Police say parents are not answering vital questions #3

[vlpate]

Let's just say for a minute that we get 100% confirmation and evidence from LE stating that DB & JI are not involved in any way, shape or form.

Why was Lisa in bed from 4pm-4am? Was this normal behavior? Did their families know this? Was anyone in the family uncomfortable with their "parenting"? Who all knew that JI was working his first night shift that night? PN? AI? DN? SB? JB? Surely they knew, anyone else? Did anyone on their list, of 9 (or was it 12) people they thought might have taken Lisa, know he'd be working? How many people were aware of DB's drinking?

I think that if Lisa was abducted, then it's pretty likely it was someone close to them, a family member who wasn't happy with the drinking, the leaving Lisa in bed for 12+ hours at a time, maybe a family member who wants kids but only has a history of failed marriages?

IMO, good chance.

 

[MyBelle]

Just kind of jumping off the part I bolded. I wonder WHY LE has not confirmed certain things in this case. Now obviously, there are going to be a lot of things they are not going to release as it may be detrimental to the investigation or a future prosecution. But why will they not confirm things such as how DB did on her polygraph. I don't see how saying yes she did pass or no she did not are going to affect anything. If they did lie to her that she failed, why not just say so-"Yes we lied, it is part of tactics we use when questioning people" Or conversely "We can confirm that DB did indeed fail the polygraph." Does anyone have any speculation on this, because frankly I have no idea.

LE can't force someone to take a poly nor can they use the results against the person who took it. For all we know, DB may have volunteered to take it. I don't believe they lied to her about the results. They certainly didn't force her to publicly reveal anything they said to her.

JMO

 

[Sparklin]

They did? We know this how?



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.



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>

bbm = she didn't have the fortitude to destroy a receipt, but she managed to hide her daughter so well that 4 months later LE still has no clue where this baby is?? All tanked up??

 

[Sparklin]

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.

bbm = not sure I understand. I don't think we, the public, were privy to ANY conversation DB had the FIRST DAY are we? Anything she said to the police, we wouldn't know if she repeated that later, changed it or omitted it would we?

 

[melissasmom]

bbm = she didn't have the fortitude to destroy a receipt, but she managed to hide her daughter so well that 4 months later LE still has no clue where this baby is?? All tanked up??

That is partof the reason I have trouble believing that something happened to Lisa, either on purpose or by accident, and DB hid her body. If she was drunk, I don't see her having the faculties to do this and pull it off. Especially not with that time frame.

 

[vlpate]

bbm = she didn't have the fortitude to destroy a receipt, but she managed to hide her daughter so well that 4 months later LE still has no clue where this baby is?? All tanked up??

Please show me where I stated DB didn't have the fortitude to destroy the receipt, but she "managed to hide her daughter". In fact, show me where I've said she did anything to her daughter, hurt, hide, or give away, anywhere on this forum.

If you are going to quote me and reply to something I've opined, great - just please do not insinuate I have opinions that I clearly have never expressed.

Tanked up = drunk

Thanks

 

[vlpate]

That is partof the reason I have trouble believing that something happened to Lisa, either on purpose or by accident, and DB hid her body. If she was drunk, I don't see her having the faculties to do this and pull it off. Especially not with that time frame.

One of the theories I've seen put forth was DB gave Lisa too much medication, whether for her cold, or to knock her out so she could enjoy her "me time". If that were the case, then she likely would have called someone who would help her dispose of Lisa's body....like a relative. It would explain how distraught she was - I mean, how horrible would that be. It would also explain there being no sounds from the baby - no screams from a child being brutalized.

It's not a bad theory - but I still think the baby was taken out of the house by someone who was hired to do so. Someone who would do just about anything for money.

 

[lonetraveler]

Has LE made an official statement about the LDT? The LDT is an investigative tool but is not 100% accurate and is not empirical evidence. LE was playing head games, an allowable investigative tool. If I were in Deborah's shoes and knew I didn't harm my child and they were accusing me of doing so it would be 'this discussion is over'. Innocent people lawyer up, as well. Being charged doesn't mean guilt but then Deborah hasn't been charged, has she?

Deborah's comment, concerning the question of "Do you know where your baby is" and she repled "No" was that according to LE her answer was deceptive. I'm aware that LE has made no comment about the LDT. Deborah is the one who gave the information out in the interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox. That said, LE has made it very clear that they have questions for both Bradley and Irwin that need answering.

 

[lonetraveler]

One of the theories I've seen put forth was DB gave Lisa too much medication, whether for her cold, or to knock her out so she could enjoy her "me time". If that were the case, then she likely would have called someone who would help her dispose of Lisa's body....like a relative. It would explain how distraught she was - I mean, how horrible would that be. It would also explain there being no sounds from the baby - no screams from a child being brutalized.

It's not a bad theory - but I still think the baby was taken out of the house by someone who was hired to do so. Someone who would do just about anything for money.

That is my theory as well. DB commented that Lisa was fussy that day so she was "put down" earlier than usual, that she usually went to bed later. IMO, DB was looking forward to her "adult time" with her friend and wasn't about to let a fussy baby ruin it. Maybe Lisa was given medication earlier as well since JI was trying to rest so that he could work the night shift and maybe a dose was given to her too close to the last dose and she died. DB has admitted that she did not check on Lisa again after 6:30 pm.

