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.
Ronald Cummings was on Nancy Grace tonight. Thanks to "C" for letting me know. Nancy Grace and her colleagues seem to feel that Ronald Cummings is in denial that his now wife failed the polygraph.
I was shocked at their response!!
Ronald Cumming looks like a different man tonight. I believe this is because the pressure is mounting on Misty and he is scared to death the cards are all going to come falling down on him.
All of Ronald's responses reaffirmed my original beliefs that Ronald knows a lot more than he is telling us! I do not believe he is just a victim to this crime and I stand by that.
If this video gets posted online, let me know and I will share my thoughts.
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.
Jennifer Campbell and her boyfriend, Louis Ross, were arrested Friday on suspicion of murdering Campbell's adopted nephew, Hassani. Due to all the requests, I will share my thoughts with you.
Read moreWhen I watch Campbell speak, the first thing that I notice is a resignation about her that blares at me. I don't feel any urgency from her to hurry up and find her nephew, which is very perplexing to me, if she truly believes he was abducted or walked away. It's an immediate red flag.
I also don't see her express any fear for Hassani or stress that he is missing. She is calm and relaxed, as if she knows the outcome already, which is not good. It's another red flag.
Campbell also cries, yet ironically, there are no tears for quite some time. More than that, she "cries" and talks in this high-pitched voice, which is more indicative of a whine to me. It doesn't seem genuine, though I do think she is genuinely sad. She expresses a genuine pain, at times, though I don't know if I can explain it. I just feel she is sad about whatever happened. I just do not believe she is as distraught here, in the present, as she wants us to believe. If her behavior is any indication, she has had some time to come to accept this outcome, if you want my opinion.
I also find it weird how Campbell suggests that someone could have pulled in the driveway behind the store and saw Hassani, and hence taken him, without her or her boyfriend knowing. When you look at the scenario of how and where Hassani supposedly disappeared according to Campbell and Ross, most people would conclude the chances of this actually occurring would be nil--almost an impossibility -- simply because of the time it would take compared to the time it took Ross to walk to and from the front and back door. But Campbell entertains it, which is notable. For Campbell to believe this shows a big inconsistency in her story, if you want my opinion. What is more interesting is when she says this, her shoulder goes up in doubt.
Campbell's body language towards the interviewer is also perplexing, if she is telling us the truth. She is leaning away from them, with a frightened look in her eyes. Why is she afraid of them? If her nephew was truly abducted or wandered off, the media would be her best potential help to get the word out there. They would be her friend, but she doesn't appear to feel that way. It's another red flag.
I also read in the case that Campbell said she didn't want to take a lie detector test because she is pregnant and she didn't want to get stressed out, or stress the baby out. This is huge red flag as well. Everyone knows if you are telling the truth, a lie detector test is not a stressful event. It's when we lie that the stress becomes overwhelming!
I personally think Campbell knows more than she is letting on here. Sadly, I believe she ultimately knows what happened to Hassani, but isn't saying.
I will try to write about Louis Ross and Misty Cummings this week! Stay tuned.
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 a case like this, it is always interesting to hear what the suspect has to say. Sadly, he doesn't say much, but what he does say is suggestive that he is delusional. To suggest there is anything "heartwarming" about this abduction, kidnapping, and rape is gut wrenching in and of itself.
I am equally fascinated to see into the world of Garrido's wife. What was she thinking? How could she support this? Did she support this? Was she of sane mind? You have to question her sanity in situation like this. Was she under the control of Phillip Garrido, too, in some way?
I'll be curious to see this story unfold. This story is the stuff of real life nightmares...
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.
HANFORD — A Kings County Superior Court jury found Dave Hawk guilty of killing his ex-wife, who disappeared three years ago from her north Hanford home and whose body has never been found. Today was the third day of deliberation.
[...]
