Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Was Deborah Bradley Really Drunk?

On October 16th, 2011, Deborah Bradley was interviewed by Fox News.  

Media knew to ask her if she was drinking and if she was drunk.  This was shortly after Joe Tacopina took over. 

Was she really drunk?

Statement Analysis is in bold type. 


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST (voice-over): Shocking new developments in the search for missing baby Lisa. As the National Guard is called out to hunt for the missing 11-month-old girl, an adorable child, "People" magazine is reporting tonight that Lisa`s mother was quite possibly in a drunken blackout -- that`s right, a drunken stupor -- the night this beautiful, angelic, precious, helpless child went missing. Is that why the little girl`s mother is now changing her story and changing her time line? 

Originally, Deborah Bradley said she put little Lisa to bed at about 10:30 p.m. But now she is claiming that she actually put Lisa to bed at about 6:40 p.m. Hello. That is a difference of about three hours and 50 minutes. That is huge. What could account for such a wild discrepancy? Could it be that she`s now admitting she probably had more than five glasses of wine that night? 

Deborah is now flat out -- that`s right -- admitting she was drunk that night. Listen to this. 



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you drinking that night?

BRADLEY: Yes. 


Note her answer is verbally "yes" with the realization that "yes or no" questions are the easiest to lie to.  I suspect that it was the attorney for Deborah Bradley who contacted media and told them to ask Bradley if she was drunk.

This may have been done in an attempt to cover her inconsistencies and changing story.  Let's let Bradley speak for herself and listen: 
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How much? 

BRADLEY: Enough to be drunk. 


Note no pronouns.  She did not say who had enough to be drunk.  
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you were drunk? 

BRADLEY: Mm-hmm. 


Note the above question was answered with a "yes" verbalized.  Here, there is even less conviction.  

At no time did I hear Deborah Bradley ever say that she was drunk in this or any other interview.  It is simple to say "I was drunk" using the pronoun "I"; something I did not hear her use. 

"I was drunk the night Lisa went missing" would be reliable, if Deborah Bradley said it, on her own.  

She did not.  
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A lot of people are going to say, "Deborah, you were drunk that night. Is there any chance you did anything to hurt your daughter that you`re just not telling us?" 

BRADLEY: No, no, no. And if I thought there was a chance I would say it. No, no. I don`t think that alcohol changes a person enough to do something like that. 


The denial is sensitive, and she still does not say she was drunk.  
(
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And Deborah also said that during this interrogation, cops used some, well, you might say controversial techniques, in an apparent bid to try to get her to say something. Listen to this from ABC`s "GMA." This is pretty fascinating. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRADLEY: During interrogation we found this. They showed me burnt clothes. She showed me a Doppler thing with pings from a -- that my cell phone. And I`m led to believe at this point that none of that was real. I hope the burnt clothes weren`t real. 

 
MIKE BROOKS, HLN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I`m telling you, what if the house had of caught on fire, Jane? Would she have been able to get her kids out of there? No, absolutely not. 

And, you know, his whole thing today, it was very strange. You first saw Bill Stanton, who is a private investigator from New York, get up there and say, "Well, I`m leaving, but another New Yorker is coming here," and then he introduced Joe Tacopina. It was very, very strange. 

And then, you know, Joe went on to say, also, that the members of law enforcement had been insensitive during interviews of the parents. Well, you know, sometimes you got to play hard ball, if you`re law enforcement, to try to get to the truth. And that`s what it`s all about, Jane. Law enforcement getting to the truth. 

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Absolutely. And again, she is the one who was seen on surveillance video buying the wine, which in and of itself, there`s nothing incriminating about that. But not even two full hours before she allegedly put this helpless, helpless child, 11 months old now, ten months old at the time, to bed, she`s seen on tape buying booze at a local store. O, that happens at around 5 in the evening. 

Listen to this. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REBECCA GUERRERO, SAW MOM AT STORE: They pretty much asked me, you know, if she was depressed, you know. If she seemed depressed. How she acted around the baby. You know, if she, you know, seemed stressed out. Pretty much questions that, you know, would -- I would know because she would talk to me a lot, you know. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what did you tell them?

GUERRERO: I pretty much told them she never looked depressed around me, you know. She always seemed to have a smile on her face when her kids were around. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK, there`s the clerk talking. You can see the boxes of wine behind her. Deborah Bradley purchased one of those boxes of wine at about 5 p.m. Now she is saying that she put her child to sleep at about 6:40 when she had originally said 10:30. It seems that she`s confused about the timeline.

