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

[cityslick]

Right. Like, man, you know, it's totally unreasonable to expect that parents tell the truth to the police when their child goes missing. Totally ludicrous. *shrug*

Before I label this a lie, I'd like to see some link from those early days that stated that they told LE that JI said 'all the lights were on', because I think it was common knowledge by at least the 2nd week here that only certain lights were on. So how did we know that not all the lights were on but LE didn't?

The thing about drinking, we'll have to see if in fact she admits she didn't tell them at first she was drinking. I agree, that's a key fact to leave out when your discussing to LE what happened the night before.

 

[oh_gal]

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin said some people in the Kansas City community are making "ridiculous accusations" regarding the case surrounding their missing daughter

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/30361421/detail.html#ixzz1lG7Bb2Hp

Was DB rolling her eyes at the 13 second mark? Or did something up on the ceiling catch her eye?

 

[hambirg]

This is all MOO so take it for whatever it's worth.

The initial story when this all first broke and the Amber Alert was issued was DB went to bed at 10:30. The lights were off according to SB. When JI came home the window was busted, the lights were on, the front door was unlocked and the phones and BL were gone. Just given this, the thought is. . .intruder came in through the window sometime after 10:30pm, turned on the lights and took the phones and BL out through the front door, leaving it so that JI found it unlocked at 4am. Pretty straightforward.

Then it was the intruder couldn't have came through the window. Fair enough. . .so maybe the intruder tried the window, but ended up going through the front door that DB can't remember if she locked or not. Intruder turned on the lights and took the phones and BL back out the front door. Again, this implied that the intruder came in sometime after 10:30pm.

Now, we have that the lights being all on was an "exaggeration." Hmmmm. . .so are they trying to say that maybe DB doesn't remember if she left some lights on? But SB says the lights were off at 10:30pm. Well, maybe now it wasn't THAT many lights. It seems to me. . .all MOO. . .that they are trying to downplay that the intruder turned on the lights. Why?!!!! :banghead: Is it because they are trying to open up that timeline? Maybe "somebody" has an airtight alibi for 10:30pm to 4 am. Soooooo. . . .maybe BL disappeared before DB went to bed. Or at least that's what I think they are trying to throw out there to see if it sticks. It doesn't. :waitasec:

You can see how this is VERY different than the initial account that the intruder came in through the window, turned on the lights, took the phones and BL, exited the front door. . .all sometime after 10:30pm.

MOO!!!!!!

ETA- the important thing isn't what lights were on. . or how many were on. . or if JI said all the lights were on! What IS important is that initially it was implied that the intruder had to be the one that turned the lights on!!!! Now they are trying to move away from that implication.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:waitasec: I remember there being a "Thread" here that discussed the LIGHTS early on when Baby Lisa went "missing".

Here it is : it discusses the Window and Lights :

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151081&highlight=Lights

...

 

[cityslick]

I will say this, a lot of folks think JI is disinterested, out of it, etc. I think that's his regular demeanor, probably the way he talks whether he's talking about his daughter missing, the sun being out or the football game. I've know a couple of people like that and they have that kind of look like they are in the clouds all the time (in truth they really are not).

 

[cityslick]

This is all MOO so take it for whatever it's worth.

The initial story when this all first broke and the Amber Alert was issued was DB went to bed at 10:30. The lights were off according to SB. When JI came home the window was busted, the lights were on, the front door was unlocked and the phones and BL were gone. Just given this, the thought is. . .intruder came in through the window sometime after 10:30pm, turned on the lights and took the phones and BL out through the front door, leaving it so that JI found it unlocked at 4am. Pretty straightforward.

Then it was the intruder couldn't have came through the window. Fair enough. . .so maybe the intruder tried the window, but ended up going through the front door that DB can't remember if she locked or not. Intruder turned on the lights and took the phones and BL back out the front door. Again, this implied that the intruder came in sometime after 10:30pm.

Now, we have that the lights being all on was an "exaggeration." Hmmmm. . .so are they trying to say that maybe DB doesn't remember if she left some lights on? But SB says the lights were off at 10:30pm. Well, maybe now it wasn't THAT many lights. It seems to me. . .all MOO. . .that they are trying to downplay that the intruder turned on the lights. Why?!!!! :banghead: Is it because they are trying to open up that timeline? Maybe "somebody" has an airtight alibi for 10:30pm to 4 am. Soooooo. . . .maybe BL disappeared before DB went to bed. Or at least that's what I think they are trying to throw out there to see if it sticks. It doesn't. :waitasec:

You can see how this is VERY different than the initial account that the intruder came in through the window, turned on the lights, took the phones and BL, exited the front door. . .all sometime after 10:30pm.

