Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Deborah Bradley on The Today Show Analyzed

                      Baby Lisa is not forgotten.  

Please note that when a subject introduces a topic, the topic itself is important.  Good therapists, like well trained interviewers, will wait for the subject to introduce a topic and then will explore it. 

We now have confirmation that alcohol played a role that night.  Next, we will hear that infidelity played a role, even as the parents report that this has brought them closer together. 

*Please note that unless a subject tells us something, we cannot affirm to it. In this analysis, the mother, Deborah Bradley, did not say she was drunk, but avoiding saying so, even though they want this information known.

PA: You told us that police even accused you of killing your daughter.

This is the perfect place to issue a reliable denial and say, "yes, but I didn't kill Lisa."  There is no reason to wait and this is likely why the interviewer brought it up.  Another way is to say, "what do you say to those who think you killed your daughter?" and allow her to answer. 

DB:  MmmHmm.  Mmm Hmm

Deborah Bradley does not deny killing Lisa in this most perfect place.  Lying causes internal stress, so liars look for ways to deceive, without a direct, 'confrontational' lie. 

PA: How has that been for authorities to focus on you at times?

DB: Terrible because my daughter is missing.   The last thing that I want to have to worry about is something like that.  I shouldn't have to put any energy and time or effort into anything but finding her.

Being accused of murder, falsely, is horrible and no explanation is necessary, yet here, she tells us 'why' it is "terrible."
Note that she has to put "energy", "time" or "effort" into worrying about being the focus.  Note "but finding her". What is her energy, time or effort being put into finding "her"?
Note that she calls the child "my daughter" connected to being "missing."  
Always note the names used and what the context is. 

PA: Were you drinking that night?

DB: Yes.

PA: How much?

DB: Uh, enough to be drunk.

Note that she does not say she was drunk.  Unless she tells us she was drunk, we cannot say so. She must say "I was drunk" in order for us to know she was drunk.  Will she frame these words for herself?

Remember:  since lying causes internal stress, anything that can deceive that is not a 'confrontational' lie, will be used.  This is why "yes or no" questions are easy to lie to, and the word "never", with its long vague passage of time, is easier to use instead of the direct lie. 

"I was drunk" would tell us that she was drunk.  

PA: So you were drunk?

DB: Mmm Hmm.

She gives affirmation but does not say the words that she was drunk.    Alcohol is a sensitive topic (as is infidelity in this investigation) but she did not use words to say so.

PA:  A lot of people are going to say Deborah you were drunk that night, 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?

DB:  No, no, no and If I thought there was a chance I'd say it.  No.  No.  I don't think that alcohol changes a person enough to do something like that.

Please note that her denial consists of the repetition of the word "no" five times showing a repeated sensitivity to the question of alcohol playing a role in Lisa's demise.  Note that she only "thinks" which shows weakness and uses the word "person", gender neutral, and does not say that it did not change her This indicates deception regarding alcohol playing a role in Baby Lisa's demise. 

Note that the camera went to a close up of Deborah and Jeremy's hands, and that Deborah is clutching Jeremy's leg and he is  holding his own  hands.  Body language experts have said that Jeremy's behavior is a form of self comfort and her behavior suggests control.  This may remind some of the Anthonys. 

The non-Shakespearan "me thinks thou doest protest too much" is at play.  When asked about married life, someone who says, "I am very very very happy!" might be in need of a good divorce attorney. 

PA:  Do you in any way question that she;s not telling you or police everything that she knows?

JI:  No.  There's, there's no question to be had there.  I know who she is.  I know, what kind of mother she is. 

Please note that Jeremy says he knows who she is, what kind of mother she is, but does not deny that Lisa was harmed by Deborah.  He also does not say "Deborah did not kill Lisa." This would be the simplest and easiest of things for a father to say if he believed it.  

He does not. 

PA: Does it seem feasible to you that someone could have gotten in while you and your two boys were sleeping and you wouldn't have heard a thing.

It is a "yes or no" question. 

JI:  Our bedroom is on the exact opposite corner of the house and uh, she sleeps with the fan on high.

