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.
Several weeks ago, 48 Hours profiled the case of Mischelle Lawless. The show was titled "The Girl Who Knew Too Much." Mischelle was murdered 17 years ago, at the tender of age 19. She was found bludgeoned and shot to death in her car.
While in jail for unrelated charge, prison inmates pointed the finger at a man, Josh Kezer, who they said confessed to killing Mischelle. More than that, a local man from town also identified Keser as being near Mischelle's car that night.
48 Hours reports, "No physical evidence tied Kezer to the murder, but the prosecutor told the jury that tests showed there was blood on Josh’s jacket and in a car he was driving."
The jury was sent to deliberate and within less than 4 hours, they convicted Kezer and sent him to prison for 60 years. Shockingly, he spend more than 15 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. You have to watch the show to see the turn of events.
I think cases like these need to give us pause, that people are wrongly convicted--that eye witnesses are not 100%.
Read moreSo, who could have done this to Mischelle Lawless? 48 Hours interviews several people and one person in particular stands out to me. It's Leon, Mischelle's boyfriend at the time. While he took an passed a polygraph years ago, he also was found to have his DNA under her fingernails and mixed with her blood.
Erin Moriarty asks Leon, "Did you have anything to do with Mischelle Lawless' death?" Leon smirking before he even says a word replies, "Not at all...I loved her". His arrogant expression is noteworthy. Why would he feel arrogant when he is being questioned about Mischelle's murder? About the murder of a girlfriend who he dated for three years and states he loved? This is perplexing to me.
Moriarty goes on, "You know that your DNA was found under her fingernails, and how do you explain that?" Notice the smirk on his face dissipates for a second. Then smirking again, Leon replies, "We had sex that night (hard swallow), and um... (shoulder shrug) we were both pretty passionate people, so you know, time and again, she did scratch me during sex."
Leon's answer here hits me as someone thinking on his feet--not responding to actually memory recollection. He also doesn't talk about what happened, but what she did do from time-to-time, which is noticeable to me. It's another red flag. Why isn't he just recollecting memories from that night? You would think they would be burned into his mind forever, if that was the last time he saw her, wouldn't you?
Leon admits without using the words, that he was the jealous type, and that he ran into Mischelle that night when she was driving around with male friends. He was the last person to see her alive.
Moriarty asks, "Did that bother you [that she was with other guys]?" Leon replies, "It did...because we had been together for three years." He shrugs his shoulders here interestingly, though I don't believe it negates what he is saying. It's almost like he is thinking to himself, should I say this, and he thinks why not, and that is why we see the shoulder shrug. You have to wonder if he is self-censoring? Why would he do this?
Moriarty asks,"Did she leave the house upset with you or angry with you at all?"
Leon says, "No, not at all. I mean, we - like I said, we hugged, kissed and said our good-nights and that was it."
Usually a man who is jealous enough to follow his girlfriend in a car with other men (even if they were only friends) is not the type to calm down and forget about it in the same night. This is a man who has a serious temper. Logically speaking, it would be highly unusual for him to get over his emotions and part on good terms. Everything about Leon is questionable for me. I don't trust him.
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.
Ryan Ferguson, who was convicted of killing a local Sports Editor Kent Heitholt in 2004, is requesting that he be allowed to pay for Touch DNA on the clothing of Heitholt. Here is an article about it. It's quite interesting because the Ferguson family feels there is resistance from the prosecutor to allow this to happen. They felt they had no choice but to run a full page add in the local paper to get their request noticed.
Last year, the other man convicted in this killing, Charles Erickson, changed his story and gave a deposition saying now that he lied in court and that Ryan Ferguson is actually innocent.
I have always believed Ryan Ferguson was innocent. To read all of my thoughts on this case, click on the labels below, or use the search bar below my eye icon on the right.
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.
A reader, L, linked to this. I had not seen this video until this morning. Have you? I found it interesting that CNN felt it was worth covering and playing it twice in the same clip. I am obviously not the only one disturbed by Diena's behavior. I am curious, is this Diena's sister?
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.
Jarred Harrell was arrested for the murder of Somer Thompson today. I just want to acknowledge that I see this as I have stated in the past that I did not trust Diena Thompson. I will be curious to see this case unfold, though, I am open to considering that I may be wrong. I never stated that I thought Diena killed her daughter. I've just always suspected she knew more than she was telling us.
