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.
Many of you have heard about the murder of Yale graduate, Annie Le. Apparently, Raymond Clark, the man accused of killing Le, has a former girlfriend that is speaking out about him.
Del Rocco dated Clark when she was 16 and recounts her memories of him and their relationship. One reader has written to me with some interesting questions.
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.
Today, I reached a milestone. I've published 1000 posts! I've essentially written a huge book, haven't I?
I will reach another milestone in less than a month. This one is very exciting for me, yet unnerving to say the least. On October 24, 2009, I will have been blogging for 5 years and I have not missed a case that I am aware of to date in the five years I have been writing.
I'd like to find a rocking way to celebrate, and get my name out there more. Do you have any good suggestions for me? I really want to celebrate this milestone!! No offense, but I don't want to continue another 5 years like this. I want to reach more people and get my message out there. Can you help me? I would be so grateful.
On another hot topic, MacKenzie Philips, and her book "High On Arrival", one reader named Lou pointed us to a comment from a psychotherapist in the Amazon forum for the book. If you scroll down and find her name "S. McQueen", she has some interesting points about the book. It was a great read. Thanks, Lou.
Lou's comment reminded me that I forgot to write my thoughts that I found it very strange that "Mac" said that she was surprised that people found the incest this controversial. This makes no sense at all for a victim to say because they are usually the most traumatized by it once they accept what happened to them. McKenzie wants us to accept it, but then she doesn't. This flat out doesn't make sense. Does she consider herself a victim and her dad the perpetrator, or does she still and idolize/love her dad? If she still loves her dad, would she want this secret out there? Really? I mean there is no worse way to defame your father. It doesn't jive. I'm leaning here slightly, but I am still not ready to make any definitive call.
Did you watch "Lie to Me" last night? I have to confess, I haven't. It's still on my DVR.
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 say that when I first heard MacKenzie Philip's story on Oprah, I was drawn in, perhaps, by the shock value. But as I thought about what she said, I've become conflicted. I think it could be because Philips is sending mixed messages about her father. She wants us to see him as a rapist and a perpetrator, abusing his "power" as a father, yet at the same time she truly tells us she loves him and she gets a glow in her eyes when she talks about him. She says her dad was an incredible person, and his demons shouldn't affect our image of him. And in a very strange twist, she tells us she never worried about her younger sister, who lived with him, being abused by him. Was she and is she that disconnected, still?
Read moreWhen you absorb it all, she talks out of both sides of her mouth. Then she rationalizes perhaps this is due to Stockholm Syndrome (where the victim sympathizes with their perpetrator).
I honestly don't know what to think.
Philips emotions go all over the chart, which is neither consistent or inconsistent with her message, because logically such a tumultuous life could cause someone to be very ungrounded, if they've never dealt with it. And it appears from all Philips is saying, she still hasn't dealt with anything. She is just writing her story in a book, which makes me wonder what her motivations are for this.
Is she writing this book to help people? If so, you'd expect her to say she is donating the proceeds to help other women, but when Oprah asked her why she wrote this, her answer seemed to come off the top of her tongue, which concerns me, knowing Philips has struggled her entire life with addiction. I don't know her financial state, but did she do this because she needs the money? Money motivates people to do things they normally wouldn't do.
If she was truly on a healing path, I would have expected her to help us understand why she did what she did. Why did she stick around after she felt she was raped? She was an adult and could leave. She never confessed to this, at least not on TV. Maybe she does in her book?
Was it the lure of the rich life and drugs? Is she not able to talk about her addiction to drugs yet on any serious level? If she truly wanted to help people, wouldn't she want to talk about the ravages of addiction, too, if she was on a healing path? She didn't talk about any of this on TV, which causes me concern.
All in all, I wonder if I am confused, because if this were, let's say a lie, would this be high-stakes? I mean who could prove or disprove that these two had a consenting sexual relationship? Could anyone outside of Philips or her father, who is now deceased, prove the truth?
Theoretically, she could create or embellish this story and sell it, cash in big, because she knows no one could prove or disprove anything. Yet some people are supporting her, which makes me think perhaps she is honest. One of her father's band member's daugther says her father knew. But then why didn't he feel morally obligated to help "Mac"? If others knew, why didn't they draw the line? I know many people suffer from incest in their families and it is no doubt a horrible experience many people will relate too.
I keep hearing "Mac" say that her father told her, "A lie will serve you better than the truth."
On the Today Show, she says she was 18 when she was raped. On Oprah, she said she was 19.
Then I think, "'Mac' look clean in her recent interviews."
