Three years ago, we covered the case of a missing child, "Baby Lisa" in which, from the first press conference in which the mother, Deborah Bradley spoke, deception was indicated.
This deception was not based upon a single point, but upon many points of sensitivity, missing information, and language consistent with unintentional death.
This is to say that Deborah Bradley gave us indication that Lisa was not kidnapped, but she was dead and that Deborah Bradley, herself, needed help; Baby Lisa was not in need of help.
Bradley revealed guilty knowledge of the death, and her account of a kidnapping did not proceed from experiential memory.
Fox News revisited the case on January 2, 2015, highlighting beforehand, that they were going to use the nation's celebrated top "human lie detector", 25 year CIA veteran Philip Houston who went on to reveal that Deborah Bradley is telling the truth. Mr. Houston has conducted thousands of interviews, including terrorist interviews and has an impressive resume. We now will listen to his words to guide us.
Is he truthful? That is, does he believe his own assertion about Bradley's de facto innocence? (Bradley is judicially innocent in a court of law).
Statement Analysis does not interpret. In training, investigators are taught to carefully listen to what one says as the brain tells the tongue, in less than a microsecond, what word to choose from a vast, 20,000 word plus personal dictionary.
In an interview 3 years ago, Deborah Bradley "admitted" that she was drinking, but was unable to admit she was drunk. This was an interview set up by high powered attorney Joe Tacopina after the video of her buying wine was released. If she was drunk, we allow her to tell us so. Tacopina boasted about getting the FBI to give him information, and effectively shutting down the case.
Statement Analysis 101 teaches: Listen to the words chosen and do not interpret.
This is the most common mistake made today and it is something that every seminar begins with. Honest people will interpret deceptive people as honest, if they choose to not listen to the words chosen.
Does Houston listen to Deborah Bradley's answer, or does he interpret it for her?
Does Houston reliably assert his belief in Bradley's words?
Analysis of all the interviews and statements publicly posted showed that Baby Lisa was never "missing" nor kidnapped, but that Lisa died in the home. Lisa's father, Jeremy Irwin, soon learned the truth of what happened to Lisa, but chose to protect Deborah. In his own language, he responded to a great question: 'What kind of person would do this?'
His answer was to go directly to infidelity.
Statement Analysis indicated that even with Joe Tacopina defending her, deception continued, from all parties, including those who offered a reward. The language of the reward showed 'guilty knowledge', as it qualified specifically, how it would be paid:
The subject offering the financial award knew it would never be paid.
With three years passing, Deborah Bradley can issue a statement, "I didn't kill Lisa", as the free editing process has long passed. During the initial interviews, she did not deny causing Lisa's death.
To read a prepared statement or parrot this, is not reliable.
1. Deborah Bradley was deceptive about what happened to Lisa.
2. Deborah Bradley did not deny causing Lisa's disappearance.
3. Deborah Bradley revealed that Lisa would not be found alive.
4. Jeremy Irwin chose not to cooperate with police.
5. Jeremy Irwin gave us a linguistic indication of who caused Lisa's demise.
6. Jeremy Irwin, over time, showed that he knew Bradley needed protection; not Lisa.
Q. Why was deception indicated so quickly in this case, where as in other cases you wait for more press conferences?
A. Because of the pronouns. Pronouns (and articles) are:
2. Exempt from Personal, internal, subjective dictionary that each of us has.
3. Reliable. 100% reliability in following pronouns. Where there is an "error" in pronouns, there is deception.
4. The rare exception in pronoun usage is psychological in nature, with cases of Asperger's diagnosed in the United States at the rate of less than .03% (This will be addressed in a future training article).
Although I am more comfortable with a complete interview, in this case, I concluded deception at the first televised announcement where the mother spoke. I heard a mother of a missing 11 month old child avoid using her own daughter's name, and use the language of 'closure' or 'moving on', concerned for self, and not for any 'kidnapped baby.'
Deborah Bradley was Baby Lisa's mother. Everything about the relationship between baby and mother is instinctive, close up and personal, and the language will reflect this reality.
When distance is observed, it is indicative of a distancing in reality.
Pronouns are used millions of times by us and we are so good at using them, that they become instinctive for us. Even length of time has little impact on pronouns.
Deborah Bradley did not just distance herself from Baby Lisa, she linguistically 'ran away' from commitment to her story by using the pronoun, "we", from the beginning, and then crossed her pronouns in confusion. "I woke up, we woke up..." and so on. She would not be "left alone" with Baby Lisa's disappearance.
This was noted by readership even before analysis was complete. Note that the inconsistency of pronouns continued throughout not only the first press conference, but in those that followed. If you search on "Baby Lisa" here at the Statement Analysis blog, you will find much information on the case.
Pronouns are the simplest tool in discerning deception. There are those who are intuitive in analysis, and in questioning them, they may not know principle, but are able to follow the pronouns well.
Q. Why did you concluded deception that equaled guilt? Sensitivity doesn't always mean guilt.
A. This is a good question. Not all deception is specified towards accusations.
For example, a parent is deceptive, and fails a polygraph, not because he killed the child, but because he was high on drugs, asleep on the couch, when the child left the home and was found by a predatory child sex abuser. In Bradley's case, the 'admission' of alcohol, under the guidance of her attorney, is helpful in understanding how a ready-to-use excuse was offered. Yet, if we tether ourselves to principle, we cannot conclude that Bradley was drunk, for she, herself, refused to say so .
With Deborah Bradley, she was deceptive about the actual events and details of what happened that night. She was deceptive about specifics, including sleeping, cell phones, and protected her deception by refusing to allow the entire house to be searched.
Q. Philip Houston, the "human lie detector" with 25 years experience in the CIA, said she was truthful.
How can you possibly differ?
A. The clip is here: http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/12/29/dont-miss-kelly-file-special-baby-lisa-mystery-friday-9p-et
Statement Analysis of the human lie detector:
Bradley was asked about having involvement. Her answer:
"None. The only thing I did wrong...(pause) was drink that night, and um, possibly not be alert. (pause) Not hear. I'm sorry. "
This was her response.
We immediately note the "Dependent" word, "only", in which dependent words work when they are connected to another word (or thought). This means she is 'comparing' what she did "wrong" with something else. We note the dropping of pronouns, the weak assertion, and the inclusion of the words "I'm sorry" in her answer. We do not conclude deception on a single indicator, but upon a culmination of indicators. Even here, we have much to analyze.
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 was drunk that night. She was actually accepting some culpability of what happened."
Let's analyze both:
She was asked, in a lengthy question (which should be avoided) about involvement in the disappearance of Lisa:
1. "None." This is a good answer. We then follow her words to see what happens to her response. She could have stopped there. She did not. Deceptive people often use additional words in order to persuade. A strong response would have been "none" with nothing needed to be added. She now contradicts her answer by listing reasons for possible responsibility:
2. "The only thing I did wrong" is to weigh against the denial of "none", telling us: she did do something wrong.
Will she tell us what she did wrong?
3. "drink that night" is to say that she drank that night. This interview was 3 years ago, which may have been conducted before the attorneys became involved, increasing the odds of getting a good, sound interview.
"possibly not be alert" is two things:
a. "possibly" is reduced commitment.
b. it is in the negative "not" be alert.
Please note that lying, outright, is stressful and the overwhelming deception exists in withholding information.
She does not say "I was drunk", nor does she say "I was not alert" or "I was not paying attention."
4. "I'm sorry" is often found in the language of the guilty as it is in the brain. It is difficult, for example, to picture Desiree Young, mother of Kyron Horman, saying she is sorry or crying or for anything.
Please note that in the answer, Houston interprets her drinking and only "possible" lack of alertness as an admission of drunkenness.
In his personal, subjective internal dictionary, he interpreted rather than listen.
Note that she said "I'm sorry" which may have followed her crying. Why would anyone be "sorry" for being a mother crying over a missing child? We note in Statement analysis the words the brain chooses to use, and do not interpret. The guilt often say "I'm sorry", for one reason or another. See Casey Anthony.
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.
"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."
Note "she had been drunk"presupposes her meaning. She did not say she was drunk but Houston concludes that is what she said. This is what we do in training:
We teach investigators to listen to what one says and to NOT interpret.
Houston did not listen to what Deborah Bradley said. Houston did not accept that after her strong denial, she had reason to give additional information.
6. The only thing..." only" is a dependent word. The use here should lead the interviewer to ask about "other" things she did wrong. This should be understood in light of where she may have been that night: at her neighbor's home. (see below when Jeremy Irwin is asked what kind of person would do such a thing). By using the word "only" she is comparing it to other things.
It is not an essential word to use unless the brain is comparing it to other things, in the plural, making it then an appropriate word.
The answer by Houston is useful for instruction to see how easy it is for us to interpret others' language. Houston, by his interpretation, is revealing something about himself: he is likely not an alcoholic and is likely a responsible person. We all do this, but it is especially evident when we interpret. Honest people often interpret others as honest, and must be trained to "turn off" their interpreting (dulled listening) and learn to listen to the precise words used.
Remember; We choose our words, from the brain to the tongue, in less than a microsecond. This is what makes Statement Analysis such an accurate tool. The issue of being drunk is important and there is separate analysis done on the interview in which the press concluded she was "drunk" but in that interview she is unable or unwilling to say she was drunk.
7. Note that he is asked "what did you hear?" but answers "we saw", and not "I heard." This is a change of language and indicates that Houston is not listening, but interpreting. He was ready to give his answer.
Many years ago I was transcribing a child interview I had done. I noticed that I was actually correcting the child's grammar as I typed. It was a valuable lesson for me to learn.
