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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #641
It's a good point though. I have never seen anything from LE saying that their idea of an unrestricted interview includes the parents having a lawyer.

CS said that was their understanding that unrestricted meant "no lawyer", and LE has talked about it since those comments were made, without denying it. That is a pretty clear indication that "unrestricted" means what the lawyers think it does. No Lawyer.

If there is a link otherwise, I too would like to see it. (But honestly, people have been asking for this link for a few days, and no one has produced it yet, so I am kind of doubtful that it exists.) JMO

LE should be used to lawyers IMO, it's common enough.

If there is an objection my guess is that having a lawyer present would be A-OK if only the lawyer didn't tell the parents not to answer any of the questions LE needs answered, which they probably do, which makes further interviews pointless because no information will be gained.
 
  • #642
Well, my inner cynic says basic economics - as in circulation and ratings - would dictate that local media would be foolish to not cover anything related to what must be one of the biggest local new stories they have right now...and maybe they think emphasising the positive aspects in the article might encourage the parents to trust them and let them 'in' a little more. JMO.

Regrettably, this is not the biggest local news story that came out Sunday. I hate to say it, but the biggest news story Sunday was MU moving to the SEC. In fact the biggest news stories here in the last couple weeks have been:


* Grain Elevator Explosion killed 6 men (even the funeral protestor from Topeka who's name I refuse to say out loud carried a lede one night ahead of this case)

* MU moving to the SEC

Seriously, in terms of eye-ball impressions and sheer quantity of news coverage, this story has not been very high over the past couple weeks.
 
  • #643
It was never a "fact". A poster made a joke about Debbie running down the street drunk, and someone else made an offhand comment that would be hard to do carrying a dead 30-lb. 10 month old.

And then the arguing started about whether or not Lisa was 30 lb. It has gotten really out of hand. Interesting to watch it progress though.
That wasn't the first conversation I have seen that stated 30 lbs as a fact. I was just clarifying before it got out of hand again. I do like the joking once in a while though to lighten a very dark mood!
 
  • #644
Come on I just don't get it. We have Dr. (you all know who I mean) that cannot fool the police or FBI but so far DB has. I do not know what is going on. Why has Lisa not been found? I am so sad.
 
  • #645
It was never a "fact". A poster made a joke about Debbie running down the street drunk, and someone else made an offhand comment that would be hard to do carrying a dead 30-lb. 10 month old.

And then the arguing started about whether or not Lisa was 30 lb. It has gotten really out of hand. Interesting to watch it progress though.

Not IMHO - waste of space & time. This tit for tat is boring. And back to discussing the Mother Hen article & topic of this thread . . .

I do thank those posters providing good insight & commentary about the article! The snide, snarky posts in Lisa threads directed toward DB/JI, their families & neighbors, and how they choose to live their lives, well, as my siggie says,

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”


Where is Pumpkin Pie?
 
  • #646
It was never a "fact". A poster made a joke about Debbie running down the street drunk, and someone else made an offhand comment that would be hard to do carrying a dead 30-lb. 10 month old.

And then the arguing started about whether or not Lisa was 30 lb. It has gotten really out of hand. Interesting to watch it progress though.

lol... I think it's funny too. I think this argument played out on another forum in the beginning. Can't remember where.

For what it is worth...My oldest was a yummy, chunky baby. She weighed 32 lbs at a year old and remained 32 lbs until she was 4. She just grew tall and all her nice rolls stretched out. :( My son, on the other hand was always a skinny baby. :seeya:
 
  • #647
Am I missing something? Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for KCPD to expect parents to agree to an interview WITHOUT their attorney(s)?

All I have ever heard is they want separate interviews with no restrictions on questions.

Well, the Constitution provides for the right to be free from “unreasonable searches & seizures” (4th Amendment) & of course, our 5th Amendment right to not answer questions asked by a government agent. Miranda rights provide other rights, such as right to counsel if you cannot afford one, at the time of an arrest.

However, LE cannot prevent you from having an attorney present when being questioned. Actually, they expect it.
 
  • #648
I don't know if it's true or not, but lets just throw a wild hypothetical out there. What if what DB/JI/Family are saying about how they were initially interrogated was true. All the bad stuff that is alleged being said by LE, etc.

Would you want to go through that again? It's a hypothetical, just curious about what you would do if all of that really was true?

First to answer your question: would I want to go through it again? No. (there's literally NOTHING about this case I - as a parent - would want to go through once, let alone again). Now, would I? and do it invoking my right to have an attorney present at questioning? Yes.



