Police say parents are not answering vital questions

[Magdalyn]

I'm not sure where to post this, so if I'm in the wrong spot, mods, please let me know/move me!

I just started to look through the 'pictures' thread and noticed something. (and forgive me if this has already been discussed ad nauseum!)

There looks to be two fairly shallow plastic bins resting on the mattress, then a tub on top of that. According to the depth of the mattress AND where the crib bumper is placed, to my baby raising eyes, they are too high for an 11 month old who can stand. (When baby can stand, you're supposed to put the mattress at the lowest setting and it's LOW.) If Lisa stood in that crib at that mattress setting, I'd estimate the rail hit at or below Lisa's chest level. Also, when a baby can stand in the crib you're supposed to take the bumper pad OUT because they can use it to climb up and ...fall out. An overbalanced baby falling head first out of a crib....

No blood...

Now, one might say, "That's just a tragic accident."

Well, what if there was evidence that the baby fell out hours and hours ago... and perhaps didn't die right away/could have been saved.

Dunno... Just a theory.... :waitasec:

Sorry to quote myself, but considering the new info on where the cadaver dog(s) hit, I think I might tweak my theory...

Perhaps the crib mattress is as the wrong setting for her age/height/ability to stand, and the bumper pad is still in there because Lisa didn't really sleep there much (or at all) and slept with mom all the time.

Many people co-sleep with their babies and never have a problem. That being said, babies have died from accidental parental suffocation during co-sleeping. I don't think a person would think they'd go to jail for a tragic accident. However, if they knew they did something *before* that would be considered a contibuting factor to the death, like, say, purposely giving an extra large dose of benedryl, or using a shot or two of adult quality alcohol as a medicinal substitute, so that mommy could have her "me time", might make a person think they need to cover things up. Not saying that's what happened! Just considering a theory...:seeya:

 

[liz b.]

As far as the sons being interviewed I still see that some are under the impression that the parents have NOT ALLOWED for the boys to be interviewed/questioned.. This is FALSE.. THE PARENTS GAVE THEIR PERMISSION AND ALLOWED THE BOYS TO HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED/QUESTIONED BY LE..

People are confusing that they've NEVER been interviewed when the accurate truth is that they have and the only thing that's been said by the parents recently is in one of the media blitz interviews yesterday they were asked would they allow their boys to be interviewed AGAIN? and they said no, the boys have already been interviewed/questioned that they don't know anything..

Now there's a HUUUUUUUGE DIFFERENCE in the truth of this matter(that they've already allowed the boys to be interviewed by LE) and what is being repeated time and time again(that they ARE NOT ALLOWING THE BOYS TO BE INTERVIEWED BY LE).. and IMO it's a very, very important detail that need to be clarified and understood that these children have already been allowed by the parents to be interviewed by LE..

One other detail I wanted to add to that was just last night on NG the female ATTY stated that in working with children and their being questioned in a case that it is a known fact that children need to be interviewed/question as soon after the fact the crime has taken place as possible(for obvious reasons that their memories will quickly fade about small details that may infact be of great importance).. And that it's a proven fact that with any additional interviews/questioning done of children after that initial, all important interview that any additional interviews have proven with each additional time that the Childs story/acct of events becomes further and further from the truth, details change, NOT FOR THE BETTER, but again rather they are further from what is accurate and true..

Thus the ATTY said that the parents are absolutely correct in not allowing their children to be repeatedly interviewed, that the boys have been interviewed and that LE already have the boys accounts of the events as they occurred..

So, for this issue to be totally misconstrued is just further spreading false information about this case..

Concerning the two boys, I hope against hope that their parents have gotten therapy for them. This was a major,life altering event, and they would need help to process the whole situation. IIRC, DB said that she wasn't going to ask them anything about Lisa being missing...I believe that the boys would bring it up themselves. They would refer to it,either in a round about way,or perhaps directly... I wonder if DB would share anything the boys said with LE ?
NOT sleuthing the little boys, just wonder how they are holding up ...MOO

 

[Turnadot]

IMO, the parents don't want to have an interview with LE again because DB is on version number 4, and can't keep the lies straight.

 

[curiousc]

http://www.examiner.com/missing-per...baby-lisa-irwin-s-mother-s-story-inconsistent

--snipped---


Megyn compares the two interviews:

Megyn’s interview with Lisa’s parents Sunday night, October 16:

Megyn: What time did you put Lisa to bed?

Deborah: 6:40.

Megyn: And that’s her normal bedtime?

Deborah: No, it’s usually between 7:30 and 8, but she’d been kind of fussy and, um, I just decided to put her down.

