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

[Whisperer]

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.

From what I observed in this country, the benefit of the doubt appears to always be in effect when it comes to babies and such. Many mothers and some fathers get away with murdering their young. I don't know why but sentences appear to be lighter, if at all, when it comes to newborns. Maybe the jail time increases as the age increases.

We are far too lenient and not able to interrogate the parent/s to get to the truth. We are getting more and more liberal with the perps, as many more are getting rid of children. The defense attorneys jump in immediately to shut the questioning down. Where is the justice for these babies? I'd say there ought to be a law but we have too many d#$n laws and that's the problem.

 

[Donjeta]

If he's always going two steps behind her and turning off the lights it seems to me that he'd be more likely to sigh and think to himself, "here we go again, why can't she ever turn those darn lights off", rather than, "hey, the lights are on, how unusual".

 

[highflyer]

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??

Right. Let's return to the case, shall we?

 

[Sparklin]

The problem with that is that to people who like fence sitting, nothing is ever proven to them. Even with the CA case, even though she was found not guilty of killing Caylee, most of us believe that she did. However, there were obviously at least 12 people who believed she didn't.

Please don't take this as being snarky, but you can't really consider yourself a true fence sitter if you feel she is not guilty and are just waiting to see if she is proven to be guilty. The difference between you and I is that I believe DB is guilty. I admit to thinking that she is guilty. But, if they are able to find a person who confesses to having taken Lisa, or if Lisa comes home in some way, I will happily and gratefully admit I was wrong.

#2bbm = I admit to thinking that she is not guilty. And like you, if that is proven false, I will happily jump on the<modsnip>... I will be disgusted and angry and sad, but at this moment, I totally do not see it as a possibility.

 

[nursebeeme]

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>

mod note:

Yes, please knock it off with the snark and discussing other posters. Everyone has their right to their own opinion. Multiple warnings have been given

 

[hambirg]

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.

But this isn't a court of law. If I was on a jury and this was all the evidence presented I would have to find them not guilty. But I suspect that there is much that LE hasn't shared with the public.

This isn't any different than the Ayla Reynolds case. Many posters felt suspicious of JD for many valid reasons. There were posters that still were on the fence about him. . . for reasons like he smiled when he talked about Ayla. Now we learned about the blood evidence. . .and many people fell off the fence. That was only revealed because there was a leak. If we never heard about it, many would still be on the fence and those that weren't would be hearing about how there is no evidence against him. . .regardless of all the things that appear hinky to those of us that suspected him. I feel the same here. We do not know what LE knows. We can't say there isn't more evidence. . .there might be some very compelling evidence. There might be NO evidence of an intruder. . .just like in Ayla's case. LE just isn't sharing any of that. But we can judge by their behavior who their number one suspect is, can't we?

I have heard for months now DB probably did tell LE about the drinking, even though we didn't know for sure. Many of us suspected that she didn't because of what we heard about LE finding the receipt that led them to Festival Foods. Now we know for certain, from DB herself, that she didn't reveal that she was drinking to LE until she was confronted with it. How does that make the posters that defended her feel? They were wrong. She hid that from LE until she could hide it no more.

People want to talk about accusing people without evidence, but isn't that what they are doing with Jersey? He was definitely on my radar too, until LE said they have looked at him, he cooperated and they have moved on. But yet some people keep offering him up as a possible perp. Not only is there no evidence to support that. . .but LE has basically said there is no evidence to support that. I would bet my last paycheck that LE knows he has an airtight alibi, never found his fingerprints or DNA in the house.

Same with the one dog hit. We know about it because LE used it to get a search warrant. You can't assume there weren't more, or that this one wasn't backed up. Why do you think LE took those 7 items that were inventoried on the search warrant? Just because? We don't know about anything taken out of the DiPietro house in the Ayla Reynold's case. Does that mean that LE didn't find any evidence of a crime there? Now we know they have. See how that works?

 

[Whisperer]

#2bbm = I admit to thinking that she is not guilty. And like you, if that is proven false, I will happily jump on the bash Deb fest... I will be disgusted and angry and sad, but at this moment, I totally do not see it as a possibility.

Not even possible? Yet the stats say that over 95% of the time, the parent is the one found when a baby under one year is harmed. Yet people question our belief that one or both parents may have harmed Lisa?

I get it...some are going for the less than 5% chance that they didn't harm her, but to not even entertain the fact that she could be a suspect just doesn't compute. To say it is totally not a possibility is concerning.

 

[nursebeeme]

ALSO: please knock off the talk about fencesitting.

 

[Ninja Bunny]

I watched the show with two other people and all of us were shaking our heads because we think that Debbie is not being honest about the severity of her drinking.

She said the drinking had nothing to do with it; I'd like a drunk driver try to get that one past a cop. She was impaired for much of the evening which is no condition to take care of children by herself and contrary to her insistence otherwise, in my book that makes her neglectful. She also said she was on anti-depressant and/or anti-anxiety medication that night and claims that it didn't interact with the alcohol. Uh, if there's that kind of medication in the body, it interacted with the alcohol. She's in real denial about this and I wish Dr. Phil had called her on it.