Taking "some" culpability or responsibility is something that both the innocent and guilty do. The innocent parent, for example, will often take "all" or a "great deal" of responsibility; far outside any factual realm. Some have said, "If I had only not changed jobs 10 years ago, I would not have moved here, and my daughter would have not been at this concert..."
It is often used as a "need to persuade" by the guilty. It makes them sound like 'a better person', which belies the need to sound like a better person.
Philip Houston on Jeremy Irwin:
The video then turns to Jeremy Irwin. Statement Analysis indicated that he was not home when Lisa met her fate and would not have experiential knowledge.
We ask short questions and use as little language as possible. Note the length of the question Houston asks. By using lots of words, we may inadvertently teach the subject how to lie.
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)
Note that Houston does not interrupt but lets the pause continue so that Irwin will say more. It appeared that Irwin may have been done. This is a wise move.
"Its not possible because I wasn't, so it would just be another one of their lies."
This is a very strong denial, and he uses the pronoun "I" to show it and unlike Deborah Bradley, there is no "possible" evidence of involvement. It would have to be a "lie" because he was not home.
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.
There is no deception in his answer, and Houston is correct in this.
Jeremy Irwin was not involved in Lisa's demise and was able to say this without sensitivity indicators.
When the interview is aired, I will do full analysis for it.
In the end of the tape, the news analyst correctly summarizes the case:
Deborah Bradley was deceptive and allowed for possible guilt in her answer, while Jeremy Irwin gave a strong denial, and did not allow for any reason to be sorry.
This is consistent with the Statement Analysis I have done on the case over the years. Deception in Jeremy Irwin came later, about his knowledge of what happened, as he covered for Deborah Bradley, perhaps convincing himself that he had to protect her from the police.
The two answers:
Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin were asked, basically, the same question, however worded. The question is about being involved.
Their answers are different.
The difference should have been analyzed.
One produced a reliable denial, while the other not only avoided it, but actually allowed for possible guilt. One boldly proclaimed "because I didn't" and was unafraid of calling a "lie" any evidence that says otherwise. The other says "I'm sorry."
The two answers are useful in teaching Statement Analysis.
In Statement Analysis, attendees in law enforcement, social services, corporate America, and so on, are taught the reliability of pronouns, and the fact that:
deceptive people are counting on you to interpret their words.
Remember Mark McClish's opening question:
"There were two frogs sitting on a log. One decided to jump off. How many frogs were left?"
It is not a trick question. He uses it to show that people interpret, rather than listen. The answer is that we do not know. Deceptive people are counting on you to interpret their answers, rather than listen. The above example is often found in statements made by deceptive employees to their supervisors. They often refer to what they "intended" to do, or what they "normally do" while avoiding stating what they actually did. I have found this in corporate theft statements where I ask the subject to write out what he or she did that day.
"I went to my desk at 9am. I wrote out my report. I usually take calls from 11am to noon. I went to lunch at 1PM..."
In the above statement:
1. It is very likely that at 9am he was at his desk.
2. It is very likely that he wrote his report.
3. It is very likely that he went to lunch at 1PM.
People rarely lie outright.
Yet, my interview and investigation would focus at 11am because he avoided telling us what he did.
If I were to interpret his answer, I would conclude that at 11am he was on the phone but in Statement Analysis, we let the subject guide us. He did not tell us he was on the phone. In fact, he did not tell us what he did at 11am, only what he generally or "normally" does.
In fact, in the above statement, the need to say what one "normally" does is a strong indication that what took place at 11am was anything but "normal."
The frog "decided" to jump off, but as Mark points out, we often change our minds in decision making. This is a small, but potent example of how "dulled listening" is part of us all, and must be trained out of us.
It is my assertion that it takes about 2 years of solid practice to 'turn the tide' to trained listening. Once embraced, the attendee will never "hear" speech the same way again.
Just as training without practice is lost, those who practice will never return to dulled listening again.
Sadly, Mr. Houston's credentials make this interesting for television, but likely makes a lot of investigators squirm, especially those who followed Bradley's pattern of lying, constantly adding words that were unnecessary (making them 'doubly important' to the analyst), just as investigators found her story as implausible physically, as I found her words to be.
Hyatt Analysis Services
Here are some more Q and A about the case and the analysis I have done in the past.
Q. Why did police say that they had limited access to the house?
A. Because Deborah Bradley gave permission to search specific parts of the house, and withheld specific areas to be searched. She allowed the door frame to the outside to be searched, but areas near the bedroom door frame, for example, were restricted.
In response, Joe Tacopina said that they were cooperating with police with the sensitivity indicator:
"fully cooperating with police."
The word "fully" tells us that there is, in his mind, a different level of cooperation exists in his mind. This is sensitive. We don't know if the sensitivity indicator is because of him, police, or another circumstance, until more information comes out.
Therefore, we noted the cooperation as "sensitive." Later, we learned about the severe restrictions placed upon the searching of the home.
