Thursday, January 1, 2015

Statement Analysis: Baby Lisa Case Revisited

This case is set to be reviewed tomorrow, by Fox News, 3 years after Lisa went missing.  Phil Houston, the "human lie detector" will reveal that Deborah Bradley is truthful.   

Statement Analysis, however,  showed:

1.  Deception on the part of mother, Deborah Bradley
2.  Death of Lisa
3.  Ongoing deception by her team, including a fake reward offer. 
4.  Deception, after the fact, by the father, Jeremy Irwin.

NY attorney Joe Tacopina came into the case and shut down the case after meeting with the FBI. 

No arrests were made.

Deborah Bradley was extreme in her deception as well as her distancing language from Lisa.  

There are many posts here in the blog to search on the case; suffice to say:

Baby Lisa's death did not appear to be intended, but from an incident, which the language suggests, came in just a moment in time, whereas likely panic set in and she had to hide the child's remains. 

As she described her "Mommy time", it may be that Lisa's "interruption" of the "adult" time may have caused a temper reaction, perhaps shaken baby, from which Bradley could not tell the truth to police or child protective services.  

She was initially reluctant to talk to media, but appeared to enjoy her time before the camera, that is, until analysis poured in, and journalists began asking tougher questions.  Once Tacopina entered the case, the "15 minutes" belonged to him, and to him, alone, as he sought to dominate the headlines in lieu of pay. 

**please note:  the ABC article is copy/pasted and did not accurately reflect what the GMA host asked.  This has been corrected.  The rest of the analysis remains the same. 

Deborah Bradley's timeline indicates deception.  In order to deceive, one must exercise the will to do so:  deception is deliberate.  Truthful memories are easy and can be repeated backwards and forwards.  

Lisa's mother, Deborah Brandley, described to "GMA" exactly what happened the last time she saw her daughter:

**Please note that she may have been responded to when she last saw Lisa***

"It was between the time she went to bed and time I went to bed," she said through tears. "gave her her bottle and put her to sleep, and that was the last when we last saw her."

Note that "she went to bed" avoids using Lisa's name, and puts the onus of going to bed upon a baby.  

Please note the change in pronoun from "I" to "we" weakens the statement and taken in conclusion with other statements, is deceptive.  Deceptive statements are often, sentence to sentence, made up of truth.  Now, within an overall deceptive statement, let's examine the time frame:
1.  When asked exactly when Lisa was last seen, the last known person to see Lisa alive is Deborah Bradley, the mother who gives us the time frame of when she last saw her.  
2.  Note that "the time she went to bed" has a change of language to:  "I gave her her bottle and put her to sleep"
The change of language should represent a change in reality. 
This suggests one of two things:  that either after being put to bed, Deborah put Lisa "to sleep" or Deborah is being deceptive, indicated by the change of language. 

Note that "put to sleep" often indicates activities, such as giving a bottle, rocking, soothing, etc.  
3.  Chronological order.  
Memory, due to experience, is easy to recall in chronological order because of the experience. A subject  can recite the day backwards and forwards.  Due to the trauma of a child gone missing, a mother's adrenaline would be on high, and her senses sharpened and heightened, recalling in vivid detail, everything that happened. Going out of chronological order indicates deception. 
4.  Language:  Did Deborah, after putting her to bed, and before going to bed herself, put Lisa "to sleep" by unknown means?  Accidental overdose? Shaken baby?  We note the change that must represent a change in reality. 

Some have speculated this to be an excited utterance, but Statement Analysis teaches to listen to words spoken, and not to interpret.  She was asked a question and answered it.  Many deceptive people later turn and say, "that's not what I meant to say" such as:
"dead squirrels crawled up into my car..." Casey Anthony. 
The confusion is due to the fact that a fabrication does not come from experiential memory and slips out of chronological order.  She was thinking of the odor of Caylee's decomposing body in her car and sought a lie to cover it.  She thought of dead squirrels giving off the odor, and went out of reasonable order because it did not happen; therefore, it did not come from experiential memory.  Later, to repeat a lie, some deceptive persons will rely upon self references and say, "Like I said..." and "like I told you before" indicating that the memory they are working from is the memory of a prior statement. 
6.  "We saw her"
Please note that although Deborah Bradley was speaking about what time she put her to sleep, she now says it was the last time "we" saw her; with the pronoun inconsistency showing deception. 
Question:  What would make it true?
Answer:  If Deborah was not alone.  
Since Jeremy was reported to be at work, this would indicate that Deborah Bradley was not alone at 10:30PM.  
If Jeremy was home at 10:30PM, then the "we" is appropriate and it was prior to 10:30PM that Deborah put Lisa "to sleep". 

Pronouns are instinctive.  They are not part of a personal, subjective internal dictionary.  She was either not alone (she had help) or she desires to share the guilt with someone else. 

Note that it may be that the last time "we" saw her, may indicate that Lisa's disposal was not done by Bradley alone, but that she had assistance.  

Jeremy Irwin was not at home when Lisa died.  Why did he refuse to cooperate with police, instead opting to support Bradley?

Jeremy Irwin:  
"The windows were open and the lights were on, and she was no where to be found," he said. "We've been going over everything in our minds. We just don't have any idea."
Please note that in many statements where sexual activity took place, lights are mentioned. 

Please note the passivity in the language:  "windows were open" and "lights were on" does not say who caused these things.  

