Lisa Irwin continues to wait for justice. It does not appear coming any time soon.
Bravado statements from law enforcement quickly dried up and were replaced by silence.
What do we know about the Baby Lisa case?
We know that Lisa's mother deception indicated her need to deceive. In future articles, we will review the press conference in which Deborah Bradley first spoke at, and readers will see how, and why, the conclusions were reached.
It is likely that Baby Lisa met her death in the house, via child abuse and/or neglect, in an unintended death, when she disrupted Deborah Bradley's "adult time" in which she drank wine.
Deborah Bradley's attorney was clever, and certainly shut down the case. Knowing that a video was coming out about her buying wine, and seeing her inconsistencies and changing stories, he arranged for her to be interviewed by the major networks who all were able to ask her,
"Were you drunk?"
She could only bring herself to say "uh huh" but did not, with the pronoun "I" did she say so. She only agreed to what others said.
Her lawyer said she was "fully cooperating", making "cooperation" sensitive with the word "fully", for what mother of a "kidnapped" child would do anything but cooperate.
We noted that the cooperation was sensitive, and did not need to wait too long to find out what made it sensitive:
It is likely that she lost her temper, was drinking and that whatever happened to Lisa, happened in the house. Cadaver dogs hit in the house, and the lawyer quickly had her only give permission to search certain parts of the house, but not other parts. This exampled for us why the cooperation of Deborah Bradley was "sensitive."
We also saw that she and her husband, Jeremy Irwin, refused to be interviewed separately. Irwin did not know, at least initially, what happened to Lisa, and separate interviews would have highlighted the changing accounts that Deborah Bradley gave to both police and the public.
Question: Why did Deborah Bradley give different accounts?
Answer: Because her answers did not come from experiential memory.
Experiential memory is not taxing and accounts change little. When someone is being deceptive, they do not have experience associated with the memory therefore the language will often drift, and even change, without reason. Simply put, they don't recall if they called it a "chair" or a "recliner" because it was invented and did not proceed from having experienced it in reality.
Tacopina shut down the case. He even boasted that the FBI shared evidence with him.
It is unforgivable and it highlights just how fearful law enforcement can be to have their lawyers go up against the private sector of high priced, high powered, persuasive attorneys. Alex Hunter quaked in his loafers, while Mary Lacy bent over backwards to pervert justice just to avoid court room embarrassment.
Even new readers to Statement Analysis were able to point out, during press conferences, just how much of a struggle it was for Deborah Bradley to use Lisa's name.
Q. Why was deception indicated so quickly in this case, where as in other cases you wait for more press conferences?
A. Because of the pronouns. Pronouns (and articles) are:
1. Instinctive.
2. Exempt from Personal, internal, subjective dictionary that each of us has.
Pronouns are used millions of times by us and we are so good at using them, that they become instinctive for us. Even length of time has little impact on pronouns. Proof? Think of something that happened to you more than 10 years ago. Got it? Now, prepare to tell what happened in your mind. As you ready yourself to share your story, you will know whether to begin the story, even though it is more than 10 years old, with the pronoun, "I" or "we" without trouble. You will remember if you were alone, or with others, even though many years have passed.
Deborah Bradley ran away from commitment to her story by using the pronoun, "we", from the beginning, and then crossed her pronouns in confusion. "I woke up, we woke up..." and so on. This was noted by readership even before analysis was complete. Note that the inconsistency of pronouns continued throughout not only the first press conference, but in those that followed.
Pronouns are the simplest tool in discerning deception. There are those who are intuitive in analysis, and in questioning them, they may not know principle, but are able to follow the pronouns well.
Q. Why did you concluded deception that equaled guilt? Sensitivity doesn't always mean guilt.
A. This is a good question. Not all deception is specified towards action. For example, a parent is deceptive, and fails a polygraph because the parent was under the influence of drugs when the child went missing; therefore neglectful, even though someone else harmed or killed the child.
We also saw sensitivity indicators in statements where someone was not guilty but was not truthful about aspects attending a case. A man can be deceptive about his relationship with his missing wife, while not being guilty nor showing sensitivity indicators about the "what happened" aspect of the case. We need to see deception in the "what happened" part of a statement.
With Deborah Bradley, she was deceptive about the actual events of what happened that night. She was deceptive about specifics, including sleeping, cell phones, and protected her deception by refusing to allow the entire house to be searched.
Q. Why did police say that they had limited access to the house?
A. Because Deborah Bradley gave permission to search specific parts of the house, and withheld specific areas to be searched. She allowed the door frame to the outside to be searched, but areas near the bedroom door frame, for example, were restricted.
In response, her attorney said that they were cooperating with police with the sensitivity indicator:
"fully cooperating with police."
The word "fully" tells us that there is, in his mind, a different level of cooperation. This is sensitive. We don't know if the sensitivity indicator is because of him, police, or another circumstance, until more information comes out.
Therefore, we noted the cooperation as "sensitive." Later, we learned about the severe restrictions placed upon the searching of the home.
Q. What about the cadaver dog?
A. There was reportedly a "hit"; that is, indication of human decomposition. These dogs are not simply highly trained, but incredibly accurate. This hit showed human decomposition. These dogs are used successfully all over the world and by many different organizations.
Joe Tacopina said, "it could have been from clipped toe nails!
Q. Why do you say that Deborah Bradley wasn't drunk? She is obviously a heavy drinker and even sounded entitled to her "Adult time."
A. I did not say she wasn't drunk. I said that she did not tell us that she was drunk. In listening to her responses, she never once said that she was drunk. I believe that this was a ruse set up by her attorney, who "suddenly" told media to ask her.
It was a shrewd move on his part.
The press had noticed her changing story and inconsistencies. She did not tell us she was drunk, therefore, I won't do her the luxury of saying it for her. I think she was drinking but I don't think she passed out.
Q. If someone passes out due to alcohol, will they fail a polygraph?
A. No. An alcohol blackout is just that: a black out. If you do not have a memory of something, and that something is asked of you, you won't have a significant reaction. Lying is seen by reaction.
In statement analysis, if you do not possess memory of something, you cannot speak of it. Deception is indicated because the person has the will to deceive. For example, if I told you, "I have a red car" and it is a lie, and you repeat, "He has a red car", your language will not show deception because you have no intent to deceive.
In a black out, there is no memory of which to conceal via deception. The person will not have a significant change in reaction to the questions. The pre screening process meant that Deborah Bradley, for example, knew exactly what questions would be asked.
1. Do you live on Smith St?
2. Is your daughter's name Lisa?
3. Did you cause her death?
4. Did you lie to police about the kidnapping?
5. Is Jeremy
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. They knew this. 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. They forced "Wild Bill", the self promotor, to speak up plainly. In doing so, he showed that whoever it was putting the money up knew it would never be paid.
Since their language indicated that she was dead, the reward was never going to be paid out.
It was not a genuine offer and the benefactor would be told there was zero chance of payout.
Q. Will you really quit all analysis if Lisa is found alive?
A. Yes.
When someone speaks as much as Deborah Bradley, she gives us a great deal of information. This is similar to some other cases, including missing Texas teenager, Hailey Dunn. The mother spoke so much that she revealed many details of the case. She now says her and her attorney are setting to sue people.
I say the same about Baby Lisa as I do Hailey: If either is found alive, I will quit analysis, publish apologies everywhere I can, call any program that will have me to apologize and then destroy my laptop.
I can add that I will sign the title deed of my house over to Billie Dunn or Deborah Bradley if either was truthful and their child was alive, but it will have the same empty ring as Stanton's "reward" for Lisa's safe return.
Q. What is the difference between the Baby Lisa case and the Hailey case? Both have big mouth attorneys who jumped in for the free publicity and both have mothers who you claim are deceptive.
A. The major difference that I see is found within drugs. Drugs pervert and slowly kill the soul. Drugs invite in poor judgement, and especially overall deviancy. In the Hailey case, we saw vile overall behavior, drugs, child pornography, perversion, pornography, bestiality, violence, blood lust, and so on. In the case of Baby Lisa, I think it was an unintended death that spiraled into a cover up. Coming clean could have been met with leniency, in the beginning.
In the latter, there is a greater chance for an admission. I think that Deborah Bradley was close to telling the police the truth, but due to media attention, it brought in the scent of money which was pounced upon by attorneys. In the former, there are so many attendant evils that coming clean will mean prison.
Q. Why 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. Will this case be solved?
A. I don't know, but hope for justice has faded. There is just too many cowardly prosecutors who won't risk going up against hot shot attorneys in court.
In the Baby Lisa case, they were up against a "bullying" type attorney, one who talks over interviewers and imposes his linguistic will upon interviewers. He derailed police well and even though his answers sound stupid on television, his voice inflection emotes confidence.
Perhaps they will consider, in this case and others, another form of prosecution: obstructing justice, or lying to police. The defense will jump all over it to show it weak to a jury.
Time will always tick away for Deborah Bradley. Should she and Irwin break up, she will live in fear of him telling police what he knows. If she involved her brother in hiding Lisa's body, she has to live in fear that he might tell someone who might tell someone. It is human nature.
The odds of solving the case increase with time. Here is why:
As "Baby Lisa" fades from the public, goes with the fading is the draw of media hungry attorneys. If it cannot bring fame, it cannot bring fortune, and the "pro bono" attorneys lose interest quickly. The "Dr Phil" show was a sham where the lawyer dominated the show and the questions asked.
Deborah Bradley has a reason why she doesn't cooperate.
Deborah Bradley had a reason why she would not allow police full access to the home.
You know the reason, I know the reason, and police know the reason. The only one who does not know the reason is a jury.
Little Baby Lisa's remains were left to be ravaged by wildlife.
People give more dignity to their pet rabbits upon death than Jeremy Irwin gave to his daughter.
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment