Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[stephen40]

So you are willing to accept some of the things mom had to say?

absolutely

 

[In da Middle]

That's silly imo what about if one runs the yellow light and causes a wreck?. In my state it's considered running a red light/matters not if it's yellow or not.
bbm/mo

It's not silly at all. The point was that it is done many times every single day. People in charge of kids doing irresponsible things was the point.

 

[2door73chevy]

Well I do not know about these particular people nor this locations leash laws. What I do know is that people around here (deep south)...do not think anything about penning their dogs is 4x4 pens outside :furious: and not letting them out at all, except occasionally in winter to hunt. It is criminal. We adopted our neighbors dog this way...he kept digging out of the pen to come to our house. They only fed him once a day or every other day...the dog was left there during lightening storms and hail...whatever! :banghead: They replied to our concern with "It's just a dog". Seems that is the mentality here. :waitasec:

Off-topic...But abuse of animals is right up there with abusing children as far as I'm concerned...Stilettos, you did the right thing and I wish we had more of you on this earth.

 

[Karmaa]

It makes a big difference imo. For example, the new neighbor Shane was there BEFORE 10:30. So it makes it possible for him to be a suspect if she moves the window back from 10:30 to 6:40.

eta: besides that, the time a child was last seen is a major clue when looking for a child. If she says the child was home safe at 10:30, then someone might discount something strange they saw at 9:30 which may have been important.

Bingo! That is the most logical explanation of why Debbie voluntarily went to three TV stations and corrected the time information.

 

[katydid23]

Wait a sec, u said she had a baby monitor. Could she not have had the monitor outside with her to hear if the baby cried?

I think if that were the case we would have heard about it. That seems like a nice mitigating factor in her defense. But nothing like that has ever been mentioned.

 

[Donjeta]

They have no problem talking to LE, they just will not submit to specific conditions on how they talk to LE. How exactly is that obstruction?

JMO, if they had no problem talking to LE they would be talking to LE. They're not.

But it's their right.

 

[Donjeta]

Yes, that is in the People article, before the time was set back finally to 6:40.
7:30 is when Lisa was standing up in her crib although that seems to have gone to the forgotten zone. People is also the source of SB seeing Lisa for the last time at 4:30. If that's true, we can assume the baby was not present for the chicken dinner.

Oh, has the 7:30 time been retracted? I didn't know that.

I suppose it might be because apparently Shane says he didn't see her check on Lisa at 7:30. Oops.

Neighbor Shane Beagley now says he was at the Irwin-Bradley home in the hours before baby Lisa is said to have disappeared, according to media reports. As described by the Examiner, Beagley claims to have smoked and chatted with Bradley and her next-door-neighbor Samantha Brando on Bradley's front stoop from about 7 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. He left the Bradley house about 8:30 p.m. or 9 p.m., he told CNN correspondent Jim Spellman. He also claims to have seen Brando at her own home at 10:30 and says he didn't see Bradley at that time. Beagley said he didn't see baby Lisa and no one went inside to check on the kids during the hours he was present.

http://news.yahoo.com/missing-baby-lisa-irwin-names-details-emerge-164825929.html

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

Parents do stuff that's deemed neglectful every single day. Doesn't mean they are bad parents per say. I guess every time I see a kid playing in the street with no parent around is neglectful because they can get hit by a car.

Yes, kids shouldn't play in the street and they should be supervised by an adult. Kids have to have supervision, that is the bottom line. As a parent and a Grandparent I realize this, it is my job to be the superviser. Most kids have no fear and will do and try anything, as the parent, we are their fear monitor, what is safe and what is dangerous. As the parents, we are also repsonsible, morally, ethically and legally to protect our children from the dangers of the world around us and that includes, shutting windows, locking doors, checking on the children and being sober when our children are in our care.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

Lisa was almost a year old ~ she had a cold ~ (the pictures of her on Sunday do not show a SICK baby as everyone keeps saying...it was a COLD) she was fussy and was put to bed around the same time as usual (let's say) maybe a bit earlier. Bathed, changed, fed. I don't get why, unless you think your child is going to disappear from bed or you are a highly over protective parent, anyone would be opening that babies door and checking her in 4 hours time.

