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

[mrsu]

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

No, he hasn't necessarily changed his story, but what they meant yesterday on the show was that Jeremy came home and probably thought/said "why are all these lights on", possibly annoyed because he usually turns off the lights. It was a blanket statement, it didn't mean that every single light in the house was on, however, it has been exaggerated in the media to make it seem like that was the case.

 

[In da Middle]

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.

Still convinced SHE did not go to the river. Not by car because they still have all of theirs and so does her brother so no dead baby transported that way. And definitely, highly convinced she ever, ever, ever walked to the river for any reason. A walker she isn't.
Other unknowns - then the river is viable.
People who make it a habit of wandering the area in the dark - possible. Somebody else transporting in their car to the river - possible.
Her - not so much.

 

[Donjeta]

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

From Sherbie's transcription in the beginning of the thread:

Regarding the lights, DB says they didn't compare stories til days later. She says there was lighting on in living room, a small lamp, stove light and clock radio light. As an electrician, JI is aware of lights being on and routinely follows her around to turn them off. He complains a lot about lights being on, but that night there weren't more lights on than usual. DB says she doesn't view that as an inconsistency.

FWIW that's what I remember them saying too from watching the live stream. The clip on the Dr. Phil site about the light cuts off in the middle of the discussion but maybe someone who DVR'd it can verify the exact wording.

 

[Sparklin]

http://www.kmbc.com/video/30375998/detail.html

Short statement from Ashley Irwin re: the Dr.Phil interview.

Thanks!!

Unbelievable that a reporter would be knocking on a bedroom window! WTH!!

 

[annalia]

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.

My bolding

We will just have to agree to disagree, because what she said was pretty clear, there really is no need to try to read anything else into it.

She clearly says that it was JI who came home and said to her that all the lights were on, she never says others misstated or misinterpreted what he said, she never says he never said it. Just that HE exaggerated when HE said it. She never says anything about anyone else at that point, just that JI says it but didn't really mean it the way he said it. That isn't anyone elses fault.

Even in the video I posted above she said that JI said all the lights were on.

JMHO

 

[Donjeta]

No, he hasn't necessarily changed his story, but what they meant yesterday on the show was that Jeremy came home and probably thought/said "why are all these lights on", possibly annoyed because he usually turns off the lights. It was a blanket statement, it didn't mean that every single light in the house was on, however, it has been exaggerated in the media to make it seem like that was the case.

I don't think I've ever seen anybody seriously suggest that every single light in the house was on.

I think that is a strawman.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

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.

People haven't morphed it into anything. Deb says right here that JI came in and told her all the lights were on.

http://drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/6721/?id=6721&showID=1783

 

[Sabot]

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/

"Most" isn't "All".

 

[Donjeta]

As far as I can tell he came in and said "why are all the lights on" and meant, "why are all the lights that are on, on?"

 

[annalia]

I don't think I've ever seen anybody seriously suggest that every single light in the house was on.

I think that is a strawman.

my bolding

I do too which is what makes the whole thing even more perplexing. So many media reports that I'm coming across were reporting it correctly, that JI said most of the lights or just lights were on. It was DB herself that said JI said all of the lights.

And is that really even the issue? The issue was that JI supposedly became alarmed that lights were on in the house, more than he would expect. It seems like a diversionary tactic now for DB to squabble over the words all or most. What is the reason though?

Would a kidnapper really come in a home even if it was *most* of the lights on? Would a kidnapper turn on *most* of the lights when he's in the middle of stealing a baby?

 

[Sabot]

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

I didn't say "Only". I would have thought it was difficult to misunderstand what I actually said.

 

[Donjeta]

I didn't say "Only". I would have thought it was difficult to misunderstand what I actually said.

Sorry. I know what you meant but your wording illustrated so perfectly what I perceive to be the problem with her statements.

Truthful needs no qualifications like "as honest as possible". Either you're honest or not. If you're only as honest as possible there is something that you're concealing because telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not as convenient as desirable.

 

[mrsu]

I don't think I've ever seen anybody seriously suggest that every single light in the house was on.

I think that is a strawman.

Maybe not, but many here HAVE suggested that as in why would a kidnapper enter a house with all the lights on, or why would a kidnapper turn on all the lights.

I think it's quite possible with a lamp being left on in the living room and a few in the kitchen, etc., the home could still appear not lit up to an intruder while at the same time Jeremy's statements about "all the lights on" being true/honest as well since that was unusual to him. But the fact that the lights were on can be explained away by the fact the Debbie was drunk and simply didn't turn them off.

 

[Donjeta]

Maybe not, but many here HAVE suggested that as in why would a kidnapper enter a house with all the lights on, or why would a kidnapper turn on all the lights.

I think it's quite possible with a lamp being left on in the living room and a few in the kitchen, etc., the home could still appear not lit up to an intruder while at the same time Jeremy's statements about "all the lights on" being true/honest as well since that was unusual to him. But the fact that the lights were on can be explained away by the fact the Debbie was drunk and simply didn't turn them off.

Did they draw their curtains?

The only thing is, DB said she turned off the lights.

JP: “Were the lights on or off when you went to bed?”
DB: “I turned them all off.”

JP=Judge Pirro

 

[Sabot]

Sorry. I know what you meant but your wording illustrated so perfectly what I perceive to be the problem with her statements.

Truthful needs no qualifications like "as honest as possible". Either you're honest or not. If you're only as honest as possible there is something that you're concealing because telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not as convenient as desirable.

Is it her statements or mine that you are having a problem with? It was I who said it, and not Deborah.

 

[In da Middle]

Thanks!!

Unbelievable that a reporter would be knocking on a bedroom window! WTH!!

After what I have witnessed in their behavior, am I not shocked by this. And people wonder why some are not talking to the media! This is just plain rude! If people are not answering the door - get a clue.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

So Deb told the Judge she turned all the lights off.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

And JI told Deb all the lights were on.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I think it will take witchcraft to consolidate those two statements into meaning the same thing.

 

[Donjeta]

Is it her statements or mine that you are having a problem with? It was I who said it, and not Deborah.

Hers.