Saturday, September 29, 2012

Baby Lisa: Questions and Answers

Q.  Why was deception indicated so quickly in this case, where as in other cases you wait for more press conferences?

A.  Because of the pronouns.  Pronouns (and articles) are:

1.  Instinctive.
2.  Exempt from Personal, internal, subjective dictionary that each of us has.

Pronouns are used millions of times by us and we are so good at using them, that they become instinctive for us.  Even length of time has little impact on pronouns.  Proof?  Think of something that happened to you more than 10 years ago.  Got it?  Now, prepare to tell what happened in your mind.  As you ready yourself to share your story, you will know whether to begin the story, even though it is more than 10 years old, with the pronoun, "I" or "we" without trouble.  You will remember if you were alone, or with others, even though many years have passed.

Deborah Bradley ran away from commitment to her story by using the pronoun, "we", from the beginning, and then crossed her pronouns in confusion.  "I woke up, we woke up..." and so on.  This was noted by readership even before analysis was complete.  Note that the inconsistency of pronouns continued throughout not only the first press conference, but in those that followed.

Pronouns are the simplest tool in discerning deception.  There are those who are intuitive in analysis, and in questioning them, they may not know principle, but are able to follow the pronouns well.

Q.  Why did you concluded deception that equaled guilt?  Sensitivity doesn't always mean guilt.

A.   This is a good question.  Not all deception is specified towards action.  For example, a parent is deceptive, and fails a polygraph because the parent was under the influence of drugs when the child went missing; therefore neglectful, even though  someone else harmed or killed the child.

We also saw sensitivity indicators in statements where someone was not guilty but was not truthful about aspects attending a case.  A man can be deceptive about his relationship with his missing wife, while not being guilty nor showing sensitivity indicators about the "what happened" aspect of the case. We need to see deception in the "what happened" part of a statement.

With Deborah Bradley, she was deceptive about the actual events of what happened that night.  She was deceptive about specifics, including sleeping, cell phones, and protected her deception by refusing to allow the entire house to be searched.

Q.  Why did police say that they had limited access to the house?

A.  Because Deborah Bradley gave permission to search specific parts of the house, and withheld specific areas to be searched.  She allowed the door frame to the outside to be searched, but areas near the bedroom door frame, for example, were restricted.

In response, her attorney said that they were cooperating with police with the sensitivity indicator:

"fully cooperating with police."

The word "fully" tells us that there is, in his mind, a different level of cooperation.  This is sensitive.  We don't know if the sensitivity indicator is because of him, police, or another circumstance, until more information comes out.

Therefore, we noted the cooperation as "sensitive."  Later, we learned about the severe restrictions placed upon the searching of the home.

Q.  What about the cadaver dog?

A.   There was reportedly a "hit"; that is, indication of human decomposition.  These dogs are not simply highly trained, but incredibly accurate.  This hit showed human decomposition.  These dogs are used successfully all over the world and by many different organizations.

Q.  Why do you say that Deborah Bradley wasn't drunk?  She is obviously a heavy drinker and even sounded entitled to her "Adult time."

A.  I did not say she wasn't drunk.  I said that she did not tell us that she was drunk.  In listening to her responses, she never once said that she was drunk.  I believe that this was a ruse set up by her attorney, who "suddenly" told media to ask her.

It was a shrewd move on his part.

The press had noticed her changing story and inconsistencies.   She did not tell us she was drunk, therefore, I won't do her the luxury of saying it for her.  I think she was drinking but I don't think she passed out.

Q.  If someone passes out due to alcohol, will they fail a polygraph?

A.   No.  An alcohol blackout is just that:  a black out.  If you do not have a memory of something, and that something is asked of you, you won't have a significant reaction.  Lying is seen by reaction.

In statement analysis, if you do not possess memory of something, you cannot speak of it.  Deception is indicated because the person has the will to deceive.  For example, if I told you, "I have a red car" and it is a lie, and you repeat, "He has a red car", your language will not show deception because you have no intent to deceive.

In a black out, there is no memory of which to conceal via deception.  The person will not have a significant change in reaction to the questions.  The pre screening process meant that Deborah Bradley, for example, knew exactly what questions would be asked.

1.  Do you live on Smith St?
2.  Is your daughter's name Lisa?
3.  Did you cause her death?
4.  Did you lie to police about the kidnapping?
5.  Is Jeremy Bradley Irwin the father?

No surprise questions.

Q.  Why did you say that the reward was a hoax when it has been shown that a rich benefactor was behind it?

A.  Because the language in the case showed that Lisa was dead and there was no chance in ever having to pay out the reward.  If you go back to the video of the press conference, several reporters noted the language from Stanton and how he was hedging his words so they pushed him to finally saying that the reward will be paid if someone brings Lisa right to him.  Since their language indicated that she was dead, the reward was never going to be paid out.

It was not a genuine offer and the benefactor would be told there was zero chance of payout.

