With the parents assistance the KCPD and FBI were finally able to resume a portion of the investigation that had been delayed for three long days. The open window, the one that the abductor presumably utilized to gain entrance to the house, was seen receiving scrutiny by the forensics team as well as various leads that only the parents’ could shed light on were finally able to be sifted through. Though the authorities are mum about it, one question above all hangs above the investigation like a neon billboard, the 800lb gorilla in the room: why, if your child is presumed taken from you in such a statistically rare manner in which every second takes them farther away from home, would the parents choose to “ice out” and ignore for three days the very agencies who alone possess the resources and manpower to find and return their child?
A video tape has fallen into the hands of police that came from the security cameras of a local corner market. The footage it contains allegedly shows the mother of the infant: Ms. Bradley and a man who is not her husband (Jeremy Irwin) together in the store on the night in question. Reportedly the footage shows them purchasing a box of “wine.” It is not hard at all to imagine how this could be very important to the investigation. It shows the mother without her infant daughter, participating in a meeting with someone who clearly would’ve had access to the family. Also, it seems to indicate some manner of romantic involvement which could very well serve as a motive for the removal of a child especially if there were questions or doubts pertaining to the paternity of the child.
Jeremy Irwin seemed to hint at this very theory when, in an interview, he was responding to the question: “who could’ve done this?” He answered: “Someone who cheated on her husb…….” At that moment he cut himself off as the mother and grandmother of the child both turned away. The trip to the store was not mentioned by Ms. Bradley during any of her on camera interviews; a fact that is notable since she has revealed pretty much everything during her camera time…..even those items police would rather keep quiet. This fact leads one to believe that it was uncovered by the police rather than volunteered by the mother.
A receipt found in the home lead the authorities to the store where they were able to obtain the tape. It was shown that the two entered the store at roughly 5pm…..five and a half hours prior to the last time the child was seen. The man appeared to be in his twenties and the two of them bought the wine and several other items that have not been identified. There are reports of paper napkins and plates but those have been denied by the store’s manager. (click
Another matter for speculation is the crime scene itself. When coupled with Ms. Bradley’s apparent fascination with “national-only” media and her choice to not cooperate with police, seem to indicate her desire to guide the investigation in a certain direction as well as shape public opinion about the police and their treatment of her when the “solution” seems so obvious. Whenever the police would make an announcement about the status of the parents’ cooperation, she would counter with a flat denial an insist that they are still cooperating with police. Ms. Bradley would then go on to describe the scene (often using vivid imagery and intense adjectives: “the lights were blazing” etc) and make reference to the three cell phones that were taken and how she has heard nothing about what has become of those. The police respond to that allegation by saying that the cell phones have not generated any substantial leads; although they do note that they found there was one call made at around 2:30 am from one of the phones but have declined to comment about it.
KCTV’s Twitter page notes that Deborah has also ceased to speak with any local media; opting instead for only national exposure. It appears that the mother of the missing child is on a campaign not just to raise awareness of the case and appeal for help in the search but rather to influence the public opinion of the nation as a whole as to the innocence of the mother and the authorities’ falsely accusing her. She spent more effort in convincing the masses that she was cooperating and the police were victimizing her rather than actually helping the only set of people with the authority to investigate. By repeatedly bringing up the cell phones and the fact that the crime scene itself is conclusive of how the child came to be abducted, she is trying to show that the police are unfairly focusing in on her when it should be (according to her) a very straight-forward and obvious modus operandi. Ms. Bradley stated to reporters. She also told reporters that the open window had been tampered with while the authorities have stated several times that there was no sign of forced entry. Ms. Bradley stated her belief as to what happened to her daughter, spills information that supports her theory (at times creatively embellished or contrary to what the authorities report), omits or won‘t discuss findings or evidence that leads to other conclusions, expresses her frustration that police are not scrutinizing her evidence (cell phones), announces twice that she is preparing to be charged (the second time being on Tuesday, Oct 11) and the 72 hour cessation of communication presumably because the police were not pursuing her theory but investigating all possibilities; including her own involvement, all serve as evidence of her trying to use the media to guide this investigation in a direction more suitable for her interests. She has routinely tried to “beat” the police in announcing negative news about her: i.e. her failing the polygraph exam so that it could be combined with a tearful plea in order to gain the sympathy of the entire nation and paint the police in a victimizing light. “you did it. You did it. And we have nothing.”To have a child abducted must be a pain that most of us can not even begin to imagine. The frustration and hurt involve must be beyond imagination and must not even be attempted to understood by those of us who have not experienced it. That being said, the parents who have dealt with this all have one thing in common: they all did whatever they needed to do to increase the chances that their loved ones made it home again safely; even if it meant enduring the police interrogation light temporarily in order to rule them out as suspects. The police and especially the FBI are experts in child abduction and the vast majority of the parent work with the experts in all facets of the process. They coordinate their public announcements and the information they share with law enforcement to ensure that they are not inadvertently helping the kidnapper know exactly what is going on in the investigation. They do not use the media as a counter-voice to police pres conferences to debate what law-enforcement is saying or to cast a negative light on the men and women who are giving so much of their own emotions and time with their own families to find this missing little girl. The victim here is little baby Lisa Irwin and the mother seems to have forgotten that.
The world joins baby Lisa's family in hoping that she is found and returned home safe and sound. They also collectively hope that Ms. Bradley is found to have had nothing to do with this horrific disappearance but she has, through her actions, brought the cloud of suspicion upon herself through her own actions. All speculation aside, the world must await the outcome of the police investigation and the efforts of all invovled in the search in order to get the answer as to what happened to this sweet little girl.
"All I can think of is that maybe somebody wanted a baby," One answer may be that the authorities were uncovering more than Ms. Bradley was comfortable with people knowing. As the investigation tries to find any reason that may drive someone to take a 10 month old infant, every action of every aspect of life must be examined. This would require the parents’ complete openness and honesty. If certain aspects were glossed over or omitted and the authorities later found out about it through the course of their investigation, it would serve to draw attention to the parents as to why they felt they needed to lie or omit certain information. Regardless of the reason behind the concealment, this makes the parents look like they have something to hide; especially since the loss of an infant child is more than most people need to forget about modesty and pride when assisting the agencies tasked with finding both the child and the kidnapper. There have been some bits of information that would fit this description. Please keep in mind that the paragraph above and everything that is to follow is pure speculation and merely an attempt to give some sort of reasoning to explain Ms. Bradley decision to not cooperate for 72 hours; an act that most parents in that situation would find unthinkable. HERE for source story). The omission of these details to the authorities would be grounds for extreme suspicion as they represent several different motives and even an accomplice / perpetrator for this tragic crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment