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.
There is an interesting video of Larry James responding to claims by his son, Jesse, that he was abused over at RadarOnline.
Larry is relaxed and his words flow, which is supportive of honesty. When we watch his facial expressions and emotions, they, too, are supportive of his words. When we further compare his interview and behavior to James' interview and behavior, I think it becomes clear who appears most trustworthy. It isn't Jesse.
In the process of looking for a linkable video of Larry, I found an article by TMZ that I thought was fascinating. Jesse James' sister, Julie, supports Jesse in that she believed he was abused.
What is fascinating, however, if TMZ's post is accurate and truthful, it puts Jesse in a bad light. In his Nightline interview, Jesse talked of snapping his wrist when going over the fence for the ball that night his dad yelled at him. Then later, Jesse brings up that his dad broke his arm, as if to suggest it was a different incident. Well, according to TMZ and Julie, it was one in the same. Oops! Is he busted?
I wondered if these two were the same incident and according to two of Jesse's family members, it was! It's not looking good for Jesse. Did his sister just dig his hole bigger for him?
* This is a reader funded blog. If you like what you have read, please consider making a donation in the right-hand column. Thanks!
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Susan Murphy-Milano' writes an intriguing post about Bruce and Monica Beresford-Redman that is well worth reading. How many people travel to foreign countries, and have no idea of the laws of the country where they are going? Have you ever thought about how the laws of another country could aid a person with bad intentions and allow that person to escape justice?
Few people think about that when they travel to exotic locales for sun and fun, or to rejuvenate a troubled relationship. If you've never given it thought, its well worth a minute. Had Monica's family thought about it, and considered the risks, it may have saved her life.
If you know someone who is in a troubled or violent relationship, Susan's new book, Time's Up, is the perfect gift. It's also got a five star review! I love what she has come up with:
If you, as a reader, are not aware of what an Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit is, it is a formal signed and notarized series of documents, along with video testimony, that can be used in a court of law if someone in a violent relationship is either missing or murdered. It can bypass all hearsay laws because it's done in the "potential" victim's own voice, own words and used like a will in the event that something happens.
Have you ever seen "Locked Up Abroad" on NatGeo? It's haunting....the stuff of nightmares. It shows how little most Americans know about foreign justice and makes you think twice of traveling, which I have always been very fond of.
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.
Isn't that just slightly refreshing? She got caught red handed, being a snake, but at least she didn't lie about it! I guess she couldn't with undercover video, could she?
This behavior from her surprises me. She must be quite desperate. She is looking the worst I have ever seen her look before.
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.
Watch Jesse James in this interview with Nightline as he talks about his abuse. "I never had a chance to be a kid. I just remember the clenched teeth, the strained neck look on his face, you know?"
Read moreThe reporter says, "Did he beat you?" James responds, "He beat my ass good a bunch of times." Isn't that a little vague? He remembers his dad's clenched teeth and strained neck first?
"Football star, bike builder, monster garage TV star, all that stuff is a huge smoke screen so people won't see I'm a scared abused kid....a seven year old."
Was he only seven when he was abused??
When James says this stuff about a smoke screen, watch for the twinkle in his eye. He is glowing when he says this and shows zero stress about painful memories liked he wants us to believe. James lied to Sandra...is he trying to pull the wool on us too?
James recounts the abuse, I guess, when he says, "I tripped over this little low fence wire and snapped my wrist and I remember my dad laughed at me when I hit the ground and called me a dummy."
Is that the abuse? How many parents have lost it and done this to their children? While its not in good taste, we all get pushed to the edge in life at times.
James continues, "I was petrified of my dad... It wasn't so much getting the sh** beat out of me or getting my arm broken or getting kicked or whatever or punched, it was the in-between time [smile], the fear of that happening again. I was a terrorized kid."
Does anyone know what this means? It sounds like a bunch of bunk, if you ask me. Does this sound like the recollections of abuse? James seems to really be digging deep.
James says, "It's really tough for me to think about now, because..........[it appears James is thinking here and then tears appear...is he working it?] Sonny was the age that I was...when my dad broke my arm."
Whoa! Are we talking about the same incident above about the snapped wrist or this another incident? Wouldn't that be a huge memory for you over the clenched teeth and strained neck? Why the lack of details on the biggest abuse disclosed yet?
Notice the lack of stress in his forehead through the entire segment.
James has me questioning things. Is he exaggerating, fabricating or telling us the truth? This is not a high stake lie so I don't think we can say anything conclusively, but remember, James has already admitted he lied to Sandra a lot, should we believe him now?
Stay tuned tomorrow as I look at his dad's side of the story...
