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

[Cazzie]

are you referring to the grand jury? if so, fwiw, I just reread on the friday the grand jury transcripts for the sandra cantu case/true bill for melissa huckaby. They can and do use media statements, interviews to weigh their decision at least in California they do...

As an investigative tool, imhoo, the grand jury can see the interviews and conflicting statements (and all footage has been subpoenaed) and use them in consideration.

:twocents:

Uh oh! Someone(s) in trouble then...

And it was raw footage subpoenaed, not just the editted and aired footage, so I wonder what we didn't see? Wasn't that one interview (was it MK's?) 40 minutes or an hour, and we saw only a couple minutes?

It is zero surprise to me that LE keeps looking at the immediate family. :twocents:

 

[annalia]

You are so right. There only needs to be reasonable doubt planted, as we all recently witnessed in Orland. Other examples; (If the glove doesn't fit), (GA ended up being the fall guy for the accidentally pool drowning) and who knows how the Conrad trial will turn out. Possibly (Mj would have gotten his cookies and milk, no matter who his doctor was), only this time, there were no cookies. Okay I just made that last one with Conrad up and it sounds really stupid, but ya get my point. If we can't agree on hardly anything on this message board together, can't you just imagine a jury trying to sort it out. :banghead:

My bolding

That's one thing that concerns me about the supposed sightings, especially from the motorcycle guy. His descriptions changed, he may be correct but it doesn't seem that way to me.

IF either DB or someone related to her is responsible, I can see motorcycle guy as a defense attorney's dream as far as planting reasonable doubt.

 

[curvecuti]

I would really like to believe that DB had no part in Lisa's disappearance. But there are so many things that leave huge doubts. The biggest thing for me is not allowing the boys to be re-interviewed and not submitting DNA samples. These are 2 very simple things that could help rule her out and allow the police to perhaps move on in this case. But they are just adamantly against this, it seems. It baffles me. I guess I compare these actions to what I would be willing to do to find my baby. That would be anything. DB's willingness to find her child seems limited, imo.

 

[annalia]

Their lack of cooperation seems to directly coincide with their "help" coming to town.

I may not be as convinced as you about DB's innocence but I couldn't agree more with you at JT. I feel for the parents with him being involved, I don't think for a second that he got involved to help them find Lisa.

I also think this benefactor that will be paying the salaries is one of the national media outlets.

JMHO

 

[Kamille]

I agreed with a few posts that used Sociopath in them, however, I more think self-serving fits. Like I said before, she did what she wanted to do, when she wanted to do it without a care for consequences. That is how I read the whole article. She left school, was a mother hen to her brother, moved in with SB's family, broke the rules, got defiant, married him, things got hard and when the going got tough... moved back in with SB's step mother, took off in her car after everyone was in bed to go? Leaving her child there unsupervised since no one knew she had gone. Finally met JI, who IMO she viewed as someone stable for her, job, house, etc. Had a baby with him but seemed to continue her partying ways. I really wonder if JI ever had a problem with that? I really wonder if there were arguements over this considering their financial situation? :dunno:

I do know though that with the ever changing stories and the above article I don't see her as someone who faces life head on and takes charge of her own situations. It seems she runs from person to person to "take care of her", enabling her to do as she wishes.

JMVHO!

That was pretty much my take on the article too Insomnia Momma. This is a girl who was the only girl in family of boys once her mother passed away. Probably pretty spoiled and pampered. She doesn't appear to have had to take responsibility for anything so I don't see the "mother hen" title fitting her at all. She may have been looked up to by her younger brothers, but she didn't see a problem abandoning them by moving out a year after their mother passed away and then moving to NC because she wanted to be a grown up married woman.

She's made no attempt to get a GED or further her education in any way. She has only worked a couple of likely part time minimum wage retail jobs and she has never had to really provide for her son. She's always finding someone to take them in. JI is just the latest in a string of people who is caring for her and her son. She is a SAHM who had two children in school most of the day and one child to take care of until JI got home likely. And that child is missing.

The only example her father presented for her concern over her children was an incident that happened when she wasn't even at home watching over them. Her father was there apparently and she was hanging across the street. Maybe she went over to borrow a cup of sugar...but I doubt it. What's the attraction across the street anyway? It keeps coming up in this case. :waitasec:

And of course the one that has been pointed out in several posts, leaving her MIL's home in the middle of the night, in her vehicle without permission no less, while her young son was left sleeping in the home and she just assumed that someone would be there to take care of his needs? She's been with JI for three years so that child was 2 or under at the time this was going on.

Yeah...I didn't see that article as painting her in a very positive light...as a responsible caregiver to three young children anyway.

MOO

 

[cityslick]

I would really like to believe that DB had no part in Lisa's disappearance. But there are so many things that leave huge doubts. The biggest thing for me is not allowing the boys to be re-interviewed and not submitting DNA samples. These are 2 very simple things that could help rule her out and allow the police to perhaps move on in this case. But they are just adamantly against this, it seems. It baffles me. I guess I compare these actions to what I would be willing to do to find my baby. That would be anything. DB's willingness to find her child seems limited, imo.

