Scientists have identified 50
individuals who are able to spot deception with great accuracy after testing
more than 15,000 people. Eyes for Lies is one of the 50 people.
More
Eyes has a 97.3%
accuracy rate (to date) after identifying truth and deception in 37/38 people
before the truth was known by watching media clips.
Eyes for Lies is not psychic.
Lee Anthony seems to be of interest to many of you, and you have asked that I review his deposition in the Zenaida Gonzalez defamation case. The deposition is several hours long, so at this time, if you would like to hear my thoughts on it, I just ask that you provide time markers, no longer than five minutes, of specific areas you like me to respond to, and I will consider it.
Feel free to make requests below.
Here is a page that links to all the depositions. Don't forget to let me know which segment your time marker refers to.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
MSNBC is reporting that families will now get to decide if they want the caskets of their relatives killed in the line of duty and draped in flags, to be shown to the media or not. This reverses a move by the Bush administration in 1991 which banned photos or videos of war dead.
I rarely stick my head out in political issues, but I feel very strongly about this issue, and I am so glad to see that we as a people will be exposed to harsh realities of war. The fact that we have been sanitized from it, I feel, is wrong.
If we want to fight a war, we need to be prepared to deal with the realities and truth of it, and if the consequences of it is death, we need to accept it. Hiding it, while thousands of families suffer, is like denying them their ultimate sacrifice.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
I decided to send my failed Seagate hard drive, a barracuda 7200.11 (500 GB), to a company called One World Data Recovery Services, based in Canada. I just received it back last night and I couldn't be more pleased with the results.
In the business of data recovery, when companies quote prices from $250 and up for this service, I decided to take One World up on their special offer of 39.99 for the data recovery plus $35.99 for shipping (which only applies to Seagate Barracuda customers affected by the firmware issue failures as outlined by Seagate), and I am thrilled I did.
They returned my hard drive back in perfect working condition exactly as I had hoped. I got all my data back for a fraction of the cost of other recovery services. I had to wait 13 days for the turnaround, but One World Data Recovery set my expectations ahead of time, answered all of my questions (and I question things a lot), and they kept me up to date the entire time. Their customer service was an "A" plus. They even had their engineer call me once I got my product back to inquire about the stability of the replacement "Seagate" that HP gave me as I, of course, had more questions!
It's rare today to find such a professional and customer service-oriented company, and so I wanted to put my word out there, that I am pleased with their service and the results I got. I highly recommend them should you face a problem, or have a Seagate firmware issue that locked your hard drive like I did.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
It was the summer, after my freshman year in high school, that a group of girls thought it would be fun to spend one of the last waning days of summer at Six Flags amusement park. Fearing that one of us could get separated or lost, we all decided as geeky as it was, to wear our school gym shirt, because they were purple and had our school name plastered on the front. We knew we'd stand out in a crowd and find each other if one of us happened to get lost.
I don't remember much from that day, to be honest, except that we saw some cute guys, and rode on the American Eagle roller coaster with them over and over again. One of them was really sweet and took to me, but at that age, without a car or a driver's license, you just parted ways and said goodbye. We simply shared a few laughs and shrills.
Read moreFast forward two or three months later: I was sitting in class, my sophomore year, and a staff member from the principal's office interrupted the lecture. She asked if I could be excused. Friends had been alerting me that all the girls in the school with my first name were being taken to the principal's office. At first I thought it was a joke. Now I knew better.
I specifically remember this woman, who was escorting me to the principal's office, looked at me notably strangely.
I was completely perplexed. What was this about? Did another person with my name do something wrong, and I was going to get the blame? I had to admit that I was on edge. I was never called to the principal's office before.
As we walked down the hall toward the office, she said to me, "Did you go to Six Flags this summer?"
Thinking that was odd, I said, "Yes, why?"
"Did you meet anyone there, while you were there?" she continued to question me.
I thought for a minute, "Yes. We met a couple of people from another school who were our age."
"Do you remember their names?" she inquired.
"No, not really. I think one guy's name was Mark. Why?" I questioned her again. We arrived at the office.
As we walked in the door of the office, there was a group of staff staring at me--five or six women and a couple of men whose eyes were fixated on me. They were looking at me intently. I couldn't help but feel like I was under the microscope. I felt really awkward. I couldn't figure out what this was about. Was I in trouble? For something I did over the summer? That would be crazy. What was going on?
The lady who walked me to the office said, "I think we found our girl!"
I was even more intrigued.
"Well", said the principal, "we got this letter in the mail from a guy who says he met an 'Eyes for Lies' (of course, not my real name), that he borrowed money from her, and he really wanted to contact her so he could pay her back. Here is the letter. It is quite long and involved. He wrote it to my office, and ask that we assist him in locating you. He's quite an interesting fella."
The letter was two full pages from a spiral-ring notebook.
I sat there in disbelief as Dan's photo fell out of the envelope. I remembered his name by this point, but the funny thing was, he didn't borrow any money from me. That was an outright lie.
I spoke up, "This is so strange, because I didn't lend him any money."
I couldn't help but be flattered when I read the letter, by the way it was written. So painstakingly neat, and with care and thought. Clearly this guy had a crush on me, and wouldn't let it go. I had no idea.
I couldn't believe this stranger went through so much effort to contact me again. The ladies giggled, and one said, "I think he has a huge crush on you!"
Another joined in, "Look at how much effort he went through to find you!"
"Are you going to contact him?" asked another.
I must have turned beet red. Before I answered, another one spoke. "Yes, it is funny," said a lady with red hair. "We've been talking to all the girls with your name in the school, and none of them related to the details he gave until we found you. You were the last one out of five girls, and of course, you were the right one. For a little while there, we thought maybe he had written the wrong school."
For days after that, the staff all looked at me as I walked by. You could almost hear them thinking, "Is she the girl who got that romantic love note?" You could feel the walls chattering behind me.
All the girls who shared my first name asked me what all the fuss was about, because they were not privy to why they were questioned by the principal's staff.
The teachers, as well as my friends, were all in disbelief that a guy could have such a crush on me that he would go through all this effort to locate me. They teased me that I was one lucky girl!!
Dan and I exchanged a few letters, and chatted on the phone once, but I had lost interest. Living some 20 miles a part, at that age, was just too much distance to surmount, and he sounded too monotone on the phone for me. But I must say, it was one of the most flattering lies I was ever told.
This all came back to my mind, this week, because my mom found Dan's photo in my collection of things stacked away in the basement, and happened to put it into a photo album, not knowing who he was. All the memories came flooding back when I was flipping through the album and she asked, "Who is that?" When I told her, she instantly remembered that flattering lie.
I wonder what Dan is like today. Is he a charming, assertive and successful man, or is he someone who stalks people and has intense, inappropriate crushes? I shudder at the thought.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
This is a video of Misty, taken shortly after Haleigh disappeared, that has continually played in my head since I saw it over a week ago. I noticed what I suspect is a microexpression of disgust when Misty says, "I seen the kitchen light on."