I'm all over the place.
When I watched her on the Today Show, which aired the day after Oprah, this morning, I got an uneasy feeling again. I guess I am not willing to come to any conclusions at this point. Perhaps it is because her life has been tragic enough, I just don't want to go there. But when I start to think that, I think how could anyone come out normal in the world she lived in ? My goodness, her life was hell and you can't blame her for it--at least in the early years.
This story is so out there that even I can't put my finger on it with any certainty, which if you are a regular reader of mine, you know this is VERY RARE. My opinion changes minute to minute. I will simply say, may she find peace and may she truly find a "healing path".
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.
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 Louis Ross talk, the first thing that jumps out at me is how calm and controlled his demeanor is considering the circumstances. The second thing I notice is how long and detailed his first answer is to the question asked by the reporter, "So walk me through the day that Hassani disappeared..."
Read moreLouis gives so many details, its mind-boggling for me. I can appreciate being precise, but isn't the point to get the information out about Hassani and to find him? I find Ross' focus is off. Why isn't he most focused on finding Hassini, instead of explaining himself here? Why is he telling us what he "always" did, instead of just what happened that day?
I also see no urgency or anxiety from either foster parent that Hassani needs to be found. This is the biggest red flag for me. This is unnerving, because we all know time is of the essence, if Hassani truly wandered off or was abducted.
Also, when Louis recalls the time that they realize Hassani is gone, his face is devoid of any emotional stress, concern or fear. This is a huge red flag. This should have been a difficult time emotionally, if this is what happened, but I see no supportive emotions whatsoever here. It deeply concerns me.
I find Louis' statement, "I automatically know we have a problem because Hassani does not walk away" disconcerting. First, he tells us that Hassani can walk to the back door without him, without a problem, so how can he say that Hassani doesn't walk away? It's flat out inconsistent.
Furthermore, most people don't jump to the instant conclusion after only a couple of minutes that something tragic happened to their child when they don't immediately see them. Any logical person would just assume Hassani was simply hiding behind the garbage dumpster or something, and would likely call out for him, but this is not what Louis thought at the time. His behavior is indicative he knows that Hassani was not there.
Louis says, "...and I took out the back door...to go look for my so.., well, I actually went to my car to my phone and called police..."
This statement is interesting above. He starts out with a story and then tells us the truth. Why didn't he look for Hassani more? This perplexes me. He thinks about it, but he didn't do it? This is notably odd.
Louis continues on rambling about how he doesn't take the kids through the store. Where is his focus to find Hassani? It seems this is more about him than Hassani. This bothers me.
Louis says, "When I didn't see him there, I was like he doesn't walk away." People who are victims of a situation like this are open to entertaining multiple scenarios. They don't just jump to one conclusion --especially the most tragic, unless they are forced to do so. They explore everything else first. Why does Louis only accept one possibility?
It isn't until the six minute mark that Louis starts talking about the most important thing they want to get out into the media, "Our son does not wear leg braces and this is the most frustrating part, because we all know we have a small window of time..." When Louis says this, notice there is no anxiety or urgency to help find Hassani?
Also notice that they don't have any photos or fliers of him? There is just this resolve, as if they know what happened to him that I can't explain. Perhaps it is the lack of emotional support for what they are saying.
Louis then says, "Does he need them [leg braces] to walk? No. They are there to help his feet develop." Then why didn't he wonder if Hassani could have walked away, or played hide and seek that day? Louis is very inconsistent.
Louis says "We invited you to our home so you can get the correct information out to the public." Notice he doesn't say, "We invited you to our home so you can help us find Hassani." This troubles me.
Louis says, "If some...if the person who.......if someone took our son......or didn't take him and he just wandered somewhere, and you took him, just return him. He probably won't remember you, just don't hurt him."
Why doesn't Louis look at the camera when he says this statement above? It's as if Louis doesn't believe what he is saying here... Also, now, notice how he entertains that Hassani could have just "wandered somewhere". This is very inconsistent from what he has suggested earlier. Louis seems to change his tune as the wind blows and says whatever is convenient at the time.
A couple of minutes later Louis says, "Do I feel responsible for this? Yes." You can see true pain when he says this. Why on earth, if he is innocent, would he feel responsible if Hassani wandered off or was kidnapped? This is very notable, and strange and unusual.
He continues, "There are parents out there, they take it for granted, 'Oh that'll never happen to me,' only a few minutes, a quick second (expression of disgust followed by contempt)...turn your back, they're gone." I can't help but wonder if he is thinking back to another memory here and at the pause, he thinks and changes the end of his sentence!
