Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by schmae

"[She disappeared] between the time she went to bed and time I went to bed," she said through tears. "I gave her her bottle and put her to sleep, and that was the last when we last saw her." '''

So she's changed her story again? Is this after counsel? Or a report from before? Let me go look, I'm not doubting your news story but if this is after counsel they must be laying a defense for temporary insanity (end sarcasm) that's just incomprehensible counsel would allow her to change her story yet again!

peace

reply to post by j.r.c.b.

Nope. Neither is the fact that the mom changed her story 5 times now.....They act like they misplaced their keys instead of their child...I got drunk & don't know where my baby is...yeah..o.k....

This is astounding. Now the abduction happened while she was drinking? Between drink one and when she went to bed... Meaning she was (presumably) conscious and coherent at the time but didn't notice someone crawling through the screen - oh wait, that didn't happen. So she didn't notice someone coming in and taking her child??? WHAT?

Tacopina must be prematurely rolling in his grave. Than again he's so greasy he just might have some weird twist up his sleeve.

peace

reply to post by Michelle129th

P.S the whole video is quite interesting. Although it is/can be biased as it is the family's attorney she brings up some good points. As in why the carpeting in the parent's bedroom is still intact if indeed a cadaver dog did hit on a scent in there.

Thanks for the video, interesting listen and it seems to answer that question once and for all about the basement. I can only hope since we never heard anything about the basement we can put that to rest.

About the cadaver dog. I posted a bit back the actually working of the police report. It's my opinion the lawyers for the family are being oily here. I mean think about it. Those SCI workers put in 17 or more hours into searching that house. When the dog 'hit' they would have been all over taking a piece of rug out of the house - we saw them take a whole roll. See what I mean?

Anyway, - back to the wording of the police report.

Here’s the PDF of the original papers. link to pdf

It reads:

On October 17th, 2011 an FBI cadaver dog was brought into the residence upon consent of Irwin and Bradley. The cadaver dog indicated a positive ‘hit’ for the scent of a deceased human in an area of the floor of Bradley’s bedroom near the bed.

(my bold)

We’re talking a seasoned cop here. Why didn’t she indicate specifically the ‘carpet’ or ‘rug’. Because it wasn’t. Because (maybe) it was something else they took with them? Something on the list of items taken from the home?

What was taken from the house?

The clothes, blanket, glow worm toy, etc. Any one of those things could have been on the floor, by the bed in Deborah's room.

Any one of those items could easily have been on the floor area near Bradely’s bed.

If it was in fact the rug the dogs 'hit' on this cop is in some hot water as is the FBI, etc.

Thanks

Will Lisa Irwin's parents ever speak to police again?

Koppelman asked Short about the police assertion that Bradley and Irwin are no longer cooperating with the investigation and have gone silent, refusing to talk to police.

"There's some detectives that really have a broken trust, and so it's going to be counter-productive to try to sit down with those detectives again," Short explained. "So it would be better to bring in some detectives who are fresh-eyed, fresh-eared, to listen to the parents. And the parents, I think, would feel more comfortable and less afraid."

What a crock. If your innocent - and your a parent - and your baby is still missing - NOTHING should matter but that child. Forget waiting for the kid-gloves and patty cake! Get on with it!

peace

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by schmae

 

"[She disappeared] between the time she went to bed and time I went to bed," she said through tears. "I gave her her bottle and put her to sleep, and that was the last when we last saw her." '''

So she's changed her story again? Is this after counsel? Or a report from before? Let me go look, I'm not doubting your news story but if this is after counsel they must be laying a defense for temporary insanity (end sarcasm) that's just incomprehensible counsel would allow her to change her story yet again!

peace

I don't think any counsel is able to control DB. She likes the attention from the media too much, at least the big media actors who can pay up some nice piles of money for interviews (barf), and I think she is way, WAY too stupid to realize that in order to maintain some sort of credibility, she has to stick to one version of the tall tale she is telling. Nah, she just makes it up as she goes along and sheds a few crocodile tears for the cameras on demand.