Misty is truly distraught, but I can't figure out why she has feelings of disgust when she talks about the kitchen light being on. This emotion flashes for a fraction of a second. If Misty found the front door open, and the kitchen light on, as she tells us, I would expect to see fear or concern on her face, but instead, I see disgust.
Read moreDid Misty at some point walk in on something horrible that happened in the kitchen that, perhaps, involved Haleigh? She seems to be feeling an emotion, that upon first glance, is inconsistent with the story she is telling us. It makes me wonder what we don't know. Is Misty leaving out some details? Are the events she is describing from another night, and not the night Haleigh went missing?
I don't know the answers. I just know I have more questions. I want to know what disgusted Misty. It's perplexing.
Many of you have questioned if Misty is truly crying here. I believe the answer is yes. Her tears and emotions of sadness are genuine.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Here is an interesting fact I had heard several years ago that I thought was quite interesting. I never would have guessed this:
Studies investigating lie detectors' confidence in their decision making typically reveal three findings. First, there is usually no significant relationship between confidence and accuracy (see DePaulo, Charlton, Cooper, Lindsay, & Muhlenbruck (1997) for a meta-analysis).
Second, confidence scores amongst professional lie catchers are typically high (Allwood & Granhag, 1999; DePaulo & Pfeifer, 1986; Strömwall, 2001; Vrij, 1993) and police officers are sometimes found to be more confident than lay people (Allwood & Granhag, 1999; DePaulo & Pfeifer, 1986) (source).
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Crystal Sheffield, the mother of Haleigh Cummings, was interviewed on Geraldo at Large over the weekend (thanks for the tips), and her interview was interesting to me.
Crystal says that Cummings was abusive to her, physically and verbally.
Geraldo: Do you believe his story about what happened?
Crystal: No, I don't. I mean, I know he loves Haleigh....and...........ah (almost breaking down)..........his temper, it could get bad enough for him to hurt Haleigh, but I do know he loves Haleigh, Haleigh is his heart, and everybody knows that.
....
Geraldo: Do you believe that Ron Cummings knows who took Haleigh?
Crystal: He's told my brother, and my fiance, that he knows, that he is 75% sure he knows where his daughter is.
....
Crystal: He acts like he's crying, like that uh-uh. He's not. I know when he is really crying--that is fake.
Overall, I believe Crystal Sheffield (I'm not going to break down details, but generally speaking) I think she is being honest with us, and sharing her true and genuine feelings here.
Later in the show, Geraldo talks to Cummings about these allegations, and Cummings' response is classic. His anger is over the top, but he doesn't want to let it out, so he. talks. like. this. in. an. attempt. to. control. it. I don't trust ONE WORD out of Ronald Cummings' mouth.
When Geraldo asked Cummings if he thought Haleigh was alive, his body language is, sadly, fascinating. He shakes his head no very briefly before he speaks, and then he moves his head abruptly to an up and down direction with a slight hook to the side. He says, "I'm always going to believe my daughter is alive until they find her."
You can watch the interview on YouTube. Just search for "Geraldo 2/21/09".
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
There is a show that ran last month in Canada (maybe you Canadian readers saw it)? It's called "The Truth About Liars", and was on the CBC. It featured both Dr. Paul Ekman and Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan. The website lists the show as a full-length video, but when you click on it, it says it is unavailable. I suspect this is because I am a U.S. viewer. However, the preview is available, and I thought you would enjoy it.
The beginning voice-over is Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan. You then get to see her. She hasn't been in many videos, but here she is! Interestingly enough, as the video closes, the voice-over is Dr. Paul Ekman. Enjoy!
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
MyFoxTampaBay.com has the police report narrative on their website for the Cummings case. If this is the actual police narrative, it shows there are many inconsistencies in the story being told by both Misty Croslin and Ronald Cummings.
Read moreIn the report, once the officers arrived, the cop said Cummings repeatedly said, "Someone took my child".
Ronald repeadtedly [sic] said that someone had taken his child and also said, "when I find him, I'll kill him." Ronald was referring to a 9mm Beretta hand gun [sic] which heowed [sic] inside of his residence and that if law enforcement found whoever had this child, he would shoot them through the back window of the patrol car. I attempted to get information from Ronald regarding HAleigh [sic], however, due to his emotional state he was unable to provide any useful information.
I am in awe at how quickly Cummings ruled out every other potential outcome for his daughter's absence within minutes of arriving home and finding Haleigh missing. How come he doesn't have the normal thoughts of parents, and attempt to investigate, or consider other potential outcomes before jumping to one conclusion? Why did he not even once consider she may have wandered off, that the doors or windows could not have been unlocked by other people when he was away? It's very notable. He clearly didn't have 30 minutes to do any type of investigation, but he knows the outcome: someone took Haleigh.
I also find it interesting that Cummings was not able to calm himself down for his child's sake, and help police get the information they needed. I suspect this was a facade, because he didn't know what to say, personally.
The report continues:
I then made contact with Misty Croslin, Ronalds girlfriend. Misty told me that she had put the children to bed at approximately 8pm. MIsty [sic] said that they were sleeping in HER BED, and when she laid down at around 10:30pm both children were still in bed. I asked MIsty [sic] who the other child was and she advised the other child was Haleighs [sic] brother. Misty old me that she woke up just before 3am to get a drink and she noticed that Haleigh was missing, however the OTHER child was still in bed. MIsty [sic] ran around the residence franticallly [sic] looking for haleigh [sic] and that she noticed the back door was stanfing [sic] open. MIsty [sic] said that she was sure the back door had been locked prior to her going to bed.
There are multiple inconsistencies when reading this segment of the report above, if we compare it to what Misty has said in video interviews. Here Misty tells the police that she was in the SAME bed with Haleigh. Yet we've seen Misty say on video that Haleigh was in another bed. Clearly, Misty isn't able to keep her facts straight.
Notice the time Misty says she went to bed as well? Misty has been saying in news reports that she went to bed at 10:00 p.m. Yet, early on, to the police (here), she is saying she went to bed at 10:30 p.m. Again, Misty is unable to stick to any facts.
Moreover, Misty doesn't say she got up to go to the bathroom, which she has said all over the news. She says here that she got up to get a drink. She also doesn't talk about finding the kitchen light on (or at least the police don't report that here).
By the way this report is written, you get the distinct feeling that Misty told the police that she instantly noticed Haleigh was gone when she got up to get a drink, and then searched for her, whereas in videos, Misty has said she went to the bathroom, noticed the light on in the kitchen and saw the door open, and then realized Haleigh was missing. These are two very different stories.
The report continues:
Mist [sic] said that at approximately 5 minutes after she noticed Haleigh missing, Ronal [sic] arrived home.
In news reports, Misty has told us that she awoke at 3:00 a.m., and that Ronald Cummings came home around 3:30. This is another inconsistency.
Fox's On the Record with Greta van Susteren, on February 12, even discusses this with Cummings, and notes there is a 27-minute time lapse from when Misty wakes up to when Cummings arrived home.
From "On the Record":
VAN SUSTEREN: So let me -- let's -- let me try to ask you some questions about it. What time did you arrive home, Ronald, on Tuesday morning?
RONALD CUMMINGS, FATHER: Approximately 3:30.