Please know that I will wait for evidence to be revealed in this case that is sufficient, or for this case to go to court before I categorize this. I do this for all cases, and this one is no exception.
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.
NEWSWEEK: Hello Botox, Bye-Bye Sadness—But Not for the Reasons You Think: Paralyzing the "frown" muscles also inhibits the ability to understand anger and sadness.Read more here.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
“Power, it seems, enhances the same emotional, cognitive, and physiological systems that lie-telling depletes. People with power enjoy positive emotions, increases in cognitive function, and physiological resilience such as lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol. Thus, holding power over others might make it easier for people to tell lies.”
Read more here. What do you think? I'll share my opinion in the comment section below.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
I was asked about my opinion on Kevin Klym in early February on my Feedback Tab. While on a short vacation in Miami, Kevin Klym's girlfriend, Paula Sladewski, was found dead, burned in a dumpster.
Klym and Sladewski were separated at a night club early one morning, supposedly over an argument. Both were removed from the club minutes apart. Klym says he made his way back to their hotel, but Sladewski never returned.
Kevin's story was featured on Dateline NBC this past weekend, and I just wanted to say that I have seen enough to say that I believe Kevin is being honest in that he is not involved in killing Paula Sladewski. While they may have not had the best relationship, all signs from Klym are supportive he is not involved.
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 episode is about Jennifer Cave, 21, who was found murdered and dismembered in Colton Pitonyak's apartment in 2005. Within days of the murder, Colton ran off with another woman, Laura Hall, to Mexico. When questioned why she didn't turn Colton in, Laura tells us that she was afraid of Colton, and that she, too, was another victim. She claims she was innocent of any involvement in the death or dismemberment of Jennifer Cave.
Yet when you watch and listen to Laura's story, there are a lot of red flags. Share the red flags you see when watching Laura speak in the comment section below. I will share my thoughts there as well...
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
I really enjoyed seeing Tiger Woods in this latest interview. Why? Because he is being so down to earth and humble over his mistakes. He is showing his human side. He is facing his mistakes head-on, talking about them and he is even showing us that he is insecure about golfing in front of the public again. That's three stars for Woods!
What other famous, rich person have you seen do this?
Read moreI honestly can't think of another apology, off hand, where the person was so humble. Usually, the stars have a chip on their shoulder that is so huge, even after admissions and an apology, the arrogance steams off of them like hot pavement being hit by a cool summer rain. This is absolutely missing from Woods and a strong indication he means what he is saying.
When someone apologizes to me, this is what I need:
a). I need to hear the apologizer say what they did wrong: repeatedly, if I need it. If they can't do it--forget the apology.
b). I need to see them say it in a humble way: any sign of arrogance or resistance--forget about it! They haven't accepted their actions and are not sorry.
c). I need them to allow me to ask questions like "Why did you do this"? If the person can't discuss it how I need to discuss it and as often as I need to discuss it, and give me what I need, they haven't come to terms with what they did wrong.
d). I need the apologizer to let me chose the time frame to accept that apology. If someone wants instant gratification that I forgive them, it's over. I am the one who is hurt and considering giving them a second chance. That means the relationship, to begin with a second time, is on my terms. PERIOD. They hurt me and now they need to give me the space to heal as I need to do so, if they are truly regretful.
I'm a tough cookie with apologies. Hurt me once, shame on you. Hurt me twice, shame on me for not demanding what I needed! My guidelines have sniffed out a lot of no-so-sorry people in my life. Thank god!
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 week ago (10 days ago), I ordered a bathing suit online at JcPenneys. They advertised it was on sale $10 off the full price, and since I found a free shipping coupon online, I ordered it. It arrived. I don't live near a store.
Yesterday I realized that I was going to a dentist near a Penneys, so I decided to go in and look at what they were charging locally. I went in, found the suit, and low and behold the suit was $20 off the regular price.
It's sad to say that I expected as much.
Read moreOnline they give you one price and at the store, you find another. Some times the store is cheaper, sometimes online is cheaper. You never know which it will be, so I check frequently when I am able to.
I went up to the register with my receipt and I asked for a credit. The woman at the check out counter told me that she couldn't help me. The catalog business she explained is not the same as the store. I immediately piped up in front of the other waiting customers that this was a deceptive practice!! You should have seen their faces...
I said if you are one store, you should sell the product for the same price across the board. The customer service rep then said to me, "Well, did you get free shipping?" I acknowledged I did and shot right back at her, "Yeah, so does that make it right--charging me for shipping underhandedly?" Everyone around me was tense because I laid my thoughts on the table. People looked away! It always amazes me. The customer service rep told me to go to the catalog department to find out what could be done.
So I trucked on over to the catalog department and said, "I want a credit. This is $10 less than what I paid in the past week or two". She promptly informed me it was not their policy to price match in the store. I said fine. Ring up this suit here, and I will be back tomorrow and I will bring you the other one so you can give me a credit. I'm not paying ten dollars more for nothing. You'll just have to do more work-- that's your choice. She told me she would give me a credit, though it was against their policy.
Do you find these practices deceptive? I sure do...
I think as consumers we need to speak out against this and stop 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.
A reader asked me for an opinion on my Feedback page about Misty Croslin. What is fascinating is when I was listening to it, I heard something interesting.
If you go to time marker 7:00 and listen from there, you will hear Misty say, "I didn't have nothing to do with her. I love that little girl more than anything, would never hurt her, if I knew who hurt her, I wouldn't tell."
Did I hear that right? Does she says she wouldn't tell?
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 other day a reader asked me for my opinion on River Cruz on my Feedback page. Cruz is the woman who claims she had an affair with George Anthony, and that George confessed to her that Caylee's death was an accident.
River Cruz supposedly had an affair with George Anthony two years ago. Supposedly authorities came to her to get the info. She says that she is not hoping to make money off of the information. Both she and her sister Skye Benhaida were interviewed. Videos of both are on WFTV. http://tinyurl.com/y... more
River Cruz supposedly had an affair with George Anthony two years ago. Supposedly authorities came to her to get the info. She says that she is not hoping to make money off of the information. Both she and her sister Skye Benhaida were interviewed. Videos of both are on WFTV. http://tinyurl.com/ykrveth
They're all short videos. Do you think that the two women are being truthful. I thought that the sister seemed to be taking delight in the whole thing on her first interview. River Cruz herself seems to want to be left alone and doesn't seem interested in getting attention for this although my guess is that she'll be happy enough if she gets some money from the tabloids in the end.
I responded two days ago on the 17th (I just see UserVoice isn't showing dates! What the heck? They used to):
These two are sending mixed messages. There is quite a bit of shoulder shrugging where I wouldn't expect to see it. This is also not a high stake lie, but I don't believe we are hearing 100% of the truth. I'd need to see more to break it all down.
There is definite interest to get money from this, if you want my opinion, from both women. Was there an affair? I am undetermined at this time.
Nancy Grace interviewed River Cruz's sister on her show on the 17th. You can read the transcript here, and River's sister denies selling the story to the National Enquirer or having interest in any money.
Yet last night on Nancy Grace, what do you suppose Nancy Grace was holding up? The National Enquirer with River Cruz's story!
Is that a hit? A success at calling out a liar? You decide. I'm pissed User Voice doesn't have date stamps anymore! We all need to complain to them to change that!
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.
Shantina Smiley, 29, mysteriously disappeared last weekend under strange circumstances. You can read the story here.
When I watched this video of her ex-husband, I was immediately concerned by his demeanor and emotions. While this video is nothing conclusive (one hot spot by itself isn't enough to say anything), I want to see more of him. If anyone sees more video of him speaking about this, will you share it with me?
I saw a video of the fiance, and he appeared genuinely concerned.
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.
James Sikes is not convincing in the tale of his horrific ordeal that could have easily ended his life. I would immediately expect to see fear--regardless of when this interview was taken. Fear from a potentially life-threatening situation doesn't resolve quickly, if ever. As humans, we have strong emotionally memories, even years later. Some last a lifetime. When we recollect a fearful situation, our faces remember it, too, and strangely for Sikes, his face has no memory.
Read moreWhen I watch Sikes speak, these are my thoughts:
The first thing Sikes says is, "Somehow it got stuck....I...I...I don't know....I don't know..." at which point he shrugs his shoulders in doubt. Why is he doubtful here?
Furthermore, while eye contact is almost never (99% of the time) a clue to deception, here his aversion to look at people is notable. It's unusual behavior and not your typical "lack of eye contact or looking in a different direction as we think". You can feel there is an aversion to look at others, a feeling like he just can't do it. It doesn't make sense.