Please note that they reported having a baby monitor.  Please note that in the two part question, the interviewer brings up the boys as well.  He answers for Deborah, but not about the boys. 

DB:  Yeah, but they must have been doing it much quieter than the police were.

People give themselves away.  Here, she could have said, "yeah but they must have done it..." but instead uses the "doing it" present tense language.  This indicates that she does not have a commitment to the statement, in the past tense.  "doing it" has the ongoing feel to it.  I believe, for these parents, that this was an "ongoing" event; the ongoing cover up of what caused Lisa's death that night. 

PA:  You told us that police said you failed a lie detector test.  What question or questions did they say you failed?

DB:  They said that I failed when they asked me where she was.

Police believed that Bradley killed Lisa, in either a moment of rage, or something similar to an unintended death, and that she knew where Lisa was dumped.  

Regarding Deborah and Jeremy refusing to let the police re interview Lisa's half brothers:  

DB:  They said they heard noises.  But I don't know if that was before um, we went to sleep or after.  I have not sat down and talked to them about it.  Specifically to not have to put them through anything else.

Please note that the kids heard noises relating to Lisa's disappearance but after 2 weeks the mother reports that she hasn't talked to them about it.  

   She begins with "they said" but denies speaking to them about it, adding body posture (sat down) indicating tension associated with the noises they heard.  She would have us believe that the boys said they heard noises, but Deborah did not respond to them with "what did you hear?", which indicates that she did not want to ask them, even after all of this time, because she does not need the information about the noises they heard.  

This shows that Deborah made enough noise to leave her certain that the children heard her. 

Can anyone imagine a mother not asking her sons what they heard?  This is why the guilty need defense attorneys to stop the flow of information. 

"To not have to put them through anything else."  

Here she feels the need to explain why she did not ask her sons what they heard.  This need, itself, is highly sensitive to Deborah Bradley.  She did not want the information to come out. 

PA:  If the person who took your baby daughter is out there watching this right now what would you say to them?

DB:  She needs her family.  We need her.  We're losing more sanity as each day progresses.

Follow the pronouns.  Note the avoidance of Lisa's name.  Note the lack of strong response that an innocent mother's instincts would have been laid bear in the interview.  Note the inability to speak for herself:  the disconnect is powerful. 

She is to be speaking directly to the kidnapper and wants the kidnapper to know that they are losing their sanity more each day.  

The interview was 45 minutes with only a few moments played thus far.  In the short interview, Deborah Bradley is deceptive in her denial that alcohol played a role in what happened to Baby Lisa.  She also reveals that, like Jeremy, her own personal comfort level takes precedence over Baby Lisa, similar to when Jeremy ended an interview, as a man and father of Lisa, because he was tired. 

Jeanine Piro spoke next who now says the change of story, particularly the time frame, in which Deborah previously said she checked on Lisa at 10:30PM, but now reports that the last time she saw her was when she put her to bed/sleep at 6:40PM.  

This is an essential change in which likely indicates sensitivity (critical missing information)  between 6:40PM and 10:30PM.  

The time period mentioned earlier was 10:30PM that Deborah said she "checked" on Lisa.  10:30PM should also be considered highly sensitive to the case. 

In Statement Analysis, we look for critical points in the account.  We expect to hear a response from someone associated with the family in regards to this change.   

As with all other interviews, Deborah Bradley is withholding information about:

What happened to Baby Lisa, and
Where Baby Lisa could have been recovered. 

I believe, based upon a multitude of reports and conversations, that police were very close to obtaining an admission from Deborah Bradley, which then shut down when a publicity seeking attorney from New York showed up. 


John Mc Gowan said...

All the way through the this short interview the pair of them cannot bring themselves to say Lisas name.

PA: You told us that police said you failed a lie detector test. What question or questions did they say you failed?

DB: They said that I failed when they asked me where she was.

Were SHE was,distancing herself from Lisa.
Here Deborah Bradley cant even brink herself to say her daughters name.

cuckoohead said...

'Irwin said when he came home that night the lights were on, the front door was unlocked and the window in Lisa's bedroom was open. He told Good Morning America that Deborah was awake in bed and the couple didn't know Lisa was gone until he went to her room.'