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
When I watch Jesse James in the interview from ABC's Nightline, I see a man who feels threatened by Sandra. I absolutely believe him when he says, "It's about trying to push someone away that I thought was going to leave anyway." At another point in the interview, he says, "I never felt good enough for anyone." When James says this, I absolutely believe him.
I personally believe James saw what Sandra was made of, and felt he could never complete. Instead of dealing with his shortcomings and improving himself, James took the easy way out and indulged himself with people that made him feel worthy and important--without any regard for how that would impact his marriage or his children.
It appears this is all about James, and no one else.
James wants to feel like he is the top dog and that's where he strayed--in circles where he felt he was the star. With Sandra, he was never going to get that. That's why I think he truly wanted to get caught. I think he wanted his marriage to end, because he couldn't handle Sandra getting all the attention. It just reinforced to James all of his shortcomings and he didn't want any part of that!
James is strangely arrogant, if you ask me, which I wouldn't expect if he was truly remorseful for what he did. While he owns up to his actions in words, his emotions are completely void and unsupportive. I simply see a man saying what he has to say without any conviction or buy in.
The only pain James feels is when he cries over his pain. This behavior, if you ask me, is a recipe for James to continue to be destructive towards others in his life. For me, it is a big warning to thread carefully. Arrogance and a lack of remorse are quite a devastating combination for those who come into James' inner circle.
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 been asked to review the Schapelle Corby case in Australia. A beautiful young woman went to Bali on vacation and when she arrived, she says she opened up her surfboard case and saw marijuana inside, but she says she did not put it there, and doesn't know who did. The case has riveted Australia for years. Corby faced the death penalty, but got 20 years in a Bali prison instead.
I was forwarded this newscast below, but it is not enough for me to formulate any opinions. I saw footage a few years ago of her in court and if anyone finds that video, can you post a link below? I will keep you updated if I see anything that allows me to draw a definite conclusion.
What makes this case exceptionally hard is that with either innocence or guilt, Schappelle will have strong emotions about being locked up. She will undoubtedly feel pain, anger and frustration. That is to be expected regardless of her involvement, which means we have to look beyond that for clues...
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.
Read moreSeveral of you have voted that I review the recent Lohan video. I think most people see the truth in this situation. Lohan has a serious problem and is in complete denial. In this video, while she is trying to excuse everything, she fails at it miserably.
The reporter asks Lindsay, "Was that cocaine in the photographs?" Notice how Lindsay doesn't answer the question?
Lohan says, "I was literally walking back to my room with a few of my friends, um, after doing press for my movie...I was with some of the producers I work with. They went back into my room, and the director as well, and I stopped in someone's room because someone came out of the room, and said, "Could you just take a picture with me really quickly?"
What is fascinating is how Lindsay first says she was "with a few of her friends". Then a second later, she says she was with the producers and the director. Which is it? If they are friends, you continue to refer to them as "friends". If you say producers/director, you would stick with that. Why is she flipping them here? Notice the stutter with the word "um"?
Notice, as well, the details in her story are missing.
Supposedly everyone went to her room, but she stopped. Who let them in her room then, if she stopped? Why doesn't she talks about the details of handing over her key? Is this the cart before the horse--because it is a made up story?
I would also think it would be odd for Lindsay to just go into any hotel room with strangers and to take a photo, without anyone else being there with her. You would think she would have some safety concerns, wouldn't you?
Lindsay wants us to think she never saw the cocaine. Well, she obviously saw the photos they are speaking about! Why doesn't she address the obvious? Instead she avoids it like the white elephant in the room that it is.
You have to laugh when the reporter says, "Do you think that was a setup?" If she was innocent and not involved in the drugs in anyway, she would have likely said something like, "It obviously was...they are selling or sharing these photos! Hello!" But Lindsay denies it -- which is a huge hot spot. If she is deceptive, she doesn't want to piss off the people who took those photos, does she? Heck no!
Why would Lindsay laugh when the reporter asked her if she is still taking drugs? It flat out contradicts what we should be seeing if she is honest--which would be seriousness. If she is truly trying to beat this as she wants us to believe, Lindsay would be dead serious, proud and confident. Instead, Lindsay is stressed, insecure, doubtful and clearly struggling with issues and needs help. She is trying to convince herself here more than anyone else. I don't think a soul believes her, do you?
Lohan's father appeared on the CBS Early Show this morning and when you watch him in comparison to his daughter, it is very clear who is being honest 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.
Here is an interesting article from the New York Times (books) that questions if physical features may predispose people towards crime. What do you think?
For the weekend shows, there isn't much to write about, so I will share my thoughts in the comment sections of each.
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.
Kayleah's mom's behavior in this interview is peculiar. She shows no fear or sadness that her daughter is missing. There are no tears, no crying and there is no stress whatsoever. She doesn't seem to have sense of urgency, either, which is notable. I also question if I see a glimmer of positive emotions in April in this video.
