Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #441
I don't see it like that. She's never affirmative because the checking on the boys/BL was a routine event. If you are used to doing the same thing every single day and then you can't remember exactly if you did that, the normal inference is you did it since you always did it.

I was the exact same way, it was a routine thing to check on the kid before I went to bed. Actually what we used to do is close her door while we were awake (made her sleep better) and then open it a crack before going to bed, to additionally hear for anything. That exercise became such a routine that I wouldn't even think about doing it. Now, if my memory the night before was inhibited in some way (like being intoxicated), my normal assumption would be that I did it, because it's what I always did.

Same thing could be happening here. She's not totally sure that she did it so she says 'I just don't know'. The only scenario where I could see where she wouldn't want to be honest about when she 'saw' BL would be if BL died when she was sitting outside (like SIDS) and when she went inside saw BL was dead and then had to do something about it. Only problem with that scenario is the dogs for sure would of hit all over the crib.

She could of easily said affirmatively that she checked on BL, despite not remembering it. She chose to actually say she didn't remember, because maybe she truly doesn't remember. That should count for something.

My problem with this is, if it's so natural for her to assume that she checked on Lisa, why does she first assume that she did not? JMO, probably because she remembers she didn't. Then she thinks it over and realizes that she totally should have checked on Lisa before going to bed and then infers that she might have without remembering.

I have a problem trusting people when they can't settle on one probable answer but have to cover all the bases and tick every box.
 
  • #442
My problem with this is, if it's so natural for her to assume that she checked on Lisa, why does she first assume that she did not? JMO, probably because she remembers she didn't. Then she thinks it over and realizes that she totally should have checked on Lisa before going to bed and then infers that she might have without remembering.

I have a problem trusting people when they can't settle on one probable answer but have to cover all the bases and tick every box.

I don't think it's an either or situation though. This interview took place on the 17th, a full week for DB to fully form her answers if that was her intention. It didn't happen on the 5th or 6th. She wasn't sure about what she did before she went to bed. She didn't have to say 'probably went to bed', she could of said 'went to bed'. She purposely is indecisive. I've watched enough cases by now to know that usually (not always) the perp/suspect is affirmative in certain circumstances when something was done wrong.

She could be responsible. But I don't think her being indecisive about if she checked in BL proves it. I'd be more suspect if she said she was drunk but she knew for sure that she checked on her. If you really did something wrong, you go into hardcore CYA mode. That means definitive times. That means details. You make up a story that she got kidnapped after a certain time, you tell everyone you saw your baby right before that time, to establish she was there.
 
  • #443
I didn't say anything about her being responsible, I just said that I don't trust this reply of hers because I don't have a clue if she means yes or no because she says it's probably both.
 
  • #444
I don't see it like that. She's never affirmative because the checking on the boys/BL was a routine event. If you are used to doing the same thing every single day and then you can't remember exactly if you did that, the normal inference is you did it since you always did it.

I was the exact same way, it was a routine thing to check on the kid before I went to bed. Actually what we used to do is close her door while we were awake (made her sleep better) and then open it a crack before going to bed, to additionally hear for anything. That exercise became such a routine that I wouldn't even think about doing it. Now, if my memory the night before was inhibited in some way (like being intoxicated), my normal assumption would be that I did it, because it's what I always did.

Same thing could be happening here. She's not totally sure that she did it so she says 'I just don't know'. The only scenario where I could see where she wouldn't want to be honest about when she 'saw' BL would be if BL died when she was sitting outside (like SIDS) and when she went inside saw BL was dead and then had to do something about it. Only problem with that scenario is the dogs for sure would of hit all over the crib.

She could of easily said affirmatively that she checked on BL, despite not remembering it. She chose to actually say she didn't remember, because maybe she truly doesn't remember. That should count for something.

DB does try to pin down the time of the abduction as being after 10:30.

MK: “So, it’s possible you did not check on her before you went to bed at 10:30?”
DB: “Yeah. Yeah. But there’s no way that anybody could have got in.”