Statements from jury members Jury foreman Kenny Knutson, 33, of Lemoore, said that during testimony about Debbie Hawk's screams the night she disappeared, Hawk's reaction "was almost remembering, yeah, that's exactly how it happened. That's when I first started to think he was connected to it. He either did it or had it done." Read more here...
I original wrote about Dave Hawk on May 10, 2007 and I did not trust him at all. I am happy to see that justice was served today! If they could only find Debbie Hawk's body now to give the family peace.
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.
You can read the polygraph questions Misty failed here.
You can read my original thoughts about Ronald and Misty (nee Croslin) Cummings here. To read all of my posts on this subject, you need to search the archives.
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.
When I watch Rifqa Bary in the first few seconds of this video, her behavior changes from a happy "Hi" to this supposedly scared young girl. These two behaviors are very contradictory and my first red flag. It's as if Rifqa didn't notice the camera and when she did, she slinks down into an act.
When the reporter asks Rifqa what is going on, Rifqa's demeanor changes again. Notice how she immediately looks down as she starts talking, "Well, ah...I'm a Christian and uh, my parents are Muslim, they're extremely devout..."
Read moreNotice she shows no sign or indication of fear at all? She doesn't show any signs or indication of stress either at this point. As a matter of fact, she continually flashes smiles throughout this video and even breaks down at one point in laughter when she says, "...I don't know if you know about honor killing, but this faith, that the...you guys don't understand...".
When you are scared out of your mind that someone might kill you, you don't smile. It's a complete contradiction. Also, notice how when she talks and gets rolling, she isn't scared at all as the man in the video first said? She rather seems to enjoy the attention at times.
When Rifqa says, as she buries her face in the man's chest standing next to her, "They don't understand", her voice is indicative of a classic whine. There are no tears, and she is not crying, yet her shoulders shake as if she is. The actual act of crying would cause Rifqa body to shake, yet she isn't crying. There are absolutely no tears whatsoever. One plus one doesn't equal two here. Notice how Rifqa doesn't want you to see her face when she pouts like this? Has she been called out on her "crying episodes" before?
In the middle of her crying, she breaks out into a laugh again when she says, "I can't go back to Ohio." She holds back laughter just after this as well.
Notice how she rambles on? When people are deathly afraid, they typically shut down. It's not common for people to ramble in a state of true deep fear--especially fear that one's life is stake. It's notably odd here. I would agree that she is nervous here, but that could be for a variety other of reasons.
I find it fascinating that she put her beliefs on Facebook, if she truly believed such knowledge could cause her father to kill her. She was willing to go public on Facebook without fear of being killed? This again is a complete contradiction. And now she seems to think if she stays in Florida that she will be safe? If her father "has to kill her", would she be safe anywhere?
I find it interesting how she says her father "was about to me beat me." Obviously, he didn't lay a hand on her, but it sure makes him sound bad doesn't it?
Rifqa says, "I snuck out to Christian prayer meetings in fear of my life." Does this make any sense? If she is afraid for her life, why would she do this now? Ironically, if you listen, Rifqa tells us her dad knew about her religious views for some time, because supposedly he enrolled her in "class after class after class" hoping to convert her back to Islam. When you realize her dad knew about this for some time, and Rifqa refused to respect her dad's wishes, you have question, is this fear of religious persecution or a battle of the wills between a teenage daughter and her father? It's obvious she knew her dad disapproved and she continued anyway. Where was her fear of being killed then? What caused her to change?
Notice how Rifqa's behavior is very different as she tells us what I suspect are true facts about how she hitch-hiked to a bus station. Rifqa says, "I got a ticket to Florida because I had met them through a prayer (unintelligible) on Facebook..." [I'm curious, who bought that ticket-- the Florida pastor?]Notice how Rifqa makes normal eye contact when she says that? When she gives these details, her demeanor changes a 180 degrees. That's what makes her other behavior even more outstanding.
Look at her smile when she says, "Imagine the honor in killing me."
