Baby Lisa’s Parents on Dr.Phil- Body Language Tells

Baby Lisa’s mom  looks up and away as she  immediately begins to show a crying face when asked about the Kansas police Department. But what is really wrong with the picture is that there are no tears as she transitions to a non crying facial expresion within milliseconds.

She gets defensive and says in a harsh and defensive tone  “It’s not a circus. It’s not a joke. ”  No one said it was a circus  or  joke? Her choice of words give us  a lot of insight as to what is going on inside her mind. When someone volunteers extraneous and tangential information  it often indicates a signal of deception.

She goes on to say “This is not a game. This is my baby.” Once again the word she chose -“game”  may be very revealing.  In analyzing her statement, when someone is playing games, they are usually the first to bring up the term “game” . It may very well indicate that they are indeed playing a game. In Deborah, Bradley’s case it may very well be the “cat and mouse game” she has allegedly been playing with police …..

To Read More Click  Link Below:


5 thoughts on “Baby Lisa’s Parents on Dr.Phil- Body Language Tells

  1. This show was not about a lost baby, but a Debra Bradley defense show. She acts guilty, she looks guilty and her story is as stupid as the story of every parent with a kidnapped child, that really killed the child. Jeremy is the biggest wimp I have ever seen. Dr Phil should be ashamed of what he does, anything to make a buck. If he had only asked “Debra, why does no one in America believe you?” it would have been worth it.


  2. Dr. Glass makes extremely insightful observations. I read the posts on her website, and something struck me, which contradicts what we see occurring in trial outcomes.

    Not only does a trained professional see the guilty implications, but the general public reflects these observations. After suffering through the Anthony trial, and now this poor child’s disappearance, do people not realize that these observations that we all see, are in fact, what the Courts and LE refer to as “circumstantial evidence”! Yet, we saw one jury completely disregard this as hard evidence.

    Circumstantial evidence is to be considered with as much weight, gravatis, as hard (material) evidence. It is heavily considered in criminal trials, and DOES NOT require witnesses BUT requires “reasoning” to determine it’s efficacy or relevance. Example: Caley is missing, Casey lies continually, and obfuscates, nobody saw Casey kill Caley, Caley’s body is discovered in a dump, duct-taped around the head, Casey was the last person seen with Caley, Casey partied after Caley disappeared,….on and on. This is a direct example of circumstantial evidence, which requires normal, logical, average reasoning to determine that Casey was/and is, responsible for Caley’s death.

    I see many people struggling with minutae. They attempt to re-write a scenario based upon their beliefs, not facts. Circumstantial evidence in the above example, as well as with the Baby Lisa case, when coupled with material (hard) evidence (the baby is gone, the mom was the last person who had custody of the child),…this is more than enough to come to a reasonable conclusion that the custodial parent is involved in the child’s disappearance/death.

    This type of evidence is difficult, obviously, for some to understand due to the CSI effect, which has been discussed ad infinitum. There is NO such proof required, under the laws of this country, which requires this level of proof, WHEN you have circumstantial evidence, coupled with material evidence (missing child).

    We do not need video of the murder, assault, accident. We do, however, need to take ALL evidence (not just material evidence), into consideration when arriving at a conclusion as to guilt. I hear Judges repeat this, over and over, when charging the juries with what they must consider in regard to guilt. I agree, without more evidence in the CA trial, she should not have been charged with first degree murder. However, CA was, and is guilty. She was the last person with Caley…Caley is dead, and disposed of, mom lied, partied, no tears, etc.

    It is obvious that the general population does not consider circumstantial evidence when considering guilt, or in the alternative, are hesitant to convict without copious amounts (video) of hard/material evidence.

    When was the last time anybody video tapped a murder? That never happens. Hence, the weightiness of circumstantial evidence. You will not see a video, you will not be able to watch somebody murder another person, because as we all know, that would prove guilty beyond any doubt. Nobody in their right mind, would video tape a murder, to face the death penalty, or life in jail. Not unless they are impaired, and then the Courts would support a psychiatric opinion as to mental impairment, and the sentence would be pushed to a mental institution for the criminally insane. We did not see this in the Anthony trial, because she is NOT mentally ill.

    Dr. Drew would not agree, however, the above proves differently. The psychiatric opinions did not support Dr. Drews objection. Therefore, it holds no gravity/proof. He is looking for what I refer to as “the missing link”. Archeologists have not found it, and neither will Dr. Drew. He wants to discover something new, in my opinion, and is disregarding the facts…all of the facts.

    Baby Lisa’s mother is the guilty party, however, from the interview on Dr. Phil’s show, the father is involved. As I stated before, I believe the father disposed of the baby’s body, and he is fearful of facing a jail term.

    What stumps me is why has the DA not approached the dad, and offer him a deal? Is Tacapioca (joke..but he does look like pudding),….fearful that if he discusses a deal with the father, that the mom will face the death penalty? Yes, you better believe he is afraid. He is an attorney with an objective, like most. He wants to win! It pads his bank account, the way it padded Baez’s. One big win can mean more money in the future.

    Most high-profile, or wanna’-bes are greedy, ambulance chasers. I know, I worked with them for a very long time. There is no union to protect them, no welfare could support their needs, let alone their wants. Attorrney’s are driven to succeed. It takes a certain type of personality to become a litigator. You must be a good actor, you must never take defeat as the end-game result, to prove future successes. You must lie, obfuscate, twist, and use the law to your benefit. The more garbage you throw at the jury, the more likely you are to confuse them…and win. You must build your reputation, at any cost, so that you can live the life of power and money for which they all strive.

    I want to see Baby Lisa’s mom arrested for murder. No death penalty charge, or first degree charge, but a lesser charge, because there is no body, and hence no evidence as to how the child died. The dad should be arrested for collusion,…if he provides evidence against his wife, of his limited involvement, he will, more than likely, walk. I believe the DA is afraid of a repeat of the CA trial, and is attempting to provide the potential jury with a slam-dunk, i.e. hard/material evidence, which at this point in time, cannot happen. If the body is discovered, we may be facing another CA effect, unless the bones can prove otherwise.

    Arrest them, try them, and come back with guilty of abuse/neglect. I would settle for that at this point. Jail will be in their future, if the jury can use reason by not disregarding circumstantial evidence, and the boys will be safer for it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s