Chad Mitchell's Missing Wife: Iveta
by Eyes for Lies at 3:30 PM
Australian man Chad Mitchell and his wife, Iveta, had an argument in the early morning hours of May 3, 2010, at which point Chad says his wife walked out on him. He says he followed her outside and saw her walking down the street with her cigarettes. But sadly, Iveta has not been heard from or seen since, and there has been no activities on her accounts since she was last seen.
Click here to watch the interview with Chad on Australia's 60 Minutes.
Australia's 60 Minutes (similar to the American show) featured the story on June 20, 2010. When I watch Chad in the early part of the segment, I immediately notice how he passes out flyers without making much eye contact. You would think if he was searching for someone who may have seen his wife, he would be watching their responses--looking for clues, but he doesn't. He looks more at his flyer than he does the people he is asking. It's notable to me.
(*My read more code is not working and I cannot figure out why, if someone is able to assist me, I would be appreciative).
Read moreWhen Chad first sits down with the interviewer, I notice his mouth agape. He appears almost like a deer in headlights. You would think a man who fears his wife met with foul play would be on a mission to find her, not sitting there without anything to say. Chad waits for the reporter to ask him questions throughout the interview. He never volunteers anything, sadly, in hopes of finding his wife.
The reporter asks Chad, "Did you murder your wife?" and Chad replies, "No." When he says this, notice he shows some tension in his body's response, almost a bit of a temper, if you ask me.
The reporter continues, "Did you harm her in any way?" Watch when Chad responds, he responds by squinting his eyes. It's a sign of anger. He appears to restrain himself, if you will. Chad could be angry if he is innocent or guilty. While it doesn't clue us in to deception, it does tell us this subject makes him angry should he deny so later.
When the reporter asks Chad, "Why should we believe you [that you didn't harm your wife]?" Chad's answer is not good. He doesn't say because I am innocent, because you are looking at the wrong guy. Instead he tells us that if he did it, he would have come forward. It's utter nonsense, frankly.
When Chad is asked to walk us through the events the last time he was with his wife, if you notice, Chad doesn't do it. Instead, he talks generally about their problems. It's notable.
Chad finishes the reporters sentence when the reporter repeats back that Chad told Iveta to "f-off". Chad says, "...she got up and walked out the front door." Listen to the tone Chad uses when he says this. It is soft and not confident in any way. Instead of showing true anger at himself for letting this happen, he sits there staring back at the reporter. You can almost feel him thinking, "Do you believe me?" There is something about his demeanor that is off.
Chad has a false start when he says, "She knows how much I love the kids and I wouldn't leave them, and she knows..kne..she knows that if something is wrong, I will be there for them all the time, as well."
Why is he having a hard time keeping his tense correct? Why would he even think of "knew" as in past tense? That's a huge red flag.
When the reporter asks Chad who put the wedding ring on his doorstep, Chad's answer is really weak. He says that he doesn't know. You would think he would say whoever is responsible for the foul play in my wife's disappearance!! He should say it with strength and conviction. Instead, he says, "I hoped it was her, letting us know that she is alright." That's flat out absurd.
The reporter immediately questions Chad about the rings and says if they came from her, why don't they have finger prints on them? Chad has no answer. Then he changes his answer and says, "Obviously she didn't put them there then."
If Chad is innocent, he shouldn't be waffling and "hoping" she left them. It's absurd! It would only make sense if he was deluding himself, if you ask me. An innocent man would say that this is concrete proof there was foul play, but Chad doesn't. This is huge!! His lack of concern here about "this proof" is alarming. An innocent person would stand strong on this. They wouldn't "hope" it was their wife leaving them a message, for Pete's sake. Missing emotions are as powerful as those expressed, its just few people take notice of them.
Chad eventually gets up and says he can't do the interview anymore. I think he feels cornered into a hole that he couldn't escape, so he disrupts the interview.
What is fascinating is when Chad returns to the interview, he doesn't say how upset and worried he is for Iveta. Instead he talks about how hurt he was that he had to recall all the interviews he endured. This is clearly not about Iveta. This is all about Chad.
But what is by far the most interesting part in this interview is when the reporter says what do you think has happened to her, and Chad says, "The worst. Someone's done something to her and she can't come home. The reporter says, "Someone's killed her. That's what you truly believe." At this point, we see real grief on the part of Chad, but is it grief for himself? He says, "Feeling like that now, yes."
When the reporter says that if you didn't do it, then we have to believe that a killer pounced her on the very night that you had an argument. Watch Chad's response, "Possibly, yeah."
If he didn't do anything, he should have no doubt about it. Possibly is a hedge word, and shows a total lack of conviction for what he is saying. Chad doesn't want to commit to anything, for good reason. Chad, in my eyes, know a lot more than he is telling us.