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

[norest4thewicked]

I agree, but sometimes the wording does, and it doesn't mean squat if the intent was to relay the same message.

Okay...I will use an example. If someone says that the last time they saw their baby was at 10:30, and then a while later they say the last time they saw their baby was at 6:30, which squat would this fall under and how would it change and for what reason?

 

[mrsu]

I don't understand? Are you saying she doesn't remember the truth because of the wine or that the wine changed her truth???


(OM is going out to get a space heater for the dungeon)

I think it's possible that she simply didn't remember what the truth was.

I think she could have already felt very guilty about the fact that her daughter was missing under her watch so she may not have initially told the police she was drinking because she didn't want to look bad. Maybe she thought her daughter would be found ASAP and to save face, didn't bring up the alcohol. Then she went on to say she turned off the lights and checked on her baby because that's what she NORMALLY does, so she must have done it that night as well. Maybe she turned the overhead lights off, but left the lamp on, and the kitchen appliance lights on. Maybe that's what she meant when she says she turned the lights off? Who knows. Then the police find the video of the wine. She realizes that she's *caught* and comes clean. Says she didn't mention it because she thinks it has no bearing on her child being missing. She knows she didn't do it, therefore someone must have taken her. So when police confront her she goes on to confess that no, because she was drunk, she really doesn't remember if she turned off the lights (but that's what her neighbor told her) or checked on Lisa.

^^all my speculation^^

I'm not saying if she did do what's above that it was right by any means, but by the time everything would have come out in the media, she was already crucified. It seems that "inconsistencies cleared up" by the families in these cases often turn into "the family changing their story" for reason. Now people find out she left out she was drunk. Her ship was sunk. If it's the case, it was most definitely self serving, but maybe she truly believed it had nothing to do with baby Lisa (the drinking happened hours earlier), maybe it (drinking) wasn't out of the norm, and maybe she figured Lisa would be found right away.

I admit that I was ALL over Debbie in the beginning. Now I can't help but think if they had something on her, anything on her, that we would have seen more by now. Something. Then I think about how I would react if my child was missing on my watch. And what if I was drunk when it happened? I probably wouldn't want to show my face in public either. I hope I never find out. I think of the people here, myself included, who complained, why aren't they talking, why aren't they out there...now people say they protest too much and dissect every word they say and they are only out there for self serving purposes.

 

[In da Middle]

I don't see her as focused on the lights, I saw it as answering a question about the lights. What was she suppose to say when asked about the lights, that blue is her favourite colour? :floorlaugh:

This is EXACTLY how I see it. It seems to me that people here are the ones focused on the lights. The entire light conversation on the show took all of a minute out of a 60 minute show. And now it is twisted into that SHE was focused on the light?:waitasec: It seems to me, that her point is being proven instead of debunked.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't see her as focused on the lights, I saw it as answering a question about the lights. What was she suppose to say when asked about the lights, that blue is her favourite colour? :floorlaugh:

The focus impression imo comes from the length of the discussion. She could have just said that it was strange to her too that the abductor turned the lights on but that's what seems to have happened, and that she could have left some of the lights on herself because she does not remember for sure and was just going by the neighbor's report. There was no need for the long and winding talk about all the lights versus some of the lights.

The lawyer should have stopped her before she said that it was pretty normal to have that many lights on because the story was that it was unusual before.

 

[annalia]

IIRC Dr Phil asked her what misconceptions (my words here) she wanted to clear up, and he asked her about the lights and how it was played out in the media etc. It was a broad question. But say say tomato and I say tomatoe, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

My bolding

He didn't ask her about how the lights played out in the media. It was actually pretty specific not broad. He asked her if she was wrong about the lights, the media or how it played up was not brought up in his question.

I think Sherbie posted the transcript? Or she has it saved and said she will post the transcript. I'll look for a link. I'm not really sure why it's even such a big issue when it's perfectly clear she says that JI told her all the lights were on, not the media, not the internet, not TH's saying he said something that he never said.

JMHO

 

[cityslick]

Okay...I will use an example. If someone says that the last time they saw their baby was at 10:30, and then a while later they say the last time they saw their baby was at 6:30, which squat would this fall under and how would it change and for what reason?

I can answer this.

If there is something you do that is so routine, you wind up doing it without even thinking. If it was 'routine' to always check the baby before you went to bed, when recalling events of a previous night, the auto assumption is you checked on the baby before you went to bed, because you always did that. But, you were drinking that night, and after replaying that night over and over in your head, you are not positive that you actually did check her before you went to bed, so to clarify you say when you are for sure you last saw her.

 

[natsound]

Yes, but what if those that believe it so strongly are wrong? How do you explain her behavior from an innocent point of view?

I'll have to leave that to you. Can't do it. I think we'd be seeing different behavior if she were innocent, like seeing DB and JI out searching, heading up command posts, and regularly visiting the police department.

 

[NFYIAMY]

Okay...I will use an example. If someone says that the last time they saw their baby was at 10:30, and then a while later they say the last time they saw their baby was at 6:30, which squat would this fall under and how would it change and for what reason?

Maybe because she simply mis-spoke? I believe on the DrP show she said that she KNEW what time she put to bed - but wasn't sure, thought, possibly, she checked on her at 10:30 ish?

I kind of felt like what she was TRYING to say (and yes, she does a poor job of getting things out IMO) was this "I KNOW what time I put her to bed. I know that I probably checked on her at some point - but I'd been drinking and I just don't really remember -- I think around 10:30?"

