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.
No comments:
Post a Comment