Clearly, the stories of Ronald Cummings and Misty Croslin are not adding up. Nothing in this report supports their latest version of events. What the truth is, of course, I can't say, because I don't know. But I know I don't trust either one of these people. They are not telling us what I suspect they know to be true.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
"If I get on a horse, I can clear my head and feel as if I’m really out there searching for my daughter. ”
This just blew me away.
The words "as if" and "really" are notably strange here. They are what I have coined hedge words. Look at the this British Councils explanation for the "as if" word usage. The website gives three examples of the words being used. It says, "We can also use as if and as though with a past verb tense to suggest that something is unreal."
The website then gives examples for this usage:
She behaves as if/though she were the Queen. (She obviously isn't the Queen)
He walks as if/though he were an old man. (But in fact he's a young man)
They talk as if/though the world were coming to an end. (Of course it's not)
That is precisely how this statement hits me.
People who wanted to search for their daughter wouldn't want to feel "as if" they were "really" out there searching. They would want to "search". Period.
I personally believe our brain leaks out clues to our real state of mind with words like this. I don't think Cummings knew he said that, this way.
The article continues:
"In a break between rides into the woods, Miller said the benefit of including Ronald Cummings in the search was weighed against concern about what he might find.
But it turned out okay.
'He literally looks like a different person,' Miller said. 'I think this has done him a lot of good.'”
I was amazed, too, that after the search that Cummings "looked" like a totally different person. Sure, one could argue that he was relieved he didn't find his daughter dead, but why wasn't he is still worried about her, and feeling deeply troubled and unresolved that there are no clues, that perhaps they aren't looking in the right places, that perhaps she could be holed up in a room somewhere? Could it have been that Cummings saw how the search works, and what they do to look for bodies, and now he feels a whole lot better because of that? It's chilling to think about, nonetheless write.
There are days just reading the news can be painful. Things jump out at me like knives--stabbing at me.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Many, many, many of you have asked me to review the case of missing Haleigh Cummings. She went missing last Monday night from her home, and hasn't been seen or found since. Haleigh's father, Ronald Cummings, and his girlfriend, Misty Croslin, tell us that Croslin put Haleigh to sleep, later went to sleep herself, and when she woke up to use the bathroom in the middle of the night, she found the kitchen light on, Haleigh was gone, and the back door was wide open, propped by a brick.
Read moreWhen I watch Cummings and Croslin speak, many things jump out at me. They are so numerous, I don't have the space here to write them all out, but I will identify a few things I've noted:
When I first saw Ronald Cummings crying in his first plea for his daughter, several things jumped out at me. His crying episode was eerily reminiscent of a child's cry. Most adults don't cry like children. He whined, and acted out of breath, yet he wasn't. It was notable and perplexing.
Yet he did sound truly congested; however, no tears fell from his face. Later on, however, he did cry very genuine and sincere tears, and the pouting cry notably changes into a regular cry. I find his behavior inconsistent here, and I can't explain it. Is he under the influence of something? He seems really glassy-eyed.
I am also immediately struck by how he portrays no composure of hope in this interview. He seems to have zero hope that his daughter could still be alive. Why isn't he hanging onto the fact that if he and others get out there, they can potentially find her? This disturbs me.
Why isn't he talking to his daughter on camera? "Haleigh, I'm here for you, if you are watching this. I'm going to find you." Does he even think about her being out there, and watching the news? Why isn't he thinking about being strong for her?
When I see this interview, it seems to be more about Cummings being devastated than finding Haleigh. It's like he is feeling sorry for himself. Why? This is odd. Haleigh's mom, ironically, does talk to her daughter on camera, as I would expect any parent would, if they feared their daughter was kidnapped. She says, "Everybody's here for you. If you're watching these, your momma misses you, daddy misses you ... your whole family misses you and we will bring you home" (source).
At time marker 1:15, Cummings drops down to the ground crying. This is so unusual for an adult to do. Children do this, but how many adults have you seen do this? Especially when the news is not conclusively devastating yet? How come everyone else who loved Haleigh is so composed and acting "normally", but Cummings is not? Here his cry is very shallow. It's not believable for me. If I re-look at this with the angle that Cummings could befeeling sorry for himself, it makes more sense.
He says, "I know somebody took my little girl...some sorry piece of trash that will be wasted when it's all over." This is baffling to me. Haleigh was once found floating in a nearby waterway and nearly drowned, so how could he so conclusively rule this out? How can he so confidently rule out that Haleigh didn't wander away, that he didn't lock the door as he thought he did, that when Croslin's relatives came to visit earlier that night, that they didn't unlock another door or open a window when he was away?
Would you as a parent be so certain about this, especially since you know your daughter wandered away before? This bothers me.
At one point, Cummings says, "All I want is my children…All I want is my child back.” I thought this was very unusual. Another day, he talks about how others are making this situation all about a custody issue. That was really strange, but if we pair that, with this statement above, you have to wonder, is he afraid he won't have either of his children, perhaps, due to something he has done here? Then this strange slip might actually make sense, wouldn't it?
Then he says something that unnerved me in a huge way. Cummings says, "I’d give my life for my child’s life back.”
What? Why is he saying this? It makes no sense. Is that why his cry is so confusing? Does he fake concern and worry, and then really cry over what he may know already happened to his daughter? You would think he would have said instead, "I'd give my life for my child back", but that is NOT what he says. Does this indicate that he believes his daughter is not alive? Is that why he thought earlier, "All I want is my children..." because he fears if the truth comes out, he will lose them, or at least his remaining son?
It's troubling, to say the least.
Notice how Cummings reiterates that he is trying to do the best he can, that someone stole his child while he was at work? Is he building an alibi?Setting a timeline? Why isn't he focusing his energy on getting Haleigh back instead of feeling sorry for himself? Most parents of missing children are focused on getting their children, and don't care at all about themselves, but Cummings is notably different. Most parents know they have to be strong for their children, and work to bring them home. Why not Cummings?
The reporter then asks, "Can I ask when you noticed the back door was open, and if that was what kind of alerted you to something?" Just before the reporter asks Cummings this, he is crying, sobbing and somber. Then listen to Cummings' response to the question. His demeanor and voice change dramatically. It's very notable and very alarming for me. You don't stop crying and change your entire demeanor when you are deeply sobbing and in pain like Cummings wants us to believe he is. You just don't do it, yet oddly Cummings does. Cummings says in an angry, deep and controlled tone, "No. My girlfriend was awake at 3 o'clock in the morning when I got off of work." When he says this, there is a deep anger in Cummings' voice that appears out of nowhere. It's chilling. Clearly, this question got Cummings angry. Why would that be?
Later in the interview, Cummings says very strangely and out of nowhere, when he deeply sobs, "I do plan to take the trash out when it is time." This blindsides you. It's not related to anything being said at the time. It's like Cummings is in his own world. I am sure like most people, at first you think, what is he talking about?? It's absolutely perplexing.
But when I watch him say it and watch his emotions, he shows pure destitution in his face. Like someone sold his soul. It's absolutely haunting. I can't help but wonder, is this some type of warning he is contemplating suicide "when it is time"? Perhaps, if he were to get caught?
