The surveillance video-**identified** man and the box of wine

[marge_rita]

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-pol...ance-deborah-bradley-20111010,0,3702048.story

Just in case it disappears, this is a copy of the link.

thanks Just K.

That link doesn't show the actual video footage of D and the mystery man. Maybe that section of tape hasn't been released yet.


imo

 

[Just K]

It seems that Mom may have had too much on her plate when that day began. She was tired and probably distracted and lots of things got forgotten or overlooked that night. I'm afraid Lisa was one of them. Either something tragic occurred and Mom woke up to find Lisa taken or she woke up and found Lisa had died. It is obvious that the mother might feel responsible if either of these two things happened.

 

[kantoo]

thanks Just K.

That link doesn't show the actual video footage of D and the mystery man. Maybe that section of tape hasn't been released yet.


imo

which makes me wonder what the point was for this information to be released to the media

 

[Just K]

One more thing...this case has shades of every other major case i can think of, Trenton Duckett, Hailey Cummings, even bits of Caylee's case...almost a hodgepodge of them all. I hope, for once, that someone has the wherewithal to allow the whole truth to come out!

 

[Twelve of One]

The source for the news report is "a source with the store." Someone at the store said police came with the receipt and wanted to see the video. Someone at the store said she was with an "unidentified man." And I suspect it was someone at the store who said the receipt was "found during a search." I doubt the police said the receipt was found during a search. The police aren't answering questions about their investigation, naturally.

Deborah might have given the receipt to police. There's no way of knowing. Police could just be checking up on her story, confirming it by looking at video. That's what they are supposed to do.

There's nothing in this news report to indicate any deception. Of course, the reporters want us to think this is a big dramatic development, but if you listen to what is actually reported, it's this:

Police have a receipt of some stuff DB bought, so they went to the store to check the store video.

 

[askfornina]

The source for the news report is "a source with the store." Someone at the store said police came with the receipt and wanted to see the video. Someone at the store said she was with an "unidentified man." And I suspect it was someone at the store who said the receipt was "found during a search." I doubt the police said the receipt was found during a search. The police aren't answering questions about their investigation, naturally.

Deborah might have given the receipt to police. There's no way of knowing. Police could just be checking up on her story, confirming it by looking at video. That's what they are supposed to do.

There's nothing in this news report to indicate any deception. Of course, the reporters want us to think this is a big dramatic development, but if you listen to what is actually reported, it's this:

Police have a receipt of some stuff DB bought, so they went to the store to check the store video.

i completely agree.

 

[In da Middle]

How do we know that this guy is really unidentified? Maybe they are just not wanting the media to know or just didn't tell them, therefore when it comes press time he becomes 'unidentified'. How do we know she didn't tell LE she went to the store? Just because we don't know? They very well could have known she went to the store but the receipt narrowed down the exact time. They may have wanted to look for anybody admiring her kids that could have very well been with her but LE just said she was with a man. Doesn't mean they weren't. If it was 5, Dad should have still been home. Maybe he sent her to the store. Just sayin.....

 

[In da Middle]

I missed LE calling him mystery man Katy.

Can somone just tell me where LE made a comment about the man? You don't have to go hunt for a link just let me know and I"ll go look. I've tried to stay up to date for Lisa but I had a guest here for about 10 days and was only online before she got up in the AM's.

LE commenting directly about him is important. JMHO

I think it is the MEDIA calling him an unidentified man. Just because they don't know (have they even been allowed to see the tape?) doesn't mean LE doesn't know.

 

[In da Middle]

I have lived in this area most of my life and within 3 miles of where baby Lisa lives. I have never seen a homeless man at any of our stores or street corners.... I wonder why she chose festival when Thriftway is about 1/2 mile from her house? Thriftway sales box wine too.

Because it is really a toss up in distance difference. Festival is only a minimal difference of being further away. This may be her preferred store between the two. I know many in this subdivision that prefer Festival to Thriftway.

 

[In da Middle]

The source for the news report is "a source with the store." Someone at the store said police came with the receipt and wanted to see the video. Someone at the store said she was with an "unidentified man." And I suspect it was someone at the store who said the receipt was "found during a search." I doubt the police said the receipt was found during a search. The police aren't answering questions about their investigation, naturally.

Deborah might have given the receipt to police. There's no way of knowing. Police could just be checking up on her story, confirming it by looking at video. That's what they are supposed to do.

There's nothing in this news report to indicate any deception. Of course, the reporters want us to think this is a big dramatic development, but if you listen to what is actually reported, it's this:

Police have a receipt of some stuff DB bought, so they went to the store to check the store video.