I personally don't believe Louis is telling us what he knows to be the truth. I hope I am wrong for Hassani's sake...
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Many of you had asked for my opinion on John Edwards being the father of Rielle Hunter's baby several months back. At the time time, there wasn't enough video of for me to come to a conclusion. I really wanted to see Rielle Hunter speak about it, but I never got that opportunity.
The problem with paternity is people can believe something (like they are or are not the father of a baby), yet that believe can be inaccurate, and have no connection to the truth, but it will affect the clues to deception. Does that make sense? I'm not saying that is what is going on here, but with paternity cases, I have to keep this in mind, which makes it much harder to decipher the truth. I spoke about this with the Howard Stern/Anna Nicole debacle, too, though there I got to see enough video to see the truth.
Regardless, this is in the news and I thought you guys would be interested in 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.
Last week, I took a poll on what people thought about the polygraph machine. Here is an interesting article that talks further about it that I thought you might find interesting: Foolproof Test for Catching Liars Still Elusive
I voting results can be accessed tomorrow and will be displayed when poll closes in the future.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
The video you saw of "Karen and August" is actually a hoax. It was a government ad by VisitDenmark, are you ready, to promote tourism. I can't help but find this funny. What were these people thinking?
In the end, I think they realized they might get the wrong kind of tourists, and decided to pull the ad, but they have had a difficult time doing so. It keeps popping up on YouTube repeatedly. No surprise there.
For those of you who have interest, and wondered if the baby is hers, according to this website, it is not. You can read about that here.
There are, however, many clues to deceit in this video.
Read moreI thought it was hilarious how "Karen" (whose real name is reported as Ditte Arnth Jorgensen) totally forgets her baby's name, and in the process laughs about it. Her laugh was the second red flag for me. I would expect her to be nervous about truly trying to find the father, but there were absolutely no sign of nerves.
Then she says about the baby, "His name is August. Yeah." The "yeah" is indicative of deception that I have never seen written about anywhere. People who are deceptive often verbally confirm their own story, as she does here. It's like they are thinking through what they just said, and then, without a realizing it, they say "yeah" as if they are convincing themselves. Does that make sense? She does this four or five times in this video.
"Karen" also looks like she is going to break out laughing in the beginning of this video, which doesn't fit with the scenario. If a woman was really going to stick herself out there to do this, I would think she would really want to find the father, and wouldn't find the situation laughable. With that, she would likely be nervous, as she would be truly hoping to do this successfully, and get the answers she so craves. I did wonder, for a second, if an honest psychopath could do this, but in the end, there were too many clues to even consider it.
I love when "Karen" says, "I was on my way home and..." At this point, she makes a question face. I don't know how to say it any other way. Her face makes an expression, as if she is questioning what she is saying. This is another red flag. She also says, "I think you lost your friends." She thinks? It becomes very apparent this woman doesn't know any details whatsoever, which of course, is another red flag. Even drunk people remember some detail before they pass out.
Notice how she also swallows awkwardly? While this is not always a clue to deceit, when I see it amongst many other clues, it is supportive.
Watch her shoulder shrug when she says, "I don't remember where you are from, or.... yeah." I love that sentence! Two more indications of deception: a shoulder shrug and a verbal confirmation.
Then she says, "I don't even remember your name."
What woman on earth would be willing to put herself out there and say this? This was mind-boggling. Even if casual sex is more acceptable in Denmark, most people don't like to admit, especially women, they were so drunk out of their mind they couldn't remember someone's name with whom they were intimate! Most societies have less than pleasant names for people like this, and I am sure the Danes are not exception. I laughed when I watched this, because again, I wondered if a psychopath who is being honest might do this, but of course, that was out of the question by this point.
After she says she doesn't remember his name, she says that she does remember that they talked about Denmark. This is absolutely hilarious. Only "Denmark" sticks out with all the details this night? The person who created this video doesn't understand the human mind.
People remember the most detail when they have an association or a connection to something. Naturally, emotions will elicit the broadest recollections of past memories. So for this woman to say that Denmark was more memorable than the guy's name, a guy who fathered her child, is just comical.
I have to say "Karen" did quite well when she says she is not crazy or obsessive. She managed to get that smile off her face and be more serious, but then she says, "I feel I owe it to both you and him. Yeah." Another verbal confirmation that makes no sense unless she is trying to convince herself of her story.
