Thought and theories on Jeremy

[vlpate]

Hey guys, because we are going so far off topic here - I started a new thread about when the last time Lisa was seen might have been. Interesting info from Jim Spellman there:

[ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7624582#post7624582]When was the last time Lisa was seen alive[/ame]

 

[norest4thewicked]

I find it very bizarre as well. It's not like they are recalling something that happened 10 years ago.

The key word in that is "recalling". If a person recalls something from the truth, it stays the same. It's only when a person is lying or making up stories that it changes, and that is because it is not the truth. And, their stories changed from day one.:waitasec:

 

[Whisperer]

I love France, too. In fact, my spouse is French. I don't think Jeremy is French, however.

à votre santé !
:toastred:

Yeah, and I loved the French guy on Brothers and Sisters but that doesn't mean I wanna live there.

 

[Whisperer]

The key word in that is "recalling". If a person recalls something from the truth, it stays the same. It's only when a person is lying or making up stories that it changes, and that is because it is not the truth. And, their stories changed from day one.:waitasec:

It was a big red flag when the story changed from Jeremy told she me she was gone to "WE" checked on the boys and then "WE" checked on "HER" and she was gone.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Yeah, and I loved the French guy on Brothers and Sisters but that doesn't mean I wanna live there.

OT but..I love America and would never want to live anywhere else!

 

[vlpate]

Here's another version, supposedly the source for this is Bill Stanton:

"Frustrated by the lights being left on when money is tight -- and angry about seeing a stray kitten at the foot of the bed -- he wakes Deborah Bradley, according to The Kansas City Star.

A groggy Deborah Bradley realizes she hasn't checked on Baby Lisa, KCTV5 reports. She finds the crib empty. (WPTV reports that Jeremy Irwin is the first to realize Baby Lisa is missing)"

In this version, they try out the worried mother scenario out on us. In other words, when JI wakes her, her very first thought is that she didn't check on Lisa the night before - you know, the checking on Lisa she remembered doing at 10:30 the very next day - enough to say she gave her a bottle and made sure she had toys and a blanket! Then she didn't remember again when the receipt was found. Either she's having A LOT of adult time since Lisa vanished, or she can't find a story that's just a fit.

I think the story du jour depends on what new evidence is discovered, or that may be discovered soon. Maybe it's because LE said JI was good for it so the story has to be that she looked first?

It is not complicated. There is plenty of time for either to have completed the entire thing themselves.

What's weird is they are both protecting themselves yet neither wants to be the one that discovered Lisa missing. They both share that part. They both check on Lisa last, if at all and they both together discover her missing after checking on the boys.

This discovery of lisa being gone is the tie that binds them. I wonder why DB didn't go with the story that JI saw she was missing when he arrived home. She told that the first time. Who changed the story to "WE" found her missing?

I wonder if DB was worried that it would LOOK like she was the perp if he discovered Lisa missing. It would look better if both of them, together, found her gone.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I wonder if some of the story changing came about after the police talked to the boys that first time.

I am almost sure it changed from the boys were in their bedroom to one boy in bed with Deb and one boy in his own bed after the cops talked to them.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

SyraKelly, I am confused by it too.

Why would JI's first story put the boys in their bedroom if it wasn't true?

Did it benefit their story somehow to have one of the boys in bed with Deb?

At that point in time they were not telling people Deb was drunk. How does it all fit in?

 

[Minette]

OT but..I love America and would never want to live anywhere else!

Also OT: we chose to live in the U.S. when we got married, mostly for the reason that the economy was better here and my French at that time was not great. Spouse is now and proudly a U.S. citizen, but still loves France. And I love France, too, and that does not mean that I love the U.S. a single bit less. It's OK to appreciate and like the culture of other countries, really it is.

 

[SyraKelly]

SyraKelly, I am confused by it too.

Why would JI's first story put the boys in their bedroom if it wasn't true?

Did it benefit their story somehow to have one of the boys in bed with Deb?

At that point in time they were not telling people Deb was drunk. How does it all fit in?

I'm not sure either-I can see them putting one in the bedroom to say that maybe they heard something-but JI says that they would not have..but they heard the clicking noises..Deb says the BOYS heard this noise..how does this happen when one is with her and the other in his room...

 

[hambirg]

But that is one of the reasons I don't think JI had any part of what happened, if DB is responsible. That is a whole lot of running back and forth for him and working out something about the phones, disposing of the body, etc.. And no one saw him? And he helped in this coverup, or possibly did something to Lisa himself, and then went to work for the rest of the night? His boss saw nothing amiss? And if he did leave for any period of time, his boss is covering for him? To me a scenario invoving JI would just be, I don't know, TOO MUCH, I guess.

BBM

That is pretty much what I said earlier in this thread. That's why I want to look more closely at Jeremy. If DB was responsible, I don't think he would be going along and acting the way he is. BUT if JI is responsible, it might be that he acted alone without DB's knowledge OR she is going along. . .I think I find that more believable, that DB would go along with JI, not the other way around.

MOO

 

[Quizzical]

SyraKelly, I am confused by it too.

Why would JI's first story put the boys in their bedroom if it wasn't true?

Did it benefit their story somehow to have one of the boys in bed with Deb?

At that point in time they were not telling people Deb was drunk. How does it all fit in?

