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.
In this video, Gary Ridgeway, a serial killer, talks about the lures he used to get his victims. What Ridgeway tells us is that whatever a person's vulnerability was, he exploited it to gain people's trust. He lied as a ruse to fulfill his needs.
Hence, it is a logical assumption that people who are needy are more likely to believe other people's lies than those who aren't. Emotions, in times of need, do make us all vulnerable and it is wise to be conscious of this, specifically when we are needy.
Read moreI am always very wary of a stranger who show care or concern about something in my life that wouldn't provoke an emotional response in most people. I know people don't build bonds in quickly and when people try, it's a big red flag for me to back away--that something is likely off. It's much like a love interests who confess to loving you within days--it's a big sign to run for the hills!
Of course, kindness and generosity do exist, so it is a delicate balance, but it is always safer to err on the side of caution when it comes to strangers. Good people will usually understand your hesitation, and if they don't, I certainly don't make it my worry. To worry is precisely what titillates people like Ridgeway.
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.
ABC 20/20 profiled the story of Doug and Faylene Grant in April of this year (you can read my thoughts here), and this week Dateline did a 2 hour special on the story.
At the end of Dateline's story, they mentioned that Doug Grant was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to five years in prison. You can read more about this in the ABC15.com.
Do you think justice was served? Or do you think Doug Grant committed 1st degree murder?
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.
Phil Spector received his sentenced Friday: 19 years to life, which means he won't be eligible for parole until he is 88 years old, reports CNN.
You can read more here, or click on the labels below to read my thoughts on this case. * Several of you have asked how my dog, Lucy, is doing. She had a very difficult week. She is quite weak right now, but is still eating and functioning so we are taking it day by day. It's been so hard, so forgive me if things are slow here. My mind is very distracted...and hoping for the very best for her.
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 am not one to get into tabloid news, but several of you have requested I review video footage of Kate's sister-in-law, Jodi Kreider, and brother, Kevin Kreider, speaking out about Jon and Kate to RadarOnline.
Read moreJodi gives us this incredible story that these "Plus 8" children of Jon and Kate are being used for entertainment only, and the ramifications of the Gosselin family being the media are going to have harmful effects on the children.
While it is entirely plausible for someone to feel sorry for the children or to feel the children are victims of their circumstance (not that I agree or disagree--that's irrelevant), good old Aunt Jodi shoots herself in the foot when she talks to RadarOnline, because her actions speak louder than words.
If Aunt Jodi cares for her eight nieces and nephews, she wouldn't go to the media herself and air the family's dirty laundry. She would never even consider talking smack about Jon and Kate, because more pressure on the marriage certainly isn't going to benefit these children in any way. Logically, it will only cause more pain, grief and harm to them and their parents. Period. Creating a media firestorm will only serve to hurt the children even more, now and in the future. It's like she is itching to tear them all apart for good, for Pete's sake, and you don't need "Eyes for Lies" to see this--just a good dose of common sense.
I can't help but wonder if Aunt Jodi is jealous. I mean there was a time she was on the show and now that she is not. Is she pissed, does she miss the limelight, or what? What is motivating her to speak out?
I'd take everything Aunt Jodi and Uncle Kevin says with a grain of salt. They aren't being honest with us about their love and concern for Gosselin children--that's for sure! I'm rather repulsed by them, frankly.
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.
CNN is reporting that the remains found on the Des Plaines River last week are not those of Stacy Peterson or Lisa Stebic. Instead they are the remains of an unidentified male. You can read more here. Thanks, Jacqueline, for the update to the story.
Question for you: Do you want me to cover stories like this? Let me know by either a comment or by a rating. 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.
As many of you know, little Tori (Victoria) Stafford disappeared back in April. She simply never came home from school on Wednesday, April 8. Not long afterward, police found video surveillance of a little girl they believed to be Tori walking away from her school. She was walking with an unknown woman in a white puff coat. No one could identify the woman in the video, so the police released the surveillance footage to the public with hopes of solving the crime.
Tori's mother, Tara McDonald, who is divorced from her father, Rodney Stafford, went public to keep her daughter's story in the news. She gave press conferences on nearly a daily basis for over a month. It didn't take long before people became suspicious of Tara McDonald. On May 20, however, two people unrelated to Tori were arrested for her abduction and murder.
I thought it might be helpful for people to share their thoughts about why they didn't believe Tara McDonald and to open up a dialogue so we can learn from this experience as many people doubted Tara's sincerity.
When the story first broke, I was asked to give an opinion. I watched this video here and shared my thoughts. It was the end of April:
No hot spots for me at this time with regard to these videos, however, they don't really say anything worthy of a lie here. However, their emotions are supportive that they are truly distressed and worried.
Then over the next few weeks, many more requests were made for me to review Tara McDonald, but because I was going through a difficult time personally, I didn't draw any conclusions. I did not see any hot spots after reviewing many videos, but I just didn't feel comfortable making a decision.