We keep discussing that the baby had a cold and cough. When my toddlers were teething, they would absolutely get a cold each time. So what I am wondering if perhaps Lisa was also teething too, making her more fussy.

Add the fact that DB put her down almost an hour earlier than her normal bedtime, my thinking is DB wanted to go to bed at 10:30 and Baby Lisa was fussy at that time. I've thought this from day 1. I don't think this was an accident at all but that DB snapped.

 

[AlmostGone]

I'm kinda hopeful that when the parents do leave the house one of the boys start talking.. 6 and 8 they may have an idea if what's going on...I just hope the one son that was sleeping with mom didn't walk into the room while something horrifying happened to baby Lisa....MOO

 

[AlmostGone]

We keep discussing that the baby had a cold and cough. When my toddlers were teething, they would absolutely get a cold each time. So what I am wondering if perhaps Lisa was also teething too, making her more fussy.

Add the fact that DB put her down almost an hour earlier than her normal bedtime, my thinking is DB wanted to go to bed at 10:30 and Baby Lisa was fussy at that time. I've thought this from day 1. I don't think this was an accident at all but that DB snapped.

What if baby Lisa gagged and vomited while mom was outside and the little baby suffocated on her own vomit? Being drunk would she of reacted in the wrong manner and hid the baby claiming kidnappers? Maybe she was afraid of the hubby leaving her? It's a stretch but a thought...

 

[Magdalyn]

What if baby Lisa gagged and vomited while mom was outside and the little baby suffocated on her own vomit? Being drunk would she of reacted in the wrong manner and hid the baby claiming kidnappers? Maybe she was afraid of the hubby leaving her? It's a stretch but a thought...

IDK, but I have had the thought before that whatever happened that night, happened before--as in mom got drunk and had some sort of dangerous close call with caring for Lisa in some way, and dad was livid, because had she not been drinking, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. So now it happens again, mom can't admit it because dad will leave her, so she asks drunk guy friend to get rid of the evidence. But dad suspects what happened.

I think that it's a plausible scenerio to think that the baby died by accidental means, but that the accident would be of the negligence/manslaughter variety, whoever was in charge knew it, hence the coverup.

Or someone snapped because it was 'me time' and this baby's been screaming for two hours straight.

A side note: My kids are 10 and 13 and I'm still unsure of what this alleged "me time" is... :innocent:

 

[*JMO*]

Sorry to quote myself, but considering the new info on where the cadaver dog(s) hit, I think I might tweak my theory...

Perhaps the crib mattress is as the wrong setting for her age/height/ability to stand, and the bumper pad is still in there because Lisa didn't really sleep there much (or at all) and slept with mom all the time.

Many people co-sleep with their babies and never have a problem. That being said, babies have died from accidental parental suffocation during co-sleeping. I don't think a person would think they'd go to jail for a tragic accident. However, if they knew they did something *before* that would be considered a contibuting factor to the death, like, say, purposely giving an extra large dose of benedryl, or using a shot or two of adult quality alcohol as a medicinal substitute, so that mommy could have her "me time", might make a person think they need to cover things up. Not saying that's what happened! Just considering a theory...:seeya:

I think that may be a very good theory. I also think she may have made up the story about one of the boys sleeping with her to cover any evidence that a child had been in bed with her that night ( urine in the bed for example) ..which helps explain the odd sounding description from JI on how he first checked on the "boys" and then baby Lisa. It always seemed to me if one of the boys was sleeping with DB he would have stated he checked on the boys and saw one was not in his bed but found him with his mother..then checked on the baby. For some reason, I have never thought she had one of the boys sleeping with her, but I agree with you that the baby may have routinely slept in her bed.

 

[krimekat]

http://kamala.cod.edu/offs/KEAX/1110042132.cdus43.OJC.html

Checking Temp for that day. By 2:46pm, temp was 71. By morning it was 51 degrees. So it wasn't very warm to be sitting on a cement stoop, imo. I would have preferred to be indoors. Perhaps there was a reason why she didn't want anyone indoors. I wonder how long she sat on the stoop w/neighbor.....

Respectfully, I remember 3 Oct & it was absolutely beautiful -- it was actually 85 degrees that day according to your link (which is for 4 Oct, but the weather pattern was consistent). Finally was able to turn off the AC & open windows after our scorching summer. Mind you I am on the other side of Missouri but I would not consider that day cool or chilly at all.

Actually, I am sitting outside with a sweatshirt on right now . . .

What I find shocking is no picture of Lisa on the Press Release!

 

[katydid23]

We keep discussing that the baby had a cold and cough. When my toddlers were teething, they would absolutely get a cold each time. So what I am wondering if perhaps Lisa was also teething too, making her more fussy.