Keep on talking, DB, your lies become more and more obvious every time you open your mouth.

reply to post by InsideOfItAll

I can't imagine what Tacopina is thinking. I'm sure he finds it a challenge - how he'll weasel out of this one - but still. For Deborah to imply - well - more than imply - to come right out and say the baby was taken while she was coherent - is mind blowing. Unless she's thinking in her own twisted way this removes her from any guilt at all? Removes the stigma of her being drunk? Maybe that's it???

I'm looking forward to how Tacopia is going to spin this one.

Thanks

I can't with 100% clarity say what I would or wouldn't talk to police about at this point. She's obviously got to know she is the prime suspect in this case and is probably crapping her pants that anything she says will show her guilt or will be twisted to make her seem guilty whichever is the case. I'm betting her lawyers have told her to be quiet on this. Especially since she was admittedly drunk to the point she can't remember many things I feel she is just spewing stuff now that may or may not even be true, which is not only looking bad for her but hampering this case completely.

However having said that...we're only able to go by what the msm is reporting so can't even be sure any of it is true. We'll have to wait for the police to do a release or statement or something to see which of the stories we've heard about the timeline is correct. the latest "disappearing between the time I put her down and when I went to bed" certainly does change everything, including the eyewitnesses that saw a man in the neighbourhood.

what I wonder is, if you were that man carting your child through that neighbourhood that night (totally innocent, perhaps got home late from an outing or trip and carrying baby inside) I'd think you'd want to clear that up with police. If there was a child missing in my area and I had for whatever insane reason been carrying one of my kids down the road at an ungodly hour, I'd for sure call police and explain that I was doing just that. So either 3 eyewitnesses are crazy and out for their own 15mins of fame, or this guy is extremely suspicious.

Guess we'll see in the coming days

Oh and wanted to add since I can't actually find it for myself...have the police themselves ever clarified the cadaver dog's findings or that there was one even used? Or was the cadaver dog story released from the media only?

Michelle

reply to post by gabby2011

If you were being treated like you were guilty, cornered in a room.. and told you failed a lie detector test..would you be anxious to go talk to them?

Actually, I would be relentlessly nagging and banging on their door INSISTING that they talk to me. So that I could EXPLAIN and DEFEND myself.
If some cop or detective called me a liar, and accused me of killing my baby, and I did NOT do it, and I was NOT lying, I would be furious. And considering my child is missing (in this hypothetical scenario), I would be LIVID that they were not out there using every available resource and then some...
Mama Bear thing, you know?

My child is missing and in danger? NO ONE is going to intimidate me. Nobody. I am a well-mannered person, but you rankle me by hurting one of my kids and ALL BETS are OFF. I will not hold back.

reply to post by InsideOfItAll


''I don't think any counsel is able to control DB.''
I totally agree. I think she feels 100% she 'll never be charged with anything and is raking in all the cash she can in the mean time. I wonder how much $$ she has made since baby LISA disappeared

reply to post by Michelle129th


It is int he search warrant. It says cadaver dog ' hit' on something on the floor of the parent's bedroom.
So yes. Some are speculating the police are lying about this? I think her lawyer , also, is saying it is not true. But it IS in the search warrant.

reply to post by schmae

anxiety meds ( which i think ALL prescriptions warn of dire consequences if you drink on them)

Incorrect, schmae. SOME anti-anxiety meds, like Valium and Xanax, are benzodiazapines. They are dangerous if taken with alcohol, and can in fact be deadly. (This goes for pain-killers that are opioid analgesics as well -- like Oxycodone).

Other drugs used for anxiety (and depression) are Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors ("SSRI"s), and alcohol does not synergize with them. It very much depends on WHAT medicine(s) she was taking whether the wine would have a complex effect or not. In some people, SSRIs can cause drowsiness. In others, they don't. But they aren't reactive with alcohol per se.

Having said that, a simple anthistamine (Benadryl) is also dangerous with alcohol. Silo is right, we need to know what meds are being taken to know if that's a factor or not.

reply to post by Michelle129th

Oh and wanted to add since I can't actually find it for myself...have the police themselves ever clarified the cadaver dog's findings or that there was one even used? Or was the cadaver dog story released from the media only?

