Deborah Bradley & Jeremy Irwin - Dr. Phil Interview - 3 February 2012 #2

[vlpate]

But don't you feel, in some way, that it is wrong to accuse someone of something they didn't do? I KNOW, this is not a court of law, innocence until proven guilty does not apply.

But, what IF, hypothetically, the people on this forum who feel that DB did this WERE a jury? And the case was presented to you as it stands today? Physical evidence: one cadaver dog hit that as far as we know was not even verified. And whatever else, to you, is evidence. Hinkyness, feelings, inconsistencies, etc.
You would really, honestly, be comfortable with rendering a guilty verdict? And then, as you say, what if down the road Lisa is found and the family had nothing to do with it? So someone served however much time in prison, vilified, their life ruined, because you thought they were guilty with the paucity of evidence this
case presents. Would you then say "Ooops, sorry, I was wrong. My apologies." The thought of it makes me very, um, uncomfortable.

Of course there's not enough evidence to put anyone on trial, so this scenario has no legs. "Feelings" and common sense are all we have at this point. I would find her guilty of obstruction of justice at this point for clearly changing her story and timeline - but there's nothing provable as far as what happened to Lisa.

 

[norest4thewicked]

bbm - This is how things get misconstrued I guess. People take things differently...and certainly a written statement is much different than a spoken one, without the innuendo, or even worse with imagined innuendo.

I didn't take anything Jacie said as telling ME not to discuss the lights

I believe Deb HAS been called the devil incarnate in so many words by many, over and over again. If someone believes she killed her daughter on purpose or by accident and then hid/discarded her like garbage...then yes they are calling her the devil incarnate.

Respectfully, Sparklin, I personally believe that DB had an involvement in Lisa being missing. Whether she accidentally killed her or Lisa died through neglect that DB didn't even realize at the time...I believe that DB is responsible and knows what happened to Lisa and where she is right now. However, I do not believe and never would say that she is the devil incarnate. I just wouldn't.

 

[vlpate]

Could be that Jeremy was the turner offer of the lights at bed time

I would be alarmed if I had FORGOTTEN to close a window and was told that ALL the lights were on (even though it was just the few *if more than normal* that I had left on)

BEM: Probably every night, right after he puts the boys to bed and checks on Lisa - IMO, and it wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[melissasmom]

Have you posted your theory on the theory thread yet? I'd love to read it, and I'm being sincere - thanks

Honestly, vlpate, I don't really HAVE much of a theory, because the whole thing is just so strange. In short though, I think it was someone who knew JI was not there, and that DB was drunk that night (can possibly leave that part out, just knowing JI was not there is enough to me). Why they took Lisa I don't know, I am thinking possibly that they hated DB so taking Lisa was kind of a payback of some sort. DB seems like the kind of person that could cause someone to dislike her very much. The cell phones they just stuffed into their pocket on the way in.

And that's about it. Not enough information in this case to develop it further. Plus I haven't really sat down and TRIED to think of something. I should probably do that.

 

[Donjeta]

Could be that Jeremy was the turner offer of the lights at bed time

I would be alarmed if I had FORGOTTEN to close a window and was told that ALL the lights were on (even though it was just the few *if more than normal* that I had left on)

I suppose she could have been alarmed just because she was roused from deep sleep and hadn't got time to process and JI said it in an alarming tone of voice (panic tends to be contagious) but I don't know if that works because it appears that they chatted about something else for a while before he brought up the lights and the windows. If he had been so alarmed that he'd use an alarming tone of voice it seems like it'd have been the first thing that he'd say and not talk about anything inconsequential at first.

 

[norest4thewicked]

But don't you feel, in some way, that it is wrong to accuse someone of something they didn't do? I KNOW, this is not a court of law, innocence until proven guilty does not apply.

But, what IF, hypothetically, the people on this forum who feel that DB did this WERE a jury? And the case was presented to you as it stands today? Physical evidence: one cadaver dog hit that as far as we know was not even verified. And whatever else, to you, is evidence. Hinkyness, feelings, inconsistencies, etc.
You would really, honestly, be comfortable with rendering a guilty verdict? And then, as you say, what if down the road Lisa is found and the family had nothing to do with it? So someone served however much time in prison, vilified, their life ruined, because you thought they were guilty with the paucity of evidence this
case presents. Would you then say "Ooops, sorry, I was wrong. My apologies." The thought of it makes me very, um, uncomfortable.

I think that if you go back and read my posts, you will see that, while I personally feel that DB is guilty at this point, I would love it if I were wrong and Lisa was found. At this very point, if I were called to be on her trial, I would in all honesty have to tell them the way I felt and that I didn't feel qualified to sit on the jury because I would go in feeling one way. It's all about honesty. I would have no problem being open and honest with the powers that be that I feel DB has some involvement with Lisa's being missing because of her changes in story, her refusal to talk to the local media about her missing child and because of other personal things that I can't share here. Your hypothetical situation would never happen.

 

[cityslick]

Glad the debate today was cordial and civil. And in the end everyone wants one thing. Hopefully that happens sooner than later.

Enjoy the game.

 

[melissasmom]

I don't know if she is or is not. I'd be lying if I said there wasn't anything that made me think she did something. But is it enough to put me fully in the 'she did it' camp? No it's not. That's the very definition of a fence sitter. One that cannot tell if she's innocent or guilty. Here is an example of what would put me in the 'guilty' side.

If it turns out there was multiple cadaver dog hits in the house
If there was blood in the house
If LE makes a statement that there is no evidence of an abduction (see Ayla Reynolds)

Those are just a few examples. There are plenty more. I can only go with my gut and my gut says, I just don't know yet. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Thanks, cityslick, good post. I know I may sound like I think DB is 100% innocent, and that is my fault, I think because I am not eloquent enough to state my point without 'defending" DB. I am not 100% convinced that she had nothing to do with it. Mainly because of the drinking thing, and of course just the fact that the whole thing is, well, just WAY out there. A person comes in and takes a baby right under the parents nose? Hmm, hard to believe. But it is possible. And yes, like you if I had something else, blood evidence, someone who saw DB or JI that night not at the house, etc., then that would sway me over to the "she did it" side.

 

[melissasmom]

I think that if you go back and read my posts, you will see that, while I personally feel that DB is guilty at this point, I would love it if I were wrong and Lisa was found. At this very point, if I were called to be on her trial, I would in all honesty have to tell them the way I felt and that I didn't feel qualified to sit on the jury because I would go in feeling one way. It's all about honesty. I would have no problem being open and honest with the powers that be that I feel DB has some involvement with Lisa's being missing because of her changes in story, her refusal to talk to the local media about her missing child and because of other personal things that I can't share here. Your hypothetical situation would never happen.

I know, but I love to do hypotheticals. I guess it is my argumentative personality. LOL

Thanks for being honest.

 

[highflyer]

Why is this discussion of fence sitters even happening? This is about the case not individual posters who are being labeled and singled out. <modsnip>

 

[Whisperer]

bbm - I wish it were true!

Jim Spellman said that his info is, D/J did NOT get paid and/or gifts for Dr. Phil.

..Drl Phil also made a very special announcemnt (imo contrived) that the anthony were not getting one cent. Does that make it true?

..Joe T, I'm betting, made a contract for the show. All these shows don't want it "Out there" that they are paying people to be guests.

..They pay licensing fees for other things like videos and PICS. This is common practice. As we all know Casey A got $200,000 from just one show. GMA. She had albums of photos she took from the house on her trips to Baez's ofice.

To my kge, the benefactor is not paying Joe T. He will get his money wherever he can. I'm betting he contracted a deal. There was a reason for the house tour and the infant pics. They were new and I'm betting they were licensed and subsequently paid for.

 

[vlpate]

I don't know if she's guilty or innocent. The only thing that gives me pause from yesterday is if in fact it's the truth that she didn't tell LE about the drinking. That's a problem for me.

This stuff about the lights is semantics to me IMO.

Here's why it's important - if it were true that she left the lights on (something she doesn't remember) - the absurdness of an intruder turning on "all" the lights would go away. Hmmm, it would make more sense that the lights were already on.

Strike one doubt from the intruder absurdity side!

Add one doubt to mommy did it!

She and Tac, IMO, intended for us to believe it was just semantics - that WE misheard and exaggerated.

They've got to get up way earlier in the morning to pull that off up in heyah.

Of course they are appealing to the audience waiting for Maury Pauvich to come on. Not that there's anything wrong with a show dedicated to helping confused women figure out who their baby daddy is Actually, I can easily see DB on a show like this - not sure why, I just can.

 

[melissasmom]

Here's why it's important - if it were true that she left the lights on (something she doesn't remember) - the absurdness of an intruder turning on "all" the lights would go away. Hmmm, it would make more sense that the lights were already on.

Strike one doubt from the intruder absurdity side!

Add one doubt to mommy did it!

She and Tac, IMO, intended for us to believe it was just semantics - that WE misheard and exaggerated.

They've got to get up way earlier in the morning to pull that off up in heyah.

Of course they are appealing to the audience waiting for Maury Pauvich to come on. Not that there's anything wrong with a show dedicated to helping confused women figure out who their baby daddy is Actually, I can easily see DB on a show like this - not sure why, I just can.