Add the fact that DB put her down almost an hour earlier than her normal bedtime, my thinking is DB wanted to go to bed at 10:30 and Baby Lisa was fussy at that time. I've thought this from day 1. I don't think this was an accident at all but that DB snapped.

I agree. I cannot imagine putting a fussy, teething 10 month old in their crib at 06:40, and expecting they would be quietly asleep through out the night. That would not happen, imo. Mine would have been crying, protesting, trying to climb out of their crib, and just plain being loud.

 

[MissJames]

I'm not sure where to post this, so if I'm in the wrong spot, mods, please let me know/move me!

I just started to look through the 'pictures' thread and noticed something. (and forgive me if this has already been discussed ad nauseum!)

There looks to be two fairly shallow plastic bins resting on the mattress, then a tub on top of that. According to the depth of the mattress AND where the crib bumper is placed, to my baby raising eyes, they are too high for an 11 month old who can stand. (When baby can stand, you're supposed to put the mattress at the lowest setting and it's LOW.) If Lisa stood in that crib at that mattress setting, I'd estimate the rail hit at or below Lisa's chest level. Also, when a baby can stand in the crib you're supposed to take the bumper pad OUT because they can use it to climb up and ...fall out. An overbalanced baby falling head first out of a crib....

No blood...

Now, one might say, "That's just a tragic accident."

Well, what if there was evidence that the baby fell out hours and hours ago... and perhaps didn't die right away/could have been saved.

Dunno... Just a theory.... :waitasec:

The height of the mattress bothers me also. I wonder if Lisa slept with mom and dad.
I think it would be unusual for a baby to die from that height ,but I'm no expert.
I still think a mother would call 911 ,not believing her child was really dead or couldn't be saved. And when was mom distraught ,grieving,beside herself ,trembling in shock,because her baby girl was dead?

Unless the baby died from abuse or murder,I don't believe a mother would not try to get help,even if it had been hours and hours.

It works the other way around,IMO.Parents who abuse or kill their children cover it up to make it look like an accident.They don't cover up accidents by making it look like a kidnapping/murder. JMO

I have said before,any mother who could cover up an accident ,never trying to get the baby help,because they were afraid they would be in trouble,could also hurt that baby on purpose.That kind of mother never cared enough about the baby to begin with. MO

 

[RANCH]

We keep discussing that the baby had a cold and cough. When my toddlers were teething, they would absolutely get a cold each time. So what I am wondering if perhaps Lisa was also teething too, making her more fussy.

Add the fact that DB put her down almost an hour earlier than her normal bedtime, my thinking is DB wanted to go to bed at 10:30 and Baby Lisa was fussy at that time. I've thought this from day 1. I don't think this was an accident at all but that DB snapped.

I agree. I cannot imagine putting a fussy, teething 10 month old in their crib at 06:40, and expecting they would be quietly asleep through out the night. That would not happen, imo. Mine would have been crying, protesting, trying to climb out of their crib, and just plain being loud.

I've never had any kids myself, so these first hand experience posts help me greatly in trying to understand this case. Thanks.

 

[MissJames]

October 12th
Family members told KCTV5 on Thursday that the man was Bradley's brother and the wine was bought for a family event.
http://www.kctv5.com/story/15676197/video-shows-lisas-mom

October 17th
Bradley told NBC's "Today Show" Monday that the night Lisa disappeared she had bought wine and consumed "enough to be drunk."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20121276-504083.html

Which one is fact? Why did her family say it was for a family event if Debbi really bought and consumed it at home with a neighbor? Was Debbi's family lying for her? Did Debbi actually visit with family that night? Is Debbi lying now about drinking the boxed wine that night?


It makes me question whether Debbi really did tell LE about the wine purchase and the fact that she was drunk originally, as her attorney now claims. I've seen posters here make good arguments against her being drunk (only claiming it as a defense for not remembering and hearing anything) and for her being drunk (maybe she didn't hear an intruder if she was passed out; maybe an accident happened because she was drunk). Whether or not she told the truth to LE about the drunkeness from the get-go would clarify some things for me about that night and how honestly the parents have been cooperating with LE. JMO...

When the video of DB buying wine first came out ,it was reported that LE found a receipt from the store in the home and it led them to the video.
Reports can be wrong ,so take it for what it's worth.:crazy:

 

[MissJames]

As far as the sons being interviewed I still see that some are under the impression that the parents have NOT ALLOWED for the boys to be interviewed/questioned.. This is FALSE.. THE PARENTS GAVE THEIR PERMISSION AND ALLOWED THE BOYS TO HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED/QUESTIONED BY LE..