I don't believe Jeremy's statement. If he admits to seeing the window in Lisa's bedroom was open what father wouldn't stop and step into the bedroom to make sure his child was ok and shut and lock the window? Instead he says he saw the opened window, went into his bedroom and saw Deborah awake (not passed out from drinking huh?) and then finally goes to his daughter's room to find her missing.

I don't believe either of these two 'parents'.

? said...


" For weeks, Casey Anthony sat at her murder trial with her defense team anxiously waiting for prosecutors to drop a bombshell: computer evidence, the state would argue, showing Anthony researched how to kill with poison and suffocation on the same afternoon her daughter, Caylee, was killed by poison and suffocation.

But the bombshell never exploded.

"We were waiting for the state to bring it up," defense attorney Jose Baez told Local 6. "And when they didn't, we were kind of shocked."

I apologize if this has already been covered here but it's the 1st I've seen in the media.

Meag in Manhattan said...

OFF TOPIC - Thanks for leaving the comment re: MURDERER, CASEY ANTHONY.

Peter, Can anybody file a CIVIL SUIT against her in the name of JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE???

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous said...

@cuckoohead : I believe bits and pieces of Jeremy version. I believe the lights were on and that Deborah left the lights on so that Jeremy would have to 'wake' her and then begin the staging of the 'crime'. ( the 911 call and the fake abduction). IMO : Her brother, Phil Netz disposed of Lisa's remains and returned to the house to confirm Deborah's account of the events to Jeremy and LE. I also believe Deborah is more worldly than Jeremy, and is very adept at lying. I think the key to finding Lisa's remains lies with Phillip Netz. ( Deb, said she does not know where she (Lisa) is at, 'the question she failed' , but NOT that she didn't cause her death.

BostonLady said...

The mother's statements point right back at her as the guilty party. The video of her buying the big box of wine the same night the baby disappeared is damning. And, the fact that the cadaver dogs had a hit in the parent's bedroom on the floor is enough for me.

Debbie and Jeremy know where baby Lisa is and it's time to tell LE. Bring the baby home for an appropriate burial. It's the very least you can do.

John Mc Gowan said...

Anon 1-33.

This case never ceases to amaze me.

John Mc Gowan said...


'Kidnapping' In Los Angeles Sparks Huge Search,

There is no trace of a teenage girl seen being punched by a man and then dragged away kicking and screaming.12:24pm UK, Wednesday 14 November 2012

Police have released this sketch of the man
Hundreds of people, including police, rescue officials and volunteers, have been searching for a girl who witnesses said was attacked and abducted in a suburb of Los Angeles.

The girl, thought to be aged between 14 and 16, was seen on Monday being dragged away by a man at a leisure centre in El Sereno, east of central LA, as she was screaming and kicking.

According to witnesses, the man had also punched the girl and removed some of her clothing.

The Los Angeles Times reported that some 250 rescue workers and volunteers have combed the area around the centre, trekking through steep terrain. They were helped by helicopters and bloodhounds.

The search teams found a pair of Puma tennis shoes and leggings, but no other signs of a kidnapping, the newspaper said.

"While we have located some physical evidence that supports the abduction, we have not found any evidence that the young lady is still in the park," Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck told a news conference.

No reports for a missing person matching the girl's description have been filed.

The search was called off on Tuesday afternoon and there are no plans to resume it in the area, but police will continue investigating, news reports said.

Authorities have released a composite sketch of the man, who is believed to be between 18 and 20.

John Mc Gowan said...


This has been doing the rounds on FB.i

I was wondering if you could have a look at it,i dont know if anyone has been scammed by this,i picked out two possible red flags.


If you should ever be forced by a robber to withdraw money from an ATM machine you can notify the police by entering you pin # in reverse.For example if you pin is 1234 then ypo would put in 4321,the ATM recognises that your pin is backwards from the ATM card you placed in the machine.The machine will still give you your money but inbeknown to the robber the poilce will immediatley be dispatched to the location.

All ATM machines carry this sequencer by law.

This information was Recently broadcast ON BY Crime Stoppers,however it is seldom used because people just dont know about it.

This kind of information people dont mind receiving so PASS IT ON TO EVERYONE FAMILY AND FREINDS.