She continues, "I haven't been with anyone else since that night. Yeah. Just so you know that." There is another "yeah", but more inconsistent would be the claim to her actions. If she is the type of woman who enjoys casual sex and drinking to the point of not remembering anything, it would be very unlikely she would have abstained from sex or drinking for a year and a half. That in and of itself makes her statement highly unlikely, even if everything else turned out to be true, which we know it is not.
I feel sorry for the people who created this. The backlash from this isn't likely to go away any time soon.
* While there are many signs to deception, don't forget, I believe there is not one clue that is reliable to predict deception in every case. Deception detection requires a multifaceted approach. If you show me a trait you think only liars do, I can be confident I can find you an honest person doing the same thing, so just be cautious!
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 you have already seen this story in the news, I ask that you refrain from commenting for those who haven't. If you haven't, feel free to share your thoughts! No cheating :)
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.
Central Florida News is reporting today that Rifqa Bary lied to state investigators. You can read the story here.
Investigators found absolutely no credible reports of threats and no "derogatory" information based on the allegations after interviewing her siblings, people at her school and others involved in her life."
[...]
Rifqa was interviewed by investigators on Aug. 21. She told them she hitchhiked from a neighbor’s house to the Greyhound bus station in Columbus for her trip to Orlando.
It turns out a man who baptized her in Ohio is the one who drove her to the bus station.
Then, investigators learned her bus ticket was actually bought in Orlando under a fictitious name...read more here.
I originally wrote about Rifqa Bary here on August 26, and I shared all the inconsistencies I saw in Bary's behavior.In a poll on August 24, nearly 30% of those polled either believed or were unable to decide if they believed Bary. Thanks to everyone who has updated me on the story today.
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 immediately struck by his demeanor as he recalls what most people would assume is the worst day of his life. He is happy, and grins as he talks about his last night with his wife. If you didn't know any better, by simply watching him in the beginning, you'd think he was describing a typical day in his life. This is a notable red flag for me. Where is this guy's emotions? Wasn't this day, the day his wife was murdered, horribly painful? How come we don't see any of that pain? Or was it not painful for him?
I find it strange how Abaroa doesn't remember what they had for dinner that night, yet he says, "We quickly had to prepare a meal." Most people, whose spouse gets murdered, and who are victims, relive the last hours they had spent together over and over, and even decades later will tell you exactly what they shared as a last meal, what they wore, exactly what they did in their last hours, etc. The emotions of such a painful event sear the memories in their brain forever. For Abaroa, to not remember this, is strange to me.
Abaroa keeps saying "maybe" as he describes the events of the evening, as if he doesn't remember. He says, "...maybe preparing some of the stuff that needed to be prepared for lunch the next day." What? Why doesn't he remember? Why is he using a hedge word like "maybe" here?
Did you hear how Abaroa uses the word "tomorrow"? He is recollecting what the they were going to do the next day (the day after she was murdered). This is very unusual wording for someone recollecting something. I would have expected him to say "what we were going to do the next day." How many times do you use the word "tomorrow" when talking about past events?
Abaroa's demeanor takes a notable change around time marker 1:30. He talks about Janet folding clothes, "So, she put him to bed and was folding clothes, at that time..."
Abaroa gets incredibly nervous here. His demeanor changes, notably. If only I could ask why... Then out of the blue, he asks if his microphone is working, laughs genuinely, and asks if he should start over from the beginning. His deep laughter is amazingly odd. I'd wonder if there was truly a microphone issue at this point, or if he freaked out thinking about the events of that night, and wanted to start over. This would be intriguing to know. He admits he got "side tracked".
I find it interesting once the conversation starts again, that he starts talking about the TV shows Janet liked. He suddenly stops recalling the night and starts just talking about elements of their life. It's notable. Why does he do this? Is he trying to relax? Is this a key time in that evening where things could have gone wrong?
Abaroa tells us that he is very controlling by saying that he has to have not only his clothes put away just so, but also Kaiden's clothing. This intrigues me. He continues getting side tracked again and again, instead of telling us what happened. Why? Why can't he give us a detailed account? I can't help but wonder if any of this happened the way Abaroa is telling us. The most important element is, of course, what happened to his wife. As a victim of violence, like murder, I would think that he would have a need to talk about it, to get justice, to tell his story... but he kepts going off on tangents. It's odd.
It's also very notable how he tries to act happy, but to me, I keep seeing hints of nervousness. People are usually not happy and nervous at the same time. This is unusual, unless they are excited about something.
When Abaroa says, "We share that moment that evening..." (approximately time marker 4:50) his demeanor changes again, like it did earlier. Why is he nervous recollecting the time spent around the laundry? Why does he keep swallowing more and more? It's like when he talks about this time, he gets really freaked out, over and over again.
Then Abaroa strangely skips all the details and goes into, "and um...then when everything was said and done, and she was ready for bed, and I was ready to call it quits and go to my soccer game, she would usually watch episode of General Hospital, uh, before she went to bed. She would record it every day. She was a die-hard General Hospital fan and uh, um so she gave me a hug and kiss, and we snuggled for a little while, and she um, she told me, 'You have too much to do, you should stay home tonight, stay with me.' And you know, looking back at it now, that really...is something that bothers me...about the last night that I got to be with my wife is that, you know that I felt like she knew better and that she knew that I needed to be home night (contempt expression), and I didn't listen to her, and you know..."
Why would he feel contempt here? Notice the pauses in his speech? The stops and starts? It's suggestive he is thinking on his feet, not talking from actual memory. Perhaps he is remembering another time they spent together?
If you listen to his voice here, too, it quivers. I also find it interesting how he goes back to folding the laundry again. Why does he go back to that? Did Janet want him to stay home and he didn't want to, and that is where everything could have begun? I tend to suspect so...
Abaroa says, "I got home, and...umm.......you know, go upstairs...wha...I'd always go in and gave Kaiden a kiss. You know, I don't want to say I was checking in on him, but, you know, I just kind of go in and give him a kiss and feel his warm body (expression of disgust) and............and that's a......., you know, that's when I found out something wasn't wrong."
Why is Abaroa so nervous right here that he can't talk correctly? Something "wasn't wrong?" What does that mean?? This is very strange! He is also not crying. He is more jittery than anything, if you want my opinion: Like he is shaking from the inside out.
Notice the lack of details here as well? Why are they missing? The words "kind of" are odd. They are hedge words...words that are said when someone wants to say something affirmative, but doesn't manage to pull it off, because they know it isn't the truth.
I find it fascinating how he says, "Janet died that night." Why can't he say she was MURDERED? If he has nothing to do with this, he should feel violated and want to catch the person who violated his world, and killed his wife.
Is he sanitizing the act here? Why would he want to do that unless he was involved? This is a huge red flag for me. See time marker 7:40.
When Abaroa says "Janet died that night", it's haunting. There are no tears. Instead, there is a flash of a smile just before he talks!!! It's chilling. He keeps trying to fight it, too, after he speaks as well by pulling his lips outward. He can't contain it!!Then he says, "I wasn't there that night" and I sense he smiles then, too. He is displaying a sense of satisfaction when he says this that I can't explain.
Notice how his story doesn't make sense? He realizes things are wrong when he is with the baby? He doesn't talk about finding Janet first, but he knows? The details are all eerily missing. The events are out of place. Things don't make sense, and there is always a reason for this.
He tells us, "I couldn't remember, you know, what I needed to do, how I needed to help her. " What? How many victims do you hear say this? This is crazy babble, if you want my opinion. This guy's emotions do NOT match what he is telling us at all!!
He goes on and says, "This isn't real. This isn't happening me" and there is another detectable smile!! Why on earth would this make him feel good?
Abaroa says, "And as far as what happened after that, it seems like the fire department was there in two seconds." This is shocking. How many times have you faced an emergency or crisis in your life where time flew by instead of stood still? Pain causes minutes to turn to hours. Victims who find a deceased loved one always talk about how it seemed like forever until help arrived. How come for him it was instantly? Why doesn't he talk about calling 911 or giving us these details? Abaroa gives us this lame excuse he doesn't want to talk about it. I'm not buying it. I think it is a convenient excuse.
Abaroa continually flashes positive emotions when he talks about that night. There are too many to note. It's very contradictory to his message. I can conclusively say in this video, I do not trust much of what Abaroa says to be the truth. I suspect he knows a lot more than he is telling us...
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 weekend, we were out of town and saw a cute neighborhood that caught our eye. There was also a lovely house that had a superb price, so we called the realtor and asked to see it. She showed up and showed us the house.
Read moreIt was nine years old and the "second owners" were selling it. When I heard that, my antenna went up. This house is in a vacation area with a beautiful lake within the block. Most people don't buy it and get rid of it that quickly. These homes are usually a decent investment and in this location would likely be in a family for a lifetime, if not longer.