People are confusing that they've NEVER been interviewed when the accurate truth is that they have and the only thing that's been said by the parents recently is in one of the media blitz interviews yesterday they were asked would they allow their boys to be interviewed AGAIN? and they said no, the boys have already been interviewed/questioned that they don't know anything..

Now there's a HUUUUUUUGE DIFFERENCE in the truth of this matter(that they've already allowed the boys to be interviewed by LE) and what is being repeated time and time again(that they ARE NOT ALLOWING THE BOYS TO BE INTERVIEWED BY LE).. and IMO it's a very, very important detail that need to be clarified and understood that these children have already been allowed by the parents to be interviewed by LE..

One other detail I wanted to add to that was just last night on NG the female ATTY stated that in working with children and their being questioned in a case that it is a known fact that children need to be interviewed/question as soon after the fact the crime has taken place as possible(for obvious reasons that their memories will quickly fade about small details that may infact be of great importance).. And that it's a proven fact that with any additional interviews/questioning done of children after that initial, all important interview that any additional interviews have proven with each additional time that the Childs story/acct of events becomes further and further from the truth, details change, NOT FOR THE BETTER, but again rather they are further from what is accurate and true..

Thus the ATTY said that the parents are absolutely correct in not allowing their children to be repeatedly interviewed, that the boys have been interviewed and that LE already have the boys accounts of the events as they occurred..

So, for this issue to be totally misconstrued is just further spreading false information about this case..

You've been following this much closer than I have and I'm not doubting this is true,but,has LE ever verified this?
I ask because the boys might have been questioned in the parents presence when LE first came to the home,but not knowing what they were looking at,I doubt if it was an in-depth interview.
LE uses special techniques with children so they don't lead the children to an answer. I'm curious to know if the boys have had a complete interview by a special interrogator. I'd also like to know what happened in the nightmare that caused the younger son to sleep with his mom.

 

[Schmerty_Jones]

I have had kids & I am in agreement that a 10 month old ,who is fussy & teething & miserable will pull themselves up on the crib railings & pushing up on their tippy toes, their waist over the top bar and catapult over!!! I have seen it happen too many times. Depending on the floor covering in the room (hopefully plush carpets) they will bounce off hopefully on the buttocks & not their head!Either way , a responsible parent will realize that accidents happen,that the child having immediate care ,is the decision to be followed instead of a disasterous cover-up & permanently maimed or dead child. Young children tend to bounce & with immediate medical help will have very little damage or scarring.That's what being a parent means.

 

[Magdalyn]

The height of the mattress bothers me also. I wonder if Lisa slept with mom and dad.
I think it would be unusual for a baby to die from that height ,but I'm no expert.
I still think a mother would call 911 ,not believing her child was really dead or couldn't be saved. And when was mom distraught ,grieving,beside herself ,trembling in shock,because her baby girl was dead?

Unless the baby died from abuse or murder,I don't believe a mother would not try to get help,even if it had been hours and hours.

It works the other way around,IMO.Parents who abuse or kill their children cover it up to make it look like an accident.They don't cover up accidents by making it look like a kidnapping/murder. JMO

I have said before,any mother who could cover up an accident ,never trying to get the baby help,because they were afraid they would be in trouble,could also hurt that baby on purpose.That kind of mother never cared enough about the baby to begin with. MO

I agree.

But what if the mother was 'blacked out drunk' when she found the baby dead or injured? She could have been making all sorts of brilliant decisions and have no recollection of it.

But I do agree, I no longer think the baby fell out of the crib. I think that baby died in mom's room.

 

[MissJames]

I agree.

But what if the mother was 'blacked out drunk' when she found the baby dead or injured? She could have been making all sorts of brilliant decisions and have no recollection of it.

But I do agree, I no longer think the baby fell out of the crib. I think that baby died in mom's room.

I don't know much about that scenario,but I assume if she was that drunk ,she wouldn't be able to cover her tracks well.

 

[RANCH]

I don't know much about that scenario,but I assume if she was that drunk ,she wouldn't be able to cover her tracks well.

Drunks that black out and become brilliant? I guess someone could make a movie with that premise.

 

[hannahsnana]

I don't know why, but I have been under the impression that the picture of the crib with the tubs and other items in it was taken before Lisa was born. A picture of the nursery, if you will, ready for a new baby, with gifts received on display. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[josie1986]

I don't know why, but I have been under the impression that the picture of the crib with the tubs and other items in it was taken before Lisa was born. A picture of the nursery, if you will, ready for a new baby, with gifts received on display. Maybe I'm wrong.

there is a photo on another thread from a news report (i cant remember which thread but i'll go have a look) and the tub etc are in the crib in the background,so it was a recent pic on maybe the 1st or 2nd day of lisa disappearace