Friday, January 2, 2015

A Tale of Two Answers: Baby Lisa and Philip Houston Part Two

The following is statement analysis of not only Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, but of the man who claimed that Deborah Bradley was truthful in her denial of involvement in the disappearance of Baby Lisa.

Questions to be answered by Statement Analysis:

1.  Is Deborah Bradley truthful?
2.  Is Jeremy Irwin truthful?
3.  Does Philip Houston believe Deborah Bradley is truthful in her denial of involvement?

Here is part two of the analysis of the two answers given in the Baby Lisa case, by her parents, to which former CIA Philip Houston gave a shocking conclusion to when he credited Deborah Bradley with reliability in her answer.

Mr. Houston stated on Fox News that the mother of "missing" 11 month old Baby Lisa, was truthful when she said she was not involved in her daughter's disappearance.

Did Deborah Bradley actually say she had no involvement?

Touted by Fox News as the nations "Human Lie Detector", I take both answers, one from Bradley and one from Jeremy Irwin, (the father) regarding involvement, to see if Mr. Houston is correct.  Fox News reported as if this one opinion will turn the case around.  Let's see if it is true.

Please note that this case has been analyzed by me since 2011, and I have made the following conclusions:

1.  Baby Lisa is dead
2.  Baby Lisa died in the home that night
3.  There was no kidnapping
4.  Deborah Bradley was deceptive in her answers about what happened that night.
5.  Jeremy Irwin was not involved in the disappearance/death of his daughter
6.  Jeremy Irwin was later deceptive in his answers about what happened to his daughter, in protection of Deborah Bradley.

No one has been charged, and these are only my opinions based upon the language of both.  Law Enforcement has not announced that Baby Lisa is dead, nor that the mother is responsible.

For more information about my analysis of this case, search on this blog under "Baby Lisa", as the mother has spoken extensively on television about the case. This posting is in response to a recent Fox News show which will air tonight, January 2, 2015 at 9PM EST, with the promotion showing Philip Houston asserting that Deborah Bradley was truthful in her denial of involvement.


Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwing were both asked about their possible involvement in the disappearance of Baby Lisa.

One allows for possible involvement while the other denies any possibility of involvement.

First, I look at the answer of Deborah Bradley, and then the answer of Jeremy Irwin.

I.  Deborah Bradley's Response

"None.  The only thing I did wrong...(pause) was drink that night, and um, possibly not be alert.  (pause)  Not hear.  I'm sorry. "

1.  "None"  

This is a strong denial and had she left it at that, it would have appeared strong.  Deceptive people, however, have a need to buttress their deceptive denial and persuade.  It is this need to persuade that gives us the information before us.

Remember the case of the missing wife where the husband had gone "camping" in the middle of a snow storm, at midnight, with his two young sons?

Josh Powell  was incredibly closed-mouthed and made it very difficult to get information from him.  He rarely went before a camera, did not cooperate with police, and guilt surrounded him until Powell killed his sons and himself in a murder suicide.  Susan Cox' remains were not found.  Powell remains the rare exception to not talking.

We often count every word after the answer "no", and find weakness in the count, as the guilty subject feels the onus to "prove" innocence, where often the truly innocent (not just judicially innocent) feel that the onus is on others because, quite simply, they "didn't do it."

When asked, "What would you say if I told you that I thought you did it?" the one who did not do it will often say things like:

"You need a new job."
"I don't care what you say."
"I didn't do it; go bother someone else."
"You're lying. I know this because I didn't do it."
"I'd say you're an idiot."

As they speak, the produce the natural and easy reliable denial.  They do not say,

"please be patient for the whole truth to come out" and other such things.  There is no legal consequence for one to truthfully say, "I didn't do it."

Objection:  Why don't we read more news stories that contain reliable denials?

Answer:  Because media often drops a story when they hear someone say "I didn't do it" and sense the confidence in the answer.  A news story is only interesting when the public gets "taunted" by the likes of:

Casey Anthony
OJ Simpson
Cindy Anthony:  she was her best Public Relations professional.  She antagonized the press with her responses.

How about the DA who said:

 "Just because someone might have told some mistruths, doesn't make them a liar."

Cagey responses cause journalists to act like sharks smelling blood and they go after the story, therefore, you and I end up reading about it.  Liars insult us and liars fascinate us and liars sell news.

When Justin DiPietro was asked about his response to his polygraph, he said he "smoked it", which grabbed our attention.  (One was tempted to ask if he had a prescription for this)

When his sister was asked about her results she said, "The results were fine."

This caused the journalist to ask again, to which she, again, replied, "fine."

Seeing that she was unable to give a reliable answer, she was asked a third time.

Deceptive answers, often cleverly put, draw attention of journalists.

Deceptive people who are quiet, are difficult to read.  Thankfully, most deceptive people, feeling the pressure to persuade, go beyond the single denial and yield to us more information.

Deborah Bradley:

2. "The only thing I did wrong" 

a.  Affirms that while her daughter is missing, she did something wrong.
b.  Uses the word "only" which is used when comparing one thing to a plurality of actions, separating that "one" thing from the rest.

From this answer, I now know that not only did she do something wrong the night her daughter disappeared, but she did other things that she does not consider "wrong."

This is a very strong indicator that she did not intend the death of her daughter.

Houston was asked about the answer.  Listen to what he says:

"I didn't see those deceptive indicators. She answered the question directly.  We're not giving her credit for answering that question directly.  We've giving her credit for not exhibiting those deceptive indicators. You didn't see any significant non verbals.  What we also saw was that got our attention immediately that in the question she immediately went to the fact that she had been  drunk that night.  She was actually accepting some  culpability of what happened."

In looking at his response to Megyn Kelly's challenge:

"I didn't see those deceptive indicators" is a strong statement.  Note that he begins in the negative, saying what he did not see.  This makes it important to him.  Rather than say "She is telling the truth", he chose to begin in the negative.


Next, note:   "Those", is distancing language, is appropriate as he is not owning them.   He uses the pronoun "I" for himself, which begins strong.
But then, he switches to "we", weakening the strong assertion that he began with ("I")  This could cause us to ask if he really believes what he is saying?

We do not have to wait long for the answer.  He goes from "I" to "we" and then to "you", moving himself out of the connection on the opinion.

Next, he then says "you" didn't see any significant non-verbals, which is different from saying "I didn't see any significant non-verbals."

What caused him to distance himself from "I didn't see those deceptive indicators" to the second person "you didn't see any significant..."? This is to distance himself from his own assertion. Follow the pronouns.

