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

[DeAnn]

The bottom line to me is....Phil Netz could have been at the home after 5 p.m. but it is NOT a fact. And if he were..it's very important to the investigation but has not been disclosed by the family or police. In fact, the family representatives have denied that he was there after 5 p.m.

We know Phil Netz has been interviewed by police at least twice. There have been no indications that he has not cooperated nor have there been that he is other than he was gone for two hours with detectives some days/weeks after Lisa's disappearance.

And we know police want to talk to Debbie independently about who was coming and going from the house that night.

 

[~n/t~]

The bottom line to me is....Phil Netz could have been at the home after 5 p.m. but it is NOT a fact. And if he were..it's very important to the investigation but has not been disclosed by the family or police. In fact, the family representatives have denied that he was there after 5 p.m.

We know Phil Netz has been interviewed by police at least twice. There have been no indications that he has not cooperated nor have there been that he is other than he was gone for two hours with detectives some days/weeks after Lisa's disappearance.

And we know police want to talk to Debbie independently about who was coming and going from the house that night.

bbm.....wouldn't that be one of the first questions asked in the initial interview with DB? Why do they want to ask her that question 3 or 4 months later?

Maybe Dr. Phil will ask her.

 

[DeAnn]

bbm.....wouldn't that be one of the first questions asked in the initial interview with DB? Why do they want to ask her that question 3 or 4 months later?

Maybe Dr. Phil will ask her.

One can only guess...that whatever she said in the first couple of days (remember she hasn't spoken to police since Oct. 8) has prompted additional questions when they talked to other witnesses.

Do we know when they talked to the neighbor who hung out with Samantha and Debbie? Was that before or after Oct. 8?

Maybe other records or evidence has come forward that has created some holes in the initial statements.

Or maybe nothing. But by police saying this quite specifically it makes me think they have some new information that calls into question the initial statements or at least has raised some additional questions for them.

 

[In da Middle]

bbm.....wouldn't that be one of the first questions asked in the initial interview with DB? Why do they want to ask her that question 3 or 4 months later?

Maybe Dr. Phil will ask her.

Yes, and they had several opportunities to ask this. They also can still ask this again even if they wont come in separately. They can also ask others that they have questions about.

I guess what I am trying to say is that why dont they ask anyway? It seems like if they are willing to answer questions, but not come in separately, you go ahead and ask the question. I only see a problem if they refuse to answer questions at all. LE has even stated they ARE answering questions, they are only refusing to come in separately. There has been nothing stated by LE that they wont answer questions in general.

 

[Donjeta]

Captain Steve Young, spokesperson for the Kansas City Police Department, says, “Leads have dwindled in quantity and quality." He also says investigators would still like to speak to Baby Lisa’s parents.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/01/25/baby-lisa-parents-talk-dr-phil

A matter of interpretation I guess but to me it doesn't sound like they're speaking to Baby Lisa's parents.

Usually LE says things like that when people aren't answering questions.

Hopefully Dr. Phil can help them get over their irrational fear of being separated.

 

[In da Middle]

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/01/25/baby-lisa-parents-talk-dr-phil

A matter of interpretation I guess but to me it doesn't sound like they're speaking to Baby Lisa's parents.

Usually LE says things like that when people aren't answering questions.

Hopefully Dr. Phil can help them get over their irrational fear of being separated.

As long as they have the attorneys they have, this will not happen. Both attorneys are on the record as stating it is their policy to not have ANY client speak to LE. Joe T coming on board is where things started going downhill in a major way from what I see.

 

[Donjeta]

As long as they have the attorneys they have, this will not happen. Both attorneys are on the record as stating it is their policy to not have ANY client speak to LE. Joe T coming on board is where things started going downhill in a major way from what I see.

Well, I guess that answers your previous post. LE could ask anyway but it would be futile because the lawyers guard the gates.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I don't know how much a draw dr. phil is compared to ng. I think he can garner up sympathy for his guests better than any other. I don't know anyone that watches his show. He, like Oprah, must have a following.

I watched the cindy a interview and I considered it a disgrace. However I bet there are many people who didn't follow the case that fell, hook, line and sinker for what the anthonys put out there...perhaps contributing to their foundation...which was the whole point.

BBM: And that is EXACTLY what I think will happen here ... JMO ...

- Phil McG is going to have Deborah and Jeremy on his show ...

- There will be some viewers who have NOT followed Baby Lisa's case ...

- So what will the viewers who have NOT followed Baby Lisa's case learn from watching this show ?

ONLY the "story" Joe Tacopino wants put out there ! And unfortunately, many people out there will fall "hook line and sinker" for the bull** that will spun on this show.

Deborah and Jeremy going on McGraw's Show is a "move" by DB, JI and the defense crew to "rehabilitate" DB and JI's IMAGE -- as well as portray DB and JI as the VICTIMS. The ONLY VICTIM here is Baby Lisa !

Now, I am going to guess that McGraw will bring up Deborah's "drinking" -- which IMO is nothing but part of her "defense strategy".

So there you go ... the show will "focus" on DB, then JI -- oh and of course, JT and BS -- :waitasec: they want their "face time" too ...


One more point : DB and JI going on Phil McGraw Show is :

A "slap in the face" to all of the Law Enforcement Agencies who spent a lot of lot of time, and money, searching for Baby Lisa ...

A "slap in the face" to all the searchers who searched for Lisa ...

And ... it's a BIG "slap in the face" to the Baby Lisa ...

MOO ...

 

[vlpate]

Maybe this show is just a publicity stunt for Tac. Maybe he will try to use DB and JI to help wipe some of the egg off his face after JDVS's conviction. People only remember the last big story.