If we didn't know what April was talking about, we'd likely guess that she was talking about a missing purse, or something inane here.
April says, "Keep an eye out, if they have any information, even if it doesn't seem like its anything, to contact the Greeley Police Department, the FBI, they are doing all they can, but any info, anything can help. Please just get the word out, her picture... Just watch people when you are driving down the road. Keep an eye out, I just want her home, (smile) and safe.
I find it odd she tells people to get her picture out, yet she didn't bring one. She doesn't describe what her daughter was last wearing or anything. And to tell people when they are driving down the road to keep an eye out is odd. That is not typically how lost children are found.
However, before I can formulate an opinion in this case, I'd need to see April asked some tough questions. This video is not enough for me to say anything conclusive, though I am definitely interested to see more...
Thanks, SuzeBluez, for the video. If more become available, please let me know.
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 a story in the news, which I will fill you in on below in the comment section. What feelings do you get when watching this? If you don't know German, you won't be able to understand the family, which will allow you an opportunity to test your skills at understanding emotions. What do you think these people are feeling?
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.
Twelve-year-old Kayleah Wilson disappeared at the end of March and was last seen walking to a friend's birthday party. Yesterday police found a body in an irrigation ditch a 1/2 mile from where Kayleah lived, but they have not been able to make identity the body yet, as it was badly decomposed.
If anyone sees any family members being interviewed in this case or the 17-year old boyfriend, please let me know and I will look at the video.
Steve Kardian, a police officer for 30 years and a security expert, says that less than 1/2 of one percent of childhood abductions are from strangers. Does that statistic surprise you? I wonder how many sexual predators are strangers? With all the news today, it feels like there is a child predator on every corner!
------ If you see any missing person cases, where family speaks out, and you wonder if they are being honest, feel free to forward me the links.
I am also interested to review body language in videos as well so feel free to submit those, too.
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 no evidence more interesting to me than watching a person talk about their experiences. Through close attention to detail, we can spot the nuances that give away a lie. They may be subtle, but after 5 years of doing this, they definitely exist and the stories that our bodies and words tell endlessly fascinate me.
The case of Susan Wright is no exception. Susan's muted emotions were startling to me. To endure the nightmare of desecrating a body by stabbing it 193 times would be something most people could not shake and would be haunted by for a lifetime, even if they killed a violent abusive man. Yet when we watch the soft-spoken Susan, we don't see any signs of this.
Read moreI expect to see agony, horror and fear as she was forced to relived this horrible night repeatedly, but it is eerily missing. Instead to 48 Hours, Susan whines to us that she misses her children and it is so hard for her to be locked up and she doesn't want to recount that night again as if she were talking about a bad day. Give me a break. What happened that night is the stuff of nightmares regardless of the reasons, and Susan seems to have no emotional connection. It's highly notable for me.
Susan recounts,"He would throw me against walls, hit me in the face, the stomach, the back, and he would kick until he wasn't angry anymore."
When Susan says that, if it were true, she would have had bruises and other injuries that people would have noticed--especially if he hit her face! Even if people didn't see her bruises, such injuries would cause limping, difficultly breathing from the potential pain of broken ribs, etc which people should have noticed.
If you have known or been in an abusive relationship, you know that victims aren't able to hide the violence. More so, when people find out about the violence, they will often recall oddities that raised their suspicions, even if it was never discussed. So when Susan can't find anyone to corroborate her story outside of her sister, it raises my eyebrows in doubt. It is very notable for me.
I am really disturbed by how Susan smiles when she talks about telling Jeff that he needed help. If you are married to an abuser, you don't tell them what to do. You fear them. You walk gingerly in their presence never knowing what will set off the rage. Yet when Susan talks about confronting him, she smiles as she says she told him to get help. "That wasn't my place to tell him that he needed any sort of help." Her statement is and emotions are flat out contradictory to how a battered woman would feel. When you've been in an abusive relationship, the pain and torment doesn't give way to smiles, like this, when you recall it. You still feel the agony and pain. Why doesn't Susan? It glares at me over and over again.
On the stand, 48 Hours shows clips of Susan talking about being abused. She has absolutely no pain on her face, no anguish--nothing to support an emotional memory for what she is saying. We all have emotional memories that stay with us as long as we remember things and the fact that Susan is so void and muted here is a huge red flag for me. She puts on a pout face, and has stress in her forehead, but that could be because she is afraid she isn't being believed. Her crying does not hit me as genuine pain. It hits me as a pout or a whine. She also doesn't shed tears when she appears to be crying at times, did you notice?
Susan says in a montage created by 48 Hours of her statements, "He put his hands around my neck and he choked me.... He began to punch me in the chest over and over again....He shook me over and over again....over and over again until he wasn't angry anymore...until he wasn't angry anymore." If this is true, she would have sustained notably injuries, wouldn't you think?