"I" turns to "we" which turns to "you" indicating that Houston is not committed to his own assertion.  If he is not committed to his own assertion, why is he making it?

Please note that I have updated this article with new information. (below).

Statement Analysis:  He does not believe what he is saying.

The use of "we" may be that he is considering his prior work that was done with the assistance of others.

He made a critical mistake here.  It is a "101" principle not to interpret one's language.  This is a key to the training and a challenge to overcome for attendees:  learning how to only listen to the words used, rather than what we think we heard.  Deceptive people are counting on us to interpret rather than listen.  It is how they get away with their lies.

 He concluded that she was "drunk" but that is not what she said.  In fact, in another later interview, she gave "cagey" (avoidance) responses about being drunk and was not able to bring herself to tell us she was drunk.  This is what deceptive people do:  they avoid the internal stress of a direct lie.

Many years ago, I had to transcribe an interview I had conducted with a child regarding child abuse allegations.  I had specific training in how to interview a child.  I recorded the interview and took careful notes.

I found that as I transcribed the interview, the transcription did not match my notes.  In my notes, the child was "feeling well" instead of what he actually said.  He used the word "good" and not the proper "well."

My notes corrected his usage.

This was a valuable lesson.

I once had a narcotics theft case in which I had a short telephone "interview" with the suspect who was intimidated by my reputation in detecting deception.  She ended up confessing, but due to regulatory issues, she had to be re-interviewed by someone from a different district.  I had called her to set up the interview, but she recognized my name and began to speak.  When one speaks, I listen and take notes.

The formal interview was quite lengthy and the investigator concluded that she did not do it, and must have only admitted doing it due to her fear of my reputation.  The investigator was exhausted and a consummate professional who believed in justice.

I asked him to take a coffee break and meet back with me to de-brief with his notes.

When we met, he reviewed his meticulously taken notes.  He did an excellent job of the interview, and let the subject speak for hours.

As he reviewed his notes, his opinion of her innocence dissipated.

I had asked him to go through it carefully, looking for the reliable denial.  Since his notes were carefully done, it took us about 15 minutes to learn:

Not once did she ever say "I didn't do it."

In fact, in his notes, we found her admission and reasoning for why she did what she did.  She did give plenty of "unreliable denials" including the word "never" and the word "would", but not once did she issue the simple reliable denial.  It was through the cloud of emotions, particularly caring and kindness, that the investigator had to look for answers.

We often listen with "honest ears", and we may genuinely like the person we are interviewing, which is why training is so important.

Perhaps after spending 25 years interviewing hardened terrorists, Mr. Houston was unprepared for a grieving mother.  A grieving mother was precisely whom he was interviewing, not a mother attempting to locate her daughter.

Grieving:  speaking of which, remember the time Bradley pushed away certain media?  She wanted certain media to leave her alone because, as she said, "we are grieving", rather than "searching."  Another example of 'brain leakage' by a guilty subject.

Bradley revealed to us that she did some things that night, with only one of them being "wrong."  She is also inconsistent in her report of doing "one thing" wrong, then listing multiple things that one could view as wrong.

She did not say "I was not alert."  She reduced commitment with "possibly."

She did not say "I was drunk."  

Even in the interview that was specifically held to reveal her drinking, she was unable to anything but say "uh huh" about being drunk.

People avoid direct lying because it causes us internal stress.  We lie by omission the most.


When Tania first saw the case, it was not a big story.  Deborah Bradley, herself, made it a big story with her cagey answers and her distancing language.  This is why Tania posted it for analysis.

Even untrained journalists "knew" there was a story, here.  Had Bradley said, "I didn't cause Lisa's disappearance" early on, the story would have been dropped.  Her refusal to state this, along with the rarity of using Lisa's name, made the story.

Her pronoun usage tells a story.

If you have a child, or a niece or nephew, picture you in this scenario and your loved one missing.  My grandson, Ethan, is a few months older than Lisa was when she died.  I picture myself speaking about Ethan.      

                                              (warning:  gratuitous family photos ahead).

I can only picture myself using his name, or some of the silly special names I have for him.  Without telling them the reason, I "interviewed" Christina (14) and Sean (12) about Ethan.

"How was he today?", I asked them, separately.

They each responded a bit differently.  They both enjoyed their time with him, but...

Sean responded  with delight, citing how much fun the little fella was, what he did, how he tried to speak, and so on.  Ethan wrestled with Sean, on the floor.

Christina attempted to get Ethan to sit still so she could read to him, which he resisted.

They clearly enjoyed their time with him, which was evident in their wording, but Sean had more fun with Ethan than Christina did.

  The language chosen is a lens of a camera which gives us a picture of the reality.  It is not the reality, itself, but their perceived reality.

I noted how often they used the pronoun "he" and how often they used his name.  It was a comfortable mix, as expected, with Sean using Ethan's name more, in this case, than Christina, who had more use of "he" and "him" than Sean did.

The difference in language represented the difference in reality. Because Ethan was more prone to wrestling than reading this day, Sean used Ethan's name more, showing closeness.  When Ethan becomes tired, the pronouns will switch, as Christina will enjoy holding him, even allowing him fall sleep in her arms, which will produce his name more.

We all do it.

We all reflect our perception of "what happened" in our choice of words.

"I went Christmas shopping with Heather" shows the word "with" between "I" and "Heather", indicating distance.  (We were in one of those candle shops where the senses are assaulted with scents of all kinds).

Yet, when we were at Barnes and Noble bookstore,

"Heather and I went Christmas shopping" which shows closeness.

At the candle shop, I waited outside, or at the perimeter, signaling her, "time's up!", but at
B&N, we stayed together, perusing books for Christmas gifts (Tale of Two Cities, Great Expectations) for Christina and Sean.  (Teens may resist Dickens, but will thank you, later, for having them read him!).

I love shopping for candles! 

It must be something traumatic that causes the brain to avoid using a child's own name.  This is similar to exercises we do in training.  It is called the "Expected Versus the Unexpected" and only works when honest people are involved.

In the Logan Marr case, the foster mother had good reason to distance herself from Logan, having duct-taped her into her high-chair only to have the poor struggling child fall backwards.  This trauma produced intense guilt and the brain, in order to protect itself, quickly distances itself from the personal connection with the child.

In her news conferences (plural), time and time again, Bradley avoided using her daughter's own name.  This distancing language was extreme.

I was once in a seminar given by Dr. Larry Ricci, of Maine.  Dr. Ricci is a child abuse specialist and is brilliant at explaining the cause and nature of injuries to children, while using the parent's explanation as his reference point.

