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

[Whisperer]

Now we have DB saying she remembers what lights were on. She also recalls putting/asking the boys to bed/sleep w/her. What she doesn't recall is if she checked on Lisa..

We have JI, who also changes his story, as coming home, seeing the lights on, checking on the boys but not checking on Lisa....

When he awakens DB and asks why all the lights are on and a window open (not a screen lying on the floor, not indented or disturbed, just open) DB goes into panic mode and screams.She knows something is terribly wrong, something bad has happened because the lights were on and the window open?

...LO and Behold! They both go in Lisa's room and discover her missing!!

 

[melissasmom]

Still talking lights eh?

Someone here (sorry I wish I could remember who cause it was quite cute and descriptive) talked about a son getting up in the middle of the night to tinkle and leaving lights on.

DB could have turned off lights and son when leaving her bed on way to his and presumably the bathroom (probably what got him up) turned some on and that would have been after SB went to bed. Hence lights on that she didn't leave on.

I wish Dr. Phil had asked....what was your sons and SB's daughter doing from 6:30 until 10:30 and if they went to bed with you at 10:30 and their normal bedtime is 8 p.m. (what she said) and it's a school night....were they up 2 1/2 hours past their bedtime or crashed out asleep on a living room couch or what?

Somehow Lisa left the house that night or early morning. How and when did that happen...still not seeing what lights were on or weren't has to tell us anything that answers those questions.

I don't see it either. And I think it is all a misremembering, the way it is worded, people's perceptions, etc.

Annnnnd, since you brought up my story about the kids tinkling and leaving the lights on, here is another story. LOL (I got sooo many stories )

A few years ago, before we bought our current house, we lived in an old house that had lots of ways for "creatures" to get in. Mice, birds, etc.

One time in the middle of the night (dont recall the exact time) I was sleeping soundly in my own bed, when all of a sudden I was shocked out of my nice sleep by my husband flipping on the overhead light and yelling at me from the doorway "MM! Get out of there right now! There's a bat in the room!" Well needless to say I was only half awake, I just kind of stumbled out of the room not even realizing he said there was a bat, I just knew he was yelling for me to get out. ( And yes, my oh so manly hubby was yelling this from the hallway. Thanks, hon.)
So after a bit of commotion, I managed to get the bat out using a broom and dustpan, and I put him outside where he belonged.
The next day hubby and I were discussing the incident, and I said something along the lines of "Well thanks for blinding me out of a sound sleep by turning on the light and yelling at me." And his response was "What are you talking about? I didn't turn the light on, I just yelled for you to get out of the room." I insisted he HAD turned the light on, I remembered it because it woke me up, the light hurt my eyes. We went back and forth on it for a while, I was certain I was right. But then we just dropped it, wasn't a big deal anyways.
So about a week later, I was walkling into my bedroom one day, when all of a sudden I just, well, remembered. My husband HADN'T turned on the light, he just yelled. I turned on the light after I ran out of the room and then went back in to get the bat out. What made me have this recollection I don't know. But the week before I was sure I was right, but I wasn't.

Anyhow, I used this long boring story to just show that sometimes people remember things differently, or they remember them later. Maybe DB?JI turned on different lights when they initially were running around that morning, maybe JI thought they were on, maybe DB thought they weren't. Who knows. I think it is TOO exact of a detail to ever get correct, what lights were on, which ones weren't.

 

[Whisperer]

Just because a window is open and lights are on would not send anyone into panic mode. JI is lying about what he did when he arrived home. Now we have it @3:45am...says him.

 

[DeAnn]

I would buy that if it was the bathroom light, hall light, his bedroom light. But we are being told it was kitchen, computer room, etc. Why would he go in there and leave those lights on? And if that was the case. . why wouldn't DB and JI tell us that. The boy got up and turned on the lights and left them on, not the intruder turned them on like we originally thought. That's NOT what they're saying. I would bet that they know that is not what the boy said in his interview. JMHO

My father was an electrician. We won't talk about how many times I got yelled at for leaving all the lights on sometimes literally and sometimes only figuratively. And if I got up to get a drink of water I might leave a small light in the kitchen on.

JI still thinks a lot of lights were on. That's what he said in the Dr. Phil interview. He brought up the lights at 3:45 (as well as the kitten but the kitten didn't get air time Friday). He repeated that. He repeated that AFTER she made her comment Friday.

