No Visible Tears, Defensiveness and Body Language Tells of Baby Lisa’s Parent’s on Dr. Phil

by Dr. Lillian Glass

After watching Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, the parents of missing Baby Lisa Irwin, on Dr. Phil, it is my view that something does not seem right from a body language and communication perspective.

There were several signals of deception in my view along with signals of defensiveness. Her “crying” on the air seemed to remind me of the non-tears and extremely quick recovery time, complete with lack of facial transition of Casey Anthony and Susan Smith.

What struck me a odd was her immediate display of a crying facial expression as soon as Dr. Phil asked her about the Kansas City Police Department and if she thought she was treated unfairly. There are no tears as she transitions to a non crying facial expression within milliseconds. In my view anger would be a more appropriate reaction instead of self sympathy tears.

She then gets defensive and volunteers the following information in a harsh and defensive vocal tone . Say says “It’s not a circus. It’s not a joke. ” Those are her words No one else said it was a circus or a joke? When someone volunteers extraneous and tangential information that has little or nothing to do with the case , it usually indicates a signal of deception. It may very well be a case of “thou dost protest too much.”

She goes on to say “This is not a game. This is my baby.” Once again no one said anything about a game. In analyzing her statement, when someone is playing games and is the first to bring up the term “game," it is often a game they may be playing.

In Debbie Bradley’s case, perhaps she is playing that “cat and mouse game” with the Kansas City police as they says he is not cooperating. Perhaps the reason she has been interviewed b them so many times, according to her attorney Joe Tacopina, is because they don’t feel thy are getting any answers from her and may very well feel as though she is playing games.

Deborah Bradley clutches on to Jeremy Irwin’s hand as his finger is extended. And does not interlock with hers, showing distance between them in my view. His cupped fist may also display anger. Perhaps he is angry at Debbie for what may have happened to Baby Lisa on her watch.

As he speaks he breaks away from her grip and comforts himself by interlocking his own fingers as he places them on his groin area. This indicates that he is feeling extremely vulnerable. He ignores the hand that Deborah places on his thigh.

His tone is robotic, yet his voice betrays him as he displays a shakiness as his words tend to trail off at the end. This may be further indication that he may be masking his true emotions.

Dr. Phil then asks Deborah if during the 90 days new light was shed and whether something developed.

Deborah looks down and says in an arrogant manner “ Yes but I’m not gonna talk about it.”

If she is not going to talk about it then why appear on Dr. Phil? Why not speak to the Kansas City police and tell them about the these new developments.

The constant dabbing of her non-tears with no liquid present throughout the interview is very disturbing.

Joe Tacopina spins his spin and speaks on behalf of the couple. As he does this we see several signals of deception with him in my view from his cocked head to his blinking, shoulder shrugs, etc, which may indicate to me that he may not really believe everything he is saying.

As he speaks, we continue to see Deborah dab her tearless eyes. To me that is a HUGE red flag body language wise.

When Dr. Phil asked baby Lisa’s mother if she was wrong when she said that all the lights were turned off in the house after her husband Jeremy contradicted her by saying the lights were on when he came home, she immediately went on the defensive and began to attack Jeremy . She leaked out anger as she looked up and said that what he said was a it was a huge exaggeration.

Her looking up during his crucial statement along with her anger and defensiveness could be interpreted as a signal of deception. It is interesting to note that Jeremy doesn’t speak up and intervene and agree with her statement.

When Dr. Phil asked her about the cadaver dog’s hit we could see her squirm around, indicating discomfort at this line of questioning. Then we see her lick her lips, no doubt due to a case of ”cotton mouth” which is due to anxiety, which is often a signal of deception. We then see her bite her lips which indicates she was no doubt holding back information.

While I am not accusing Deborah Bradley of wrongdoing, her body language and facial language and speech content and Jeremy’s voice patterns and body language may speak volumes.

Tweet

Baby Lisa: Gone, Baby, Gone

by Pat Brown

Pretty much, that is all we know right now. Ten-month-old baby Lisa Irwin was there and then she wasn't. Two weeks have passed since her disappearance and she hasn't reappeared, dead or alive. Wait, we know one other thing: she didn't climb out of her crib and go for a walkabout. Someone removed her from her home, so we know someone knows something. We just don't know who.

In missing baby cases where proof of abduction is weak, there ends up being two scenarios: the parents did something to the child or someone else slipped in and made off with the child. Unlike an abduction where a child is seen by witnesses being dragged into a vehicle or a case where a child walking from school never arrives home but her parents have solid alibis, a child who goes missing on the parents' watch often causes the parents to become suspects at some point in time. 

