Baby Lisa: From the Beginning October 2011

Deceptive Poster:  There was no kidnapping

In early October of 2011, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin reported that their child, Lisa Irwin, was taken from their home, while only Deborah Bradley was home.

When they first spoke, we received linguistic indication that something was wrong:  Lisa was not kidnapped, but dead, and the parents were deceptive.

This quickly became a national story, and once it did, brought in the attention seekers, including New York lawyer, Joe Tacopina, and private eye, Bill Stanton, also from NYC.

The more Deborah Bradley spoke, the deeper she went in deception, not speaking from memory (experiential memory), she misused her pronouns, and was unable to keep a time line straight, including on whether she was awake or asleep, whether she had checked on Lisa or not, and whether or not she was alone.

Later, as Joe Tacopina saw that she was giving conflicting statements, he arranged for media interviews in which she would now be asked, "Were you drinking that night?  Were you drunk?

This was a clever way of which he could then explain away inconsistencies.

However, there is a problem with his solution:  in order to be seen as deceptive, the words must show a deliberate attempt to deceive.  In other words, the will to deceive must be present for us to conclude:  deception indicated.

If you are told a lie, but believe it, when you repeat the lie, your words will not show deception.  If I told you my car was blue, when it is really red, and you repeated, "did you know his car is blue?", your words would not show deception.  You are speaking the words unaware of having been deceived.  You, yourself, are mistaken about the color of the car, but you are not deliberately deceiving anyone when you describe the color of my car as blue.

This is the case of Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin.

When Lisa went missing, Jeremy was not home.  The child's mother reported that someone entered through a window and took Lisa.  She called Jeremy Irwin and informed him of the kidnapping.

Is that what Jeremy Irwin believed at the time?

On October 5, 2011 he said,

"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.  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."

Here he said that "anyone might have her" which indicates that someone only "might" have her.  Yet, they had just reported that someone did, in fact take her.  Deborah Bradley said it was someone who really wanted a baby. 

If Jeremy Irwin believed that she was, in fact, taken by someone, why not commit and speak directly to the person that took her?

Later, we heard even more deception from them and learned that Jeremy Irwin refused to be interviewed by police without Deborah present.  

It is common procedure for police, social workers, and even counselors, to interview parents separately.  Jeremy Irwin would have none of it. 

"We just want our baby back," said Lisa's mother, Deborah Brandley through sobs and tears while hugging the Barney plush toy. "Please. Bring her home. Our two other boys are waiting for her."

From here we indicated Deborah Bradley for deception on her time line, and the cell phone usage.  Later we learned that she was pinged on her phone, leaving the home that night. 

This is another case that justice is not served.  

Many of us were shocked when Joe Tacopina stated that he had met with the FBI, who shared evidence against his client, Deborah Bradley, with him. 

Tacopina did not make any plea bargains for his client, and the case ended without resolution.  

Jeremy Irwin was not present when whatever happened to Lisa happened, but it became clear that he knew what really happened, and he refused to be interviewed without Bradley. 

Police questioned their cooperation, of which Tacopina said, that they were "fully cooperating", making cooperation sensitive. 

We then learned that a cadaver dog hit in the house, and Deborah Bradley gave consent to search:  outside the window, and at the front door but not in her bedroom. 

Deborah Bradley referenced her "Adult time" which Lisa likely interrupted.  

My conclusion: 

Lisa Bradley died at the hands of her mother, in an unintended death, likely with alcohol influencing the event, and that she then moved to hide the remains, likely in water, and shared her account of unintended death with her husband and attorneys, who have kept the information from police.  

The language in this case was clear.  From the beginning, Deborah Bradley was deceptive, grieving, but still protecting herself.  Likely fearful of losing custody of the "other boys", Jeremy Irwin also stopped cooperating with police.  

This poster reveals to us something important:  

Deborah Bradley still fears arrest.  

Why no arrest?  

It would appear that by the sharing of evidence with attorney, Joe Tacopina, authorities do not feel that they can win a trial against him.