If you read up just a few posts on this page you'll find a PDF link to the actual police reports and a quote from the officer who was there.

peace

reply to post by wildtimes


I don't know a lot about meds because I don't take any. So your post is useful to me. That being said any p ill will ALTER you in some way. It changes your demeanor / disposition sometimes a lot , sometimes a little. So still I would want to know what med she took with it. If its' an SSRI, then the alcohol didnt' AMPLIFY the meds or vice versa, but she would still be under 2 sorts of alterations. Also, I do know that how long you've been taking a med matters. When you first start them they can make your symptoms worse for a few to several weeks before you 'stabilize'. So I wonder has sh taken them a long timeor short time !

reply to post by schmae


SSRI medications do not make one feel "altered". They take a couple of weeks to have full effect, and after a while, they become a little less useful. Therefore, doses are increased when the effect of anti-depression and anti-anxiety become less.

Many, many people are reluctant to use SSRI meds, who could greatly benefit from them. They in no way make you feel "spaced out" or "woozy" or "confused" or "airheaded" or "zombie-like" or "altered" or "uninhibited" or any of those nasty "altered" states of mind. They also don't make you feel like a super-hero or that you can fly.

What they do is lift the depression by increasing the brain's production of seratonin. The only noticeable affect is that you feel calmer, and less depressed and anxious. No "psychedelic" effect whatsoever.

And they don't make you feel worse at first, they just don't do anything at first. You have to let your system build up a certain level of them.

Benzos work in a completely different way, and they DO make you feel altered, however. Sleepy, relaxed, carefree. And they wear off quickly. They are prescribed on an AS-NEEDED basis, where an SSRI is prescribed at a daily dosage.

I have taken an SSRI for nearly 20 years. The longer I've been on it, the better I've done. The couple of times I went off of it for any length of time I succumbed to the depression and anxiety again. Got back on them and now doing just fine. One mistake that people make is when they begin to feel better on SSRIs, they think "I'm better, I can quit taking them now." Not necessarily!!! If your problem is insufficient seratonin being produced by your brain, you will go back down.

If, however, it was an "adjustment disorder", like a life-crisis that has been resolved or is now past and no longer traumatizing (grief, divorce, etc), one can stop using SSRIs with no problem.

Off topic, but thought it might help the "analysis" of Deborah we are engaging in. In my professional opinion, if she was using anti-anxiety meds (such as Xanax or Valium -- a benzo) she would have known that DRINKING is DANGEROUS with them. If she was using SSRIs, she could very well have been able to drink without worry.

SO -- the fact that she was DRINKING EXCESSIVELY -- whether or not she is on meds -- while 3 children were under her care and supervision is very BAD behavior. And in my opinion, inexcusable.

BTW, does anyone know if those boys are hers or Jeremy's? I'm not clear on that one.

reply to post by schmae

When you first start them they can make your symptoms worse for a few to several weeks before you 'stabilize'. So I wonder has sh taken them a long timeor short time !

Exactly. I was reading up on some anxiety meds and some you have to be on steadily for 6 weeks before you experience any discernible results, others no.

The 'other' problem - as if we don't have enough questions already - medication do not work the same way with everyone. Who knows with Lisa's mother.

Also - were these medication prescribed for postpartum depression?

Just too many questions.

peace

reply to post by wildtimes

Thanks for your post - very informative. Adding your personal testimony was courageous - thank you for sharing.

BTW, does anyone know if those boys are hers or Jeremy's? I'm not clear on that one.

One boy is Deborah's and Sean's - her estranged husband. No they are not divorced and he is in the military.
I believe this boys name is Michael.

The other is a son of Jeremy's past marriage to a woman who all I can find out at this point is in a 'group home' - I'll provide more information on that when I unearth it all. I don't know the name of the boy that is Jeremy's and his ex-wife's. If it's been reported I've missed it but information on the boys is tough to get.

peace

reply to post by wildtimes


Oh I just remembered the drug she was on is EFFEXOR, which one is that of benzo or ssri?
One son is his from a previous relationship , not marriage and one son is hers from a previous relationship or marriage, not sure which. Lisa was the only one that belonged to both Jeremy and Deb.

reply to post by silo13

Exactly. I was reading up on some anxiety meds and some you have to be on steadily for 6 weeks before you experience any discernible results, others no.