John Mc Gowan said...

Typos are my doing.hehe

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the parents ever thought protecting themselves from trials, jail takes away their ability to show respect and their love to their daughter. Our loved ones should be respected even when they are no longer alive.

Anonymous said...

John, the ATM PIN# in reverse is not entirely workable. For example, if ones' PIN # is 3663, 2552, 1441 and so on, it is the same in reverse as it is when entering it going forward. They are the same either way.

Aside from that, my experience has always been that if your PIN # is not entered correctly you cannot get your withdrawal.


Anonymous said...

Anon @ 3:27, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say? Are you saying that it is disrepetful to the dearly departed child for their parents to be arrested and sitting in jail for taking its' life?

Wouldn't you agree that it's more disrepectful to the child to be thrown into a ditch, tossed away like garbage and left to rot?

Sorry, not following you.

John Mc Gowan said...


My partner and i were discussing palindromic numbers this morning, its funny you should mention that.

John Mc Gowan said...


My partner and i were watching breakfast tv this morning and there was a woman talking about her ex partner stalking her and making her life miserable.

Not taking much notice however,she called her ex/stalker a GENTLEMAN.This jumped out at me.

Why would she call the man who alledgely put her through hell a Gentleman?

She was on tv and cannot use strong language,yet i thought the description was a little passive and complimentary and doesnt sit right in the circumstances.

I have however given myself a CAVEAT,as i have not seen the whole program which is to be broadcast tonight.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, above post to Anon @ 3:27 AM made by REB.

Peter, ref Deb being drunk as opposed to not being drunk; wasn't it previously established by Deb's neighbors and friends that she was drinking with on the porch that night, that she WAS drunk?

I always felt that she went ahead and admitted in the early stages that she was drunk because she knew it would come out anyway since those she was drinking with knew she was; then her cockroach lawyer twisted it around to her advantage.

As to her saying that one could not be so drunk that they would not remember what happened or that it would not change their personality is a lie. I've seen people so drunk and out of control that they had absolutely no control over what they were doing nor did they remember, or care, what they did. Not everyone becomes docile and falls asleep when they are drunk. Some drunks become aggressive, violent, and seriously abuse those around them, both verbally and physically.

Just the other week I had an out of town guest who was telling me how his father would get drunk and beat him, his brother and their mother unmercifully but was peaceful and loving when he was not drinking.

I agree with Boston Lady @ 9:24 PM, only I'm not so sure that Deb told Jeremy the truth about what happened to little Lisa; that is, unless he was also involved in Lisa's disappearance; even then she might not have told him the whole truth. Either way, he's a thick-headed, milk-toast, panty-waist idiot who would support anything she tells him.


Anonymous said...

John, I mentioned the above numbers because I have a set of numbers on one of my ATM cards like those above and it is impossible to reverse them.

I agree with your thinking along the lines of the abused frightened woman, callling her ex a 'gentleman'. He is everything BUT a gentleman. Are you sure she was abused by him, or is she just stupid? Does she also refer to him as "Mr" so and so, a woman who bows and scrapes to her man in fear, knowing no better?

Anonymous said...

Anon, no, I might have expressed myself wrong. Parents in cases like these where most likely they hid the baby to avoid going to jail, I wonder if they ever thought they made a bad decision to hide the truth. Don't they feel their baby deserves more respect?

John Mc Gowan said...

Anon 4:34.

We just caught a snippet, we will watch the full program this evening.

John Mc Gowan said...

Judge Jeanine: Did mom Deborah Bradley Fail Lie Detector Test (Transcribed)


Lisa Irwin 10 month old missing from Kansas City
Credits: Provided by family

0 Email
Top News newsletter


10-month-old Lisa Irwin missing from her crib in Kansas City MissouriKansas City baby missingLisa Irwin missingFox News Judge JeanineKansas City PoliceIsabelle Zehnder
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Isabelle Zehnder reporting) -- Jeanine Pirro, show host of Fox News ' Justice with Judge Jeanine sat down again Friday with the parents of missing Missouri baby Lisa Irwin.

