Deborah Bradley & Jeremy Irwin - Dr. Phil Interview - 3 February 2012 #2

[Sabot]

Deb told everyone even the babies father that she last saw Lisa at 10:30.

Then it came out she had purchased wine that night and sat out on the steps with the neighbor and drank 5 to 10 glasses of it.

She states she was drunk.

Then the timeline changed and she said she could not remember seeing the baby at 10:30.

Why she changed that statement has never been explained by her. Why not?

Now we learn her definition for being drunk is 2 drinks in an hour.

She doesn't actually have to explain it. I understand. People don't always remember doing something that is automatic.
But if she could remember exactly what she did that night, and when, then I would wonder how she managed to do that.

 

[Murdock]

Deb told everyone even the babies father that she last saw Lisa at 10:30.

Then it came out she had purchased wine that night and sat out on the steps with the neighbor and drank 5 to 10 glasses of it.

She states she was drunk.

Then the timeline changed and she said she could not remember seeing the baby at 10:30.

Why she changed that statement has never been explained by her. Why not?

Now we learn her definition for being drunk is 2 drinks in an hour.

I wonder if she initially told JI 10:30, when he first came home from work, so he wouldn't be angry with her. She then stuck with the 10:30 time until she finally broke down and admitted that she hadn't seen her until much earlier.

I think the real question isn't why she intially said 10:30, but why she later changed it to 6:30ish, or "I don't remember". Why not stick with 10:30? Did she realize she would be caught in the 10:30 lie, (and if so, how, and why is that time important), or is she really innocent and realized she needed to be as honest as possible if she wanted to find out what happened to her baby?

 

[Magnifying Glass]

Having watched the interview I didn't see any "shocking" things. Just more "inconsistencies" (some might call them lies, others might gloss over them) and a way for DB to try and show the public what a good mother she is. JI was basically invisible. Perhaps that's his personality though. DB is definitely more vocal.

I don't believe possible tattoos, shiny hair etc necessarily show innocence or guilt. I don't think some of the inconsistencies show innocence or guilt. They might, but it's not a given.

I think the question of innocence and guilt in this case is quite elemental, basic. It takes you back to where it started: the primary caregiving of Lisa.

The person she depended on that evening; the person that with all her might should have tried to protect her from possible harm, preffered "me time" and made the very specific, deliberate decision to get drunk.

DB chose her own needs above those of Lisa, a child who was sick no less. So when we ask if she is guilty or innocent, the answer to me is simple. I'm not a legal eagle so in the legal sense this is debatable but as a human being with values DB's behavior that night shows she is guilty. Guilty of negligence, child endangerment.

And that's enough for me. I don't know what happened that night. Maybe there was an accident, maybe there was an abduction. One of the saddest parts for me is that a crime started (long) before Lisa disappeared. The moment DB chose "me time" is when she lost her "innocent" - card and nothing can change that for me.

And yes, people make mistakes. But it's only a mistake when you intended not for it to happen. DB intended to get drunk, since she kept drinking. She made the choice that night to choose herself. And sadly, I haven't seen much to suggest she isn't still choosing herself ever since.

All my opinion :twocents:

 

[Dr.Fessel]

She doesn't actually have to explain it. I understand. People don't always remember doing something that is automatic.
But if she could remember exactly what she did that night, and when, then I would wonder how she managed to do that.

For me to believe anything she says she has to explain why she changed the story from 10:30 to 6:40.

That is a really simple thing to do and clear up but she refuses to do it for some reason.

It should not be left up to everyone else to make excuses for her or to try to figure out the reason.

Open her mouth and say this is why I changed it.........................Simple.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Didn't she say more than two?

Deborah: "To me, more than 2 drinks an hour means your drunk. So yes."
by Brian Foster - KMBC.com 11:17 PM yesterday

Read more: http://livewire.kmbc.com/Event/Live_Wire_Baby_Lisas_Parents_Appear_On_Dr_Phil#ixzz1lQ7w6Daz

She sure did. I went back and watched the tape. Now try to figure it out, does she mean 2 drinks and a sip of another and you are drunk? Or does she mean 3 drinks and hour and you are drunk? Why not just say 3 drinks an hour and you are drunk?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Didn't she say more than two?

