Monday, January 5, 2015

Deborah Bradley on Being Drunk

Deborah Bradley's team wanted to find a way to cover her changing story.  She originally claimed to have checked on Lisa at 10:30PM but in another interview, gave the time period more than 4 hours earlier, saying she did not check on Lisa after 6:30PM.

They found a way:

The floated that she was drunk. 

But it was that Deborah Bradley, herself, did not assert that she was drunk and even when interviewed  was reluctant to acknowledge being drunk and used distancing language from the topic of being drunk. 

Please note that when a subject introduces a topic, the topic is important.  We now have confirmation that alcohol played a role that night.  Next, we will hear that infidelity played a role, even as the parents report that this has brought them closer together. 

*Please note that unless a subject tells us something, we cannot affirm to it. In this analysis, the mother, Deborah Bradley, did not say she was drunk, but avoiding saying so, even though they want this information known. 

PA: You told us that police even accused you of killing your daughter.

This is the perfect place to issue a reliable denial and say, "I didn't kill Lisa" as the topic is raised.  

DB:  MmmHmm.  Mmm Hmm

Deborah Bradley does not deny killing Lisa.  

She affirms, without saying so, that this is what police have stated.  This is when innocent people say so. It is odd that she does not issue a denial, therefore, the Interviewer turns to the emotions she may be experiencing due to such an allegation.  It is another opportunity for her to not only express her emotions but to express her anger because she did not do it.  Will she take this natural and easy opportunity?

Those who did not "do it" have no issue saying so.  There is no legal consequence for her to say "I didn't kill Lisa.  The police are wrong."
She distances herself from "Lisa" throughout her vast interviews and references Lisa in the past tense, a signal that Lisa is dead.  

Will she assert that she was drunk?

Will she show concern for Lisa?  Or, will she only show concern for herself, her sons, and for Jeremy?

An 11 month old baby is vulnerable.  Being with strangers would be traumatizing for the child, and this pain should show itself in the mother's language.  Instead, we find Deborah Bradley interested only in herself and the non-victims. 

PA: How has that been for authorities to focus on you at times?

DB: Terrible because my daughter is missing.   The last thing that I want to have to worry about is something like that.  I shouldn't have to put any energy and time or effort into anything but finding her. 

She affirms that her time and energy is not about finding her daughter but upon putting things into the allegation.  

She does not express concern for what her "missing" child is experiencing. 

Note that she tells us that her daughter "is" missing.  This is not necessary to say so.  

Note that she has to put "energy", "time" or "effort" into worrying about being the focus.  Note "but finding her". What is her energy, time or effort being put into finding "her"?

As in her other interviews, she does not use the name, "Lisa"

PA: Were you drinking that night?

DB: Yes.

PA: How much?

DB: Uh, enough to be drunk.

Note that she does not say she was drunk.  Unless she tells us she was drunk, we cannot say so.  This is not lost on the Interviewer who sees that Bradley is not being forthcoming.  The interviewer senses the hesitancy and vagueness of language and pounces:  

PA: So you were drunk?

DB: Mmm Hmm.

She gives affirmation but does not say the words that she was drunk.  Please note that lying is stressful, and a "yes or no" question is the easiest to lie to, yet here she does not use words.  Alcohol is a sensitive topic (as is infidelity in this investigation) but she did not use words to say so. 

Deborah Bradley will not own being drunk.  This appeared to be a strategic move by her attorney, who set up the interview with the "breaking news" of being "drunk" but people rarely lie outright, due to the internal stress. 

Deborah Bradley is unable or unwilling to come out and plainly state:

"I was drunk" and
"I did not kill Lisa"

PA:  A lot of people are going to say Deborah you were drunk that night, a lot of people are going to say, "Deborah, you were drunk that night, is there any chance you did anything to hurt your daughter that you're just not telling us?

DB:  No, no, no and If I thought there was a chance I'd say it.  No.  No.  I don't think that alcohol changes a person enough to do something like that.

Please note that her denial consists of the repetition of the word "no" five times showing a repeated sensitivity to the question of alcohol playing a role in Lisa's demise.  Note that she only "thinks" which shows weakness and uses the word "person", gender neutral, and does not say that it did not change her This indicates deception regarding alcohol playing a role in Baby Lisa's demise. 

Note that the camera went to a close up of Deborah and Jeremy's hands, and that Deborah is clutching Jeremy's leg and he is  holding his own  hands.  Body language experts have said that Jeremy's behavior is a form of self comfort and her behavior suggests control.  This may remind some of the Anthonys. 

Note that she says "person" and not "me."

Person:  gender neutral and could be anyone.  This is distancing herself from the topic at hand but also may be that she is thinking of someone else who may have been drinking that night.  

PA:  Do you in any way question that she's not telling you or police everything that she knows?

JI:  No.  There's, there's no question to be had there.  I know who she is.  I know, what kind of mother she is. 

Please note that Jeremy says he knows who she is, what kind of mother she is, but does not deny that Lisa was harmed by Deborah.  
"There" is where there is "no question", but "here" there may be.  He knows what kind of mother she is, but does not state so.  

PA: Does it seem feasible to you that someone could have gotten in while you and your two boys were sleeping and you wouldn't have heard a thing?

This is a "yes or no" question.  

JI:  Our bedroom is on the exact opposite corner of the house and uh, she sleeps with the fan on high.

Please note that they reported having a baby monitor.  Please note that in the two part question, the interviewer brings up the boys as well.  He answers for Deborah, but not about the boys. 

He does not answer the question directly.  

DB:  Yeah, but they must have been doing it much quieter than the police were. 

If the subject here had assistance in removing the child's body, she may be revealing this by using the pronoun "they"; though it could still be due to not specifying a male or female kidnapper. 

Note that plural kidnappers would make things even more difficult to be silent. 

PA:  You told us that police said you failed a lie detector test.  What question or questions did they say you failed?

DB:  They said that I failed when they asked me where she was. 

Here she identifies what specific question she failed.  This is where we expect an honest person to say "but I don't know where she is and I told the truth."  She does not. 

Regarding Deborah and Jeremy refusing to let the police re interview Lisa's half brothers:  

DB:  They said they heard noises.  But I don't know if that was before um, we went to sleep or after.  I have not sat down and talked to them about it.  Specifically to not have to put them through anything else.

Please note that the kids heard noises relating to Lisa's disappearance but after 2 weeks the mother reports that she hasn't talked to them about it.  

   She begins with "they said" but denies speaking to them about it, adding body posture (sat down) indicating tension associated with the noises they heard.  She would have us believe that the boys said they heard noises, but Deborah did not respond to them with "what did you hear?", which indicates that she did not want to ask them, even after all of this time, because she does not need the information about the noises they heard.  

This shows that Deborah made enough noise to leave her certain that the children heard her. 

With a missing baby, does it sound reasonable that the mother, desperate to find her child, has yet to even ask her own sons what they heard?

This is where even the untrained ear knew she was lying. 

"To not have to put them through anything else."

She would not want to upset them, but shows no concern for what Baby Lisa might be experiencing with stranger abduction.  We expect her to talk about the pacifier, favorite blanket, and so on.  No concern is shown for the victim, yet concern for those who are not victims.  This is another indicator that she knows that Baby Lisa is beyond help.  

PA:  If the person who took your baby daughter is out there watching this right now what would you say to them?

DB:  She needs her family.  We need her.  We're losing more sanity as each day progresses.

Note for whom she shows concern:  

She does not express any concern for the victim.  She does not mention her feeding, changing, care, or especially a 11 month old's need for her mother to sleep peacefully.  11 month olds need familiar faces to feel safe. 

She expresses care for:

1.  her family
2.  Their sanity

She does not express concern for Baby Lisa.  She had previously signaled that Lisa was dead, via the past tense references and her own "grieving." 

Here, she is consistent.  Lisa is beyond help.  She knows that, and the hurting are the family members, not the "kidnapped" child. 

She is to be speaking directly to the kidnapper and wants the kidnapper to know that they are losing their sanity more each day.  

The interview was 45 minutes with only a few moments played thus far.  In the short interview, Deborah Bradley is deceptive in her denial that alcohol played a role in what happened to Baby Lisa.  She also reveals that, like Jeremy, her own personal comfort level takes precedence over Baby Lisa, similar to when Jeremy ended an interview, as a man and father of Lisa, because he was tired. 

Jeanine Piro spoke next who now says the change of story, particularly the time frame, in which Deborah previously said she checked on Lisa at 10:30PM, but now reports that the last time she saw her was when she put her to bed/sleep at 6:40PM.  

This is an essential change in which likely indicates sensitivity (critical missing information)  between 6:40PM and 10:30PM.  

The time period mentioned earlier was 10:30PM that Deborah said she "checked" on Lisa.  10:30PM should also be considered highly sensitive to the case. 

In Statement Analysis, we look for critical points in the account.  We expect to hear a response from someone associated with the family in regards to this change.   


Anonymous said...

The night Baby Lisa went 'missing', Deborah and her brother was seen on video buying alcohol at a store. He left the residence, returned and stayed the night, yet no one seems to be focused on his involvement with the disappearce of Baby Lisa.imo The brother disposed of Lisa in an effort to cover for his sister, Deborah. What do you think?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I think she had help and it may have been her brother. He may be the contact with "Jersey" or other sleazy types.

I think police should have gone up against Tacopina.

I think they would have had a plea bargain, somewhere. The kidnapping story was too bizarre.


Anonymous said...

Prince Andrew has been in the news because of allegations he slept with 17 year old who claims she was a sex slave in US. Age of consent in UK is 16. There was a trial of a high profile American friend of his. Girl now 30 and looks like she's writing a book.

In link below she said "After the four returned to Miss Maxwell’s townhouse, Miss Roberts said that: “All of us went upstairs and I asked Jeffrey to snap a picture of me with the Prince (below). I wanted something to show my Mom. Ghislaine and Jeffrey left us after that.”
In a separate interview with a US journalist in 2011, Miss Roberts said they got into a bath together where “he started licking my toes, between my toes, the arches of my feet. And then we went into the bedroom and he proceeded to make love to me, so to speak."

It should be interesting and ongoing...

Tania Cadogan said...

The problem i have with the allegations concerning Prince Andrew is her claim she was underage according to Florida law.

In the UK the age of consent is 16 and if the events took place in the UK then she wasn't underage as per UK law.
The same applies to other countries where the age of consent can be younger than 17.

If the events took place in Florida then their law would apply, the same if it took place in other states, the relevant state law applied.

I wonder why she filed in Florida?

Anonymous said...