I also noticed how when she says either they will kill her or send her to an asylum, when she says "asylum" the first time, she says it as a question. We can't see her face, but it appears she is looking for confirmation from the man in front of her, who is being represented as an expert, if it is, in fact, an asylum. She then repeats the word "asylum" again as a statement. This suggests that her dad didn't tell her this, it is these men in her life (standing beside her and in front of her now), who brought her to Florida, that likely introduced her to some aspects of this concept. That's scary and indicative of brainwashing!
The reporter then says, "Do you really think this is true or just a threat?" Watch Rifqa smile and laugh nervously. Where is her fear?? Notice she doesn't answer the question.
Rifqa starts her whine again, "I am one of hundreds." She talks faster and tries to get more convincing, but she is lacking any emotional support to her claims. She continually laughs over and over again, and worse she keeps looking to this man off camera in front of her, who is supposedly knowledgeable on this for support. If she truly believed this, should wouldn't need his affirmation, but she keeps visually seeking it.
I personally do not believe Rifqa is being sincere with us. I also question the motives of the people who are supposedly "helping her". Regardless of all of this, I do think it is prudent an investigation take place to ensure all appropriate steps are taken as a precaution, because "honor killings" are real and do go on in the world, though it is rare in the U.S. (though have occured).
I hope for Rifqa's sake, too, that she is simply crying wolf.
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.
Sam Parker is on trial this week for the murder of his wife, Theresa Parker, whose body has never been found. A fellow police officer and friend to Sam at the time, Harbin "Ben" Chaffin, was later arrested for four felonies related to this case, one of which was tampering with evidence and another was making false statements to investigators.
Ben has been given immunity, if he testifies against Sam. You can see some footage of the testimony here.
Read moreBen testified this week that Sam called him on March 22, 2007, and confessed to the murder of Theresa. Ben said:
He [Sam] said, uh...something like he'd really done it this time or he was really going to do it this time. [Voice in court: You are not sure which of them?] No, ma'am. [Voice in court: What else did he say?] He said he that had a place that was hard to find her or that they never would find her. And that he'd shot Theresa through the head.
You then hear a voice question Ben, "You didn't tell them about this so-called murder confession you heard simply because you forgot about it?" Ben replied, "I forgot about it." According to reports, Ben didn't remember this during three interviews with the GBI, until he was offered immunity.
Yet strangely, other news reports are saying that Ben said that he "blubbered like a baby"after Sam called him. If news reports are correct that Ben said he "blubbered like a baby" after the call, it is a complete contradiction to the fact that he supposedly "forgot" about the confession later. If something is traumatic to you, enough to cause you to try like a baby, you do not forget about it later. Period.
Ben's account of the phone conversation on the night of March 22, 2007, raises many red flags for me. First, do you notice how Ben recounts the conversation in third person and doesn't give us any first person accounts?
Second, when a person doesn't hear something correctly, as Ben suggests he didn't, especially when someone is talking about something as monumental as a murder, most people would ask for clarification, if they didn't hear things, but obviously Ben didn't. I find this very odd. I have to wonder was he already privy to something going down? Is that why he didn't ask for clarification? Or is this exact conversation that Ben is telling us completely false? I don't know.
We could suppose that Ben was afraid of Sam, if he did in fact help his friend in someway do something illegal, or if Sam threatened him, and hence that is why he didn't dare question Sam. But then we would have expected Ben to make logical sense out of Sam's first and second statement, if he did decide to share this confession with people--if he truly believed Sam made a confession to him. It would make sense that he would rationalize that he didn't hear Sam say "he was really going to do it this time" because he would know that he definitely heard Sam say, "I shot Theresa through the head."
Or I would have expected Ben to say, I wasn't sure what Sam said at first. It was muffled etc., but Ben does not do any of this. It's highly unusual.
When people are deceptive, however, they often make a strong statement and then get scared, and their nerves cause them to hedge or soften their statement. It's what fear does to people when they are in a high stake lie. Is that what Ben does here?