I also noticed in the few stories of abuse that I saw Susan tell, she gives us very few details. They are always general and vague descriptions. Where are the details, the scenarios, the he said/she said aspects? Most people who were abused have searing memories of words exchanged and the events because they were so hurtful.
I also found it odd each time as Susan recalled the abuse, she seems to scan for people's responses immediately after she made her statement. I get the distinct feeling she is looking up like, "Did they buy it?" It's a notable trait that is seen in liars. They look to see if there is buy-in to their story. Honest people are usually consumed in the story they are telling and don't look for this approval each and every time they tell their version of events. It's another hot spot for me.
Watch when Susan says "I honestly expected them to come back and say not guilty." Did you see that she smiles! Why does she smile here? When the reporter ask her why she thought they would come back with a not guilty verdict, she says, "Well, because I had gotten up on the stand and told them what happened (smile) and that's just the way life was. I expected them to believe it."
That's just the way life was? La de dah?Ridiculous. How about because I was a battered woman, because I was abused and I killed in self-defense, because I was scared for my life!! Why doesn't she remind you that she is a victim? Does it not come natural for her?
Susan conveniently forgets, as well, that she lied on the stand. According to her testimony on the stand, she says she stabbed her husband's penis, yet the medical examiner testifies otherwise, that she likely taunted him with nicks (superficial cuts and slicing) wounds on his penis -- that it wasn't stabbed. Susan said, "I stabbed him in the penis for all the times he made me have sex with him and I couldn't stop..." You can't expect to lie on the stand and be believed. She seems to forget this... She also told two different stories of what happened that night.
When the prosecutor, Kelly Ziegler, is on the bed re-enacting the crime, watch Susan's reaction. She acts like she is crying, but do you see any tears? You would think it would be horrifying to relive that moment. It was grotesque! I'd expect to see her trembling in fear--something, anything signifying how emotionally jarring recalling that night would be. Instead she covers her mouth and shakes her head, as if in disbelief. That's not anguish, if you ask me, which it should be after mutilating and desecrating a human body! To even think about what she did in a sane mind should be haunting to her, but I don't see it. She does have red eyes so I suspect she cried, but they were awfully gentle tears for reliving what she endured. I just can't get over it.
Some people may question if she is just repressing her emotions, but that is hard to do when she talks of the night and tells us exactly where she stabbed him. At that moment, regardless of her ability to suppress her emotions, they should leak out. They don't.
Watch Susan when she says, "He told me what a fat ass that I was, um..." Look at her emotions. Do you see pain? I actually see a glimmer of positive emotions. Why?
Susan's sister talks about how Susan complained her husband was doing drugs. The only incident of abuse that she recollects is Susan being supposedly thrown through a wall--and the hole was the size of her back. 48 Hours shows a picture of the hole and if you look at it, she didn't go through that wall, if that picture is of the actual repaired hole. Nor is that hole the size of her back. The hole is way too small. It points to exaggeration, if you ask me. Every part of Susan's story has holes.
I totally concur with Ziegler's thoughts on this case. The fact that melted wax was found on Jeff tells a fascinating story as do the neck ties which were used to tie him up. It doesn't require creativity to put the pieces together of what likely happened that night...
All the evidence clearly points to a seduction with an intent, because if Susan Wright attacked/killed him in self-defense, she had the opportunity to run and get help when her child knocked on the door and she put her child back to bed. You would think if she cared for her child, she would make sure to rescue him at the very minimum. That wasn't her concern at all.
I mean, if she truly feared Jeff as she said, is she going to get up and respond to her child? Is she going to turn her back on him if she is afraid, as she says, that he could still kill her? Heck no!!
Is she going to take the time to search for ties and tie him up, if she is afraid for her life? Give me a break!!
Is she going to go back into that room where he is tied up and continue?
Her story is over-the-top, ridiculous.
What battered woman is going to put herself in harms way again and again if she feels her dangerous husband is still alive and could kill her as she said when she has managed to get away? Its pure nonsense!!
If you are afraid, you run.
You don't go back and face your accuser, dead, disable or whatever once you got away!! You have a natural fear instinct that kicks in-- a self-preservation instinct, which Susan apparently did not have and for good reason. Everything in my opinion points to the fact she premeditated this.
I am most disturbed by the fact that after tending to her child whom she has no worries about, she went back to inflict more injury to her husband. And more horrifying is that she got a "fresh knife" to start stabbing again! Why on earth would she do that? It's grotesque and speaks volumes about her behavior. I have to wonder if some part of her enjoyed mutilating him.
She was obviously sane enough to bury her husband to cover up her acts because she knew what she did was wrong.