Sikes clearly looks insecure, and I don't think he is an insecure man. Why is he so insecure at a moment where the world is distrusting of Toyotas and would likely be on his side more than ever? If you are honest, this is a big oomph in your sails! This is a red flag for me.
Most people who experienced this terror would be certain about two things: the vehicle went crazy (out of control, nuts, had a mind of its own/something similar) and that it was scary (unnerving, frightening/something similar). Period. It's really the two key elements I would expect to hear Sikes talk about for certain, and yet we don't hear this at all. These are absent. Why?
I am flagged by the fact I do not see confidence about the facts, but I also don't see any emotions: fear, horror, sadness, or any feeling one would experience when one is potentially facing death. Ninety miles an hour in a car with no ability to stop it is life-threatening no matter how you look at it. That evokes strong emotions. Period.
Sikes finishes the statement above with, "...somehow the pedal was stuck". This flags me. How did he know the pedal was stuck? Cars can suddenly accelerate without a stuck gas pedal.
I was in a runaway vehicle before and when you get out, you don't have a clue what happened. You just know the damn car wouldn't STOP! For me, the engine revved up undeniably. It stood out to me as a notable element. Sikes doesn't talk about this at all. His details are sparse. If you pushed on the gas pedal, you wouldn't notice the revving because it would be expected.
How come he assumes the pedal was stuck and doesn't question anything else like the electronics? Or the brakes? Why doesn't he leave it open to consideration? Most people who want to know the truth want to explore all potentials. One could argue that he just used the "stuck pedal" as a description, but I find it odd he doesn't question any other potential.
Sikes continues, "It wasn't sticking on anything that was visible." Who can drive above 50 or faster, and take time to look at their feet and the gas pedal and still navigate the highway traffic? Anyone? Is this physically even possible? The thoughts scare me.
Look at the tensed-eyebrow expression Sikes makes at 0:19. You can see him thinking as he speaks. He is stressing here. The lack of fear with the stress is concerning. Ironically, when you listen to his 911 call which is odd in and of itself, he seems to express fear, yet in person, its strangely missing.
Sikes says, "I pulled to a point where I can feel it still (smirk) in my shoulder, but it was just stuck. That's the only way I can explain it."
He pulled on the gas pedal? Is this physically possible??
When Sykes says this, he shrugs his shoulder. Do you see it? He is also shaking his head no the whole time as he says it and he keeps expressing stress in his eyebrows. Why on earth would he feel a positive emotion here when talking about pain he endured due to a freak malfunction of a car that almost cost him his life?
What is sad to me is that I am sure there are a lot of valid complaints of runaway vehicles out there that are legitimate, and this will just cause people to doubt the truth when they see it now. That's frustrating. So many people looked at me when it happened to me a long time ago, and only now are they coming around and being honest enough to say, "Wow, that is what might have happened to 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.
While this video is just a joke and was created by actors, I still think there is good value in watching it. Many people take life at face value and when they see a sad face or a tragic story, they fall into the grasp of prey. Or when they are offered a "too good to be true" become rich opportunity, they buy into it. They get emotional and their critical thinking levels drop. This is exactly how serial killers lure their victims, and how scam artists succeed in conning people. While I am not trying to scare people and many of you saw red flags at various levels, I thought I would break down some of the notable points of this video for you.
When you first watch the video, what is the first thing you notice?
Read moreYou should be immediately struck by what the host says about saving money, "We're going to show you how to guilt your kids into dropping out of college." I can be confident that many people missed this. We get drawn into stories and when we hear a tragedy, we often get emotional and miss basic details. Being fine-tuned into the details is a big head-start into spotting deception. Truly listening to people is so critical and I am amazed at how many people fail to do this. It's one of the easiest ways to increase your ability to spot deception. If you listen critically to what is being said, you have a much higher likelihood that you'll hear inconsistencies, which is one of the bigger red flags to deception.
The second thing that caught my eye was the photo of the python with the child in its belly. It's so horrifying, if this were real, you can be assured it would not be shown on TV. Did this give you pause?
I find it fascinating how the mom says, "It was just a regular morning". If this was a tragedy as we are being told, she wouldn't be recalling it as a 'regular morning'. This shows lack of emotional by-in to the storyline.