We know for sure that these two spoke in the middle of the night. That seems well documented. Do you think it is plausible that Sam just called and woke up his friend simply to brag about his conquest that night, or do you think there was something more to it? I suspect it is the later, but that is only speculation. I will say that I personally don't think Ben is leveling with us about what was actually said. Why that is, I can only speculate. Add to that that Ben is facing four felony charges related to this case and a picture starts to emerge that doesn't look good for Ben.
I do not believe Sam Parker's story either. You can read my original post on him 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.
Putnam County police came out this week and said again that they believe Misty (nee Croslin) Cummings likely holds the key to case of missing 5-year old Haleigh Cummings. They are also saying that Ronald Cummings and Crystal Sheffield are not suspects. What is interesting about this is were they ever officially called suspects?
Read more (Video)I wonder if people (reporters included) are jumping to the conclusion that Ronald and Crystal are now "cleared," because the police are just reiterating they are not suspects (see Palatka Daily news article). To me, "being cleared" and "not being a suspect" are two very different things.
When I searched Google news for "Ronald Cummings and suspect", nothing comes up. I don't believe he ever was an official suspect. I also don't find any quotes in the media from the police saying the parents were "cleared". I only see they are saying they are "not suspects". That means nothing has changed with regard to their status, if you ask me.
What is interesting is that the police are now saying that they don't believe Haleigh was abducted by a stranger. I believed that from day one. I've always believed both Ronald and Misty hold the key to this case and that they know more than they are both letting on. To read my original thoughts on the case, click here. Unfortunately, to read all of my thoughts on this case, you have to go through the archives as searches are only bringing up the last 12 posts (a limitation of blogger).
Putnam Co., Fla. say that, although Haleigh's mother, Crystal Sheffield, and father, Ronald Cummings, are no longer suspects in their daughter's disappearance, Croslin-Cummings remains a person of interest. Investigators say they also believe Haleigh was abducted by someone she knew. Click here to read more...
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 friend happened to come visit last week and pulled up in a new vehicle. I'm not a "vehicle" person, but her wheels were so sharp, that I couldn't help but take notice. They weren't sporty or flashy, but stylish and effective for the job she needed them for. I have to admit it, we've been friends since we were in second grade, and she's always been the trailblazer of the two of us.
So when she left, it was natural for me to check out her purchase. I've been toying with the idea of changing my wheels and when I read about her vehicle, I was sold. It was exactly what I had been looking for, but didn't know existed. I need tow power, but do not want to drive a truck or a clunky vehicle, and this was a perfect option!
Read moreSo I started checking online for pricing and called some dealers. I didn't know anything about the CARS program, so I did some reading on it and found my old vehicle qualifies for the program (though in the end, I found mine will get more money on the used market than for CARS). If you go through the government website, it will tell you if your exact vehicle qualifies and how much you will receive. I then called dealers to talk about it, and the first salesman I got on the phone told me I didn't qualify.
To convince me, he showed me a statement online for class 2 vehicles, knowing full well that I had a class 1. He made me doubt my vehicle qualified. It was clear he wanted to get rid of me. Either he thought the paperwork for the program wasn't worth his time, or he knew they had no inventory to sell (since lots are basically empty and pre-ordered cars are all sold already), so why bother? When I verified my vehicle qualified, I called back and had him paged, and you can guess, he didn't ever pick up. He wasn't interested no matter what. He knew he gave me a line of crap!!
Needless to say, I was annoyed.
When money changes hands, be careful. People will tell you anything!
Next we went to CARMAX and test drove the vehicle. By the way, CARMAX verified my vehicle qualified and they wanted it! Of course, I didn't want to give it up. It wasn't worth it for me.
Anyway, CARMAX didn't have exactly what I wanted so we came home and I got more price quotes. The prices seemed high for the vehicles (even at CARMAX), so I did some more research. What I found was a pricing guide online that took actual sales and charted them out, for my exact vehicle. It averaged 1200 sales records. With that, you can see what others paid and what is a fair price. You can see an example here (click on Get Pricing Analysis).