Deborah: "To me, more than 2 drinks an hour means your drunk. So yes."
by Brian Foster - KMBC.com 11:17 PM yesterday

Read more: http://livewire.kmbc.com/Event/Live_Wire_Baby_Lisas_Parents_Appear_On_Dr_Phil#ixzz1lQ7w6Daz

Iteresting. If you take the the maximum possible drinks she admitted to which is 10 and divide it by 3 1/2 ( hours 7:00 to 10:30) then you come up with 2.85. More then two drinks but less then 3.

Someone has been putting their math skills to good use. LOL

 

[~n/t~]

Here is the problem with your idea. It does not clear up the inconsistencies of his and hers statements. The only thing that might do that is their own words and they refuse to even try that.

Look at the simple fact that Deb said she last saw the baby at 10:30. She then changed that statement to she can't remember if she saw her or not at 10:30 with no explanation of why that changed. She just left it for everyone to try and figure out.

If one believes she was drunk, then it is very possible a lot of her recollection is inaccurate. JI wasn't there so he wouldn't know.

 

[~n/t~]

Iteresting. If you take the the maximum possible drinks she admitted to which is 10 and divide it by 3 1/2 ( hours 7:00 to 10:30) then you come up with 2.85. More then two drinks but less then 3.

Someone has been putting their math skills to good use. LOL

I honestly don't see how many drinks she had has anything to do with it. She could've had 2 or 20. She admits being drunk.

Do people believe she was or not?

 

[In da Middle]

Not that I think she went to the river, but there were two cars in the driveway. She knows how to drive.

And both cars remain in the driveway even after multiple dog searches of them. No dead baby ever in there, I would think.

 

[natsound]

Please explain out of reach of LE. This police department and very same prosecutor are not shy about having an attorney nor are they shy as to charging 1st degree with out a body. Look at Shon Pernice (Renee Pernice is the missing wife). Same police force and same prosecutor. He had attorney and they still have not found her body. He is still in jail being held for 1st degree murder. No problem. There are more, but this is the only one I am aware of on ws.

What I mean by "out of reach of LE" is that LE does not have enough evidence to arrest her and make the arrest stick. An arrest won't get them anywhere, anyway, until they dig up more good evidence, or someone talks. As it stands, an arrest would do nothing except put someone in jail who won't talk. It really wouldn't advance the case at all.

 

[natsound]

I know...kinda gauche to quote my own post! :blushing: I wanted to keep the transcript for reference in making an observation, though.

Joe says over and over that DB did not fail a polygraph. Curiously, he never says she passed a polygraph, either (nor that LE told him she had passed one - he said LE said she didn't fail).

Now, if one wanted to argue wordplay, semantics, shrewd sleight of hand by a skilled attorney, could it be that the results were "inconclusive" vs. her having passed/failed? Perhaps that's why JT couldn't/didn't say she actually passed it?

If she didn't fail, the implication is that she passed. So why not say she did? IMO, saying she passed is a much more powerful statement and would be more to her benefit than saying she didn't fail.

Made me wonder. Thoughts?

I caught that too, Sherbie. He was using semantics in some way. I wish Dr. Phil would have worded his follow-up question to ask if she passed. It may have been inconclusive.

 

[In da Middle]

My understanding is that cadaver dogs hit on the skin cells that fall off a dead body and, possibly, gases emitted from a dead body. The timeframe for when these cells shed is up for debate as is the exact way a cadaver dog hits upon a "scent". I'm sure there are ways of wrapping a body that would prevent any cells from shedding and being left behind for a cadaver dog to hit upon. And, if the person was not deceased at the time of transport, then there would be no gases emitted.