On that piece - she sounded to me - like she was trying to be SO honest and trying NOT to mis-speak.....

......but I could be very wrong. Again, just MOO.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Well, it's my theory that baby Lisa died in the bathtub. Either she was put in there because of her fever or perhaps she was fussy and DB thought that would help. I know that my children often loved a bath when fussy. But, I think that for whatever reason, DB forgot about Lisa due to her drinking and "adult time" or just lost track of time. I think that Lisa was taken from the tub directly to the spot that the dog hit on next to DB's bed. I haven't heard back yet from the SAR experts on whether or not a dog would hit on this area if the shower was run hot for a long time afterwards and cleaned out. However, even if a dog HAD hit here, I don't know that we would have necessarily been privy to it as the general public. Just my thoughts.

Is it also your belief that neither of the two boys went in the bathroom the entire time DB and neihbours sat on the front stoop drinking, or they went in, saw a dead baby floating in the bathtub and didn't bother to say anything, and just went back to watching tv? If DB stayed on the front porch as everything seems to indicate and never went in to check on the kids, as we've heard, how did BL go un-noticed with 3 other children in the house?

Was the bathtub reported to have water in it, or signs that water had recently been in it? I'm just trying to grasp how you came up with this bathtub theory is all.

 

[Donjeta]

IIRC Dr. Phil's question was about whether it made sense that an abductor would turn the lights on.

 

[melissasmom]

Two things:

1. You're in Baltimore... I like you already!

2. Some of us strongly believe DB is guilty, and is lying. So yes, we are not giving her the benefit of the doubt in any aspect. If she is guilty, which I believe and some others do, then the only right thing she can do is admit it and face the consequences. Anything else she does is wrong. So yes, you will see some extreme criticism.[/QUOTE]

But, they way I see it, people who are criticizing her no matter what she does seem to want it both ways. ( I am not directing this at you specifically, just jumping off this part)

If DB cries, it's "OMG, she is faking! Gulity!"
If DB doesn't cry "OMG! Look at her she is emotionless! Guilty!"

So no matter what she does, once some people have their minds made up, that's it. I like to take in all the facts, see things from all sides, etc. And that is why I'm on the fence. I just don't see evidence in this case of DB /JI being involved. I can't call someone guilty of a crime because of a feeling, or I don't like them, etc. I just can't, in good conscience, accuse someone of murder when I don't see enough evidence to support it.
JMO

 

[norest4thewicked]

Right, and this police department has not revealed a thing. I wish we could see more documents.

I know, but much more important that they (LE) keep some things close to their chests for future prosecution.

 

[octobermoon]

I think the only thing we've figured out today is that we now call a TO 'the dungeon'.

I call that a win in my book. :crazy:

And there is a pool!!! Dang I need to lose a few lbs.

 

[cityslick]

I'll have to leave that to you. Can't do it. I think we'd be seeing different behavior if she were innocent, like seeing DB and JI out searching, heading up command posts, and regularly visiting the police department.

BBM

And that's ultimately where we agree to disagree. Many of those that think she is guilty (of something) have a preconceived notion of what an innocent person does versus a guilty person in the aftermath of something like this. But yet I have seen those perfectly act the role of innocent, do everything asked of them, plead in front of cameras, only to be guilty of a crime.

 

[octobermoon]

 

[norest4thewicked]

Two things:

1. You're in Baltimore... I like you already!

2. Some of us strongly believe DB is guilty, and is lying. So yes, we are not giving her the benefit of the doubt in any aspect. If she is guilty, which I believe and some others do, then the only right thing she can do is admit it and face the consequences. Anything else she does is wrong. So yes, you will see some extreme criticism.

Well said...and you saved me the time in saying it myself...

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

The dogs may have hit in the bathroom as well. We know the dog hit in the bedroom, but we don't know if they hit anywhere else. I have a feeling they did.

No report that dogs hit on anything in the bathroom or that anything from the bathroom was taken under the search warrant evidence log.

 

[cityslick]

I've got a question. Really has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, just curious of people's opinion.

Based on what we know or heard, do you think DB loved her daughter?

 

[In da Middle]

I see what you are saying and know what you mean. The media DOES sensationalize everything for their own ratings, whether it's local KC media or the Dr. Phil show. That's why I take only the things that I know that DB herself has said, and build my opinion from there. It is ONLY the things that I have heard come out of DB's mouth and the things that I have seen with my own eyes that I base my opinions on. I also do take into consideration information that people who are there in KC if they are people I trust.

The problem with this is that people are picking and choosing exactly what to believe what she says. The ones who are convinced of her guilt seem to only believe what she says if it is bad. I choose to just take what ever she has said out of the equation and go from there. the few things she has said doesn't really make or break anything for me. All the lights on - some of the lights on - none of the lights on, non if it really makes a difference to the outcome to me. If she had said that none of the lights were on, I am sure there would be plenty shouting that there was no way an intruder would be able to find his way around in the house in the total dark and not wake anybody up. KWIM? I can do this to almost everything that was said by her.

 

[Donjeta]

Is it also your belief that neither of the two boys went in the bathroom the entire time DB and neihbours sat on the front stoop drinking, or they went in, saw a dead baby floating in the bathtub and didn't bother to say anything, and just went back to watching tv? If DB stayed on the front porch as everything seems to indicate and never went in to check on the kids, as we've heard, how did BL go un-noticed with 3 other children in the house?

Was the bathtub reported to have water in it, or signs that water had recently been in it? I'm just trying to grasp how you came up with this bathtub theory is all.

Is there just one bathroom?