Q. What about the cadaver dog?
A. There was reportedly a "hit"; that is, indication of human decomposition. These dogs are not simply highly trained, but incredibly accurate. This hit showed human decomposition. These dogs are used successfully all over the world and by many different organizations. Lisa died within the house, according to analysis, while Jeremy Irwin was not there, but Deborah Bradley was.
Q. Why do you say that Deborah Bradley wasn't drunk? She is obviously a heavy drinker and even sounded entitled to her "Adult time."
A. I did not say she wasn't drunk. I said that she did not tell us that she was drunk. In listening to her responses, she never once said that she was drunk. I believe that this was a ruse set up by her attorney, who "suddenly" told media to ask her.
It was a shrewd move on his part.
The press had noticed her changing story and inconsistencies. She did not tell us she was drunk, therefore, I won't do her the luxury of saying it for her. I think she was drinking but I don't think she passed out drunk, as the attorney wanted to use as a way of fixing the "holes" in her accounts.
Q. If someone passes out due to alcohol, will they fail a polygraph?
A well administered polygraph is fool-proof. This means that if the polygrapher is trained in Statement Analysis, he or she will know:
Only use the subject's own language
Do not introduce language
Say very little
Let the subject's own words guide the pre-screening interview
Obtain a "pure version" of what happened, and use the subject's own language in the test.
Sadly, many departments still do not train polygraphers in Statement Analysis and investigators lose confidence in the polygrapher. I have seen deceptive people pass tests due only to the wording used.
Polygraphy and Statement analysis work on a similar principle: Direct Lying causes internal stress, not due to conscience so much, but due to being caught.
An alcohol blackout is just that: a black out. If you do not have a memory of something, and that something is asked of you, you won't have a significant reaction. Lying is seen by reaction.
In statement analysis, if you do not possess memory of something, you cannot speak of it. Deception is indicated because the person has the will to deceive. For example, if I told you, "I have a red car" and it is a lie, and you repeat, "He has a red car", your language will not show deception because you have no intent to deceive.
In a black out, there is no memory of which to conceal via deception. The person will not have a significant change in reaction to the questions. The pre screening process meant that Deborah Bradley, for example, knew exactly what questions would be asked.
1. Do you live on Smith St?
2. Is your daughter's name Lisa?
3. Did you cause her death?
4. Did you lie to police about the kidnapping?
5. Is Jeremy
No surprise questions.
Q. Why did you say that the reward was a hoax when it has been shown that a rich benefactor was behind it?
A. Because the language in the case showed that Lisa was dead and there was no chance in ever having to pay out the reward. If you go back to the video of the press conference, several reporters noted the language from Stanton and how he was hedging his words so they pushed him to finally saying that the reward will be paid if someone brings Lisa right to him. Since their language indicated that she was dead, the reward was never going to be paid out.
It was not a genuine offer and the benefactor would be told there was zero chance of payout. The passivity in language was noted in the original analysis.
Q. Will you really quit all analysis if Lisa is found alive?
This came about as something I said on radio, as I was not allowing for the possibility of Deborah Bradley being truthful, and because analysis showed those around her were just as deceptive.
I concluded, from the first interview on television, that Lisa was dead. This upset some listeners (and readers) but I concluded it from two points:
1. The mother of a missing 11 month old baby is already referencing Lisa in the past tense
2. The mother of a missing 11 month old baby is incapable of using Lisa's name.
Mothers have a natural denial that refuses to accept death of a child. Unless police have told her that strong evidence exists that the child is dead, the mother will not speak of the child as dead. Even with evidence, a mother will resist this. I coupled this with the extreme distancing language as Lisa was only referred to as "her " and "she"; void of her name, and terms of endearment.
This was, naturally, upsetting to those praying for Baby Lisa. I was attempting to show how strongly I felt about the case.
Billie Jean Dunn was asked "What happened?" by Nancy Grace, regarding her missing 13 year old, who local police thought had run away. Dunn said, "She went missing while I was at work", showing a need for an alibi.
She was asked how far Hailey (13) had to walk to get to her friend's house. The mother said "three or four blocks", which is a good answer, but deceptive people feel a need to persuade. The mother went on to say how Hailey "wasn't allowed" to go out at night by herself, and "wasn't" allowed to go without permission.
1. She was speaking of her daughter in the past tense
2. She was trying to persuade the audience what a good and responsible mother she was, highlighting the need to persuade more than anything else. This, coupled with "she went missing while I was at work", therefore, there is no possible way to suspect her, showed no concern for what Hailey would be experiencing at the hands of her kidnappers, just like Bradley did not show concern of what Lisa would be experiencing, as an infant, at the hands of her kidnappers. They both knew their babies were dead and were not concerned with what the children were experiencing. Both mothers were concerned about what they were experiencing and what people might be thinking about them.
Philip Houston's expert opinion does not change this. Deborah Bradley revealed, from the beginning, that she knew her child was deceased. I respect his resume. He is wrong about Deborah Bradley.