In this seminar, the audience watched the police interview with a foster mother who duct-taped her child, killing her.

Then, we had an appearance from a mother who's son, Jake, was killed by Shaken Baby Syndrome.  Her presentation was called, "Don't Shake Jake"

The comparison of the two mother's pronouns told the story:

1.  Foster mother who killed Logan Marr used "she" and "her" most always.

2.  Don't Shake Jake's mother used Jake, Jacob, and lots of terms of endearment.

It was night and day different.

Back to Baby Lisa...
I also noted in Deborah Bradley's short answer, the words "I'm sorry" appear.  I train investigators to flag these words, no matter where nor how they appear, for possible leakage.  The brain produced the words and I seek to learn why in an interview.

Note that in the interview, this was a perfect time for several things:

1.  For Bradley to issue a reliable denial
2.  For the interviewer to explore what she was sorry for.
3.  For the interviewer to explore what else she did that night that she did not feel was wrong. This might have produced an admission.  Bradley did not present here, nor in her other interviews, as sociopathic or as a cold blooded killer.  She did present as selfish, enjoying the make over and media attention, and indicated that the baby interrupted her "adult" time.  When I couple this with Jeremy Irwin's response to "Who would have done this?" when he said,

"Someone who cheated on her husband" I come to the place where I am comfortable believing that Bradley felt justified being with her next door neighbor, drinking, and leaving Lisa unattended for a while.  These were the issues to explore with "the only thing I did wrong" in her statement.  I think she could have been led to admit that she lost her temper with Lisa.

I think it now must have been very frustrating for local police who were involved in the case to see a national expert say Deborah Bradley wasn't lying.  This was not a case where experts were divided on what happened, as is sometimes the case.

From experts right down through journalists and then to comments on news articles, I don't recall reading any defense of Bradley.  This is what makes Houston's claim so news worthy and so interesting.

5.  "not hear" has dropped pronoun.  She did not say "I didn't hear that night" and "I was not alert" and "I was drunk", yet the CIA human lie detector interprets this as a signal of veracity.

The "hearing" became a sensitive issue for Bradley, as her children either heard her that night, or she feared they heard her, so she limited access to them.

Philip Houston on Jeremy Irwin:

Houston asks:  "If police were to walk in here right now, and say to you, Jeremy, we have come across some evidence which clearly indicates you're involved in Lisa's disappearance. What would you say?"

Jeremy Irwin  answers:  "Well, it's not possible.  (pause)

Where Bradley offers something as "possible", Irwin offers no possibility.  He is like the truly innocent (not just judicially innocent:  I repeat this because guilty people will often say "I am innocent" instead of saying "I didn't do it"), which leaves no possibility for anything to surface, from any source, that says otherwise.  The onus is not upon him.  He didn't do it.  He then tells us why it is not possible:

(I mentioned earlier that Philip  Houston was silent at this point.  This was a good move.  He put the onus upon Irwin to continue speaking.  Either use silence (which puts the 'polite' onus upon the subject to speak) or say "I'm listening" which people have a difficult time resisting.  This was a good move by Mr. Houston)

"Its not possible because I wasn't, so it would just be another one of their lies."

Remember the question is about involvement.

This is a very strong denial, and he uses:

1.   the pronoun "I" to show it and unlike Deborah Bradley, there is no "possible" evidence of involvement.

2.  "Wasn't" is past tense.

3.  He then goes on to insult police.  Please note that when a person who didn't do it is asked, "What would you say if I told you that I think you did it?" (or something similar), the person who didn't do it will often turn on the investigator and say things like,

"You're wrong.  You need a new job" and so on.

He says "it would just be another one of their lies" referring to police.

This was the perfect time to ask, "what lies?" (which Mr. Houston may have; we do not know yet, as the video is cut).

The onus is upon law enforcement because he "wasn't" involved.

With just this question asked, Deborah Bradley would not pass a polygraph, but Jeremy Irwin would.

Deborah used "none" and then went on to give possible culpability, but Irwin, who was not home when Lisa met her demise, feels no such need to do so, and goes on to insult police.  He is strong in his position because he didn't do it.  Bradley hedges, references several things, but only connects herself to one of the things, which she defines, in her mind, as "wrong."

Her internal, subjective dictionary needs exploration.  Perhaps Mr. Houston did, as we may see depending upon how much video is revealed on the program.

Jeremy Irwin was not involved in Lisa's demise and was able to say this without sensitivity indicators.

Deborah Bradley's answer reveals information to us that leads us to explore her involvement.

As to Philip Houston's conclusion that Bradley was truthful when she said "none" to being involved, he is mistaken.

Her response does indicate involvement to which her failed polygraph and statement analysis all agree.

I continue to assert, however, that Bradley did not intentionally cause Lisa's death. This is an opinion I hold.  I think that in a moment of temper along with some stress triggers and alcohol conspired together against Lisa.

Deborah Bradley had good reason to keep law enforcement from searching the home exhaustively and when her team floated the "an old nail clipping or dirty diaper set off the cadaver dog", they strained credulity, yet not as much as did her story of the window.

In order to agree with Mr. Houston, that Bradley was not involved, we have to accept her story which means:

A stranger had to:

1.  Target this particular home for a baby to kidnap.  What are the odds?
2.  Next, the kidnapper had to choose the only night in which the father would have to work overtime and not be home.

What are the odds of this happening?

3.  Then, The kidnapper had to choose a night that not only would the father not be home, but it would be the night when they put her to sleep in a different room.

4.  Then, the kidnapper had to choose the right home, on the right night when the father would not be home, and the right night when Baby Lisa would go to sleep in a different room, but then choose the right window to enter.  What are the odds?

5.  NEXT, the kidnapper not only had to choose the right home, on the right night, and pick the right window, but would have to get in the house without being heard by Bradley or her children.

What are the odds?

Not done yet...

NOW, the kidnapper would have to pick the right house, on the right night when the father would not be home, pick the perfect night where she is put to sleep, not in her room, but a different room, with an open widow, get in the house without being heard but...

leave the lights on!

What are the odds.

Yet, I am not done yet.

In order to agree with Mr. Houston and believe Deborah Bradley, the kidnapper or kidnappers had to choose the perfect home, on the one night in which the father would be called into work for overtime, and on the perfect night in which Lisa would not be in the usual spot, but a new spot, with the widow open and get in and out of the house without being heard and..

do so with the lights on.

But wait, there is more:

(last one, I promise)

The kidnapper has to choose the right house, on the right night, and choose the right bedroom on the right night, and get in and out without being heard, with the lights on and somehow,

get away with Baby Lisa without leaving behind a single shred of trace evidence.