I want to go out to Wendy Walsh, psychologist and the new co-host of "The Doctors." Congratulations on that post, Wendy.

I`ve got to say. I want to emphasize that I have experience with this, and I`m not proud of it. I have the dubious distinction of being an expert in this area because I am a recovering alcoholic. Sixteen years ago when I had my last drink. More than that, actually. It`s coming up on 17 years in April. Knock on wood I make it. One day at a time.



Listen to this from ABC`s "Good Morning America."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRADLEY: "... you failed."

I said, "Failed what? What question did I fail?"

He said, "You failed the one where you know where your daughter`s at."

And I said, `That`s not possible. I don`t know where she`s at.
"

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It seems to me odd, Mike Brooks, that she is the one telling everybody that cops told her she failed a polygraph, because cops refuse to confirm that. They`ve also refused to say that she is a suspect.

What do you make of my theory that possibly the blackout from alcohol could be the reason that she failed the polygraph?

BROOKS: Well it could very well be, Jane. But it also could be an investigative technique, that they`re not getting all the answers that they think they should be getting.

And, you know, we heard Joe Tacopina today say that he didn`t like the way that law enforcement was handling her.

So she`s the one saying that, though. I mean, maybe she did. But they think that she knows where the baby is located, and she`s saying she doesn`t. It could be an investigative technique or she may have actually failed the polygraph. But law enforcement aren`t going to say, "She failed the polygraph." We heard that from their spokesperson. 


If she had blacked out, she would be able to say she does not remember without indicating deception.  Alcohol blackouts mean the memory is not there.  Deception is seen when there is an attempt to deceive.  

If you had no memory of something, you would pass the polygraph because you would not even know if you were deceptive.  



23 comments:

Hobnob said...

I said, "Failed what? What question did I fail?"

Question singular not questions plural?

Lemon said...

I wonder if she's still grieving?

Anonymous said...

She may feel guilty because she was drunk or had been intoxicated to some extent that night. It was reported that a bald man was seen carrying a child down the street with bare arms showing. If that is true, the baby would surely be dead soon enough given the weather situation.

A flop house nearby, druken mom, people popping in and out,...someone drove/walked by and was inquisitive and decided to take it a step further. Either that, or she called someone for assistance if something had happened that she didn't want to own up to.

john said...

How can she fail a polly if she doesnt remember what had happened.???

Florida said...

Good program on Crime Wire last night Peter, which I listened too for the
first time. Prior to this, I wasn't able to log on to Crime Wire. I was
also reading on the chat room throughout the program, although I never got
logged on, that being my own fault.

There were some very argumentative and insulting characters on there who kept
up a dispute with Hobnob and Lemon throughout the chat hour. What their beef is
I don't get, other than being BFF with Deborah Bradley and pure hatred towards
you and the co-host. Must be Deb's drinking buddies. Glad you weren't reading
all that, it might have caused you to lose your train of thought.

As for whether Deborah Bradley was drunk the night baby Lisa went missing; IMO,
yes, I believe she was, or had been, whether she reeked of alcohol or not by the
time LE were called; or whether or not she ever said the precise words
"I was drunk". IMO, she certainly made enough comments that clearly implied
she was drunk before her cockroach lawyer even came on the scene, and being
fully aware that any number of people could have come out and said she was drunk,
so she just went ahead and admitted she had been drinking without saying she was
drunk.

In any event, I don't believe that she was so drunk she did not know or
remember what she did when she lost all control in a drunken rage and killed baby
Lisa, nor do I believe she ever had a blackout. One can be drunk and uncontrollable
without passing out or having a blackout. Also, we do not know how much pot she
was smoking; but research DOES reveal that the combination of the two can lead to
a very volitile and hostile situation beyond ones' control.

This we do know, she had purchased a large box of wine earlier in the evening;
what we don't know is how much alcohol she already had in the house that was
also consumed that evening, nor do we know how much additional alcohol was supplied
by those she was drinking with. But numerous statements from witnesses going back
to when she lived with her military service husband, and those witneses after Lisa was
reported missing, clearly revealed that drinking and her adult party time was her
way of life long before that night and this was the norm for her.

You know, she could have easily drank a ton of black coffee and cleaned herself up
before Irwin got home and prior to the police being called, and would not have
reeked of liquor or appeared to be falling down drunk. Whatever the case, I
believe she either killed that baby herself in a fit of fury at the baby for crying
and intruding upon her little party, or she allowed someone else to do it.

