Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[Karmaa]

DB: “Him coming in the bedroom, um, I didn’t know what time it was until he, he later on had said it, because we didn’t, I didn’t check, but he came in and he said, um, you know, why are all the lights on, um, you know, why is the, uh, the screen popped out of the window? Part of the corner of it was popped out, or something and, um, and I s, um, I, I got up, ‘I don’t, I don’t know what you’re talking about,’ um, and, um, my son was sleeping with me, and, um, you know, sometimes I, I like to, right, my kids have always, when they’re younger, little, slept in bed with me. So, I like to do that when I can. And, um, he asked why, why Michael was there, and I just, you know, he’s just sleeping next to me, and, um, I guess, with everything he was saying out loud to me, you know, he thought, you know, wait a minute, Lisa’s bedroom door’s open, and we always, we always close it when she goes to sleep at night and he run back and checked and said, he came in the room and he said, ‘Where’s Lisa, where’s she at?’ and I said, ‘She, she’s in her crib. What do you?’ You know, and he’s said, ‘She’s not there,’ and we just got up and started screaming for her and looking everywhere and she wasn’t there.”

October 9, 2011 – Parents Interview with Judge Pirro.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/justi...ssing-baby-lisa-speak-out/?playlist_id=163706

Interesting - that is similar to the weirdly worded answer we were talking about yesterday ("just change her, you know, put fresh clothes on her...") where it sounds like she is not really answering the question. She did it here too.

It's a little different, I know - but it's close enough that it seems like it may be just her speech style after all.

 

[Donjeta]

Interesting - that is similar to the weirdly worded answer we were talking about yesterday ("just change her, you know, put fresh clothes on her...") where it sounds like she is not really answering the question. She did it here too.

It's a little different, I know - but it's close enough that it seems like it may be just her speech style after all.

Can you be more specific as to what similarity you're seeing because I don't see any similarity to what we discussed the other day?

She does not leave out any pronouns here and she's not talking about a past incident in present tense, she's imo reciting what she replied to Jeremy then which would naturally have been in the present tense.

 

[Karmaa]

I'm not assuming anything other than, because there were more than one dog there, that LE tried to confirm the hit. Whether it was confirmed or not, we don't know.

I might put less credence on it, if other dogs couldn't confirm it, but that would depend on what other dogs. We know at least one dog there that day is supposed to be the best, or at least has the reputation as being one of the best. So which dog made the hit? We don't know.

What we do know is how LE is behaving. Based on their behavior, I think they believe the validity of the hit.

All MOO

I'm just curious where the information about the dog (or any of the dogs) came from? I honestly don't recall reading or watching anything that discussed the dog, the handler, it's statistics or it's reputation. I would really like to know that. If we know for a FACT about the dog, it may add more weight to the "hit".

As it stands now, I think the "hit" was very possibly just a convenient way to get probable cause for a search warrant. What ELSE did LE have to use for PC? Nothing. And they clearly wanted to do some deep searching. AND they tried to keep the search warrant sealed when they really didn't bring anything all that exciting out of the house.

I sure would understand why they might give a wink and a nudge to a handler to see if they could get a hit. It gets them in the house legally, and if no other dogs hit there, then it was obviously a "false alarm", no harm, no foul. Which would explain why the carpet, floor, wall, and everything else in the vicinity of the "hit" was not taken out as evidence.

 

[Karmaa]

Can you be more specific as to what similarity you're seeing because I don't see any similarity to what we discussed the other day?

She does not leave out any pronouns here and she's not talking about a past incident in present tense, she's imo reciting what she replied to Jeremy then which would naturally have been in the present tense.

Exactly!

She is stating it as a fact - as if she is reciting something she is seeing in her head, rather than recalling her actions.

That's what it sounded like she was doing when she responded to the last time she saw Lisa. It sounded as if she was just reciting what she normally does, rather than recalling her actions.

This leads me to believe that she does this occasionally, so it is probably not suspicious.

 

[Oriah]

Respectfully snipped for space:

<I sure would understand why they might give a wink and a nudge to a handler to see if they could get a hit. It gets them in the house legally, and if no other dogs hit there, then it was obviously a "false alarm", no harm, no foul. Which would explain why the carpet, floor, wall, and everything else in the vicinity of the "hit" was not taken out as evidence.[/quote]>

Hmm.

As a handler, I find the 'wink and a nudge' somewhat offensive. And I think most other ethical K9 handlers would as well.
We don't 'set up' alerts, nor do we testify to an alert by our working K9, if it didn't occur in accordance with our proofed and trained alerts.
If there's no alert- you say so.
'No harm, no foul' is not, IMO, the code that ethical, responsible, and well seasoned dog handlers fly by.

