you see as setting the record straight, I see as creating the "I don't remember" excuse so she wouldn't have to answer questions.

JMO

 

[lonetraveler]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/1...e-asks-if-they-sold-or-killed-their-daughter/

This link has Part 1 and 2 of the interviews Megyn Kelly of Fox had with DB and JI along with a couple of videos where Megyn is discussing the interview with Judge Jeannine and another man (NYPD I think). This is where Deborah Bradley admits to being drunk, states that Lisa was laid down early at 6:40pm because she was fussy and discusses the LDT. According to Deborah Bradley she was told that the question that she showed deception on was "Do you know where your baby is?". She said no and according to LE, the answer was deceptive. All four videos are interesting.

 

[KsStormy]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/1...e-asks-if-they-sold-or-killed-their-daughter/

This link has Part 1 and 2 of the interviews Megyn Kelly of Fox had with DB and JI along with a couple of videos where Megyn is discussing the interview with Judge Jeannine and another man (NYPD I think). This is where Deborah Bradley admits to being drunk, states that Lisa was laid down early at 6:40pm because she was fussy and discusses the LDT. According to Deborah Bradley she was told that the question that she showed deception on was "Do you know where your baby is?". She said no and according to LE, the answer was deceptive. All four videos are interesting.

Wonder what happened to the rest of the video(s)? Would the reason so many are now missing is due to the grand jury subpoena?

 

[RANCH]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/1...e-asks-if-they-sold-or-killed-their-daughter/

This link has Part 1 and 2 of the interviews Megyn Kelly of Fox had with DB and JI along with a couple of videos where Megyn is discussing the interview with Judge Jeannine and another man (NYPD I think). This is where Deborah Bradley admits to being drunk, states that Lisa was laid down early at 6:40pm because she was fussy and discusses the LDT. According to Deborah Bradley she was told that the question that she showed deception on was "Do you know where your baby is?". She said no and according to LE, the answer was deceptive. All four videos are interesting.

Thanks for the link. So Debbie said that LE told her she showed deception on a question about where Lisa is. Now the question should be did LE lie to her about this or tell the truth? And if LE didn't deceive Debbie, can we say that the results of the LDT are 100% reliable?

 

[ynotdivein]

Peeps.

Any poster here can imagine or speculate what they might do, were they the guilty party in a crime.

Let's allow our fellow posters the freedom to speculate, and not jump to conclusions about motivations for the time being.

:tyou:

 

[DeAnn]

They did? We know this how?



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>

1) Ashley Irwin says DB told police about going to the liquor store. Phil Netz talked to police on Oct. 4. If he had hidden that, I doubt they would have waited another month to talk to him a second time. They would have re-interviewed him once they had surveillance video in hand. Considering police had the home from 4 a.m. Oct. 4 until 7-7:30 p.m. Oct. 7, I have a hard time believing they missed the receipt or had no idea about Festival Foods during this entire time whether DB told them or not. Plenty of other people knew.

Others can say better than me but I think the clerk was asked by reporters when the cops showed up. They knew about Megan Wright and her phone by Oct. 4. I have a hard time believing they didn't know about Festival Foods until Oct. 10 considering the facts as they are. I don't think I'm going to convince you otherwise so I'm not going to try but for those who are uncertain....how does KCPD and FBI know within hours about Megan Wright but not know about the Festival Foods run for seven days? It defies logic to me.

2) And I thought a friend of DB's said she had watched CSI type shows and some trial coverage hence the whole thread about what she knew enough about to cover things up.

3) She didn't destroy the receipt. Considering her own brother, next door neighbor, sons and husband knew about the Festival Foods visit plus the clerk (who would see the case on the news) what Ashley Irwin claims make sense unless someone has proof otherwise. Samantha Brando knew she made a liquor store run. I can't imagine that didn't come out when she was interviewed on Oct. 4. by the police. Why wouldn't she disclose that? Why wouldn't Phil Netz? I can't imagine that at 5 a.m., 6 a.m. Oct. 4 that a police officer or detective wasn't saying, "Mr. Netz, when is the last time you saw your niece?" "Well officer it would be after I dropped off Deb from Festival Foods or no officer I didn't see her before or after I picked up Deb." If he didn't be honest then he would be facing an obstruction of justice charge and he's clearly not.

Police knew about Megan Wright on Oct. 4 but pink haired lady and the attempted cell phone call didn't make the news until much later. Seems like this is no different. Maybe they didn't know about Festival Foods on Oct. 4 (but have a hard time believing that) but I can't imagine they didn't until Oct. 10.

 

[DeAnn]

Wonder what happened to the rest of the video(s)? Would the reason so many are now missing is due to the grand jury subpoena?

I doubt it. It depends on the news station but some have to pay for videos online so it's not unlimited videos. And generally speaking the shelf live of online video of interest is days or weeks, not months.

 

[vlpate]

1) Ashley Irwin says DB told police about going to the liquor store. Phil Netz talked to police on Oct. 4. If he had hidden that, I doubt they would have waited another month to talk to him a second time. They would have re-interviewed him once they had surveillance video in hand. Considering police had the home from 4 a.m. Oct. 4 until 7-7:30 p.m. Oct. 7, I have a hard time believing they missed the receipt or had no idea about Festival Foods during this entire time whether DB told them or not. Plenty of other people knew.

Others can say better than me but I think the clerk was asked by reporters when the cops showed up. They knew about Megan Wright and her phone by Oct. 4. I have a hard time believing they didn't know about Festival Foods until Oct. 10 considering the facts as they are. I don't think I'm going to convince you otherwise so I'm not going to try but for those who are uncertain....how does KCPD and FBI know within hours about Megan Wright but not know about the Festival Foods run for seven days? It defies logic to me.

2) And I thought a friend of DB's said she had watched CSI type shows and some trial coverage hence the whole thread about what she knew enough about to cover things up.

3) She didn't destroy the receipt. Considering her own brother, next door neighbor, sons and husband knew about the Festival Foods visit plus the clerk (who would see the case on the news) what Ashley Irwin claims make sense unless someone has proof otherwise. Samantha Brando knew she made a liquor store run. I can't imagine that didn't come out when she was interviewed on Oct. 4. by the police. Why wouldn't she disclose that? Why wouldn't Phil Netz? I can't imagine that at 5 a.m., 6 a.m. Oct. 4 that a police officer or detective wasn't saying, "Mr. Netz, when is the last time you saw your niece?" "Well officer it would be after I dropped off Deb from Festival Foods or no officer I didn't see her before or after I picked up Deb." If he didn't be honest then he would be facing an obstruction of justice charge and he's clearly not.

Police knew about Megan Wright on Oct. 4 but pink haired lady and the attempted cell phone call didn't make the news until much later. Seems like this is no different. Maybe they didn't know about Festival Foods on Oct. 4 (but have a hard time believing that) but I can't imagine they didn't until Oct. 10.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion....but would you have at least one link or source to back any of the bolded up? She didn't go to the liquor store, she went to a grocery store that sells wine and beer...maybe liquor too, I'd have to view the vid again. Samantha went to the liquor store.

I'm sure Phillip probably told LE they went to the store for diapers etc., not a big deal. When they saw the receipt, IMO, and saw that it was for wine, they knew more than diapers and wipes had been purchased.

IMO, and the way it appears in the video, she pays cash for the wine and a card for the rest. If she's on any sort of assistance, she wouldn't be able to buy wine with whatever form of funds she might have. LE probably had the receipt for the diapers, etc., not the wine. IMO

Deborah's husband is in the military and she probably gets some sort of benefits from him - probably pretending she's all on her own and her husband is away I don't know that....just speculating. Her husband didn't even know about Lisa until she went missing.

Lots of secrets.

 

[Whisperer]

Were diapers bought also?

 

[vlpate]

I doubt it. It depends on the news station but some have to pay for videos online so it's not unlimited videos. And generally speaking the shelf live of online video of interest is days or weeks, not months.

Most can be found on youtube.com Look for sierra1947 - she is constantly saving news stories and the talk show circuit (JVM, NG, VP), and loading them onto youtube.

 

[DeAnn]

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion....but would you have at least one link or source to back any of the bolded up?

I'm sure Phillip probably told LE they went to the store for diapers etc., not a big deal. When they saw the receipt, IMO, and saw that it was for wine, they knew more than diapers and wipes had been purchased.

IMO, and the way it appears in the video, she pays cash for the wine and a card for the rest. If she's on any sort of assistance, she wouldn't be able to buy wine with whatever form of funds she might have. LE probably had the receipt for the diapers, etc., not the wine. IMO

Lots of secrets.

Nothing is bolded so not sure about that....

So if she paid for a card with the rest.....just like they were very quickly pouring over her telephone records by mid morning Oct. 4 then stands to reason they were quickly pouring over her electronic records and going to Festival Foods.

