‘Mother hen’ to media villain: The life of Debbie Bradley - Kansas City Star 11/5/11

[yllek]

Just because the facts of the case and what I've seen of Debbi thus far leads me to believe that she is not telling all she knows about that night and what happened to Lisa, doesn't mean I or anyone who has come to the same conclusion is wrongly condemning her or do not see her realistically, imo. Likewise, those who feel Debbi is in no way involved and that her changing time line and professed drunkeness plays no part in Lisa's disappearance should not be accused of unduly cannonizing her.

This article gives some family perspectives on Debbi's life because her family felt that people who are suspicious of Debbi need to know about Debbi as they see her, which is affected by her past. That motive was honestly stated in the article by Debbi's dad and I have no problem with that motive or the article itself; I found it an interesting read. It simply has no impact on my opinion because I am only considering Debbi in regards to Lisa's disappearance based upon her statements, actions, and lack of actions. I never assumed that Debbi had an ideal childhood and was a perfect person. I already knew about her mother's death and some of issues surrounding it. I already knew she had left her husband and was now living with a man who has an 8 year old son. As the investigation progressed, I went from knowing that information and believing that an intruder had taken to Lisa, to knowing that information and believing it's more likely that Debbi is involved. It is interesting, but irrelevant to the case, for me. JMO.

P.s. This article cites that there was a 2008 article about Debbi's husband Sean being arrested for a shooting incident back then. That 2008 article was recently re-published and then removed from the Examiner.com site that had republished it when readers contacted the author about another Sean M. Bradley from the right town in MO who is the same age; the author could not confirm that it was Debbi's husband who had the incident. I don't know why the mention of that 2008 article appears in this article without any confirmation that the incident occured (this Kansas City Star reporter had access to Sean's stepmom and Debbi's dad). That's odd to me and makes me wonder if the 2008 article is in this story just to show more trauma in Debbi's life and give her a sympathetic reason for leaving her husband. IF it turns out that Debbi's husband is not the Sean Bradley from the shooting incident, it's very bad journalism, imo.

 

[joyless]

How can she tell LE if she doesn't know??? First, she can start by saying just that...I don't know...but this is what I DO know instead of lying...which she did initially and then avoiding and not giving LE full access I'm not sure I buy her explanation that she was so hammered she doesn't have a clue about most of the night. Sorry...call me crazy, but I know quite a bit about the effects of alcohol and of lorazpam etc...no Im not a registered expert, but I stand by what I said...TELL THE TRUTH DB...Let go and let god....if you are innocent, reach inside your soul and so the right thing. Help LE ! MOO as is anything I write...OMO, JMO. :twocents:y

 

[jjenny]

It's been verified by 2 different people that DB drove. I'm still left wondering why she doesn't have her license right now...especially being the main caretaker of the children while JI works.

Yep, she can definitely drive. Just not legally. But if really needed she certainly could drive.

 

[frankie069]

Once again, I take this article with a grain of salt. You have LE being blamed by the family for saying all kinds of horrible things, and well, I am sure some of the things they said were not nice, I mean, they are looking for a missing baby here. Do we know if LE really said these things? Do we know how DB and JI were acting when they were being questioned that ONE time?? Do we know if this article is just in a sense damage control because that is what it read like to me. Lets all come out of the wood work and make sure we say what a great mother she is etc.. I dont believe a word of it. I WOULD HAVE believed it if she and JI were active participants in the search for their daughter and by that I do not mean looking for her personally, I mean talking with the media, not ABOUT THEMSELVES but pleading for Lisa's return. Making sure they are on EVERY channel, not the one that might pay them the most. Once again and I know this case is different but to compare it with the freshest one in mind, you had CA's parents out there at the command posts serving food, water etc.. you had them on TV pleading for their granddaughter when they thought she was first kidnapped. I didnt see ONE person in this family do any of those things. They hid, refused to be questioned anymore, refuse their sons to be spoken to by a professional and yet bring the media in to follow them around on Halloween. Really??