When she says, "Rich was taking the girls to school and Zack was playing in the habitat," her emotions are flat. Did you hear here say this when you first watched it?
We would expect to see pain, fear, stress, concern, worry--something on the mom's face, but we see nothing. Instead, she looks at the reporter with a classic expression of "Am I believable? Do you believe me?" Something about liars, they look for assurance that their storyline is being bought into. I see it time and time again.
You've got to laugh that Zack shared a room with the snake and that Zack was playing "in the habitat" while she was in another room painting. Did you catch this detail? Of course, this is absurd and no parent caught in this nightmare would ever admit to this. They'd be panicked their other children would be taken away and they would lie to cover this, if it were true. People self-preserve. Its part of our nature as humans.
If you listen to the mother's voice as she talks, it is quite interesting that many of her statements end in a high note, like a question, rather than in a down tone like a statement.
I continually notice the mom's expressions are flat, and when she does finally break down, its labored. You can almost feel her working at becoming upset and there are absolutely no tears! Did you notice? At one point, I almost wonder if she started to laugh as she fake-cried when she put her head down. I can't be sure. She must have thought of something sad though, because she did pull off for a couple of seconds a good sad expression.
You have to laugh at the father when he says, "You never think your python is going to bring the family anything but joy." And the reporter when he says, "Its the kind of thing you think can only happen to other people..."
It's even more funny how the father says, "We tried to be safe parents. We would never let Zach by the pool unless he was supervised by one of us or the python." Did you hear "or the python" when you first listened to this video?
You've got to be laughing at this point. His wife just said they left him alone in the "habitat". Big inconsistencies and absolute craziness--the snake watching the boy in the pool. It's over-the-top. There were so many things that should have caught people's attention, but I bet I can be confident we all missed details, myself included.
The mom goes on, "I keep thinking what if I had checked on them before I went shopping and the movies." Hello! Who leaves a little boy alone to go shopping and to the movies? Remember, dad was out with the girl(s).
The father says, "We were going to put a lock on the habitat. I mean a door and then a lock on the habitat, but..." He goes on, "We even thought about putting the snake outside...especially since he ate our Boston terrier a couple of months ago." Did you catch these--that there was no door on the habitat? That the snake ate their Boston terrier?
Hello?!
No parents in their right mind would admit to being so careless unless they were severely disabled. People have a natural sense of preservation, which is clearly missing from this comedy, for obvious reasons :).
I could go on, but since this is a joke, and I will stop here. If you believed these people, because you are new to The Onion, its okay. Don't beat yourself. Maybe this is a good experience that you can improve your listening skills. Simply doing that, you will help dispel more deception than you'll ever realize.
I'd be curious to hear from people, after reading this, did you see more in writing than you actually heard? I can honestly admit even I did not hear everything the first time through myself. Why is that?
* * * I think what is key in hindsight is that if you knew of The Onion, you would know to look out for all the humor. If you didn't know The Onion, then what I have written above would apply.
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.
London (UK), San Diego (USA), Whangarei, New Zealand and the Rocky Mountains, Colorado (USA)! Click on the thumbnail to see all the thumbnails. Then once there, you can click on each one to see them larger.
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.
One reader has submitted a photo! How cool is this? The world's tallest building: Burj Dubai! Will you be next? If you live in a small town, don't fret over it. Take a a photo in your town by a building, or next to your town sign. You don't have to have a big landmark. Its okay! And if you are shy, don't show your face :) Give us an arm or a leg, just keep it "G" rated, please :)
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 asked to review this video to see if there was anything in it that would catch my eye. Rodney Alcala is a convicted serial killer sentenced to die for his crimes. He appeared on this dating game show in 1978. Sadly, the answer is no. Nothing stood out that would alarm me about Alcala in this video.
The only thing that might have put me on notice with Alcala is arrogance. Arrogance, to me, is always the portrayal of a false sense of superiority or importance. When I see this trait, I am always cautious immediately. There is never anything positive about arrogance, and I avoid arrogant people like the plague. If you are truly worthy, you will be confident yet have a sense of humility.
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.
Check out the article from MSNBC.com. What do you think?
A growing body of science is showing that facial configuration — placement of the eyes, width of the cheekbones and so on — provides clues to a person's personality , including likelihood to be extroverted, conscientious and, now, trustworthy. While this analysis is not unfailing, it works slightly more often than not.
