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

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

The point is not how many lights were left on. The point is not whether or not JI's expression was an exaggeration. The point is that in the beginning it seemed to have been alarming ~ but now it is not.

Why that change?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

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.

Right, but the problem is he did say it on oct 6th talking to a reporter.

"Most of the lights in the house were on which is really weird."

And he has not changed his story about that.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/0...irwin-speaks-out-pleads-for-daughters-return/

 

[annalia]

I can't even remember now which lights DB said were left on yesterday but here's an early interview where JI said which lights he found on. The person in this video giving his analysis is a bit annoying but it starts at about 2 minutes.

JI says the front living room light, two kitchen lights, the accent lights, a pumpkin light and it that was more than he'd expect.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm3_ttvrweg&feature=endscreen&NR=1"]Lisa Irwin Parents New Interview - My Body Language Analysis. MUST SEE. GMA. CJB - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Marshmallow]

Don't forget with 2 other children in the home who may or may not have been asleep. Risking one or both children waking, going out to look for her. Makes no sense.

neither does her being "allegedly" drunk to the point of passing out, a regular thing for her according to her early words, and the first time her boyfriend (not husband as many have stated, she has a husband already) being gone at work that night, and that one night A. she claims to have passed out with one or both boys, B. Jeremy is gone, C. a phone stealing person who wants a baby of Lisa's age breaks in, turns on light, and leaves with child and phones.

it makes no sense. she must be the most unlucky drunk pill popping mom out there.

 

[Sparklin]

Well, let's see. If people were "watching the house" for an hour, it would have had to be between 11:30 and 3:30 for her to be back home and into bed. So, that leaves 4 hours. I think that 4 hours is long enough to do every bit of that and still time to spare. Or, if she had help of some kind, that would work too. If an abductor came into the house and took Lisa with no one seeing him/her, then DB could do whatever she wanted to do and not be seen either.

Except that Deb would be taking a chance leaving the two boys alone for ANY length of time, where they could have woken and screamed and freaked out for mom. OR Jeremy could have come home at ANY point and either caught her 'wrapping' 'leaving' or 'coming home' - there would have been SOME evidence in the car, on her shoes/clothes. I get that we don't know what evidence the cops actually have, but if they have all the evidence everyone here keeps saying the could have...then someone should be in jail.

 

[In da Middle]

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.

By not just focusing on that one sentence, but the entire context of the conversation they are having at the time, I take it as she is not saying that is what he said, but what others are exaggerating about that is what he said. Aren't they, at that time, talking about what others are misstating?

 

[Marshmallow]

I was only able to watch the first 5-10 minutes of the show. Did Dr. Phil ever ask her why she and JI are not out there searching for their missing daughter? And if so, what was the response?

TIA!

they are lookin, they looked at the tv camera and that is apparently cause to assume they are only victims and could never be involved with their child going missing from their home.

 

[matou]

I can't even remember now which lights DB said were left on yesterday but here's an early interview where JI said which lights he found on. The person in this video giving his analysis is a bit annoying but it starts at about 2 minutes.

JI says the front living room light, two kitchen lights, the accent lights, a pumpkin light and it that was more than he'd expect.

Lisa Irwin Parents New Interview - My Body Language Analysis. MUST SEE. GMA. CJB - YouTube

Thanks for finding this. I found it interesting that DB stated which lights were actually on when she was supposed to be in bed sleeping. She is speaking for JI in regards to this topic when it wasn't her place to answer that question really. JI is the one who should have supplied the info about the lights and how he found the window that night. JMO

 

[Sabot]

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?

That's it in my opinion. She wanted to be as honest as possible.

 

[annalia]

By not just focusing on that one sentence, but the entire context of the conversation they are having at the time, I take it as she is not saying that is what he said, but what others are exaggerating about that is what he said. Aren't they, at that time, talking about what others are misstating?

I am focusing on the entire context, the entire show wasn't about what others were saying.

If we're keeping what she said in context, at that point that is exactly what she said, that JI was just exaggerating when *HE* said it. That's acknowledging that those words came out of his mouth.