Look none of us knows how we would act unless we had a child taken, but one thing I do know, is how I WOULDNT act and I wouldnt act like they have. I am curious to know if any of their family members were in on this search where supposed clothes of Lisa's were found that were talked about. YOU cannot be part of a search, you can help out in other ways. I still say they are guilty and I dont think I will ever believe that they arent. They have only themselves to blame how they are being portrayed. They could have nipped that in the bud a month ago, they chose not to. When DB spoke of her drinking problem she did it in such a way that was arrogant. She even thumbed to the back of the house as if pointing to Lisa's room and said "her" in such a way as to show that, "hey, I can drink and still take care of HER".. Her??? Thats her missing child. She isnt a her, she is Lisa. That is the report that swung me so far over the fence. The lies after lies that have come out of their mouths is incredible. They can cry all they want, I can also cry on cue. I learned to do that as a child when I wanted something and at 46 years old I can still cry on cue. Its not that hard to do. Maybe I sound like I am being harsh on them and I am. If its simply bad advice that they got on how to handle this, well, I wouldnt need advice on how to handle this, I would do what came naturally, plead, beg and offer my life for my child. I wouldnt need anyones advice. I wouldnt hide behind big name lawyers and PI's and I certainly would speak for myself. We have a dead baby out there ( statistically, this is true) and we have parents going on with life as usual and what bothers me more, is the other children going on with life as usual as well. What are they afraid of, its not normal that they havent talked about this at school. Kids that age talk and talk and talk. There is nothing right about this case at all. Thanks for letting me vent..

 

[cityslick]

I dunno, city. I don't "want" DB to be guilty. I've just taken notice of the inconsistencies. I'm taken aback by your "witchhunt" comment. Who do you think is on a witchhunt, and for what purpose?

I'm not going to call out posters because it's against the TOS. It's just my observation. This is not to be confused with 'suspicion' which I do believe is warranted based on the inconsistent statements.

If you want to say she's a bad mother because she got drunk, fine. But murder (and that's what we're talking about here) is a whole different ball of wax.

 

[hollyblue]

My only point was to say what he's actually comparing. And since she's never had a dead child before that he could point to as a comparison, the comparison he made was that her dog seriously injured her stepson, and instead of covering the injury her dog inflicted (like some do, we all know) she immediately sought medical attention with no concern that a police investigation would likely follow.

Was she in a blacked out state of mind?...And that's the best scenario at the moment...and at her own admittance. Not much, imo.

 

[KathrynL]

“I miss Debbie. She was a good mother … There’s just no way she could have done this, and she’s just not smart enough — not that she’s dumb — but she couldn’t cover up something like this so well.”

This has been my opinion all along-- DB isn't smart enough to cover up something like this for such a long period of time.

It's amazing how slick and deceptive substance abusers and adult children of alcoholics can be. They don't have to have above average intellect. IME and moo

I know a few good liars and manipulators that I would never characterize as "smart".

Exactly. moo

 

[davehead21]

Isnt that what Amy said about Casey Anthony?

Amy may have said that but Casey is not, in the least, stupid.

You know I use to think that, but after following some cases......you don't have to be smart. You really, really don't. All you have to do is stick to the same lame story over and over. Unless someone saw you committing the crime, odds are you are gonna walk. That sucks but it's so true for the majority of theses cases.

I get what you're saying....and, honestly, for all we know the police are thiscose to arresting DB. I just find it interesting that it's gone on this long with no arrest. It's simply my opinion that DB is either not responsible for Lisa's disappearance or she had some major help.

And for your statement about all you have to do is stick to the same lame story over and over. Hasn't DB been chastised here over and over and over and over again for changing her story too much? :crazy:

This case is beyond frustrating.

 

[SurfieTX]

Yep, she can definitely drive. Just not legally. But if really needed she certainly could drive.

Assuming she did drive legally in the past, I'm left to wonder why she can't now. How did baby Lisa get to her doctor's appts? What if one of the boys got sick at school? Did her brother drive her everywhere? Did JI not want her to drive? So many questions....

 

[flipflop]

Spin, with a dash of omg look at me I know her thrown in. Color me not impressed. The only thing that stood out to me is how in Hades do you compare a dog bite to a missing kid? And if THAT mentality runs through the whole family OY! No wonder Le is having fits with this bunch.

I am sure that if Baby Lisa was bitten by a dog she would have reacted the same way she did with her half brother and ran for help. However, IF she wrongfully did something to baby Lisa (too much meds, rolled ontop of her in her drunken sleep etc) I can see her reacting much differently. Now that we know of her mothers alcoholism past, she would go into "cover her butt mode" as she would not want to be compared to her alcoholic mother. She couldn't call 911 to tell them that she hurt/killed her baby because she was drunk. She tried to cover up her real timeline by not telling those details of buying wine and getting drunk. As proof was revealed (video of wine buying) her timeline changed. IMO she was trying to cover her butt as she made a huge mistake while being drunk.

 

[~n/t~]

Exactly. Suspicious. Her 'I was drunk' tale was told on the same day she gets Joe Tacopina as a "victim advocate" lawyer on October 17th. Suspicious. Cadaver dog hits on scent in her bedroom that same day. Suspicious. Playing dumb is a great defense strategy. Brilliant. Also, people don't black out immediately after a few glasses of wine. Lisa could have been checked on at any time she started drinking so blacking out may not even cut it if she is ever charged with anything.

Cadaver dog: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20539176,00.html

I was drunk: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20121276-504083.html

New lawyer: http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-ba...enting-parents/story?id=14752818#.Trafn3L6MQM

Bottom line is that as of today November 6, 2011, there is no confirmed evidence linking these parents to the disappearance of their child.

They are not suspects. They haven't been arrested nor charged. So, imo they should be treated as victims of a child kidnapping.

If they have a lawyer, it's for a good reason. I would not have LE accuse me of killing my baby if I was innocent. I'd be just as hard a**ed as DB and JI. You want more, charge me.

 

[Aedrys]

it bothers me that anyone doubting DB's word is being assumed as thinking she's automatically guilty. While I cannot speak for everyone doubting her words, I can speak for myself. Having already stopped posting on one forum because of this anti-attitude, I'm wondering if it's just a misunderstanding.


This is on topic, bear with me please.
I cannot just assume DB is right, in the case of any missing child it would be wrong to just paint her as a wonderful mother and move on to another person to assume guilt for. Being a mother is not an assumpption of innocence as we've all sadly seen in other cases. Nor does the fact that Lisa has an involved father mean we should blame him without reason simply based on his having manparts.
I look at the situation the night Lisa went missing, I look at the accounts given, and I look at inconsistancies.
In the case there are inconsistancies, mostly fron only the mother and the addition of being "drunk to the point of blacking out" confessions by the Mother, the changing of story details, the media blitz by both the parents and the parent's attys. How are we, the minority being laughed at for our thoughts, supposed to pretend those things are not there?

Given those details I cannot and will not discount the parents, especially the mother. But that should not mean my posts are met with laughter and a mob like ganging up on. If anything I would think that others might be glad that my mind remains open to all possiblities. I do not know who was responsible for Lisa's disappearance but sympathy for the mother's life aside and pity for her eliminated, she cannot and should not be eliminated. Especially since she seems to be given to mistruths and exaggerations. Very little of what she has said can be proven as fact yet LE is attacked and assumed to be guilty of something based on only DB's versions of things. That makes me wonder why it's okay to paint LE as so bad but not okay to wonder about DB's actions and words.

ITA. I'm still not sure myself what happened here, but this article does not wipe the slate clean for DB. So okay, she was a good mom in the past. That doesn't mean that that can't change. People change over time. Things can happen. I don't understand why some people act like this article should, once and for all, clear DB and LE is just the big bad going after her. LE is doing their job, and they haven't been able to clear DB for a reason. I'm not just going to assume oh poor DB and oh evil LE. That is not fair to either side. DB admitted to drinking and passing out, and now her daughter is still gone. Her story is constantly inconsistent. And now she's not cooperating with LE. Sorry, but this story doesn't make me get on her side and want to villainize LE.

I do sympathize with her family, though, who are struggling to understand why things are the way they are. They love DB, and I'm sure even they are wondering why this case has developed the way it has, and surely they've seen the inconsistencies in her story. I feel bad for them because if it does turn out that DB did this, they are going to be the most hurt. If anything, I would not want DB to have done this for the sake of her family. I just don't think that reality is matching up to what her family believes. But good for them for wanting to stick up for her. That's what families do.

Like I said before, okay, so she had a good past. That doesn't change the present circumstances, and until she clears herself of what happened and stops playing to the media, she is going to be investigated by LE. They are doing their job, and it's not their fault that they can't clear her, it's DB's. And frankly, I'm not just going to take the family's word as gospel of what LE said to her. This family believes she's innocent. Of course they're going to say bad things about LE. That doesn't make what they say true, though.