Q.  Will you really quit all analysis if Lisa is found alive?

A.  Yes.

When someone speaks as much as Deborah Bradley, she gives us a great deal of information.  This is similar to some other cases, including missing Texas teenager, Hailey Dunn.  The mother spoke so much that she revealed many details of the case.  She now says her and her attorney are setting to sue people.

I say the same about Baby Lisa as I do Hailey:  If either is found alive, I will quit analysis, publish apologies everywhere I can, call any program that will have me to apologize and then destroy my laptop.

I can add that I will sign the title deed of my house over to Billie Dunn or Deborah Bradley if either was truthful and their child was alive, but it will have the same empty ring as Stanton's "reward" for Lisa's safe return.

Q.  What is the difference between the Baby Lisa case and the Hailey case?  Both have big mouth attorneys who jumped in for the free publicity and both have mothers who you claim are deceptive. 

A.  The major difference that I see is found within drugs.  Drugs pervert and slowly kill the soul.  Drugs invite in poor judgement, and especially overall deviancy. In the Hailey case, we saw vile overall behavior, drugs, child pornography, perversion, pornography, bestiality, violence, blood lust, and so on.  In the case of Baby Lisa, I think it was an unintended death that spiraled into a cover up.  Coming clean could have been met with leniency, in the beginning.

In the latter, there is a greater chance for an admission.  I think that Deborah Bradley was close to telling the police the truth, but due to media attention, it brought in the scent of money which was pounced upon by attorneys.   In the former, there are so many attendant evils that coming clean will mean prison.

Q.  Why do you hate attorneys?

A.  I don't hate attorneys.  I hate opportunists who pervert justice for their own gain.  I am not a fan of the fact that our country has relinquished its freedoms but lawyers are the only ones who seem to profit from the endless making of new laws but we are to blame.  We no longer elect leaders, particularly leaders who were tested under battle:  we elect lawyers.  Lawyers profit from new laws and the litigation that comes from new laws.

I also have a fondness for lawyers.

They give us much sample to practice with.

In the case of Hailey Dunn, her attorney incensed people with phrases such as "our girl" and "our daughter", sounding foolish.  In the case of Baby Lisa, a search of the NY Post will give you quite a view of Bradley's attorney.

Q.  Why does Jeremy Bradley refuse to be interviewed without Deborah Bradley's presence?

A.  Jeremy Irwin refused to be interviewed with Deborah Bradley to be there to "correct" him.  It is the only way they can keep the story straight.  If he cared about his daughter, he would have cooperated with the police from the beginning and not covered for Lisa's mother.  I think police had hoped to find Lisa through splitting them, and appealing to Irwin's paternal instinct.  Deborah Bradley's domination overruled that hope.

Q.  Why did you ask Ron Rugen to come on the show?

A.  Ron is highly intelligent, passionate, and was close to the case, initially believing Deborah Bradley's story.

Q.  Doesn't that make him look foolish?

A.  No.

Statement Analysis has an advantage over in person interviewing.  We have the luxury of only viewing her words, not her tears nor her presence.  Because he is a kind man, his empathy is expected.  For us, the "subject is dead; the statement is alive" , meaning that we are not analyzing Deborah Bradley.  We are analyzing her words.

There are other examples of intelligent people fooled by someone in cases like these.  The one fooled usually is:

a.  Kind
b.  Empathetic
c.  Has had personal (in person) contact with the guilty party.

This makes it very difficult for discernment as a friendship in its early stages develops due to kindness.  We see this in therapists who develop a strong bond with a sociopath.  They feel as if they are "betraying" the client by admitting that the client is lying.

We also have the element of parenting in these cases.  Ron, and other good people like him, who are parents, have a special feel for a parent who plays the victim.  They cannot help but wonder, "but what if the police are wrong?  What if the polygraph was wrong?  What if the Analyst is wrong?  I have just accused not only an innocent person, but a terribly hurting person, left bereft of her child, falsely!"

It is a lot to bear.

As we progress in the digital age, I think people are seeing more and more the value of transcribing an interview and allowing a dispassionate view of the words.

I was once involved in a case where an investigator was conducting a long interview with an addict.  From the addict's statement, I knew deception was indicated.

I made a list of 11 or 12 things that the investigator would say to me after the interview, in defense of the subject's "innocence."

When the interview was over, the investigator was exhausted and said, "I don't think he did it."

I had the investigator take a break, get some coffee and change scenery.

We then sat down and I read off my list:

1.  Did the subject say he didn't do it?
2.  Did the subject tell you his childhood?
3.  Did this increase your sympathy?
4.  Did the subject talk about chronic pain?  ("yes, but it is real!")
5.  Did the subject...

and on and on it went.

The investigator then went back over his notes, reading back the direct quotes from the subject.  He saw the guilt and deception.

Later, the subject confessed.

The investigator learned a valuable lesson:  Being up front and close with someone triggers our emotions and impacts caring individuals.

In my first interview with a killer, I was utterly unprepared for what I encountered.  I was unprepared for what my emotions did to me:  the sympathy I felt, the strong desire to believe innocence, and the desire to deny the truth.  I had to, literally, keep the record of what the crime entailed, at my side, under a notebook, just to remind me what this person was actually capable of.  After the interview, I sat in my car in the parking lot and bawled my eyes out.

Suspicious people cannot analyze statements because they cannot know what the expected looks like.  They are forever moving the landmark from its set location, by their suspicious nature, and without the expected in place, they are on shaky ground when the unexpected is spoken.  They do not easily recognize it as the unexpected.

Caring people care.  It is what they do.  If they are taken in because of their care, it is an indication of who they are. Yes, they need to step back and examine evidence, and learn to discern their own emotions, but it is within this emotional capacity that their own greatness is found.

Carrie McDonigle received no shortage of criticism on the Hailey Dunn case.  I have strongly disagreed with her.

Carrie McDonigle's daughter was abducted and killed by a monster.  If anyone could relate to the mother of a "missing" teen, it is Carrie.

But Carrie did something that I do not believe that I possess the courage to do:

She confronted Amber's killer, face to face.

Anything can be said of Carrie; anything at all, but she will always hold my admiration for the courage of that single act.

If someone's child is found by her, I promise you this:

No grateful parent is going to say, "Put my child back into the woods.  I don't think your dog was certified by the right people."

Amber:  source of inspiration for many 
God favor Team Amber.  It exists to honor Amber's memory.  

 God bless Carrie.  

Ron Rugen is not only an investigator, he wears a journalist's hat as well.  Notice that Ron possesses what has become a rare commodity in our "self" esteeming madness of today:  humility.

He didn't struggle to say he changed his opinion on the Baby Lisa case.  It took time to process his emotions.

This is another principle of Statement Analysis in play:   Emotions. 

We do not analyze emotions:  We analyze emotions within a statement.

When emotions are found in the perfect part of the story, at the height of the action, it is a signal of deception.  Tiffany Hartley's story of David Hartley's death is deceptive.  She spoke of her emotions right at the point of finding David, face down, no wait, face up, with God speaking to her (appealing to people of faith; clever). She put this in the logical part of the story.

In reality, we humans are different.  Like Ron with Baby Lisa, and me with my first killer interview, it takes time to process the emotions, and reason them through.  Avinoam Sapir's rare genius saw and chronicled the phenomena within statements.

"My heart was pounding as I walked towards the killer, thinking that I may never leave here alive, but I pressed on..." makes for really good story telling and book writing.  In reality, it is much more dull:

"I walked towards the killer..." and then, after the story, the truthful account brings up what emotions were felt.  Emotions in the "after" part of the story show truth.

Q.  Will this case be solved?

A.  I hope so.

 In the Baby Lisa case, they were up against a "bullying" type attorney, one who talks over interviewers and imposes his linguistic will upon interviewers.  He derailed police well and even though his answers sound stupid on television, his voice inflection emotes confidence.

Perhaps they will consider, in this case and others, another form of prosecution:  obstructing justice, or lying to police.  The defense will jump all over it to show it weak to a jury.

Time will always tick away for Deborah Bradley.  Should she and Irwin break up, she will live in fear of him telling police what he knows.  If she involved her brother in hiding Lisa's body, she has to live in fear that he might tell someone who might tell someone.  It is human nature.

The odds of solving the case increase with time.  Here is why:

As "Baby Lisa" fades from the public, goes with the fading is the draw of media hungry attorneys.  If it cannot bring fame, it cannot bring fortune, and the "pro bono" attorneys lose interest quickly.  The "Dr Phil" show was a sham where the lawyer dominated the show and the questions asked.

Deborah Bradley has a reason why she doesn't cooperate.

Deborah Bradley had a reason why she would not allow police full access to the home.

You know the reason, I know the reason, and police know the reason.  The only one who does not know the reason is a jury.

Little Baby Lisa's remains were left to be ravaged by wildlife.

 People give more dignity to their pet rabbits upon death than Jeremy Irwin gave to his daughter.


Anonymous said...

The obstruction of justice charge approach is interesting. Casey Anthony was ultimately only convicted of lying to police in connection with the investigation. I don't think you could be convicted of obstruction of justice for exercising your 5th amendment right to silence though. This also makes me thnk of another point you have raised in the past about eliciting confessions by threatening to remove children out of the home. There is a Supreme Court case that says this is coercion and that any confession obtained as a result of such a threat would be excluded. I don't recall the name of the case but will send it if I think of it. This is Ivy. Please excuse the typos.

Justme said...

Interesting information. I can't imagine the frustration the detectives and prosecutors must feel.

Lemon said...

An excellent post - thank you Peter and Heather to your commitment to the truth.

BostonLady said...

I agree with Lemon. Thank you!