The boys were scheduled to be interviewed last Friday, but Kansas City police said attorney Joe Tacopina requested a delay.
“Good Morning America” anchor Robin Roberts asked Tacopina on Monday morning whether he will allow the boys to be reinterviewed.
“Absolutely. There was never an issue. Some of the logistics were an issue. I’ve been reading and hearing a lot of things that have been reported about cancellations of meetings and such. It’s been wildly inaccurate, a lot of this stuff,” Tacopina said. “Never” does not mean “no”; note that there was “never” an issue, but then identifies the specifics of the issue: the “logistics.” Note that “wildly inaccurate” is not the same as saying “untrue” Note that “a lot” is not “all.” He says: There was never an issue, but then here is the issue. This is a form of self contradiction that is used to confuse.
Roberts asked him to set the record straight.
“One of the issues I’m having right now with the way this case has been handled is we’re playing a little too much, with all due respect to you all, to the media. Note embedded is that “we” are playing. Pronouns are instinctive and chosen in a microsecond. The pronoun, “we” shows cooperation and unity. “We are playing” is an admission, “to the media” Note that this was the explicit complaint of fired attorney Cyndy Short. Note to “play” with media, to Tacopina, is only a “little” too much; not “too much”. This should clarify what his focus is upon. This is a search for an 11-month-old missing baby. We have two parents who are absolutely devastated and grieving. Note the need to say what “this” is: a “search” but he does not say “an investigation” which is what it also is; with one leading to the other. Only the guilty say “don’t look at me, look for the missing” (and their attorney). Please note that focusing upon the parents will help lead to the missing baby. Note the use of the word “grieving” again by the subject. To me, notifying the press every time we have a meeting set up is not something I think is advantageous to either side or this investigation,” Tacopina said. Note the references of weakness: 1. “to me” indicates that others feel differently 2. “I think” shows that others think differently 3. Note that he does not deny notifying the press every time they have a meeting, but that he thinks is something not advantageous. He may think it is “something not” (more distancing language) advantageous “to either side” but he continues to call press conferences, confirming what Short accused him of. Please note the use of the word “investigation” along with “this” (closeness). Compare to above statement that “this” is a missing child case. Lying causes internal stress and Tacopina did not want to lie and say “I don’t call the media for every meeting” so he only says, with a weak assertion and distancing language, that it may not be advantageous for either side; however it may be advantageous for one side. “I’m not going to give a date of an appointment or whether or not there is an appointment, I will tell you that there will be every necessary interview will be had with law enforcement. I’ve had a very good dialogue with the FBI.” Please note that additional words give us new meaning: here it is not that every interview will be done, only the interviews he deems “necessary”; which means that he judges what, or who can be done in an interview; not those responsible for finding Lisa and bringing the guilty to justice. This is direct hinderance.
Tacopina told legal analyst Dan Abrams that the boys were interviewed for several hours in the first days after the baby was reported missing. Please note that the police said the boys were interviewed, one for 30 minutes and one for less. Since then, the mother slipped that the boys did hear something and Tacopina sabotaged the investigation by delaying the forensic interviewing which may have led to Lisa’s recovery. This is a sensitive point to Tacopina, which is why he uses the interviewer’s name for emphasis:
“They were in there within days, Dan. But understand there are two things at play here: Note the word “play” is used again. Statement Analysis enters into the personal, subjective internal dictionary of the subject. He used the word “play” above, regarding his activities to media. Here he uses it again, about interviewing boys. This should alert the reader that there is, in the subject’s mind, a connection between the two. With media, it is about spin and propaganda. The reader should consider this carefully: Of course this family wants answers, Note that “of course” indicates that he wants the audience to take something for granted as fact; which actually weakens the assertion and shows that the family wanting answers, as a topic itself, is sensitive. There should be no reason to say this sentence, but the very need for the sentence highlights this: The family does not want answers. and they’ve consented to everything — This sentence is an example of deception with truthful sentences. “They’ve consented to everything” 1. “They have” would be Jeremy and Deborah but not “we’ve consented” which would include Tacopina. Since “they” is used and not “we”; we should consider that Tacopina has stopped them from consenting for some things. This will lead some to ask, “why would an attorney hinder the search for a missing baby?” 2. “consented” is past tense; not present, making it stronger. This appears to be a very strong assertion. 3. “everything” is all inclusive. Since we need to enter into Joe Tacopina’s internal dictionary, we need him to define “everything”, which he does: every search, every forensic swab, and everything else that needed to be done. Note that “every” is repeated, making it sensitive. What does the sensitivity conclude to? Note that Tacopina qualifies what “everything” is: everything that “needed” to be done. Question: Who determined what “needed” to be done? Answer: Tacopina. This is how a liar operates when he possesses a strong intellect. This is why Joe Tacopina reminds me, linguistically, of Hermon Goering, the head of the Luftwaffe of Germany in WWII. He can state that they consented to “everything” as long as he can define what “everything” means: this is an extreme use of qualifying an answer for the point of lying. It goes beyond simply being deceptive via missing information; instead it goes on the offensive and seeks to redefine simple word meaning. The family “fully” cooperated with that which Tacopina deemed necessary. Here is an example of “full” cooperation: The family consented to a search of the home. This statement is true, but it is not the whole truth. The family consented to the search of the window and of the doorway, both which Tacopina deemed necessary. The family did not consent to the bedroom being searched which is precisely where the cadaver dog hit. This is an example of his method of deception. But here at play are 6- and 8-year-old children — two little boys – Note the association of the word “play” with what he does to media, above. Note that Tacopina identifies them as children (gender neutral) but then “little boys” which is gender specific. and we want to make sure this questioning is done in a way that will not damage them and that there are child psychiatrists and forensic people involved in that,” Tacopina said. Note that it is not that “they want to make sure” meaning the parents: the parents who consented to “everything” that Tacopina deemed necessary. Note the admission that he wants to control the questioning. He has already forfeited valuable time in canceling Friday’s forensic interview with the boys giving the family needed time to add story upon story to their young minds, confusing them and tainting the interview.
Abrams said he wondered whether Tacopina was concerned about the perception that the parents are not being actively interviewed by police.. Note that Tacopina uses the word “play” with media and with the children. It is this “play” with media; attempt to portray and influence, which is what propaganda is.
“The perception is really not what I’m concerned about. Please note that which is presented in the negative as important. Please note the additional word “really” as further weakening the denial. Short accused him of this very thing: being concerned with media. I’m concerned about the results of the investigation. We have, in the last week, heard Note the use of “I” as stronger than “we”; which follows. That he is concerned about the results should be considered very strong to Tacopina. Note then the immediate weakness of turning to “we”: Question: What prompted this weakness? Answer: The 3 witnesses from three independent witnesses who have placed a man with a baby in a diaper at 12, 2 and 4 a.m. in a trajectory that lines away from that house. That’s vital information. We have analyzed two of the witnesses with both being deemed “unreliable” in Statement Analysis. (see prior analysis) The fact that they are so important to the attorney will cause many to also, as police have, dismiss them as irrelevant, even as he uses distancing language concerning them, uncovering his true feelings about them. There’s no reason a man should be walking with a baby in a diaper in the middle of the night in October. That’s something that I think is hot and we should be really focusing on that,” Tacopina said. Note the distancing language (“that”) and the weakness of “I think” and “we should” be not focusing, but “really focusing” yet he still uses (and repeats) the word “that”, and not “this” indicating deception. “That being said, we have agreed to do everything that they’ve asked us to do, as long as it’s being done in good faith. Tacopina sets the qualification upon cooperation as he sets himself up as the final arbitrator of what the family will do with law enforcement. This strengthens the position of those who believe that Tacopina knows what happened to baby Lisa and why he is protecting his clients at the cost of finding the baby. What has happened here in this investigation is that investigation has become a little too adversarial. Note “this” and then “that” is used in the same sentence. OK? I’m representing two victims. I’m a victim’s advocate attorney in this case. I’m not a criminal defense lawyer. They’re not charged with anything. Here, Tacopina makes it clear what his interest is: he represents two “victims” (his words), Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, and does not represent the one who the public considers the only victim: Lisa Irwin Please note how it is that Tacopina can claim that he is “not” a criminal defense attorney. Please note that which is presented in the negative as highly important. That being said, within an hour of the baby’s disappearance and them calling 911, one of the police investigators sat down in that house, as Deborah Bradley was on the floor shaking and crying, and he basically said, ‘I know you murdered your daughter. Just tell us what happened.’ That is not a way to conduct an investigation.” 1. Please note body posture as showing an increase in tension: “sat down” 2. Note the distancing language in this statement with the word “that” 3. Note the body posture of Deborah Bradley being on the “floor” 4. Note the qualifying word “basically” rather than a true quote There are enough indicators here to conclude that this is not what the investigator said to Deborah Bradley. Please note that when Tacopina says how not to conduct an investigation: a. Sensitivity as represented in the negative b. Note that he does not say how an investigation should be conducted, nor what experience he has in conducting investigations.
Tacopina reiterated that Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley are “fully cooperating” and will continue to cooperate with police, but he went on to say that the police are frustrated because they can’t find answers.
“They’ve let that crime scene be trampled on within the first few days by media and other people. Please note the seeds of defense being planted. Please note that law enforcement kept media away and used a no-fly zone. Please note that the attorneys set up a media tour of the home. They’re frustrated because they can’t find answers, so of course, they’re turning their frustrations onto the parents because statistically that’s where the focus belongs. Note that when he says “of course” he expects the audience to accept what he says without question. Given the sensitivity of this case, both uses of this phrase should be carefully noted by the reader/analyst. I have no problem with them looking at the parents and focusing on them, but don’t narrow your investigation to the point where that’s the only scenario they want to look at,” Tacopina said.
Please note the word “but” often refutes that which preceded it.