 

[natsound]

I'm not going to call out posters because it's against the TOS. It's just my observation. This is not to be confused with 'suspicion' which I do believe is warranted based on the inconsistent statements.

If you want to say she's a bad mother because she got drunk, fine. But murder (and that's what we're talking about here) is a whole different ball of wax.

DB failed a lie detector test too, from what we understand... and she's been caught in at least one lie (about all of the phones out of order). I won't jump into the cadaver dog argument again. These circumstances raise my eyebrows and suggest to me that it goes beyond a mother who "got drunk".

Again, I'm not on a witchhunt. And yes, we are actively looking for inconsistencies in DB's story. LE is too! SOMEONE did something to that baby! I will not ignore what the circumstances tell me.

 

[SyraKelly]

Regardless of innocence or guilt, for some people this is a witchhunt. Sorry but that's how I see it. There are some that think (want?) DB to be guilty so much that any story/article/quote get's framed to somehow make DB look bad.

It's refreshing to see positive stuff. And not surprisingly even positive stuff get's spinned into 'DB is painting herself in a positive light'. There's that 'framed to somehow make DB look bad' part.

I would not say a witch hunt-We are trying to find the truth as to what happened to Lisa and to find that truth we have to look at ALL the statements being made!

 

[Abby Normal]

reading this article no wonder the family stopped talking to LE. Told her they had a body, they know she murdered Lisa, showed her burnt clothes. Told JI that DB confessed that Lisa wasn't his - ughhh - I would have lawyered up and stopped talking to.

and yet they didn't get them to budge, interesting.

Not only that, but I think it was O'Brien who said they weren't feeding them any factual information, they were getting the same information as the general public (which is nil). So false information from LE, and then having to read the paper to figure out what was true and what was false.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20/3220223/baby-lisas-lawyers-say-police.html

IMO O'Brien is a neutral party and his words have more weight to me than the defense. He's not a defense attorney, he's a professor of law. He only "sat in" to help, he doesn't take cases.

 

[matou]

I'm not going to call out posters because it's against the TOS. It's just my observation. This is not to be confused with 'suspicion' which I do believe is warranted based on the inconsistent statements.

If you want to say she's a bad mother because she got drunk, fine. But murder (and that's what we're talking about here) is a whole different ball of wax.

Parents have killed their children out of frustration and anger. It isn't premeditated at all. It is usually a spontaneous reaction. It occurs much more often than a child abduction within one's home.

 

[Etilema]

Forgive me if it has already been pointed out, but this article also answers the question of where PN lives. Which explains why he was at that house when detectives came to interview him.

 

[Abby Normal]

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/0...n-to-media-villain.html#.TrYDcX3KlkE.facebook

About three years ago, Debbie gave Irwin’s address for a traffic ticket

So, she can drive, but why "give" an address,it's it on the license?

I think they are just showing about the time that relationship began. It wasn't changed on her ID yet, but she gave it on the ticket which means she was there enough to give hat address out. They can't say when they married, right? I think they are just establishing alleged beginning of cohabitation.

 

[Etilema]

DB failed a lie detector test too, from what we understand... and she's been caught in at least one lie (about all of the phones out of order). I won't jump into the cadaver dog argument again. These circumstances raise my eyebrows and suggest to me that it goes beyond a mother who "got drunk".

Again, I'm not on a witchhunt. And yes, we are actively looking for inconsistencies in DB's story. LE is too! SOMEONE did something to that baby! I will not ignore what the circumstances tell me.

Question about LDT--if LE are allowed to say whatever they want during interrogation, couldn't the just lie to DB about her failing polygraph questions?

 

[cowtowner]

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/0...n-to-media-villain.html#.TrYDcX3KlkE.facebook

About three years ago, Debbie gave Irwin’s address for a traffic ticket

So, she can drive, but why "give" an address,it's it on the license?

Because when you get pulled over, after looking at your license, one of the first things the officer asks is "is this still your address?" so they can confirm where to send the fine information.

I lived in my current house for two years before I changed the address on my license. I didn't bother until it was up for renewal, why spend the extra money?