Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by mcsandy


transcripts.cnn.com...

In the above Nancy Grace show hosted by JVM states the homeless Jersey is in jail.....so I think there is only one.

This interview also states (from an unidentified woman whom I believe is a producer of the NG show) that DB had MWright's number on her hand and it was shown to the detectives because it was a phone call she had recieved on the one of the phones that were stolen. HMMMM......first I have heard of this.

reply to post by Dav1d


I am incorrect in being perplexed....that is very correct!!

I have heard of a black and white guy name Jersey just not the same legal name. I was stating that it is or isn't - just displaying what I have read and interpret.

I also THINK that the KCPD may say that both have been cleared - to me this is a smoke screen and could possibly be a ploy to lead Stanton down other roads because the KCPD aren't sharing info with the detective. Maybe they don't want Stanton mucking up the investigation that very well may turn into a trial. MAYBE their motive is to state they are cleared so the media doesn't "go down that preverbial road."

reply to post by gabby2011


Actually I would think that any person with the ability to speak and have mental recall should be questioned....if my child were missing and another child that was around at the time in question I would want a child psychologist or other person with the expert "know how" to question the child. It probably already has been done. Since she is young it makes since that nothing would be said to protect her. The 4 yr old could corroborate on if the baby was there- was baby Lisa playing with you - was baby Lisa sick or crying a lot - did you see lots of mommy's friends at "aunt Debbie's" house - did you have fun at the party that you and your mommy went to - did you play videos with D & J's sons? Those type questions could shed light without duress or harm. I am a mother a two and my youngest is 3. She is very intelligent and has tremendous recall abilities.

I would also think that Brando would allow this line of questioning in efforts to find her friends missing toddler. I would.

Originally posted by mcsandy
reply to post by gabby2011

 

Actually I would think that any person with the ability to speak and have mental recall should be questioned....if my child were missing and another child that was around at the time in question I would want a child psychologist or other person with the expert "know how" to question the child. It probably already has been done. Since she is young it makes since that nothing would be said to protect her. The 4 yr old could corroborate on if the baby was there- was baby Lisa playing with you - was baby Lisa sick or crying a lot - did you see lots of mommy's friends at "aunt Debbie's" house - did you have fun at the party that you and your mommy went to - did you play videos with D & J's sons? Those type questions could shed light without duress or harm. I am a mother a two and my youngest is 3. She is very intelligent and has tremendous recall abilities.

I would also think that Brando would allow this line of questioning in efforts to find her friends missing toddler. I would.

well..I guess there might be some type of info that would be useful that a 4 year old could give...not sure how it would stand up in court though...but anything that helps get closer to the truth has got to be considered useful.

The thought of a 4 year old being questioned..doesn't sit to well with me, but I would hope they have some very good people to do that, although I have seen video of police questioning young children ,and they were older than 4 that I wasn't impressed with how it went down at all. These "professionals" were obviously guilty of leading the child into the answers he gave.

Just because they have so called"professionals" to do those interviews..certainly doesn't say that it is always done correctly. That goes to say for any type 'professionals" whether they be leos, lawyers, psychologists testifying, etc.

Profiler and Author Pat Brown now reports that she has confirmation that Deborah Bradley was at home when that call was made to Megan Wright's phone, from Deborah Bradley's phone, in a likely attempt to reach "Jersey".

Profiler and Author Pat Brown now reports that she has confirmation that Deborah Bradley was at home when that call was made to Megan Wright's phone, from Deborah Bradley's phone, in a likely attempt to reach "Jersey".

Did he assist her in removing the body? Did he show up at the sensitive time of 10:30PM? This is the time that Deborah Bradley mentioned originally.


Why are we suggesting that baby Lisa may have passed? Because we know that DB is being deceptive and 'she is grieving.' It is apparent she has lied about the phones, with held facts that she was drunk and the timing of the events of her daughters sleeping/and when she saw her last. Joe T - atty - has said the exact phrase that they were grieving as well on Good Mornin America.

Pat Brown has reported that the call to Megan Wright, MAY be trying to reach Jersey, at 8:30PM

.

The neighbor left to go buy liquor at 8....did she go to inform JI, did she go to buy baby medicine, did she go to try and find the wandering homeless man, did she totally leave so that she was not apart of whatever was about to go down????

Could she (db) have been simply reaching out to him to party? Sexual encounter?


Was this the man of whom Jeremy Irwin referenced when he said that "someone who cheated on her husband" would do this?

That statement was given to Jeanine Piro when she asked JI - who would take your daughter? I find it an extrememly awkward answer; being a mother myselt.

reply to post by mcsandy


What I was attempting to state is:
There are two people with an alias of Jersey, they have different given names. These two people are both in jail. One in federal, one in county. It is likely, the finger will be pointed at Tanko, by the defense, unless they do sufficient research. It's also possible that the finger will be point at him simply to create doubt.

If you go back and listen to what Deborah has actually said, not what a talking head has claimed she said, she has repeatedly stated their three phones were taken and ONE didn't even work.

reply to post by Dav1d


Fair enough...Am I now to believe ...