Maybe lights is the small sliver of where he's doubting her story. Who knows.

But more than what lights were and weren't on I want to know when did she finally tell the cops about her drinking. It seemed clear it wasn't initially and only when "asked" about it. How long did it take that question to get asked? And what did she say initially to KCPD when asked?

 

[melissasmom]

What about the people who are always convinced that she's being honest and it's always just semantics or a misunderstanding or a misremembered detail? What would convince that crowd that some of it might be just lies?

And in the reverse, what is it about the people who always insist everything is a lie?

 

[DeAnn]

Just because a window is open and lights are on would not send anyone into panic mode. JI is lying about what he did when he arrived home. Now we have it @3:45am...says him.

So if he's lying what did he do between 3:45 and 3:58 a.m.? Why do you think he's lying?

And we know now for those that think he was involved in either killing or covering up his daughter's death he has roughly 13 minutes to do so.

If he didn't get home at 3:45 then the cops would know that based on what time he left Starbucks. They know what time he left there. They know how long it takes to drive that route (and they could have checked various cameras to verify his route and drive time). And they know what time he called 911 which was almost certainly 3:58 a.m.

Oh and a window open at my house would send me into panic mode.

 

[cityslick]

What about the people who are always convinced that she's being honest and it's always just semantics or a misunderstanding or a misremembered detail? What would convince that crowd that some of it might be just lies?

I can't speak for them, because believe it or not I'm not part of that crowd. I guess something she said that's proven to be false would be a start.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Oh brother. For three months MT has miked and twisted this incident that, according to his first interviews, would have taken 10-15 seconds to transpire. Here's what he initially said on JVM 11/2/11:

After stopping approx. 30 FEET from the man -
"He turned around and looked at me, I looked at him, and I just went on."

The baby was wearing "diapers and a t-shirt".

"I went on down to my cousin's house."

Never mentions the baby was sitting up and alert, never said he "hollered" at the man or that the man acknowledged him with a nod. Ron needed to press MT on why he changed his story - or why he is embellishing his story to the point of being the size of a Casey Anthony fantasy fish!

EXACTLY!!! He embellished his story EVERY time he was interviewed. It was so bad that in the final story he was calling the baby a "she." He is completely unbelievable in my opinion.

 

[cityslick]

Just because a window is open and lights are on would not send anyone into panic mode. JI is lying about what he did when he arrived home. Now we have it @3:45am...says him.

Actually that part (3:45) has been pretty consistant on when he got home. It has to be, LE knows when he left work (3:30) and how long it takes for him to get home (15 minutes).

 

[Whisperer]

What about the people who are always convinced that she's being honest and it's always just semantics or a misunderstanding or a misremembered detail? What would convince that crowd that some of it might be just lies?

If anyone is not able to see her and listen to her and determine she is deceitful, they will never think she is involved.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

JMO, it doesn't work that way.

If you are in the middle of a criminal investigation and you lie/change your story/clarify previous inconsistencies/ refresh your memory multiple times, you can't expect that everyone just shrugs and pretends not to notice and chants the mantra, "let's find Lisa let's find Lisa this isn't helping us to find Lisa let's ignore the obvious problems in the account and just find Lisa"

(Obviously I don't mean "you" you, I mean "general" you.)

We may not know where Lisa is based on the lights discussion but we didn't have the faintest idea where she is even before we started discussing it so it makes little difference.

Any discussion is a good thing IMO because it keeps people from forgetting Lisa. I am far more likely to recognize her at Walmart tomorrow if I've looked up statements today in articles that had her photo in them.

LE, IMHO should be, and hopefully are looking at it from many different angles. From what I've read, FBI are but not so much the KCMO PD. my point is, even if DB or JI don't know who turned the lights on, whether the son who went back to his own bed during the night, an intruder, or they never got turned off, it doesn't put us any closer.
And BTW for the record, I did NOT say to not discuss the lights, I am simply stating it seems to be going in circles. How do the lights fit in with what little evidence we do know?
Are the lights tied in with the damaged screen and can we verify they were or weren't? Do we know when the lights were turned on in connection with the sighting of the man carrying a baby two doors down?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

The theory is not about selling a child but about a fake kidnapping and being patient enough to wait a few months to reap the financial rewards for your "story."