When I am emotional, I refrain from giving opinions out of fear my emotions will skew my judgment. I don't always trust myself when my emotions run high, though I can honestly tell you that I did leaned towards trusting Tara.
In all the videos I watched, I only saw two oddities that were unusual, but didn't necessarily indicate a lie on Tara's behalf, hence I called them oddities and not hot spots:
When Tara said she went to visit a mysterious benefactor, I thought it was strange when Tara told us how this mysterious benefactor had a lock of his or her child's hair with them, and showed it to Tara. Who carries their deceased child's hair around with them when they are traveling? It was a strange story. I also thought it was strange that Tara went in a limo to meet a total stranger, but it could have been plausible.
In one of Tara's press conferences, she talked about how the abduction of her daughter was so much harder than she ever envisioned it. Do most parents envision what it would be like if their child was abducted? It was odd.
Those were my thoughts and where I was in this scenario. What did you think of Tara McDonald? Did you trust her? What do you think now in hindsight that she was not arrested for her daughter's murder? Did you learn anything from this experience?
What can we all learn from this experience?
* Please be respectful of all opinions shared. If you aren't comfortable using your name, feel free to pick an alias. I will moderate any rude behavior. It will not be tolerated. In order to learn, we must all feel free to share our thoughts without ridicule.
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.
Over the months, many people have asked me what I think of "Jon and Kate Plus 8". They are a couple with contrasting differences who spark strong opinions among us. When we watch the show, no matter who we are, we find ourselves taking sides.
Read moreMany people are fed up with Kate's antics and want to give her a lashing for all the verbal bashing she has given to Jon. They sympathize with Jon and the predicament his is in, after all he's the errand boy for Kate when her plans fall short. Let's face it, many people want Kate to knock it off and get off her high horse and just love Jon for Jon already. She has a great husband, they'd tell us, and she doesn't appreciate him like she should. Some people have even resorted to calling Kate a narcissist.
Yet on the flip side, there is a crowd (who I suspect is the smaller of the two) who admire Kate's strong demeanor and no-guff approach to life. They'd tell us she says it like it is, and that she isn't afraid of anyone. She tackles any challenge head-on with guts and gets the job done, which is more than anyone can say about Jon. She isn't a shrinking violet. More than that, this group would argue, Kate helps Jon find his place in the family, whereas otherwise he would wander aimlessly helping no one, clueless of what to do next.
So when news breaks like this that Jon is having an affair, you likely take sides with your favorite personality--the one you relate to the most. That's natural, but if you step back and look at the two of them without any emotional or situational biases, you'd be surprised at the road map they have given us to see the truth (in general terms) just by observing them.
While Kate has an in-your-face approach to life, there is one thing you can garner from her behavior. You will always know where you stand with Kate. If you upset Kate, she'll likely dish it to you firsthand. And if you make her happy, you can be pretty sure that she'll come bearing all smiles. Kate says it like it is and with that approach, she really doesn't have any reason to hide. You are likely going to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth--even when it is painful and hurts. That's part of the package.
People who lay it all out there usually have a very difficult time lying because their emotions are written all over their face. They aren't used to holding anything back.
Jon, on the other hand, while he is much softer and sweeter in character, isn't always able to face situations directly. He is prone to frustration and emotional bouts where he has to withdrawal because he is unable to cope. Jon hates confrontation and will often do things just to avoid it instead of dealing with the facts head-on, like Kate. When Jon and Kate get into arguments, you often see Jon walk away from the camera mumbling, unable to hear what he really thinks.
This is not to say that Jon is a bad guy, because he absolutely is not (as Jon has different and equally valuable strengths), but when it comes to honesty, which person would you trust? The person who says it to your face, or "nice guy" who avoids you when he doesn't like what you are saying?
Which person is likely to lash out behind someone's back when they are feeling sad, mad or vulnerable? Which person is likely to face the situation head-on and talk about it instead of run from their problems and create more?
You tell me... To see more of my thoughts on Jon's denial that he cheated, click here.
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.
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.
Both Nathan Gann and Brae Hansen give me pause when they tell their stories, even after they admit to involvement. Many of you commented on what you saw as deceptions in Brae's 911 call, and you did a great job! You didn't leave much left for me to say, but here are a few of my thoughts.
Read morePlease realize we know this 911 call is deceptive, so I am looking at it as if we didn't know the truth, to show you all the hot spots to deception:
Brae says, "I think we've been robbed and my Dad's been shot." What is fascinating about this is that there is no urgency on Brae's part to save her dad. Did you notice? The order of things often points to the importance of things. If Brae wanted her dad to live, she would have begged the 911 operator for help for her dad before discussing anything else. She would have also likely gone to his side and tried to help him, but instead we have to wait for the operator to ask Brae if her dad needs paramedics. It's haunting and then she doesn't say yes, she says "I think he is dead" without confirming that this is true. It's chilling. Did she already know he was dead because they checked his pulse?