What else could this statement mean? Is he warning us? Is he under the influence of drugs here and extra emotional? Also, just after he says it, and thinks about it, he also shows true distress and sadness on his face. It's alarming and notable. But when the reporter asks the next question, all of these genuine emotions fade away again.
The reporter asks, what would you say to people who may have information out there? Notice Cummings doesn't even think to talk to his daughter again. Why?
Both Cummings and Croslin's body language in all the videos I see displays a sense of defeat. They are hunched over. Their shoulders come forward. They physically look down, and act subdued. It appears they have no hope whatsoever, again and again, that Cummings' daughter will be returned to them. This strikes me as very odd. Why aren't they tense, nervous and anxious to find her? That would be normal. They should be on edge that things might not happen fast enough, yet there is no urgency with these two. Anyone can spot that? Why aren't these two on a mission to find Haleigh? Compare their behavior to that of George and Cindy Anthony. It's notably different.
News reports say that on the 911 call, Cummings was in a rage, and really worried about his daughter. I don't hear that in the call at all. I don't hear any indication of fear, stress or true and genuine alarm. I hear feigned anger, by his threats and choice of words.
Why did Croslin wait 30 minutes from waking up and finding Haleigh missing to alert someone of the possible abduction? Why didn't she summon for help earlier? Especially since she knows Haleigh once wandered off and nearly drowned before?
What predator is going to go into a house late at night, and risk taking one child out of a room full of people? Let's say Haleigh wandered outside; there should have been some proof of a door unlocked or something, but Cummings and Croslin deny that. They, instead, tell us that the door where the predator went out, had to be forced closed, that Haleigh couldn't open it, and couldn't reach the deadbolt. This tells us that the door likely stuck when you opened or closed it. That would likely mean the door made a fair amount of noise to open and close it, and it took some effort to open it, right? What predator would use that door?
What predator would turn on a light in the kitchen, risk announcing himself and make it possible to be clearly identified by someone in the house or outside? What predator would take the time to bring or find a cinder block, and take the time to prop the door open? How come there are no signs of forced entry into the home? To me, these are highly unlikely or implausible circumstances.
I also haven't seen Cummings or Croslin participate in any searches reported by any news agencies. Have I missed this? I have looked for it several times. Has anyone seen them help in the search? Post fliers, or go look for her themselves? If they haven't, why aren't they?
Cummings and Croslin have told two different stories of where Haleigh slept that night. This is interesting. You would think their stories would be the same. Cummings told Nancy Grace that Croslin slept in the same bed as the children on February 11. Then on February 12, Croslin says that Haleigh was in a different bed in the same room. Why aren't they getting their facts right?
Worse, when they are both on Greta van Susteren's show, Greta asks, "How far was Haleigh physically from you, Misty?" Croslin says, "Probably, like, not three or four inches away." Look at Cummings' eyes when Croslin talks. They are plastered towards Croslin though he doesn't turn his head. It's very controlling behavior. He is fascinating to watch.
Greta then asks Croslin how far they were apart a second time, and at that time, Cummings shakes his head in a side-to-side motion, indicating he is thinking "no". With that, Croslin backtracks and says, "No, um, I'm not sure. It wasn't that far away." Next, as Greta is talking again getting ready to ask another question, Cummings is trying to coach Croslin, and tell her what to say! I can't hear what he is saying, but why does he feel the need to do this? Cummings then says, "No, I know where the beds were at. They were about four feet apart from the edge of the bed she was in to the edge of the bed Haleigh was in."
These two can't even agree where the beds were placed in this room! Forget about who slept in what bed. This is a huge inconsistency. Clearly, both are capable of describing how far two beds are apart, but if the facts aren't true, we wouldn't be surprised to see such a discrepancy, would we?
Earlier on the Greta show, Greta asks Croslin who was closest to the back door: Haleigh or Croslin? Look how long it takes Croslin to answer that. She makes an "Hmmm...I don't know" expression. Why doesn't she know? She should spout the answer off without thought, but she doesn't. She finally answers and when she does, under his breath, Cummings says, "I'd like to comment." He doesn't say what is on his mind because Greta didn't hear him, but it shows he is controlling nonetheless, over and over.
Also in the Greta interview, Cummings says to Croslin, "Look at the camera" at one point. He gives us every indication he has a temper, and is very controlling and manipulative. Cummings also nods his head when hears what Croslin says at points in the interview, as if he approves. He is scrutinizing her every word, and Croslin knows it.
Croslin also keeps saying the same story over and over again. She says something to the effect that she got up, went to the bathroom, found the kitchen light on, and then she went back and found Haleigh was gone. She always finishes it with "That's all I know." I find her memory of that event is quite sparse and lacking. You would think she would remember more detail. When we recollect a story, oftentimes, we remember different details, or thoughts--things we were thinking at the time. Yet Croslin seems to have no "thinking memories" of her experience. It is more like she is talking from rote memory. She only repeats the same thing over and over again.
The same is true for her 911 call. The details are sketchy at best. Her memories don't flow logically. It doesn't make sense.
911: "911, what's your emergency"
Misty Croslin: "Hi...umm...we just woke up...and our back door was wide open, and we can't find our daughter."
We just woke up?
911: "OK, when did you last see her?"
Misty Croslin: "Um, we like just...you know...it was about 10 o'clock... we were...she was sleeping- I ...she?...cleaning...
Why doesn't she have normal recollections here?
I so hope I am wrong for Haleigh's sake. It doesn't look good from where I am sitting now.
* * * To read all of my thoughts on this case, click on the labels below.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
You couldn't write news this interesting if you were to create fiction. This is unbelievable, but not surprising. Raines is obviously a lost soul, hoping the men in her life will bring her happiness. She doesn't realize happiness comes from within, and is never created by others.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
This past week, I got the sobering news that a good friend of mine in Japan has been diagnosed with Stage 4 Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. He is only 40 years old. I can't imagine how difficult that must be for him and his family.
When I asked him if there was anything I could do for him, he told me if I could send him jokes, it would help lift his spirit and that is something I absolutely can do. The problem is I am so serious, I don't know one good joke!
So I am asking for your help. If you know of some good jokes, would you post them below? I would be so thankful. Also, if any of you know of any great humor books, I hope you share that with me as well. And you are welcome to say hi to Jim. He occasionally reads my blog.
Many thanks!
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
A reader has asked me to review a story coming out of Johnstown, New York. Back on September 30, 2008, Kellisue Ackernecht, 36, left work as a shift supervisor at 9:45PM, and has never been seen again.
Shortly before 2:00 a.m., police found Kellisue's car, engulfed in flames, on a road that her husband, Jayson Ackernecht, says was not her normal way home. Kellisue was nowhere to be found.
Read moreNeighbors in that area say they heard what they believed to be gunshots that night.
[WTEN] According to some neighbors, they heard noises about 90 minutes earlier. Two loud noises that to them sounded like gunshots.
"I heard the gunshot, I jumped out of bed, looked out my window and I looked up and down," Stewart told NEWS10.