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.
Superior Court Judge Abraham Penn Jones said that he held the Youngs in contempt because he believes they are withholding other items from the court, including, WTVD says, additional copies of the tape.
"There were things told to the court under oath, in affidavits, in testimony that turned out to be inaccurate. Right now, part of me says they didn't tell me the truth before in this court," Jones said, according to the Raleigh News and Observer.
Young's lawyers tried to downplay the discrepancy as a memory lapse, one of many Young has suffered throughout the course of the hearings.
I am sure you all know, I am not surprised in the least!! To read my thoughts of Andrew Young's previous interviews, click on the labels below. Thanks, Karon, for the news tip!
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.
Chelsea King's Parents are fascinating to watch in this interview. I took a clip out of the interview that I found intriguing and I have it for you below. Watch when Chelsea's mom says at the very end that she [Chelsea] was the whole package. What do you see? What does it mean to you?
I will share my thoughts in the comment section in the coming days... Don't forget to check back!
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
As always, I can't wait to see Saturday night's mystery!
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.
Inappropriate laughter in always very striking, and I saw a good example of it this week that I wanted to share with you, my readers.
In this video, at time marker 2:53, you will see an older woman by the name of Wanda talk about her daughter's murder. Before she speaks, she fight off deep laughter. She grins, even snickers as she holds back the laughter, and yet she is talking about her daughter's murder. It's amazing to see.
What do you make of this laughter?
Click here to read my thoughts.To me, this inappropriate laughter does NOT raise any alarm bells. I don't know this woman and I don't know what ultimately happened in her daughter's case, but Wanda's laughter is truly and deeply surrounded by genuine pain and anguish. When she laughs, notice the confusing body signals she sends out? She looks up, as if to get away. She even shakes her head like "no"! She is having a battle of mind over body here.
Clearly what is happening to Wanda is that she is profoundly overwhelmed and emotionally confused. She is having a horrible time accepting the reality of what has happened. She has moments of pure denial and disbelief. It is precisely this conflict of being unable to accept her reality, yet knowing the truth, that caused Wanda to react the way she did in my opinion. She is having an emotional battle at a level we rarely see, but we know exists. Hence, the confusion comes out like a short circuit of insane laughter. It's absolutely fascinating to watch and in no way resembles duper's delight--not even for an instant!
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 had nothing but problems with Echo commenting since I was asked to upgrade in December. They are unable to support their new system, want me to make changes to code that is beyond simple HTML doesn't even exist when I search for it in my template! Their customer service blames me for their bugs. I am so done with them. If you run a blog, my advice is to steer clear!!!
With that, I was wondering if someone out there is techie and can help me switch to a different comment service. I've downloaded my comments, now I just need help with the code.
I am tired of all the headaches from a failed Echo system.
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.
State Attorney Angela Corey can't say much about where the investigation is at, but she says his status might not change anytime soon. "There is not a timeline on how long someone can remain a person of interest," said Corey. Corey is in regular communication with Clay County Sheriff Rick Beesler...
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.
One reader was kind enough to share with me that Paradise Lost was on YouTube (Thanks, Angel). It's in 15 segments that are 10 minutes long each. Thanks to all the people who shared links with me. I was fortunate enough, yesterday, to have the time to watch all but one segment of the documentary (segment 7 wouldn't load for me, so I skipped it), and it is an excellent documentary.
Read moreIf the footage shown in the documentary is in actual sequence of events--that is, the footage of the boys talking in the videos were recorded prior to or during trial, I believe what these boys are saying in the segments shown in the documentary is truthful. That is all I can say. If, however, I find out differently, that any of the footage comes from after the trial, I retract this statement.
I was troubled by two things I saw in the while watching the trial. I was troubled by Mark Byers' testimony about the knife that he gave to the HBO crew while they were shooting the documentary. The crew found what they thought was flesh and blood in the crevice of the knife, and so they gave it to police.
Police sent Byers' gift knife to HBO to the crime lab, and the DNA matched both Byers and his son, Chris. With that, the defense team decided to put Byers on the sand. Byers, however, couldn't remember a lot of things on the stand. When he was asked tough questions about the DNA on the knife, only then does he conveniently remember he cut his thumb out of the blue, when minutes before he didn't. It was alarming, yet it is later discussed that he had a brain tumor. This may or may not explain his erratic behavior, but it needs to be taken into account.