When the 911 operator asked Brae what did the intruder say, Brae says, "He asked for the combination to the safe." You would think she would have recollected more details here, point of references of where she was when she noticed the intruder, specific words he said, etc. The lack of detail is an immediate red flag.
Again when 911 operator asks Brae "What did your dad do?" Brae says, "He just refused and then he shot him." The word "just" stands out to me here. It's a minimizer. It doesn't fit the scenario. Also, Brae doesn't give us any conversations or details. Again, it's a red flag.
When the 911 operator asks Brae, "Where is your dad right now?" listen to Brae's response. The tone of her voice indicates frustration--almost annoyance. Isn't frustration/annoyance an odd emotion to be feeling when her dad is lying on the floor in a pool of blood dead or dying? It's like she is annoyed by all the questions from the 911 operator. Isn't that odd?
When the 911 operator asks Brae about the intruder and says, "So he didn't take anything?" Brae first responds, "I don't know." Isn't that interesting considering she first said they were robbed? It's a big inconsistency. After a pause, she says, "He took my watch and my ring." Would that make any sense for an intruder? If he ties them both up, wouldn't he want more expensive items that just Brae's watch? Why wouldn't the intruder bug her for the safe combination? Ask her for jewelry? Steal her dad's wallet? Her purse? It raises more red flags.
Was Brae tied up to anything? If not, what intruder would just tie someone's hands behind their back yet leave them free to wander?
When the 911 operator asks Brae if she can tell if her dad is breathing, listen to the amount of time it takes before Brae answers. Clearly, Brae has no urgency whatsoever to get help. It's chilling. It's like she is thinking before she speaks and doesn't know what to say. Then she finally pipes up and says, "I'm too far away to check." If Brae wasn't tied down to anything, this is an absolutely cold and callous response--a response of someone who doesn't give a damn about the person lying on the floor. That's for sure. If she was tied up, I would expect her to say, "I can't get to him...please get here quickly" but she doesn't do that either. Nothing Brae does shows compassion for her dead or dying step-father.
Returning back to Nathan, when he spoke in his police interrogation, his body language was less than supportive of his story. Furthermore, when I listened to the account of "convicted drug dealer" who testified against Nathan, I believe him for the most part. First, he talks about facts that pan out. Second, his account matches what the police know. He also knew that Nathan bought clothing at the Goodwill for which they have a receipt. This is very damning and worse, Nathan's answer doesn't hit me as sincere. Nathan says,"...But I don’t tell him anything. I never - this man is not all there. There’s no reason why I would trust or confide in this guy."
If Nathan just wanted to shake up his step-father and scare him, then there would be absolutely no reason for him to have bought black clothes at the Goodwill, would there?
These two people were in cohoots to kill their step-father. There is no doubt about it. Brae may have had doubts during the killing, but in the end, she didn't seem to show any regrets or desire to help her father immediately thereafter, did she? It's very chilling. * Please rate stories below. It helps me know what is most interesting to you, my readers!
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.
Human skeletal remains were found on the Des Plaines River near Channahon, Illinois, on Wednesday not far from where two women disappeared: Stacy Peterson and Lisa Stebic.
They were found by Chad Pregracke, the founder of Living Lands & Waters in East Moline, a nonprofit group that cleans up waterways in nine states.
Pregracke, 34, was alone on a 30-foot flat bottom work boat Wednesday shortly before 2:30 p.m., pulling garbage out of the Des Plaines River when he came across the bones.
The article also says:
A plastic blue barrel was spotted in the vicinity of the body. Channahon resident Michelle Williams told WGN Radio host John Williams this morning that she and her husband saw the barrel in heavy brush on the riverbank on Sunday and she saw it again on Tuesday.
However, people who are familiar with the river say that seeing a blue barrel on the river in not an uncommon sight.
Police say it will take several weeks before they will get any DNA lab results back. You can read more here at CNN as well.
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.
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.
Thanks for all the well wishes. My dad did good. It was difficult news, though. He did have a heart attack they think, though it was mild. They found a 95% blockage in a large coronary artery and have stented it. We feel blessed about it all in hindsight now, because we still have my dad. The doctor said had it not been treated, he wouldn't have survived. He was a very, very lucky man.
However, at 2:00 a.m. last night, my sweet doggie, Lucy (the white dog in the photo next to Charlie), who developed a cough in the past week, had a seizure, stroke or something where she sat up, panted really hard, coughed, she cried out in pain and collapsed, though she didn't go unconscious. It took her system for a loop. She got terribly weak, but she seems to have recouped now, though she has been struggling with appetite and other issues for 4 to 6 weeks.
I feel like life has carved out my insides. I can't endure another emotional pain right now. I hope my doggy is ok. We are taking her to the vet later this afternoon. Please forgive me if I am absent for a few days...
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.
My dad is in the hospital -- please send positive thoughts for him. Tonight at 6 or 7 PM CST he goes in to have an angioplasty. They think he has a blockage. He spent the night in ICU. Please hope all goes well for him. I'm on pins and needles. He is being transferred to another hospital as I write this, and I am off to go there now. ~ Eyes
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 big story breaking in Australia this week about rugby player Matthew Johns. He was also a TV commentator, but due to a sex scandal that broke recently which involved him, he was removed from the Australian TV Nine Network indefinitely.
Johns went public to talk about the allegations on the Nine Network this week (part 1, part 2, part 3) and his interview is fascinating. When he sits down to talk to the reporter, before he ever says a word, his face ticks with many movements, one of which appears to be contempt. He actually appears to show contempt many times in this interview.
Several people from Australia have contacted me and are interested to know what I think so below I will share with you my personal opinion.
Read moreIn this interview, I see Johns as someone who is continually holding himself back, self-censoring and angry. Look at how tense his lips and body are. You can feel it just watching him. It's palpable. Other times, he clenches his teeth, takes deep breaths, and pulls his lips in. He sighs heavily. We see his nose twitch upwards rapidly once or twice, too--all of which suggest anger. I suspect if you were to talk to Johns in private, he would be full of anger, not genuinely sorry for his actions and what happened that night, but sorry and angry that he was exposed and is being held accountable, at the very minimum, in the public eye. I also suspect there is more to this story than what we know right now.
Because of his anger, his apology comes off very weak and insincere. When we take responsibility for our actions, hold ourselves accountable, and are truly sorry, it is natural for anger to dissipate. Instead, with Johns, I see resistance, incredible resistance, and I don't feel Johns is owning up to an apology, outside of empty words, which are easy to say. Giving a heart felt apology is entirely different.
At one point in the interview, Johns even says, "....my thoughts and my energies are directed towards my family, all the pain I've caused them." It confirms for me the woman, who is at the center of this matter, isn't truly a concern of his.
Johns doesn't seem to show any anger at himself for his actions either. I would expect him to say he was angry at himself, if he was. There would be absolutely no reason to hide it. It would only support his apology, make it stronger and more believable, but it is oddly missing. And at the end of the interview when the reporter says he career is over, and he finishes speaking, he cries. I suspect he is crying for himself.
Also, when Johns talks, he hedges, stammers, searches for words, has long pauses and many false starts, because he is thinking as he speaks, instead of speaking from his heart about what he knows to be true. This behavior does not support honesty. It does not support that Johns is telling us what he truly believes, if you want my opinion.
When Johns say, "I take full responsibility... for the predicament I find myself in" watch as he finishes. There is this slight head shake afterward (no), which I suspect is a gut response--a subconscious response. But as he thinks about what he said consciously, you then see him nod slightly yes. It's fascinating body language.
Notice how Johns doesn't answer the reporter's question here?
TG: How could she in going back to the room with two of you have ended up being a willing participant in a queue of blokes at the foot of the bed having sex with her?
MJ: Well, at the time, when we went back, I was totally unaware that other people were coming into the room. At the point that they did, I stepped away.... from it. Ugh.............In the statements that were made.... to the police.... it says that..... she encouraged players to come forward..... and then she actually......................what she, she said "someone come forward and have sex with me", um.....at which one player said he would.... and she said "no no, anyone but you" and pointed to me again, which I declined.
This is really confusing! He stepped out of the room at the point when other people entered? Earlier Johns said, "I was there on the night and I did see what happened and at no point did she object, at any stage, to what was going on." How can he then make the latter statement, conclusively, if he stepped away at some point? Even more odd, he cites police report statements, yet in a weird twist, suddenly he is back to being in the room again. If he stepped away, then how could she point to him again, and how could he decline? How could he leave as soon as others came in unexpectedly, but still be there when she supposedly picked and chose her men (which is ridiculous)?
Johns story doesn't make sense, and doesn't follow chronological order of how we remember things. It's is riddled with inconsistencies, which is a red flag. Was Johns there the whole time or not? Why does he refer to police statements instead of sticking to his memories?
Johns continues:
MJ: After I declined, I stepped out of the room, but I stepped back in to make sure that everything... was okay, that she was not under any distress.... and at no time was she under any distress.
Again, when did Johns step out? Before or after the other players arrived? I don't believe he was the saint he is portraying himself to be that night. Notice the pauses, which indicate he is thinking on his feet, not talking from the heart.
TG: You see Matthew, most right-thinking people would be listening to you right now saying how could you have looked at that scenario and seen anything that was OK in it.
MJ: Morally, it's not OK.
TG: She was 19 years old, she was naked, she was outnumbered, there was a very clear power imbalance in that room, wasn't there?
A minute later:
TG: Isn't there something in your mind, that says this is wrong, this is wrong on every level, this is a vulnerable woman, she wants more from this situation than we're ever going to give her, and this is just wrong (time marker 7:47, video 1).
Watch Johns response before he even talks. He shakes his head no, and he gives another expression of contempt. Does that seem like he is sorry to you? As he responds, he wrinkles his nose very briefly, which is an expression of anger as well, repressed anger. Why does this make him angry? Why does he feel contempt?
More of the interview:
TG: You have a perfect opportunity right now to step up and send a message to other players about this culture. This is your opportunity Matt.
MJ: Tracey, I would say to players, if it's a situation where . . . I'm just looking for the right words . . . if it's a situation where......... things occur which are dangerous and they're stupid and you make decisions that you most certainly will regret later, that at the time you give no thought to, but Tracey at the moment, as much as I love the game of rugby league and the people who play it, my thoughts and my energies are directed towards my family, all the pain I've caused them.
TG: And what about to this girl?
MJ: For the pain and the trauma that she's felt out of all this and the embarrassment, I'm truly sorry. It's caused a lot of pain and embarrassment to a lot of people.
Here the reporter gives Johns an opportunity to speak about his situation, and offers him a way to help others. Does his answer reflect any concern for the woman whatsoever? Does it expresses sorrow or regret for what happened to the woman here, or other women due to this sex culture among the athletes? Or does Johns show more concerned about himself and his love of rugby and the people who play it? You tell me....Notice he has to be prompted to think of the woman at all. Johns talks about being afraid about this all coming out for seven years, and that when the reporter called him, it was a relief to "ending all the fear". Why would he be so afraid if it was all consensual? If he did nothing wrong?
When the reporter asks the couple at the very end, what effect has all of this commotion had Johns and his wife, both of them look around and don't answer for a notable amount of time. They obviously don't want to discuss their true feelings, or they would have spoke right up. They didn't know what to say (perhaps because they've been really angry?) and finally John's wife spoke up, and talks about how they had to remove the children because they didn't want them to be a part of it.
The interview continues:
TG: Well, you've lost your career to speak of, you came awfully close to losing your marriage, what do you do now?
MJ: Well, I've got to go away and make it up to my wife and make it up to my family, that's where my priorities lay. As far as my career at Channel 9, that's the furthest thing from my mind at the moment.
Johns tears up finally, because I suspect he realizes his career is over, and that is his pain. This is all about Johns and his family, not the woman who is the center of this. I just don't believe Johns is sorry about what happened to her in any way, and I do not believe the woman had consensual sex with a group of rugby players by choice.
Notice at the end of the interview how Johns wife takes a minute before she defends him and says they have worked it all through (past tense) and are closer than ever before? But once she is finished talking, she abruptly walks off the set without him? Her body language and actions speak volumes louder than her words, don't they? So do Matthew Johns.
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.
Breaking news: Daniel Wade Moore was found not guilty today on charges that he killed Karen Tipton back in 1999. From WAFF48:
Moore was acquitted on four counts of capital murder and one lesser charge of non-capital intentional murder related to the death of Tipton, who was found slashed and stabbed to death in her home.
More from WHNT. See the poll results from viewers at WHNT here.
I first wrote about the case in 2005 here. I always believed in Moore's innocence and I put his case my list of cases I didn't agree with in the right-hand column (it's still there).
I am so happy to hear that Moore finally got justice. He paid a long and hard price in his life for poor decisions, but I don't think he ever made the decision nor committed the crime of murder.
This is worth a celebration! To read all of my thoughts on this case, click on the labels below.
Thanks, Becky, for the first lead to this breaking story!!
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 new video of Ronald Cummings at www.FindHaleighNow.com. It is obvious Ronald is reading from a teleprompter (or some other medium).
As the video launches, Ron gives us a fake smile (I suspect as a result of being asked to do so), but then, before and after his emotional pause, there is a genuine glow underneath it all that he cannot conceal.
Even with coaching, you still can't hide the truth. I personally believe when people are coached, it only exasperates the inconsistencies even more. Coaching only adds to a person's overburdened cognitive load, if they are lying.
To read all of my opinions 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.
Tonight was the season finale, and I must say it rocked. They got it right on the money and kept me on the edge of my seat (which not every episode did). I enjoyed reading the faces because the actors did superb. I could actually call out the shots, because the expressions were spot on much of the time! Very cool. I'm looking forward to next season!
Funny thing is while I love watching the actors, my husband is superb at picking up and predicting the plot, for which I have zero ability. He always says, "Want to know how it is going to end?" to which I say "Yeah." What he says afterward is usually right on the money and I have no idea how he does that! I can't do that for all the tea in China.
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 was bummed to hear that Amanda Knox is planning on speaking in Italian when she testifies on her own behalf. That sucks for us, and this blog! Maybe she'll change her mind?
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.
Ester Reed seems to have to perfect combination of EQ and IQ. Combine the two and remove a guilty conscience, and you have a dangerous mix. You have a person who will do great harm to others and not think twice about the wave of damage that comes after her.
Read moreWhat is so fascinating about Ester Reed, when you watch her speak, is that she lacks the arrogance you would expect to see. People with her abilities are usually quite confident, most often arrogant and usually love to show off.
One could argue that Ester isn't arrogant in this interview, because we see her after her arrest, but when you look at Ester's photos, and you look at how she dressed, what cars she drove and her friends, you get a strong indication Ester was not an arrogant or showy person by any means.
Was it her lack of arrogance and her simple demeanor that put people at ease? Is her humility what caused people to trust her? I can't help but wonder if this played into her success. It is clear to me that Ester's demeanor breaks the mold for the typical behavior and actions of most con artists. Few con artists are as "mousey" and quiet as she comes across.
I feel quite strongly, if I were to sit in a room with Ester and introduce her to people, she would have an uncanny ability to pick out the trusting people. When I look at the people 48 Hours interviewed, who had befriended Ester, each of the people were generally trusting of others, except her one boyfriend in Chicago. He was quite intelligent and I suspect his intelligence drew Ester in. Ester has a radar for picking out the right people for her needs. I suspect she can read people like a book and knows who to hone into to get what she wants.
Not only can Ester read people well, she can manipulate her own behaviors to get other people to like her. Walt Wilkins, on 48 Hours said, 'She's a master of manipulation. And she can socially engineer anyone into liking her.'"
Yet when I watched Ester talk about herself, I get the distinct feeling she truly does loathe herself. Ester Reed's English teacher, Jim Therriault, said it best when he said, Ester was, "Somebody she didn't want to be. Someone she didn't like. Someone I think she would have done anything to escape from if she could have."
Ester expressed disgust for herself, but in a strange twist, she truly enjoyed being questioned if she was telling the truth. She loves that power play and delighted in the fact she can "sell ice to Eskimos" should she choose. Ester has a love/hate relationship with herself that is hard to grasp.
None of Ester's friends, however, talked about her stealing from them. I found that interesting. Yet she had no problem stealing from her own family, and worse walking away from them completely. She obviously has attachment issues. Most people have a very difficult time breaking bonds, even bonds that were formed for only months, but Ester lacks this as well.
It's scary because what will cause Ester to stop these behaviors? I guess it will come down to the price of life on the run is no longer worth it for her. If she doesn't reach that pinnacle, there will likely be no stopping her because a conscience hasn't worked so far nor has normal bonding in relationships.
Ester said, "For some reason, new people are not as frightening as people I know. Like people I get used to, they start to get a look on their face, or maybe she's treating me a little differently now. So new places, for some reason, were safer for me." I believe when Ester says this--this is the truth for her. When she lies and deceives, she is constantly wary someone will pick up on her schemes. It becomes exhausting, so new faces give her a sense of peace.
Ester is truly an interesting person on many levels. I'll be curious to watch what she does with her life. She'd be best to give Frank Abagnale a call, and learn some wise lessons for him. Life on the run as a criminal was lonely and isolating according to him, and the price he paid in the end likely wasn't worth the rewards he got -- all under an assumed name. It's much more fun to be your authentic self, because while Ester ran from herself, the only thing she truly changed was her name. The rest of her behaviors and actions were genuinely Ester, and can be used for the good as equally as the bad.
Vicky Ward over at the Huffington Post wrote about Ester Reed last year. It is a long, yet interesting article.
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.
Frank Abagnale talks about Ester Reed to 48 Hours. If you don't know who Abagnale is, you should watch the movie, "Catch Me If You Can". He is a fascinating person.
Abagnale has a humbleness about him, as does Reed, which is truly unique considering their intellect and ability to fool people. The arrogance that you would expect to see is strangely missing.
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.
Daniel Wade Moore's third trial went to the jury this week. So far the jury has deliberated two days, and is due to report back to the courthouse on Monday at 9:00 a.m. I have been keeping an eye out, waiting to hear the jury's verdict.
I saw Daniel Wade Moore speak about the crime on 48 Hours years ago, and I saw Dr. Tipton speak as well. I can tell you I do not believe Daniel Wade Moore killed Karen Tipton. In the first trial, Daniel Wade Moore was convicted, but that was overturned due to misconduct by the prosecutor. The second trial resulted in a hung jury, and amazingly, the courts decided to try him once again.
I wonder how the law will work if the third jury comes back hung again?
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 was out walking my dog just a little while ago on a quiet dead end street when this car drove by. I took notice because there was no one around, but didn't worry about it. I just noticed the license plates were local, and the guy behind the wheel was in his late 40s, early 50s. He had blondish hair and wide set eyes.