The The Leader Herald reported that Kellisue was reported missing by her husband:
"[Ackernecht] was reported missing about the same time the 1998 Saturn sedan she was driving was found engulfed in flames at West Montgomery and Chestnut streets, also known as Frog Hollow."
What do the police think? As of October 8, 2008, WNYT reports:
"It could be a missing person. It could be foul play," said Johnstown Police Lt. Mark Gifford. "We are not ruling out anything at this point. The person could be voluntarily missing also."
As of January 23, 2009, police are still saying this case can't be labeled a "criminal matter." Due to the car burning up completely, they are unable to conclusively determine if the car fire was due to arson, or if the car malfunctioned. They have also previously said the husband, Jayson Ackernecht, has cooperated and is not a suspect.
A week after the disappearance, Dennis Ackernecht, Jayson Ackernecht's uncle, said the following to WTEN:
"It was Tuesday afternoon. [Jayson] stopped by and he was distraught [...] He thinks that somebody kidnapped [Kellisue]. That could very well be," Dennis Ackernecht said.
Jayson Akernecht did his first interview approximately two months after his wife disappeared. I think it is very interesting.
Ackernecht: I... cry... day after day...night after night.. I worry about her. My daughter worries about her....wondering where she is.
The reporter talks about the case--about how many in the city have formed their own opinions, and says "now for the first time ever, Jayson is speaking out..."
Ackernecht: I.Would. Never. Harm. My. Wife. I. Had. Nothing. To. Do. With this. At all. I. had. to. have. the. police department... come to my house...personally... and wake me up..... to... tell me. that my. car. was. on fire.
The reporter says Jayson has his own theory that his wife is very much alive.
Ackernecht: We think... she just took off... and left.......with somebody else..... Who? We don’t know yet.
The reporter has a message for his wife, "a plea for both him, and their 9-year-old daughter."
Ackernecht: If you are out there someplace, wherever you are, please come home.
This interview is littered with hot spots, if you want my opinion. Jayson is completely void of emotions. That's a huge red flag. He talks very controlled, and I noticed he moves his head (very slightly) in a yes motion at times, as if he is confirming what he said, to himself. This is very strange behavior for someone who is being honest. It's almost as if he is thinking to himself, "Yeah, that's right." Most people don't do this.
I find it odd how Jayson says he "worries about her", yet shortly thereafter tells us he believes she "left with somebody else". Aren't these two somewhat contradictory? If he believed his wife left, you would expect him to mad and upset, but not so much worried.
Can you hear the pauses between nearly every word? It is indicative that he is thinking about what he says before he says it. This is not a good sign at all.
Don't you find it fascinating that he says the police had to "wake him up" to tell him that "his car" was on fire? Why doesn't he mention that it was his wife's car? Is this a form of distancing? People who harm others are often known to do this. He also never uses her name, Kellisue. It's notable.
I also have to wonder did Jayson report his wife missing, or not? If he did report her missing, did he just go right back to sleep? That would be odd. But it would also be odd if he didn't report his wife missing. Either way, what Jayson says here is odd.
Did Jayson ever go and look for his wife that night? Does anyone know? I'd be curious.
I am troubled by this statement as well. Jayson says, "We think... she just took off... and left.......with somebody else..... Who? We don’t know yet."
Jayson is clearly, without any doubt, thinking on his feet here. The pauses are very indicative of this, in how they lay out in the sentence.
Notice, also, he first said he thought she was kidnapped. Now, strangely, like Drew Peterson, he wants to suggest that he believes she "left with somebody else". Why the change of beliefs? Did he get some evidence to point him in one direction over another? A caring husband who loved his wife wouldn't jump to these conclusions without some sort of proof, and from what I have read, there is no indication that she left with anyone else.
Normal caring and compassionate spouses would also be notably worried about foul play, since the car burned into nothing recognizable, but we don't ever hear that Jayson worried about that--not even the week after her disappearance. That's a mambo red flag. Overwhelmingly huge! Why do all of Jayson's theories involve his wife being just fine, when the rest of her family worries about foul play? Everyone else thinks it is strange she has never reached out to her daughter, and I agree.
I also find a huge problem when Jayson pleads for his wife to come home. He says, " If you are out there someplace..."
If?
Doesn't he supposedly believe she is with "somebody else"? This shows us that he doesn't truly believe this, or he wouldn't say "if". It's a strong indication he doesn't believe she is out there.
This is very sad. Jayson Ackernecht, if you want my opinion, knows much more than he wants to admit, and I think the reason for this is very ominous. I don't trust Ackernecht's story here whatsoever. It's all too classic, and that is painful to write.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Back in September of 2007, I wrote about the death of two sisters, Erin and Kelly Stanley, both in their late teens, who died mysteriously, just days apart.
My original post was on Steve Huff's True Crime Weblog. I also wrote another update about the story here on my blog. Clearly, for me, Lonny Stanley, the mother of the two deceased girls, raised my eyebrows, and in a big way, several times over.
Read moreYou see, Erin died on September 1, 2007, after just moving back home to her parents' house with her boyfriend, and new baby, Alexis. Six days later, after Erin's death, her sister, Kelly, who still lived at home, was also found supposedly "dying" by her mother, and by the time the EMT arrived, she was deceased.
The person who was arrested and charged with Erin's murder, however, was a big surprise. It was her boyfriend, James McFarland, who was asleep with her on the night she died, and who subsequently moved out just after her death, and was not in the house when Kelly died. McFarland has been in jail ever since, awaiting trial, until this past week.
Shortly McFarland's arrest, the death of the second daughter, Kelly, was ruled a death by natural causes (a seizure).
As you can see, the story has taken incredible twists and turns that no one could expect. I was really baffled by it. The arrest of McFarland, the boyfriend of Erin, made little sense to me when I considered the untimely and strange death of her sister, Kelly. Worse, the actions of the girl's mother made my hair stand up on end. Repeatedly.
For the past year, I have looked for news on this case, concerned about McFarland. I was hoping for video of him so I could feel at ease that they did get the right guy, but nothing ever surfaced. Nothing happened on this case until this week, when jury selection began, and then the most surprising news came out.
The murder charges against McFarland have been dropped.
You read that right. They have been dropped.
[Pal-item.com]"...forensic pathologist Dr. Joseph Czaja reversed his original finding that Erin Stanley had been strangled. On Monday, Czaja testified that he couldn't be medically certain of the cause of death because Stanley's body had been washed and sterilized and tissues had been removed prior to the autopsy."
Defense attorneys Terry O’Maley and Adam Forrest contend in their motion Shipman knew there were problems with the case after a discussion with Czaja in November 2007. That was more than a year before O’Maley and Forrest learned of the pathologist’s doubts, they contend.
It looks like this mystery has yet to be resolved. I only hope there is enough evidence for police to find the real killers of these two innocent young women. If only the parents would speak out. Lonny Stanley makes me very uncomfortable, to say the least. Has she ever been investigated?
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Last night, CBS 60 Minutes' Katie Couric interviewed the hero pilot, Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, of Flight 1549 which crashed into the Hudson three weeks ago.
If you want to see the remainder of the interview, go to CBS's website.