What are the odds that Jeff would have a hole that he dug himself already in place that night--that was big enough for him to be buried in? What are the odds that she would overcome a man 100 pounds more heavy than her and successfully get the knife? What are the odds that he would succumb to her and not escape or overpower her? What are the odds that he wouldn't get any injuries in his back? What are the odds that she would escape with only superficial wounds? Give me a break! These are too many one-in-a-million odds, on top of everything else.
If she was truly a victim, why didn't she turn herself in immediately, call for help, even if it was hours later? Why did she bury him, remove his name from the answering machine and clear out their account if she was the victim, a victim in a supposed haze? Was she trying to get away with murder? Her actions sure suggest so...
If you want my opinion, Susan Wright is a cold, calculating killer, who is devoid of normal human emotions and empathy. She is selfish and deserves a lot more time than she got the first time around. I think she is an absolute arrogant fool to think she can get less time. If I were part of her second sentencing hearing, I'd go for the maximum. I hope she gets what she deserves. I see no supporting evidence whatsoever to believe that Susan was a battered wife.
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 will share my thoughts soon! Please consider making a donation to keep this blog going. I work many hours each week responding to all my inquiries requesting my opinion, seeking out and investigating new stories and reviewing videos, as well as writing engaging posts. This blog is a reader funded blog. Thanks!
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
George de la Cruz, the estranged husband of missing Julie Ann Gonzalez, failed the polygraph on Dr. Phil's show last Friday.
Over a week ago, I reviewed audio of George and pointed out hot spots that I saw in his speech, so I am not surprised by the results. I will say I was surprised to hear polygrapher Jack Trimarco state that the polygraph is 93% accurate. I have done a fair amount of reading searching for a qualified study to identify the accuracy of the polygraph, and I have never seen any reputable study state the results were anywhere near that high. My research identified accuracy between 60-70%. I'd be curious to know where Jack got that statistic.
I searched for the latest news on Julie and found that police searched a home in connection to this case last week.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Here is Sandra Lamb, one of Tonya Craft's accusers.
Lamb's emotions are all over the place in this interview. She doesn't seem grounded to me, which is notable.
Lamb says, "When my daughter said to me that Tonya had abused her that was the last thing that I expected to come out of her mouth, so when the defense said we were after her in some type of witch hunt - that really wasn't the case."
The word "really" stands out to me here. She appears to be hedging. I would, instead, expect her to be adamant that there was never a witch hunt. Why isn't she? Why is she so soft on this response?
If you were accused of creating a witch hunt, and you absolutely did not, wouldn't you be mad and firm that it was untrue?
Lamb says, "...like I say I have more strength through her [my daughter], I think she's going to be the one that helps me go forward." I find this very sad. Lamb is the parental figure and needs to be guiding her child, and not leaning on her! This can cause children all kinds of issues...
You can see Lamb's true colors when she says about Tonya, " The devil wears sheep's clothing." Watch that wicked grin!
What a horrible role model this woman is for children. She's teaching hate!
Clearly, in my mind, the jury got this story correct and seeing Lamb only confirms it for me!
I'm devastated to hear that Tonya Craft isn't allowed to have custody of her own children even after being freed of all charges. That is a HUGE injustice... This whole story is just a nightmare on so many levels!
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 David Cameron speak in the first eight minutes, the body language between the two men is absolutely friendly and open. Both men turn their torso and shoulders towards the other, which suggests openness. They face each other at times, too.
David Cameron's firm hand is a sign of his seriousness as he speaks. It signifies a tension, I believe, that he wants to get his message across with conviction. You see this further when Cameron makes a fist as he talks to emphasize what he is saying. Clegg also does similar gestures.
Other times, Cameron's body actually moves slightly up and forward as if he has lifted the heels off the ground. It's further evidence of the conviction of his statement here.
Nick Clegg listens intently to what Cameron says at 1:42 and when he lifts his head up and back, he is thinking about what Cameron has said. Both look directly at the other one speaking and at times acknowledge what the other has said.
Clegg's voice has more tension to it than Cameron. Cameron is more flowing, and a better speaker, if you ask me. Clegg brings his emotions into his message, and it gives his speech a tone to it than Cameron didn't have, but it also shows the seriousness of getting his message across. By his tone, I would speculate that he is more emotionally invested at this point.
Overall, as they spoke, their body language, in my opinion, was supportive of what they were saying and did not conflict their statements or show a dislike for the other person.
Body language is so different than deception detection, yet the two are tightly woven. You really need to have a firm understand of the first to understand the latter, but body language is very fluid. It changes minute by minute, whereas deception, once it occurs, get set in stone and becomes rock solid until a confession is made. Body language, however, may say one thing now and can contradict itself minutes, hours or days later. It can only be counted on for the time it is expressed. It cannot convey long term outcomes or beliefs, as they are subject to change continually.
I stopped my review at 8:00 minutes. If anyone has any interesting segments they saw after that and would like my opinion, please post it 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.
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.
Don't forget to watch or record Dr. Phil today. He airs the second segment of his show about Austin, Texas' missing Julie Ann Gonzalez. They reveal the results of a lie detector test on Julie's estranged husband, George de la Cruz.
Julie was last seen, according to George, when she went to pick up their daughter, whom they share joint custody. When I listen to George tell his version of what happened, I do not believe George de la Cruz is leveling with us. You can read my thoughts here, or you can click on the labels below to read all of my posts.
Let's pray that Julie comes home safely. I am concerned for her safety at this time.
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 UK reader emailed me yesterday with an interesting request that I thought you would enjoy. She ask that I look at the Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and analyze their body language as they speak about working together and put aside party differences.
When you watch their body language, are they sincere or 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.
Did you know one of the victims in this was supposedly Tonya Craft's own daughter? No wonder Tonya is sad. She has to deal with the aftermath of this. Do you believe Tonya Craft now has to fight for custody of her daughter? That amazes me. I had no idea!!
To read my thoughts on Tonya Craft, click on the label 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.
News just in -- Tonya Craft has been found not guilty!!!
If there was ever a case that I hoped for justice, it was this one! The truth has prevailed! This makes me really happy. I hope Tonya has recourse for those who I suspect have falsely accused her.
Tonya is the 31st person who I have called accurately on truth or deception in the past five years. I have only missed the clues to deceit in one case to date, which leaves my accuracy rate at 96.9%. According to Dr. David Matsumoto, the average person's accuracy is 53%.
To read my thoughts on this case, click on the label 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.
Last Saturday 48 Hours featured the story of Shelley Tyre and David Swain, a married couple who took a Caribbean vacation. While on a dive, the two separated according to David, and when David surfaced, Shelley did not. Shelley died on that dive. Was it an accident or murder?
Read moreDavid Swain was eventually convicted of murdering his wife, and I have to say that I agreed with the verdict. When 48 Hours interviewed David, it appeared to be after the verdict, which we must remember would subdue or eliminate clues to deception as the high stakes are gone, though in David's situation, I believe clues are still present.
David has absolutely no emotions about the loss of his wife. He doesn't give us reasonable answers to fair questions, which leads me to believe he isn't a victim. When asked how he felt when his in-laws thought he killed their daughter, David said he felt sad. That just doesn't fit with a man who is wrongly accused of a murder he didn't commit-- the murder of his wife! He should be angry, but when questioned if he was, he said her parents didn't understand diving. I'm not buying it.
David quit CPR within "minutes", too, which is not common for professionals and David was an EMT. One witness said that David was "emphatic" his wife was dead, which surprised people, and when helped arrived, David said he didn't want any extraordinary measures taken -- he'd seen dead bodies before. Most people who lose a loved one are the last to give up hope. Why was David so accepting of Shelley's death so quickly?
David denied that he had any affair with Mary Bassler to the point it was absurd, if you ask me. Why would he do that if he was honest? You can see a copy of a letter he wrote to Mary here.
Another thing that tipped me off was the fact that he wants us to believe he is a non-emotional guy--that's why he isn't showing emotions for his wife. But if you watch David when they talk about his brother killing his mother, amazingly, David has emotions! He feels pain at the loss of his mother some 30 years ago, but when it comes to the recent death of his wife there is nothing! Isn't that interesting? Obviously, one death pained him while the other one didn't, sad to say. If he didn't feel emotions, it would be across the board, but its not. I could go on and on...
But by far the most peculiar thing I saw on 48 Hours was what David said himself. At approximately 19:00 minutes into the show, David said, "Everybody keeps thinking that I'm doing all this for money. I'm just as happy being flat broke as I am when I'm fat and rich. Probably happier flat broke. Less hassle."
What?
Did David just make himself culpable? Everybody keeps thinking I am doing all this for the money". If you are a victim, do you feel any culpability whatsoever? If you were innocent, wouldn't you say, "People think I did this for the money." Why is he still "doing all this"?? He is in prison for Pete's sake. I think it is the tense of the words that he used which really set me off.
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.
Yesterday the Tonya Craft case went to the jury who deliberated a few hours before going home. They have resumed again today. I was surprised to read that there are 7 men and 5 women on the jury, but I feel in this case this is good news for Tonya, who I believe is telling us the truth. Simply put, of all the public, the group of people who would most likely sympathize with the accusers in this case would be moms, especially moms of young children. To get to the truth, it is always best to remove people who might hold an emotional bias.