The 'other' problem - as if we don't have enough questions already - medication do not work the same way with everyone.

Excellent point...and reminds me of the one time I DID try Xanax for anxiety (prescribed, not off the street). I had HORRIBLE "withdrawal"...that is, while it helped me for immediate control of the anxiety, when it wore off...

I was EXTREMELY irritable. It was awful. I have good self-control, so I was able to not ACT on the vicious mood I had as an "after-effect", but I'm just saying....if I were a violent person, I could have hurt someone easily. I mean, I am talking, I have NEVER, EVER been that hostile and reactive and ready to do violence in my LIFE as I was after taking Xanax. So I stopped using it and haven't touched it since. It was scary.

That said, if Deborah IS using Xanax, and it wore off (a few hours is all it takes) and she got CRANKY like that, I would not be one bit surprised if Lisa's fussiness sent her over the edge and she did get violent with her.
JUST SPECULATING.

reply to post by schmae

EFFEXOR, which one is that of benzo or ssri?

It's an SNRI,

Venlafaxine (brand name: Effexor or Efexor) is an antidepressant of the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) class.[2][3][4] First introduced by Wyeth in 1993, now marketed by Pfizer, it is licensed for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), as a treatment for generalized anxiety disorder, and comorbid indications in certain anxiety disorders with depression. In 2007, venlafaxine was the sixth most commonly prescribed antidepressant on the U.S. retail market, with 17.2 million prescriptions.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...
Very similar to an SSRI. Here are some of the relevant side effects listed with it, althought these particular side-effects were reported by only 1-2% of those using it:

agitation, confusion, abnormal thinking, depersonalization, depression

The entry in Wikipedia also mentions "memory loss".
So, if she succumbed to ANY of those she might well have been under the influence, "Altered", as you said.
Rare, but possible.
And remember, In Vino Veritas....
wine tends to reveal one's real, uninhibited self.

Here is my working theory on what happened that day. I've been reading a lot as we all have and I don't know what my theory may have been before but here is what I think is close to what happened.

Dad goes to work that night. He's leaaving all the kids with Deb. He knows she tends to drink too heavily but other than that shes' a doting mom and loves the kids and tends them well. He says dont' drink too much and I'll be home later. Remember Deb and Jer BOTH assume he will be home around 10 or so pm. So, think about this, any friends/neighbors/potential boogeyman who were CASING or watching the place would have assumed or might have heard that dad will be home at 10 or shortly thereafter!!!!!!!!!!!! Dad goes to work, gets delayed, works much later than thougth and all of this time is confirmed on a video feed from the workplace that shows him working all these hours. So he was indded at work. Dad comes home..........finds one of two things: either deb passed out and Lisa deceased on floor/ in bed or elsewhere ( via accident over medication, accidental dropping, accidental climbing out of her crib herself, who knows) and Deb being completely unaware becasue shes' in a drunken stupor. or B) deb panicky freaking out because of Lisa's death,, again eitehr accidental totally or through negligence or soemthing else. I DO NOT BELIEVE MOM KILLED HER IN A FIT OF RAGE or some other homicidal frenzy
At this point Dad Jeremy has a choice........ : call 911 and report her death and risk potentially losing his other son because of the whole incident, because of drinking or negligence or what not OR help Deb to cover it up in hopes of keeping their other children. Remember they've already lost one child and now because of it could lose their other. I do not think Lisa was alive at all in Jeremy's presence when he came home or she WOULD have been taken to hopsital in hopes of savign her. The only thing that might make him want to help her cover it up is A) he believes it was an accident and B) to keep his other child. How could he lose both children in one night over one incident that is not his fault?
Another option is that Deb has already removed and done something with Lisa and he wants to believe her so badly becaus the alternative is jsut too horrible to think of and again the KEEPING HIS SON thought must be very close to his heart at all times. He wants to believe her an believe it was an accident but the police wi9ll never believe it so why even go there ?
Thoughts?