Most likely her lawyer advised them to say she was drunk, it is a good alibi. It explains why she did not hear a noise, why she does not remember everything. But she didn't state it as a fact. It seemed like the reporter made her agree to I don't believe she was drunk. I wonder if their lawyer spoke to the reporter first.

Them not asking their sons about if they heard anything that night, is similar to the Ramseys not waking their son up to ask if he knows anything about his missing sister.

There is one thing about this case, I never read about. Lisa was not in pyjamas. Didn't she get a a bath that night? I know she was sick, mother was busy, but still, it is strange they never mentioned anything about her bath time. What if she was left alone in the bathtub? That was my initial feeling about this case.
I believe they are grieving, they feel guilt, but they speak and act like they know what happened to Lisa.

Anonymous said...

Is she still married to Sean Bradley?

If so, then why?

If not, then why aren't DB and JI married to each other?

If she did something to cause harm or death to Lisa, why is JI staying with her still?

Why have they not tried for more children together?

Why stay together?

So much doesn't make sense.

Anonymous said...

She said in Florida, US Virgin Islands and UK for Prince Andrew. Apparently, her suit does not include him, but names him. I have problems with her saying she was a sex slave but she also got paid 10,000 pounds each time she had sex, and other things make it seem like she just wants money. She's writing a book. She says "we" a lot when talking about her and Andrew. Interesting.

Anonymous said...

She said in Florida, US Virgin Islands and UK for Prince Andrew. Apparently, her suit does not include him, but names him. I have problems with her saying she was a sex slave but she also got paid 10,000 pounds each time she had sex, and other things make it seem like she just wants money. She's writing a book. She says "we" a lot when talking about her and Andrew. Interesting.

Sus said...

I don't believe she is suing Prince Andrew. She and several other Jane Does are suing a Federal Prosecutor for allowing a plea deal with the man who held them as sex slaves when they were underage. They say they were not informed of the deal. The man served 18 months and is on the sex register as a pedophile...can't remember his name. But he is a known associate of Prince Andrews and it caused a stir when Prince Andrew was seen with him in New York City after he was released from prison. The woman named Prince Andrew and Derchowitz as men she was "loaned" out to.

GetThem said...

"They said they heard noises. But I don't know if that was before um, we went to sleep or after. I have not sat down and talked to them about it."-----------

She says "we" went to sleep, but changes to "I" have not sat down to and talked to them. Why wouldn't "they" do that together. She doesn't say her husband didn't speak with the boys either.

Anonymous said...

But I don't know if that was before um, we went to sleep or after.

--why did she say "we"? If she is speaking about her kids then why couldn't she say "they", "when they went to sleep". I don't understand why she lumped herself with the time her kids went to sleep. This may be why there was a little conflict in her stories when she was trying to imply they all went to sleep in the room together, that is "all" except dear old Lisa. Does anyone remember this story?

Tommy said...

What's sad is the way the monarchy has let media destroy them. He's a prince so what if he screw a 17 yer old beauty. More power to him. What else is sad is she said was like business. He's a prince he should of rocked her world. All the monarchy good for is embarrassment. Give it to someone with balls.

Tania Cadogan said...

questions need to be asked about the plea deal.

I would need to see more statement from her. something isn't sounding right

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic
NASHUA, N.H. – A woman charged with beating her 3-year-old daughter to death had faced child abuse charges before: She was indicted last year on a charge of striking an 8-year-old boy with a belt, but the case was dismissed because he was too scared to testify against her, according to court papers.

Katlyn Marin made her first court appearance Monday in the death of Brielle Gage. Prosecutors say the 25-year-old Marin assaulted Brielle several times during Thanksgiving week, and she died shortly after being rushed to a hospital Nov. 25. An autopsy determined she died of blunt-force injuries.

Marin, who appeared on a video screen in district court in Nashua, did not speak at the hearing. Bail wasn't set, and she will remain behind bars pending a probable cause hearing Jan. 13.

Marin's father, Harry Gage, attended the brief hearing. He said that he stands behind Marin and that some of the information being spread about her was false. He said he didn't want to elaborate on his false-information accusation.

Several members of the Nashua Police Department also attended the arraignment.

"This case has been a long process for the Nashua Police Department; a lot of work has gone into this case so they wanted to be here from the start of this proceeding," Senior Assistant Attorney General Jeff Strelzin said.

Marin's court-appointed lawyer, Justin Hayes, declined to comment.

Marin had been accused of child abuse before. In July, a grand jury indicted her on a second-degree assault charge for striking an 8-year-old boy with a belt in January 2014. The state dismissed the case Dec. 15 because the victim was "unable to testify ... due to his fear of the defendant," according to a handwritten note on the court papers.

The relationship between Marin and the boy wasn't clear in court documents.

Assistant Hillsborough County Attorney Catherine Devine, the prosecutor on that case, couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

Strelzin said that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has been working with the family and that Marin's other four children are safe. A call to the agency wasn't immediately returned Monday.

I am simply appalled

Droll Skeptic said...

Why do these people even have kids? This woman terrorized and brutally beat one child with a belt, then went on to bludgeon her 3 yr old baby to death all within the same calendar year? If children enrage you to fits of violence why keep having them??? This horrible witch gave birth to (at least) five! Birth control is way more convenient than CPS investigations and murder trials :/

Linda said...