I think you can replace DB's willingness with JT's willingness and that may be closer to the truth as to how these things are getting decided. Granted, if DB/JI had backbone they could dictate what is and is not being said but it looks like that's not the case. They are being fed all sorts of stuff by their counsel and since they probably don't know any better, are following it.

 

[justamommy]

****************************

Not your answer, but when I see the word 'unrestricted' I think no attorneys...no hold barred. jmo





Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/20...#ixzz1czvXBKfB

BBM

Can you provide a link that says LE is not opposed to them having counsel? I have read many things too and can't find that anywhere. I have looked as I would love to have this question cleared up in my head. TIA :seeya:

LE has not asked them to do interviews without legal counsel. I've read all the statements released by LE. I've read all the statements released by DB, JI and their counsel. Again, LE is asking them to answer follow up questions WITH counsel, but individual interviews. Nothing wrong with asking them to do this, but why won't DB and JI cooperate? At least attempt to go, even if they plead the 5th? Why won't they allow their children to be interviewed again? They agreed, then pulled the plug.

:deadhorse:

Bouncing off... BBM

I have asked for a link to this info from several posters who have claimed to see the same info bolded. I have yet to get a response with a link. The link I get is the same one saying they had counsel (law professor) in the Oct 8 interviews. I have posted the following information and still no response:

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15925815/deborahs-brother-leaves-with-detectives

Police say they still want to re-interview Irwin and Bradley. Police last interviewed them on Oct. 8 and restrictions have been placed on all interviews since Oct. 5, authorities told KCTV5.

Do we have an answer to the restricted/unrestricted question? It has been argued that Oct 8 interview was not unrestricted because the professor was providing legal advice in that interview w/ police. This article states, "Police say they still want to re-interview Irwin and Bradley. Police last interviewed them on Oct. 8 and restrictions have been placed on all interviews since Oct. 5, authorities told KCTV5."

The article I have linked to and quoted is dated 11/01/2011. If the argument is that they had counsel (law professor) on 10/8 and police are now saying that "restrictions have been placed on all interviews since 10/5" then clearly in my opinion "unrestricted" means w/o attorney.

Can SOMEONE please give a link that states that LE is not opposed to counsel being present? Several have said they read that or saw that, I have not and would like to see for myself. Until I see a valid link stating otherwise, I will go with the one I found that says "restrictions have been placed on all interviews since Oct. 5, authorities told KCTV5," which in my opinion means LE doesn't want interviews w/ attorney present. TIA to anyone who can proved the link/links I have requested.

 

[askfornina]

Uh oh! Someone(s) in trouble then...

And it was raw footage subpoenaed, not just the editted and aired footage, so I wonder what we didn't see? Wasn't that one interview (was it MK's?) 40 minutes or an hour, and we saw only a couple minutes?

It is zero surprise to me that LE keeps looking at the immediate family. :twocents:

bbm. MK said she interviewed them for a little under two hours, and yes, we only saw a few minutes. this is something that i think about often, and it REALLY annoys me that we only saw 10% of it. :banghead:

 

[curvecuti]

I think you can replace DB's willingness with JT's willingness and that may be closer to the truth as to how these things are getting decided. Granted, if DB/JI had backbone they could dictate what is and is not being said but it looks like that's not the case. They are being fed all sorts of stuff by their counsel and since they probably don't know any better, are following it.

I'm sorry but I don't buy that DB and JI are just blindly following JT. Their child is missing! If I were innocent there would be NO WAY that a lawyer would stop me from doing things that would help find my child. The only reason I can see to not have the boys re-interviewed or submit DNA is because someone in that house that night would be implicated. moo

 

[Kamille]

I think you can replace DB's willingness with JT's willingness and that may be closer to the truth as to how these things are getting decided. Granted, if DB/JI had backbone they could dictate what is and is not being said but it looks like that's not the case. They are being fed all sorts of stuff by their counsel and since they probably don't know any better, are following it.

Yes but they had O'Brian for the Oct 8th questioning after they ended questioning on the 4th, which I understand was also cut short, then CS was representing them until JT showed up on the 17th. Through 3 legal representatives (now 4), they chose not to co-operate with LE in the way in which LE wanted them to. I don't know what this means but I find it hard to believe that 3-4 different attorneys all felt the same way and that it was best for the parent's not to co-operate based on what the parents have said about the original interviews.

MOO

 

[nursebeeme]

justamommy, I don't think I have ever heard LE mention lawyers or clarify what "unrestricted" means to them...