I'm not a behavioral analysis expert but I do plunk down a dollar, about once every few months, and play the powerball lottery.

What are the odds of:

1.  Statement Analysis of Deborah Bradley being wrong, repeatedly wrong and consistently wrong, on everything from what happened to the baby being dead;

2.  The polygraph results being wrong.

3.  The kidnapper choosing the perfect house, on the only night in which the father was called to work for overtime, on the night in which the mother decided to put the baby in a different room, with the window open, where the kidnapper can enter the home, turn on all the lights, not be heard, get in and out without leaving behind even trace DNA evidence, leave no ransom note or demand, and never be heard from again...

not to mention the deceptive assertion by Bradley about the cell phones...

What are the odds of all of this coming together, in perfect harmony, to clear Deborah Bradley?

I return to the simple denial that Deborah Bradley was unable to bring herself to say, from Day one of this case.

"I didn't do it."

Now, and only now, picture the frustration of the police who investigated this case, and came this close to justice, only to have a brash, publicity seeking attorney from New York show up, and shut the whole thing down. Communication came to a screeching halt.

Three years plus have passed and the same frustrated investigators now hear a nationally acknowledged expert tell them that Bradley is truthful.

It is a ratings bonanza but that is all it is.  It is not truth, and it does not bring justice for Baby Lisa. It more than anything else seems like a publicity stunt where a Joe-Tacopina type is pulling some interesting strings behind the curtains.

In terms of statement analysis, this was not a difficult case.  Deborah Bradley spoke often and she often showed deception.  It did not need a microscope.  Those without training said "it doesn't pass the straight face test", and those of common sense looked at the plausibility of the odds of a kidnapping and concluded the same.  The statements made by the mother are useful in trainings to show deception.

Baby Lisa was not kidnapped.  She met her demise that fateful night, and was unceremoniously dumped somewhere in which she would not be found. She will never be "discovered" alive and no one will ever collect the phony reward money promised.

Stranger abductions are rare.  If Lisa was targeted for illegal adoption, for example, this would place the case in extreme rarity.

How could the abductor have known:

what house to choose for the right baby for illegal adoption?  Once the home is chosen, how would the abductor know the night the father would be away, and how, on this very same night, the mother would chose to put her to sleep in a different room?  Turning lights on?  Being unseen?  Being unheard?  Getting in and out of a window without a drop of DNA anywhere?  Then the kidnapper took her cell phones and pinged close to the house?

Defying all odds, it becomes non-sensible.

What does make sense is the Statement Analysis of the case.

What does make sense is the Behavioral Analysis of the case.

Everyone has an opinion or judgement about cases like these.  When someone speaks on television, they invite viewers to formulate an opinion.

Do you believe Deborah Bradley?

Do you not believe Deborah Bradley?

Sometimes we find that those who believe the subject to be truthful will condemn those who do not as having "passed judgement", not realizing that:

Judgement is inescapable and that
they are judging the person they disagree with.

When someone speaks (or writes) the reason for their judgement, it allows for analysis and eventually for correction or confirmation.

I have given my opinion on this case, but here, specifically that the two answers from Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin are fundamentally different, and that Bradley is not truthful.

But I have stated my reason why I assert Bradley is not truthful.   My reasoning is in writing and can be dissected, corrected, or affirmed.  I do not throw stones at those who disagree, but only ask the same:  if you believe Bradley's words, explain why you believe it.  If it is just "my gut reaction", then even stating as much is helpful.  There are times where I have felt, for unexplained reasons, why one was truthful while another was not.

Yet we deal in a scientific process where Statement Analysis applied evenly should produce the same results no matter where they are done, or by whom.

Body language analysis, on the other hand, is quite different, and as Dr. Ekman has recently come out to say that he will not declare someone truthful or deceptive unless he, himself, conducts the interview process, those who follow his micro expression teaching are left bereft of concrete answers.

Deborah Bradley is deceptive.

If she did not cause the death, she has lied and covered up the death and, from the beginning, knew that Lisa was dead and not missing.  This is my conclusion.

I am not equivocating in my statement with, "perhaps" and "possibly" but am asserting it plainly.

If I am wrong, I can be both corrected, and then instructed on the 'wherefore and why' of my error.

It makes for interesting reading.

With the possibility that a 25 year CIA veteran making the bold assertion "turning the case on its ear" that Deborah Bradley is truthful, it will make for interesting news tonight....or, will it?

UPDATE:  It has been pointed out that Bill Stanton works for Philip Houston.  Stanton was part of the team of Bradley supporters working Public Relations as led by Joe Tacopina.

When this case was in the news, I did not find any statement analyst, profiler, or even criminal investigator make a case for Deborah Bradley being "truthful."  I did not find any strong debates or any evidence that showed she was not involved, nor did I read any news articles where a commentator defended her.

When Fox News announced that a "detection expert with 25 years experience in the CIA now says..." they should have disclosed the connection to the case.  I hope on tonight's program they do.

This explains why Houston is not embarrassed to go on television and make such an easy "mistake" in detecting deception.

Team Tacopina did their best to prevent justice for Baby Lisa.  I understand why Houston had such change of pronouns in his statement, moving from the strong "I", to the use of "we" and finally to "you", while asserting that Deborah Bradley did not show indicators of deception.

He does not affirm what he asserts.  Statement Analysis conclusion:

Houston, himself, doesn't  show belief in what he is asserting.  

He began by stating what he did not see, using the pronoun, "I", but weakened it by moving to the pronoun "we", sharing an opinion, but in the same statement, he then removed himself from the conclusion of the matter saying what "you" see.

Follow the pronouns.

 Follow his pronouns.

It reminds me of when a defense attorney speaks publicly on behalf of his client, attempting to persuade, but giving himself away when he speaks.

Philip Houston does not appear to believe his own assertion.

My conclusion of the three questions posed at the beginning of this article:

1.  Was Deborah Bradley truthful in denying involvement?    No
2.  Was Jeremy Irwin truthful about denying his involvement?   Yes
3.  Did Philip Houston believe Bradley was truthful in denying her involvement?    No.


Anonymous said...

When exactly was this interview conducted?
Was this arranged by lawyers, or by law enforcemnt?

Anonymous said...

makes sense. "Wild Bill Stanton" connects the "CIA expert" to the Baby Lisa case.

Follow the money from the NY lawyer to Stanton and now to the "Cia expert"

What a croc of crap.

Anonymous said...

There should be laws that a parent of a missing child needs to talk to law enforcement or be charged with child endangerment for not helping LE find their child.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Thank you for the post.

I did not know that Stanton worked for Houston. Stanton was part of the team that prevented justice for Lisa, as led by Joe Tacopina.

This explains why Houston was "wrong" in his deception analysis.

Fox News should disclose this. If they do not, it is shameful on their part.


Statement Analysis Blog said...


I have updated my article.

Kellie said...

Anonymous said...
There should be laws that a parent of a missing child needs to talk to law enforcement or be charged with child endangerment for not helping LE find their child.

January 2, 2015 at 4:21 PM


John Mc Gowan said...

Houston was asked about the answer. Listen to what he says:

"I didn't see those deceptive indicators

Wow! And this guy is supposed to be a human "lie detector"

Anyone worth their salt who knows anything about Body language will laugh at his response and conclusion.

There is NO one indicator that that will tell you someone is lying. Body language can be, and is, very ambiguous.

A baseline is paramount, much like a polygraph. If i ask a question and you shift in your seat, you may just be uncomfortable and want to change position. If i ask you a question and you cross your arms, again, you may just be cold or its how you sit, you may have pains, there are numerous reasons why you crossed your arms, cold etc.

Back to baseline. Observation of someones base line is crucial. Again like a polygraph, there should not be any surprise questions. When asked a question we observe their reaction. (Did this so called "lie detector" Observe their baseline before the interviews began) ?

If their answer to a certain question shows a shift from their baseline, we take note of what question produced it. We then move away from the question and carry on with the interview. If there is no reaction to any further questions, we then go back to the question that elicited the change in their baseline. If we get the same Body language response then we have hit on a point they don't like. Now, this is also crucial. If the question is "did you harm your daughter/son" etc. The question itself, innocent or guilty will provoke a response, reaction, verbally or non verbally, again, innocent or not. It's human nature to react to such a personal subject.

When going for a job interview we all get nervous, this doesn't mean we are lying (well some do) but you get my point.

Micro expressions are very reliable at reveling someones emotions, when one wants to disguise their inner feelings.

If i asked you do you like apples and you say yes and flash a micro expression of disgust. I will question your answer. You may like apples, but in the past you may have had a bad or rotten apple that made your feel disgusted and your subconscious has brought forward that experience which manifested itself in the disgust micro expression. Your not lying about not liking apples. You just didn't like the apple that made you feel disgust, thus it revealed itself.

I could go on and on about Body Language. My salient is, Body language is another tool in the box to use.

To conclude truthfulness or guilt by body language alone without further investigation is negligible to say the least!

And i'm NO "expert"

Tania Cadogan said...

The kidnapper choosing the perfect house, on the only night in which the father was called to work for overtime, on the night in which the mother decided to put the baby in a different room, with the window open, where the kidnapper can enter the home, turn on all the lights, not be heard, get in and out without leaving behind even trace DNA evidence, leave no ransom note or demand, and never be heard from again..
With the mccanns we had them repeatedly tell the world they were grieving. also the similarities are scary

The kidnapper choosing the perfect apt. on the only night in which the parents decided to keep a closer eye on the children after the alleged crying incident, on the night in which the tapas 7 decided to checks the mccanns children which wasn't reciprocated by the mccanns, with the patio door left unlocked, where the kidnapper can enter the home, not be heard or seen by gerry on his check despite allegedly being in the apartment and sensed by gerry or waking the twins,nor having the metal shutter heard when he opened it despite it being a silent street late at night and gerry, jez and tanner allegedly outside the apt., get in and out without leaving behind even trace DNA evidence, leave no ransom note or demand, and never be heard from again..

GetThem said...

I'm saving this analysis. This covers so much info!!! TY.

Was the seminar with Dr. Larry Ricci, of Maine because of the Ayla Reynolds case?

S + K Mum said...

What reason is behind this case being brought back to the spotlight? It appears Deborah has got away with her crime, then this guy is on TV telling everyone she is truthful and wasn't involved.....what exactly is the point? Just ratings?

Tania Cadogan said...

there is no mention of any rewards not request to search, no cooperation with LE, no pleas to the alleged abductor.

Life goes on as normal, as if there was no 'abduction', as if there isn't a child missing.

In fact kate positively bloomed as if a weight had been lifted from her shoulders when Maddie was 'abducted' (died although kate did tell us Portugal doesn;t want a murder on it's hands, which would explain their subsequent behavior)

Anonymous said...

Peachtree City chief’s 911 call regarding the accidental shooting of his wife

Transcript of the 911 call:

John Mc Gowan said...

911: Fayette county 911, what’s the address of your emergency?

Chief: 103 Autumn Leaf.

William McCollom photo
Peachtree City Police Department
Peachtree City Police Chief William McCollom
911: What’s going on there?

**At :12…Chief: Uh, gunshot wound…accidental. Need medical asap.

911: OK. Where are you shot at?

Chief: What’s that?

911: Where is the person shot at?

Chief: In the back.

911: Is it a male or female?

Chief: Female.

911: How old is she? How old is she?

Chief: 58

**At :40…911: She’s shot in the back and in the side?

Chief: Yes…and numb in the back. Come on. Let’s get them here.

911: Somebody else is dispatching help. I need to get some more information from you. You said it was an accident?

Chief: Yes.

911: She was shot twice accidental?

Chief: Yes.

**At :58…911: Who shot her?

Chief: Me.

911: How did you shoot her?

Chief: I was…the gun was in the bed. I went to move it…uh, put it to the side and then it went off.

911: Is she awake?

Chief: No. Everybody was sleeping.

911: No, is she awake now?

Chief: Huh?

911: Is she awake now?

Chief: Yes.

911: Is she breathing?

Chief: Yes.

911: And…103 Autumn Leaf. What’s your nearest intersection or street?

Chief: Uh we’re in Center Green (sp?)

**At 1:32…911: Where’s the gun at?

Chief: Uhhh, geez I don’t know. I threw it to the side. It might be in the bed here. I don’t know.

**At 1:43 Chief: You having trouble breathing Dear?

911: Alright, I want you to…you are with her now?

**At 1:50…Chief: What’s that? I’m the Chief of Police. It’s a…the bed, the gun is on the dresser.

**At 1:57…911: OK. You’re the Chief of Police in Peachtree City?

Chief: Yeah, unfortunately. Yes.

911: Alright, is this your wife?

Chief: Yes.

911: OK sir. Um, I do want to ask you some more questions about her health right now. Somebody else has already dispatched help so we’re not delaying that OK?