As far as how drunk DB might have been, we have her buying wine on video and she doesn't seem obviously impaired at that point, and the grocery store cashier said nothing seemed out of the ordinary. When she returned home, she made dinner for herself, her neighbor and the older children. If it's true that neighbor lady SB saw Lisa for the last time at 4:30, then Lisa must have been in her crib (or elsewhere) during dinner. At 6:40 she gives Lisa a bottle and puts her down for the evening. Now she may have been drinking during this period, but must not have been intoxicated to the point that these routine chores weren't doable. Shane comes over from 7 to 9:30 and he does say that he could tell the women had been drinking, but they didn't drink or go inside during that time. If DB did get "possibly" black out drunk despite eating dinner and not drinking for an hour and a half, her heaviest drinking must have been from 9:00 to 10:30. Why then the checking up on Lisa at 7:30, seeing her standing up in her crib (or "a little later", depending on which version she recounts) which disappears from her timeline? I don't think she was possibly black out drunk at that time.

I'm not sold on her being black out drunk at any point in the evening. I don't think the 5-10 glasses of wine media blitz was a result of the wine buying video emerging. I think the drinking confession was an attempt to explain the discrepancies and gaps which LE had already noted and an attempt to get the word out that she couldn't be responsible or remember what the heck happened because she was drunk. I think she is being purposefully vague in the MK interview so as not to be pinned down to any version of the events. I'm also not convinced that whatever happened, happened after 10:30 that night. All MOO.
 
  • #445
DB does try to pin down the time of the abduction as being after 10:30.

MK: “So, it’s possible you did not check on her before you went to bed at 10:30?”
DB: “Yeah. Yeah. But there’s no way that anybody could have got in.”

As far as how drunk DB might have been, we have her buying wine on video and she doesn't seem obviously impaired at that point, and the grocery store cashier said nothing seemed out of the ordinary. When she returned home, she made dinner for herself, her neighbor and the older children. If it's true that neighbor lady SB saw Lisa for the last time at 4:30, then Lisa must have been in her crib (or elsewhere) during dinner. At 6:40 she gives Lisa a bottle and puts her down for the evening. Now she may have been drinking during this period, but must not have been intoxicated to the point that these routine chores weren't doable. Shane comes over from 7 to 9:30 and he does say that he could tell the women had been drinking, but they didn't drink or go inside during that time. If DB did get "possibly" black out drunk despite eating dinner and not drinking for an hour and a half, her heaviest drinking must have been from 9:00 to 10:30. Why then the checking up on Lisa at 7:30, seeing her standing up in her crib (or "a little later", depending on which version she recounts) which disappears from her timeline? I don't think she was possibly black out drunk at that time.

I'm not sold on her being black out drunk at any point in the evening. I don't think the 5-10 glasses of wine media blitz was a result of the wine buying video emerging. I think the drinking confession was an attempt to explain the discrepancies and gaps which LE had already noted and an attempt to get the word out that she couldn't be responsible or remember what the heck happened because she was drunk. I think she is being purposefully vague in the MK interview so as not to be pinned down to any version of the events. I'm also not convinced that whatever happened, happened after 10:30 that night. All MOO.

Has there been a report of when the brother PN arrived at DB's house? We know he took her to the store, so sometime before 5 pm, but do we know how long he was actually there before the store run?
 
  • #446
I don't see it like that. She's never affirmative because the checking on the boys/BL was a routine event. If you are used to doing the same thing every single day and then you can't remember exactly if you did that, the normal inference is you did it since you always did it.

I was the exact same way, it was a routine thing to check on the kid before I went to bed. Actually what we used to do is close her door while we were awake (made her sleep better) and then open it a crack before going to bed, to additionally hear for anything. That exercise became such a routine that I wouldn't even think about doing it. Now, if my memory the night before was inhibited in some way (like being intoxicated), my normal assumption would be that I did it, because it's what I always did.

Same thing could be happening here. She's not totally sure that she did it so she says 'I just don't know'. The only scenario where I could see where she wouldn't want to be honest about when she 'saw' BL would be if BL died when she was sitting outside (like SIDS) and when she went inside saw BL was dead and then had to do something about it. Only problem with that scenario is the dogs for sure would of hit all over the crib.

She could of easily said affirmatively that she checked on BL, despite not remembering it. She chose to actually say she didn't remember, because maybe she truly doesn't remember. That should count for something.

Insinuating Deborah does things like anyone else does is malarkey IMHOO.

NO ONE knows how or what DB thought that night. I haven't read anything that proclaims she is the type of mom who ran her house like a battleship. I ve read nothing that states she had particular times for dinner or bed.

Blanket statements imo are often misleading as facts.
 
  • #447
I don't see it like that. She's never affirmative because the checking on the boys/BL was a routine event. If you are used to doing the same thing every single day and then you can't remember exactly if you did that, the normal inference is you did it since you always did it.

I was the exact same way, it was a routine thing to check on the kid before I went to bed. Actually what we used to do is close her door while we were awake (made her sleep better) and then open it a crack before going to bed, to additionally hear for anything. That exercise became such a routine that I wouldn't even think about doing it. Now, if my memory the night before was inhibited in some way (like being intoxicated), my normal assumption would be that I did it, because it's what I always did.

Same thing could be happening here. She's not totally sure that she did it so she says 'I just don't know'. The only scenario where I could see where she wouldn't want to be honest about when she 'saw' BL would be if BL died when she was sitting outside (like SIDS) and when she went inside saw BL was dead and then had to do something about it. Only problem with that scenario is the dogs for sure would of hit all over the crib.

She could of easily said affirmatively that she checked on BL, despite not remembering it. She chose to actually say she didn't remember, because maybe she truly doesn't remember. That should count for something.

I agree that routine things can easily be "forgotten" just because they are such habit you don't take notice of them. What I find hinky about her statements of the night is that she does remember asking the boys to sleep with her, turning off the lights...but not not sure of locking the door or checking on Lisa.
 
  • #448
Insinuating Deborah does things like anyone else does is malarkey IMHOO.

NO ONE knows how or what DB thought that night. I haven't read anything that proclaims she is the type of mom who ran her house like a battleship. I ve read nothing that states she had particular times for dinner or bed.

Blanket statements imo are often misleading as facts.

How does doing something 'routine' equal 'ran house like a battleship'?:waitasec:
 
  • #449
I agree that routine things can easily be "forgotten" just because they are such habit you don't take notice of them. What I find hinky about her statements of the night is that she does remember asking the boys to sleep with her, turning off the lights...but not not sure of locking the door or checking on Lisa.

The boys sleeping with her could have been an out of the ordinary thing, didn't happen all the time, so you tend to remember it. Checking the door/checking BL would be something you did every night.
 
  • #450
Think about it..it's logic.
 
  • #451
DB does try to pin down the time of the abduction as being after 10:30.

MK: “So, it’s possible you did not check on her before you went to bed at 10:30?”
DB: “Yeah. Yeah. But there’s no way that anybody could have got in.”

As far as how drunk DB might have been, we have her buying wine on video and she doesn't seem obviously impaired at that point, and the grocery store cashier said nothing seemed out of the ordinary. When she returned home, she made dinner for herself, her neighbor and the older children. If it's true that neighbor lady SB saw Lisa for the last time at 4:30, then Lisa must have been in her crib (or elsewhere) during dinner. At 6:40 she gives Lisa a bottle and puts her down for the evening. Now she may have been drinking during this period, but must not have been intoxicated to the point that these routine chores weren't doable. Shane comes over from 7 to 9:30 and he does say that he could tell the women had been drinking, but they didn't drink or go inside during that time. If DB did get "possibly" black out drunk despite eating dinner and not drinking for an hour and a half, her heaviest drinking must have been from 9:00 to 10:30. Why then the checking up on Lisa at 7:30, seeing her standing up in her crib (or "a little later", depending on which version she recounts) which disappears from her timeline? I don't think she was possibly black out drunk at that time.

I'm not sold on her being black out drunk at any point in the evening. I don't think the 5-10 glasses of wine media blitz was a result of the wine buying video emerging. I think the drinking confession was an attempt to explain the discrepancies and gaps which LE had already noted and an attempt to get the word out that she couldn't be responsible or remember what the heck happened because she was drunk. I think she is being purposefully vague in the MK interview so as not to be pinned down to any version of the events. I'm also not convinced that whatever happened, happened after 10:30 that night. All MOO.

Well, her statement 'no way anyone could got in' before 1030 is pretty airtight isn't it? Wasn't other people out there with her up to 1030?
 