Possibly she would have heard her crying had she woken, or for sure the boys would have. When she went in to the bathroom or to get the boys a drink or snack etc...(or whatever) she just had to listen. hmmm....still sleeping! When my daughters had a cold, they were perfectly normal children except they had runny noses/cough, but all they wanted to do was sleep. They had no use for being cuddled and held no matter how much I forced them My niece on the other hand, wouldn't allow her mother out of her site for a second when she was sick or she would scream to high heavens...even when she went to bed, mom had to sleep on the spare bed in her room.

If Deb didn't check on Lisa before going to bed, which she normally does according to her, she still could have listened for her, or not hearing her cry figured she was still sleeping ~ doesn't mean she didn't have every intention and capability of getting up as soon as she did cry.

I just don't imagine that Deb thought she had better physically check on Lisa because maybe someone had taken her... JMO

BBM - BL might have looked fine on Sunday but I can attest to the fact that on Tuesday of this week I was the picture of health. Woke up at 5:00 am this morning shortness of breath, sore throat, aches and pains, elevated temperature. 2 hours later was coughing up a lung and and hour later was choking on phlegm. Things can go from bad to worse in a very short amount of time. Not checking on a sick baby is neglectful. I know it and others know it. Why some others don't get it I will never know, matter of fact, I find it alarming.JMO.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

No one said she was blackout drunk. Not everyone who drinks is incapable of dealing with situations that arise. We don't know she couldn't provide care.

No, DB said herself in MSM that she possibly blacked out. Yes, Most people who are drinking in the amounts that DB admitted to drinking are incapable of dealing with situations that arise. You post that we don't know that DB could provide care. With the amount of alcohol she states she consumed and over the period of time she comsumed it, with the scientific data, I don't see how she could.

Euphoria (BAC = 0.03 to 0.12%)
Overall improvement in mood and possible euphoria
Increased self-confidence
Increased sociability
Shortened attention span
Flushed appearance
Impaired judgment
Impaired fine muscle coordination



Lethargy (BAC = 0.09 to 0.25%)
Sedation
Impaired memory and comprehension
Delayed reactions
Ataxia; balance difficulty; unbalanced walk
Blurred vision; other senses may be impaired



Confusion (BAC = 0.18 to 0.30%)
Profound confusion
Emotional lability
Impaired senses
Analgesia
Increased ataxia; impaired speech; staggering
Dizziness often associated with nausea ("the spins")
Vomiting (emesis

Stupor (BAC = 0.25 to 0.40%)
Severe ataxia
Lapses in and out of consciousness
Unconsciousness
Anterograde amnesia
Vomiting (death may occur due to inhalation of vomit (pulmonary aspiration) while unconscious)
Respiratory depression (potentially life-threatening)
Decreased heart rate
Urinary incontinence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_alcohol

 

[cityslick]

Yes, kids shouldn't play in the street and they should be supervised by an adult. Kids have to have supervision, that is the bottom line. As a parent and a Grandparent I realize this, it is my job to be the superviser. Most kids have no fear and will do and try anything, as the parent, we are their fear monitor, what is safe and what is dangerous. As the parents, we are also repsonsible, morally, ethically and legally to protect our children from the dangers of the world around us and that includes, shutting windows, locking doors, checking on the children and being sober when our children are in our care.

I agree with everything you said, I just don't think parents are perfect in what their responsibilities are toward their children 100% of the time.

 

[cityslick]

No, DB said herself in MSM that she possibly blacked out. Yes, Most people who are drinking in the amounts that DB admitted to drinking are incapable of dealing with situations that arise. You post that we don't know that DB could provide care. With the amount of alcohol she states she consumed and over the period of time she comsumed it, with the scientific data, I don't see how she could.