Read moreAs the car came back from over the hill from the direction of the dead end, I noticed the man's window was down, so I knew he was going to stop to ask me something. I was a little uneasy at this point because there wasn't a soul around. Behind me was a wooded park, and I would be between him and trees. Naturally, as he stopped, I stepped about 10 feet back and off to an angle. I don't like being approached by strangers in cars.
He looked up at me, gave a polite (fake) smile and said, "You haven't seen a loose dog around here, have you?"
"No," I replied feeling slightly uncomfortable.
"Okay", he said, scanning his rear view mirror.
"What kind of dog are you looking for?" I asked him.
"Uh, um...uh....a....Doberman Pincher," he replied scanning around.
The way he said Doberman Pincher was as if it were a question! Not good.
Why is this guy struggling to identify his dog? Why is he scanning his rear view mirror and looking around? My alarm bells were blaring, and just at that time, my neighbor appears about 40 feet away! Was I relieved!! The guy in the car notices him instantly, too.
"If I see this dog, where do you live so I can bring him back, if I do spot him?" I asked with a little more confidence since my neighbor was there.
"Well, it's actually a neighbor's dog...and I told him I'd go look around for him." At this point, he is slowly letting the car roll away from me.
I knew at this point everything this guy just said to me was a lie.
"What street do you live on?" I asked probing for more information.
He hit the breaks, but is giving me definite clues he wants to bolt. "Walberg," he told me, "about a mile and a half away."
"Don't worry about bringing the dog back," he said, "Just call the sheriff." As he saw my neighbor approach, he turned his head and put his foot on the gas and eased out of there.
Something was very off about this guy.
My neighbor and I chatted a few minutes and I told him the story. He said, "That's interesting. The guy only went up about 3 more houses and turned around. He never even went to the end of the block (which is a dead end)."
Hmmm...he is looking for a dog, and he doesn't even drive to the end of the road to see if the dog is down there, the area closest to where he tells me he lives nearest to! Also, in hindsight, he didn't say, "You haven't seen a doberman pincher loose, have you?" He saw my dog and "dog" was the first thing that stuck in his head and formed his lie. Uh!
My neighbor and I then chatted about the car, and you know, I couldn't come up with one detail about the car. My neighbor then identified it was a late blue model something, to which I replied, "I think I could identify his face, but that is all."
My skin is crawling!! I don't want to know why this guy just lied. Thank god for neighbors!!
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.
"...in an exclusive interview with 48 Hours Mystery, Esther Elizabeth Reed claims she is "not clear why people consider me a con artist. [Not] everyone who tells a lie is a con artist…I never borrowed a penny, opened a credit card that I did not intend on paying back."
The words "did not intend" immediately jump out at me as manipulative. Wouldn't an honest person say, "I never borrowed a penny, opened a credit card that I did not pay back"? People who are less than honest often say they have the right intentions, but usually never have the right actions. That's like when people promise you they will "try", it usually means they aren't serious!
As always, if she is a good subject, I will write about her next week. Don't forget to check back for my thoughts, and don't forget to setup your DVRs!!
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.
Breaking news (thanks, R!): Drew Peterson has been arrested late today (5:35 CST) for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. From The Herald News:
“I guess I should have returned those library books,” a hand-cuffed Drew Peterson said Thursday afternoon as he was being led into state police headquarters.
I can only think about how devastating this must be to Thomas and Christopher. My heart bleeds for these boys, and for Drew's younger children. Their life has been total chaos. I wish these boys and all of Drew's children strength and courage.
The Larry King show reported that Peterson is being held on a $20 million dollar bond. I don't think I've ever heard of a bond that high. They said it will likely be reduced.
Click on the labels below to read all I have written about Drew Peterson since Stacy's disappearance. I will never forget the quote I saw in the Sun-Times when Peterson spoke about Stacy, "I believe she's not missing." I will never forget it.
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.
Dr. Timothy Stryker, 57, of Winchester, was sentenced to four years in state prison for orchestrating and directing a perjury conspiracy in connection with the death of Dr. Lynn Goudey, a Stoneham obstetrician who was killed in 1993.
The Board of Registration in Medicine voted Wednesday to revoke Stryker’s license in light of the criminal conviction.
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 moreMany of you said you were going to watch the McCanns on Oprah this week. I watched it with the saddest of heart, yet an open mind, just in case I have missed something in the past. I have always believed the McCanns were honest, and after watching this interview, I still feel strongly that they are not involved in their daughter's disappearance.
I was fascinated to watch Gerry talk about what I have said as well, "How do you prove a negative?" How do the McCanns prove they are innocent? It's one of the biggest challenges honest people face who are falsely accused.
If we speculate that the McCanns did, in fact, harm and kill their daughter, they would have to lie from the first day she disappeared until today. The cognitive load they would be under would be huge, if they are lying, because every natural thought they had, every word they spoke and every emotion they felt would have to be censored before they expressed themselves. That means they couldn't talk from their heart or gut, because if they did, they risked exposing their lies.
With that, we would likely see one or both of them have guilt for what they did or allowed to happen, which would appear at times when we wouldn't expect to see it. We'd also likely see fear that they might be discovered or expose their lies. More than that, we would expect to see stress as carrying that cognitive load would be exhausting and easy to mess up. Imagine, one mistake and the lie is over, and one or both of them would go to prison for life. Their other children would be abandoned to grow up without parents.
If you imagine the intensity these two people would be under to conceal such a lie, you would quickly realize that doing media interviews, like the McCanns did, after Madeleine disappeared, would be the last thing anyone would want to do. Liars typically don't draw attention to themselves unless they feel arrogant enough that they can dupe the world. The McCanns do not show any arrogance. The type of person who comes to mind with this arrogance is Drew Peterson. Peterson and the McCanns are light-years away from each other.
Logically, it is inconsistent for the whopping majority of the people who are lying to create a worldwide media stir because that would only intensify the pressure on themselves to maintain the lie. If anything, most people would avoid the media and privately seclude themselves if they were lying, but the McCanns did anything but that. They worked tirelessly to get keep Madeleine's name in the media's spotlight worldwide and did many interviews with the media--even after they were called "arguidos", which would be the pinnacle of stress, if you are deceptive, and hiding a secret of this magnitude.
If you watch the McCanns speak in this interview, they speak from their hearts. They speak from their guts. They don't give any indications that they are self-censoring. They don't stammer and struggle for words, hesitate, or say nonsensical things. They don't get their word tense mixed up, they don't show a hint of being afraid or stressed out. They are not and have not been arrogant (confident yes, arrogant no). Their emotions match what they are saying, and their facial expressions down to every single tick are consistent with their words. This is very hard to do when one is lying--especially about something as painful as this.
The McCann's also express genuine hope, at times, which would be inconsistent with a lie. And even more important, they give us supporting stories, which precisely fit the scenario of truth they are telling us, which would be exceptionally rare for liars to do, and even harder to accomplish if they were making up a story of their innocence.
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 there is one story in all the years that really stands out in my mind, it is the story of Tom and Jackie Hawks. The Hawks fulfilled a dream, and retired on a 55-foot yacht named The Well Deserved, docked in Newport Beach, California. For four years, they cruised on the ocean enjoying a life Tom always dream about. But when their grandchildren came, they decided to return back to land and sell their boat.
Read moreThat's when conman and killer, Skylar Deleon, came into the picture. He didn't want to buy the boat, he wanted to take it from the Hawks, and he did just that. How he did it and what ultimately happened is enough to make anyone sick. Then to watch Deleon, who is so obvious deranged, talk about it so flippantly just blows you away that a human being can be so "off". Every single time I watch him, he makes my skin crawl. He is unable to contain his joy when he talks about the Hawks murder, and he still has no problem lying without blinking an eye. It's chilling. If you missed 48 Hours this past Saturday, its definitely worth watching.
ABC's 20/20 also covered this story back in February, and Skylar Deleon told us in this video snippet that he was sorry. Did you believe him? I'll post my thoughts about this video snippet in the comment section later 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.
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 interview with Drew Peterson and his two sons whom he fathered with Kathleen Savio. It's a painful interview to watch. These two boys, Thomas and Christopher, have paid a huge price, likely as a result of Drew's actions, but he is still their dad, and he is all they have right now with regards to a parent.
Someone suggested I review this video on my Topic Suggestion page, but I have to say, I don't feel it is fair for me to analyze the children. They've been so much, and they are young, and my heart goes out to them.
In this interview, Drew doesn't show any indications that he is controlling or nervous in letting his son, Thomas, speak. You get the sense he trusts his son. There is almost a sadness that has come over Drew at this point. I wonder if his attorney or someone else suggested that he go on TV with his kids? It hasn't been like Drew to put his children in the media. It seems out of character for him.
In this interview, Drew mentions that he still calls Christina Raines his girlfriend. Isn't that interesting? Obviously they are still seeing each other.
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.
On Wednesday, Drew Peterson took to the airwaves again, and it was too much for Stacy's sister, Cassandra Cales, to bear. She called in, unannounced, and shared her feelings with Drew. The audio segment is raw and painful, and the audio noise in the background makes listening to the conversation flat out eerie. You can't help but feel for a family who has been torn apart by the devastating and suspicious death of their loved one.
What also caught my eye when I was at the Chicago Sun-Times was an image of Stacy and her sister, with Stacy only wearing an overcoat (and nothing else), and her sister, Cassandra, wearing Drew's SWAT team uniform and holding a huge machine gun.Click to see the photo.
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 do have to say it is sad the media gave these two so much attention. I think the story should have been verified for authenticity better than it was. I concur with Steve Huff from True Crime Report.com.
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.