Chief: OK.

**At 2:25…911: Is that her crying?

Chief: Yes, she’s having trouble breathing now.

911: OK.

**At 2:35…(you hear moaning/crying in background)

911: OK. (more moaning) This just occurred now right before you called.

Chief: Yep..yep and also in the middle of the night.

911: Is there any serious bleeding?

Chief: Well, it’s internal but yes there is.

911: OK, is she completely alert?

Chief: Yes

911: OK

Chief: And you already told me it was the back.

**At 3:03 Chief: She’s starting to have trouble breathing now so it must be internal.

911: OK. Is she on her back?

Chief: She’s laying on her stomach.

911: She’s laying on her stomach. OK. If you see any external bleeding, we’re going to apply direct pressure to that OK? Is she bleeding where you can see it?

Chief: Yes.

911: OK, I want you to get a dry clean cloth and I want you to apply direct pressure to the wound.

Chief: OK.

**At 3:34 (sound of moaning) Chief: Ok

911: Ok I want you to hold the cloth there. Do not lift it to look at it. Just keep applying pressure …

Chief: (hard to understand)

911: Ok. You want them to enter through the front door?

Chief: I don’t care if they come in the side door. It’s fine, I don’t care.

**At 3:59…Chief: aLright, come on guys…get here.

Chief: Yeah, I got the door open for them.

**At 4:11…Chief: Oh my God.

911: What’s your name sir?

Chief: How did this happen?

911: What’s your name sir?

Chief: Will McCollum (need to check spelling)

**At 4:15…911: Were you asleep also sir when it happened?

Chief: Yep, are you alright dear? I know you are not alright. I mean, are you still breathing? Still alert for me?

911: Is there anybody else there with you guys?

Chief: No.

**At 4:37: Chief: Come on. Hurry, hurry, hurry.

911: I hear them in the background. They are coming as fast as they can. Ok?

Chief: I can hear them.

911: Do we have that dry clean cloth on her wound?

Chief: Alright come on guys.

911: You see them sir?

**At 5:30 Chief: Right there on the dresser is the gun.

911: Is there an officer there?

Chief: Jamie is here, yeah.

911: Ok, Chief I’m going to let you go…

John Mc Gowan said...

Sorry, Anons OT ^^

Tania Cadogan said...

**At :12…Chief: Uh, gunshot wound…accidental. Need medical asap
Why does he not say female victim gunshot to the whereaver, victim is conscious and then give the address when prompted?
The 4th word is accidental, why the need to stress it was accidental?
Note the dropped pronouns, he doesn't say who is shot or who needs medical attention.
No mention is made either as to the shooter, himself, the victim or a 3rd party.

911: How did you shoot her?

Chief: I was…the gun was in the bed. I went to move it…uh, put it to the side and then it went off.

Note the pause and self editing.

I was...

The gun was in the bed.

I went to move it... uh

put it to the side and then it went off.

I was what?
What was he doing prior to the gun going off.

The gun was in the bed.
He doesn't tell us why the gun was IN the bed rather than ON the bed, nor how it got there.

I WENT to move it... uh
He doesn't tell he moved it only that he went to move it.
It is an incomplete action.
There is then a pause as he takes to to think what happened next

put it to the side and then it went off.
pot the dropped pronoun.
Who was going to put to the side?
The side of what?
Note the passivity in relation to the gun going off?
He doesn't say he caused it to go off, or he accidentally pulled the trigger.
The gun it seems went off on its own.
This would cause me to ask why the safety wasn't on?

911: Is she awake?

Chief: No. Everybody was sleeping.

Did he really not hear the question or is he deliberately pretending not to and coming up with an explanation for something not yet asked?

**At 4:15…911: Were you asleep also sir when it happened?

Chief: Yep, are you alright dear? I know you are not alright. I mean, are you still breathing? Still alert for me?

If he was asleep when it happened how could he have gone to move the gun?
Where is the urgency?
he seems remarkably calm considering his wife is shot and then he asks if she is still breathing?
This strikes me as an odd question to ask since if she wasn't she couldn't answer and he should have enough training to check.
Then the dropped pronoun in relation to her being still alert for me..
Is his concern for her or for the fact she may live to tell LE what happened?

911: Is there anybody else there with you guys?

Chief: No

previously we are told everyone was sleeping, now he says there is nobody else there with him when asked with the response no.
If a gun had gone off, that would have woken everyone up.
Why is no one with him helping?
Are they young children?
Have they been told to stay out the room?

911: OK. (more moaning) This just occurred now right before you called.

Chief: Yep..yep and also in the middle of the night.

Why the need for the additional information that it's the middle of the night?
Is the time sensitive?

911: Ok. You want them to enter through the front door?

Chief: Yeah, I got the door open for them.

How did he get the front door open for them?
Did he open it or did someone else, if so who?

**At 1:32…911: Where’s the gun at?

Chief: Uhhh, geez I don’t know. I threw it to the side. It might be in the bed here. I don’t know

**At 1:50…Chief: What’s that? I’m the Chief of Police. It’s a…the bed, the gun is on the dresser.

I don't know is repeated twice making it sensitive.
He threw it to the side.
We then see self editing again with it's a The we have him say the bed
Finally he saysThe gun is on the dresser
I would ask where the dresser is in relation to the bed and the position of the gun on the dresser.
I would also ask if anything had been knocked over since he told us he threw it.

Tania Cadogan said...


Why would he throw the gun away if it had just gone off and could possibly go off again since the safety clearly wasn't on.

There is distancing between him and the gun.
Was it a private weapon or a service weapon?
At no point is it my gun or her gun or even our gun.

Why was he not applying pressure to her wound?
He is a cop, they know basic first aid and with gunshots with a lot of bleeding you apply pressure to stop the bleeding preferably with a clean dressing or cloth, if not available anything will do.

No explanations is given for why the gun was IN the bed, it simply appears.
Someone had to place t6he gun there, who?

I wonder where she was shot and if he thought she would die?
Why did he say he shot her twice ?
This contradicts him saying he went to move the gun and it went off.
Not the passivity, he didn't shoot, the gun went off.

You don't shoot someone twice accidentally.

Did he fire twice and miss with one shot?

They will be able to see how many bullets were fired and should find where the bullets went/landed.

If he shot once why did he think he shot twice?

There are a lot of red flags here which make me ask, what is he not telling us.
I get the feeling there was an argument or fight before she got shot.

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

The woman critically injured by her police chief 'husband' in a pre-dawn New Year's Day shooting divorced him 15 years ago, has learned.

