Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Thanks very much for that.
So parents still a little dodgy then?

Hmmm

Yes.. They have chased off the prayer vigils that were being hed. They issued statements some time back saying they just want to be left alone and to put the entire matter behind them etc etc.

The latest was the Dr. Phil information. There should be a post / link with the info a page or 3 2 back.

reply to post by Xcathdra




Really? Damn.

I'll check out the info, thanks.


We had a case here (UK) where a young child was taken, and many still suspect her parents after all this time.

en.wikipedia.org...


These cases are always awful.

Megan Wrights' phone number+Deborah Bradleys' phone calling MW at 11:57 and "Jersey" = Finding Lisa. No way DB's phone "pocket dialed". jmo

I have followed this thread from the begining, and it's just heartbreaking to read and wonder what happened to little Lisa.
I have three children myself that i see every weekend, the youngest being my daughter who is 12, i couldn't bare it if anything happened to any of my 3 angles.
That is why i can't understand the mother of little Lisa.
IF there was an 'accident', then i can't understand why the mother just didn't come out and be honest, i mean if i was in that situation, then I KNOW i would have said so streight away, no if's or but's.
She's the mother of little Lisa for god sake, how can you be so selfish and just worry about yourself like she has done.
It just makes me so angry.

reply to post by andypb


It is atrocious. My kids are 23 (as of right before the winter solstice), and (this Friday) 21.

If I had chosen to get so drunk that I blacked out (which I did not) while they were littles... or even drank or smoked during my pregnancies (which I did not)....and one of them had 'gone missing' (whatever ).....I would have 'fessed up immediately, and prayed for the death sentence. There is NO EXCUSE for what this mother did. None. No. No way, no how. And she's NOT an alcoholic.....she's a party-girl.....a real alcoholic drinks EVERY DAY, not 2 or 3 times a week, it just astounds me how ignorant people are to what she did.

reply to post by wildtimes


That is my main reason for stating mom is guilty of a crime. Whether or not she will ever be charged with anything relating to the disappearance and god forbid if they find a body, she is at least guilty of endangering the welfare of a minor by her antics with drinking to blacking out.

Her explanation of blacking out are also an issue for me, since she has the ability to remember everything just before and right after, yet in between remains fuzzy. I dont buy it. All the time ive been doing this job I have never encountered a person who "blacked out and remembered nothing". Her accidentally giving 2 different time lines is proof of that in my opinion.

My prediction from a few hundred pages back is the body of baby Lisa will be found when spring hits. The evidence recovered will implicate mom.

reply to post by andypb

IF there was an 'accident', then i can't understand why the mother just didn't come out and be honest, i mean if i was in that situation, then I KNOW i would have said so streight away, no if's or but's.
She's the mother of little Lisa for god sake, how can you be so selfish and just worry about yourself like she has done.
It just makes me so angry.

That's what's just so hard to understand. I can't imagine anyone this day in age (in the USA) that has no clue to what the ramifications are for 'not telling' right off.

There's no way i will believe - ever - that Deborah didn't know about so many of the other 'missing child' cases and the outcomes of parents who 'don't tell'. In fact it was reported way earlier in the thread Deborah used to follow many crime shows, so yes, she knew. and knows.

Again, like WildTimes and 'X' it's Deborah's own duplicity that has me wondering just how much of an 'accident' this all was - or not.

I'm still on the fence about Dr. Phil. I for one will not be watching. I refuse to lend that so called 'Mother' a moment of my time while she's in the 'limelight'. I guess I'll just have to keep in hopes 'X' is right and something she will say or do, some slip, will bring us a step closer to Lisa!

peace

reply to post by Xcathdra

Her explanation of blacking out are also an issue for me, since she has the ability to remember everything just before and right after, yet in between remains fuzzy. I dont buy it. All the time ive been doing this job I have never encountered a person who "blacked out and remembered nothing". Her accidentally giving 2 different time lines is proof of that in my opinion.

One thing most don't remember.

Deborah did not admit to 'blacking out' or drinking at all - until AFTER the police found the receipt for the wine and after LE viewed the video tape of her buying wine.

Not until AFTER did she 'fess up' about this - and then she 'volunteered' the information only when questioned.

So no, she didn't give the police pertinent information from the get go. Not once.

peace

** Sorry for the wall of text**

Accidental death is just that - accidental. It means something unexpected and unforseen occured with a bad end result. It takes into account all circumstances and acknowledges that only in hindsight could anyone see what was coming down the pipeline.

Now, Baby Lisa...
If lisas death was accidental, why didnt they just come forward? Based on moms own statements, she was 4 sheets to the wind. A hypothetical brought up earlier in the thread suggested that maybe mom was giving Lisa a bath, passed out in the process, at which point lisa drowned.

Accidental
If mom was doing everything right, nothing at all in her system, and its discovered she had an undiagnosed medical condition that causes her to lose consciousness, then one could argue the death was accidental.

Not Accidental
If mom was intoxicated to excess, and Lisa drowns because mom blacked out from the alcohol, the death is not accidental. Drinking to the point of blacking out, and performing an activity that resulted in a death is not accidental.

If we go with the hypothetical, mom blakced out while giving Lisa a bath - lisa drowns, and they call the police. She gives her account of what occured, drunk... bath....etc... Most likely she would be charged with the death of baby lisa, resulting in a lenghty prison sentence if found guilty.

The question to ask yourself -
A - Call the cops, tell them it was an accident, only to be charged with the death because you were drunk at the time and that intoxication was directly related to lisas death.

or

B - Come up with a game plan where the body is removed, the scene cleaned up and staged to look like something else occured, say an abduction, and then circle the wagons and hope for the best.

In option A you are essentially making the prosecutors case for them by giving them the cause of death, the reason the death occured, all tied together with a confession (IE her explanation to the police about it being an accident).

In option B she has protected herself to the extent of forcing the police to make the case against her. Everything that we have been discussing in this thread is plausible, but absent any evidence to support the theories, it remains just that, a theory.

Now my next comments are an observation and I am not stating it as a fact. We know mom didnt have the best childhood, and can see this from the facebook drama and from the media digging around in the old family tree. We know the police have been at moms place in the past for various calls. Based on that type of background, once could assume she / family had enough contact with law enforcement throughout the years that they know which avenues to go down that will cast suspicion on them but never lead the police to confirmable facts to make the criminal case and prosecution.

With option A, she would almost suredly be charged with a crime with a lengthy prison sentence if found guilty.
With option B, she runs the risk of more charges, however, absent the police finding confirmable facts / evidence, she is a free person.

What scares the hell out of me is option B. It tells me (if it is indeed what occured) is that mom is more concerned about herself than her family / children.

All speculation of course but its one possible reason why, if it were an accident, she opted not to come forward. Also, if she went down the road of option A, then there is a good chance the remaining children would be seized by DFS. Mom drink sto excess, dad knows this and still allows the children to remain in her care while he is at work etc etc etc.

Originally posted by silo13
One thing most don't remember.

Deborah did not admit to 'blacking out' or drinking at all - until AFTER the police found the receipt for the wine and after LE viewed the video tape of her buying wine.

Not until AFTER did she 'fess up' about this - and then she 'volunteered' the information only when questioned.

So no, she didn't give the police pertinent information from the get go. Not once.

peace

I dont think I ever stated she did give the police all pertinent information.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I agree with your A & B, but I would like to throw out a "C". Somehow one of the other kids that was there that night was involved. I know it's terrible to think one of them might have caused Lisa's death, but to me it's a possibility.

Here's my "C": Mom was outside getting drunk (And maybe she's a mean drunk). Little Lisa is sick and coughing, so one of the kids, not wanting to bother mom, does what "mom" does when they are sick and gives Lisa some medicine. Lisa had a bad reaction to the medicine or maybe they gave her too much. Mom realizes what happened and not wanting anything to happen to one of the other kids, covers it up. (And when I state "kids" I'm not just referring to the sons, I think the neighbor's daughter was there that evening too.)

OiO

reply to post by OneisOne


Lol nice...

Mom is the adult that is present and since none of the children are over 18 she is responsible for their actions. In your scenario however you are setting the stage for a potential slam dunk if it went to court since that info, if ever allowed as testimony, would establish a repeating pattern of behavior, in addition to possible other charges not present in my A and B.

That would lead into the questions of why didnt the children come and get you? That leads into the question of what does mom do when she is "drunk" that causes the children to be scared to the point of leaving her alone.

I keep coming back though to them refusing to be interviewed seperately. Its nagging at me to no end because of the implications of it. Since they are not married to each other, they dont share spousal privilege, which leads me to think that is the reason for the refusal. If they were married it would have been pretty much a moot point.

Somewhere, at some point, someone involved is going to make a freudian slip....