Ten-month-old Lisa's parents, Jeremy Irwin and Deborah "Debbi" Bradley, say Lisa was abducted from her crib sometime between 10:30 p.m. Monday, October 3 when Debbi put Lisa to bed, and 4 a.m. Tuesday, October 4 when Jeremy returned home from an overnight electrician job.

Judge Jeanine asks the parents: What about reports of a fallout with police? Did police say you failed the lie detector test? When did you take the lie detector? What did you think, Jeremy, when police said your wife failed the polygraph? Did you get agitated? Why do you say you don’t think police have any leads? Will you continue to cooperate with police? Read their responses below.

Transcription of Judge Jeanine's interview with Lisa's parents: Did Deborah Bradley Fail a Lie Detector Test?

continude below.

John Mc Gowan said...

Judge Jeanine says that if Baby Lisa had been abducted the likelihood is that she’s still alive, based on expert opinion. Today she talks about the tangled relationship between baby Lisa’s parents and the police.

Judge Jeanine: “What about reports there’s a fallout with police? There’s reports that on Thursday there was this animated discussion and you two sped off in a car. Settle the record, once and for all. What happened?”

Debbi: “Um, when I went down to the command center I had a list of people and right before I, I, uh, while I was making the list I heard that they were searching another area and it wasn’t houses and I panicked, and I was freaking out and we went down there and asked them ‘Is there anything going on? What’s happening?’ and, um, um, you know, we have a list of names but why is everybody, why is everybody down there looking in this area? What’s going on?

Judge Jeanine: “So what happened with the discussion of the lie detector test? You said that they told you that you failed it?”

Debbi: “They just said that ‘You failed the test.’ Cuz I asked them, ‘Well, how did I do?’ And he says, ‘You failed.’ And I said ‘That’s not possible, what do you mean I failed?’ And ‘You failed, you killed her, you know where she’s at.’ I mean, um, I heard it on Tuesday too …

Judge Jeanine: “So when did you take the lie detector?”

Debbi: “Yesterday.”

Judge Jeanine: “So that was two days after she was missing. And then they tell you that you failed it. What do you think of this Jeremy? They tell you that your wife, the mother of your baby failed a lie detector. How does that make you feel?”

Jeremy: “It, it didn’t really make me feel anything. It doesn’t change anything. I don’t – there was never any doubt in my mind so it, I literally just told them ‘I don’t care’.”

Judge Jeanine: “She’s a great mother?”

Jeremy: “She’s a great, great mother.”

Judge Jeanine: “When they told you that you failed you indicated in published reports that they weren’t very nice about it. Was that correct?”

Debbi: “Right.”

Judge Jeanine: To Jeremy, “You apparently got agitated with that, is that true Jeremy?”

Jeremy: “Um, no, not really. I mean we were kind of upset I mean but it’s normal …”

Debbi interrupts: “How are you supposed to react when somebody tells you something like that and you know it’s not true? You …”

Jeremy: “It’s to be expected. I mean they don’t have any, I don’t think they have a whole lot of other stuff so they just keep coming back to us.”

Judge Jeanine: “Why do you say, why do you think they don’t have any leads?”

Jeremy: “I don’t know.”

Debbi: “I don’t know.”

Judge Jeanine: “She can’t just disappear in thin air. Somebody …”

Jeremy: “She’s got to be somewhere. That’s why we keep talking to people and coming out. There’s been all these fliers made and people have been great, police are still being great.”

Judge Jeanine: “So will you continue cooperating with police?”

Jeremy: “Oh, yea.”

Debbi: “Of course.”

John Mc Gowan said...

Link from above.

Apple said...

I would be interested in where LE was searching that caused DB to demand answers about it.

John Mc Gowan said...

Me too Apple,

It would be interesting to read Peters take on the transcript.?

Anonymous said...

John, I've got news for Jeremy Irwin. In his interview with the host, he says Deborah was a great mother, then repeats himself by saying "she is a great great mother". Bull hockey.

How little he knows about motherhood and what constitutes a "great" mother. Among OTHER things, a good and consciencious mother does NOT sit around and get drunk, nor does she guzzle the booze money that is needed for her childrens' support. Any drunk mother is neglecting her kids and possibly abusing them while she is drunk. Drunk parents need caretakers themselves.