  • #452
The boys sleeping with her could have been an out of the ordinary thing, didn't happen all the time, so you tend to remember it. Checking the door/checking BL would be something you did every night.

Them sleeping with her could have been a weekly thing.(According to JI's People magazine interview it was not.)

It can be said a thousand different ways but there is no dam* good excuse for not checking on a baby who has a cold. IMHOO
Deborah's excuse of spending time on the steps with friends drinking wine doesn't fly.

I personally think it's neglectful.
 
  • #453
Well, her statement 'no way anyone could got in' before 1030 is pretty airtight isn't it? Wasn't other people out there with her up to 1030?

Airtight? Nothing is airtight with DB's comments which is why LE wants to talk to her.

Wonder if DB thinks about Lisa or is Lisa a fading memory??? IMHOO
 
  • #454
Brought to right thread.
Originally Posted by iluvmua
I also think Jersey had nothing to do with this and DB is the main culprit along with JI.

I will be glad when they are finally arrested and charged
You and me both. I'm tried of DB spending her days free getting back to normal'.
 
  • #455
Well, her statement 'no way anyone could got in' before 1030 is pretty airtight isn't it? Wasn't other people out there with her up to 1030?

I was only pointing this out because I've read DB's most recent account of the evening which includes no recollections of Lisa after 6:40 interpreted as her effort to be as honest as she can be so as not to affect the timeline and hamper the investigation. I doubt there was an intruder before or after 10:30. All MOO.
 
  • #456
Clipped from Deoneta's post #436 this a.m. in dark red, with my notes in black, BBM, IBM:

These transcriptions were kindly made by not my kids and posted in this forum.
From the 10-6 GMA interview:
Reporter: “So, so, so, Debbie, try and take us back to the last time you saw Lisa.
You put her, you checked in on her around 10:30 Monday night?”
DB: “Um, Yeah. Between the time she went to bed and the time I went to bed, and uh, I gave her her bottle, I, I,
I put her to sleep, and uh, that was the last time we seen her.”
[purports to tell what she did that specific night, not relying on habit, not using weasel/hedge phrases,
such as I believe or I assume, acknowledging possible memory gap, or poss intent to lie.]
..........................................................................................................................................................
Fron the 10-17 interview with Megan Kelly:
MK: “When you went in at 10:30, after the neighbor left, what did you do?”
DB: “Probably went right to my room.”
[seems to hedge whether she did anything between neighbor’s departure and going to her own room.
Omitting a check on Lisa, the reason for the interview, seems to negate her having made a baby-check then.
“Probably” gives me impression - her post-drinking(?) habit = going to her room, with no baby check]

MK: “Why do you say probably?
BD: “Because, um, sometimes, I check on her.
[Sometimes = on random nights, but not a habit, not every night]
Well, most of the time, I check on her.
[Most of the time = more often than not; but no fixed, nightly habit of baby-check immed'ly before going to bed herself. ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was not a stealth media attack with camera-operator-recording-reporter-shoving-mic-in-vic’s-face.
I doubt that anyone expects her to be polished or glib, but she made these stmts in a scheduled interview,
a few days after the event, presumably to call attention to Baby Lisa’s disappearance.
Contradictions & discrepancies within her statements here & elsewhere ---
- do they indicate a deliberate intent to deceive? To cover criminal acts? Or merely portray herself as a better mother?
- are they sufficient to raise questions about her credibility and her ability to distinguish truth from fiction?

For a start, LE might want to ask DB which, if any, of these statements are truthful or to otherwise explain her stmts, as I understand them:

10-6 ....I did baby-check that night after putting her in crib and before I went to bed.
10-17 ..I probably did not do baby-check that night ...............[I probably went right to my room].
10-17.. I might have done baby-check that night.................. [some nights I did, but not a nightly habit].
10-17.. I probably did baby-check that night .........................[most nights, as a habit, I did check, but not every night].
 
  • #457
Brought to right thread.
Originally Posted by iluvmua

You and me both. I'm tried of DB spending her days free getting back to normal'.