Euphoria (BAC = 0.03 to 0.12%)
Overall improvement in mood and possible euphoria
Increased self-confidence
Increased sociability
Shortened attention span
Flushed appearance
Impaired judgment
Impaired fine muscle coordination



Lethargy (BAC = 0.09 to 0.25%)
Sedation
Impaired memory and comprehension
Delayed reactions
Ataxia; balance difficulty; unbalanced walk
Blurred vision; other senses may be impaired



Confusion (BAC = 0.18 to 0.30%)
Profound confusion
Emotional lability
Impaired senses
Analgesia
Increased ataxia; impaired speech; staggering
Dizziness often associated with nausea ("the spins")
Vomiting (emesis

Stupor (BAC = 0.25 to 0.40%)
Severe ataxia
Lapses in and out of consciousness
Unconsciousness
Anterograde amnesia
Vomiting (death may occur due to inhalation of vomit (pulmonary aspiration) while unconscious)
Respiratory depression (potentially life-threatening)
Decreased heart rate
Urinary incontinence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_alcohol

There are two different arguments going on this forum. One is this one, that she drank so much that she must have been too drunk/disabled to care for her children. The other argument is was she responsible for doing something to her daughter. IMO you can't have both scenarios. I don't think it's physically possible for the lady to be drunk to the point of blacking out, yet think she did something to BL and disposed of her as well, in the middle of the night.

I'm wondering those that are arguing about her 'blacking out' or 'close to blacking out' truly believe DB had nothing to do with BL missing.

 

[Donjeta]

There are two different arguments going on this forum. One is this one, that she drank so much that she must have been too drunk/disabled to care for her children. The other argument is was she responsible for doing something to her daughter. IMO you can't have both scenarios. I don't think it's physically possible for the lady to be drunk to the point of blacking out, yet think she did something to BL and disposed of her as well, in the middle of the night.

I'm wondering those that are arguing about her 'blacking out' or 'close to blacking out' truly believe DB had nothing to do with BL missing.

It's not an either-or situation imo. There are degrees of drunkenness that may cause a person to have less impulse control and more irritability and possibly contribute to a bad outcome but do not make them black out or pass out or be totally unable to function.

Also, intoxication is a reversible state and even if a person is rather drunk in the early evening there may be time to sober up somewhat in a few hours' time if he/she stops drinking.

 

[Tuffy]

There are two different arguments going on this forum. One is this one, that she drank so much that she must have been too drunk/disabled to care for her children. The other argument is was she responsible for doing something to her daughter. IMO you can't have both scenarios. I don't think it's physically possible for the lady to be drunk to the point of blacking out, yet think she did something to BL and disposed of her as well, in the middle of the night.

I'm wondering those that are arguing about her 'blacking out' or 'close to blacking out' truly believe DB had nothing to do with BL missing.

I don't know that I buy that premise, cityslick. Plenty of crimes are committed by those under the influence. More than half of violent crimes are perpetrated by someone abusing alcohol, according to a statistic I came across the other day.

Just because a person is to the point of blacking out, doesn't mean they aren't functioning. They may not be making good decisions, but they are functioning.

 

[Tuffy]

It's not an either-or situation imo. There are degrees of drunkenness that may cause a person to have less impulse control and more irritability and possibly contribute to a bad outcome but do not make them black out or pass out or be totally unable to function.

Also, intoxication is a reversible state and even if a person is rather drunk in the early evening there may be time to sober up somewhat in a few hours' time if he/she stops drinking.

Donjeta, I think that some are confusing "blacking out" with "passing out" here.

Quick example. I was at a work function after hours once, in an unfamiliar part of town. I had followed everyone from work to the restaurant. When it was time to go, another coworker who was going my way had me follow him to the highway.