“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.”

I just don't see how that could be implied that she was talking about others exaggerating something he didn't say.

 

[Donjeta]

That's it in my opinion. She wanted to be as honest as possible.

Yes, I agree. Not honest but only as honest as possible.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Does anyone know of a link where I can watch this again? Is it up anywhere?

 

[Sabot]

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.

It's the sort of detail Fathers find out when they have to deal with it. At which point most children would finish up in bed before they got out of bed.

 

[Murdock]

Except that Deb would be taking a chance leaving the two boys alone for ANY length of time, where they could have woken and screamed and freaked out for mom. OR Jeremy could have come home at ANY point and either caught her 'wrapping' 'leaving' or 'coming home' - there would have been SOME evidence in the car, on her shoes/clothes. I get that we don't know what evidence the cops actually have, but if they have all the evidence everyone here keeps saying the could have...then someone should be in jail.

If she didn't want JI to know that the baby was dead, she had to take that chance. She couldn't just leave her in the house knowing that either JI or the cops would find her.

IDM thinks it unlikely she could have gotten close enough to the river, in the dark, to throw in a 30 pound baby, (sorry IDM if you've changed your mind about that - I remember seeing you say that on another thread). The police searched the area and didn't find anything. So, where did she hide her?

Then you have the men carrying around diapered babies in the night. I just don't what to make of this case.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Does anyone know of a link where I can watch this again? Is it up anywhere?

There are parts of it here. I am not sure if it is the whole show or not. http://drphil.com/shows/show/1783

 

[In da Middle]

I am focusing on the entire context, the entire show wasn't about what others were saying.

If we're keeping what she said in context, at that point that is exactly what she said, that JI was just exaggerating when *HE* said it. That's acknowledging that those words came out of his mouth.

“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.”

I just don't see how that could be implied that she was talking about others exaggerating something he didn't say.

You are right, the ENTIRE show was not about what people are misstating, but THAT part was. She is saying IMO that other people are saying that he is saying that all of the light were on and it was an exaggeration because that is not what he said. I have seen many on here state exactly the same thing and misstating that he said "all" of the lights were on even after watching him say 'some'. I have seen 'some' morph into 'all' many times on many different forums and I *think* that is exactly what she is talking about. Not that it is what he actually said, but people have morphed it into that as what he said. She is quoting what others have said and exaggerated. That's what I got out of it anyway.

 

[Sparklin]

I'll give it to DB...she is a good actress.

It was previously reported (by DB herself) that only one child was in the bed. But then JI made his statement that he checked on the boys and so then they had to figure out how to change that story to make it match up. I don't care what anyone says, THIS was a story change...and more than once.

I never heard a reliable source state that someone tried to access the Internet from one of the phones. I think that a lot of this is getting all mixed up, but then again, I myself get mixed up sometimes...sooooo....

It has ALWAYS been reported that when DB went into the house, the boys were still awake, she told them they could sleep with her and they got into her bed, BUT that the older boy went back to HIS own bed. Read bottom to top.

jimspellmancnn jim spellman
@
@Nickster1969 boy went back to his own bed. That was the info we had all along.
15 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

jimspellmancnn jim spellman
@
@Nickster1969 i think to be fair she said she went ot bed with both boys. That was the info we had, but at some point Jeremys
15 hours ago
***********************

Who do you consider a reliable source re the phone access?? It has been widely reported.

 

[Sabot]

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 bought a box of wine a week ago and at least half of it is still there. I haven't actually taken out the bag to measure it, although someone seems to have made some attempt to see how much was left in the box that Debbie bought. Not that anyone has mentioned how much there was, so we just don't know.

 

[mrsu]

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 think because it was made to sound in the media like every single light in the house was on. If that's the case, it's highly unlikely it was a kidnapper, because what kidnapper would turn on every light in a home and draw attention to themselves? I think it's one of the many things the family feels has been exaggerated in the media.

 

[Sabot]

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.

I don't think Debbie said that it wasn't unusual, only that not ALL of the lights had been turned on.