Also, at the end of the documentary, I was really taken back at the footage that is shown of Byers after the verdict was read. They show him in utter surprise when hearing the verdict. Why on earth would he be surprised?
Everyone else in the courtroom seemed to feel the convictions were coming, or they were overwhelmed with grief. Yet in a strange twist, he was utterly shocked! So much so, you couldn't miss it. It makes you wonder, does he know something that no one else knew? Even Damien and Jason felt like they had lost the case before the verdict. That's what so surprises me about Byers' behavior. Why on earth the shock? It's very perplexing to me.
Clearly, this case is a travesty of justice, and needs new hands and fresh eyes. Where was Byers that night? Does he have a credible alibi? How about Terry Hobbs? Does he have a credible alibi? And last, who was that guy at the fast food restaurant that was all bloody? We need many more answers, I think, before we will know the truth.
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 watched this 48 Hours episode with great anticipation, because while I heard of the case, I hadn't seen testimony of the key players to form an opinion. I also didn't know all the details of the case.
Read moreUnfortunately, I have bad news for all of you who are looking for my thoughts. The short segment of Damien on the stand wasn't sufficient for me to make any determinations. Damien was asked if he took part in a satanic killing, or something to that effect, to which he said no. That question was not reliable--a killer could honestly answer "no" even if he did kill, but not satanically.
Worse, all the interview segments of Damien in the present, while they are suggestive that he is honest, has little value to me. Essentially, if he is guilty, which I have no opinion on at this time, the stakes of the lie are gone, because he is paying the ultimate price already. So hence if he continues to lie, there is no stress in doing so anymore. There are actually only benefits, which causes little to no clues to leak.
Please hear me: I am not saying I believe Damien is guilty or innocent from what I have seen on this 48 Hours episode. Clearly, the evidence is supportive that he is, and I am very happy to see 48 Hours bring out this case to the public. I think there is sufficient doubt that this case needs to be looked at again. I just personally want to see the suspects talk at key times, when the stakes of the crimes were still high.
High stakes in a lie are the pressure points that burst the tomato, so-to-speak. They are so important. They are critical in most cases. It brings me back to a memory I have. I once watched a person on the stand defend their murderous behavior. Their lies leaks like a sieve. There was no doubt of their involvement. However, when this person was interviewed from prison a fair amount of time later after being convicted, if I didn't pay attention to the facts that the high stakes were gone, I would have absolutely believe them! It was earth-shattering for me, and it demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that high stakes are essential in deception detection. It's a chilling reality for me, and it should be a caution to everyone who attempts to decipher deception.
Without high stakes in action, it a big road block in trying to help free the wrongly convicted. With that, we are left to go back and look at footage before or during the trial only. If no footage exists, it's horrifying, but thankfully, with Damien footage exists.
Damien could very well be innocent. I need to get my hands on the movie "Paradise Lost", and see if there is sufficient footage of him talking about the crime on the stand. I need to see footage before or during the trial, where I know the time of when things were recorded. Can you help me get this? Would someone donate a copy to me? Can it be downloaded online somewhere?
I know many of you are going to ask me about Terry Hobbs as well, and he is in a similar situation. The fact that his DNA is on the ligature is definitely noteworthy. It's captures my attention, and needs to be considered --100%. But his interview is not of great value for me, either. If we speculate (pure speculation) that he is the murderer, he has had more than 16 years to gain the confidence he has gotten away with this. With that, he may feel that the stakes of his lie aren't nearly as high, because if they had evidence, they would have hung him already, but they obviously don't. Plus, there is currently someone else charged with the murder, and they can't charge two people. This takes the high stakes of his lie and drops them off dramatically. So with Terry Hobbs, I also need to see footage of him back then, and taking about the key elements of this case, which may or may not exist. If Hobbs was facing a jury now, that might change things, but he isn't, at this time.
This is precisely why I don't review old cases. Time has an affect on all of us. We feel less guilt and remorse after decades of time. Our emotions fade, and so do the high stakes. The stakes of an old actions are not nearly as high as they once were, and we must be very cautious of this when we look for the truth. Old cases must be approached from a very different standpoint that current ones.
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.