No problems, I had talked to him before we left, followed his car to the highway, and made it back to my house.

On Monday, when we were all talking about the event, he was surprised to find out that he helped me get back to the highway. He didn't even remember talking to me. He had apparently blacked out, and didn't remember the later part of the evening. I had spoken to him, and he seemed fine!

 

[yllek]

It makes a big difference imo. For example, the new neighbor Shane was there BEFORE 10:30. So it makes it possible for him to be a suspect if she moves the window back from 10:30 to 6:40.

eta: besides that, the time a child was last seen is a major clue when looking for a child. If she says the child was home safe at 10:30, then someone might discount something strange they saw at 9:30 which may have been important.

BBM
Agreed, that is why is it so disturbing that this false information about the last verified time of sighting was given to police in the first place. An Ambert Alert was issued and the investigation and public alerts were based on the last verified time Lisa was seen in the house; a time we later learned was off by 3 hours. The investigation began without consideration of this EXTRA 3 hour window of opportunity. It's a very big problem.

I understand that some say there's no proof Debbi lied about it. I think it's apparent that she did, but that jmo and since we weren't at the house or the station, let's say somehow LE just got the wrong idea and then released unverified information when they issued the rare Amber Altert. Why did Debbi not correct that critical detail during the first important days of the search for Lisa?. Debbi (and Jeremy) did several media interviews the first few days after Lisa's disappearance. When the 10:30 last verified sighting by Debbi was mentioned in these interviews, Debbi never corrected it. When the GMA reporter asked Debbi point blank about seeing Lisa last at 10:30 pm, she said "yeah" and commented that she put Lisa to bed sometime between when she went to bed? Incoherent statement; of course she put Lisa to bed before she went to bed, that doesn't tell us anything about the time. Debbi had the perfect highly publicized opportunity to correct the time line to a national audience on alert for her baby; instead she stuck to the bogus 10:30 time. Even if one doesn't believe that Debbi lied, there's no denying that she allowed false information about the last time her child was seen to be propagated over and over for days and days when Lisa's case was all over the news.

10/6 GMA Transcript:
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.”​

Debbi only changed her story (at least to the public who was on the look out for her daughter) on 10/17, after the wine video was aired, she was told she failed a poly, and she explained that LE was on her about the "gaps" that she admitted she could not explain in her interviews with LE. Imo, Debbi figured/feared that all of this would be released and she went on the interview tour to present herself as an "honest victim" to try and get ahead of it. Highly likely, imo, with consultation from one of her soon-to-be attorneys at the time. We not only got a changed time line & a vastly different picture of Debbi's focus and actions that night, but we got an excuse for her unreliable memory and gaps in the time line: Debbi was drunk, perhaps to the state of black out. By the time Debbi came out with these new revelations and her much-altered last verified sighting of Lisa, the critical early hours and days of searching for Lisa had already been tainted by falsehoods.

I don't think Debbi doing her media tour regarding the drunkeness and changed time line indicates that she is honest and was trying to correct the information to help Lisa. That is the most generous possibility, but certainly not the most logical possibility imo. She could have been honest and/or cleared up falsehoods in mutiple media interviews over the initial 2 week period that Lisa was missing, and she did not. There is a reason, imo.

JMO, MOO...

 

[cityslick]

It's not an either-or situation imo. There are degrees of drunkenness that may cause a person to have less impulse control and more irritability and possibly contribute to a bad outcome but do not make them black out or pass out or be totally unable to function.

Also, intoxication is a reversible state and even if a person is rather drunk in the early evening there may be time to sober up somewhat in a few hours' time if he/she stops drinking.

She wasn't going to sober up in 3 hours time if she was fairly intoxicated. Also, lets understand what happened. DB, in her drunken state, needed to go in the house, do something to BL, make a phone call, find some way to dispose of BL (some theories have her taken to the MO river, that means going through rough terrain in the woods and then back, in the middle of the night), make some vm attempts, then get back in bed and pretend to be asleep before JI gets home.