And Chief William McCollom went on to marry a rabbi in 2002 he met when she was his police department's chaplain in Delray Beach, Florida.

But that marriage too ended last March when he engaged in an extra-marital relationship, she claimed in court papers. McCollom reunited with his first wife Maggie— who is now recovering in the hospital from the bullet fired from his gun in the couple's own bedroom.

These revelations come as it is leaned that McCollom told a 911 dispatcher that he accidentally shot his wife while moving a handgun that was in their bed - at 4:17 am on New Year's day.

The police chief calmly told the dispatcher that he needed medical assistance for an accidental gunshot would at his suburban Atlanta home.

The dispatcher asked, 'Who shot her.'

McCollom answered, 'Me. The gun was in the bed, I went to move it, and I put it to the side an' it went off.'

McCollom and Maggie lived together for two years before McCollom's divorce from Suzanne came through last year. In court papers, obtained by MailOnline, Suzanne claimed he had 'engaged in an extra-marital relationship.'

The tangled marriage-go-round that led up to Thursday's 4 a.m. shooting adds new intrigue to the incident that has shocked the leafy Atlanta suburb of Peachtree City.

McCollom, 57, called 911 to say he had accidentally shot his wife, a former emergency-room nurse, twice with his police-issued Glock 9 mm. handgun. But it was later determined that she had only been hit once.

Investigators have not revealed whether alcohol or drugs were involved in the shooting.

McCollom has now been placed on paid administrative leave by authorities in the city of 34,000, 30 miles south of Atlanta, as investigations into the shooting get underway. No charges have yet been filed.

The city's police have handed the case to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) due to McCollom's rank. The police chief is said to be cooperating fully.

After being interviewed on Thursday, McCollom went to the hospital to be with his wife. It is understood the couple's daughter, has also flown to Atlanta to be by her mother's side.

McCollom had only been Peachtree City's chief of police since October, earning $115,000 a year. He joined the force as assistant chief two years ago and was made interim chief in July after the previous chief Skip Clark stepped down suddenly.

Fayette County District Attorney Scott Ballard told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that charges are possible. 'We’ll keep an open mind about this, and certainly the GBI has taken an open mind. The police department has been incredibly cooperative with them as they gave the facts they need. When we have those facts, we’ll see if it’s appropriate to bring charges.'

William and Maggie McCollom were married in the late 1980s and divorced in 1999, documents show. For 22 years he worked for the Delray Beach police department in Florida, rising to the rank of assistant chief. While there, he met Suzanne Carter, a rabbi, who was the department's chaplain.

Tania Cadogan said...


But he suddenly quit the Delray force in 2006 to become chief of police in the much smaller Florida beach town of Tequesta — taking a $20,000-a-year pay cut. He left that job in 2010 so he could look after his ailing sister in Wyoming.

While in Wyoming — his home state — McCollom worked as a general contractor, and only returned to law enforcement when he moved to Georgia in 2012 to a newly created position of assistant police chief in Peachtree City.

He beat out 53 other applicants for the $91,000-a-year job. His appointment was heavily criticized locally at the time with accusations of cronyism as then chief Clark had come to Peachtree City from Juno Beach, Florida, less than 15 miles from Tequesta.

After the McColloms' marriage broke down, William McCollom wed Rabbi Carter. But that marriage also failed. McCollom and Carter were only divorced last year, two years after he and Maggie had moved into the three-bedroom home where Thursday's shooting took place.

McCollom called 911 at 4.17 am on New Year's Day to say he had accidentally shot his wife twice. She was airlifted to Atlanta Medical Center in critical condition.

In the call he said his wife was having difficulty breathing and appeared to be suffering from both internal and external bleeding. She can be heard crying in the background.

'Oh my God," the police chief said. 'How the hell did this happen?'

Lt. Mark Brown, of Peachtree City Police Department told reporters at a New Year's Day press conference that McCollom is 'very well-liked' by those who work under him.

'The department is hurting,' said Brown. 'We're very concerned for his wife and the chief. We're just trying to make sure everything is done correctly as far as the investigation goes.'

According to Mrs McCollom's Facebook, she is licensed practical nurse who used to work in an emergency room.

A neighbor who lives across the street from the McColloms described them as a 'loving couple' who 'do a lot of things together' and that he says he has 'never seen any problems over there', according to Fox.

Read more:

John Mc Gowan said...

A few more points Tania.

Alibi building straight from the get go. "Accidental"

The gun moves from the bed to the dresser by it's self.

We do not know who she is until the operator asked.

His status is more important than letting them know who has been "accidently" shot.

Not once does he mention her name.

911: OK. (more moaning) This just occurred now right before you called.

Chief: Yep..yep and also in the middle of the night.

What happened in the middle of the night before this occurred ?

As you point out Tania. The Whole call is littered with red flags.

Anon Y mous said...

Foxy lady also didn't ask if Taco Joe is still representing DB.

Anonymous said...

One of the boys is his. But you have a point why are they still not married.

Tania Cadogan said...

The mother of missing girl Lisa Irwin has spoken of her ongoing anguish over the loss of her daughter - and revealed that she still looks into every passing stroller wondering if the child inside is actually hers.

Deborah Irwin also repeated how she regrets getting drunk with a friend on the night her daughter, aged just 10 months, vanished more than three years ago.

In a tearful interview alongside her husband Jeremy, she told how she felt kidnappers took advantage of a moment of weakness and snatched her child while she wasn't alert enough to react.

Deborah remembers tucking her daughter in on October 4, 2011, then started drinking in the house with a friend, while Jeremy was working a night shift.

He came home to find the child missing, and despite years of searching neither they nor police have a clue what happened to her.

Speaking to Fox News anchor Megan Kelly, Deborah revealed how the loss still haunts her and has her constantly wondering whether children the age her daughter would be now - around four years old - are actually Lisa.

She told Kelly: 'I did it all day today when we were walking around before we came here to see you. We were standing on the corner and I see a little girl.'

'She was in her stroller, she was about Lisa's age, and I looked down at her and I said to Jeremy: "I'm really tired of looking at everybody else's kid hoping it's mine."'

The parents also said that they keep her room as it was when Lisa vanished - and keep filling in with presents after every birthday and Christmas for Lisa to open should she return.

Deborah said the room is a source of comfort to them. She said: 'It feels good to go in there, and smell her, and know that someday she's going to come home and she's gonna see all these presents and she's gonna be excited to open them and to watch her reaction and stuff like that.'

Police are still hunting for Lisa, and are called up with around two tips per week. A $100,000 reward has been posted for information leading to her safe return.