That she was "no where to be found" is similar to the language of John Ramsey who "opened the door, turned on the light" and "there she was" (in the positive). 

Both "there she was" and "she was nowhere to be found" are technically truthful statements.  

Please note that he was describing when he, Jeremy Irwin (one man, singular) came home; yet immediately goes to the plural "we" which reduces reliability.  

Note that he gives both his and her thinking:  "we just don't have any ideas"; with the plural suggesting that he knows what another was thinking.  This is another sensitivity indicator on Jeremy's statements.  Lastly, "no idea" was followed up by a list given to police of possible suspects.  This indicates that having "no idea" is not truthful. 

Since "lights" are often involved in statements in which sexual activity is in play and "doors"  or "windows" are often found in language where child abuse is in play, might Jeremy Irwin have reason to fear crossing Deborah Bradley?

We saw in earlier analysis the introduction of infidelity as a sensitive topic to the couple.  
Ernie Allen of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children said that infant abduction cases are relatively rare. There have been 278 documented cases in which newborns or infants have been abducted since 1983.

Forty-six percent, or 128 cases, involved instances in which the children were taken from health care locations, hospitals, for instance. Forty percent, or 112 cases, involved children taken from homes. Of the total 278 cases, children were returned home safely in 266 instances.

"On Monday night or Tuesday morning, our daughter Lisa was taken from our home and we just urge anyone with any information as to where she is or who she's with to please call the tip hotline or the police," said Lisa's father Jeremy Irwin in a trembling voice. "Anything, even the smallest bit of information, could help lead to her return.
"Anybody that might have her, they can drop her off anyplace safe, fire station, hospital church, no questions asked," Irwin said.

Note the words "might have her" now bring into question Jeremy Irwin's assertion that she was taken from their house.  This shows he is not committed to believing that his child was taken. 

The pronoun "our" indicates a need to share ownership.  

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.  This is where a person who was not responsible for the death will say so, without sensitivity.  It needs no prompt for those who did not do it.  

DB:  MmmHmm.  Mmm Hmm

Deborah Bradley does not deny killing Lisa. We shall not say it for her. 

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. 

Statement analysis deals with what one says and what one does not say.  

"Terrible because I didn't do it" as the question is about focus upon her.  

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

Note the continued avoidance of Lisa's name.  It is extreme and has been from the first press conference in which she not only struggled to use Lisa's name, but went to immediate plural pronoun, not something expected from a mother of a missing child.  The mother and child relationship is very personal and close.  

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 was not part of her original statements, but appeared to have come from her attorney, after video came out of her buying wine. 

Alcoholic black outs are often not recoverable memories and since one does not remember, the language will not show deception.  Deception is seen in the attempt to deceive and persuade.  What one does not remember, one does not lie about.  

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.  To say "I was drunk" is not difficult.  

I do not believe that Deborah Bradley was drunk.  I believe that her attorneys wanted the public to believe she was drunk but due to the internal stress of direct lying, she avoids saying it.  

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. 

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.  

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.

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. 
Note the avoidance of answering the "yes or no" question.  

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

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 is where an innocent person will protest and say, "I told the truth.  I don't know where Lisa is."

She does not.

Nor is she able to say Lisa's name. 

She is the mother of a "missing" child who cannot bring herself to make a direct lie, nor to use her child's own name.  The distancing language is clear.

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.  

"sat" is body posture. When speaking about talking to the kids about it, there is an increase in tension for Bradley. 

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

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

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.

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

This shows concern for her and Jeremy Irwin. 

She does not show concern for the missing child.  She does not say to the kidnapper:

"Please return her!  Please give Lisa her 'ba-ba' and her 'blankie' and she needs her meds, and so on...

The concern is upon the parents; not the child. 

She is unable to use Lisa's name.  

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. 

Next up:  Questions and Answers in preparation for tomorrow's Fox news interview. 

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...

Thanks for the refresher. In watching the preview of kelly files, it is disturbing to see the dream team go to so much effort regarding the guilt or innocence of the parents. A national opprtunity to tell the world please help wasted, it seems right now.

Look forward to your analysis of their so called expert.

Oh, and checknout the photo of bill stanton on the website. Embarrassed for him and his facial expression. Open collar shirt and gold necklace ... um bill, 1975 is calling please return your look to them.

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

Oops, sorry it's not a gold necklace but black leather. Scroll down to Stanton photo.

Meant to say above: opportunity to ask the world "please help us" and they wasted it.

GetThem said...

You all probably caught this before, but here's one other thing:

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. --------

What kind of mother is she? He doesn't say. It would make more sense to say, I know what kind of mother she is, 'she is good mother.' But he does not say anything, so we can't say it for him.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to post off topic, but I didn't find another way to contact the blog.

I would love to see you take an interest in the Hae Min Lee murder as presented on the radio program "Serial". If you take this up I'm sure it will bring a huge number of new readers to your blog. Possibly you might decide that everybody involved is obviously deceptive and that statement analysis could add nothing to the discussion, but I'd love to hear your opinion anyway. Happy New Year!

trustmeigetit said...

Like with the McCanms, refusing to ask the other kids what they may have seen or heard is alarming. These kids supposedly had a sibling "stolen" and they don't instantly ask questions.

There is no way that makes any sense. If there is something that could help..... to just basically refuse to even ask.