The first thing we noticed was a shower. It was a brick style shower with a porous feel to it. I have never seen anything like it, but what caught your eye was someone had recently painted it black and they did a sloppy job! The black paint was like this blaring red flag that something was wrong. Granted, there was a gray/black tile and the toliet was black, but the sloppiness was just so notable. My mom was with me and she immediately suspected mold. I couldn't agree more. Everything these else was spotless.
As we walked out of the bathroom, I asked the realtor why they were selling and she said, "The woman had triplets and this is just too much for her now. Also, the kids are allergic to everything." The word allergic jumped out at me. It matched my suspicions of mold. I wondered if this was a subconscious "slip" by the realtor? Were the children allergic or reacting to the mold?
Then I started looking around the kitchen and I saw water stains above the cabinets. The realtor quickly explained they had an ice damn. I didn't believe her story because ice damns usually effect the story where the gutters and roof are first, not the second story down unless they are really severe.
When I went upstairs to the second story and saw the lovely porch overlooking the pool and backyard, I could clearly see a builder made some fundamental mistakes in building the roof and deck area, and that is what caused the leaking. There was flat roll roofing and and the posts when right into the roofing. The flat roof design had major flaws and was caulked all over. Hello! The entire roof area and railing were put in by someone who had no idea what they were doing. This was likely the cause of many of the water issues that had now dried up under what I would call temporary fixes. But I couldn't help but wonder what mold still lurked in the walls, waiting to come alive after a few showers...
Visually, the house was just beautiful. It had vaulted 9 to 12 foot ceilings, bamboo floors and looked like a pricey loft from the inner city of Chicago. It had two balconies, a whirlpool tub. It was everything anyone would want for a second home. Visually, it was a great buy. The reator even told us it was $20,000 less than what they paid for it, which with the economy lately, could happen.
The entire house had a upscale appeal. It was clear the original owners had expensive taste, but likely built this place on a budget, as it was their second home. That in and of itself wouldn't scare me. It was the black shower, and what the realtor said that put me into caution mode.
While I was upstairs, the realtor told my mom that two sisters and their parents owned this home, and that they came up every weekend. This clearly tells us the "triple story" was just another "story". That wouldn't stop the other sister and parents from enjoying this place more, would it? Also, if three related families owned this home, wouldn't that make taking triplets all that much easier?
We went back to the neighborhood over the weekend, and despite what the realtor said about them being there every weekend, there was no one there. When I told my husband what my mom said about them being there every weekend, he said, "What a joke!" Is she nuts? I looked in the cabinets and there are no dishes whatsoever in the kitchen anywhere. No one comes up there every weekend."
I remembered, too, there was only one bed in the house on the main floor. There were no beds in any of the other bedrooms. They were vacant.
Isn't it amazing how facts can give away a lie? This realtor tried hard, but failed miserably. She really shot her own foot when you think about it.
When I talked to my mom a second time, she said, "Oh yeah, the realtor also said when we were looking at the house, 'Yeah, the previous owners bought this house from a builder, but they haven't been able to locate him."
That realtor, I think without even knowing it, is subconsciously sabotaging herself with this house. She is trying to sell something she doesn't believe in, and does it ever show, even if only subconsciously. Is she ever wasting her time or what?
So many people when they lie never add up the facts to see if their lie will fly. It's almost funny, in hindsight.
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 don't know how many people write to me and tell me that my calling in life is to play poker. I say that laughingly because not only do perfect strangers tell me that, but so does my own husband. He has been begging me to learn for years hoping and dreaming that I could be his ticket to a million dollars.
I keep telling him to "Dream on!". If only it were that easy...
What people don't realize is that all people are influenced by their emotions, regardless of their ability to spot the truth, and emotions, when heightened, are the biggest deflector for anyone to see reality. When people are emotional, and I am no exception, our brain tricks us and makes us think things are "blacker than black" or "rosier than red," when in reality it is never that stark. In a life or death situation, this can save our life, which is good. But in a situation where we don't get that "fight or flight" response, we often make horrible decisions that greatly cost us.
Emotions, when desire and fear are the opposing elements each tugging at each other simultaneously, blur reality. That much I know. It usually results in the worst endings. That, in and of itself, stops me from playing poker.
More than that, to win, I must be a master at bluffing myself.
Think about it. What makes a good poker player? Someone who can remove themselves from their emotions, and not have any remorse for lying to others to take them for all they got. Whew. What picture does that paint for you?
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.
Last week, ABC's Primetime covered the story of Janet and Raven Abaroa. Did you get a chance to see it? Raven's wife, Janet, was found dead by Raven in their home in April 2005.
ABC's Primetime showed Raven in videos from NCWanted.com. They showed some key comments by Abaroa.