Can you explain how you know that nothing in the vicinity of the "hit' was taken out as evidence?

 

[cityslick]

I'm just curious where the information about the dog (or any of the dogs) came from? I honestly don't recall reading or watching anything that discussed the dog, the handler, it's statistics or it's reputation. I would really like to know that. If we know for a FACT about the dog, it may add more weight to the "hit".

As it stands now, I think the "hit" was very possibly just a convenient way to get probable cause for a search warrant. What ELSE did LE have to use for PC? Nothing. And they clearly wanted to do some deep searching. AND they tried to keep the search warrant sealed when they really didn't bring anything all that exciting out of the house.

I sure would understand why they might give a wink and a nudge to a handler to see if they could get a hit. It gets them in the house legally, and if no other dogs hit there, then it was obviously a "false alarm", no harm, no foul. Which would explain why the carpet, floor, wall, and everything else in the vicinity of the "hit" was not taken out as evidence.[/quote]

BBM:
Hmm.

As a handler, I find the 'wink and a nudge' somewhat offensive. And I think most other ethical K9 handlers would as well.
We don't 'set up' alerts, nor do we testify to an alert by our working K9, if it didn't occur in accordance with our proofed and trained alerts.
If there's no alert- you say so.
'No harm, no foul' is not, IMO, the code that ethical, responsible, and well seasoned dog handlers fly by.

Can you explain how you know that nothing in the vicinity of the "hit' was taken out as evidence?

I agree with you here. If the warrant indicates there was a positive hit, I'm going to take it as just that, the dog did hit on something. Not knowing any other details (what kind of dog it was, if other dogs were brought in to verify the hit, did they verify it, etc) leaves the fact the dog had a hit all by itself and to me, doesn't prove or deny anything.

 

[matou]

The dog hit on the 17th and the search warrant was executed on the 19th. Who was in the house after the police left and when they returned to search?

 

[Donjeta]

Exactly!

She is stating it as a fact - as if she is reciting something she is seeing in her head, rather than recalling her actions.

That's what it sounded like she was doing when she responded to the last time she saw Lisa. It sounded as if she was just reciting what she normally does, rather than recalling her actions.

This leads me to believe that she does this occasionally, so it is probably not suspicious.

Sorry, I still don't see anything here in which she "does this", this being what was weird in the other quote we discussed. The other quote was weird, this is not, IMO. At least, not in the same way. IMO the present tense and stating facts is significant and noteworthy only when it doesn't fit the context and it fits here.The other quote was odd in that she apparently described what she usually did with Lisa when she was supposed to speak about a specific night.

In this quote it's not at all the same IMO because she is explicitly saying that she's describing what they usually do when she mentions that her kids sometimes sleep with her and that Lisa's door is always closed when she goes to sleep. Everybody states generalities like that every once in a while in an appropriate context without it being a speech pattern.

The left out pronouns were the other thing that was weird in the other quote and there are no examples of that here. Quite the contrary, there are rather too many.

I edited this to highlight the present tense sentences and include quote marks that IMO should be there. (I ignored the you knows which I think are just punctuation here.

DB: &#8220;Him coming in the bedroom, um, I didn&#8217;t know what time it was until he, he later on had said it, because we didn&#8217;t, I didn&#8217;t check, but he came in and he said, um, you know, "why are all the lights on", um, you know, "why is the, uh, the screen popped out of the window?" Part of the corner of it was popped out, or something and, um, and I s [I think she was about to say "I said" here but corrected herself because she mentioned getting up first], um, I, I got up, "I don&#8217;t, I don&#8217;t know what you&#8217;re talking about," um, and, um, my son was sleeping with me, and, um, you know, sometimes I, I like to, right, my kids have always, when they&#8217;re younger, little, slept in bed with me. So, I like to do that when I can. And, um, he asked why, why Michael was there, and I just, you know, "he&#8217;s just sleeping next to me", [the "I just" indicates to me, "I just said" so imo it's another quote and, um, I guess, with everything he was saying out loud to me, you know, he thought, you know, "wait a minute, Lisa&#8217;s bedroom door&#8217;s open", and we always, we always close it when she goes to sleep at night and he run back and checked and said, he came in the room and he said, "Where&#8217;s Lisa, where&#8217;s she at?" and I said, "She, she&#8217;s in her crib. What do you?" You know, and he&#8217;s said, &#8216;She&#8217;s not there,&#8217; and we just got up and started screaming for her and looking everywhere and she wasn&#8217;t there.