Exactly! Everybody is acting like just because it hasn't been released that it is new and damning info. She may have told them she went to the store but couldn't remember exactly what time it was. The receipt may have been used simply to confirm and solidify a timeline. LE may have very well 'found' the receipt because maybe the parents had not been at the home to 'give' it to them.

 

[greenpalm]

The source for the news report is "a source with the store." Someone at the store said police came with the receipt and wanted to see the video. Someone at the store said she was with an "unidentified man." And I suspect it was someone at the store who said the receipt was "found during a search." I doubt the police said the receipt was found during a search. The police aren't answering questions about their investigation, naturally.

Deborah might have given the receipt to police. There's no way of knowing. Police could just be checking up on her story, confirming it by looking at video. That's what they are supposed to do.

There's nothing in this news report to indicate any deception. Of course, the reporters want us to think this is a big dramatic development, but if you listen to what is actually reported, it's this:

Police have a receipt of some stuff DB bought, so they went to the store to check the store video.

Absolutely. The store is the source of this info. We have no reason to assume that DB herself didn't tell them about the store visit. There is plenty of information from that day that hasn't yet been mentioned in the media or by LE. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. (they haven't told us how the boys got to school that morning either, or how and when they got home from school that afternoon - just as an example) I would think LE would want to watch every second of video they could find to look for anyone in the background, any clue of any kind. They are desperately looking for leads. They certainly don't want to tell the media too much. Giving information could inadvertanly give a hypothetical abductor an advantage.

How do we know that this guy is really unidentified? Maybe they are just not wanting the media to know or just didn't tell them, therefore when it comes press time he becomes 'unidentified'. How do we know she didn't tell LE she went to the store? Just because we don't know? They very well could have known she went to the store but the receipt narrowed down the exact time. They may have wanted to look for anybody admiring her kids that could have very well been with her but LE just said she was with a man. Doesn't mean they weren't. If it was 5, Dad should have still been home. Maybe he sent her to the store. Just sayin.....

Yep. There are lots of innocent possibilities. It could just be that the store owner/employee who talked to the media doesn't know who he is, but that everyone else involved in the case already does. It could also be she doesn't know him and was just chatting in line. I chat with folks in the checkout line all the time.

Exactly! Everybody is acting like just because it hasn't been released that it is new and damning info. She may have told them she went to the store but couldn't remember exactly what time it was. The receipt may have been used simply to confirm and solidify a timeline. LE may have very well 'found' the receipt because maybe the parents had not been at the home to 'give' it to them.

Yep yep yep.

(And just because it rocked, way to go Nelson Cruz for hitting the first EVER post season walk off grand slam in Major League Baseball history!!! Go Rangers!!)

 

[NancyA]

The source for the news report is "a source with the store." Someone at the store said police came with the receipt and wanted to see the video. Someone at the store said she was with an "unidentified man." And I suspect it was someone at the store who said the receipt was "found during a search." I doubt the police said the receipt was found during a search. The police aren't answering questions about their investigation, naturally.

Deborah might have given the receipt to police. There's no way of knowing. Police could just be checking up on her story, confirming it by looking at video. That's what they are supposed to do.

There's nothing in this news report to indicate any deception. Of course, the reporters want us to think this is a big dramatic development, but if you listen to what is actually reported, it's this:

Police have a receipt of some stuff DB bought, so they went to the store to check the store video.

Thank goodness for the voice of reason!! Reading through this thread one coming bleary-eyed from lack of sleep into Lisa's brand spanking new forum (many thanks btw to WS mods and admins - LOVE what you've done with the place) might be forgiven for thinking there was actual EVIDENCE provided by LE with CONFIRMATION of a party, an affair, supplying of underage teens with alcohol, the mother rendered comatose by booze and all manner of other nefarious activities. Seems to me what we in FACT have is a store video of the Mom buying wine and paper plates and she may or may not be in company with the unidentified man in the footage, who could just as easily be someone she knew who just happened to be in the store at the same time as an illicit lover. We also have no evidence at this time until LE says otherwise that she didn't tell them about it.

 

[raeann]

thanks Just K.

That link doesn't show the actual video footage of D and the mystery man. Maybe that section of tape hasn't been released yet.


imo

Definitely correct....it is still bright daylight in this area at 5 pm......that video shows completely dark sky so it was probably taken after 8 pm or later, and it was most likely sometime last night after they got the info on what store was involved.

jmo

 

[raeann]

How do we know that this guy is really unidentified? Maybe they are just not wanting the media to know or just didn't tell them, therefore when it comes press time he becomes 'unidentified'. How do we know she didn't tell LE she went to the store? Just because we don't know? They very well could have known she went to the store but the receipt narrowed down the exact time. They may have wanted to look for anybody admiring her kids that could have very well been with her but LE just said she was with a man. Doesn't mean they weren't. If it was 5, Dad should have still been home. Maybe he sent her to the store. Just sayin.....