If people want my opinion on the video, please provide links and time markers no longer than five minutes in the comment section and I will share with you my thoughts either here or in a new post depending on what is requested.
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 happen to run into this woman who on YouTube who has trained her dog amazingly. I thought you might enjoy her story. Check out all of her videos...she's something really special. The abilities she has to teach Vinny and Vinny's incredible desire to please her are just amazing!
I hope this gentle soul gets her own TV show some day. She could teach a lot of people some wonderful things! Just watching her moved me to tears...and I am not one to cry easily, but this connection is just awe-inspiring! If only the world had more people like 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.
Annette Sykes talks about possible Haleigh sighting. One reader says it appears as if Sykes has no belief that Haleigh could be found alive and ask me for my opinion.
I personally think Sykes is realistic in that it is not likely that Haleigh is alive, but she does entertain the thought that Walmart likely has a lot of cameras, and if they can get a shot, there is a chance it could be Haleigh. However, Sykes tells us it is hard to hold out hope, because they've had their hopes dashed before. This is very logical and realistic.
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'm just curious about the reader demographics of this blog. I hope you care to share your age with me. That's why I am asking. Happy Labor Day Weekend!
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, who was tried for the murder of his wife, though her body has never been found, was convicted today of murder. He was also sentenced to life in prison. You can read the news here.
Parker will be the 25th person I have called out as untruthful before the truth was known, if you believe his name should be moved to that column. The vote is yours to decide...
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 radio station, Sky 973, that aired Tim Miller talking about Ronald Cummings this week, and of course, one must take this with a grain of salt, because we aren't hearing Ronald talk personally. We are hearing Miller share what he believes Ronald said. Words change when people recollect what others say, and so can the meaning of things.
Read moreHowever, if Tim Miller's account is true and closely resembles what Ronald said, I don't believe a word Ronald Cummings is saying. It's completely ridiculous.
Tim Miller says, "Ronald Cummings said, 'The bitch had something to do with my daughter's disappearance,' and he said that she never made the bed that night, she'd been awake all night, she never went to sleep. They did not have any laundry detergent, so she never washed clothes. The only clothes in the dryer were dirty clothes, and Ron Cummings, himself, told me he felt as though Misty was having sex with someone in his house and little Haleigh woke up and said, 'I'm telling Daddy.' This came out of Ronald Cummings mouth. The question was asked 'Why did you marry Misty?' He said, 'You keep your friends close, you keep your enemies closer.'"
When I look at this statement and assume it is a true, one thing that absolutely seems plausible is that Ronald would be jealous that Misty might have had sex with some other guy, regardless of whether or not there was any foundation to Ronald's beliefs. Ronald hits me as the type of guy who, if he couldn't reach Misty on the phone ONE time (perhaps after an argument), would accuse her of such nonsense.
I also find it laughable that Ronald tells Tim Miller that "you keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" when he refers to Misty and why he married her. If Ron is keeping Misty close to protect himself, but truly dislikes her and sees her as an enemy, his behavior towards her would be noticeably different. At minimum, he would have a hard time disguising it, but he hasn't given one indication EVER that he is against Misty in any form or fashion. It's is so obviously clear that he is on Misty's side that it is indisputable. Period.
Tim Miller went on to say that Ron told him if he could get $35,000 dollars, he could get Haleigh home.
What is so funny about this last statement, if it is a true account, is how could Ronald say this? If he was uninvolved, and doesn't know anything, how could he make this suggestion?
If only Miller had a real audio tape of Ronald Cummings saying these things, it would be ten times more fascinating. While I have shared with you my opinions, assuming these statements are true and very close to what Ronald could have said, I will personally forget them, because hearsay is not valuable evidence about anything to me. I prefer to depend on watching people for myself, directly, but I know many of you were curious what I thought.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Here is an update to the Fred and Amy Denegri suspected "mouse in the Pepsi" story that I wrote about several weeks back.
[Pepsi says,]"'The FDA conducted a thorough inspection of our Orlando facility and found no cause for concern. In this case, the FDA simply was unable to determine when or how the specimen entered the package,' he said."
[...] [Amy says,] "The report proves that something was in there. We didn't do it," she said. "Obviously, it was too big for us to push inside that small hole."
[...]The couple doesn't intend to sue Pepsi, but Amy Denegri said they are receiving legal advice about the matter...[more]
Read moreI think we all knew something was in the can. That wasn't the debatable aspect of this case.
I do think it is strange the couple is receiving legal advice, if they have no intention to sue. What would be the point of it?