I watched a little bit of the Kelly file thing. I don't believe hubby wasn't involved. Something is up with hubby's pathetic downtrodden routine. Also, I noticed he stared straight down at the ground when he answered the human lie detector and saying he wasn't involved. The human lie detector didn't find that suspicious but I do because I am close to a liar that does that, the staring down thing. It's an act.

Linda said...

And I'm not saying Deborah wasn't involved but her husband says he got home at 4 am and the lights were on and the front door was unlocked. Is that really that surprising if his wife is a drinker? Then he says he tries to wake his wife but she wouldn't wake up, so he goes and checks on his baby in her crib. What Dad is going to come home from an overnight shift desperate for sleep and risk waking up the baby by checking on her? Dad's don't pop in and check on the baby at 4 am. There was nothing about what he came home to that would have indicated a kidnapping. Lights on and front door unlocked, why would anyone think oh God, I need to wake up my wife! Sorry, but he's the one who "discovered" her missing and I feel he was involved. Look at his expression, there is no emotion of any kind when he talks about baby Lisa going missing and this is very indicative of someone whose words are not matching truth because they don't feel any emotion about what they are saying. You can look at any person even Scott Peterson, when the facial expressions aren't there that's a big red flag!!! Many people will try to fake emotion with their words but you will notice there faces don't show matching expression. Deborah certainly was probably involved too but I feel the hubby was also involved.

Linda said...

Just watched more of the Kelly file. The hubby tells the human lie detector when he tells Deborah the baby is not in her crib, he suggests to her that maybe she is next door at Sam's for some reason. Really?!?! Yeah that's not a lie!!! Maybe a baby is next door for some reason at night?!?! The hubby was 100 percent involved. The human lie detector feels since he has no "convincing behavior" that means he is not lying! Um, some people "go bland" like the hubby. Stare down at floor, no facial expression, speak slowly, monotone. The hubby was absolutely involved. Deborah was involved too. These 2 came up with a story including the husband "discovering her missing". That's what I think anyway.

Buckley said...

What Dad is going to come home from an overnight shift desperate for sleep and risk waking up the baby by checking on her? Dad's don't pop in and check on the baby at 4 am. There was nothing about what he came home to that would have indicated a kidnapping. Lights on and front door unlocked,

You bet, as a Dad, if I thought something was amiss I'd check on my daughter. We, myself included, go astray in analysis when we move to behavioral "analysis" and assume every person in is going to act a certain, expected way. With over 6 billion people on Earth, we will make a lot of errors if we think there's only one acceptable human reaction to an event. Irwin always struck me as an odd duck regardless. Not the kind of man comfortable on national TV no matter what the reason.

Buckley said...

he suggests to her that maybe she is next door at Sam's for some reason. Really?!?! Yeah that's not a lie!!! Maybe a baby is next door for some reason at night?!?!

The neighbor had been one of the last two adults to see Lisa and it's strange to think of asking her where Lisa was? If Jeremy had said "we didn't check next door.," I guarantee you somebody would say "see! Innocent parents search for their child!"

Linda said...


I can tell you're a good Dad! Consider if you will though, Jeremy does not go directly to peek in on his daughter in her room. I mean, if he truly thought something was amiss, wouldn't that be his first instinct? He first tries to wake up his wife. Why? What would you do? If you thought something was amiss, wouldn't you first go peek in on the baby?
I think he is fabricating the story of what his specific actions were when he came home.

As far as him suggesting maybe the baby is next store for some reason at 4 am. No. This is a baby. The baby cannot walk. No parent would think at 4 am maybe the baby's next door "for some reason". Buckley it's the "for some reason" that is indicative of lying. As a parent, no parent thinks their baby, at 4 am could be at the neighbors "for some reason". Like, what would reason be? The baby wanted to bake a cake and went next door at 4 am to borrow butter? Babies don't go next door "for some reason" at 4 am. They just don't, so it just indicates, they either rehearsed a story of what happened when he came home or either that or he is actually the guilty one. It's just preposterous, the lights left on and door unlocked lead him to try to wake up his wife first, check on baby 2nd, when she is not in her crib, he suggests "maybe she's next door for some reason". Why would he be trying to reassure her that oh maybe the baby is next door at 4 am? He was the one that was so concerned and knew something was amiss!!! His reaction should have been oh my God! Where is the baby???? not oh, maybe she's next door for some reason. Pretty odd that that was the only night he worked the overnight shift too.

Linda said...

Another thing I think is really odd is that, if you watch the Kelly file interview, when Jeremy is describing what happened when he discovers Lisa missing and tells Deborah, he describes Deborah becoming hysterical saying she yells "My baby! My baby!" (this does not prove she is innocent by any means), she yells at her other 2 boys to look for their sister (again, this does not prove her innocence) but he describes no emotional reaction from himself!!! He describes they were running and screaming. The interviewer asks what were you guys screaming. He says he can't remember. But he describes no emotional reaction from himself, just a calm cool suggestion "maybe she's next door for some reason". The thing that strikes me is that he acts like it is Deborah's baby that went missing, not his, like he is a distant friend or something. If he was concerned enough to think something was amiss and investigate, and just by virtue of being the baby's father, I just don't understand why he had no emotional reaction when the baby was discovered missing. Why didn't he say something like "Oh my God where is she?!?!" or "Deborah where is the baby?" He even describes when questioned how he knew the baby had been put down in the crib by Deborah because of Deborah's reaction when there was no baby in the crib. But shouldn't he have still exclaimed "Where did you put her down? Did you put her in the crib?" "Oh my God where is she?" I don't understand his reaction upon finding her missing. Basically it seems like a nonreaction. Also, saying, let's check next door!!! is different than saying "maybe she's next door for some reason". I don't know. Something seems really weird. Deborah strikes me as disingenuous, as a probable liar. Jeremy strikes me as a liar also. So, I don't know what to make of it, but he doesn't seem to act like it is much of a loss to him, more like he is a distant observer of Deborah's loss. Granted, maybe he's quiet, and Deborah is more dramatic, but still, it just doens't seems like he has much feeling about the whole thing.

Buckley said...

The baby wanted to bake a cake and went next door at 4 am to borrow butter? Babies don't go next door "for some reason" at 4 am.

You're just being silly now. Did he say he thought the baby walked next door on his own? No. This: Deborah passed out drunk, neighbor, who had babysat before, and who stayed after Deb "went to sleep", noticed Lisa's cold was worse, she was crying, knowing Deb was in no position to deal with it, took Lisa to her home. Is it a likely occurrence? No, but neither is killing your child, not to mention covering it up well enough to evade arrest.

There's a huge gap between knowing something is amiss and immediately concluding kidnapping. He noticed the door was unlocked and lights were on. Knowing a baby answering "why are the lights all on?" Is about as likely as them going next door for butter, it makes sense he asks Deborah first. I mean, Linda, you claim it's weird he checks on her then in another post you say it's weird he didn't check on her first? Damned if he does; damned if he doesn't.

I think he's guilty in covering afterwards- but didn't know a thing before he got home.

I think Deborah got wasted- the language shows she's sensitive about it- I disagree that means she wasn't drunk. It means she's sensitive about being drunk and knows it did play a role in whatever happened to Lisa. I think at 10:'30 she got Lisa, felt too "tired" to really deal with her, took her to her bed in hopes of calming her easily. She either smothered her or Lisa fell, Deb got someone- probably her brother- to get rid of Lisa's body. I think she staged it to deceive Irwin. And initially not knowing wth happened, his mind attempted to explain and quickly checking next door with with the other adult to have seen Lisa the night before was a reasonable- not necessarily perfect- thing to do in his confusion.

Anonymous said...

I think we can all pretty much agree that Deborah did something to harm Lisa, whether accidentally or in a fit of drunken rage with the sensitivity focus being on or about 10:30 p.m. The baby is missing, the baby is dead, the baby cannot be accounted for; Deborah is lying, is conniving, and Deborah is the guilty party. With a little help from her friends. Agreed.

But the question remains; what is Jeremy Irwins' part, if any, in baby Lisas' mysterious disappearance and the subsequent cover up? I know, Peter believes that Jeremy has been honest in his statements and I'm not here to try to prove him wrong or even dispute his analysis; but in looking at the big picture I can't help but wonder what Jeremys' role might have been in the cover up and his sticking by Deborahs' story like glue, knowing that she killed his baby whether deliberately or otherwise, yet he continues to keep silent to protect Deborah?

THIS is an honest man? I think not. One practices honesty in some areas but not all; as if to say 'oh, I'm honest about this, but just not that'? How does one practice 'selective honesty'? One is either an honest person to the core of their being or they aren't, and he isn't. An honest man speaks out for truth and justice at all times, is this not so?

Is it an honest man who protects his 'wife' in the killing of his own daughter? He can stick by the one who killed his baby and keep her secrets to himself, KNOWING she caused his babys' death, can carry off a straight face while she lies, KNOWING she is lying, and still be considered an honest man? I think not.

John Mc Gowan said...

A look back at the baby Lisa mystery.

This is a rush transcript from "The Kelly File," January 2, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...


Family Pleads for Help Finding Missing Mom, Wife

A Stockton family is asking for the public’s help to find 26-year-old Carolina Adkins.

“We didn’t argue at all. Everything was bliss. It was very peaceful. And that’s why it’s so weird,” Carolina’s husband Joe Shepard said.

Shepard told FOX40 his wife went missing after his family celebrated New Year’s Eve together at their home in the Mariner’s Point Apartments off Hammer Lane in Stockton. He said around 1 a.m. New Year’s Day, he put away alcohol from the get together and went to bed. A short time later, he remembered his wife putting on her jacket and saying she was going to the living room. He told FOX40 that was the last time he saw her.

“I’ve been sitting on the couch waiting and waiting, looking through the window, waiting for her to come home and she has not come back. I’m just really worried about her,” Shepard said.

Carolina’s cousin Lynn Bailey was also at the get together.

“If I felt that she was too upset or something wasn’t right, I would have stayed. There wasn’t any signs or anything,” Bailey said.

The family says Carolina is known to go on walks near the apartment complex, but never late at night. They believe she may have gone on a walk at 1 a.m. on New Year’s Day, after she had been drinking.

“Even if you’re upset, you’re gonna sober up and say ok let me come home,” Carolina’s sister Jocelyn Barber-Robinson said.

Joe Shepard said he filed a missing person report for Carolina Adkins later in the day on January 1st. Carolina is not considered an at-risk missing person, but her disappearance is highly out of character. She is not known to leave her husband or two children. Her purse, cell phone and wallet are all at her home.

Carolina is 5’2″ and weighs 110 pounds. She wast last seen wearing a tan jacket with a fur hood, a yellow long sleeve short, light colored jeans, brown boots. She has long brown hair with bangs and was wearing a black headband.

Anyone with information about her whereabouts, please contact Stockton Police.

Anonymous said...

"Granted, maybe he's quiet, and Deborah is more dramatic, but still, it just doesn't seems like he has much feeling about the whole thing."

Linda, interesting, to me Jeremy came across as the one suffering the most. He is an introvert, he does not want to be on Tv, does not want to do what he has to do to cover for Deborah, but for some reason he does it. He seemed almost broken in the first several interviews, like he will not be able to take what happened to his baby. I thought he will tell the truth, but he didn't.

John Mc Gowan said...

More on my OT above.

Husband's plea for missing Stockton woman: 'I just want my wife back'

A Stockton housewife has been missing since New Year's Day and her family is desperate to find her.

Carolina Adkins, 26, was last seen at the Mariner's Pointe Apartments where she lived with her husband and two small children. Her distraught husband, Joseph Shepherd, recounted one of their final interactions.

"She gave me a hug and a kiss and told me it was a new year," he said. "I said 'yeah baby, it's a new year.'"

Shepherd said at around 1 a.m. New Year's Day, Adkins put on a beige hooded jacket.

"I said, 'Where are you going,'" he said. "She said, "I'm going to the living room and its been cold in there,"

Shepherd said he went to sleep. The next morning, he woke up and his wife was gone. He said their front door was unlocked and her keys, purse and cell phone were still in the apartment.

"I woke up and saw my kids sitting next to me. I didn't see my wife," Shepherd cried.

"I just find it hard to believe she strayed too far away without her car, her keys and her purse," said Myron McCarthur, Adkins older brother.

Adkins mother, siblings, nieces and nephews recently filled her living room. At times they fought back tears as they shared sadness and anger over her disappearance.

They said she was known to be responsible, earning her the nickname "Mother Carol," and that she would never leave her husband and two children behind, especially since her 6-year-old daughter Autumn suffers from a serious heart condition.

Carolina Adkins' mother, Myra Adkins, undergoes dialysis treatment three times a week. She said her daughter never misses a day without checking on her.

"We just want her home," said Myra Adkins. "She has a beautiful family. We want her home and I can't understand it," she said.

"I just want my wife back," Shepherd said, "That is the missing piece to my puzzle. That is my heart. She is my baby and if anybody got her, just bring her back to me please."

"I'm having nightmares about people taking my wife. I wake up and look at the sun and I see it's another day," Shepherd sobbed.

Married for three years, Shepherd and Adkins have a love story that began in the seventh grade.

"I loved her since I was in middle school," he said. "She is beautiful, gorgeous, the most beautiful thing in the planet to me."

Flyers asking "Have you seen her," are now posted all over Stockton. The family has turned to social media, using #comehomeCarolina in hopes of getting the word out.

Anonymous said...


Jeremy and Deborah are NOT married. She is not his wife. Why is he covering for her? Why is she still married to Sean Bradley.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 7:16, Deborah and her legally wed husband Sean, a military man, had quite a history together while living on and near military posts where he was stationed. According to earlier accounts, Deborah was also a party gal, boozing it up with other couples and other womens' husbands and stirring up trouble amongst the wives in general during her 'neighborly' fiascos in and around the base. I don't have access to any of those old articles now but they're out there.

Why in blazes this man has not divorced her and tried to obtain custody of their son together escapes me, as it seems to me that he certainly could. As for Debbie ("does Dallas") part, she would likely still be receiving Seans' allotment checks for her as his wife and their son as a dependent; which of course, also gives her all these commissary and medical benefits. For all we know, the U.S Military could have paid for Debbs' prenatal care AND the delivery of little Lisa, as well as her pediatric care.

On top of this, she's got Jeremy supporting her. She doesn't have to hit a lick at a snake and can eat high off the hog. This flea-bag trollop has got it made! AND while all this is going on, Jeremys' ex ole lady has to pay him support for THEIR son that she could file custody of herself if she were so a mind too; BUT, for Jeremy & Debbie dearest: more cha-ching!

As for Jeremy, let's face it, Debbie carries her own weight (financially that is, or let's say her legally-wed-hubby carries it FOR HER AND HIM); he's a weak, (low-morals not withstanding), wet-noddle partaking in adultery with another man's personal belonging who actually helps to feed him, with no backbone and no honor in his character; who ALSO has his own son exposed to his trashy, bang-another-mans' wife lifestyle, PLUS eat his food off this man; that WE the Gov't are paying for!

If he had any morals OR character, he would NOT be living with a married woman, fornicating and siring with her, much less covering up HIS childs' death for her. Speaking of the honesty of Jeremy Irwin? He doesn't know what the words means!

They are BOTH nothing but white trash.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 8:18

This could be one of the articles

You would think that if Team Taco/Stanton had intended this whole Kelly File stunt as a way to stir up support for the star-crossed couple that they would have gotten them to straighten out the marital status.

They have gone to alot of trouble to draw attention to them, when otherwise no one, certainly not local media, are paying any attention to them. They could otherwise just keep going on with their lives.

Anonymous said...

Houston and Stanton are closely connected to the 100,000 reward benefactor.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

As usual, thank you John.

I am putting together some of the statements of the husband. Right now, we do not have enough for a conclusion and the choppy writing style of the journalists makes it difficult to know if something is an open statement, or if it is in response to a direct question.


John Mc Gowan said...

A couple of points i would flag Peter. I maybe wrong though ? Going by the principles and the expected Vs the unexpected.

“We didn’t argue at all. Everything was bliss. It was very peaceful. And that’s why it’s so weird

He starts off in the negative "“We didn’t argue at all."

Anything in the negative is sensitive. He brings up the word "argue". Why ? What does argue mean to him ? (SID)

"Everything was bliss."

This is a need to portray that they were happy. Why does he need to say this. Were things not "bliss" ? What does "bliss" mean to him ? (SID)

"It was very peaceful. And that’s why it’s so weird

What was "peaceful" ?

His wife is missing, again he wants people to know things were ok.

"And that’s why it’s so weird"

Why is it "so weird" ? Couples argue, "peace" is not always a happy peace. It can be used, to keep the peace. "i won't say nothing, i want to keep the peace" i don't want to upset you. (egg shells come to mind) ?

The word "And" when at the begining of a statement suggests missing information. "And" is a connecting word from one to the other. Yet, there is a broken connection ?

“I’ve been sitting on the couch waiting and waiting, looking through the window, waiting for her to come home and she has not come back. I’m just really worried about her,” Shepard said.

“I’ve been sitting on the couch waiting and waiting, looking through the window,


When body posture enters a statement, its flagged as a possible increase in tension.

My boss said "i think you should do better etc"

Vs, "my boss stood and said, i think you should do better" Tension.

This tells me that my boss is in front of me saying "you could do better"

If the word "told" entered the statement, then his words would be more authoritative.

"waiting and waiting,

Anything said and or repeated is sensitive.

"looking through the window,

This, for me is disturbing. Why he he looking through the window instead of being out there looking for her. He is not waiting for his puppy to come home, its his wife he is waiting to come home ?

""She gave me a hug and a kiss and told me it was a new year," he said. "I said 'yeah baby, it's a new year.'"

Note he doesn't say "we" gave each other a "hug" Then we have the word "told" enter his statement. Was she angry with him ?

"I said 'yeah baby, it's a new year.'"

He uses the word "said" which is a softer word than "told" Was she angry with him, and he wanted to make the "peace" ?

""I said, 'Where are you going,'" he said. "She said, "I'm going to the living room and its been cold in there,"

Note he still uses the softer word "said"

John Mc Gowan said...


""I woke up and saw my kids sitting next to me. I didn't see my wife," Shepherd cried."

He doesn't say he went to bed? Where did he wake up ?

"siting". body posture.

"I didn't see my wife,"

This is said in the negative too.

We mark time by what what happens, what we see hear etc. That is unless the question posed is "did you see your wife" ?

""I just want my wife back," Shepherd said, "That is the missing piece to my puzzle. That is my heart. She is my baby and if anybody got her, just bring her back to me please."

John Mc Gowan said...

Dam, my computer has gone all funky, i hope you can see this ?

Its not showing up on my account !!!

John Mc Gowan said...

Tania, if you can see my posts, would you inbox me please and let me know.



I will PM you anyway.

John Mc Gowan said...

If this is showing, would someone PM me and let me know. Its not showing up on my account!!



Buckley said...

I see it :)

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi Buckley,

Thank you.

I can see your post, but, i can not see mine, although it is allowing me to post. Would you know, or have any advice as to what has happened, and why i can't see my posts ?



Ps. If you can see this :(

Buckley said...

Sorry, I don't know. I'd close out the browser and restart, but if you're seeing my post then it's reloading the page. So strange.

trustmeigetit said...

I so love Statement Analysis. It’s the one thing I can really count on.

Regarding the “human lie detector” I think that while some may be more tuned in and see past the BS more so than most, I do not for a minute give these titles any real credibility.

And let’s be honest, how do you measure it when so many cases are unsolved.

Take the eyes for lies blog chick.

Now, I can’t find it on there anymore but at one point, she actually had on her blog that she “accurately identified the truth or deceit in 37 out of 39 cases”. Those were the exact words. I copied and pasted since I discussed in in the past.

Now, so many things wrong here…..

For starters, shes got thousands of cases she gave her “lie” or “truth” prediction on. So why are you now only claiming 39.

I mean, if I have a spelling test with 100 words and I spell 38 right…. I don’t brag that I got 38 out of 40 right! No, with 38 I have failed.

I could see if they were at least cases where we now know the truth. We don’t. Most (not all) of them had either a conviction or acquittal but hello, we all know very well this does not determine truth. So again, how are you determining truth?

Which takes me to my 2nd point….. 3 of those cases…. Amanda Knox, Drew Peterson and Adam Baker.

Ok, in all 3 of these cases, the truth is not known. At least not for sure. It’s not like we had confessions or DNA proof. In fact, we actually still don’t know. Again, a conviction means nothing. Innocent people are convicted and guilty are acquitted. And all 3 somehow claim they are “innocent”.

But she uses these to validate her high accuracy. How exactly do you do that?

Maybe that’s why I can no longer find this little paragraph of BS on her page. Maybe she removed it?

But people buy into the bullshit. They read that and think this person knows their stuff. But they don’t.

It’s like Sylvia Brown the “psychic”. The woman claims her “visions” are highly accurate. And in her credit, she’s loaded and charges like $500 for a reading…

But funny part is there is not a single prediction that has been validated yet many and I mean MANY have been proven wrong. In fact, there’s a blog that talks about all her failed predictions… Pretty sad…. And, perfect example one of very popular case of hers we have talked about on this blog….Amanda Berry. Her mother was on Montel years before she was found. Sylvia Brown told her that her daughter was not only deceased, but in water. Well, we all know that she was found alive locked in Ariel Castro’s home. So FAIL. They also had a reporter go undercover with a photo of a child they claimed was missing. Again, Sylvia reported the sad news… the child is deceased. Well, the sad part was the reporter had provided her a photo of herself as a child. So as she stood there alive and well, this “psychic” just told her she was no longer alive. FAIL

And back to eyes for lies… She believes the Mccanns are being truthful and are innocent….. After reading that I started to look at her so call accuracy numbers and that is when I realized she didn’t have anything to back up her claims. That she is making money off this self appointed title and nothing more.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi Trustmeigetit,

Re Eyesforlies. lol

I have studied Body language, Micro Expression for about 10 yrs or so.

It was not long ago i asked her "WHY" when you "SAY" that something aint right with xyz, do you NOT point out Why you have come to that conclusion.

Her answer was, this is NOT verbatim, but i will have a look back to see if i can find my Q and her A/ She said. I will not disclose why i come to the conclusions i do, because i will give away what i know and people will steel my technique, and thats my lively hood.

Now, if memory serves me correct, Peter, asked her what her analysis was on the "Charlie Rogers" case. I don't what her reply was. But what i do know is. That everyone, press, media etc, all said she was telling the truth, and it was Peter, as far as i am aware, was the only one to put it on record that she (charlie Rogers) was deceptive.

GeekRad said...

I see you posts John. And thank you. This is something I want to follow. Even a cursory look doesn't pass the Statement Analysis test.

John Mc Gowan said...

GeekRad said...
I see you posts John. And thank you.


Ive finally sorted it, with help from our own Tania :)

Tania Cadogan said...

You're welcome John ~ curtsies~

Charlie rogers was another case that made me go hmm something is off here right from the get go

trustmeigetit said...

Hi John,

I remember seeing that question and comment. If this is your gift... then no one is going to steal your thoughts. I have gotten into arguments with her about the Mccanns and she states her gut just tells her they are innocent. Ok. But your selling your lie detection... not your feelings... But ok. I actually think some may say that just to avoid problems with their lawyers. But to be fair, if that's your concern, don't talk about the case instead of stating they are innocent. But who knows.

She also thinks Mark Redwine is telling the truth but his ex wife is lying.

She did talk about Charlie...

The first post she gives us the case history and then starts to comment but it stops. I am not sure if it's the blog OR if she was trying to remove part of it. But its quoted below. Then below I have the links...

"When I first watched this video, I felt Charlie's"

Then a later post she stated this:

"A couple of weeks ago I reviewed the video Charlie Rogers talking about her alleged anti-gay attack. I found her behavior odd, and there were definitely hotspots. My final conclusion was, "At this point, I believe there are enough red flags to investigate Charlie Rose's story further, though I want to be sensitive to hate crimes as they are real, and should never be tolerated in our society."

Anonymous said...

TrustmeIgetit; Eyes for Lies is just a bag of hot air. She's proved it over and over. I could see this long ago and gave up on her way back when. No need to waste another minute of your precious time on this ridiculous c'rap.

She ought to be put out of business, with her 'gut' feelings. Lord have mercy... She's no more authentic than the psychic readers she defends.

You're too sharp to give her another thought. Let her pass, she'll hang herself sooner or later and will quietly disappear into the night never to be heard of again.

Anonymous said...

I think the baby was in fact kidnapped.

Linda said...

Anon, I'm curious, why do you think the baby was kidnapped?

Anonymous said...

Oh dear. You think the baby was kidnapped!? Lordy, Lordy.

Then why do you even bother to read statement analysis which clearly points out AND PROVES that baby Lisa died on the night she was declared by her mother, THEN her father with his bumbling and stumbling, to have been murdered and disposed of? Where've you been all this time?

Even if you don't want to accept Peters' highly proficient statement analysis which is not based on mere guesswork, Debbs failed poly and her drunkenness, subsequent DNA tests (and lack of in certain areas), PROVES this baby died right in the home on the evening in question.

YOU have something better to go on that says baby Lisa was kidnapped? PLEASE share with us just what this may be... Don't tell me this is just another one of those gut feelings... T/Y!

Anonymous said...

To Anon that believes baby Lisa was kidnapped:

If the parents expect to be believed, then they need to be much clearer in what they think should happen in order to find their child, and say it repeatedly.

Right now, all they keep doing is providing reasons to inject doubt of their guilt, which begs the assumption they are only concerned with staying out of jail.

If a young child is kidnapped and being kept by strangers, then it's assumed that the public's help is needed in order to find that person, yes?

trustmeigetit said...

The last anon made me laugh. And I agree, those that don't agree with SA, why are you on this blog? It's like did you stumble here while reading the case and just decided to voice an opinion with nothing to back it up....? I mean, it's not like SA is admissible in court, so why come here and state you think they are innocent and not even take the extra minute to type up one valid reason to back it up.