Debbie Bradley and Jeremy Irwin on Dr. Phil 3 February 2012

[iamnotagolem]

If she had 5 drinks between 5p-10p then went to sleep and the police arrive at 4am. Would she still be drunk?

I'm not a drinker, I really have nothing to base drunkness on.

Being drunk while caring for children isn't illegal, it's just poor parenting.

 

[Sherbie]

IMO, she wanted people to know that she was pretty drunk that night. Instead of just saying, "Yeah, I'd had some wine, but not so much I was out of it," she admitted to drinking a lot of wine and being drunk. She also pointed out how she always goes to bed when she's had enough to drink (and that people could vouch for it), and pointed out that being drunk doesn't change the person that you are.

So whether she was or wasn't drunk, she wanted people to know these things for some reason. We don't have any way to know what the truth is, but we could all make a case for it either way, and a case for it relating to guilt or not. So it's kind of a circular thing to discuss since we don't have a factual starting point. If she does have drinking issues, hopefully Dr. Phil can get her some help.

We need to keep in mind that none of us are the bad guys here. Whatever our opinions are, we all want the same thing - either for Lisa to come home unhurt or, failing that, justice for her precious little soul.

 

[iluvmua]

????

Not sure where you got that from my post. My POV is that LE would have detected something and acted accordingly.

ETA: I don't know how much media, television work, you are familiar with. I had a job where I had to do a lot of it; sometimes at least one interview a day. Even with experience, there are times when you flub an answer or say one thing and then realize, after the fact, that your answer was wrong or not pertinent to the question. Deborah has ZEE experience with doing media/interviews, watch her face as she says maybe. She is not lying.

I do not believe that either Jeremy or Deborah harmed/killed their child. I do not believe that they know where she is.

If they or she did not harm/kill Lisa then why are they stalling the case? it makes absolutely absolutely absolutely no sense as to why they will not answer LE questions if they are truly innocent.

You would think that both would want their named cleared but they don't .

I hope MK is right and DB is arrested pretty soon.

Also, Is there anything that DB & JI have done that makes you think they are not guilty? not being harsh, just asking. Curious.

If they did not do anything to Lisa than someone out there just got away with murder and the stars were aligned that night for DB/JI.

and whoever the kidnapper is, is the luckiest one on the face of the planet.

 

[iluvmua]

IMO, she wanted people to know that she was pretty drunk that night. Instead of just saying, "Yeah, I'd had some wine, but not so much I was out of it," she admitted to drinking a lot of wine and being drunk. She also pointed out how she always goes to bed when she's had enough to drink (and that people could vouch for it), and pointed out that being drunk doesn't change the person that you are.

So whether she was or wasn't drunk, she wanted people to know these things for some reason. We don't have any way to know what the truth is, but we could all make a case for it either way, and a case for it relating to guilt or not. So it's kind of a circular thing to discuss since we don't have a factual starting point. If she does have drinking issues, hopefully Dr. Phil can get her some help.

We need to keep in mind that none of us are the bad guys here. Whatever our opinions are, we all want the same thing - either for Lisa to come home unhurt or, failing that, justice for her precious little soul.

Amen!

 

[Deleted member 39678]

If she had 5 drinks between 5p-10p then went to sleep and the police arrive at 4am. Would she still be drunk?

I'm not a drinker, I really have nothing to base drunkness on.

Being drunk while caring for children isn't illegal, it's just poor parenting.

The scenario that you give with a woman Debbies size, I would say that at 4 am she would not be legally drunk.

 

[iluvmua]

I hope Dr. Phil asks them WHY they will not talk to LE if they are innocent.

 

[In da Middle]

It goes both ways though. If one believes she didn't harm Lisa, why wouldn't they believe her when she says she was drunk?

I tend to believe that she probably did not harm Lisa and also believe her when she says she was drunk. I just don't think she was so drunk that LE didn't notice. They were there investigating a missing baby. i would think they would be observing her actions and would have immediately been on notice if she was still drunk. I believe if she had drank sooo much as to be totally blacked out, LE should have noticed as she would have still been showing signs.

 

[~n/t~]

I hope Dr. Phil asks them WHY they will not talk to LE if they are innocent.

If he does, JT will answer.

 

[flipflop]

I tend to believe that she probably did not harm Lisa and also believe her when she says she was drunk. I just don't think she was so drunk that LE didn't notice. They were there investigating a missing baby. i would think they would be observing her actions and would have immediately been on notice if she was still drunk. I believe if she had drank sooo much as to be totally blacked out, LE should have noticed as she would have still been showing signs.

Perhaps they did notice, we have no idea!!!

 

[~n/t~]

I tend to believe that she probably did not harm Lisa and also believe her when she says she was drunk. I just don't think she was so drunk that LE didn't notice. They were there investigating a missing baby. i would think they would be observing her actions and would have immediately been on notice if she was still drunk. I believe if she had drank sooo much as to be totally blacked out, LE should have noticed as she would have still been showing signs.

Maybe that's why they developed tunnel vision, add to that the failed polygraph and bingo..they have their suspect.

ETA: Even though they will not officially say she is a suspect, they accused her according to DB.

 

[In da Middle]

If she had 5 drinks between 5p-10p then went to sleep and the police arrive at 4am. Would she still be drunk?

I'm not a drinker, I really have nothing to base drunkness on.

Being drunk while caring for children isn't illegal, it's just poor parenting.