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yep, and I agree with everything you said. I think the mom is completely, without question, guilty. I even think that child endangerment or neglect charges should have already been brought due to her own confession she was "blackout" drunk that night with 3 children in her care with the end result being one went missing. But that's just my opinion and is not based on the laws of the state/city.

She was the adult in charge that night and should be held accountable no matter what happened.

OiO

I agree.
Have you guys been checking the FB drama? I deactivated my account due to the 'timeline' issues I've been hearing about, and other various paranoia-based reasons; but mostly because I find FB to be an enormous waste of bandwidth and useless blips of irrelevant goings-on.

I don't want to reactivate it just to watch the snarking and childish crap on the LI pages...
has uncle Johnny said anything new?

I'm confident LE and investigators are working with FB -- they even say so in their intro about us pages. Plus, if it's going "public" at this point I'm conscienciously opposed to having anything at all to do with "stock exchange" firms.

But, back on topic --
are they any new discoveries there? Any patterns of behavior/statements/attitudes that are different from up until about a week ago?

Do you think Dr Phil might have anything going on as to investigators wanting him to 'interview' (question) this skanky crowd?

Originally posted by OneisOne
I even think that child endangerment or neglect charges should have already been brought due to her own confession she was "blackout" drunk that night with 3 children in her care OiO

The problem with that, much to my irritation, is proveing that her being blacked out was directly related to the child going missing. Until the child is located and more parts of the story are uncovered, there is just no way to make the argument.

You say 1 kid is missing....
The defense would say 2 other kids in the house are just fine...

You say she was drunk....
The defense will say she is over 21 and in her own home...

The other reason why lawyers irritate me lol..... They will take the arguments we are making and offer alternative theories that place the argument in doubt.

reply to post by wildtimes


Its a possibility with the Dr. Phil interview... From some of the articles I have seen its looking like their lawyer will be going with them and there is speculation that he will have edit rights for the final product. Interestingly enough this taping of Dr. Phil will not be in front of an audience, which again sets of my red flag meter.

To me its looking more and more like a staged drama. I will wager the topic of the police looking at them and not the real suspect, along with other shortcomings they have with the police, will be at the center. The lawyer is going to use this interview to remake the families image.

I would like to know if they are being compensated for doing the show, and if they are how much is going to the lawyer. If they are receiving money, I would like to see if they add that to the reward fund or if they are going to use it on themselves.

Keep an eye on body movement and behavior...
How are they sitting? leaned back away from the interviewer, leaning towards, crossed arms. Do they look to the left / look to the left using only their eyes before answering questions and if so which questions is it occuring on? Do they answer questions with questions? Ambiguous statements? Do any distortions show up between these answers and previous ones given? Do they look at Dr. Phil when answering or are they looking anywhere but at Dr. Phil.

Watch to see if they look at each other for answers / details to questions. How often does that occur, which questions does it occur on etc? Watch to see if they correct answers the other person gives. Watch to see if any pleas are made at any point asking for the safe return of baby lisa. Watch the plea if it is made for sincerity or if its a scripted motion.

Keep an eye to see if dad actually speaks / engages in conversation or if its all mom. Watch to see if they talk about their other 2 children and the reason they arent allowing interviews and what those reason are.

Here are some links to various sources of non verbal behavioral analysis.
Non verbal body cues to deception
Verbal & Non-Verbal Deception Behavior Analysis
DETECTING DECEIT VIA ANALYSIS OF VERBAL AND NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

Some other terms -
truth, visual, demeanor bias
expectancy violation bias

Just because a person exhibits some of what listed doesnt automatically mean they are lying. Other factors such as culture, medical conditions etc can affect a result and give a false positive.

Behavioral analysis / non verbal cues of deception are based on a lot of factors so keep that in mind. I figured you guys might want to see this part of law enforcement to get an insight on why some things are done they way they are done.

This stuff is outside my area of training and expertise so all I can offer are educated guesses / personal experience from questioning / interrogations if anyone has questions.

Originally posted by wildtimes
Do you think Dr Phil might have anything going on as to investigators wanting him to 'interview' (question) this skanky crowd?

edit on 2-2-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

If law enforcement approaches Dr. Phil and has him ask certain, guilt seaking questions, then the police jsut shot themselves in the foot. Once they do that, Dr. Phil is technically working as an agent of the state, questioning suspects instead of guests of the show.

I doubt you would find a judge who would allow the results of those questions into a courtroom.

Update - Feb 2, 2012

Megan Kelley ran (is running now) a segment on the upcoming Dr. Phil interview. Apparently there is some info that will be discussed that has not previsouly been talked about in public.

