**please note: the ABC article is copy/pasted and did not accurately reflect what the GMA host asked. This has been corrected. The rest of the analysis remains the same.
Deborah Bradley's timeline indicates deception. In order to deceive, one must exercise the will to do so: deception is deliberate. Truthful memories are easy and can be repeated backwards and forwards.
Lisa's mother, Deborah Brandley, described to "GMA" exactly what happened the last time she saw her daughter:
**Please note that she may have been responded to when she last saw Lisa***
"It was between the time she went to bed and time I went to bed," she said through tears. "I gave her her bottle and put her to sleep, and that was the last when we last saw her."
Please note the change in pronoun from "I" to "we" weakens the statement and taken in conclusion with other statements, is deceptive. Deceptive statements are often, sentence to sentence, made up of truth. Now, within an overall deceptive statement, let's examine the time frame:
1. When asked exactly when Lisa was last seen, the last known person to see Lisa alive is Deborah Bradley, the mother who gives us the time frame of when she last saw her.
2. Note that "the time she went to bed" has a change of language to: "I gave her her bottle and put her to sleep"
The change of language should represent a change in reality.
This suggests one of two things: that either after being put to bed, Deborah put Lisa "to sleep" or Deborah is being deceptive, indicated by the change of language.
Note that "put to sleep" often indicates activities, such as giving a bottle, rocking, soothing, etc.
3. Chronological order.
Memory, due to experience, is easy to recall in chronological order because of the experience. A subject can recite the day backwards and forwards. Due to the trauma of a child gone missing, a mother's adrenaline would be on high, and her senses sharpened and heightened, recalling in vivid detail, everything that happened. Going out of chronological order indicates deception.
4. Language: Did Deborah, after putting her to bed, and before going to bed herself, put Lisa "to sleep" by unknown means? Accidental overdose? Shaken baby? We note the change that must represent a change in reality.
Some have speculated this to be an excited utterance, but Statement Analysis teaches to listen to words spoken, and not to interpret. She was asked a question and answered it. Many deceptive people later turn and say, "that's not what I meant to say" such as:
"dead squirrels crawled up into my car..." Casey Anthony.
The confusion is due to the fact that a fabrication does not come from experiential memory and slips out of chronological order. She was thinking of the odor of Caylee's decomposing body in her car and sought a lie to cover it. She thought of dead squirrels giving off the odor, and went out of reasonable order because it did not happen; therefore, it did not come from experiential memory. Later, to repeat a lie, some deceptive persons will rely upon self references and say, "Like I said..." and "like I told you before" indicating that the memory they are working from is the memory of a prior statement.
6. "We saw her"
Please note that although Deborah Bradley was speaking about what time she put her to sleep, she now says it was the last time "we" saw her; with the pronoun inconsistency showing deception.
Question: What would make it true?
Answer: If Deborah was not alone.
Since Jeremy was reported to be at work, this would indicate that Deborah Bradley was not alone at 10:30PM.
If Jeremy was home at 10:30PM, then the "we" is appropriate and it was prior to 10:30PM that Deborah put Lisa "to sleep".
Pronouns are instinctive. They are not part of a personal, subjective internal dictionary. She was either not alone (she had help) or she desires to share the guilt with someone else.
"The windows were open and the lights were on, and she was no where to be found," he said. "We've been going over everything in our minds. We just don't have any idea."
Please note that in many statements where sexual activity took place, lights are mentioned. Please note that he was describing when he, Jeremy Irwin (one man, singular) came home; yet immediately goes to the plural "we" which reduces reliability. Note that he gives both his and her thinking: "we just don't have any ideas"; with the plural suggesting that he knows what another was thinking. This is another sensitivity indicator on Jeremy's statements. Lastly, "no idea" was followed up by a list given to police of possible suspects. This indicates that having "no idea" is not truthful.
Ernie Allen of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children said that infant abduction cases are relatively rare. There have been 278 documented cases in which newborns or infants have been abducted since 1983.
Forty-six percent, or 128 cases, involved instances in which the children were taken from health care locations, hospitals, for instance. Forty percent, or 112 cases, involved children taken from homes. Of the total 278 cases, children were returned home safely in 266 instances.
"On Monday night or Tuesday morning, our daughter Lisa was taken from our home and we just urge anyone with any information as to where she is or who she's with to please call the tip hotline or the police," said Lisa's father Jeremy Irwin in a trembling voice. "Anything, even the smallest bit of information, could help lead to her return.
"Anybody that might have her, they can drop her off anyplace safe, fire station, hospital church, no questions asked," Irwin said.
Note the words "might have her" now bring into question Jeremy Irwin's assertion that she was taken from their house. Does he no longer believe she was taken? If she was taken, someone would have to have her. This shows that he does not believe someone has "taken" her; that is, a stranger. This may be why he refused to let police interview him without Deborah Bradley's presence.