Read moreIt is simply fascinating to watch Sully speak, and to listen to him talk to air controllers in the moments before impact. His voice is incredibly focused, and out-of-this-world calm, considering that he is at the helm of an aircraft that is disastrously malfunctioning and over one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Add to that, it is his actions that will ultimately decide not only if he lives or dies, but whether another 155 souls survive as well.
Sully has great control over his emotions. He is a man who lives his life by reason and logic. I am sure those who know him well would tell us he has always been an emotional rock. He is and always was in control. And he remained in control and kept his wits about him under the most harrowing of circumstances. It's simply amazing.
Not only was he amazing in his focus and control, but even after everyone had disembarked from the sinking aircraft, and Sully was on dry land, he still wasn't at peace until he could truly confirm, again, that all souls on board had made it out alive and were safe. And that was after he walked the empty plane twice before he disembarked! He is truly a remarkable man: a man of deep ethical values (Did you see this?).
As Sully puts it himself, he believed his life experiences leading up to that day were all there to help him in these critical moments.
Yet when we watch the the majority of Sully's interview, his emotions are muted, and his expressions are minimal. He stares at the camera and the audience intently as he recalls his story, and very uniquely, he almost never breaks his gaze as he recollects and talks of his ordeal that day. He doesn't habitually look up or down as most people do when they recall things. At one point, Sully even says the experience was unbelievable, and when he does, he shakes his head from side to side.
Captain Sully gives us what most would people would consider a heap of red flags that hint at dishonesty, if we didn't know he was telling the truth here. He experienced a horrific nightmare that ended almost magically, and yet Sully shows very little emotions until the end of the show.
I personally think Sully still hasn't come to terms with everything that has happened. He is still processing it, trying to make sense of it, and perhaps still in shock. He even commented that he has lost sleep because he wasn't sure he could not have done things better! Simply unbelievable.
For me, all of Sully's behaviors are genuine and true because they match his personality. If I didn't know the truth here, I would likely hone in on the truth, due to what I call paralleling. When I look at Sully, I get an immediate sense of his personality. His facial features and emotions identify to me that he is a man who is very humble, giving and kind. I would be able to confidently speculate, based on that, that he is a man who is reserved, without an ego, and without a temper. He is quieter than most and with that, I would not be surprised by his lack of expression or emotion. It would not stand out to me.
So next time you see a clue or two, think twice before saying "deceptive". You may convict an incredible human being, like Sully, if you don't know the nuances of personality and behavior.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Here is an interesting article about the ongoing trial for Amanda Knox.
It's interesting that Knox would shower after finding her living quarters with the door open and not secure. Mind you, she was supposedly all alone. Add to that, she sees blood in the bathroom.
Read moreI know I certainly wouldn't have. I would have felt vulnerable and exposed by just having found my door open. Forget about getting undressed and taking a shower. I would be nervous someone could be hiding in the closet to get me!! If I saw blood, I would have been out the door. How about you?
"Amanda Knox suffered a blow in her trial for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher today when the judge in the case ruled admissible an alleged confession she wrote shortly after the killing."
Furthermore, it says, "In the note, it is believed she says that she had to cover her ears to block out Miss Kercher's screams..." (See my original post on Knox here).
"In his 100-page report, Judge Micheli concluded that Guede was freely admitted to the housebecause someone let him in and that can be no-one else but Amanda Knox.'"
How can he say conclusively that Kercher wasn't the one let Guede in the house, or that someone else could have been in the house and let Guede in the house? Am I missing something?
To read all my posts on Knox, click on the label below.
For those of you who VOTED YES, could you identify a couple of things for me? You can write me personally, or post below. First, are you a man or a woman? Second, why wouldn't you be afraid? Thanks! You can comment below anonymously, if you don't feel comfortable.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Read moreApparently, Kamara (the immigrant who was beaten) was driving a stolen Nissan Altima with three friends Monday night when they ran a red light and crashed into another vehicle. All four occupants of the stolen car fled the scene. Police caught one of the occupants, and since then, Kamara has been arrested (source).
I thought that you, my readers, would find this interesting. I am not surprised. In fact, I have to wonder, did he recently steal the car, or was this awhile back? I'd be surprised, with all the spotlight on his beating, that he would have just done it, although it is possible. I'd be really curious to know the details.
I can't help but wonder if this is a piece to a much larger puzzle... Thanks, Nancy, for the update to the story!
Updated 11:38 am: Police say he stole the car on Monday morning. "A law-enforcement source said Kamara used 'advanced techniques' to break into the car, based on his statements to cops. " Furthermore, "Kamara potentially faces a maximum of two and one-third to seven years behind bars if convicted of the top count. " (source).
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
I purchased a new HP TouchSmart computer back in August. Yesterday, my hard drive failed. I called tech support, and they confirmed what I already knew. They offered to send me a replacement hard drive. I asked about free data recovery, and they said they didn't offer that. If this was a random failure, I could absolutely understand. But I have since found out it is not.
Read moreAfter I setup a replacement to be sent, I went online using my husband's laptop last night, and I looked up hard drive failures for the TouchSmart. To no surprise, I found I wasn't the only one. Through some more reading, I found this article, and this article, which states these hard drives are "failing at an alarming rate". It also states that Seagate, the manufacturer of my hard drive, is offering owners of their flagship hard drive, the Barracuda 7200.11 free data recovery.
Was I ever happy! That's the model I have! Both articles say:
"...if you are unable to access your data due to this issue, Seagate will provide free data recovery services," the company said. 'Seagate will work with you to expedite a remedy to minimize any disruption to you or your business.'"
So this morning I called Seagate, and to my surprise, I got the run around. Seagate said that I bought my hard drive through HP, so they won't deal with me. They say that I need to deal with HP, and when I call HP, they tell me they aren't required to honor this because it is not written in "their guidelines".
Good old big business squishing the little guy. I am so tired of it.
I called HP corporate, got put back into their technical support queue, and got the run around a second time. Finally, I called customer service back again, and I demanded a manager, and I was given to the "Executive Customer Relations" department, but it was fruitless as well. They refuse to help me because well, they chose not to. End of story.
My hands are tied.
Yet when I look at everything quoted in the article online by ComputerWorld.com or the MaximumPC.com, Seagate doesn't say that they will only help people with affected hard drives that were purchased directly through them, does it? No, it doesn't!
When I type in my product serial number at Seagate, it clearly says "DRIVE IS AFFECTED"
I feel violated.
To people who are experiencing this failure, like I am now, do know there is a law firm out there that is considering a class action lawsuit. You might want to put your name on the list. But I just spoke with them, too, and well, if you bought your hard drive through HP (built into your new computer), well, they aren't interested to represent you. The waters get murky in this case. Too murky. If you are affected, like me, feel free to post an e-mail below and let me know if you want to be contacted if I get any help.
I have also contacted the local media investigative team to get the word out there. If a manufacturer of a product is offering a free service to fix a defective product, they should stand by it. I should not be denied because I bought their product through another company. Most people don't buy hard drives by themselves. They buy them inside already manufactured computers.