So we are on a verdict watch now. As one reader pointed out, there is a good chance with the community being so polarized by this case, the jury will hang. That would be devastating news for Tonya, who would have to pay for a second defense. It is also possible that the jury will sympathize with children, simply believing that for three kids to say something, there has to be some reality to it. I don't believe that and if this happens, I am sure there will be years and years of appeals.
Let's hope the jury sees the truth! There is no doubt this case will be on 20/20 and 48 Hours in the future. Maybe even Dateline. Tonya's story, whatever the verdict, needs to be told. I hope we get to the "real truth" one day, because I believe we have yet to hear it, and I am not talking about from Tonya, but that may take a decade or more.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
I just saw this news from Jane Velez-Mitchell on Twitter. CNN is reporting that Melissa Huckaby plead guilty to killing 8-year old Sandra Cantu today. You can read more here.
The only person I gave any conclusive opinions on in this case was the mother of Sandra Cantu, Maria Chavez. Several people speculated she was faking her sadness, and wondered if she was involved in her daughter's murder. Melissa Huckaby's grandfather's behavior was odd when I watched him, but his behaviors were not conclusive for me. I still wonder if he knew at that time what was going on before we did. We never got to see Melissa Huckaby talk before (or after?) her arrest.
It will be interesting to hear if we get more information on this case. It's an odd story, to say the least.
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 didn't see The Seduction this past weekend, it is a fascinating story. It's so unbelievable that you just have to see it to believe it. I warn you though, its very haunting, too.
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 just saw that George will be on Dr. Phil today (its just airing now--I missed the first 7 minutes of Tiffany Tehan with Tres Hutcherson -- Were they were holding hands?).
I want to see this interview!!!
Setup your recorders. The preview seems to support the red flags I've seen in the post below. George uses the word "knew" when he talks about Julie and Dr. Phil immediately calls him out on it by saying that he just spoke about her in past tense. Great call, Dr. Phil!
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.
Julie Ann Gonzalez disappeared in Texas after she visited her estranged husband, George de la Cruz, to pick up her daughter, who they shared custody of at the end of March. According to George, when she arrived, she wasn't herself. George said she then asked him if he could keep their daughter for the weekend. She hasn't been seen since.
Read more Julie's family has been on TV a few times hoping to get information because the police are saying they do not believe this is a case of foul play. However, Julie's car was found in a Walgreen's parking lot abandoned (not the Walgreens where she worked at), someone has used her credit card, and video surveillance identified that the person using it was not Julie.
I listened to George speak in this video above, and what he said has me curious to see more of him. I have highlighted things that are a red flag for me.
George said to Jane Velez-Mitchell :
Well, like I said, it was her time to come pick my daughter up, because, uh… like I said, we had joint custody and well she arrived … I was expecting her to go pick her up -- come and get her. Right. And …she came in, like I said I saw her …she was... ….different. Like I said I’d know I’ve been with her for at least four years, so I know when there is something wrong with her. And I tried talking to her -- I asked a question what’s wrong and she just said, well, I’m okay, don’t worry about it. So I just let it go, right. So like I said, “Here’s Leyla’s stuff and everything is there, so you want to go ahead and check , uh, check at it so you can make sure everything is there and you can take her.
That’s when she told me, “Well, you know what? I got plans… uh…this weekend can you please take care of her?” I‘m, well, okay, yeah. And I said so when are you going to come pick her up? She says I’ll let you know. I’ll call you whenever I want her.But she said its going to be this weekend? And I'm like yes. So, I just said, I never thought anything bad was going to happen, cuz like I said, well okay, I’ll take her for a couple of more days, and whenever she is ready, she’ll call me to pick her up this weekend. So like I said, I didn’t expected nothing to come bad from this, until Saturday, that we find out she hasn’t contact no one. So like I said yeah...yeah, I kind of feel bad, because I was the last person, I should have done a little extra to find out if something was wrong, if there was something wrong cuz.... its gone a month and there is nothing....that we have heard from her.
Has anyone verified that Julie's car was seen at George's house that day? George seems to say what appears to be a slip of the tongue when he says, "well, she arrived … I was expecting her to go pick her up.." You have to wonder, did George meet Julie somewhere else the last time he saw her, and expected Julie to go pick up her daughter somewhere else? Or did George not have his daughter and told Julie she was somewhere else? What George says here is awfully strange.
Notice he talks in the past tense about custody. They "had" joint custody. Why isn't he talking in present tense--having custody?
I wonder does he always say "Right" after he says things. People who are deceptive often confirm their stories verbally out loud to themselves like this. However, if this is not George's native language, that could explain it. I'd need to know from those who knew George if this is normal behavior or not.