When someone speaks as much as Deborah Bradley, she gives us a great deal of information. This is similar to some other cases, including missing Texas teenager, Hailey Dunn. The mother spoke so much that she revealed many details of the case. She now says her and her attorney are setting to sue people.
I say the same about Baby Lisa as I do Hailey: If either is found alive, I will quit analysis, publish apologies everywhere I can, call any program that will have me to apologize and then destroy my laptop, never to do analysis again.
Time and time again, when I have a full statement, I have said, "Deception indicated" with confidence in the system, rather than making ambivalent, career saving statements. Even Paul Ekman, of "Lie to Me" fame, sent out an email saying that he would not say someone is deceptive unless he, himself, conducts the entire interview.
What are the odds of that happening?
When police give me a statement to analyze, or a video of an interview, and the investigators let the subject speak, I will give them an answer regarding the veracity or deception of the subject, and will design questions to ask the subject. Police are looking for substantial answers, not vague "maybe's" and I only give a "vague maybe" when the statement is tainted, or extremely short, or, sadly, if the interviewer did most of the talking and allowed the subject to enter the language of the interviewer.
Analytical Interviewing is the best formula for accessing information. It relies upon Statement Analysis and legally sound, open ended questions to satisfy the premise:
The subject has the information and wants to yield it.
I can add that I will sign the title deed of my house over to Billie Dunn or Deborah Bradley if either was truthful and their child was alive, but it will have the same empty ring as "Wild Bill" Stanton's "reward" for Lisa's safe return. Tacopina and Stanton turned a homicide into a circus.
Q. What is the difference between the Baby Lisa case and the Hailey Dunn case? Both have attention seeking attorneys who jumped in for the free publicity and both have mothers who you claim are deceptive.
A. The major difference that I see is found within drugs. Drugs pervert and slowly kill the soul. Drugs invite in poor judgement, and especially overall deviancy. In the Hailey case, we saw vile overall behavior, drugs, child pornography, perversion, pornography, bestiality, violence, blood lust, and so on. In the case of Baby Lisa, I think it was an unintended death that spiraled into a cover up. Coming clean could have been met with leniency, in the beginning but the attorney made certain that Lisa did not get a proper burial.
In the latter, there is a greater chance for an admission. I think that Deborah Bradley was close to telling the police the truth, but due to media attention, it brought in the scent of money which was pounced upon by attorneys. In the former, there are so many attendant evils that coming clean will mean lengthy prison sentences for both mother, Billie Jean Dunn, and her now ex boyfriend, Shawn Adkins. Both failed polygraphs and both indicated, from Day One, that Hailey was not "missing" but dead and disposed of.
Q. Why do you hate attorneys?
A. I am asked this frequently: I don't hate attorneys. I work for and with honest attorneys who do a great deal of good in this world, and who can sleep at night.
I hate opportunists who pervert justice for their own gain. I am not a fan of the fact that our country has relinquished its freedoms but lawyers are the only ones who seem to profit from the endless making of new laws. We no longer elect leaders, particularly leaders who were tested under battle: we elect lawyers. Lawyers profit from new laws and the litigation that comes from new laws.
Opportunists are also those who, like 'psychics', who sometimes even get the family of a missing person to pay them for their deception. Psychics are vultures who prey upon the most vulnerable. Their success rate in finding missing persons is Zero, yet some are so clever that they get local police officers to utilize them.
Their language shows that their words do not come from experiential memory. A police officer has far better odds of winning the lottery than of getting a "tip" from a 'psychic'. I feel for those who, when they are hurting from losing a loved one to death, pay these deceivers money to "communicate" with their deceased loved one.
I also have a fondness for lawyers like Tacopina, who gives me lots of material to practice my craft upon.
In the case of Hailey Dunn, her attorney incensed people with phrases such as "our girl" and "our daughter", sounding foolish. He mocked me on television, only to be arrested, shortly after, high on cocaine and pointing a gun at a Texas Ranger. His history has left a family bereft of a mother and wife.
In the case of Baby Lisa, a search of the NY Post will give you quite a view of Bradley's attorney's history of media attention seeking.
Q. Why does Jeremy Bradley refuse to be interviewed without Deborah Bradley's presence?
A. Jeremy Irwin refused to be interviewed with Deborah Bradley to be there to "correct" him. It is the only way they can keep the story straight. If he cared about his daughter, he would have cooperated with the police from the beginning and not covered for Lisa's mother. I think police had hoped to find Lisa through splitting them, and appealing to Irwin's paternal instinct. Deborah Bradley's domination overruled that hope.
Q. Why did you ask Ron Rugen to come on your radio show?
A. Ron is highly intelligent, passionate, and was close to the case, initially believing Deborah Bradley's story, only to watch her story fall apart. As the years have passed, Ron has repeatedly called for justice for Baby Lisa, something we all care about.
Q. Didn't his change of opinion make him look foolish?
A. No. In fact, it made him increase in the eyes of most people as he possesses the humility and intelligence to grow. Only those who refuse to be "wrong" are incapable of growth. Statement Analysis is a series of being "wrong" and being "right", particularly while doing the work.
