#LisaWright : Megan' s Mysterious Phone Call Holds The Link.
Marcel Elfers is a Trial Run Master Profiler™ through handwriting and statement analysis Lisa Irwin is the 10 month old baby that went missing October 3rd, 2011. The statements of Deborah Bradley (mother) and Jeremy Irwin (father) are suspicious and considered deceptive. Now a mysterious phone call holds our attention. When listening to Megan Wright's statement (at 1:30), we hear her say the following: "I received a phone call, well my phone did, the night that baby Lisa went missing. It was apparently a 50 second phone call. I don't know who answered it or what was said or who was on the other end of the phone." "I received a phone call, well my phone did" - she did not take the call herself "It was apparently" - apparently indicates she was told about the length of the call. PD went through phone records. "a 50 second phone call" - The 50 seconds is a very specific and you don't lie about a detail as it is verifiable. This suggests there was a call and it is the truth. "I don't know who answered it" - implying somebody did answer and not a voice mail. "or what was said" - when you do not pick up the call, it is a given that you do not know what was said. This implies, "what was said" is known, just not to her. The "I don't knows" seem rehearsed and probably because she knows who, what and when but has been told by law enforcement not to reveal this in light of the investigations. She volunteers the "I don't knows" to avoid questions. Megan reports that she was interviewed four times by police which means they find this important. This phone call is crucial in the investigation as police will know from which phone the call was made and at what time but is not revealing that detail. It has been reported that it was Deborah's cell phone. She denied the call was made and the phones were disconnected. Baby Lisa went missing and the cell phones along with it. It is very likely that Deborah is deceptive in her statement about the stolen cell phones as she felt the need to explain why they were stolen: "so we could not call 911". To explain why phones are missing makes sense when she needs them to be gone. She knows she made a phone call and has to prove that she could not have made the call with them gone. This way she implies "someone else must have called". Only one question remains: What is the relationship between the Deborah/Jeremy and the recipient of the call? Me thinkests that police already know who called, what was said and when the call was made and went to the Grand Jury with it. The immediate consequence of this knowledge was increased scrutiny on the parents. The only thing police is waiting for is hard evidence that will be upheld in court and that, in my view, is inevitable. Time Will Tell.