All while being fairly well intoxicated.

 

[cityslick]

BBM
Agreed, that is why is it so disturbing that this false information about the last verified time of sighting was given to police in the first place. An Ambert Alert was issued and the investigation and public alerts were based on the last verified time Lisa was seen in the house; a time we later learned was off by 3 hours. The investigation began without consideration of this EXTRA 3 hour window of opportunity. It's a very big problem.

I understand that some say there's no proof Debbi lied about it. I think it's apparent that she did, but that jmo and since we weren't at the house or the station, let's say somehow LE just got the wrong idea and then released unverified information when they issued the rare Amber Altert. Why did Debbi not correct that critical detail during the first important days of the search for Lisa?. Debbi (and Jeremy) did several media interviews the first few days after Lisa's disappearance. When the 10:30 last verified sighting by Debbi was mentioned in these interviews, Debbi never corrected it. When the GMA reporter asked Debbi point blank about seeing Lisa last at 10:30 pm, she said "yeah" and commented that she put Lisa to bed sometime between when she went to bed? Incoherent statement; of course she put Lisa to bed before she went to bed, that doesn't tell us anything about the time. Debbi had the perfect highly publicized opportunity to correct the time line to a national audience on alert for her baby; instead she stuck to the bogus 10:30 time. Even if one doesn't believe that Debbi lied, there's no denying that she allowed false information about the last time her child was seen to be propagated over and over for days and days when Lisa's case was all over the news.

10/6 GMA Transcript:
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.”​

Debbi only changed her story (at least to the public who was on the look out for her daughter) on 10/17, after the wine video was aired, she was told she failed a poly, and she explained that LE was on her about the "gaps" that she admitted she could not explain in her interviews with LE. Imo, Debbi figured/feared that all of this would be released and she went on the interview tour to present herself as an "honest victim" to try and get ahead of it. Highly likely, imo, with consultation from one of her soon-to-be attorneys at the time. We not only got a changed time line & a vastly different picture of Debbi's focus and actions that night, but we got an excuse for her unreliable memory and gaps in the time line: Debbi was drunk, perhaps to the state of black out. By the time Debbi came out with these new revelations and her much-altered last verified sighting of Lisa, the critical early hours and days of searching for Lisa had already been tainted by falsehoods.

I don't think Debbi doing her media tour regarding the drunkeness and changed time line indicates that she is honest and was trying to correct the information to help Lisa. That is the most generous possibility, but certainly not the most logical possibility imo. She could have been honest and/or cleared up falsehoods in mutiple media interviews over the initial 2 week period that Lisa was missing, and she did not. There is a reason, imo.

JMO, MOO...

MW did the same thing though about the 8:30 call. After it got leaked that there was a call at 1157, on an interview with JVM, JVM references the 830 call and MW never corrects her. So what does that mean?

 

[Tuffy]

MW did the same thing though about the 8:30 call. After it got leaked that there was a call at 1157, on an interview with JVM, JVM references the 830 call and MW never corrects her. So what does that mean?

It means the time line is jacked. DB could go back in and talk to the police to get the time line straightened out. But she won't do it. Ugh, the sketchy bits of info we have in this case is maddening!

 

[In da Middle]

It means the time line is jacked. DB could go back in and talk to the police to get the time line straightened out. But she won't do it. Ugh, the sketchy bits of info we have in this case is maddening!

In all fairness, WE don't know that she hasn't talked to LE about this. That could very well be some of the things they are talking to LE about. That wouldn't need to be a conversation that would require an interview that was separate from JI. This separate interview seems to be the only contention between LE and the parents, even admitted by LE. We haven't gotten a timeline from LE.
And also to be fair, DB was a the police station during the time of the Amber Alert being enacted. She might not have been aware of the information that it contained to be able to correct anything or not. It was enacted very soon into the investigation and never updated to any information during its time.