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?
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.