I actually don't think the stories about that morning have changed in any alarming way. I think it depends on the details given or left out. For example when JI says he checked on the boys and then they (he and Deb) checked on Lisa, that is simply a summary of what I think probably happened:
JI checks on boys in room, seeing one isn't in his bed. He's already frustrated about the lights, window opened, front door unlocked, so he goes to wake DB up and give her an earful. When she sits up and looks concerned about the lights, window and door, Jeremy probably realized something is wrong and he didn't check on Lisa. So they both take off to Lisa's room, but since he was probably still standing by the door while she had to get out of bed, he gets there first and says she's gone and as DB is close behind him she says, what do you mean she's gone?
MOO

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I actually don't think the stories about that morning have changed in any alarming way. I think it depends on the details given or left out. For example when JI says he checked on the boys and then they (he and Deb) checked on Lisa, that is simply a summary of what I think probably happened:
JI checks on boys in room, seeing one isn't in his bed. He's already frustrated about the lights, window opened, front door unlocked, so he goes to wake DB up and give her an earful. When she sits up and looks concerned about the lights, window and door, Jeremy probably realized something is wrong and he didn't check on Lisa. So they both take off to Lisa's room, but since he was probably still standing by the door while she had to get out of bed, he gets there first and says she's gone and as DB is close behind him she says, what do you mean she's gone?
MOO

That is all true but in what I believe is Deb and JI's first interview JI is asked if the boys could have heard someone coming in the window and he said he didn't think so because their bedroom was so far from that window. By that statement he is putting both the boys in that bedroom when someone came in.

 

[jjenny]

I actually don't think the stories about that morning have changed in any alarming way. I think it depends on the details given or left out. For example when JI says he checked on the boys and then they (he and Deb) checked on Lisa, that is simply a summary of what I think probably happened:
JI checks on boys in room, seeing one isn't in his bed. He's already frustrated about the lights, window opened, front door unlocked, so he goes to wake DB up and give her an earful. When she sits up and looks concerned about the lights, window and door, Jeremy probably realized something is wrong and he didn't check on Lisa. So they both take off to Lisa's room, but since he was probably still standing by the door while she had to get out of bed, he gets there first and says she's gone and as DB is close behind him she says, what do you mean she's gone?
MOO

I am sorry but based on all the variations to the story the two of them told, one can come up with all kind of scenarios of what "probably happened."

 

[Quizzical]

I am sorry but based on all the variations to the story the two of them told, one can come up with all kind of scenarios of what "probably happened."

Well I obviously don't KNOW what happened since I wasn't there, but the different versions I've read/heard don't seem to be mutually exclusive. I think it depends on how detailed they were in each particular interview and possibly even what details the reporters and/or video editors chose to include or emphasize. And of course I may have missed something.

MOO

 

[Quizzical]

That is all true but in what I believe is Deb and JI's first interview JI is asked if the boys could have heard someone coming in the window and he said he didn't think so because their bedroom was so far from that window. By that statement he is putting both the boys in that bedroom when someone came in.

I see what you mean. I think instead of correcting the interviewer that only one boy was in his bedroom, JI just answers the question. I don't think they are very savvy at being interviewed, which is understandable. I guess I tend to give the benefit of the doubt on this kind of thing because I don't think they realized they should carefully weigh every. single. word. mentioned. (They are not politicians after all). What bothers me more are things like not going to talk to LE separately now that they have a lawyer. That's why I'm on the fence.

 

[Whisperer]

I see what you mean. I think instead of correcting the interviewer that only one boy was in his bedroom, JI just answers the question. I don't think they are very savvy at being interviewed, which is understandable. I guess I tend to give the benefit of the doubt on this kind of thing because I don't think they realized they should carefully weigh every. single. word. mentioned. (They are not politicians after all). What bothers me more are things like not going to talk to LE separately now that they have a lawyer. That's why I'm on the fence.

I don't understand. Are you saying because their refusal to talk to LE is the reason you are on the fence?

 

[highflyer]

I'm on the fence because there are too many unknowns. Without test results, any kind of information given LE etc there is no way to base a weighted opinion on anything. Speculation is speculation but that is all it is. Must just be me.

 

[Whisperer]

What did we do before all these test results? There was testing but if the parents are the perps, it can never be proven if it was a soft kill. W/o a body, it is almost impossible to convict so the one responsible gets away with it way too often, especially when there are attorneys to prevent LE from doing what is necessary to find the child or get a confession. Most of the time this has to take place within the first week.


I don't consider an FBI trained cadaver dog, speculation. I also think failing a poly is a pretty good sign something isn't right. When parents need numerous legal help to defend them from talking to LE, well, that doesn't sit right, and most people will say it is a sign of guilt. It usually is too. Joe T is world renowned for defending the very guilty.

 

[Whisperer]

This is not a matter of evidence anymore, it is a mindset. There is not enough evidence that we know to file charges but there is PLENTY in the Court of Public Opinion. The parents have changed their stories, failed a poly, and a cadaver dog hit in the house. It was an FBI trained dog and the FBI/LE swore it to be the truth.

When you top this with parents refusal to speak to LE to find their baby....well...most people would say they have something to do with her going missing. Top that with hiring four attorneys in the first month and you have yourself a set of people that appear to be guilty of a crime.

If it takes more than this for some to say they could be guilty, bless your little hearts. There are plenty of defense attorneys that would love to have you sitting in the jury box.