MOO!!!!!!

ETA- the important thing isn't what lights were on. . or how many were on. . or if JI said all the lights were on! What IS important is that initially it was implied that the intruder had to be the one that turned the lights one!!!! Now they are trying to move away from that implication.

BBM

I think as this case has been hashed and rehashed in the past 4 months, it was theorized that DB (in her drunken state) could have turned some lights on and didn't turn them off. I never thought for one second that if this was an intruder that the intruder turned on the lights because I'm not sure what fantasyland exists where intruders break into houses and turn on lights.

I'll have to look at the early MSM and see it was reported like this, that they told the story that the intruder turned on the lights.

 

[octobermoon]

My personal opinion is that going on Dr. Phil never solves anything. Goodness gracious, he has people on now that were "helped" years ago and they are still messed up. I get the promos during Ellen. But it sure does line the pockets of advertisers, etc IMO, JMO

 

[Donjeta]

I am not certain why I should feel reassured that DB passed the polygraph when she simultaneously demonstrates that she lied to the cops without batting an eye because she thinks it is justified. So what is her passing the polygraph supposed to prove? It only shows that she is the sort of person who can lie to the police without flunking the poly.

 

[annalia]

Before I label this a lie, I'd like to see some link from those early days that stated that they told LE that JI said 'all the lights were on', because I think it was common knowledge by at least the 2nd week here that only certain lights were on. So how did we know that not all the lights were on but LE didn't?

The thing about drinking, we'll have to see if in fact she admits she didn't tell them at first she was drinking. I agree, that's a key fact to leave out when your discussing to LE what happened the night before.

my bolding

But cityslick, I'm a bit confused, what does that really matter at this point? It's DB herself who's now saying that JI said all the lights were on, she's not being misquoted is she? She's not saying he never said it and it was misreported, that LE said something he didn't say, she's saying it was just an exaggeration.

Shouldn't the question be why is DB even saying JI said that all the lights were on? :waitasec:

 

[cityslick]

I am not certain why I should feel reassured that DB passed the polygraph when she simultaneously demonstrates that she lied to the cops without batting an eye because she thinks it is justified. So what is her passing the polygraph supposed to prove? It only shows that she is the sort of person who can lie to the police without flunking the poly.

I don't know if she did or not. The fact that it's coming from her lawyer, I don't know how much truth I put into it.

I'll admit, I'm bothered by the fact that she didn't tell LE right away she had been drinking that night if that is in fact the case. It wouldn't be justified anyway, because being drunk and not paying attention is key to LE understanding one of the possible ways BL got out of that house.

 

[octobermoon]

Was DB rolling her eyes at the 13 second mark? Or did something up on the ceiling catch her eye?

I honestly can't tell. My computer is old, and so are my eyes LOL. Those of you who watch on big screens will be able to tell. I have to walk across the room to read the weather alerts on the tv :crazy:

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

So if I heard that promo right she didn't tell police she was drinking that night? Anybody else think that is what she means?

Dr Phil: "You did not mention that you had been drinking."

DB: "No, because it has absolutely nothing to do with her being missing."

So, imo, we cannot tell, for sure, to whom she did not mention the drinking. The way it was edited, it could have been to the public in her first media interview or in her report to the police.

This clip leaves it totally unclear, imo.

 

[cityslick]

my bolding

But cityslick, I'm a bit confused, what does that really matter at this point? It's DB herself who's now saying that JI said all the lights were on, she's not being misquoted is she? She's not saying he never said it and it was misreported, that LE said something he didn't say, she's saying it was just an exaggeration.

Shouldn't the question be why is DB even saying JI said that all the lights were on? :waitasec:

I agree with you, I not quite sure why she's volunteering that JI didn't say that. Plus, the first part of the statement 'people taking my words apart' doesn't make any sense either. I guess it's impossible to figure this out without the context. We'll find out more tomorrow.

 

[cityslick]

Dr Phil: "You did not mention that you had been drinking."

DB: "No, because it has absolutely nothing to do with her being missing."

So, imo, we cannot tell, for sure, to whom she did not mention the drinking. The way it was edited, it could have been to the public in her first media interview or in her report to the police.