5 drinks in 5 hours time is not 'drunk'. The body metabolizes alcohol to where a wine glass of wine should be metabolized at approx one drink per hour rate. that would just consist of just keeping the buzz going. It would also depend on what size of glass was being used. If it was a regular glass like you would drink iced tea from, then you would have to figure it totally differently. Size matters! hehe

 

[DeAnn]

I have no control over what people want to believe or not. Personally, if I think someone is lying, they lose all credibility especially in a missing person case.

I believe she was drunk. I believe she may have passed out. I believe she failed the polygraph. I believe she did NOT harm Lisa.

that raises a point I've wondered about.....she initially said 10:30 p.m. and then changed to 6:30 p.m. Why the change? A lie? Embarrassment? But would you care about that if your baby's life is on the line? She didn't tell the truth on that one point initially so the question is why? I think that's one thing we can say pretty much for certain.

What I'd love to know is when did the cops find out about the timeline change? Same day or from the media interviews?

 

[Jacie Estes]

You said LE would have taken her immediately if she was drunk. DB said she was drunk. :waitasec:

One thing is for sure. They accused her of killing her child so there was something that raised a red flag. Was it because she was intoxicated or tunnel vision on their part?

No need to reply....I'm off this topic. Maybe Dr. Phil will ask her.

It would be great if we could submit a list of questions we want him to ask DB & JI. LOL

She would have been tested to determine her alcohol level.

When did LE accuse her of killing her child?

If you have ever had to do a field sobriety test you know that the police are observing you. They look for pupil dilation/restriction. They look for flushed/pale skin. They look for slurred/halting speech. They look for evasive eye maneuvering. I am saying that if Deborah were impaired, in any way, be it drugs, alcohol or erratic behavior, it would have been noted and the proper procedures would have been put into place. A PBT would have registered hours afterward, even if she weren't visibly intoxicated.

I have seen KCMOPD at work, they don't have tunnel vision.

 

[In da Middle]

[/b]

Perhaps they did notice, we have no idea!!!

if this was the case, how did she cover her azz this well? Drunks are not stealthy nor careful.

 

[iamnotagolem]

5 drinks in 5 hours time is not 'drunk'. The body metabolizes alcohol to where a wine glass of wine should be metabolized at approx one drink per hour rate. that would just consist of just keeping the buzz going. It would also depend on what size of glass was being used. If it was a regular glass like you would drink iced tea from, then you would have to figure it totally differently. Size matters! hehe

That's kind of what I was wondering as well, of course we have no idea how much she actually drank. Another question regarding the drinking. Let's say she was "drunk" at 10 when she went to sleep, would she be sobered up by 4a?

 

[~n/t~]

She would have been tested to determine her alcohol level.

When did LE accuse her of killing her child?

If you have ever had to do a field sobriety test you know that the police are observing you. They look for pupil dilation/restriction. They look for flushed/pale skin. They look for slurred/halting speech. They look for evasive eye maneuvering. I am saying that if Deborah were impaired, in any way, be it drugs, alcohol or erratic behavior, it would have been noted and the proper procedures would have been put into place. A PBT would have registered hours afterward, even if she weren't visibly intoxicated.

I have seen KCMOPD at work, they don't have tunnel vision.

I suggest you watch the video in the link I posted. She admits LE accused her of killing Lisa. There is also another interview (don't have the link handy right now) where DB goes into great detail about the interrogation mentioning that LE showed her burnt clothing and told her they were Lisa's.

 

[In da Middle]

that raises a point I've wondered about.....she initially said 10:30 p.m. and then changed to 6:30 p.m. Why the change? A lie? Embarrassment? But would you care about that if your baby's life is on the line? She didn't tell the truth on that one point initially so the question is why? I think that's one thing we can say pretty much for certain.

What I'd love to know is when did the cops find out about the timeline change? Same day or from the media interviews?

If I remember correctly, this whole 'time line change' happened on the Megyn Kelly interview. THAT is surely one piece of unedited tape I would LOVE to see! MK, to me, has been so bad on her reporting on this case, it makes me very unsure about everything she has done.

 

[DeAnn]

She would have been tested to determine her alcohol level.

When did LE accuse her of killing her child?

If you have ever had to do a field sobriety test you know that the police are observing you. They look for pupil dilation/restriction. They look for flushed/pale skin. They look for slurred/halting speech. They look for evasive eye maneuvering. I am saying that if Deborah were impaired, in any way, be it drugs, alcohol or erratic behavior, it would have been noted and the proper procedures would have been put into place. A PBT would have registered hours afterward, even if she weren't visibly intoxicated.

I have seen KCMOPD at work, they don't have tunnel vision.

The UMKC law professor has said during the interviews in those first days they said things like..we know you harmed your baby come clean.....give her proper burial etc and then the whole burned clothes thing.

And I'm not so certain that they would have thrown her in the drunk tank if they were trying to figure out where her baby is and her sober husband is saying she's been kidnapped.

I don't know all the protocols in an Amber Alert case but even in the case of the poor baby in St. Louis where the mother apparently did it...they didn't throw her in the drunk tank either I don't think. Talking to the mother and getting everything she knows to me would be far more important than putting her in handcuffs and taking her to the drunk tank when there's a baby missing. And if you believe DB's attorneys she was on the floor crying her eyes out. And if you believe the search warrant, she was scared to go out in the back yard.

 

[Whisperer]

DB could have removed a deceased Lisa from the house by putting her in a suitcase/bag/container. She could have driven a vehicle, disposed of her, threw something in a dumpster; tossed a lighter in it. She could have found and brought back a stray cat along the way, went to bed and NOT remember one darn thing....IF she blacked out..

 

[buggsmom]

Deborah also acknowledged taking anxiety medication. (Add that to the alcohol)