I have only seen that come out of the defense attys...(their take)

on friday LE said that the parents were still not cooperating (the link to that is in the media thread from last friday)

((eek!!!! went off to find that from the knbc live blog and it is taken down now :-(

 

[LaLaw2000]

Just questioning on if lieing to the media is not illegal, how would this be evidence? Now lieing to LE - definitely illegal. I am just not understanding how this would be considered evidence by the court of law.

An example would be of wanting to show that Deborah initially stated that she did certain things at certain times, then later changing her story altogether. Also, maybe comparing what she stated in an interview, then stated something entirely different in media interviews. I never stated this would be evidence at all, just to use in court as to what all Deborah had stated at different times in the interviews. Such as, "Was she lying then, or is she lying now?" Not being presented as evidence, but as a part of the sum total of the case. These are perfect points to present to a Grand Jury, IMO.

The truth is the truth is the truth. Why change your stories? What version is true? Maybe none of them are.

JMO, MOO

 

[SurfieTX]

justamommy, I don't think I have ever heard LE mention lawyers or clarify what "unrestricted" means to them...

I have only seen that come out of the defense attys...(their take)

on friday LE said that the parents were still not cooperating (the link to that is in the media thread from last friday)

((eek!!!! went off to find that from the knbc live blog and it is taken down now :-(

Wow, it sure is.

 

[krimekat]

Just FYI - I have a valid driver's license & a big fat Cadi fully insured but I don't drive. I have people to chauffeur me - my choice.

I also have friends who have no valid license -- either through their own stupidity or by choice -- who know how to drive & either do or don't.

I guess my question is: does it matter if DB drives or not? And why is this important?

Mother Hen: a person who assumes an overly protective maternal attitude
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mother hen

or in Sarah Palin's world "Mama Bear"

 

[justamommy]

justamommy, I don't think I have ever heard LE mention lawyers or clarify what "unrestricted" means to them...

I have only seen that come out of the defense attys...(their take)

on friday LE said that the parents were still not cooperating (the link to that is in the media thread from last friday)

((eek!!!! went off to find that from the knbc live blog and it is taken down now :-(

Thank you, Nurse... That was my point. I have seen posts several times that LE said this or that and no links provided. It is frustrating. IMO LE is keeping everything close as they should. I will withhold judgement until the case is presented by them. :seeya:

 

[annalia]

An example would be of wanting to show that Deborah initially stated that she did certain things at certain times, then later changing her story altogether. Also, maybe comparing what she stated in an interview, then stated something entirely different in media interviews. I never stated this would be evidence at all, just to use in court as to what all Deborah had stated at different times in the interviews. Such as, "Was she lying then, or is she lying now?" Not being presented as evidence, but as a part of the sum total of the case. These are perfect points to present for a Grand Jury, IMO.

The truth is the truth is the truth. Why change your stories? What version is true? Maybe none of them are.

JMO, MOO

Jumping off your post with a thought.

Does anyone recall LE making a statement about finding out they would now have to work with a new and different timeline after hearing one of DB's interviews?

I'm sure LE pays close attention to media interviews for this very reason.

 

[nursebeeme]

Just FYI - I have a valid driver's license & a big fat Cadi fully insured but I don't drive. I have people to chauffeur me - my choice.

I also have friends who have no valid license -- either through their own stupidity or by choice -- who know how to drive & either do or don't.

I guess my question is: does it matter if DB drives or not? And why is this important?

Mother Hen: a person who assumes an overly protective maternal attitude
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mother hen

or in Sarah Palin's world "Mama Bear"

some people could be discussing it perhaps because of the fact that her brother drove her to the store to buy the boxed wine and baby items and the family has a car (time line has links... the family car and the all current electric work van were searched very early on in the case). I suppose it is neither here nor there but certainly can be discussed by posters

 

[annalia]

Just FYI - I have a valid driver's license & a big fat Cadi fully insured but I don't drive. I have people to chauffeur me - my choice.

I also have friends who have no valid license -- either through their own stupidity or by choice -- who know how to drive & either do or don't.

I guess my question is: does it matter if DB drives or not? And why is this important?

Mother Hen: a person who assumes an overly protective maternal attitude
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mother hen

or in Sarah Palin's world "Mama Bear"

The importance was whether or not the possibility existed that she might have driven the car that night without anyone knowing.
JMHO

 

[Just K]

The importance was whether or not the possibility existed that she might have driven the car that night without anyone knowing.
JMHO

And, from what ex Stepmother-in-law, Hazel, said...DB did that very type of thing the last time DB lived with her son at Hazel's.

 

[In da Middle]

are you referring to the grand jury? if so, fwiw, I just reread on the friday the grand jury transcripts for the sandra cantu case/true bill for melissa huckaby. They can and do use media statements, interviews to weigh their decision at least in California they do...

As an investigative tool, imhoo, the grand jury can see the interviews and conflicting statements (and all footage has been subpoenaed) and use them in consideration.

:twocents:

I understand and agree that it is and should be used as an investigative tool, but I am not understanding how it can be used as evidence if it comes to trial.