Www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com has learned after reading & re-reading the Statement Analysis of Deborah Bradley, she uses pronouns as well as verb tenses and chronological order.
What does this mean?
When someone speaks from experiential memory, it is easy to stay in chronological order. When a crisis hits, a mother’s protective capacities go on high alert, and focus becomes sharp.
When King Solomon was faced with the custody issue of the two children, he used Statement Analysis to show how mother’s react, verbally, to their children, but then he highlighted maternal protective capacities and said of the disputed child, “cut the child in half, and give each woman half a baby”.
One woman said, “that’s fine; let’s share!” showing her cold heartedness towards a child which was not her own; while the other said, “let her have him!” preferring to lose custody of her own child, in order to save his life.
Solomon had no intention of killing the baby, but showed behavioral analysis of a mother in crisis. When Cindy Anthony said, “there’s no book on how someone will react” she was wrong. Deceptive people claim that “no one” knows how one will react when a child goes missing, but this is not true: we do know how guilty people act, and how innocent people act.
Deborah Bradley speaks and acts like a guilty person.
Statement Analysis deals with the unexpected. This means that when we view a statement, we go into the statement presupposing innocence: we start off, word by word, thinking the statement is truthful only halting when something unexpected arises, which catches our attention.
If the analyst is a deceptive person, or in the case of a child, an abusive parent, the expectation is skewered.
If you are not shocked, for example, at a parent who gives drugs to a child, or inflicts harm upon a child to be trendy, you will likely struggle to analyze a statement about child abuse. Closer to home: if you think it is acceptable to put a sick baby to bed at 6:40PM and proceed to get drunk, you will not be able to spot the “unexpected” in a statement.
Jeremy appears to me to be deceptive.
Question: You concluded deception regarding Deborah; why not Jeremy? Is he deceptive?
Answer: Jeremy says little on his own, and when he does, there are two issues to deal with:
1. I have concerns, or “red flags” that I use as he rarely speaks for himself, and speaks mostly in the plural, “we” which is concerning but:
2. How much of the language is his own, and how much of it is Deborah’s? This is where analysis gets tough.
*******************************************************************************************************************************
Husbands and wives frequently enter into each other’s language so the analyst must be careful in seeking to determine who’s is who’s. In a case where one parent is the dominating parent, it is more likely that the subordinate is entering into the dominant’s language.
*********************************************************************************************************************************
Deborah Bradley is clearly the dominant. The more he speaks, the clearer the analysis can become. Thus far:
1. His language is concerning in terms of deception;
2. He is withholding information
3. He has given a linguistic indication that he knows that Lisa is dead.
By virtue of withholding information, he can be called “deceptive” but it is not known, yet, what he knew, and when he knew it. He is covering for her, however, and Renee (and Pat) do a good job helping us understand why. The bold type is mine, and the underling is not in the original.