One thing related to this is the position that the prosecutor is in. While we've heard from JT we've heard very little if nothing from Dan White.

He has to walk a fine line in the investigation, especially where the parents are concerned.

If LE is combative/disparaging/etc. toward the parents it makes his life much harder no matter who committed the crime.

If the parents are guilty, then DW has to deal with the defense's claim that LE had their sites set on them from the start, focused on them to the exclusion of other viable suspects, yada yada.

On the other had, if the parent's are innocent, and another person is arrested, DW may very well NEED the parents to help build his case, testify, etc.. In this case, if trust has been broken because of LE it's that much harder to get all the information he needs to win a conviction.

I don't know that this relates totally to your point, but while we keep making inferences and whatnot about defense strategy, we need to remember that there's also a prosecution strategy at play here - and prosecution is not the same thing as investigation. Let's not discount how much of this case is being strategized by the prosecutors.
 
  • #649
How do we know they're answering all the legitimate questions?

Who gets to define legitimate?

I guess I should have said any questions that are legitimately to find the baby. If the question is anything to do with the baby being missing, that would be a legitimate question in this context. If the question is "where did you hide the body" it isn't.
 
  • #650
Am I missing something? Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for KCPD to expect parents to agree to an interview WITHOUT their attorney(s)?

All I have ever heard is they want separate interviews with no restrictions on questions.

It would be unconstitutional to FORCE them to do it, it's not unconstitutional to ask them to waive their rights.
 
  • #651
Am I missing something? Wouldn't it be unconstitutional for KCPD to expect parents to agree to an interview WITHOUT their attorney(s)?

All I have ever heard is they want separate interviews with no restrictions on questions.

It's not unconstitutional for them to WANT it, or to ASK for it. It would be unconstitutional for them to demand it or force it. Some people believe that the reason this information is even out there is because LE was trying to publicly goad the family into agreeing to it.

The lawyers have publicly stated that they believe that the term "unrestricted" means without a lawyer. LE has never denied that their interpretation is incorrect.
 
  • #652
The police would have a much easier time investigating missing children if it was as easy as checking if there is a documented history of being soulless and if not, they can't be lying about what happened.

I think a psychopath or a sociopath is the closest thing in scientific thinking to a soulless, heartless demon, and everyone who killed their children and lied about it cannot be diagnosed as either. Several violent criminals have had relatives and friends come out and say good things about them. No way he could have done such a thing, she's not like that, he's a good dad, she did a kindness to someone back in the year of the cub so it shows she's innocent, he was a good kid and didn't get in trouble too muc, she seemed so normal and I didn't see any warning signs.... Some of it might be due to denial and other defense mechanisms or desperate attempts to save the perp from being convicted or the perp might have faked a facade of goodness but I think some of it is probably true and there has been some good in the history of people who also did very bad things. Some modern religions are adamant that people have the capacity to do both.

That's why a human interest article showing that someone has a good side or a bad side is not imo proof of guilt or innocence, just that they have a good or a bad side. It's often a matter of who you get to talk to you. You could find people in my past who have negative things to say about me and if you talked to my dad he would probably say he likes me.

Alcohol and drug abuse are IMO one thing that can change parents who appear so normal. Someone I know was always nice and social, had a great sense of humor and a smile on his face and everybody liked him but he was a very mean and threatening drunk within the four walls of his home and there was some DV. If Lisa's parents are involved IMO alcohol could be a factor. I see it as a potential warning sign that DB said she wants her adult time two or three times per week and apparently thought nothing of getting plastered in front of children with no sober adult available. It is IMO an irresponsible action that is in stark contrast with the mother hen image, and if it's a regular thing I would worry a lot, particularly with a history of addiction problems in the family.

I don't think lying about one's wrongdoings is necessarily a sign of having no soul. Maybe just a cowardice. People documentedly go to absurd lengths to avoid having to face the responsibility and the consequences of doing minor things that are not a crime whatsoever. There is a thread in the Bizarre forum about a guy who called LE to report a burglary in progress when his girlfriend was about to see another female in his home. He was not about to be imprisoned for having a bit on the side but would he stand up straight and face the music? No, too scared of the old lady I guess, better lie to LE because the consequences are not nearly as scary. :waitasec:

Concealing a honest accident is not something that parents would be likely to do IMO (because why would they?) but some might prefer to try to conceal severe (drug related?) negligence, child abuse or other criminal activity, fearing the loss of their freedom, relationships and good standing in the community, the custody of remaining children etc. over doing the right thing.

I think living a lie and concealing your crime absolutely may lead to losing your soul eventually. If someone started out with a smidgen of conscience but chooses to live a lie and never take responsibility for what they did to their child, and pretend every day to not know the things they know, they might have to kill off that part of their soul that keeps telling them it's the wrong thing to do, to cope with the dissonance between the moral values and their actions.

Thank you for this!! I couldn't agree more with your point of view! :)

Very well written post IMO!
 
  • #653
LE should be used to lawyers IMO, it's common enough.

If there is an objection my guess is that having a lawyer present would be A-OK if only the lawyer didn't tell the parents not to answer any of the questions LE needs answered, which they probably do, which makes further interviews pointless because no information will be gained.

That's exactly right. To be honest, LE had their chance to get a confession from them (a chance that they would never have had, had it been me!), so if they didn't get it then, they blew it. That brings up the question WHY didn't they get it then? How could these people not have cracked in 11 hours of what they claim was pretty intense techniques, designed to get them to confess?

The only logical answer is: they aren't guilty.

I spent this afternoon looking through some CJ textbooks about interrogation/interview techniques. If DB and JI are lying about what happened in their interviews, they are pretty good, because those are exactly the types of things that are in the book. (Can't link, of course, but I'm sure there are websites which talk about it.)

I don't blame LE. (Neither do DB and JI, according to them). LE has a job to do, and it's not always pretty. But these people do not have to subject themselves to it. It's their constitutional right, and no indication of guilt or innocence, IMO.
 
  • #654
The lawyers have publicly stated that they believe that the term "unrestricted" means without a lawyer. LE has never denied that their interpretation is incorrect.

Link please to Tacopina, Short or someone saying this. Thank you.
 
  • #655
  • #656
That's exactly right. To be honest, LE had their chance to get a confession from them (a chance that they would never have had, had it been me!), so if they didn't get it then, they blew it. That brings up the question WHY didn't they get it then? How could these people not have cracked in 11 hours of what they claim was pretty intense techniques, designed to get them to confess?

The only logical answer is: they aren't guilty.

I spent this afternoon looking through some CJ textbooks about interrogation/interview techniques. If DB and JI are lying about what happened in their interviews, they are pretty good, because those are exactly the types of things that are in the book. (Can't link, of course, but I'm sure there are websites which talk about it.)

I don't blame LE. (Neither do DB and JI, according to them). LE has a job to do, and it's not always pretty. But these people do not have to subject themselves to it. It's their constitutional right, and no indication of guilt or innocence, IMO.

There are plenty of guilty people who never confessed. JMO.
 
  • #657
The couple's attorney disputed the police account and said Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley, parents of 11-month-old Lisa Irwin, are not opposed to separate interviews. But they will not do what police requested, an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present, the attorney said.

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ave-refused-separate-interviews#ixzz1d45ZD6mc
:seeya:

thanks. I would like to have seen an exact quote rather than a paraphrase, but that's not on you.
 
  • #658
There are plenty of guilty people who never confessed. JMO.

Not too many who don't confess (OR INVOKE) after an 11 hour interview.

Most people (at least anyone who watches TV) knows that they should just demand a lawyer when the cops start saying "YOU did it". The fact that these parents didn't says a lot in my opinion. When you add that to the things they have said about not needing a lawyer because they are telling the truth, it kind of supports that either they are innocent, or extremely diabolical.
 
  • #659
There are plenty of guilty people who never confessed. JMO.

True. Anyone heard of Theodore 'Ted' Bundy? A serial rapist-killer? He wouldn't confess and went as far as representing himself at one of his trials.

Adolf Hitler killed millions directly and indirectly-----------he never confessed. Took his misdeeds and psycho self to the grave.
 
  • #660
Link please to Tacopina, Short or someone saying this. Thank you.


Read more: http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ave-refused-separate-interviews#ixzz1d4CZSoV3

The couple's attorney disputed the police account and said Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley, parents of 11-month-old Lisa Irwin, are not opposed to separate interviews. But they will not do what police requested, an unrestricted interview with no attorneys present, the attorney said.

I haven't found a direct quote yet, but I have found this article. Hope that helps.:seeya:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
106
Guests online
3,321
Total visitors
3,427

Forum statistics

Threads
632,966
Messages
18,634,283
Members
243,361
Latest member
Woodechelle
Back
Top