OMG ,can you imagine if your baby had actually been abducted and you didn't know what was happening to her ? Is she being abused ,molested ,fed? Is she cold or scared?
I know there's no "normal" 2 months after a child dies,but I think not knowing what was happening to a defenseless baby ,might be even worse.JMO.
 
  • #458
Okay, Now I just read that DB said she checked on Lisa @ 7:30 and she was standing up in her crib. She "Put her down" again....

I don't blame Lisa for being awake and standing up. How long was this child in the crib anyway?

By 7:30 DB was partying. Dollars to donuts she didn't simply put her down and Lisa fall right back to sleep again...no way, Jose. DB is fibbing at this point and LE knows it. What did she do pick her up and lay her on her back and say "Sleep". This isn't how it works folks. Once a baby is up and standing, there is no way the baby is going back to sleep immediately. Something is very amiss with this story of hers. What did DB do? Throw her down, turn off the lights and close the door?

Clearly, I can see why LE must be very suspicious of DB.

I can't find the link where I read it but it has DB as telling the media this is what she had said. Darn, I just read it today. It was from an early interview.
 
  • #459
Clipped from Deoneta's post #436 this a.m. in dark red, with my notes in black, BBM, IBM:

These transcriptions were kindly made by not my kids and posted in this forum.
From the 10-6 GMA interview:
Reporter: “So, so, so, Debbie, try and take us back to the last time you saw Lisa.
You put her, you checked in on her around 10:30 Monday night?”
DB: “Um, Yeah. Between the time she went to bed and the time I went to bed, and uh, I gave her her bottle, I, I,
I put her to sleep, and uh, that was the last time we seen her.”
[purports to tell what she did that specific night, not relying on habit, not using weasel/hedge phrases,
such as I believe or I assume, acknowledging possible memory gap, or poss intent to lie.]
..........................................................................................................................................................
Fron the 10-17 interview with Megan Kelly:
MK: “When you went in at 10:30, after the neighbor left, what did you do?”
DB: “Probably went right to my room.”
[seems to hedge whether she did anything between neighbor’s departure and going to her own room.
Omitting a check on Lisa, the reason for the interview, seems to negate her having made a baby-check then.
“Probably” gives me impression - her post-drinking(?) habit = going to her room, with no baby check]

MK: “Why do you say probably?
BD: “Because, um, sometimes, I check on her.
[Sometimes = on random nights, but not a habit, not every night]
Well, most of the time, I check on her.
[Most of the time = more often than not; but no fixed, nightly habit of baby-check immed'ly before going to bed herself. ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was not a stealth media attack with camera-operator-recording-reporter-shoving-mic-in-vic’s-face.
I doubt that anyone expects her to be polished or glib, but she made these stmts in a scheduled interview,
a few days after the event, presumably to call attention to Baby Lisa’s disappearance.
Contradictions & discrepancies within her statements here & elsewhere ---
- do they indicate a deliberate intent to deceive? To cover criminal acts? Or merely portray herself as a better mother?
- are they sufficient to raise questions about her credibility and her ability to distinguish truth from fiction?

For a start, LE might want to ask DB which, if any, of these statements are truthful or to otherwise explain her stmts, as I understand them:

10-6 ....I did baby-check that night after putting her in crib and before I went to bed.
10-17 ..I probably did not do baby-check that night ...............[I probably went right to my room].
10-17.. I might have done baby-check that night.................. [some nights I did, but not a nightly habit].
10-17.. I probably did baby-check that night .........................[most nights, as a habit, I did check, but not every night].

:thud:

Seeing what she says written down just stuns me...
 
  • #460
QUOTE:..."DB: “Um, Yeah. Between the time she went to bed and the time I went to bed, and uh, I gave her her bottle, I, I,
I
put her to sleep, and uh, that was the last time we seen her.”.....UNQUOTE

Interesting enough that she changes from an individual putting her to bed then switches it up to more than herself seeing Lisa for the last time...as she uses the word "WE" saw her. Who was with Lisa for the last time?

Also interesting is that Jeremy does the same thing when he talks about Lisa. He says I checked on the boys, I went into the room and WE looked.

Is it possible these two are in this together?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
2,939
Total visitors
3,069

Forum statistics

Threads
632,570
Messages
18,628,573
Members
243,198
Latest member
ghghhh13
Back
Top