There is one odd thing about this quote but it's not those statements of fact imo.
I'd like to know why she changes the personal pronoun in
I didn&#8217;t know what time it was until he, he later on had said it, because we didn&#8217;t, I didn&#8217;t check,

There is a lot of the "we" when "I" would seem to fit better. Jeremy knew what time it was if he was able to tell her. Maybe she just realized that.

 

[yllek]

We have been speculating if SB saw Lisa after 4:30 but in deoneta's link it is said that she didn't.


Brando says she last saw the baby at 4:30 p.m. Brando says she stayed outside talking to another neighbor until 11:30 p.m. and noticed nothing amiss so that the abductor could not have taken baby Lisa before then. Brando told police that the lights were out in baby Lisa's house when she went inside and to bed around 11:30 p.m.

Her credibility suffers a little in my eyes if she really didn't see Lisa after 4:30 but still she's sure that Lisa was there at 11:30. How could she be sure that there was nothing amiss at the neighboring house she just sees the windows of? Her attention wasn't completely directed on that house since she was talking and not guarding the Bradley/Irwin home.
How does she know that an abductor didn't enter through the back? Surely she must be aware of other entrances to the home.

And, she was away from the house for at least 30 minutes and never saw the baby afterwards. Not only could someone have entered the house from the back before 11:30 pm, but something could have happened within the house during her absence. I think she is claiming that since the lights were off at 11:30 p.m. and Debbi says she didn't turn them on again, that an intruder must have turned on all the lights sometime after 11:30. She may truly believe this to be the most likely scenario (and it may well be) or she might have an ulterior motive, imo. We know very little about what else, if anything, Mrs. Brando has to say about that night. I am very curious to know what LE has learned from Mrs. Brando and how credible they find her to be.

 

[Whisperer]

This whole case is based on assumption, speculation and guessing. It's assumed there was more than one hit. It's assumed there was a dead body in there because of one hit.

I don't operate like that. I operate on what's factual and what's known. And that is there was one and only one hit in that house. If information comes out that there was more than one, I'll based my judgements on that. But I buy into the here and not, not the what if.

I have to ask, would people put less credence into the hit if it's confirmed that multiple dogs were in fact brought in and could not confirm the hit?

What does it matter? A cadaver dog hit inside the house? This kinda reminds me of O.J when he said there was only a little bit of blood in the blazer.

How many hits are necessary for you to believe a dead body was there? It seems like the only evidence some may accept is if there were a video. At this point, I'm not sure that would be conclusive evidence.

It is a FACT that a cadaver dog hit inside the house. Somebody died in the house.

 

[Whisperer]

I'm very curious to know what the two friends are doing drinking, partying and leaving their very young children to fend for themselves. Did they have snacks, milk, anything between 6:00pm and 11:30. Darn sure they weren't bathed and read stories. Two had school. When SB left the stoop, what did she do with the four yr old while she was visiting with the new male neighbor till 11:30...em...outside, in the cold.

I suspect she was inside the home with him, not outside.

 

[In da Middle]

What does it matter? A cadaver dog hit inside the house? This kinda reminds me of O.J when he said there was only a little bit of blood in the blazer.

How many hits are necessary for you to believe a dead body was there? It seems like the only evidence some may accept is if there were a video. At this point, I'm not sure that would be conclusive evidence.

It is a FACT that a cadaver dog hit inside the house. Somebody died in the house.

Just because 1 dog hit on something in the house does NOT mean somebody died in the house. There ARE variables that have to be validated. Period. It needs validated for a reason.

 

[In da Middle]

I'm very curious to know what the two friends are doing drinking, partying and leaving their very young children to fend for themselves. Did they have snacks, milk, anything between 6:00pm and 11:30. Darn sure they weren't bathed and read stories. Two had school. When SB left the stoop, what did she do with the four yr old while she was visiting with the new male neighbor till 11:30...em...outside, in the cold.

I suspect she was inside the home with him, not outside.

Again, it was NOT COLD out. At 11:30 that night it was about 60 degrees out.

 

[Whisperer]

Sorry, I still don't see anything here in which she "does this", this being what was weird in the other quote we discussed. The other quote was weird, this is not, IMO. At least, not in the same way. IMO the present tense and stating facts is significant and noteworthy only when it doesn't fit the context and it fits here.The other quote was odd in that she apparently described what she usually did with Lisa when she was supposed to speak about a specific night.

In this quote it's not at all the same IMO because she is explicitly saying that she's describing what they usually do when she mentions that her kids sometimes sleep with her and that Lisa's door is always closed when she goes to sleep. Everybody states generalities like that every once in a while in an appropriate context without it being a speech pattern.