However, since it doesn't make much sense that she allowed someone else to do it,
which would put her in the position of covering up for that person all this time,
and what dummy would do that; (unless she allowed someone to molest, rape and
brutalize the child, which could always be a possibility, and we don't know
that this DIDN't happen); but at this time it all comes right back to HER killing
the baby, keeping in mind the sniffer dogs detected human decomp on the bedroom
floor, (at the least, she would know who did if she didn't), with the possibility
that either Irwin or one of her buds helped to dispose of poor Lisa.

What I CANNOT understand is why she has not been arrested. Has anyone even tried
to build a fire under local LE to find out why not? She alone, was responsible that
night for the care of three innocent children and SHE allowed one of them to go
missing with every indication that this child is deceased. Doesn't a parent even
have to give an account of their blatant child negligence if nothing else? Fla Anon


S + K Mum said...

I apologise if this is stated somewhere already but I'm curious...... she purchased a box of wine that evening - when Lisa was reported missing and Law Enforcement arrived, did they find an empty box of wine or one that still had wine in it? This was before her lawyer got her to say she was drunk so I'm thinking - could they gage how drunk (or not) she was by what was left or not left in the wine box? Taking into account she may have been sharing the wine with another / others?

Anonymous said...

I think she was not drunk, but she did drink. Her YEs to the question of Were you drunk? - sounded almost proud. Most innocent mothers would blame themselves for the disappearance of their child in her shoes, ESPECIALLY if they were drunk.
I think she was adviced to say so, to have some sort of alibi. There was one issue I never read or heard about in connection with this case. It seems like Lisa didn't have a bath that day. Was it normal for her? She had regular clothing on at night, not pyjamas. I feel the issue of bath time was ignored completely in the interviews. Did I miss it or did they not speak about it at all?

ecossie possie said...

Yes they found the empty box of wine a top of the fridge .Or at least the box was placed there.D B HAD a local female lawer for a short while an she did a walk through an vt the interion exterior of the house.The box was visable in the kitchen she even looked at an handled it if i r c...

Anonymous said...

Florida those same characters have been around in social media since last October.They prowl the internet constantly looking for ways to help DB & try to silence people about the case. They are friends with her, & collect addresses from the unsuspecting public to give to her to send out fliers.

Nic said...

I can't tell from the analysis if she was as drunk as she was made out to be, but I believe there was drinking and ultimately the wine drinking was used to deflect what really went down. It could be that DB simply ignored Baby Lisa and the boys because it was "mommy time" and thus she missed the window of opportunity to save Baby Lisa's life.

IMO, at a minimum, DB picking up wine with diapers/wipes, means she is a moderate/frequent drinker. i.e., She wasn't picking up a (nice/moderately priced) bottle of wine (4-5 glasses) to share with a neighbour friend. She was picking up a BOX of cheap wine. To me that screams personal use. Her problem may be a few glasses every day to "take the edge off" versus addiction to alcohol. "Taking the edge off" would mean she couldn't get in the car and drive to the hospital if anything happened to one of the kids. If she is a moderate/frequent drinker, she could probably have three or four glasses and her tolerance would allow her to "physically function" within the confines of her own home. i.e., not stagger into walls, etc. (Which is maybe why her lawyer wanted her portrayed as "drunk", b/c technically if you can't legally drive, you're "drunk".)

Semantics, right?

It's too bad none of the reporters asked her if she drank all-the-time. Her answer would have been interesting to analyse.

Anonymous said...

Also, if she were very intoxicated, how would she have been able to pull off a cover-up (hide the body)? That has been put out there for reasonable doubt by her "team" as well. Adrenaline will sober you up fast, and it's less than a 2 minute drive to the banks of the Missouri river.

sha said...

BRADLEY: No, no, no. And if I thought there was a chance I would say it. No, no. I don`t think that alcohol changes a person enough to do something like that.

.......SOMETHING LIKE WHAT, DEB????

BostonLady said...

If Debra was blacked out, she should not remember anything. Nothing. She would also not be able to show any sensitivity on the questions because there would be no memory or emotion. So for one question to be shown as sensitive/fail, is pretty revealing that she is faking.