The intruder/kidnapper:

1. Snuck into the house between 8:00 and 8:30...while children are still up watching movies with Mom and friend on porch.

2. Made a 50 second phone call to MW's phone.

3. Hung around and waited till DB went to bed at 10:30...then hung around till around 12:00 to kidnap the baby (as that's around the time of the first sighting of mystery man and baby).

4. Proceeded to wander the area with said baby till 4:00 am.

That is If I am to believe DB is not involved. Do nappers usually spend 3 1/2 hours....( per call to MW and 1rst sighting of mystery man and baby)... make random calls to MW...wait around crime scene...before "STEALING" a baby?

Originally posted by blahandblahandyadayada2
reply to post by Dav1d

 

Fair enough...Am I now to believe ...

The intruder/kidnapper:

1. Snuck into the house between 8:00 and 8:30...while children are still up watching movies with Mom and friend on porch.

2. Made a 50 second phone call to MW's phone.

3. Hung around and waited till DB went to bed at 10:30...then hung around till around 12:00 to kidnap the baby (as that's around the time of the first sighting of mystery man and baby).

4. Proceeded to wander the area with said baby till 4:00 am.

That is If I am to believe DB is not involved. Do nappers usually spend 3 1/2 hours....( per call to MW and 1rst sighting of mystery man and baby)... make random calls to MW...wait around crime scene...before "STEALING" a baby?

Don't forget that the family's black lab didn't bark either. Strange how people don't see the significance of that. Deborah herself stated in one of the first interviews on national TV (one of those channels that pays handsomly for interviews) that the dog didn't bark. She also stated that it would bark at strangers or if there was something unusual going on.

No barking means no stranger, no intruder, no kidnapper, nothing unusual going on. No barking means Deborah Bradley and/or Jeremy Irwing was responsible for Lisa's disappearance. And they sure haven't made much of an effort to search for her or cooperate with LE, have they?

This is not hard to figure out.

Originally posted by mcsandy
reply to post by gabby2011

 

. Since she is young it makes since that nothing would be said to protect her.

I meant that since she is young nothing would be said to HARM her. I was thinking they would protect her emotionally and my fingers were typing my concious vs. what I was thinking!!

reply to post by InsideOfItAll

No barking means no stranger, no intruder, no kidnapper, nothing unusual going on. No barking means Deborah Bradley and/or Jeremy Irwing was responsible for Lisa's disappearance. And they sure haven't made much of an effort to search for her or cooperate with LE, have they?

Really now? How presumptuous . It could have been a friend that was there earlier who came back.. it could have been someone who came around to the Irwin home, and the dog knew who it was..

Dogs do sleep ,don't they?

I think that there was a call placed on Debbie's phone to someone that could have come over after Debbie was asleep.

The dog not barking DOES not prove it was the parents, and that is just silly to assume that it is.

reply to post by gabby2011


I haven't seen such video and if that is the case; yes I concede that no it would not be a good thing to question a 4yr old. I find it interesting that now we have 2 mothers getting drunk while their children are doing what? and it seems that there hasn't been any details offered of what was going on wtih the children other than DB to say the boys were playing video games and she had checked on them at some time and told them they could get into her bed to sleep. What was the 4 yr old doing.....which now I have to ask was the neighbor even there?

ONE thing that rings in my head that DB and JI are concealing the actual truth is JI's statement to Piro of Fox after she asked the question who could have done this and his answer was.....someone who cheated on her husband!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTH???? Who says this? He did stall out on the statement which is testimony that his concious answered before he could strategically compose an answer. I find that one statement is enough to solely look at them and try to tie every aspect to a scenario of homicide, hampering an investigation, concealing evidence, etc. .

Of course I want this NOT to be true and somehow she was kidnapped to be someone else's or sold to a desperate couple....the latter would be better than the probable reality.

Originally posted by gabby2011
Really now? How presumptuous . It could have been a friend that was there earlier who came back.. it could have been someone who came around to the Irwin home, and the dog knew who it was..

Someone entering through a window after the family went to bed, then stealing baby Lisa with him/her/them, while also stealing 3 cell phones and also, for some unexplainable reason, turning on almost all lights in the house...

You seriously don't think the family dog would have reacted at all to this? This would somehow have been a completely normal routine for the dog? That does not make any sense at all. Even if the dog knew this imaginary kidnapper, it does not make any sense. And usually when things don't make any sense at all, they are not true.

The parents are responsible for Lisa's disappearance.

Originally posted by mcsandy
reply to post by gabby2011

 

I haven't seen such video and if that is the case; yes I concede that no it would not be a good thing to question a 4yr old. I find it interesting that now we have 2 mothers getting drunk while their children are doing what? and it seems that there hasn't been any details offered of what was going on wtih the children other than DB to say the boys were playing video games and she had checked on them at some time and told them they could get into her bed to sleep. What was the 4 yr old doing.....which now I have to ask was the neighbor even there?

edit on 2-11-2011 by mcsandy because: (no reason given)

All good questions, which I'm sure have been asked by the police.