Correct....the source for this was not LE....it was 'someone' at the store. For all we know the paper plates and wine went to work with dad! For all we know, the whole unopened box of wine and the plates are sitting on the counter or in the cabinet. For all we know the "unidentified man" was following her but not WITH her. Interesting info, but doesn't mean much just yet.

jmo

 

[Gardenlady]

Box wine and paper plates are hardly damning evidence. Heck, when I was in my 20s, there were nights when I had little kids asleep at home and went out to the store for cigarettes, condoms and beer. Thank god none of my kids turned up missing on those evenings. But then they'd have just found out it was just me and the husband at home on a Friday night having a beer, watching X-Files, playing some video games, and then heading to bed lol. Ah the scandalous life of 20something nerd parents! . Now I'm in my mid 30s and too tired to make any of those store runs. :crazy:

Anyway, the point is... This information proves absolutely nothing at all. And like the teaser about DBs "checkered/chequered past", seems to only be useful for hints at something scandalous, drumming up ratings numbers, and painting this mom in the worst light possible.

But really...wine? That's it? Why are we such a nation of puritans, that this is such a big deal? :waitasec:

 

[Gardenlady]

Oh, and I meant to add... Even if she WAS having an affair with mystery box wine man, that's a far cry from harming her daughter! It might show dishonesty, weakness, or maybe she was lonely, but it doesn't mean she is capable of violence or criminal activity.

 

[Soulmagent]

I can only speak for myself but it was not the wine or the plates and napkins that concerned me. It was LE finding a receipt and then checking it out by viewing the video. (A video they could have checked out the first day if that info had been shared.)

As far as whether they drank wine or not that could explain how she slept through everything and left the lights on and a fuzzy memory but omitting that she was at the store at that time in the sequence of the day's events concerns me.

I personally would have preferred a marguarita LOL but after two of those nothing would have awakened me. :innocent:

I dont know they found the receipt or if it was given to them by JI or by DB themselves. Nor do I know when this happen. Nothing link wise to indicate how the receipt was obtained.

Did anyone ask her about this specific time? I don't think I would have offered up, "My neighbor was coming over with her 4 year old so I went & bought some wine & paper plates" during a cry for help for my missing daughter (but did that happen?).

Check out what the KCMO police dept does (or does not do) & who "runs" them . . . and then check out StLMO police dept. Try to get any information on crimes or trials in Missouri . . . JMHO as a State resident

If the neighbor was there with a 4 year old ,maybe that is the cheating spouse JI was refering and the mystery man was the friends affair who DB ran to the store for or with?

I had friends who thought it would be cool to bring their flings to my house. It wasnt cool and they dont do it anymore but they tried. Some people wouldnt care. I dont want my kids to see cheating women flaunt their affairs so I put a quick stop to it. It could have been the case here. We just cant really tell right now what was going on.

 

[cachmo]

JMO if DB told LE I went to the store wouldn't them finding the receipt just verify that she was being truthful? If she said that they wouldn't need a video, she didn't take the kids with her and If she had been honest LE would've known that too. I think the trip to the store is very telling.
Again just my opinion. Something is not adding up for me.

 

[greenpalm]

JMO if DB told LE I went to the store wouldn't them finding the receipt just verify that she was being truthful? If she said that they wouldn't need a video, she didn't take the kids with her and If she had been honest LE would've known that too. I think the trip to the store is very telling.
Again just my opinion. Something is not adding up for me.

They could be looking at the video to watch for people in the background. They could also be verifying her story. A cash receipt would not prove WHO made the purchase, but video would. Perhaps the receipt was found at the home by LE because the family hasn't been back to the house, but are staying at a nearby Hampton Inn.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/nation/police-back-at-home-of-kansas-city-missing-1905131.html

That link has a current article, but in the left margin is a photo taken at the Hampton Inn of the parents. They couldn't very well give the receipt to LE if they didn't go back in the house.

 

[ClaireNC]

I'm thinking unidentified person (male etc) from festival video could mean that the "media" does not know who this person is. I'm pretty sure that LE does.

I thought the same thing. The police probably know who the man is. They are just not giving the name to the media.

I don't think this video proves anything. There could be so many reasons why she went to a grocery store with somebody. Maybe a neighbor who didn't have a car, etc....