The parents of Sabrina Eisenburg became suspects very quickly; the parents of Madeleine McCann became suspects when the police focus when the detective on the case eventually began to think the timeline and parents' behavior didn't add up. Both of these cases remain open and the missing children have never been found. Both cases have a camp that believes the child was abducted and a camp that thinks the parents caused the death of the child and orchestrated a cover-up. If Baby Lisa is never found, the parents, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, will be added to this club.

Once upon a time we believed parents of missing children: we never doubted that the people standing in front of the camera, crying and begging for their child's return, were playing us. But after we got burnt by the performance of Susan Smith and a number of others, we have become more skeptical. We now replay the video to see if the parent is crying real tears and we watch their body language. We examine every bit of evidence. We don' t want to yet again be duped into expending emotion on a parent who will turn out to be a killer and a fake and we don't want to spend our valuable time searching for a child whose parents already know exactly where she is.

Baby Lisa is missing and many people are not accepting the parents' story at face value and throwing them their unconditional support. They are searching for inconsistencies in their story, for proof that the baby was abducted, for alibis that are supportable, and for behaviors that don't seem right.

And, unfortunately, for Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, they are not faring well in the analysis.

The basic hurdles parents must clear these days to keep the public faith in them include:

• Real tears: Deborah clearly had tears in many interviews; Jeremy, no.
• Strong emotion: Deborah, yes, Jeremy, no.
• Nice house, well kept: yes
• Good looking baby: yes
• Charming photos and video: yes
• Willingness to speak in the media: yes, but then refused to do local media, only national. Made it seem like a desire to be famous might be at play
• Willingness to talk to the police: yes, until they stopped. Then they started again, only now police say they are not answering all the questions
• Pass the polygraph: Deborah says she failed; Jeremy didn't take one.
• Consistent story: Deborah has changed the time frame and now claims she was drunk; Jeremy originally said he checked the kids first and now says he talked to Deborah first
• Crime scene has visible signs of abduction: There is only a slightly opened window and left- unlocked door which does not prove an abduction occurred
• Parents show responsible behavior: Deborah now states it is okay for her to be drunk while caring for the children
• Suspicious strangers have been lurking around: So far there has only been a homeless handyman who is said to have been cleared
• Police not focusing on parents: The police are clearly heavily focusing on the parents
• Not lawyering up: They now have Joran van der Sloot's lawyer which may be smart but makes the them look like they need a strong defense.
• Not having things about the case that make you go "hmmm:" Deborah has stated that her children heard some strange noises but she has never asked them about what they heard and when because she doesn't want to upset them. Another thing that has bugged me is that Deborah has called her child "Baby Lisa" in television interviews; this is a name given by the media to identify the story and not something a mother usually calls her own child. Then, the "drunk/blackout" story came out after the parents got a lawyer and one wonders if this is a defense strategy for court or a way to excuse Deborah from answering any more police questions about what happened that night. Finally, Deborah changing the time she last saw her daughter (put her to bed) seems like a way to take emphasis off the later time, a time that her sons may have heard something and that Mom doesn't want to acknowledge. Oh, and Deborah also said she thought she would be arrested which is very odd unless she is aware there is more evidence implicating her than we know.

If I add up this list, I have to say the parents haven't done so well going over these hurdles. Public suspicion is likely increasing rather than decreasing. Right now, I would say as a criminal profiler, the evidence and behaviors indicate the parents are more likely to have involvement in the disappearance of Baby Lisa than a stranger to have abducted her. But, without proof or solid evidence, this set of inputs could be misinterpreted - an abductor might have managed to sneak in and out without detection; maybe he did turn on the lights and steal phones because he is a major weirdo. 

The parents might have odd behaviors - even personality disorders - which cause them to act in a manner that arouses suspicion but they still didn't do anything to their baby. Mom and Dad could be awful parents and still be innocent of doing anything criminal. But, because they are not passing the "hurdle" test very well, the police are going to be all over them, people are going to stop looking for the baby, and, if no abductor is ever caught (and the parents aren't found guilty), then, like the Eisenburgs and the McCanns, a cloud of suspicion will always hang over their heads.

Where do you stand on the likelihood of Baby Lisa's parents being involved in her disappearance? What would you add to the list of "hurdles?" How does what you have seen of the case and the parents affect your willingness to support the search for Lisa?

Tweet