When I have been asked to do "live analysis" of a cold statement, the audience will hear me think out loud.
This is especially sensitive in anonymous letter work.
In one case, a company had received training, and then advanced training. When I boasted that Statement Analysis can often profile or even identify an anonymous author, this company asked that I do it "live" with their attendees participating.
This took almost 6 hours and here is what they heard:
"This sounds like a male" turn into "this sounds like a female", and "this is clearly a white, very young, female" and "this is an adult black male" and "this is a current employee" turn to "this is a embittered former employee" on and on.
This means being "wrong" repeatedly, in order to get it right.
The end result was an exact identification of the person who wrote a threatening letter to the company.
They were impressed.
I was impressed with their work: they had to be willing to raise their hand, take a strong stand, and then abandon the stand when the statement called for it.
It was both exhausting and exhilarating.
Statement Analysis has an advantage over in person interviewing. We have the luxury of only viewing her words, not her tears nor her presence. Because Ron is a kind and compassionate man, his empathy is expected. For us, the "subject is dead; the statement is alive" , meaning that we are not analyzing Deborah Bradley. We are analyzing her words.
Ron is a truthful man, meaning that he has an advantage in analysis: We presuppose truth in our analysis so that when truth is not encountered, we are "surprised" or "confronted" with it. Deceptive people's presupposition is off base. Their "expected" is not the expectation of truth, therefore, they do not 'trip' over a lie.
Ron is a truthful man, setting himself up to be 'tripped' or 'surprised'. This is exactly what he was when he realized that Deborah Bradley was not truthful.
He hurt for Lisa, but he also hurt for Deborah Bradley when he interviewed her. He is the type of person I look for in trainings. They do better work because they "enter" into a statement better than others. (See the work of Kaaryn Gough to learn what it means to "enter" into a statement; particularly her work on the Dylan Redwine case.)
There are other examples of intelligent people fooled by someone in cases like these. The one fooled usually is:
c. Has had personal (in person) contact with the guilty party.
This makes it very difficult for discernment as a friendship in its early stages develops due to kindness. We see this in therapists who develop a strong bond with a sociopath. They feel as if they are "betraying" the client by admitting that the client is lying.
We also have the element of parenting in these cases. Ron, and other good people like him, who are parents, have a special feel for a parent who plays the victim. They cannot help but wonder, "but what if the police are wrong? What if the polygraph was wrong? What if the Analyst is wrong? I have just accused not only an innocent person, but a terribly hurting person, left bereft of her child, falsely!"
It is a lot to bear. It also makes for safety for the innocent. He had to be asked, "Did you ever actually hear Deborah say she didn't do it?" as the Reliable Denial takes time to learn, accept, and apply in our work.
As we progress in the digital age, I think people are seeing more and more the value of transcribing an interview and allowing a dispassionate view of the words.
I was once involved in a case where an investigator was conducting a long interview with an addict. From the addict's statement, I knew deception was indicated.
I made a list of 11 or 12 things that the investigator would say to me after the interview, in defense of the subject's "innocence."
When the interview was over, the investigator was exhausted and said, "I don't think he did it."
I had the investigator take a break, get some coffee and change scenery.
We then sat down and I read off my list:
1. Did the subject say he didn't do it? (this took a review of his notes!)
2. Did the subject tell you his childhood?
3. Did this increase your sympathy?
4. Did the subject talk about chronic pain? ("yes, but it is real!")
5. Did the subject...
and on and on it went.
The investigator then went back over his notes, reading back the direct quotes from the subject. He saw the guilt and he saw the deception. He was now able to say, "The subject did not say he didn't do it."
Later, when confronted with deception indicated, the subject confessed.
The investigator learned a valuable lesson: Being up front and close with someone triggers our emotions and impacts caring individuals.
In my first interview with a killer, I was utterly unprepared for what I encountered. I was unprepared for what my emotions did to me: the sympathy I felt, the strong desire to believe innocence, and the desire to deny the truth. I had to, literally, keep the record of what the crime entailed, at my side, under a notebook, just to remind me what this person was actually capable of. After the interview, I sat in my car in the parking lot and bawled my eyes out.
Suspicious people cannot analyze statements because they cannot know what the expected looks like. They are forever moving the landmark from its set location, by their suspicious nature, and without the expected in place, they are on shaky ground when the unexpected is spoken. They do not easily recognize it as the unexpected.
Caring people care. It is what they do. If they are taken in because of their care, it is an indication of who they are. Yes, they need to step back and examine evidence, and learn to discern their own emotions, but it is within this emotional capacity that their own greatness is found.
Ron Rugen is not only an investigator, he wears a journalist's hat as well. Notice that Ron possesses what has become a rare commodity in our "self" esteeming madness of today: humility.
He didn't struggle to say he changed his opinion on the Baby Lisa case. It took time to process his emotions.