Low and behold, the dealerships where I was calling or visiting were all charging on average around $3,000 more than the sticker price, which was, you guessed it, $3,000 higher than what most people had purchased this vehicle for. You can assume that the statistics are from sales prior to the CARS program.
I was like what the hell?! I tried to negotiate, but hit a dead wall. The dealerships are taking away all the incentive and those who don't even want to participate in the program will be paying top dollar, if they buy a car now. It's supply and demand, and the dealerships know people will pay, because they think they are getting a deal, even though the reality is, they are not! The dealership and salesman are!! They are realistically giving you $500, but I wouldn't doubt that gets sucked in somewhere, too!
Do you think this is honest?
The CARS program should have taken this into account as we the citizens, are getting hosed again, if you want my opinion.
I'm delaying my purchased until the CARS program ends. Maybe then they will have ramped up production on the vehicles and they won't have buyers, which will hopefully drive prices down to near factory invoice again, which will save me thousands!! Literally.
There is always a catch, if you do your homework. Money doesn't come for free often, and when it does, you can be assured the sharks will come out and feed big time. It's a feeding frenzy, at the expense of the average citizen. No surprise, for me, sadly.
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 former policeman testified this morning that Sam Parker told him he shot his wife and buried her.
Ben Chaffin, who worked with Parker, said Sam told him in a phone call, “I really did it this time” and that he had shot Theresa Parker through the head.
Sam Parker’s trial began Monday in Walker County Superior Court in downtown LaFayette before Judge Jon 'Bo' Wood. It is expected to last three weeks...More
To read my original thoughts of Sam Parker back on December 21, 2007, 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.
I have to confess: I did not watch the entire CBS 60 Minutes interview with Michael Vick, because I don't care to hear about the cruelty to animals. However, I did watch a few segments online, and what I saw was contradictory. Vick seems to be saying whatever comes to mind at the moment.
Read moreOne minute, Vick tells 60 Minutes, "The first day I walked into prison, and they slammed that door, I knew, you know, the magnitude of the decisions that I make, and the poor judgment and what I allowed to happen to the animals...."
Another time, James Brown asks (above), "Why couldn't you understand what you were doing and what you were allowing then versus now?" Listen how contradictory Vick's answer is. In the middle of his answer, Vick says, "You know, your mom teach you right from wrong from day one so you know, and I didn't have the strength to move on or say, 'This is not me. This is not what I want to do.' You know, I continued to let it happen and you know, for certain reasons, I don't know, or for what reasons, I don't know."
Does that answer make any sense? He flat out admits he knew right from wrong from day one!
Much of what Vick says, if you want my opinion, is just ramble, not his true feelings, and hence why I see the contradictions. If Vick knew right from wrong from day one, the only "magnitude" that would hit him when the prison door slammed wasn't what he "allowed to happen to the animals", it was that he was caught and being held accountable! It doesn't take any talent to see this.
I also don't think Vick feels sorry for the "animals" either, as they come as an afterthought it his sentences. And he uses the word "animal", too, which is removed from the "dogs" he is responsible for killing.
I am sure many of you also noticed that Vick has this smile throughout. It's downright arrogant, if you want my opinion. It feels as if Vick thinks he is getting away with it again--perhaps because the NFL is handing him another contract after he was indefinitely suspended from the NFL?
I also find it ridiculous that Vick says he doesn't know why he continued to let it (the dog fighting) happen. Give me a break! He bankrolled the whole operation. There was obviously a handsome payback for Vick or he wouldn't have risked the millions he made, but he obviously doesn't want to admit THAT.
Vick just wants to skirt the issue and ramble on about rubbish. If Vick was sincere, he would admit he knew it was wrong all along, but didn't want to stop it. He thought he could get away with it. It was profitable on some level for him. Period. But that wouldn't go over so well, would 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.