O/T I think there may be something wrong with the people who find it entertaining though.
hehe

 

[norest4thewicked]

Glad the debate today was cordial and civil. And in the end everyone wants one thing. Hopefully that happens sooner than later.

Enjoy the game.

We have food in the kitchen, cat has been fed, I'm still recovering from sicky sick, so have an excuse to be in the recliner all wrapped up cozy in a blanket with my laptop on my lap. Talked or texted with all my kids today and got to video chat with my little grandson who turned 2 today. (He's several states away.) Life is good. I wish so much that Lisa's family could be having a wonderful family day with Lisa right in the middle of everything.

 

[vlpate]

Why is this discussion of fence sitters even happening? This is about the case not individual posters who are being labeled and singled out. Shameful tactics. Let's get back to the issue at hand.

Being a fence sitter just means they are looking at both sides - many posters admit to being fence sitters - look, we even have a smiley for it :fence:

It's not a bad name - but curious, what tactics??

 

[norest4thewicked]

Why is this discussion of fence sitters even happening? This is about the case not individual posters who are being labeled and singled out. Shameful tactics. Let's get back to the issue at hand.

Hey...no need to try to stir the pot. We are all friends here. Not saying you singled me out personally, but just making it clear that we got past that and it actually brought out some really good and honest reasoning. I never singled anyone out, and, if you think that "fence sitter" is a shameful term, then I must let you know that I don't consider you a fence sitter at all... Just bringing that out in the open.

 

[Sparklin]

But, Sparklin, the thing is, they made it sound on Dr. Phil that they were addressing a perceived "inconsistency" in the public arena - a discrepancy between Deb's account and Jeremy's account. There wasn't any such inconsistency floating about in the public that I know of - they seemed to be in perfect agreement about the lights until yesterday.

So what inconsistency were they addressing? IMO, they weren't - the inconsistency wasn't created until Deb gave the new version of the story. That was the reason that question was asked, to provide them the opportunity to do just what they did - change the narrative and couch it as a response to a perceived inconsistency that didn't even exist, IMO.

Again, I feel if Jeremy is as obsessive about the lights as Deb claims, and if she truly left those lights on every night, that might've pissed him off to the point he'd mention it to her when he woke her, but why would he claim it as an unusual, weird thing in interviews? It just doesn't compute for me.

I'm sorry to belabor these points. I just feel they're very important to keep in mind.

It would be unusual to Jeremy if he was the one turning lights off before bed. I believe the issue was brought up because although it was unusual to Jeremy that so many lights were on - to us it was unusual that a stranger turned all the lights on when they stole Lisa. Some people were asking how it could be that a stranger went in and turned every light on ... she was just clarifying (in my opinion) that ALL the lights were not on and the house was not lit up like a Christmas tree!!

 

[redheadedgal]

One cadaver hit should put some question, at least, in their minds that there was a recent dead body in the house...

How many parents of a missing child of recent date hired a high-profile defense attorney with two days were found to be innocent of the crime?

add to this my question from the cadaver dog thread (which still has gotten no response):

how many missing "abducted" children have been found alive after a cadaver dog "hit" at the home?

 

[Sparklin]

No room for logic when you are operating on emotions. It has been mentioned by very intelligent people in the media who have studied logic that hey are lying. It has been reasoned by very logical and experienced people in the media that they are hiding something...probably a death. Yet some people's minds do not work like that. They refuse to go in that direction. They need to see things is black and white and will not come to a conclusion on something they can't physically see.

Informing people on the rules of Deduction doesn't work...or so it seems.

I'm only looking at this case logically. It does NOT make logical sense to me, time wise, energy wise and emotional wise that Deb and/or Jeremy did anything to their daughter. It makes more logical sense to me that someone entered the house and took Lisa.

I don't think it's fair to insult people or make them feel inferior just because they logically see things differently than you do.

 

[Sherbie]

It would be unusual to Jeremy if he was the one turning lights off before bed. I believe the issue was brought up because although it was unusual to Jeremy that so many lights were on - to us it was unusual that a stranger turned all the lights on when they stole Lisa. Some people were asking how it could be that a stranger went in and turned every light on ... she was just clarifying (in my opinion) that ALL the lights were not on and the house was not lit up like a Christmas tree!!

Could I ask why you think it would be unusual to Jeremy to be the one turning the lights off? Deb said on the show that she always leaves those same lights on and that Jeremy is always going behind her, complaining and turning them off. Sounds to me like it might be more unusual for him not to have to turn the lights off behind her. JMO.