On the flip side, you would think the FDA would investigate through other experts how long it would take for something like this to decay to the state they received it. The rate of decay should give an approximate date of introduction to the can, which would either "pre-" or post date the can back to the Pepsi plant. That would go along way in helping everyone, but then again, maybe they can't get that precise. I wish they would talk more about this, because a lack of an answer makes me wonder if they could be hiding something. Science is usually pretty precise. Is one can not worth it? Or is there more to this that Pepsi doesn't want out?
Yet, when I think of a frog or a toad in a Pepsi plant, it seems highly unlikely they would survive getting in the door, and getting on a line--let alone make the perfect jump on to a can, let alone getting inside one. A mouse would seem much more plausible, because they are nimble, but frogs and toads are not. Frogs and toads are much more likely to get squashed, because they are slow to move. I wonder how many frogs or toads have been seen inside a Pepsi plant?
The animal was lacking internal organs normally found in the abdominal and thoracic cavity," the report notes.
The retired school staffer [Amy] says she and her husband are seeking legal advice to examine their options. "I want to see Pepsi fess up to it and compensate my husband for the negative publicity they have caused," she said. "I'm easy, but they're the ones that are making it hard."
This article says that pepsi runs 1,200 cans on the production line a minute.
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 obvious why the police are saying Misty is inconsistent publicly now, because when you listen to her latest story with the hypnotist, you can't miss it. You don't need any talent to see the changes in Misty's story. I have not believed Misty nor Ronald from day one. You can read my original thoughts here.
When we live through an event, we usually recall the details similarly every time we talk about it, but Misty's story changes again and again, quite notably.
I woke up some...at three o'clock, I just woke up out of the blue. Three something, I just woke up. I don't know what made me wake up, and I seen the kitchen light that was on and I know my kitchen light was shut off, and it was glaring in my bedroom so I mean all the lights, every things turned off when I went to bed...and the light in the kitchen is glaring so I get up to see what is going on, and the back door was wide open, and there's a cement block holding the screen door open. I didn't know Haleigh was gone yet. I ran back into the bedroom to grab my cell phone, called 911, because the back door was open and I know the back door was shut when I went to sleep, and I freak'n out already, cuz the back door was open, and I didn't know what do, and as soon as I called...I got my phone and uh... and I as soon as I got on the phone and I turned around, she was gone. So I started look in the house, under the beds, closets, everywhere I could think of...just freak'n out. And by the time I opened the front door to go out the front door, Ronald pulled up, and he said call the cops so I immediately called 911 (end time marker 9:38).
Events that Misty marked before as notable are now different. Triggers such as having to go to the bathroom in her first recollections of Haleigh's last night have now changed to a blaring light streaming into her bedroom.
If you listen to her 911 call, and this video here, Misty in February gave a different account, "...I'd seen three--three o'clock in the morning. I got up and...I got up because I had to use the bathroom but I didn't make it to the bathroom. I seen the kitchen light on and I walked in the kitchen and the back door is wide open. I meanI didn't notice about Haleigh then until I seen the back door open and I go into the room and she's gone. And that's all I know."
Why didn't she mention calling 911 before discovering Haleigh missing?
Misty originally told us she called Ronald before calling the police, but this time she strangely forgets that important element. Watch here when Misty says, "Well, at first, I'd seen the back door was open, then I was running around the house looking for her, and I got my phone and I called her dad, and then I called the police."
Worse, the order in which Misty even picks up the phone varies from moment to moment. In the statement above, Misty first tells us she called 911 before realizing Haleigh was even gone, and then later in her ramblings she tells us, "Ronald pulled up and he said call the cops so I immediately called 911."
What is the truth? When did she actually call 911? She can't even get the basics accurate nor keep them consistent. Her story is so jumbled up, we can't even begin to dissect what she says with any confidence.
Do you notice the rate of Misty's speech in this hypnosis video? When people feign fear, they often speak fast. Notice how fast Misty talks at times?
More than that, when Misty talks about finding the door open, we should see a sense of fear on her face, if she is recalling a truthful event, but Misty is as calm and as collected as can be when recalling this memory (she reminds me of Jennifer Campbell on many levels--another having no urgency to find Haleigh. Both have a resignation about them that is palpable). All of Misty's "recollection" memories are missing the normal emotional connections, which is another huge red flag.
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 don't have much to say about this because the video cuts in an out so much in a short period of time. if I do have any thoughts, I will share it below in the comment section. Thanks, C, again for the links.
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.