There is no doubt that the mothers did not make a good choice to drink while children were under their care.

I think we can all agree that was just a stupid thing to do..,, but it doesn't make them guilty of harming the child and disposing of it.

You are spinning a lot of questions, like others have..as well as myself.. and I'm sure there are reasonable answers to them....that we just don't know yet.

Until actual proof comes out that Debbie did cover up something about the baby, I will not let myself start pointing a finger of guilt and judgement towards her , though in the end she could be guilty of much more than letting herself get drunk, while being responsible for children.

Until the time comes that they can prove it, I won't jump on the bandwagon of the public steering things towards her guilt.

I think she is suffering enough already.. without all the judgement and accusations.

reply to post by InsideOfItAll

You seriously don't think the family dog would have reacted at all to this? This would somehow have been a completely normal routine for the dog? That does not make any sense at all. Even if the dog knew this imaginary kidnapper, it does not make any sense. And usually when things don't make any sense at all, they are not true. The parents are responsible for Lisa's disappearance.

Maybe the dog did bark.. and it didn't wake anyone up..

maybe the lights were on before Debbie went to bed?.. maybe the intruder...or late arrival guest.. took the dog outside.. then went back in ? maybe he broke the window then, to make it look like someone had to break in.. instead of just walking through the door?

Its not that cut and dried...and it could make sense within a few different scenarios.

I see you have already passed judgement on the few distorted facts that have been put out there.. already made up your mind..on the little twisted facts of truth we may have.

Hopefully you never get chosen for jury duty on anything.. because you're not the type I'd want to see on a jury.

Originally posted by mcsandy
ONE thing that rings in my head that DB and JI are concealing the actual truth is JI's statement to Piro of Fox after she asked the question who could have done this and his answer was.....someone who cheated on her husband!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTH???? Who says this? He did stall out on the statement which is testimony that his concious answered before he could strategically compose an answer. I find that one statement is enough to solely look at them and try to tie every aspect to a scenario of homicide, hampering an investigation, concealing evidence, etc. .

Of course I want this NOT to be true and somehow she was kidnapped to be someone else's or sold to a desperate couple....the latter would be better than the probable reality.

How do you know he didn't mean the neighbor?

Why do you jump to the conclusion that he was talking about Debbie?

Maybe the neighbor used the phone to call someone to come over.. maybe she left with that someone and her daughter, when Debbie decided to go to bed, or Debbie decided to go to bed, and assumed the neighbor would lock up before she left... maybe who ever the neighbor called showed up later?

To say that it would be better she be sold to a desperate couple is pretty sad..

Who knows maybe some on this thread knows exactly how it went down and why... and are trying to point the finger at others, so they don't draw heat to their own guilt?

Hows that for assumption , and weaving a story?

Only problem is.. as far fetched as that assumption is, it could actually be true.

Originally posted by gabby2011
I see you have already passed judgement on the few distorted facts that have been put out there.. already made up your mind..on the little twisted facts of truth we may have.

No "distorted" facts. Just facts, and the facts about the dog have been provided by Deborah Bradley herself. Are you suggesting that Deborah Bradley has twisted or distorted the facts?

You really should pay more attention to the details in this case. You could learn a lot from it.

reply to post by InsideOfItAll

No "distorted" facts. Just facts, and the facts about the dog have been provided by Deborah Bradley herself. Are you suggesting that Deborah Bradley has twisted or distorted the facts?

I am suggesting that Debbie was in no way shape or form mentally aware enough to know if a dog did or didn't bark.. She was passed out in her bed..

Even deep sleepers who aren't drunk can't give you "accurate" facts of what may or may not have happened while they are sleeping

You really should pay more attention to the details in this case. You could learn a lot from it.

You mean the details of a woman who has confessed she was drunk, and was sleeping?

Do you mean the details that have been put out there, then taken back..

The only details I am concerned with are the ones that can reasonably be proven true.

There is no way the dog barking one can be proven..

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by InsideOfItAll

 

No "distorted" facts. Just facts, and the facts about the dog have been provided by Deborah Bradley herself. Are you suggesting that Deborah Bradley has twisted or distorted the facts?

I am suggesting that Debbie was in no way shape or form mentally aware enough to know if a dog did or didn't bark.. She was passed out in her bed..

Even deep sleepers who aren't drunk can't give you "accurate" facts of what may or may not have happened while they are sleeping

If Deborah was in no shape to know if the dog barked or not, then she was obviosly lying when she stated in a TV interview that the lab did not bark, wasn't she? And if she lied about the dog, then we can agree that Deborah is a liar. And since she is a liar, why should we take anything she says as the truth?

Her 10 month old baby daughter is missing, and Deborah is perhaps lying about the dog, she has changed her story several times about what happened that night, where the boys slept, there was a stray kitten which has not been mentioned again, she has given different accounts on when she last saw Lisa.... And these ever changing stories will help LE find Lisa... how?

Lisa? Lisa who..?