As theories surround this case, our understanding of what happened began shortly after the first press conference by the parents, and by their second address to media, held shortly after the first, we indicated deception on the part of the mother, Deborah Bradley, regarding the "kidnapping" of her missing 10 month old child, Lisa Irwin.
Statement Analysis Conclusions to Date:
1. Mother, Deborah Bradley is deceptive about what happened to Lisa, about the cell phones, and about the kidnapping scenario.
2. Father, Jeremy Irwin, deceptive about what he knows happened to his daughter, while he was at work, indicating that he knows Lisa is dead, even though he is allowing searching to go on.
3. Advisors and Attorneys: Bringing the deception down to a manageable amount:
a. "Wild Bill" Stanton: how he became involved, who is paying
b. $100,000 reward sensitivity indicators question the viability of such suggesting that they do not expect anyone to collect the money
c. Joe Tacopino: "this family is grieving" indicating death; attempts to explain inconsistencies
d. control over parents interviews using only national ($)
e. Media and "drunkenness" shows sensitivity. Team contacted media, various networks, arranged for whirlwind appearances in which the mother would now (note timing) be asking "were you drinking?"
The team deliberately set the stage for what they knew was inevitable: evidence would show decomposition and this is why slips such as "grieving" or the "conditional" reward money responses (local media was not as ignorant as Wild Bill expected; caught on to his wording, and asked appropriate follow up questions). They knew that eventually the press would learn that the parents refused to have their bedroom searched.
Regarding cooperation, lawyers gave a list of the things they did to cooperate. The problem? The list did not include the things Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin refused: including search of their bedroom.
Now a new topic can be introduced: Casey Anthony....read more