Q. Will this case be solved?
A. I hope so. It has been more than three years now, and Fox News is resurrecting the case. It remains seen if this will cause renewed interest or the apathy of a cold case will continue.
In the Baby Lisa case, they were up against a "bullying" type attorney, one who talks over interviewers and imposes his linguistic will upon interviewers. He derailed police well and even though his answers sound stupid on television, his voice inflection emotes confidence. I did analysis of Herman Goering where I saw the same pattern of a highly intellectual person turning the tables on the Interviewer. Tacopina has a strong intellect and the FBI may have made many errors in dealing with him, though they may have felt that they had little choice at the time, as the public was demanding answers.
Q. Why was the public so invested in this case?
A. I want to say "because they wanted justice for Lisa" or "Lisa stole our hearts..." or something along that line.
There is truth in both of these responses but I think there was something must much that drove the public's interest:
Deborah Bradley's lies insulted listeners, much like Casey Anthony, Cindy Anthony, Bille Jean Dunn, the McCanns, Baby Sabrina's parents and so many others.
When we are lied to, we feel insulted. This is because the liar must presuppose he or she is smarter than we are. There is an inherent insult in the lie, and it is a challenge to us to show otherwise.
This also makes Statement Analysis popular.
"Lie to Me" on television was popular and, at least in the beginning, entertaining. Yet, it was not truthful in that the hero could look at someone's face and instantly tell he was lying.
Lie Detection is hard work, which is what attendees quickly learn in seminars. It is a skill that takes practice with a two year minimum of daily practice to reverse the "dulled listening" that we all do. The television show, just like the 'psychics' show, produced quite a bit of "Face Book experts" who see a curled lip and draw dramatic conclusions. Some even claim to teach this.
Yet, in spite of the assistance body language analysis can give us, and that some are naturally intuitive on reading faces, the scientific aspect of language is far stronger for consistent results.
I once knew a man who was an intuitive lie catcher. He was the proverbially abused child, dropped out of school at age 13, living by his wits (and by theft of restaurant garbage cans for food) who became fascinated by cars. He worked in an auto parts store, memorizing parts, and reading customers' faces much like he was a child reading his abusive mother's face. He eventually became a salesman, and on to a wholesaler of Mercedes Benz and BMW high line cars, and a successful father. He was amazing at making deals, over the phone, often spending $100,000 sight unseen, with great success.
He also could not explain how he knew one was lying. He is the rare, gifted one, long before the internet.
People came to this site to read about Baby Lisa, and other cases, because they felt that something was wrong with her language (and the other cases, too) and wanted explanation as to their unease.
I don't know if the Fox News interview will accomplish much of anything, but the transcripts will be interesting. We'll see.
Q. Why is Bradley speaking out now?
A. I don't know. Perhaps she has become embolden by time, though shortly after Lisa disappeared, Bradley was bold and narcissistic enough to invite a camera crew to come Halloween trick or treating with her. She loved the camera, but so did Cindy and Casey Anthony, and others, including Tiffany Hartley.
Perhaps she misses the spotlight and thinks she can cash in.
Perhaps she was told that Philip Houston, 3 years later, now is going public to give her "credit" for being truthful.
Perhaps this has been orchestrated by her attorney, who did not make much off of it in the first place.
Perhaps Fox News wants to get information to help solve the case.
Bradley and Irwin became more and more guarded with their answers, particularly after Tacopina came on the scene.
I don't know why they are speaking out, but for me, I am glad. It may yield information.
Q. Can the passage of time help?
A. The odds of solving the case increase with time. Here is why:
As "Baby Lisa" fades from the public, goes with the fading is the draw of media hungry attorneys. If it cannot bring fame, it cannot bring fortune, and the "pro bono" attorneys lose interest quickly. The "Dr Phil" show was a sham where the lawyer dominated the show and the questions asked.
There is always the risk of break up, and of whispering to someone else who now wants to come forth with the truth.
Q. What do you make of the avoidance of using Lisa's name?
A. It was extreme. Had she used Lisa's name 50% more than she did, I would have concluded "distancing language" but she was extreme in her avoidance. This told me that she had reason to distance herself, with a deep personal guilt. She is no sociopath. She knows what she did and felt intense guilt over it, which is why she had to avoid using Lisa's name. It may be, unscientifically speaking, the most distancing language I have ever experienced between a mother and missing child. Other mothers, including Dunn, did not show this extremity in avoidance.
The mother - child relationship, at just 11 months, is intensely personal, thus, Solomon's exploitation of maternal instincts.
Q. Will she use Lisa's name in the new interview?
A. I think she might if she has been properly prepared. I knew that the blog entries were being read and human nature being what it is, she knows she will have to say "I didn't do it" and use Lisa's name.