You've said before that people give the most clues to deception when under pressure, and this is by far the best example of that I've ever seen.
Thanks, Johana!
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've seen Darlie Routier years ago on 48 Hours or Dateline, and while I always had an opinion, I wanted to see video of her again before I made my opinion public. Seeing this video of Darlie confirms my original beliefs: I do not trust Darlie Routier.
Her emotions are chilling and cold. When Darlie talks to the reporters eight days after her two boys were murdered, she talks without an ounce of sadness in her. She is truly happy from the inside out, which defies logic for her situation, if a stranger killed her children. More than that, you would think Darlie would have been scared to go on TV, if an unknown stranger/killer lurked out there, but she obviously had no fear of that, either.
Darlie Routier/mugshot--a true expression of despair
Read moreIn the video, Darlie says, "If you knew Devon and Damen......you would know that they are up in heaven...and their up there having the biggest birthday party... that we could ever imagine, and they wouldn't want us being down and being sad, even though our hearts are breaking."
What is fascinating about her speech here is that you can clearly see she is thinking as she speaks. She isn't talking from her heart, likely I suspect, because she feels no emotions. Then when she talks about their "hearts breaking", Darlie tries to act sad, but clearly it comes across as an act, not genuine emotion. It's interesting that when people fake sadness, they often do it when they talk of sadness, as Darlie does her. It's like the words remind them that they are supposed to react in certain ways. People who feel genuine sadness do not do this. The grief is written all over their face throughout their conversations. It typically does not come and go like it appears to with Darlie. Darlie does it again below at the end of her next statement, too.
Darlie continues, "I didn't feel anything because I was in shock. But I wasn't thinking about me. All I could think about was trying to save the babies, and Darren and I tried to save the babies...but it was too late, my babies were gone, but we tried. We tried and we have to live with that forever."
I find it fascinating how on the worst night of Darlie's life, she says she didn't feel anything, because she was in shock. What is her excuse for not feeling anything eight days later in this interview?
Ironically, her mugshot shows that she is feeling a lot of emotion when she is arrested. Did she finally wake up that no one was buying her story? Is she feeling sorry for herself all of the sudden? Why the sudden expression of emotion when Darlie's neck is on the line?
I also find it interesting how she says, "But I wasn't thinking about me." Who would think of this unless they do think of themselves first all of the time? This was very intriguing to me.
I personally think the jury got this case correct.
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 just curious if anyone has had any experience with renting a house in Florida for a vacation. I am just shocked at the lack of rights they give people these days. Every owner or agent that I have contacted to rent a house wants cash or check for payment and they want everything paid immediately to hold the place and most don't give refunds, if you cancel. Some will take 50% down and expect the other 50% 30 days before you arrive.
If you cancel, all the agreements I've seen to date say they get to keep the whole rent. It's utterly ridiculous. Some vary in their refunds if you cancel 90 days out, but most don't give you anything back if you are closer in than 90 days. On a home rental, that means a cancellation can cost you upwards of a couple of thousand per week.
I am just stunned and I am curious what other people's experience is... The customer is a lowly bug these days with no rights, it seems. You are to sign your life away on the dotted line and hope for equity. I just don't like it!
I even check with major hotel chains and they are the same way.
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 have to admit, if there is one person who I have watched over the years who could give me endless nightmares, it is Richard Kuklinski. I refused to even write about him when I first saw him because he was that scary. But one reader has since informed me he is dead. He is one of the most chilling men I have ever watched, hands down!!
It looks like he has worn contempt into a permanent expression on his face, doesn't it? When he says he was ruled by hate, he is definitely NOT lying!
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 wrote about this story back in 2006 and left my opinion in the comment section.
****************** Here is an interesting poll on the Mouse In the Pepsi story from WESH.com. At the time of writing this, 75% of those polled (1,325 people) think this story is a hoax, while 25% (435 people) think this is 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.
* This post reflects a personal opinion and nothing more.
When I watched Amy speak in this video, the first thing that I found perplexing was Amy showed no signs of disgust when talking about the discovery of the mouse. She showed slight disgust when she talked about her grandchildren smelling the can, and if she would drink Pepsi again, but other than that, it was strangely absent. That surprised me. I would have expected her to be more disgusted, or show some form of displeasure at the discovery or when dealing with the can, but she didn't. Instead, she was rather positive as she discussed a very disturbing experience. I find that odd. Most people would be feel some negativity, even if they had moments of lightheartedness.
Read moreThen Amy's story seemed rather strange to me when she said"...so he [her husband] took the can and he started to pour it out... in the sink... and as he was pouring it out, this... slimy pink thing started coming out of hole in the can." She says her husband shook the can and the contents would not come out. Yet a few minutes later, Amy says, "My husband didn't want to look at it. He didn't want to know what was in there. He was completely grossed out."
Then why would her husband be shaking the can trying to either see it or get it out?? These two statements immediately caught my attention as inconsistent. If you are totally grossed out and don't want to know what is in the can, you don't shake it and try to get it out.
I also noticed that Amy said "kind of" when explaining something that should have been definitive. Amy said, "I put it on a paper plate and I tried to do the same thing, and the pink thing was stuck to it, it was like slimy and kind of attached, and so I tried, I didn't touch it, but I tried to shake it and it, it would not come out..."
How can something be "kind of" attached? Does this make any sense? It either is attached or it is not (or you don't know and don't speak about it). Later she says, " The pink thing did separate."
Being suspicious, I searched online to see if there were any videos of the Amy's husband talking about this, and I couldn't find any, but in the process I did find both Fred and Amy's statements to the FDA. I was immediately struck by how Amy's husband's statement diverges from what she tells us in the video.
At two separate times, Amy states that she was with her husband. The first time she says, "Thursday night, we were outside. My husband was grilling out back." The second time, she says, "He took one gulp, he swallowed it and just made a face. I was sitting there when it happened."
Yet in Fred's written statement, he says after he discovered something was in the can "I took it inside to show my wife." Fred never mentions his wife during the time he drank the soda, or discovered what he suspected "looked like a mouse."
Yet Amy in her video interview talks about how, "He was at the sink, so I didn't smell it from there, he was at the sink but, um, but I was watching him and as he was pouring it out, and all of the sudden--he was pouring it out because he was just going to throw the can away, and then all of the sudden THAT started coming out. "
In Amy's version, her husband was just pouring it out when the mouse or mouse parts supposedly came out for the first time, in somewhat of a surprise. According to her husband, he discovered this outside without her. Not only do their locations not match, but neither do their discovery stories.
"I was cooking outside the evening of 7/23/09, and opened the can of diet pepsi and took a swallow. I noticed that it tasted bad, so I poured some of it out and noticed some of the liquid coming out was a lighter color that what diet pepsi is. I saw something slimy and mucous like that looked like a mouse. I shook it a little to try and get it out. It wouldn't come out. I took it inside to show it to my wife when she looked in the can and she tried to pour it on a plate. I didn't go to the doctor. I feel fine."
Last, if we speculate that the mouse was planted, we must realize that parts of the story recollected would, in fact, be true, and we must not use these segments as a guide to determine truthfulness. Accounts of calling the poison control, the FDA, talking to the FDA and Pepsi as well as the visit by the FDA investigator would likely be truthful as would the accounts of taking the photos, etc. It's the details of the discovery and what happened during the discovery that become paramount to focus on for honesty and consistency.
Interestingly, Amy's FDA statement lacks any detail about the discovery or its location at all. We can only get that when she talks for nine minute to reporters. I can't help but wonder if she was talking a big game here and really stuck her foot in her mouth. As for her husband, I'd need to see him speak to know what to believe!!
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's been pointed out that this may be a hoax--to read snopes. I can't vouch for the validity of the science experiment.
What does this have to do with deception? Click here to see a story in the news.
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.