This has been a very negative experience for me with both Seagate and HP. ____________________
Update: 02-09-2009: HP sent me another Seagate drive -- same model with the same defective firmware on it, though Seagate does say that this unit by the serial number is "not affected". I wonder if I will crash again like it did for the other guy in the forum above?
It took HP 14 days to send me recovery disks. This is absolutely unacceptable.
The people who I had repair my hard drive, One Data World Recovery, told me that I run a 40% chance that this hard drive will fail, too.
Update 6-11-2009: My second hard drive replacement failed this week, and what did HP do? They send me another defective drive by Seagate. This is unacceptable.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Christina Raines spoke out about her relationship, engagement and breakup with Drew Peterson on the CBS Early Show this week. She spoke to Julie Chen. Several of you have asked for my opinion about Raines. One person says she "appears to know something". Another asks was Raines engaged to Peterson, or not?
Who do you trust here? The suspected murderer who proclaimed he was engaged to Raines, or Raines, a young woman who says it wasn't so?
Read moreIn the beginning of the interview, Raines tells us she knew Peterson since she was 15, and she also knew Stacy.
Chen: How did this relationship with Drew get to the point where you get engaged to him?
Raines: It started out as a friendship. Notice how she doesn't deny the engagement here? ....
Chen: Do you think he [Peterson] had anything to do with her [Stacy] disappearing?
Raines: I don't feel comfortable answering that, at all, right now. (Watch her expression here, her lip tenses)
Chen: Do you think he had anything to do with the mysterious death of his third wife? (Notice the movement of her lips again).
Clearly, these questions cause Raines to become uncomfortable, and her lips truly confirm this, though she is trying to hide it as best she can. I wish they didn't zoom in so close to Christina, because in this interview, her dad, Ernest, gives off some great body language. He answers questions for her, if only with his body.
Raines says she wants people to know that she is a good person, and that she fell for Peterson with her heart, but not her head. I think Raines is being very honest here when she says this, and I think everyone can see that.
Chen: Do you love him?
Raines: I don't love him.
Chen: Did you love him? Raines: I thought I did.
Chen: How did you become engaged to him? When did you become engaged to him? Raines: It was never an engagement....really.
"Really" is what I have coined a hedge word. It's notable. Raines tries to say a very affirming statement, yet when she finishes, she hedges with the word "really". She is not confident, and the use of this word here tells us this. Furthermore, why didn't she deny she was engaged when Chen asked earlier, "How did this relationship with Drew get to the point where you get engaged to him?"
The conversation continues:
Chen: What was it, then?
Raines: It was more like a "stunt". (Notice the words "like a") Chen: On whose part? Raines: On Drew, so he could be in the media. Chen: Did you know it was a stunt? Raines: Well, he had told me that his lawyer wanted him...to... (notable, but slight shoulder shrug)...be in the media...and wanted to propose to.... someone...at a restaurant.
The last statement is very interesting. Raines pulls in her lips, which is indicative that she is feeling very uncomfortable, again. Notice how she doesn't answer the last question? She rambles on, in what feels like an attempt to convince us it was a stunt, but she doesn't say anything conclusive.
Notice how her rate of speech changed? Notice all the pauses, which are indicative of thinking on her feet? Notice how her shoulder shrugs? I can't help but want to ask who wanted a proposal in a restaurant? Notice that this is missing? Was it Peterson? Or was it his attorney? Regardless, she doesn't answer the question outright. Why is she being evasive?
My belief? I believe she didn't think it was a stunt at the time, but now she feels it was, in hindsight.
I personally believed Raines' dad, Ernest, was scared to death for his daughter when he came out in mid-December saying his daughter was engaged. He went public because he was mortified and wanted to stop her, and he didn't know how. He talked about a ring on her hand. His actions were and are believable, and now for Raines to deny it and suggest her father was lying, doesn't make logical sense. Mind you, four weeks after the supposed "stunt" engagement, Raines moved in with Peterson. It's all supportive that the engagement did, in fact, occur.
The conversation continues:
Chen: And so he said to you, we're friends, we're dating, you want to be part of this stunt? Is that how it went down?
Raines: That's how it went down, but I...would not...go with it. I would not go along with it.
Raines swallows awkwardly. I suspect this is due to her being "uncomfortable", again. Notice how she also pauses again, as she speaks, and then once she gets it out, she repeats it? It's indicative that she is not being forthright with us.
But more than that, what she is saying is nonsense. It doesn't take any rocket scientist to see this. She says she thought she was in love with him, her father talks about her engagement to him, she moved in with him, and now she says she didn't go along with this stunt? What am I missing? Does that make sense to anyone?
She got boondoggled, and I personally think she can't admit it. It's human. We've all been boondoggled in our lives, and she is no exception. When our emotions get in the mix, they cloud our judgment. She happened to get caught in a dangerous situation though, while the world was watching, and I am sure that makes it doubly hard to face, in the aftermath.
The conversation continued:
Chen: What would you say to him?
Raines: I told him no, and he said, if it comes out that I am engaged to someone, it's not really true.
(not "really" true?)
Chen: So, you were never engaged to him, is that what you are saying?
Raines: No, I was never engaged to him.
Chen: But he was putting it out there that he was engaged?
Raines: That he was engaged.
Chen: To you?
Raines: He had told me that he never said it was me. He never said that he was engaged to me, but I have heard that off camera, he had told......um...his producer, the publicist, that it was me.
(Notice she doesn't answer the question directly, again, and that she is evasive? It's almost like she had an agreement with Peterson that she would get engaged, but only if he agreed not to talk publicly about it.)
Chen: Okay, but then let me ask you this. You did live with him, correct?
Raines: I did live with him.
Chen: What was the breaking point? Why did you break up with him?
Raines: All it was...was I...moved in with him.......and the reason why I left....is...I had went on a Monday...to collect some items from my apartment...that I shared with my ex-boyfriend, Mike, and he had sat me down...
(Notice the deep sigh? Pauses? Awkwardness of what she is saying?)
Chen: Who sat you down?
Raines: Mike. And he was telling me this is not right, he's not a good guy...(cut out some conversation to shorten)...and Thursday is when Mike had asked me to move back in with him [Mike].
I'm not buying this is the reason for the break-up. One plus one doesn't equal three here. If we look at the timing, and the news, the break-up actually occurred after Peterson did an interview with Martin Bashir for ABC. Raines was living with Peterson at this time. That's when she left him, and I think the show will likely identify why the relationship fell apart, personally.
In that interview, Peterson says some very honest things. He really buries himself in this interview, because through much of it, he is shockingly honest when he talks about his womanizing, and I personally think that his honesty hit Raines hard. That, in my opinion, along with the hard facts of Peterson's history, which Bashir concisely points out, must have broken through to her and what caused things to end.
I suspect that night when the show aired, they had a blowout. I also wonder, in that blowout, if Peterson let it be known to Raines that he truly is a threat to her, because she shows fear in her interview with Chen. That's all speculation, of course, but it makes sense.
In the interview with Bashir on ABC, the following came out:
Peterson says when talking about his younger days as an undercover cop, the big joke at the time was "you had to lie to your girlfriend so you could go home and be with your wife".