This clip leaves it totally unclear, imo.

So again, there is no context there. The auto assumption is didn't tell LE, but you are right, it could mean the public.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Was DB rolling her eyes at the 13 second mark? Or did something up on the ceiling catch her eye?

BBM: That's what it looked like to me ... and then she "caught herself" ...

DB rolled her eyes a lot in previous interviews ... so it would NOT surprise me if she rolled her eyes during her interview with PMcG ...

MOO ...

 

[hambirg]

BBM

I think as this case has been hashed and rehashed in the past 4 months, it was theorized that DB (in her drunken state) could have turned some lights on and didn't turn them off. I never thought for one second that if this was an intruder that the intruder turned on the lights because I'm not sure what fantasyland exists where intruders break into houses and turn on lights.

I'll have to look at the early MSM and see it was reported like this, that they told the story that the intruder turned on the lights.

Check the thread that Dog.Gone. Cute posted above. On the first page it says that the parents said during a Judge Jeanine interview that DB turned off all the lights but two, and when JI came home there was a light on in every room but one or two. :waitasec:

 

[annalia]

This is all MOO so take it for whatever it's worth.

The initial story when this all first broke and the Amber Alert was issued was DB went to bed at 10:30. The lights were off according to SB. When JI came home the window was busted, the lights were on, the front door was unlocked and the phones and BL were gone. Just given this, the thought is. . .intruder came in through the window sometime after 10:30pm, turned on the lights and took the phones and BL out through the front door, leaving it so that JI found it unlocked at 4am. Pretty straightforward.

Then it was the intruder couldn't have came through the window. Fair enough. . .so maybe the intruder tried the window, but ended up going through the front door that DB can't remember if she locked or not. Intruder turned on the lights and took the phones and BL back out the front door. Again, this implied that the intruder came in sometime after 10:30pm.

Now, we have that the lights being all on was an "exaggeration." Hmmmm. . .so are they trying to say that maybe DB doesn't remember if she left some lights on? But SB says the lights were off at 10:30pm. Well, maybe now it wasn't THAT many lights. It seems to me. . .all MOO. . .that they are trying to downplay that the intruder turned on the lights. Why?!!!! :banghead: Is it because they are trying to open up that timeline? Maybe "somebody" has an airtight alibi for 10:30pm to 4 am. Soooooo. . . .maybe BL disappeared before DB went to bed. Or at least that's what I think they are trying to throw out there to see if it sticks. It doesn't. :waitasec:

You can see how this is VERY different than the initial account that the intruder came in through the window, turned on the lights, took the phones and BL, exited the front door. . .all sometime after 10:30pm.

MOO!!!!!!

ETA- the important thing isn't what lights were on. . or how many were on. . or if JI said all the lights were on! What IS important is that initially it was implied that the intruder had to be the one that turned the lights on!!!! Now they are trying to move away from that implication.

my bolding

I was looking for some of the early reports and there are some quotes by JI where he said that "most" of the lights were on. I agree with you, all of the lights or most of the lights, the issue is that he said lights were on.

And that begs the question, and one of the things that I've had a hard time getting past since the very beginning, what baby kidnapper/intruder would turn most or all of the lights on, especially since they would have had no way to know if JI would come walking through the door at any moment?

JMHO

 

[Sherbie]

I would like Steve Young to confirm that KCPD told Tacopina that DB passed the polygraph. I worry a little about semantics with attorneys. I realize a polygraph isn't always definitive regardless pass/fail, but I want to be sure that the impression Stanton gave (that KCPD said she passed the test, presumably in its entirety) is accurate.

 

[Donjeta]

So again, there is no context there. The auto assumption is didn't tell LE, but you are right, it could mean the public.

I may have jumped to conclusions. Let's wait and see tomorrow.

Didn't she say something similar in the early MK interview? In almost the same words?

---
That promo was mostly about defending DB and JI and little about finding Lisa. I hope the whole show isn't edited like that tomorrow.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Check the thread that Dog.Gone. Cute posted above. On the first page it says that the parents said during a Judge Jeanine interview that DB turned off all the lights but two, and when JI came home there was a light on in every room but one or two. :waitasec:

:tyou:

BBM: I remember the "initial story" being that when Jeremy came home at appx 3:30 in the morning, almost ALL the lights were ON ...

So ... it will be interesting to see tomorrow's interview with PMcG to see how much of the "initial story" changed ...

MOO ...