And yet there is this hit that was made to get the search warrant. So if we were to be convinced that that ONE hit meant that there was definitely a dead baby there, then it was there long enough for a dog to hit upon. This is all explained in great detail in the HRD thread.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Here is the problem with your idea. It does not clear up the inconsistencies of his and hers statements. The only thing that might do that is their own words and they refuse to even try that.

Look at the simple fact that Deb said she last saw the baby at 10:30. She then changed that statement to she can't remember if she saw her or not at 10:30 with no explanation of why that changed. She just left it for everyone to try and figure out.

If one believes she was drunk, then it is very possible a lot of her recollection is inaccurate. JI wasn't there so he wouldn't know.

Here is the problem with that. She threw down a crumb and called it "A" then she went down and threw another crumb and called it "D" on the path to finding her baby. She is trying to get people to follow a trail to find her baby but she won't tell them what B and C is that led to "D". We have no right to that information according to her. Therefore we just have to trust her when it would be so simple to drop B and C down there.

She just wants everyone to make up what they think B and C is, I can say well I think the reason you changed your story and lied about Lisa standing up in he bed and you giving her a bottle is you just plain lied or you know there is evidence out there that says Lisa was never in her bed at 10:30 or I can say well you were just drunk and got mixed up or whatever.

Why would anyone want the mystery of B and C out there when they could clear it up so simply by saying the reason I changed my story is................ now go look for my baby.

 

[In da Middle]

No, not really. Lisa wasn't all that well so was probably sleeping more. And I very much doubt that my husband knew at precisely what time I put the children to bed.

I know my husband would have a clue about this. :floorlaugh:. He pretty much lives happily in the clueless world as to that kind of stuff.

 

[~n/t~]

What I mean by "out of reach of LE" is that LE does not have enough evidence to arrest her and make the arrest stick. An arrest won't get them anywhere, anyway, until they dig up more good evidence, or someone talks. As it stands, an arrest would do nothing except put someone in jail who won't talk. It really wouldn't advance the case at all.

One would assume if there is not enough evidence of a death perhaps the child is not dead or did not die in the home.

LE never (that I'm aware of) come out and say there was no abduction. Unlike Ayla Reynolds case where LE said there is no abduction and something happened in the home. Nor do we have a mother who hasn't reported her daughter missing in 31 days.

On the contrary, in this case we have enough evidence to suggest that there was indeed an abduction.

 

[In da Middle]

What I mean by "out of reach of LE" is that LE does not have enough evidence to arrest her and make the arrest stick. An arrest won't get them anywhere, anyway, until they dig up more good evidence, or someone talks. As it stands, an arrest would do nothing except put someone in jail who won't talk. It really wouldn't advance the case at all.

Well, Shon Pernice surely isn't "out of reach of LE" even though they arrested and charged him even though he is not talking. And the case is advancing just fine without him or his lawyers.

 

[natsound]

I honestly don't see how many drinks she had has anything to do with it. She could've had 2 or 20. She admits being drunk.

Do people believe she was or not?

I think she was. You don't buy a box of wine without the intention of drinking it. And she avoided telling reporters about her drinking until we saw the surveillance video.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

The significance of the entire discussion of the lights seems to hinge on two elements.

1. Was it alarming or "weird" or out of the norm for Jeremy to have found whatever number of lights were on while Deborah was asleep? His statements (linked several times above) indicate it was. Deborah says no; Jeremy exaggerated.

2. It is another change from their original statements.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I know my husband would have a clue about this. :floorlaugh:. He pretty much lives happily in the clueless world as to that kind of stuff.

I always knew when my kids bedtimes were. It is an important thing in raising kids to have that set bedtime and structure and I looked forward to my time with my wife. I guess some dads are not like I was.

 

[natsound]

Well, Shon Pernice surely isn't "out of reach of LE" even though they arrested and charged him even though he is not talking. And the case is advancing just fine without him or his lawyers.

Everyone keeps throwing around these names from other cases. I'm talking about DB and baby Lisa. DB is just out of reach of LE. I suppose I could rehash the cadaver dog hit and other details, but I don't see the need.