He also talks about how he cheated on his second wife.
He talks about how as a police officer "the temptations are out there for womanizing".
Peterson goes on to talk about how on some TV show, he was asked if he can con anyone, and he said "Looking at it, objectively, how do you know?" He smiles eerily when he says this.
Bashir identifies that the police were called to Peterson's house on 18 different occasions when he lived with Savio.
Peterson talks about and shows Bashir the house where Kathleen Savio died, as they are parked in front of it. When asked if it is painful to see the house, Peterson says, "Right. It was kind of emotional, but it was like, what can you do? Life goes on." His response was really flippant.
In the interview, they show letters Savio wrote to authorities, stating she feared Peterson might kill her.
Bashir also uncovers that Stacy told Pam Bosco, "I love you. If anything happens to me, he killed me. It wasn't an accident."
In the interview, they show Stacy's minister admitting publicly that Stacy told him Peterson confessed to killing Savio.
Bashir says in the interview that Raines' father, Ernest, said his daughter was naive and vulnerable and that Peterson tricked her into the relationship. Peterson says, "I wouldn't say I tricked her, but I sure romanced her real good." His expression is horrifying at the end. He looks like, "Yup, I duped her, too".
Bashir says he met with Raines during the interview. Notice he never says anything about them "not being engaged"?
Bashir talks with Peterson about how he enjoys being married, but then goes on to say, "But then you start having extramarital relationship." Bashir says to Peterson, "So you enjoy the early stages of marriage, but once things settle down, you lose a little bit of interest", to which Peterson says affirmatively, "Yes. Very much so."
Peterson goes on to say that his ex-wives seemed to be bored with him after a few years and the affection on all levels died.
Bashir says it is a weakness in Drew, and isn't that something that Peterson could sacrifice, to which Peterson says, "But it's something I enjoy." It's interesting because Bashir is talking about having affairs and Peterson is thinking about his "affections", and it sounds like Peterson is saying he feels he should not be denied an affair! Perhaps it was a subconscious slip? It's certainly not the stuff to build a new relationship on when you are on shaky ground. That's for sure.
All of this, I think, would inflame a would-be-spouse, wouldn't you?
Hopefully, Raines learned numerous lessons in this experience. That's all we can hope for. I just thought it was an interesting interview because most people will take Raines at face value because of all the nonsense that Peterson has put us through, but in this instance, I don't think we can put the blame all on Peterson. Raines was a willing participant, and it was her actions that landed her as the live-in fiancee of Drew Peterson, at the very least, according to her dad.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Here is a video with the creator, Samuel Baum, and actress, Monica Raymund, talking about "naturals", like me. Tim Roth says a blurb, too. I thought you would enjoy it. Sorry but they won't let me embed it!
Interestingly, though, I was informed two years ago that no one has scored a perfect score when there were 47 truth wizards identified and most of the wizards had a background in a related field to deception ---secret service, law enforcement, psychologists, mediators, etc. I was an oddity because I did not work in a related field. And last, when Monica Raymund was asked in this interview if there is a real "Ria Torres", Raymund responds, "Well, if there was I would have heard of it so I am going to say no ..."
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
The Boulder Police have been given back the JonBenet Ramsey "cold case" from the D.A.'s office, and are said to be forming a multi-agency task force "including some of the region's most experienced investigators" (1) from the federal and state level to take a fresh new look at this case. I am so happy to hear this.
Read moreLast year, many of you will remember the previous district attorney, Mary Lacy, got back Touch DNA evidence from JonBenet's leggings that matched DNA from her underwear found at the crime scene. With that, Lacy cleared the entire Ramsey family of any involvement because they did not match the DNA.
Lacy automatically assumed that whoever touched JonBenet, in two places, had to be the killer. And for those of you who followed this case, I felt (along with many others) that this was a reckless move. Until the case is solved, no one can conclusively be cleared.
While I don't know what the truth is, or what happened that night, I just have to ask this:
How can we be certain that JonBenet wasn't molested that night by a family friend or relative at that Christmas party, before they arrived home? DNA doesn't give us the timing of events, or tell us when things occurred. With that, can we can conclusively say that the person who molested JonBenet is the same person who killed her?
Furthermore, is it possible, and I don't know, that JonBenet played with some children that night, scratched them, and contaminated herself on her leggings and underwear when going to the bathroom? Or that one child touched her on her leggings, while playing, and she then scratched them, and contaminated her underwear? Is that a possibility? Or can that be ruled out?
Can we be certain there was no DNA cross-contamination at the crime scene or by the lab?
Since Touch DNA is new, can we be certain it is foolproof? There have been other forensic evidence techniques developed in the past and used by the FBI that were later found to be flawed. Remember Touch DNA is new. We may not know all the pitfalls of using Touch DNA. The above referenced link talks about how a 40-year-old forensic technique was found to be flawed. Touch DNA was only used for 8 years prior to the JonBenet Ramsey case.
Last, there are people who can be an accessory to a crime. That is, they know what happened, and keep it quiet in an attempt to protect others. How do we know that this is not the case in this situation? How can we conclusively say that John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey could not be accessory?
I think each of these things are plausible reasons why no one should be excluded from this investigation, including the Ramseys.
Do I think John Ramsey killed his daughter? I don'tknow. I just know I personally don't trust what John Ramsey says. Something isn't right. In every interview I have seen of John Ramsey over the years, I have seen red flags.
Watch what was discussed on Nancy Grace last night:
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
There is a case I reviewed back in November about a Liberian immigrant who was beaten on election night. His story had a lot of red flags, and it made me suspicious. I can't deny it. I wrote up my thoughts and shortly after I did, a foreign language teacher came by and posted her thoughts in the comment section. She explained to me his lack of emotions and his language skills were all likely due to the fact he was an immigrant. I agreed with her that what she pointed out was important to consider when looking at this case, but I was still unresolved. I was torn and suspicious, yet undecided.
A week later, when I heard there were suspects, I posted another post asking people to let me know if they saw the suspects speak. I wanted to watch them to get a better understanding of the situation, but they never spoke out. I never got a chance to look at them to come to a conclusive opinion. Four suspects have since been arrested and plead guilty (CNN). A reader informed me this morning.
So, this is your vote. You decide.
Related News Update Added February 7, 2009: Ali Kamara, the Liberian immigrant discussed in this post above, was arrested for auto theft this week.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Disclaimer:All data and information provided on this site is for
informational purposes only. Eyes for Lies Blog makes no representations as to
accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information
on this site & will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in
this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its
display or use. This is a blog and expresses opinions of the author. Just
because Eyes for Lies does not believe someone does not mean they are (a)
lying, or (b) a liar. All information is provided on an as-is basis. Eyes for Lies does not take
any responsibility for comments published by its readers. Readers publish comments at their own risk.
By reading this blog, you agree to the terms expressed
in this link.
Copyright
Notice 2004-2011
The content of this blog cannot in any way be reproduced, replicated, copied,
duplicated or performed in any manner without express written permission from
Eyes for Lies. You don't want to get caught in a lie, do you? Ask first.