A private investigator has come forward, and will be in the Dr. Phil segments, that mom did NOT fail the polygraph, and that the police told her she did not fail it. People arent sure why she is stating the other.

The teaser they showed has mom addressing the drinking portion and why it was never brought up the first time. Her answer was it had absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand.

They will be a doing a, for lack of a better term, re-enactment of what may have happened.

The interview looks like its a video interview. They are not in studio.

Also, there is supposed to a press conference sometime tomrrow after the show airs that will I guess air some of the leads that have come in. I got the impression it might also cover the newest "leads" turned over to the police.

As far as the phone number and the 11:57 pm call, that was discussed in the segment. The number dialed was to Megan wright. A history check on the phone reveals that number to her has never been called from any of the phones at any other time.

So the phone call was a one shot thing. The PI is suggesting that whoever dialed that number is the suspect.

shoould be interesting...

This article from KMBC tv here, was posted earlier this afternoon and just updated.

Baby Lisa's Parents: 'Ridiculous Accusations' Being Made

Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin said some people in the Kansas City community are making "ridiculous accusations" regarding the case surrounding their missing daughter.

The couple taped an interview for the "Dr. Phil Show" last week. Attorney Joe Tacopina could be seen sitting next to the couple as they answered questions.

Phil McGraw asked the couple how the community has been treating them since Lisa Irwin was reported missing on Oct. 4 from their home.

"Are they supportive? Are they suspicious?" McGraw asked.

"It's a little bit of both. There's a lot of people coming forward and helping, supporting and et cetera. There's a lot of people out there and don't have a lot of information and make ridiculous accusations," Jeremy Irwin told McGraw.

KMBC's Lara Moritz talked with McGraw Thursday morning about the interview. McGraw told Moritz that he understands why the community is suspicious, and he said a lot more.

Read more: www.kmbc.com...

Read more: www.kmbc.com...

I would SO like to hear what McGraw (Dr Phil) said...I'll watch the news at 5 and 6...

OMG...watch the little clip in this story..
Deb's got ANOTHER new 'do -- dark brown and side-part; and has her hand on his knee, stroking it while Jeremy is talking but NOT looking into the camera...there does appear to be an audience watching the stage, though the couple and their sleazebag lawyer are on a screen.

Watch it twice...once to see Jeremy's NO EYE CONTACT and then he glances down and to the left, and then watch it AGAIN but look at Deborah -- she ROLLS HER EYES while he's talking, and then looks to the left.

UGGHHH

Irwin, Bradley, their New York attorney, Joe Tacopina, and their New York private investigator, Bill Stanton, will appear on a national television talk show next month on the four-month anniversary of Lisa's disappearance. Publicists for the Dr. Phil show said they will provide their theories on what happened that fateful morning.

www.kctv5.com...

The above is from a different station KCTV-5's story about the dashcam vid release.
WOW I so hope to get some real info...

In the highly-anticipated interview, Dr. Phil will encourage the couple to explain inconsistencies in the mysterious case. While police never accussed the couple of involvement with Lisa's disappearance, many neighbors have pointed their fingers at the couple.

Many have wondered why Bradley was drunk the night her daughter disappeared, why she and Irwin refuse to speak separately to the police, and why a mysterious, anonymous donor offered $10,000 as a reward for Lisa’s safe return.

Others have expressed suspicions of how a Kansas City family can afford top New York City lawyers.On the Dr. Phil Show, parents, Bradley and Irwin, will open up about what really happened the night of Lisa’s mysterious disappearance. Bradley will discuss accusations that drinking red wine was neglectful of Lisa and her two sons.

“I’m not going to sit on TV until now, when I’m being asked this specific question, and rebuttal it, because it’s just taking my words apart,” Bradley tells Dr. Phil when asked about inconsistent reports of whether the lights in her house were left on or off the night of Lisa’s disappearance.

....
The couple’s attorney, Joe Tacopina, will also explain allegations that Bradley failed a polygraph lie detector test following Lisa’s disappearance.

In addition to Bradley, Irwin and Tacopina, a private investigator, Bill Stanton, will join the discussion with Dr. Phil. Stanton claims he was hired by an anonymous benefactor who offered a $10,000 reward for the safe return of baby Lisa Irwin or information leading investigators to the child. He will discuss the details of the case with Dr. Phil and address concerns of the likelihood that the now-one-year-old child is still alive.

I thought the reward was $100,000?? Wasn't it??