Even the best of otherwise 'good' mothers have no excuse for drinking around their kids or being drunk in their presence and are self-centered, caring ONLY for themselves; they kid themselves if they think they can point the finger at themselves and claim to be a 'good' mother, let alone a 'great' one.

A drunk mother (or father) is in no condition to protect their children, look out for their needs, OR even act rationally in their behalf in case of an emergency. They are too impaired and aren't even able to drive their sick or injured child to an emergency room or call 911 for them, or go to a grocery store to purchase food for them.

I wonder; would Jeremy Irwin, or anyone else, including these mothers who sit around swilling their booze while supposedly caring for their kids; leave their little ones with a drinking or drunk babysitter?

And why not? Due to those very reasons I outlined above, and more. But their drinking/drunk mother is an example of being a great mother? Ain't no way.


Anonymous said...

Peter, I have a question for you whenever you get around to it; today I know not being the day since you are cooking up the big bird;


Have you been keeping up at all with the closing of the 533 Hostess bakeries and their numerous distribution centers? This is a rather massive operation with more than 18,000 employees, supplying well known brand foods in addition to Hostess, in business for 80-yrs.

What I'm wondering is, what is your opinion based on statement analysis, or have you thought about forming any opinions? Hostess has been on shut down strike since 11/9, quickly breaking the company's operations due to picket lines/employees not showing up for work.

The union and CEOs of Hostess worked for a reconciliation of their individual interests but failed to arrive at one after Hostess warned the employees and their union that they would have to shut their doors permanetly as of last Friday if they could not resolve their stalemate by that date and come back to work then.

The problem in a nutshell was that Hostess said they needed the employees to take a cut in pay and a reduction in some of their benefits in order for Hostess to be able to stay in business. The employees/union refused, thereby causing the doors of Hostess to be shut permanently; accusing Hostess of causing their own demise due to mismanagement by their CEOs. Now the bankruptcy judge has approved Hostess's bankruptcy petition and will be allowing them to sell off all their assets.

I'm wondering, what is the truth here? Did the employees through their never ending greed and union demands; many of them earning exorbitant hourly wages for performing not much more than common labor type jobs; cause this company to go broke by forcing them into complete inoperation when they could not/would not meet the union/employee demands just so Hostess could stay in operation;

OR, does Hostess have an ulterior motive that will ultimately place them in an even higher money making scheme that is yet to surface? As it is now, it appears that the employees put themselves out of work and now have no jobs due to their lack of loyalty to a company that has kept them up for years by paying them higher wages than they would ever get elsewhere, but Hostess no longer could operate without a little cooperation from them.

Now they have no jobs at all, at the worst time of the year to be unemployed and most of them will likely never be able to replace the jobs they had, even with a cut in pay. On the other hand, was this a plot by Hostess? Your thoughts? TKX! REB

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I have been interested and in following the case. I did note that the head of the company had sensitivity indicators in his denial that selling off assets was a ploy to get the union back to the table!

As with everyone else, I also have political views, pro and con, regarding unions and the politics they practice. I have seen the innocent defended by their union and I have seen unions "hold the line", get workers laid off, but protect themselves. It is complicated and it sure brings out some serious commenting!

I never liked Twinkies, but I am a fan of people working!

Reb, what do you think?

Did the union strike themselves out of a job?

What about the coming of Obamacare? I know, first hand, that small businesses here are planning on laying off if forced into it.

Thanks for an interesting post. Peter

Lis said...

When Jeremy says, "She’s a great, great mother" does it fall under the same flag as when a person says this kind of statement about themselves?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Hostess company executives fattened themselves up before filing for bankruptcy
by Larry Geller

Labor issues are seldom fairly covered in the commercial media. That was my motivation for posting yesterday’s article, One article blames possible Twinkie demise on union, the other also suggests management responsibility (11/16/2012). I speculated whether the Star-Advertiser would print the same AP article it posted as breaking news, an article which placed the blame for the Hostess company shutdown squarely on the union strike, and followed a typical pattern of reporting such events.

The story ran on page B6 of this morning’s paper, and amazingly, didn’t even mention the strike, much less place blame on the workers.

Is that better? No, unfortunately for readers, they simply were not presented with the full story. The strike is a fact, and it is important because management is putting the blame for the imminent disappearance of Twinkies and other Hostess products squarely on the union.

If I were reporting on the Hostess bankruptcy story myself, I’d have to also include more details on the Bain-like takeover of the company that saddled it with unmanageable debt. I’d also have to cite the Sacramento Bee story that revealed that the company planned plant closings well in advance of the strike:

In fact, according to the company's 1113 filing with the bankruptcy court earlier this year as well as its last/best/final and non-negotiable proposal to its BCTGM-represented workers, the company was planning to close at least nine bakeries as part of its reorganization plan, although the company refused to disclose which bakeries it intended to close. This is in addition to the three bakeries that were to be closed as a result of the company's planned sale of its Merita division.

Moreover, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was quoted in a November 13 KMOX-CBS St. Louis article stating, "I was told months ago they were planning on closing the site in St. Louis… And there was no indication at that time it had anything to do with the strike the workers were waging."

[Sacremento Bee, Hostess Continues Pattern Of Misinformation, 11/13/2012]

Anonymous said...

And finally, I’d have to report on the obscene salary increases taken by Hostess executives just prior to filing for bankruptcy:

BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

Over the past 15 months, Hostess workers have seen the company unilaterally end contractually-obligated payments to their pension plan. Despite saving more than $160 million with this action, the company continues to fall deeper and deeper into debt. A mountain of debt and gross mismanagement by a string of failed CEO's with no true experience in the wholesale baking business have left this company unable to compete or survive.

But I was not reporting on the Hostess story.

I thought the newspaper should do that.

(Disclosure: I am a recovered Twinkie-eater. Many years ago, after filling up my car’s gas tank at a Kalihi gas station, I would visit the cashier to pay for a car wash and pick out a Twinkie to nibble while waiting in line to go through the machine. I found myself obsessed with car cleanliness. The habit needed breaking. I can proudly say that I went cold turkey and have not had a Twinkie since. And my car isn’t particularly clean any more either.]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license.
Larry at 11/17/2012 01:40:00 PM

Anonymous said...

Lis, in re your question above; may I say right up front, this is my personal opinion; but yes, I believe it does fall under the same red flag.

For one thing, how can we call ourselves "great" mothers when we are still raising our kids and haven't seen the fruits of our labors? We are in the position of molding our child's mind in addition to caring for, loving and providing a good, clean and safe environment for them. What are our OWN beliefs and attitudes while raising our kids that we are inflicting upon them?

Are we teaching them right from wrong and practicing what we preach in front of them; or, are we argumentative and overbearing towards them, screaming and yelling at them, cursing, belittling and slapping them around?

Do we have men (not their daddy) running in and out of our lives, are we shacking up in front of them and placing them on the back burner, or do we allow a step-father there who is belittling and mentally abusing them, even allowing him permission to physically discipline them at his leisure; all of the above causing our children to believe there is something/someone else that means more to us than they do? Then we call ourselves a great mother?

THEN the day comes that our son is on the run, drinking, smoking dope and more, totals our car, we get him out of jail and on and on it goes. We get up one morning and find our 14-15+ yr old daughter has some filthy scuzball shacked up in her bed; what can we say when this is what we did in front of her? Great mothers? Add to that a Deborah or a disgusting Billie Jean, and those kids never had a chance. EVER.

However, even after having given our best and sacrificed our own personal desires; the point is, there are many factors involved in calling ourselves a great mother when the job isn't even done yet. And when it is done, how did they turn out? Do they respect us? Are they stable minded and have a good outlook on life as well as trying to make a future for themselves; and if not, why not when we were such "great" mothers?

Having said that, I believe that in some cases, no matter how much you do for your kids and how hard you work at raising them, some kids are carrying bad genes and bad bloodline inherited familial traits, and not EVERYTHING is the fault of how they were mothered.


Anonymous said...

@ Apple: The area the police were searching was a wooded area down by the Missouri river. The riverbank is less than a 2 minute drive from the Irwin home.