As mentioned upthread, her interview came off as petulant and ME ME ME, and I agree. It appeared to me she's more interested in her own image - nice makeover, by the way - than anything else. All three of us were disgusted by her.

ETA: After a few months I'm a little more inclined to think that a stranger did take Lisa but Debbie was too incapacitated to notice much less do anything about it. However the "grieving" comment and the statement about not looking behind the house because of being "afraid" of what she might find still stick out.

I'm not an expert, but watching the body language it looked to me that Jeremy knows something about Debbie that he's hiding and he's deeply uncomforatable with it but doesn't want to tell. He was closed up on himself while Debbie's hand was on him. I don't remember him ever reaching out to her.

 

[norest4thewicked]

But this isn't a court of law. If I was on a jury and this was all the evidence presented I would have to find them not guilty. But I suspect that there is much that LE hasn't shared with the public.

This isn't any different than the Ayla Reynolds case. Many posters felt suspicious of JD for many valid reasons. There were posters that still were on the fence about him. . . for reasons like he smiled when he talked about Ayla. Now we learned about the blood evidence. . .and many people fell off the fence. That was only revealed because there was a leak. If we never heard about it, many would still be on the fence and those that weren't would be hearing about how there is no evidence against him. . .regardless of all the things that appear hinky to those of us that suspected him. I feel the same here. We do not know what LE knows. We can't say there isn't more evidence. . .there might be some very compelling evidence. There might be NO evidence of an intruder. . .just like in Ayla's case. LE just isn't sharing any of that. But we can judge by their behavior who their number one suspect is, can't we?

I have heard for months now DB probably did tell LE about the drinking, even though we didn't know for sure. Many of us suspected that she didn't because of what we heard about LE finding the receipt that led them to Festival Foods. Now we know for certain, from DB herself, that she didn't reveal that she was drinking to LE until she was confronted with it. How does that make the posters that defended her feel? They were wrong. She hid that from LE until she could hide it no more.

People want to talk about accusing people without evidence, but isn't that what they are doing with Jersey? He was definitely on my radar too, until LE said they have looked at him, he cooperated and they have moved on. But yet some people keep offering him up as a possible perp. Not only is there no evidence to support that. . .but LE has basically said there is no evidence to support that. I would bet my last paycheck that LE knows he has an airtight alibi, never found his fingerprints or DNA in the house.

Same with the one dog hit. We know about it because LE used it to get a search warrant. You can't assume there weren't more, or that this one wasn't backed up. Why do you think LE took those 7 items that were inventoried on the search warrant? Just because? We don't know about anything taken out of the DiPietro house in the Ayla Reynold's case. Does that mean that LE didn't find any evidence of a crime there? Now we know they have. See how that works?

Great points all!!!

 

[melissasmom]

[/B]

Not even possible? Yet the stats say that over 95% of the time, the parent is the one found when a baby under one year is harmed. Yet people question our belief that one or both parents may have harmed Lisa?

I get it...some are going for the less than 5% chance that they didn't harm her, but to not even entertain the fact that she could be a suspect just doesn't compute. To say it is totally not a possibility is concerning.

I have seen people here say that they are not convinced DB had anything to do with it, but I don't think I have seen anyone state 100%, no way possible that DB has involvement. Though I MAY have missed a post or two.

 

[vlpate]

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.

As much as I respect and appreciate Jim S., I really doubt he would be given such information. Seriously, who is going to tell a reporter this? Deborah? Ohhhhh :what:

 

[nursebeeme]

This thread is closing as the show is over. Please spread out to appropriate topic threads and remember the rules.

 

[beach]

Bumping for reference.

 

[nursebeeme]

PLEASE THANK THIS POST BEFORE POSTING

The Lisa Irwin forum appears to be made up of cliques. You know, the type you have in high school before you begin to understand that there are a lot of interesting people and places in the world and your fear of such limits the personal boundaries you set for yourself. The disrespect between the two cliques is tiresome.


That being said, we need another review of the rules (which is really just a curtesy as everyone should know them or how to find and read them by now): This is NOT hard. Post YOUR thoughts, theories and interpretations (easy enough right?). Read the thoughts of others (not hard). Respond to those that may be of a like mind (okay, that should work). If you disagree with another poster and cannot post nicely, MOVE PAST THEIR POST (how hard is that?) If another poster gets under your skin, PUT THEM ON IGNORE (only takes about a minute). If you must refute their post - then use a link and state the fact as YOU see it (you all know this case, it can't be that hard). THEN DROP IT! That's it. See, not hard. If a post offends you, ALERT it, DO NOT RESPOND TO IT, and MOVE ON. It is okay to disagree, but it is NOT OKAY to attack or make fun of others. AND THE SNARK...well, that needs to just STOP.



It is our hope this gets the message across. There are many good posters here and no matter what opinion we may hold on who we feel is responsible we all are here for Lisa Irwin and want her to come home safely and soon.

Thanks so much,

The Lisa Irwin forum moderators