 

[melissasmom]

One of the theories I've seen put forth was DB gave Lisa too much medication, whether for her cold, or to knock her out so she could enjoy her "me time". If that were the case, then she likely would have called someone who would help her dispose of Lisa's body....like a relative. It would explain how distraught she was - I mean, how horrible would that be. It would also explain there being no sounds from the baby - no screams from a child being brutalized.

It's not a bad theory - but I still think the baby was taken out of the house by someone who was hired to do so. Someone who would do just about anything for money.

But how would DB/ and or JI have the kind of money someone would expect to do a heinous act like this? Even if it was say, a drug addict, you wouldn't think they would agree to hide a dead child for $20. DB and JI didnt have the money to pay their cell phone bill, so how would they have money for a pay off?

 

[CHERIE.T]

KRIMEKAT,
Up thread there are a few links that relate to Lisa's parents not cooperating with LE as per THEIR-LE's- LAST REQUEST. That is a fact.
It is also a fact that none of the baby 'sightings' were Lisa. It is a fact that this child was last seen in her home in her bed per the mother............................if one believes what the mom said.

 

[nursebeeme]

peeps.. there is a LOT of snark going on in this thread.... please refer back to the terms of service here at websleuths because this is not acceptable. Also please make note of the topic of the thread you are on and spread out into discussion that is on topic with the opening post.

this lands at random

 

[highflyer]

"People that cheated on their husband"....and the way he said it, as if it was a slip. That was bizarre. DB is married and has a child her husband doesn't know about. Could this be what he was referring to?

1:44 (approximately)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1213192088001

That certainly came to mind, as well as possibly the next door neighbor and other intimates of the couple.

 

[Whisperer]

Everyone knows a polygraph can't be used in a court of law, that's not why they are given. LE uses a polygraph as an interrogation tool. They use it to get answers and to put pressure on the subject to tell the truth.

We have no idea what was said during DB's interview - she may have offered to take the test, a lot of people do. "I'm telling you the truth, I didn't do this, give me a polygraph test!" Many times it is a defensive statement, the person being interrogated thinking this will make them go, "oh heck, she's willing to take a polygraph, she must be telling the truth!".

IIRC, Jeremy 'offered' to take a polygraph but they told him it was not necessary, he was "cleared".

Everyone keeps repeating the poly can't be used in a court of law. It can. It is not to be used as "Evidence" but it can be referred to IF both parties agree....FAT chance of that happening. I have heard it referred to. It does happen. I believe it was mentioned in OJ trial who was also very tired and very nervous when he took it and failed.'

The poly test is usally given to nervous, upset, and distraught people. Those things are imbedded in the results as they ask them base line questions and can judge how nervous they are..and that will be their base. So the nerves are already accounted for on the test.

The recipient usually knows the questions before they are hooked up. I suspect DB failed it and failed it miserably. If she passed, her lawyer would have the results and be announcing them continually. Joe T can also have a private poly done and he would also announce she passed. If he had them tested, they probably didn't pass, as both attorneys are silent.

 

[Whisperer]

Since I think Jeremy is all kinds of weird, he did give us a peek into it when he responded to the question, "Who would have done this?" with "Someone who cheated on HER husband". Who shut him up after that statemement?. I bet DB interrupted..but can't be sure.

 

[Whisperer]

IIRC, Jeremy 'offered' to take a polygraph but they told him it was not necessary, he was "cleared".

If that came down the way it was presented, I call this the biggest mistake LE has ever made. I cannot fathom any LE turning down an offer of a parent to take a test in a missing child case.

 

[Whisperer]

But how would DB/ and or JI have the kind of money someone would expect to do a heinous act like this? Even if it was say, a drug addict, you wouldn't think they would agree to hide a dead child for $20. DB and JI didnt have the money to pay their cell phone bill, so how would they have money for a pay off?

Do people think they called the neighborhood handyman to get rid of a body? That is going to the absurd.

The only one I see DB calling would be her brother or her joined at the hip BF.

 

[iamnotagolem]

Do people think they called the neighborhood handyman to get rid of a body? That is going to the absurd.

The only one I see DB calling would be her brother or her joined at the hip BF.

The only way I can see Jersey being involved is if DB gave PN Lisa in a duffle bag and said "can you give this to jersey on your way out of the neighborhood?". PN gives it to Jersey, Jersey has instructions to drop it in the river. I'm pretty sure if that happened then PN or Jersey would have mentioned it to the police.

I just can't see involving an outside party in disposing of your child as a very good idea.

 

[Whisperer]

What was DB doing all day on Oct 3? Who picked up the kids from school? Was Lisa there? Who normally picks them up and is Lisa normally with that person? Who walks them to the bus stop/school each day? Since JI leaves early, I would assume DB. Who has come forward and said they saw Lisa that day at school/bus stop?

As far as this case goes, no one from the media has been able to question them about DB's entire day. DB didn't want local media involved. I suspect there is good reason for that.

 

[Sparklin]

Please show me where I stated DB didn't have the fortitude to destroy the receipt, but she "managed to hide her daughter". In fact, show me where I've said she did anything to her daughter, hurt, hide, or give away, anywhere on this forum.

If you are going to quote me and reply to something I've opined, great - just please do not insinuate I have opinions that I clearly have never expressed.

Tanked up = drunk

Thanks

Sorry, I didn't mean YOU in particular thought that, I just meant it in general. That because she was so 'drunk' she wouldn't have gotten rid of the receipt but people think she was capable of some amazing maneuvers in such a state...