I wonder, would egg actually stick to slimy surface?

 

[4Jacy]

These two "parents" (cough) should man-up and do the right thing. They should march down to LE's offices and be interviewed separately, with or without their lawyers. For God's sake, do they want their baby back or not.

Are they looking at the long term ramifications? Do they realize if this case just goes away, with no more participation from them, they will always be considered suspects. And what about their children, this will follow them for their entire lives as well. Time to do the right thing!!

 

[norest4thewicked]

These two "parents" (cough) should man-up and do the right thing. They should march down to LE's offices and be interviewed separately, with or without their lawyers. For God's sake, do they want their baby back or not.

Are they looking at the long term ramifications? Do they realize if this case just goes away, with no more participation from them, they will always be considered suspects. And what about their children, this will follow them for their entire lives as well. Time to do the right thing!!

BBM # 1 - No

BBM # 2 - They simply don't care

And, yes, these are my opinions, as I've stated many, many, many, many times. It's unfortunate, but it's how I truly feel.:furious:

 

[Whisperer]

BBM

Exactly what does one bring to a baby abduction?

That question needs to be asked to the poster who stated they would bring items necessary if they were stealing a baby.

 

[Whisperer]

I think it's been confirmed by multiple sources that the Springfield article was wrong. It's been acknowledged on this forum that the Springfield article is wrong. As far as his whereabouts that night, there is no evidence he was there, based on numerous interviews and facts by folks that are actually talking to people down there (JS and RR). If there is no evidence or proof he was there that night, why continue to follow a dead end?

I don't trust anything that comes out of DB's mouth. Phil N was there in the early evening. It is open...how long he stayed. Some want to dismiss him. In fact, some want to dismiss every single member of DB's family from the crime. We don't know how long he was there that day/night. Maybe he helped her?

I was asked about her brother claiming she was drunk. It has discussed on this forum along with her father or grandfather who claims to know that DB was transferring contacts on Sunday night and she transferred her phone service to her GP's phone. Sunday, they say, not Monday. How do they know that? This phone stuff is a big red herring...imo. Her family is trying to help her out by repeating what she tells them.

 

[Whisperer]

I don't care if the Springfield article was wrong. Phil N. is still under my umbrella of suspicion.

 

[Whisperer]

I think it's been confirmed by multiple sources that the Springfield article was wrong. It's been acknowledged on this forum that the Springfield article is wrong. As far as his whereabouts that night, there is no evidence he was there, based on numerous interviews and facts by folks that are actually talking to people down there (JS and RR). If there is no evidence or proof he was there that night, why continue to follow a dead end?

...Just as some are willing to follow leads that go nowhere and witnesses that think they saw an unclothed baby being carried around town for four hours in the chill of the night, some of us are searching and asking if anyone knows where family members were on that particular night. The parents are the most likely to be involved. I know some just don't want to buy that and they are going for the less than 5% probability they are not involved...and that is their choice...bless them.

They want evidence, hard evidence. The facts are that in most of the cases where babies are killed by a parent, there is no hard evidence. Sometimes you just have to connect the dots. DB was the last one to see the baby and DB was drunk out of her mind....(first and second dot)

If LE were able to question them in the first week, this case may be resolved. It will now go cold and the parent/s will always remain suspect. At least they won't be jailed, and that will make their supporters happy.

 

[krimekat]

Are there any POIs in this case? I mean, actual POIs identified by LE?

 

[flipflop]

Obviously this case is at a major stand still...with DB and JI not willing to speak to LE. I wonder what they want the next move to be? Do they want this case solved? I know it won't happen, but I wish Dr. Phil luck with trying to get through to these 2 that they need to start cooperating and get in there for the interviews to get this case moving again!!!!!

 

[melissasmom]

Are there any POIs in this case? I mean, actual POIs identified by LE?

LE has not named ANY POIs.

 

[DeAnn]

...Just as some are willing to follow leads that go nowhere and witnesses that think they saw an unclothed baby being carried around town for four hours in the chill of the night, some of us are searching and asking if anyone knows where family members were on that particular night. The parents are the most likely to be involved. I know some just don't want to buy that and they are going for the less than 5% probability they are not involved...and that is their choice...bless them.

They want evidence, hard evidence. The facts are that in most of the cases where babies are killed by a parent, there is no hard evidence. Sometimes you just have to connect the dots. DB was the last one to see the baby and DB was drunk out of her mind....(first and second dot)

If LE were able to question them in the first week, this case may be resolved. It will now go cold and the parent/s will always remain suspect. At least they won't be jailed, and that will make their supporters happy.

I shouldn't ask this but I can't help myself....you said in one post that you didn't believe anything that comes out of Debbie Bradley's mouth....so why believe she was drunk out of her mind? Why not think she was stone cold sober? If you believe she was drunk then there's one thing you think she was truthful about right?

and police did question them the first week Just not extensively since then and not the way that the police want and most people think should happen seemingly.

 

[Jacie Estes]

...Just as some are willing to follow leads that go nowhere and witnesses that think they saw an unclothed baby being carried around town for four hours in the chill of the night, some of us are searching and asking if anyone knows where family members were on that particular night. The parents are the most likely to be involved. I know some just don't want to buy that and they are going for the less than 5% probability they are not involved...and that is their choice...bless them.

They want evidence, hard evidence. The facts are that in most of the cases where babies are killed by a parent, there is no hard evidence. Sometimes you just have to connect the dots. DB was the last one to see the baby and DB was drunk out of her mind....(first and second dot)

If LE were able to question them in the first week, this case may be resolved. It will now go cold and the parent/s will always remain suspect. At least they won't be jailed, and that will make their supporters happy.

BBM

Do you have a link for that?