The left out pronouns were the other thing that was weird in the other quote and there are no examples of that here. Quite the contrary, there are rather too many.

I edited this to highlight the present tense sentences and include quote marks that IMO should be there. (I ignored the you knows which I think are just punctuation here.

DB: &#8220;Him coming in the bedroom, um, I didn&#8217;t know what time it was until he, he later on had said it, because we didn&#8217;t, I didn&#8217;t check, but he came in and he said, um, you know, "why are all the lights on", um, you know, "why is the, uh, the screen popped out of the window?" Part of the corner of it was popped out, or something and, um, and I s [I think she was about to say "I said" here but corrected herself because she mentioned getting up first], um, I, I got up, "I don&#8217;t, I don&#8217;t know what you&#8217;re talking about," um, and, um, my son was sleeping with me, and, um, you know, sometimes I, I like to, right, my kids have always, when they&#8217;re younger, little, slept in bed with me. So, I like to do that when I can. And, um, he asked why, why Michael was there, and I just, you know, "he&#8217;s just sleeping next to me", [the "I just" indicates to me, "I just said" so imo it's another quote and, um, I guess, with everything he was saying out loud to me, you know, he thought, you know, "wait a minute, Lisa&#8217;s bedroom door&#8217;s open", and we always, we always close it when she goes to sleep at night and he run back and checked and said, he came in the room and he said, "Where&#8217;s Lisa, where&#8217;s she at?" and I said, "She, she&#8217;s in her crib. What do you?" You know, and he&#8217;s said, &#8216;She&#8217;s not there,&#8217; and we just got up and started screaming for her and looking everywhere and she wasn&#8217;t there.


There is one odd thing about this quote but it's not those statements of fact imo.
I'd like to know why she changes the personal pronoun in
I didn&#8217;t know what time it was until he, he later on had said it, because we didn&#8217;t, I didn&#8217;t check,

There is a lot of the "we" when "I" would seem to fit better. Jeremy knew what time it was if he was able to tell her. Maybe she just realized that.

I recall when Joran changed the pronouns too. I picked up on it right away. Sure enough, he lied. In recall, one doesn't change pronouns when working from visual memory. If they do, they are lying. One attempts to explain the other person and how they got there when giving a report. Suddenly inserting another person into the story w/o any set-up is a dead give-away, they are not depending on visual but are telling a story they made up.

 

[Whisperer]

Again, it was NOT COLD out. At 11:30 that night it was about 60 degrees out.

The almanac has it colder than that by why quibble. 60 degrees is not warm either. My guess is she was up to something...and it wasn't neighborly chit chat outside in 60 degrees. She has a four yr. old, FGS! She had already spent 4 hours sitting on a cement stoop, now she is standing with a young male (her age) outside...nope, not buying it.

 

[DeAnn]

The almanac has it colder than that by why quibble. 60 degrees is not warm either. My guess is she was up to something...and it wasn't neighborly chit chat outside in 60 degrees. She has a four yr. old, FGS! She had already spent 4 hours sitting on a cement stoop, now she is standing with a young male (her age) outside...nope, not buying it.

Her husband moved out around 5 p.m. I think it's safe to figure out what SB and DB were talking about for so long.

 

[Whisperer]

Her husband moved out around 5 p.m. I think it's safe to figure out what SB and DB were talking about for so long.

I think JI was referring to SB when he implied the person that took Lisa was a woman who was cheating on her husband.

 

[In da Middle]

The almanac has it colder than that by why quibble. 60 degrees is not warm either. My guess is she was up to something...and it wasn't neighborly chit chat outside in 60 degrees. She has a four yr. old, FGS! She had already spent 4 hours sitting on a cement stoop, now she is standing with a young male (her age) outside...nope, not buying it.

Ok, I was wrong. It was almost 70 degrees!

Oct 3rd 2011 11:30 pm
http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

 

[In da Middle]

Her husband moved out around 5 p.m. I think it's safe to figure out what SB and DB were talking about for so long.

I guarantee this was the subject of the conversation! And you can bet WHO was the subject!

 

[Whisperer]

Exactly!

She is stating it as a fact - as if she is reciting something she is seeing in her head, rather than recalling her actions.

That's what it sounded like she was doing when she responded to the last time she saw Lisa. It sounded as if she was just reciting what she normally does, rather than recalling her actions.

This leads me to believe that she does this occasionally, so it is probably not suspicious.

She's not seeing it in her head, she is speaking of memory of what is supposed to be done. If she was speaking from visual recall of the action that particular night, her response would have been concrete not vague.

I think you're right about her speaking like this. She lies, misleads often. It is a pattern and second nature to her:truce: