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

[In da Middle]

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.

I am finding it really hard to believe that she could have possibly been all that stealthy and leave absolutely no evidence behind if she was drunk, especially THAT drunk.

 

[natsound]

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.

What evidence suggests there was an abduction? A story from a parent is not evidence.

How does a cadaver dog hit suggest there was an abduction?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

Dr. Fessel, iirc, she did try to explain. She said she always checks on the baby before she goes to bed. That she couldn't specifically remember doing it that particular night (maybe because she was drunk?) but she's sure she would have done it.

Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, afaic.

 

[natsound]

I am finding it really hard to believe that she could have possibly been all that stealthy and leave absolutely no evidence behind if she was drunk, especially THAT drunk.

People that regularly consume alcohol have a high tolerance. I'm not saying I know for a fact that she regularly consumes alcohol, or that she's built up a tolerance. But that's what I believe.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

What did you all make of the fact that JT seemed to have verified that burned baby clothes had been found?

 

[annalia]

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.

I agree that parents do know those things especially when their children are that young. But we're not even talking generalizations, we're talking about statements that the parents are giving to investigators about their missing baby. LE is trying to piece together facts based on what they're told by Lisa's parents.

LE shouldn't have to just make assumptions or have to guess on what the heck the parents might have really meant or not meant.

Is it any wonder that investigators want to talk to them separately??

JMHO

 

[Murdock]

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.

Unless I'm missing something, I just don't see why the light stories are important. They both agree that "some" lights were on. What changes in either a guilt or innocent scenario if JI thinks it was odd, but DB doesn't?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Unless I'm missing something, I just don't see why the light stories are important. They both agree that "some" lights were on. What changes in either a guilt or innocent scenario if JI thinks it was odd, but DB doesn't?

BBM JI said all the lights were on and it was weird. He has not changed that story.

 

[annalia]

Unless I'm missing something, I just don't see why the light stories are important. They both agree that "some" lights were on. What changes in either a guilt or innocent scenario if JI thinks it was odd, but DB doesn't?

I don't understand the need to backtrack from what JI said that most of the lights were on. There isn't really a vast difference between most of the lights and all of the lights.

Possibly a reason to backtrack is realizing that no one would believe that a kidnapper would turn all or most of the lights on in a house while they were stealing a baby.

Or that no kidnapper would enter a home that had all or most of the lights on, how would the kidnapper know whether or not all or most of the lights on meant people are still awake inside, especially if leaving lights on isn't something they did before?

 

[In da Middle]

BBM JI said all the lights were on and it was weird. He has not changed that story.

I tell my kids all the time they left all of the lights on and don't change my story even though they only left maybe the living room light and the stove light on. They know as well as I do exactly what I meant. Sometimes they are kinda smart like that and figure it out.

 

[Murdock]

I don't understand the need to backtrack from what JI said that most of the lights were on. There isn't really a vast difference between most of the lights and all of the lights.

Possibly a reason to backtrack is realizing that no one would believe that a kidnapper would turn all or most of the lights on in a house while they were stealing a baby.

Or that no kidnapper would enter a home that had all or most of the lights on, how would the kidnapper know whether or not all or most of the lights on meant people are still awake inside?

Did he backtrack on the number of lights that were on? (I guess, that's what I was missing). I thought he said something like "most" and DB said he was exaggerating about how many lights were actually on.

Ohhh - I think I get it now. He said that most of the lights were on, and DB, now realizing how stupid that sounds, is saying that there were really hardly any lights on. Do I have that right?

 

[annalia]

IIRC She stated that people saying that ALL of the lights being on was the exaggeration.

I really don't think so, she's not referring to other people she's referring to JI saying it.

“When he came into the house that morning and said all the lights were on in the house," Bradley continued, "it was a total exaggeration.”

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Unless I'm missing something, I just don't see why the light stories are important. They both agree that "some" lights were on. What changes in either a guilt or innocent scenario if JI thinks it was odd, but DB doesn't?

Well, they are now trying to say the lights being on is insignificant. In the beginning it seemed to have been a very important factor to them ~ alarming them to the fact that someone came in and turned the lights on, stole Baby Lisa and three cell phones.

Now it is nothing but an exaggeration. Why the change? The more historical revision ~ the more difficult to find the truth.

BBM: I didn't hear JI say he still think's it's significant. He just sat there while Deborah seemed to spin the exaggeration from Jeremy to finally laying it at the doorstep of the media and public ~ along with everything else that's being exaggerated.

:cow:​

 

[Marshmallow]

I am finding it really hard to believe that she could have possibly been all that stealthy and leave absolutely no evidence behind if she was drunk, especially THAT drunk.

the only person claiming she was that drunk was Deborah herself and as her story changes often, I suggest no one use it as an example of anything truth related.

 

[toodles11]

So it seems like the discussion of which lights were actually on is a red herring. As annalia suggested, no kidnapper (or a burglar in a suburban area) is going to break into a home with lights that are noticeably on.

 

[In da Middle]

I really don't think so, she's not referring to other people she's referring to JI saying it.

“When he came into the house that morning and said all the lights were on in the house," Bradley continued, "it was a total exaggeration.”

But wasn't the context of what they were talking about at the time was what people were saying and exaggerating? That people are saying that he said all of the lights were on when he really didn't say that.

 

[Murdock]

Well, they are now trying to say the lights being on is insignificant. In the beginning it seemed to have been a very important factor to them ~ alarming them to the fact that someone came in and turned the lights on, stole Baby Lisa and three cell phones.

Now it is nothing but an exaggeration. Why the change? The more historical revision ~ the more difficult to find the truth.

BBM: I didn't hear JI say he still think's it's significant. He just sat there while Deborah seemed to spin the exaggeration from Jeremy to finally laying it at the doorstep of the media and public ~ along with everything else that's being exaggerated.

:cow:​

I think I now understand what you are saying. I didn't get a chance to see Dr Phil yesterday, or follow this thread last night, (this thread is long! this place must have been busy), so I'm trying to play catch up.

 

[annalia]

But wasn't the context of what they were talking about at the time was what people were saying and exaggerating? That people are saying that he said all of the lights were on when he really didn't say that.

But where is she denying that he said it? She's acknowledging that he said it but he was only exaggerating when he said it.

 

[natsound]

the only person claiming she was that drunk was Deborah herself and as her story changes often, I suggest no one use it as an example of anything truth related.

Aha, I see your point.

But I do remember hearing that police measured the wine in the box to see how much was consumed. If it were just a little bit, I guess they wouldn't be measuring.

 

[In da Middle]

the only person claiming she was that drunk was Deborah herself and as her story changes often, I suggest no one use it as an example of anything truth related.

No, a lot of people here are claiming it also and seem to think she had some super ability to manage all of this while in this state. That seems to be the only one thing a lot want to believe and throw out all of the rest. I personally don't believe much of what she says at all because of possible lies. Exactly why I don't believe anything anymore of what MK reports. She has proven her self to be very inaccurate and report too much false info as fact so I just don't take anything she reports as believable.