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

[octobermoon]

I thought Deb said she was told she turned off the lights? Not that she remembers turning off the lights....

(ducking, and off to read the transcript)

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Guilty people want the heat off. Debbie doesn't want anyone talking about the case, why else would she SHUN local & national media that could help get the word out to find her missing baby? She went into hiding for THREE CRITICAL MONTHS to dodge questions and still won't cooperate with police to find Lisa. Debbie is guilty of killing Lisa or she'd be talking not hiding. All JMO.

I'm not following your post. If Debbie wanted the heat off and doesn't want people talking about this case, why go on the Dr Phil Show?

 

[francie]

Guilty people want the heat off. Debbie doesn't want anyone talking about the case, why else would she SHUN local & national media that could help get the word out to find her missing baby? She went into hiding for THREE CRITICAL MONTHS to dodge questions and still won't cooperate with police to find Lisa. Debbie is guilty of killing Lisa or she'd be talking not hiding. All JMO.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Just out of curiousity. What were posters expecting from this interview with Dr. Phil?

:seeya:

What I was expecting : Nothing ... Nada ... Zip ...

:waitasec: But ... it turned out to the "usual" from DB ... MORE changes in her "story" ... as well as SPIN from the defense attorney ... of course, Joe Tacopino was all in this for his "free" air time, IMO ...

:waitasec: Actually ... every time Deb spoke it was to "open mouth and insert her other foot" ...

There are a lot of little "nuggets" from Deb in that "run on sentence" that LE needs to seriously review ... and the Analysis of this "run on sentence" is very "telling" ... Deb said these words -- and she TELLS on herself ...

I hope KCPD has a good profiler analyst as well as a good body language expert who understands that sometimes when someone talks, they "tell on themself" ...

:seeya:

MOO MOO and MOO ...

 

[cityslick]

Deb stated she turned all the lights off.

Deb stated JI told her all the lights were on.


It took pages and pages of post to wear out the people that held her to her words.

We are all supposed to ignore her words now and trust her when she says there were 5 or 6 lights on when she said she turned them all off and there were 5 or 6 lights on when JI told her all the lights were on.


Sprinkled with fairy dust. :fireworks:

I'm still not sure why this is a big deal. Instead of focusing on what DB said, lets go by what a third party (SB) said about the lights:

The lights were off in the house according to her when she went inside the house.

Somehow certain lights got turned back on apparently after that point in time.

If DB went inside the house at 10:30 and SB saw there were no lights on at 11:30, who do you think turned off the lights then?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I thought Deb said she was told he turned off the lights? Not that she remembers turning off the lights....

(ducking, and off to read the transcript)

She did an interview where she said she turned off all the lights. Then it changed later to she believes she turned them off because the neighbor told her that.

At that point in time her and JI could not talk about the lights but she had no problem talking to the neighbor about them.

 

[Donjeta]

How many of those lights that were on would have been visible to SB from the outside of the home? Are those rooms that had lights on all on "SB's side" of the Bradley Irwin house? Were there curtains or blinds that would have obscured some of the light?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I'm still not sure why this is a big deal. Instead of focusing on what DB said, lets go by what a third party (SB) said about the lights:

The lights were off in the house according to her when she went inside the house.

Somehow certain lights got turned back on apparently after that point in time.

If DB went inside the house at 10:30 and SB saw there were no lights on at 11:30, who do you think turned off the lights then?

Deb said at first she turned out all the lights. Nothing about the neighbor telling her that.

 

[octobermoon]

She did an interview where she said she turned off all the lights. Then it changed later to she believes she turned them off because the neighbor told her that.

At that point in time her and JI could not talk about the lights but she had no problem talking to the neighbor about them.

I'm sorry I was wrong, it was in a different interview. Thanks Doc

I watched too many over the weekend and lost track.

I do find it odd though that the light issue really bothers her for some reason.

JMO

 

[cityslick]

Deb said at first she turned out all the lights. Nothing about the neighbor telling her that.

Well she must have, right? His don't you explain sb saying she saw no lights on?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I'm sorry I was wrong, it was in a different interview. Thanks Doc

I watched too many over the weekend and lost track.

I do find it odd though that the light issue really bothers her for some reason.

JMO

BBM
Maybe because people are saying that she is lying about them and that bothers her.

 

[askfornina]

Please post the transcript in the timeline forum too.


Nina Rocks - YouTube

that is SO cute! :great:


the wonderful krimekat started a thread in the timeline forum for DB and JI statements, the transcript is posted there:


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161933"]JI and DB Statements - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Donjeta]

BBM
Maybe because people are saying that she is lying about them and that bothers her.

It is quite likely but it would be tremendously helpful if she hadn't changed the story about the lights again.

Quoting from Nina's transcript:
Dr.Phil: -do you remember, uh, you reported that the lights in the house were turned off and you went to bed, Jeremy comes home at 4am and all the lights were on. Now, obviously whoever took the baby wouldn't go through the house and turn the lights on-

DB: No.

Dr.Phil: -were you just wrong about that? Was Jeremy wrong?

DB: Here's another thing- here's the thing with that that nobody knows. Because I'm not going to sit on TV, until now when I'm being asked a specific question, and rebuttal it because to me it's just nonsense. It's just picking my words apart and the story apart. But, we didn't compare stories and tell each other about anything that- how we felt, I mean, until days, days later. I mean, our, our daughter is missing, the last thing we are going to sit there and do is talk about it. But when he came in the bedroom that morning and woke me up, and said all the lights are on in the house, it was a total exaggeration. We had, um, track lighting on in the computer room, we had- I had a little tiny lamp that is literally no bigger than this, on in the living room. And then, we had a stove light, the above the stove light on, and the clock radio light on. I mean, there was not a whole lot of lights on at all.

Dr.Phil: So, Jeremy, you came home at 4 o'clock, is that right?

JI: Right. I got home about 3:45.

Dr.Phil: 3:45? Alright. And you didn't have any trouble waking Deborah up at the time, did you?

JI: Not really. She woke up, and we talked a little bit. She was a little sleepy until I told her to, you know, we need to go ahead and get uh, our youngest boy in his own bed. And uh, then when I said, you know, what's going on with the lights being on and stuff, and the windows open, that's when she kind of snapped too and we realized something was wrong.

Dr.Phil: Were there more lights on then you had left on, Deb?

DB: No. Those are all the lights I leave on at night time. And, he follows me around turning them all off. And, he's an electrician so I get complaints a lot about lights being on and things like that, and he wasn't there that night. So.

Dr.Phil: You do remember this, though?

DB: Yes sir.

Dr.Phil: Okay, good. What ya'll are saying is that this is two different descriptions of the same lighting pattern, so to speak?

DB: Absolutely.

Dr.Phil: So you don't see this as an inconsistency at all?

DB: No.

Earlier statements previously quoted in this thread contain the following information:
-she turned all the lights off
-she does not remember doing this but the neighbors said she turned the lights off
-the intruder left the lights on
-it was highly unusual for these lights to be on at night

Now she's saying that
-she left these lights on
-she remembers doing this
-it was normal for these lights to be on
-she usually leaves them on if Jeremy isn't there to nag her about it

:banghead:

 

[octobermoon]

BBM
Maybe because people are saying that she is lying about them and that bothers her.

I understand she is very sensitive about what is being said about her, but I would think she would be more worried about Lisa, than gossip. Unless that is something LE pushed her on in the first interviews.

I get what you are saying though.

 

[annalia]

I'm still not sure why this is a big deal. Instead of focusing on what DB said, lets go by what a third party (SB) said about the lights:

The lights were off in the house according to her when she went inside the house.

Somehow certain lights got turned back on apparently after that point in time.

If DB went inside the house at 10:30 and SB saw there were no lights on at 11:30, who do you think turned off the lights then?

My bolding

Then it goes back to would an intruder come in and turn on those lights. Even DR Phil posed the question that way.

There seems to be a need to backtrack and downplay the number of lights that were on when JI came home. It was JI's own words, he wasn't drunk when he came home from work, he would have known what lights were on and whether or not it was more than he would have expected. It was said that the amount of lights that were on was one of the things that led him to become alarmed.

Now the number of lights needs to be downplayed. Did DB, during all of her internet searches to see what people are saying about her, realize that it doesn't sound plausible that an intruder would turn on so many lights so now she needs to say that JI just exaggerated and it was really only a few small lights on, ones that were normally left on?

 

[francie]

I'm not following your post. If Debbie wanted the heat off and doesn't want people talking about this case, why go on the Dr Phil Show?

Because it wasn't a real interview <modsnip>, lol. jmo. She was convinced by her media lawyer, who managed to get his own face on tv for an hour, and McGraw, to do a contrived appearance <modsnip>. Tacopina knows the Anthonys got $500K, <modsnip> and of course he gets a cut of that. McGraw & Tacopino got what they wanted but seems Debbie was left hanging in the wind with more questions than ever. I think she only made public opinion worse because it was clear she still won't answer critical questions. Wonder how she feels about doing her disastrous cameo now, lol. All JMO.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Deb stated she turned all the lights off.

Deb stated JI told her all the lights were on.

It took pages and pages of post to wear out the people that held her to her words.

We are all supposed to ignore her words now and trust her when she says there were 5 or 6 lights on when she said she turned them all off and there were 5 or 6 lights on when JI told her all the lights were on.


Sprinkled with fairy dust. :fireworks:

:laughcry::laughcry: ... "Fairy Dust" ... You are hilarious, Doc !

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[octobermoon]

Guys I didn't mean to derail the thread with the lights again. I am still reading backwards.
People stay up late around here. I think we need a curfew for us early to bed types.

J/k

 

[vlpate]

TRANSCRIPT:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...postcount=1280

<Snipped for brevity -very respectfully>

Thank you for this Nina - wow, that was a lot of time and effort - YOU :rocker:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

It is quite likely but it would be tremendously helpful if she hadn't changed the story about the lights again.



Earlier statements previously quoted in this thread contain the following information:
-she turned all the lights off
-she does not remember doing this but the neighbors said she turned the lights off
-the intruder left the lights on
-it was highly unusual for these lights to be on at night

Now she's saying that
-she left these lights on
-she remembers doing this
-it was normal for these lights to be on
-she usually leaves them on if Jeremy isn't there to nag her about it

:banghead:

So the idea is she is purposely lying about the lights because an intruder wouldn't leave any lights on when leaving with Lisa. Is this the point of all this lights on/off business?