Recently a new missing poster was put out featuring a digital version of what her face may look like more than three years on, which Deborah and Jeremy hope will prompt more leads in the search.

However, the frantic night they realized their daughter was missing still haunts them, and their accounts have prompted waves of criticism from those who suspect or doubt their account.

Returning to the desperate discovery that Lisa was missing, Deborah spoke of her biggest regret from that night - her decision to drink after putting Lisa to bed. She says the alcohol made her less alert for what she believes was a planned snatching.

She said: 'I wish I hadn't been drinking. I feel like it was planned and they were gonna take her... maybe if I hadn't been drinking I would have heard something and got up. I just feel like I didn't save her.'

Read more:

John Mc Gowan said...

She said: 'I wish I hadn't been drinking. I feel like it was planned and they were gonna take her... maybe if I hadn't been drinking I would have heard something and got up. I just feel like I didn't save her.'

Again we see here, she does not say she was drunk, but was "drinking", as pointed out in Peter's Article

trustmeigetit said...

Totally agree.

The "right to remain silent" is a joke. Especially when it is your own child.

I also think failing to immediacy report your child missing should be a crime.

trustmeigetit said...

He said:

"I didn't see those deceptive indicators"

He is quite vague. "those deceptive indicators"

Which ones is he thinking of?

trustmeigetit said...

Isabel's mother also stated the reason they refused to speak out for 2 weeks was that they were "grieving" rather than searching, frantic to find the missing child. To me you would be on alert. Grieving feels like an end result.

Or even what you may finally accept after a great deal deal of time has passed.

Anonymous said...

Deborah Bradley makes me wanna puke. She says she still looks in every passing stroller, wondering if the child inside could be her baby Lisa? Over three years later and her daughter would be nearing four years old and she looks inside strollers? Just 'today standing on a corner she looked inside a stroller and told Jeremy she's tired of looking in strollers?'

Killer b'tch is alluding that her childs age would have stopped at ten months old and she might see her in a stroller? Crazy woman. She must think the whole world is bat-shyt crazy like she is. Lisa would be four years old now and certainly not riding around in any damned stroller! I just can't believe what the media and supposed investigators will allow a baby murderer to get away with without even questioning it.

Anonymous said...

Anon, I was wondering about the same thing. Why would Lisa be in a stroller now?

Did they use air time this time to plead with the kidnapper? Did they ask the public to report if they see a little girl who looks like the photo? Did they sound like they are searching for Lisa? (other than looking into strollers)
Or was this interview about trying to prove their innocence again?

IF they are innocent, it is their worse nightmare. IF they are not innocent,and their baby died in their home, it has to be a different kind of hell. Yes, has to be hell, because hiding a baby, and denying a proper burial from her is an unforgivable crime. There's no way to justify that. IF they are not innocent, the guilt over deceiving LE and the public is nothing compared to the guilt they must feel toward their baby girl.

Anonymous said...

That's why it is incomprehensible why they don't confess.

John Mc Gowan said...

Given that the CIA "expert" said he didn't see any Non Verbals indicating "deception" I came across this article post on my FB news feed posted by Joe Navarro an Ex FBI agent.

Can you tell how people are feeling from their expressions?

Scientists at Ohio State University have compiled a list of 21 "compound emotions" – such as angry sadness – that might help uncover the algorithm the brain uses to recognise emotion. But can we actually tell what they are?

• Scientists map facial expressions for 21 emotions.

Sus said...

To this day, I am surprised Jeremy has not confessed. He is the one that hints at what happened and seems on the verge of telling it all. I can only surmise that he likes finally having control of Deborah and that he's afraid to face the consequences of what he did....probably aided in cover up.

Anonymous said...


That is interesting insight. Given that they are not married to each other, one wonders why they are together still.

Anonymous said...

This interview is not an official one conducted by law enforcement. It is a contrived exercise put together by Bill Stanton and the lawyers. What this interview means, is that while everyone else was out looking for Lisa, they spent however much time sitting through this pretend interview, asking and answering questions. THEN they did nothing with it until now. Why now? If you listen closely to the most recent interview with Megan Kelly, DB says they have a scheduled meeting with law enforcement 'after the holidays.'

Rather interesting time, eh?

crystal said...

While reading about Jeremy being asked that "what if evidence showed you did something" question I wondered how I would respond. Assuming I hadn't done anything I would answer "I don't know because I didn't do anything". Now I'm curious how that would read, as truth or a lie? Learning things about people by what they say is fascinating to me!

Habundia said...

Anonymous said: "Killer b'tch is alluding that her childs age would have stopped at ten months old and she might see her in a stroller?"

Could this just mean her age did stopped at ten months and that's why she can't look for her as a four year old because she never could become four years of age, because she died at the age of ten months? So her mind keeps looking for a baby, like a parent probably would do when they lost a child at such a young age, but even they will look at children of the age their child would have been (with sadness and grieve) and think of how they could have been that child's age if the child hadn't decided (naturally, accidental, like car crash or through illness)

"Saying you are grieving when a loved one (child or adult) is missing reminds me of Mike Hallbach who stated on national TV when his (half)sister Teresa Hallbach went missing........He said they were grieving

"She said: 'I wish I hadn't been drinking. I feel like it was planned and they were gonna take her... maybe if I hadn't been drinking I would have heard something and got up. I just feel like I didn't save her.'"

If it was planned how would an abductor have known he (she) would have to come that night because she would have been drinking and so wasn't alert?
Or was it just normal behaviour to "have been drinking"(and not being alert)?

She also state : I just feel like I didn't save her......I would have expected her to say, "I feel like I wasnt able to protect her... (by drinking, with a friend, not wanting to be blamed by it on her own, she needs to add she wasn't alone drinking), but she doesn't say protect but save.
Saving a person would be if they were already in need of help......Protecting would be the stage before saving......Or am I wrong?

"She said: 'It feels good to go in there, and smell her, and know that someday she's going to come home and she's gonna see all these presents and she's gonna be excited to open them and to watch her reaction and stuff like that.'"
These words made me look weird when I read them.
Most people, I think, would feel more comforting and sadden when going into a room of the child they lost or are missing, who would feel GOOD? After four/five years I wonder if a smell still exist.....I've had clothing and pillow sheet of someone close who died and kept it for "the smell", it didn't stay years on it (without washing of course)
What kind of presents she buys? Would you really think a missing child who would be found cared about any present that they might have "missed" during their abduction time? Don't you think they would be more then happy enough to be back in safe hands? Who would care about presents?