Q. Is the interview a waste of time?
A. No. The skill of the interviewer is still able to get the subject away from the prepared answers and into the free editing process, where Bradley is now "talking" and freely choosing her own words. Here is an example:
Bruce Springsteen has a thick New Jersey accent. He changed it to a mid-western twang that is very different from his native accent. When he is interviewed, he does a lot of pausing and reflecting and sounds like Bob Dylan trying to sound like Woodie Guthrie, but when the interviewer gets him talking beyond a few sentences, particularly on a topic that has emotional connections, the accent returns.
The free editing process (FEP) is what polygraphers must learn to use in the pre screening interview and it is what Analytical Interviewers are trained to do. GET the subject away from guarded, prepared speaking and we will get information.
Three plus years have passed. We can expect her to use the past tense verb, even while saying "she is out there and we haven't given up hope" like statements.
In the initial interviews, Deborah was almost utterly unable to use the pronoun "I" when it came to what happened to Lisa in spite of the close mother-child relationship, and in spite of claiming to be alone. This evidenced a need to share guilt.
We may hear her use the pronoun "I" more often now that so much time has passed.
We will focus upon content, rather than truth versus deception, and "leakage" where she gives out information that she did not intend to.
Q. What do you believe happened to Baby Lisa?
A. No one has been charged, and the presumption of legal innocence is afforded. Yet, my own opinion, based upon the language is this:
Deborah Bradley is a selfish, narcissistic type who was involved in a troublesome relationship which, perhaps, led to unfaithfulness towards Jeremy Irwin, and was drinking that fateful night, perhaps with the man next door, and grew irritated at the constant interruptions and needs of a baby and shook her to silence.
Shaking a baby to silence the baby works effectively: the child will stop crying.
Yet it is that the brain is dislodged (great matter sometimes falls from the ears) and the child can suffer from anything from brain damage right up to death.
This is not intended, but comes from a moment of loss of control. This then led to a night long panic of finding someone to help her dispose of Lisa's body (likely in water) and then concocting a story that, Statement analysis showed: did not proceed from experiential memory.
A story can come from memory of what happened or experienced. This is "Experiential memory" in language.
A story can come from the memory of what one read. This is what Billie Jean Dunn initially did, with the story of the sleep over with Hailey. The language showed that Dunn did not "experience" this, and that it was made up, not by Adkins, but by Billie, herself.
Bradley's cell phone pings showed just how close to the house she initially was.
Lisa died in the home. This was confirmed by the cadaver dogs, and by the fact that she and Tacopina only allowed certain parts of the house to be searched, keeping police dogs away from the bedroom, instead allowing the door and outside window to be "searched." He could not say "Deborah cooperated" because it would be a direct lie. He said "fully cooperating", making "cooperation" sensitive. It was this linguistic signal that caused us to ask about the cooperation, only to learn that portions of the home were "off limits" to police testing.
Deborah Bradley had a reason why she doesn't cooperate. Jeremy had a reason why he protected Deborah, even while his own language revealed that he did not believe his own words about Lisa being "taken" by anyone.
Remember what he said when asked, "Who would do something like this?", that is, who would take his child.
He mused about what kind of person would do this to Lisa. "Someone who has cheated on her husband" he said.
Enter his language.
He is supposed to be claiming his daughter was kidnapped, yet he says "if someone has her...
" revealing doubt in his own words.
Then, as he is thinking about his daughter, and what happened to her, musing upon what kind of person would do such a thing as has been done to his daughter, Lisa, he says
"someone who has cheated on her husband."
He introduced several things:
1. The "someone" who did this to Lisa is a female.
2. The taking of Lisa is related to infidelity
3. The topic is about cheating on a "husband"; while they were common law, and not technically married.
There were reports that Bradley was involved with the next door neighbor, which did not surprise readers.
It seems terribly off topic to introduce something like this but if you listen to the interview with Prio, Jeremy Irwin tries to stop himself from saying "husband" but it slips out.
This was what was in his mind while talking about his missing child.
This lessens the mystery.
What did Lisa do to interrupt "adult time" that Deborah Bradley was involved in?
It was likely that Jeremy believed Deborah should not have been over at that neighbor's house, in the first place, as he suspected infidelity on her part.
For me, this helps with the conclusion of the matter. This is my personal opinion of the case:
Bradley wants her "adult time", which 11 month old babies are not big on giving, and she was doing something that caused her significant stress, like an affair (in any stage) to which she responded in a moment of anger, caused lethal injury to Lisa, and then went into survival mode and disposed of the body.
I also believe that she was close to confessing to police when the NY attorney shut everything down. Police spokesmen were quietly confident in their statements, but when Tacopina came on, the same police spokesman became arrogant and boastful.
This revealed to me that he was losing the case. (see prior analysis for details).
Deborah Bradley may be seeking a reality TV show. She enjoyed the attention and was given a nice trip and even a make over in exchange for a televised interview. She only spoke to certain networks, which, behaviorally, indicates that she was concerned, not about "getting the word out" to "rescue" Lisa from the kidnappers, but for her own paycheck.