Why hasn't Debra been arrested for endangering her child? Obviously in a blackout drunken state, she was not taking care of her children and anything could have happened. Oh way, something did happen. Her baby daughter is missing. If she wasn't blacked out, she could have stopped this. But I don't believe she was blacked out and Debra did something to the baby. Maybe she dropped her ? She was drinking, not blacked out. It's easy to stumble when your gait is affected by alcohol. Maybe she lost her temper because the baby would not go to sleep and she couldn't continue with her drunk a thon.

This mother is guilty. From the very least, child endangerment. All the way to murder. I hope she doesn't get away with this.

Seamus O Riley said...

Correct: there would be nothing of which to trigger a reaction had she blacked out. I think it was very clever of Tacopina, although he never really cashed in with any made for TV deals.

As to the HLN "crime analyst", here is something to remember about resumes:

After 911, the FBI asked law enforcement to "keep their eyes open" for things and sign up to report to them.

If a law enforcement officer signs up as part of an anti-terrorism task force, that is, to report to them anything suspicious, it immediately shows up on their resume sounding quite official and important.

We're somewhat conditioned to think of FBI as all knowing, all powerful and brilliant, from Hollywood. Like any large organization, it has bright stars and it has duds..

Some of the duds have gotten some press and have stunned crime followers with their folly. I can think of two that come to mind immediately:

one who's writing was off the charts deceptive regarding Amanda Knox, with so much hyperbole that it sounded like a junior high kid trying to persuade his mother to buy him a video game;

the other wrote about the Jonbenet ransom note as if he "de coded" it. The problem?

I choked down only a few chapters. He applies no principles but simply interprets at will, saying "this means that"; without any reasoning or consistency.

It opens the door for anyone to say anything means whatever it is they want it to mean. He uses "FBI" to sell the book.

Back to the original: Why would anyone say that a black out from alcohol, which wipes out memory, cause someone to fail a polygraph?

The only thing I could come up with is that he was trying to find a way to be agreeable with the host.

Peter

Florida said...

I don't care what anybody says or doesn't say, I believe she had been drunk. That's
not an excuse to kill your baby anyhow, even though some would say this could be used
as an alibi. BS!

It doesn't matter what anyone else drank or didn't drink or if the wine box was empty
or not. She had more booze at her disposal than we are aware of and had plenty of time
to drink up, sober up and clean up from the time baby Lisa was killed, either at 6:30
or 10ish (Peter would know more nearly the timing) AND dispose of her; up until Irwin
got home and LE was called, that is, if he wasn't also somehow involved which wouldn't
surprise me either.

Surely, none here would expect those drinking with her, or either Deb or Irwin to tell
the truth about that or anything else, wouldcha? Fla Anon

Florida said...

I agree. I believe she HAD been drunk, but I don't believe she was ever blacked out at any time or has no memory of the events. More BS. She knows exactly what she did and how drunk she'd been. She also remembers her rage at the helpless baby. It was no accident either. Why look for excuses for her? There aren't any.

Besides, had she blacked out she would have passed out cold, limp as a rag, unable to lift a finger to kill little Lisa or even potty. She would have peed herself in her passed out drunken stupor. Fla Anon

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Did you read Sha's comment?

"I don`t think that alcohol changes a person enough to do something like that."

.......SOMETHING LIKE WHAT, DEB????

Ney said...

Peter, I was wondering, why is the 911 call not released in the baby Lisa case? If it is held as an evidence for court, and there will be no charges, no trial, is there a time limit on the 911 calls to be released to the public?

Hobnob said...

exactly John

Anonymous said...

Reading throught all the comments, I'm amazed no one mentioned Deb's brother, Phillip Netz. Remember, he was the one that drove Deb to the store. He was also at the home when LE arrived!IMO, he was most likely the one to dispose of Lisa's remains. If I remember correctly, at one time, Phillip lived with Deb and Jeremy. It should also be noted that the two are very close. I believe the pieces of he puzzle pertaining to Lisa's disappearance can be put together starting with Phillip Netz. BTW: Phillip lived on the other side of the river and could have easily disposed of her and key evidence before returing to Deb' and being her alibi.

Florida said...

EXCELLENT POINT anon @ 10:45!

Fla Anon

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Fla Anon.

Juli Henry said...

I've run into trolls of that description over the Lisa Irwin case on my blog, too. If they were smart, they would just stop contributing to internet discussion at all of this case. They do not surf websites anonymously, nobody does, and if Debbie Bradley did not want people discussing this case, she should not have "lost" her baby in the first place. I wonder what she's going to do when she and Jeremy are no longer togther? Is he still going to alibi her falsely, and not speak up for Lisa?