Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Baby Lisa: From the Beginning October 2011

Deceptive Poster:  There was no kidnapping
In early October of 2011, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin reported that their child, Lisa Irwin, was taken from their home, while only Deborah Bradley was home.

When they first spoke, we received linguistic indication that something was wrong:  Lisa was not kidnapped, but dead, and the parents were deceptive.

This quickly became a national story, and once it did, brought in the attention seekers, including New York lawyer, Joe Tacopina, and private eye, Bill Stanton, also from NYC.

The more Deborah Bradley spoke, the deeper she went in deception, not speaking from memory (experiential memory), she misused her pronouns, and was unable to keep a time line straight, including on whether she was awake or asleep, whether she had checked on Lisa or not, and whether or not she was alone.

Later, as Joe Tacopina saw that she was giving conflicting statements, he arranged for media interviews in which she would now be asked, "Were you drinking that night?  Were you drunk?

This was a clever way of which he could then explain away inconsistencies.

However, there is a problem with his solution:  in order to be seen as deceptive, the words must show a deliberate attempt to deceive.  In other words, the will to deceive must be present for us to conclude:  deception indicated.

If you are told a lie, but believe it, when you repeat the lie, your words will not show deception.  If I told you my car was blue, when it is really red, and you repeated, "did you know his car is blue?", your words would not show deception.  You are speaking the words unaware of having been deceived.  You, yourself, are mistaken about the color of the car, but you are not deliberately deceiving anyone when you describe the color of my car as blue.

This is the case of Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin.

When Lisa went missing, Jeremy was not home.  The child's mother reported that someone entered through a window and took Lisa.  She called Jeremy Irwin and informed him of the kidnapping.

Is that what Jeremy Irwin believed at the time?

On October 5, 2011 he said,

"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.  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."

Here he said that "anyone might have her" which indicates that someone only "might" have her.  Yet, they had just reported that someone did, in fact take her.  Deborah Bradley said it was someone who really wanted a baby. 

If Jeremy Irwin believed that she was, in fact, taken by someone, why not commit and speak directly to the person that took her?

Later, we heard even more deception from them and learned that Jeremy Irwin refused to be interviewed by police without Deborah present.  

It is common procedure for police, social workers, and even counselors, to interview parents separately.  Jeremy Irwin would have none of it. 

"We just want our baby back," said Lisa's mother, Deborah Brandley through sobs and tears while hugging the Barney plush toy. "Please. Bring her home. Our two other boys are waiting for her."

From here we indicated Deborah Bradley for deception on her time line, and the cell phone usage.  Later we learned that she was pinged on her phone, leaving the home that night. 

This is another case that justice is not served.  

Many of us were shocked when Joe Tacopina stated that he had met with the FBI, who shared evidence against his client, Deborah Bradley, with him. 

Tacopina did not make any plea bargains for his client, and the case ended without resolution.  

Jeremy Irwin was not present when whatever happened to Lisa happened, but it became clear that he knew what really happened, and he refused to be interviewed without Bradley. 

Police questioned their cooperation, of which Tacopina said, that they were "fully cooperating", making cooperation sensitive. 

We then learned that a cadaver dog hit in the house, and Deborah Bradley gave consent to search:  outside the window, and at the front door but not in her bedroom. 

Deborah Bradley referenced her "Adult time" which Lisa likely interrupted.  

My conclusion: 

Lisa Bradley died at the hands of her mother, in an unintended death, likely with alcohol influencing the event, and that she then moved to hide the remains, likely in water, and shared her account of unintended death with her husband and attorneys, who have kept the information from police.  

The language in this case was clear.  From the beginning, Deborah Bradley was deceptive, grieving, but still protecting herself.  Likely fearful of losing custody of the "other boys", Jeremy Irwin also stopped cooperating with police.  

This poster reveals to us something important:  

Deborah Bradley still fears arrest.  

Why no arrest?  

It would appear that by the sharing of evidence with attorney, Joe Tacopina, authorities do not feel that they can win a trial against him.  


Anonymous said...

Why no arrest ? LE "fear" they can't win a case against Tacopino....then give up their badge & retire, go dig ditches & get a job a Taco Bell & let someone that is not so "fearful" do their job for them. This pizzes me off !

Anonymous said...

Mistake? You refer to Jeremy as Deborah's husband.

Jeremy Irwin is not/was not married to Deborah Bradley at the time of baby Lisa's death. She was/still is married to someone in the military, is she not? Jeremy is someone Deborah was shaking up with, playing playhouse and bore a child with him. Not even commonlaw within normal standards by legal definition.

Why Deborah's legal husband has not filed charges against her and Jeremy is the big question? One of the boys living in the shack up home does belong to the husband in the military, is that not correct? Ditto for the mother of Jeremy's son, with both these bio parents leaving their sons in the home of suspected child killers.

Jeremy is in conspiracy and is a suspect too since he is withholding crucial information as to the death and whereabouts of this child.

Anonymous said...

It's really a great and helpful piece of info. I am happy that you simply shared this useful info with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

Feel free to visit my web site :: http://www.glass8866.com/plus/guestbook.php

Jo said...

She even distances herself in her deceptive poster. She list grandparents, aunts and uncles but not parents, husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend......her poster automatically assumes that both parents/adults would be in on the kidnapping of Baby Lisa.

brosnanfan said...

I am confused. If she shared that she accidentally killed Baby Lisa with her attorney(s), don't they have a legal obligation to give that information to the police?

If this case ever went to trial and the attorneys, having this information about Deborah killing Baby Lisa, argued that Deborah did NOT kill Baby Lisa, couldn't they be held in contempt of court or for lying to the court?

The law is confusing.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe the baby was killed 'accidentally' like some here choose to believe. I believe it more likely that Deborah killed baby Lisa in the bedroom in a spur of the moment fit of violent rage up to ninety minutes or longer prior to having her body disposed of; the length of time necessary in most death cases to be able to leave the scent of human decomposition that is on her bedroom floor.

She can claim accident(?) to her atty and baby-daddy Jeremy all she wants too, and others here can think that, but had it been an accident she could have said so from the outset, could have pled negligent/accidential homicide and allowed her child to have a proper burial instead of tossing her out like garbage. And why not? Because she choked and deliberately slammed her head repeatedly on the bedroom floor cracking her skull open; and that's no accident.

However she did it, this was no accident and Deborah knew it wasn't.

Obviously she has gotten away with it. And whose to say that Jeremy didn't also have his part in it, at least in the disposal and cover up; otherwise, why would he continue to maintain his silence and stick by the killer of his baby girl? Because he's involved.

You don't "accidentally" kill a child and "accidentally" dump its' little body.

Juliette said...

From anon at 6:15 a.m.:

She can claim accident(?) to her atty and baby-daddy Jeremy all she wants too, and others here can think that, but had it been an accident she could have said so from the outset, could have pled negligent/accidential homicide and allowed her child to have a proper burial instead of tossing her out like garbage. And why not? Because she choked and deliberately slammed her head repeatedly on the bedroom floor cracking her skull open; and that's no accident.

I agree with this opinion; I believe Deborah Bradley did something so devastating to Lisa, Lisa needed to be well hidden.

This also goes for other parents of 'kidnapped' missing children such as the Celis, the Dunns, the Cummings, the Ramseys....I think if these children's little bodies were found, there would be signs the child died by brutal means. It would be obvious their demise was no 'accident' and thus the parent's need to hide their children's remains, like garbage :(

Anonymous said...

Julliette, I agree with you on the others you mentioned with the exception of the Ramseys. JonBenet was not disposed of by the parents, instead was left lying dead on the basement floor.

That one remains a mystery as to why they didn't dispose of JonBenet's body prior to calling 911, when either one of them or both had plenty of time during the night or the next morning to hide her body elsewhere; then it would have appeared that her disappearance/death followed the order of the threats made in the kidnap letter.

THIS is the thing that makes no sense in the Ramsey case, (if they are the ones who killed her), leaving themselves wide open to be viewed as suspects in her death the rest of their lives whether prosecuted or not. Why would they take this risk?

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous, you make an interesting point. Please choose a nickname for yourself.

The Ramseys likely debated hiding the body, instead, choosing the route of kidnapping. I believe that this was because of their familiarity with the works of John Douglas, as well as the other true crime material and fictional crime material in their home.

I believe that, as the Grand Jury found, Jonbenet died as a result of child abuse and that they went into panic afterwards, much like

Deborah Bradley,
Justin DiPietro

and others, who have covered up their actions, even unintended actions, which they believed would have brought them more trouble.

Juliette said...

Anon at 12:09, I wrote Ramseys, but it was the McCanns I was thinking of, my mistake.

Sus said...

There had to be a reason Lisa's body was hidden. The choices seem to be:
1. Her body would show it was no accident.
2. Lisa was killed by accident while something illegal was going on in the home.
3. Lisa was killed by accident while Debbie Bradley was doing something she did not wish Jeremy Irwin to know about.

With all three of these, I think Jeremy Irwin was told it was an accident ...at least at first.

Pythia Serpentis said...

They found dna on jb ramsey and it wasnt a match with either parent.

Anonymous said...

Her name is Lisa Irwin.
She should at least get that right Peter...if nothing else.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what to think. I just watched the episode that aired on Dr. Phil in August of 2012. Either she has convinced herself that she is innocent or someone else really did take the baby. It doesn't make sense that there is indication that someone else took the baby, yet they have no leads. For example: 1) The cells phones. They were deactivated and Deborah's phone "supposedly" called this woman at 11:57PM. The woman came forward and said that she doesn't know Deborah. Can't this woman say who called her? All the cell phones (3) disappeared; yet no other activity has shown up on the phones; 2) They have on camera a person carrying a baby wearing only a diaper. They have the images of him moving in a direction away from the Irwin's home. If they have this evidence, can't they find out who it is and where they went? 3) The cadaver dog got a hit in the bedroom. I don't know if this can happen by finding old DNA (like feces) on the rug, as the Irwin's attorney stated. However, I find it odd that the boys were sleeping in the room with Deborah; yet, she left Lisa in her crib. It sounds to me like she was a mother who needed the comfort of her two surviving children. It seems more likely than not that Deborah accidentally killed the baby and is covering it up. There seems to be a dispute about whether she passed the polygraph. Irwin's attorney claims that the police told her she failed so that they could gain leverage in the interrogation proceedings.

Anonymous said...

Unidentified girl in Greece matching Lisa's description.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, Greece girl isn't baby lisa ..


Hope she is not dead.
Too young.
Too precious.