Are Tacopina, Picerno, Bradley and Irwin Worried About an Arrest or Grand Jury Investigation?

by on September 4th, 2010
Share Button

The defense team for Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin has been working overtime in the last few weeks to try and show their clients are innocent. The only problem is most of it is easily disproved or could point directly to their client or clients. Are they preparing for possibly a grand jury or even Deborah’s arrest? The police have been really quiet over the last week. I am not sure what the defense thinks they have. These three defense attempts to blame someone, other than their clients, have blown up in their faces.

1. The mystery man, seen in three places in the early morning hours of October 4th, Tacopina called this “unbelievably substantial,” One would think so until the next bit of information comes out from Picerno

2. The cell phones, the call to Megan Wright’s phone. “What it tells you is our clients are telling the truth”, this from John Picerno.

3. This past Friday, Picerno again; Saying a 17-year-old told him a man told her that John Tanko aka Jersey said he was paid $300.00 to take Lisa. Below is what Picerno said;

“She didn’t seem to have a care in the world one way or the other. I believe her when she told me that’s what she heard,” Picerno told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “But obviously, without having interviewed that individual myself I can’t attest to his credibility.”

1a) The mystery man was three miles from the house at 4:00 am on October 4th. The attempt to get into the voice mail and the internet on Bradley’s phone was from 3:32-3:37 am on October 4th, from 1/3 to 1/5 of a mile from the house. His partner would have had to sit there with the phones for no apparent reason, from at least 11:57 pm until 3:37 am. Unless that happened, that rules out the mystery man who was unbelievably substantial. Also the three witnesses did not agree on what the man looked like. One said salt and pepper hair and the other two said he was bald.

2a) The cell phones that prove his clients are innocent. The first call was made at 11:57 pm, October 3rd. The phones were never more than 1/3 to 1/5 of a mile away from the house. How does this clear his clients? It may clear Jeremy Irwin, since he was working at that time, but it does not clear Deborah Bradley. It would not be a stretch that someone at the flop house and Bradley would lie about knowing each other. The attempts on the phone from 3:32-3:37 would make more sense that Bradley would try to access her voice mail, and internet. Jeremy did not plan on working as late as he did, so it would make sense if Deborah had someone taking Lisa away, she would try to check and see if Jeremy had left a voice mail or email saying what time he would be home. A stranger would have no idea what info they would need to get into the voice mail or internet. No where are his clients proven innocent, in fact he just pointed the finger at Deborah

3a) The 17-year-old who reportedly said that Jersey told him that he was paid $300.00 came forward to deny he said that. Here is what he told NBC Action News; “I told someone, I was like (expletive), Jersey was the kind of person where you could say here, here’s $300.00, take care of this baby, and he would have done it.” he said. “That’s all I’ve said. I haven’t seen Jersey since weeks before all this happened actually”. Picerno says before this young man was found, “I believe her when she told me that’s what she heard,” about the girl telling him what someone told her. So this also did not stick.

It appears that there is not much thought or investigation put into these theories. Are they beginning to worry that they do not have enough for reasonable doubt or perhaps a grand jury would indict their client or clients?


Prev Article: »
Next Article: «

Related Articles