Alcohol BlackOuts, Deception, and the Polygraphy
Deborah Bradley told media today that she had at least 5 glasses of wine on the night of her baby’s disappearance. She also has changed her account from the last time she saw Lisa, from 10:30PM (two weeks ago) to now 6:40PM. Not only is the change significant, and the amount of time significant, both so is the description of the time: 6:40PM, which is less of an estimate and shows precision. 6:30PM would be considered more of an estimate than the rarer 6:40PM time given.
Was this an orchestrated confession by the PR team? Was this an attempt to justify her changing story and deceptive responses to questions?
Questions being asked include, “is this why she failed the polygraph? Because she had blackouts and can’t remember? Is this why she changed her time? Is this why she sounds mixed up? Is it now that she is not lying, but just confused due to alcohol?“
Question: Can alcohol blackouts cause one to show deception in statements or on the polygraph?
Answer: No.
Alcohol blackouts are real, and research has shown that recovering the memories lost in a blackout is unlikely, with memories lost in drug abuse more readily retrievable than alcohol blackout lost memories.
Deception is different.
In order to be deceptive, a subject must know what is truthful, and seek to willful avoid, withhold, or alter the truth in order to accomplish an end: deception. If memories are lost due to an alcoholic blackout, the subject cannot be deceptive regarding what is not known. In an alcohol blackout, the subject will say “I don’t know what happened after that” and even memories that are hazy or thin, will not show deception.
An alcoholic blackout will not cause a false result in a polygraph.
Here is an example:
“Casey Anthony gave the baby to Zanny the Nanny. ”
If Casey lied to you and told you this, and you repeated it unknowing that it was a fabrication of reality, your language would not show deception. If you believed it to be truthful and took a polygraph, you would not fail the polygraph, even though you are repeating a lie. There must be knowledge of the lie, and an attempt to deceive, which would cause both a physical reaction in body, and sensitivity indicators in speech.
Deception is an act of the will. Without an attempt to deceive there will be no failure of a polygraph.
Polygraph Question: Do you live at 25 Smith St?
Answer: No.
Observation: No measurable change in blood pressure, pulse, perspiration, respiration
Polygraph Question: Do you know where Lisa is?
Answer: No.
Observation: Immediate spike in blood pressure, pulse, perspiration, respiration.
Polygraph Question: Is your name Deborah Bradley?
Answer: Yes.
Observation: Blood pressure, pulse, perspiration, respiration all drop to normal levels again.
There is a change in vitals due to an willful attempt to deceive, which causes internal stress. This is why a deceptive person has additional words, that is, sensitivity indicators in their statements. The words and the body are in agreement.
“I, I, I don’t know where she’s at…” Has the word, “I” repeating, even though she is a non-stutterer, which is a sensitivity indicator associated with stress. As the heart rate picks up in reaction to lying, so do the words in the sentence. The two often go hand-in-hand.
If Deborah blacked out and did not know, due to drunkenness, what happened to Baby Lisa, she would not fail a polygraph question, “Do you know where Lisa is?”. Her reaction would be muted had she blacked out from alcohol.
Deborah Bradley is deceptive, willfully, as was evidenced in the analysis of her statements, to which the polygraph she said she failed, agrees.
Regarding the failed polygraph, when confronted with the result, there are certain responses that are deemed truthful, and certain ones that are deemed confirmation of deception. Deborah Bradley’s response that “it can’t be because I don’t know where she’s at“ is a deceptive response. A truthful response would have been, “that is impossible because I told the truth” using:
1. First person singular
2. Past tense verb
3. The word “truth”
Deborah Bradley’s response to the burned clothes and the cell phone pings: she refused to deny both issues and her cell phone pings in the middle of the night should be considered sensitive, and will likely be heard by the Grand Jury.
Deception is an act of the will, and a truthful subject can only tell us what she remembers. In order to be deceptive, she must desire to deceive. Alcohol Blackouts are not deceptive.
Prior to this morning’s announcement, Statement Analysis highlighted two topics of importance in this case, both of which should be expected to play a role in Lisa’s demise:
1. Alcohol
2. Infidelity
We did not know why the topic of her buying wine was sensitive, but when asked who was with her, the aunt said, “no comment” showing the question to be sensitive. Introducing alcohol to an already explosive night was and is significant.
We expect that infidelity will be part of this case as well, since Jeremy introduced the topic when he said, regarding who might have done this, “someone who cheated on her husband.” This topic (infidelity) was introduced by the father, not by media nor anyone else. It is sensitive.
Expect Deborah Bradley to be arrested, as police continue to build their case against her, while desperately seeking to locate Lisa’s remains, draining water and digging through mud.