It is another theory.

I don't think it's a hoax, but if it is, I think the Irwins wouldn't get as much $$$ or attention from it by as one might think. I really think it would be like a "15 minutes of fame" where it would make headlines but completely out of the media a year later. Just think about Balloon Boy...The Runaway Bride....Or the hoax abduction in England around the time of Madeleine McCann...and I think there was a hoax abduction in Florida too. I don't see the people involved in those situations on the news anymore, there haven't been countless books or movies or documentaries made about those cases.

I could also see the Irwins getting shunned from the media like Casey Anthony has been, due to public pressure. I really just don't see a hoax story as one that has longevity, one that people will be interested in years later. It just seems like one of those hot for a moment stories.

 

[Whisperer]

I wonder if anyone who thought she was innocent or was undecided has a different opinion today?

Doesn't look like it.

 

[octobermoon]

I'm on the fence and haven't seen anything from the interview to change my mind. Did I miss something?

Oh h3ll, I dunno at this point. just :slap: me. I was trying to say that those of us suspicious are unchanged by the interview with Dr. Phil. I was wondering if the fence sitters saw or heard something I overlooked that would sway them to the innocent side. :waitasec: I give up~LOL

 

[Donjeta]

And in the reverse, what is it about the people who always insist everything is a lie?

Not everything is a lie, I'm sure. But when I did the Logical Reasoning 101 course I was taught that "A" is fundamentally different from "Not A", and if someone says both "A", and "Not A" one statement has to be untrue. Now there are other things than intentional lying that could cause untrue statements, such as being mistaken or repeating false information that you were told by the neighbors. But it makes no sense to me to categorically deny the possibility of intentional lying in a criminal case.

:cow:

 

[norest4thewicked]

And in the reverse, what is it about the people who always insist everything is a lie?

DB's OWN WORDS show that she is lying. You can't get much better proof than that!

 

[Whisperer]

I'm on the fence and haven't seen anything from the interview to change my mind. Did I miss something?

...obviously not from your view on the fence. If you don't see it, you may want to jump off and join the defense.

 

[Donjeta]

LE, IMHO should be, and hopefully are looking at it from many different angles. From what I've read, FBI are but not so much the KCMO PD. my point is, even if DB or JI don't know who turned the lights on, whether the son who went back to his own bed during the night, an intruder, or they never got turned off, it doesn't put us any closer.
And BTW for the record, I did NOT say to not discuss the lights, I am simply stating it seems to be going in circles. How do the lights fit in with what little evidence we do know?
Are the lights tied in with the damaged screen and can we verify they were or weren't? Do we know when the lights were turned on in connection with the sighting of the man carrying a baby two doors down?

IDK, it seems to me that we'd have darn near solved the case for the KCMO PD if we could verify the answers to anything here. *shrug* It seems unrealistic to expect that.

 

[jjenny]

Yep, MT's story appears to have evolved quite a bit. In his latest version he was actually having one sided conversation with the man he supposedly saw carrying this baby. He was also shown the photos of the guy he supposedly picked from a police line up prior to that police line up. One one hand we are supposed to believe a guy kidnapped a baby then walked with this baby for hours-indicating someone who doesn't know what they are doing and presumably sloppy. On the other hand this sloppy person apparently left no physical evidence, DNA or fingerprints at the scene of the kidnapping, and nobody heard this sloppy person committing this kidnapping even though three other people (DB and two boys) were inside at the time.

 

[cityslick]

Not everything is a lie, I'm sure. But when I did the Logical Reasoning 101 course I was taught that "A" is fundamentally different from "Not A", and if someone says both "A", and "Not A" one statement has to be untrue. Now there are other things than intentional lying that could cause untrue statements, such as being mistaken or repeating false information that you were told by the neighbors. But it makes no sense to me to categorically deny the possibility of intentional lying in a criminal case.

:cow:

All I know if there is no evidence that shows me she harmed her child. The lying (if proven it's a lie) may cause suspicion, but that's all it would be, suspicion, not a 'she definetely hurt her child' edict. I think Casey Anthony killed her child, but it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a liar. It's because there is evidence that shows she killed her child.