So are you saying that KCPD accepted Phil Netz's "diapers" story at face value and for seven days did nothing? That for a week they didn't go to Festival Foods and talk to the clerk and ask for the surveillance video?

Within that first week area law enforcement was digging through the Johnson County landfill and a nearby quarry and a Dumpster but they didn't for a week bother to check out the Festival Foods story or see about electronic records? Receipt or not, you believe that for a week KCPD and FBI didn't bother to go to the store where she was last seen publicly and ask the clerk whether she was under the influence or anything, did she mention her daughter, how did she act etc etc????

 

[vlpate]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/surveillance-baby-lisas-mom-shopping-14723273

In this video, she puts one of the receipts in the bag.....exactly how I lose receipts all the time.

 

[vlpate]

Nothing is bolded so not sure about that....

So if she paid for a card with the rest.....just like they were very quickly pouring over her telephone records by mid morning Oct. 4 then stands to reason they were quickly pouring over her electronic records and going to Festival Foods.

So are you saying that KCPD accepted Phil Netz's "diapers" story at face value and for seven days did nothing? That for a week they didn't go to Festival Foods and talk to the clerk and ask for the surveillance video?

Within that first week area law enforcement was digging through the Johnson County landfill and a nearby quarry and a Dumpster but they didn't for a week bother to check out the Festival Foods story or see about electronic records? Receipt or not, you believe that for a week KCPD and FBI didn't bother to go to the store where she was last seen publicly and ask the clerk whether she was under the influence or anything, did she mention her daughter, how did she act etc etc????

I'm not even sure they had the receipts on the date Phillip was interviewed the first time....and why wouldn't they accept it? Paying cash for the wine wouldn't show up on their electronic bank or assistance card receipts....

Yes, I believe for a week they did not go to Fiesta Foods to peruse video tapes - they were looking for Lisa and they'd have to have a good reason to go through the video tapes. The liquor purchase would have presented them with a reason, an exact time, and exact register.

I have no idea whether or not Phillip told them about the visit to Fiesta, none of us know for sure.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

LE "found" the receipt doesn't mean 100% it was with held from them. If she was asked where she was between 1 and 5pm she could have said I went to buy wine, LE goes to the house to look for a receipt to back up her alibi for that time.

I've not read anywhere she lied about it, and in the video of Cathy Short in the home it clearly shows the wine box on the counter, it was not like it was being hid under a bushel, or thrown over the fence. It was in plain sight.

As for the LDT I've failed one while being perfectly honest, and passed on a second LDT which I had to demand. Sometimes it is not the question asked but how it is implied. Been there, done that, have the Tee shirt.

 

[vlpate]

LE "found" the receipt doesn't mean 100% it was with held from them. If she was asked where she was between 1 and 5pm she could have said I went to buy wine, LE goes to the house to look for a receipt to back up her alibi for that time.

I've not read anywhere she lied about it, and in the video of Cathy Short in the home it clearly shows the wine box on the counter, it was not like it was being hid under a bushel, or thrown over the fence. It was in plain sight.

As for the LDT I've failed one while being perfectly honest, and passed on a second LDT which I had to demand. Sometimes it is not the question asked but how it is implied. Been there, done that, have the Tee shirt.

BEM: Why would they need to go to the house to look for a receipt so that she would have an alibi? JI was at the house with all the kids, as was SB and her daughter...she had a receipt for diapers, etc., she had an alibi for that 40 or so minutes.

Lies of commission (telling a lie) and lies of omission (withholding the truth) are both acts of intentional deception.

 

[vlpate]

Thanks for the link. So Debbie said that LE told her she showed deception on a question about where Lisa is. Now the question should be did LE lie to her about this or tell the truth? And if LE didn't deceive Debbie, can we say that the results of the LDT are 100% reliable?

Who is relying, or even suggesting, anyone rely on her lie detector test? No one but DB cares. The test is used as an interrogation tool in many cases. If LE told her she was lying, and she wasn't, so what - was she arrested for it? I maintain, IMO, she only mentioned the lie detector to make the police look like meanies, picking on a grieving mother. She completely missed the urgency to get to the truth in order to find her daughter, IMO.

 

[vlpate]

Nothing is bolded so not sure about that....

<snipped>

I apologize, I must have been editing to bold while you were writing.

If you go back, the bold is there, but it's really not that important. Thanks for your reply .