I thought it was strange that Julie would ask George to care for her daughter when in reports she was very close to her own family, and estranged from George. Julie's uncle said that Julie always went to pick up her daughter escorted and this time she didn't, and something happened. George called the police and reported Julie for abandoning her daughter after she left this day, which shows the two were not getting along, according to George himself. Furthermore, George supposedly called the police according to her uncle (on the same show, different segment) and said her family was harassing him when they were posting missing posters in his neighborhood. George didn't deny this in the interview. George attempted suicide when Julie decided to leave him. Knowing all of this, it makes little sense Julie would voluntarily leave her daughter with him longer than she was required.
I find it even more unusual that Julie would say, "I will call you whenever I want her." That doesn't sound like something a mother would say--especially to someone she appeared not to trust. It's unusual.
I find it odd how George says, "But she said its going to be this weekend? And I'm like yes." Notice how he got who said what mixed up here? If he is recalling something from memory, I wouldn't expect this to happen. You have to wonder did he say that to Julie that he wanted to keep the child for a few more days? Did Julie ask him if it was going to be this weekend and he said "yes" as he says. People usually don't get facts like this so badly messed up without reason. Why aren't the things George is saying making sense?
George says he "kind of" feels bad. This is what I have coined hedging. Either he feels bad or he doesn't. "Kind of" is notable for me. I've heard him use this a few times. It's a red flag for me.
And last George says, "if something was wrong." When I have watched him in small snippets in other interviews, he is pretty insistent something was wrong. He used the word "despondent" when describing Julie in another interview. That's a change from his statement here. What caused that change? Why is he confident in one interview and not in another? If he doesn't know anything, I would expect him to be consistent, but this is not. Why is he not consistent?
Furthermore, George gives us very few details of their last meeting. He doesn't talk about greeting Julie, how she interacted with the child, how they parted, or any other details of their conversation. The details are few and sparse, and only pertain to what George wants us to know. I'd expect some extraneous information, but there is nothing. Imagine describing the last time your saw your mom. What would you say?
I'd like to see George tell us verbatim exactly what happened that day down to the details. That would be an important interview for me.
At this point, George interests me and I'd like to see more. He raises my eyebrows. Please know George de la Cruz is not a suspect a the time this was published.
___________________ Please consider donating to keep funding posts for this blog (on right side). It would mean a lot to me. I dedicate a minimum of 4 hours a day most days to keep this blog active and fresh, and I have expenses to keep it going that I have paid for on my own for 5.5 years. I have never profited from this blog. I am also planning on seeking legal counsel, which is advised by several media blogging associations, which will cost me. * Thanks to Donna for the story.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
I am looking for good footage of Tonya Craft on the stand. I have only found this, which isn't that good, as it is interrupted frequently. If anyone finds any, please let me know! Thanks.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Dr. Kirk Turner's story of self-defense was featured on 48 Hours Mystery this past Saturday night. You either believe, like the jury did, that he killed his wife in self-defense after she came at him with a spear, or you believe he outright murdered his wife--no spear involved. To me, after watching the show, the evidence clearly does not support self-defense.
The defense wants us to believe that Jennifer Turner, Kirk's wife, attacked Kirk with a seven-foot long spear and yet Kirk was able to pull out a measly four-inch little pocket knife to overcome her. Put the two at odds in two opposing people's hands-- a four inch pocket knife and a seven-foot long spear. Play it out. Who is logically going to win? It's certainly not the pocket knife.
This case is not about facial expressions, emotions or micro expressions. This is a case about logic. One plus one in this story clearly equals two, if you add up the pieces.
Read moreFor Kirk to kill his wife, he had to knock the spear out of his wife hands, but he never talks about that. It's never discussed from what I can tell. We see no evidence whatsoever that even supports that Jennifer even had the spear--which is the key fact in this case. If I were a prosecutor, my whole case would rest on the fact that if you can't definitively place the spear in Jennifer's hands, this was homicide. Period.
The second most important fact in this case? Jennifer's fingerprints were not found on the spear. Hello! We cannot ignore this.
The next most important element in this case are the forensics. According to Kirk, as he turned around, she was stabbing him so he pulled his pocket knife out and stabbed her in self-defense. It all happened while they were standing. But the blood spatter evidence is clear, Jennifer was killed while on or near the ground -- not where Kirk says.
A forensic expert also found dried blood from Jennifer below fresh blood from Kirk. How come a jury ignored this? It's mind boggling!
I guess they believed the doubt that the defense attorney put in their ears, "The fact that there was only his blood in that pocket...definitely shows that he had suffered all of his wounds before he ever went to defend himself" (to reach in his pocket and get his knife).
Wait a minute!
What if Kirk reached for the knife before any altercation? That would explain why Jennifer's blood never was found in his pocket!
What if Jennifer never used a spear to stab Kirk, but Kirk stabbed her first?
We wouldn't expect to find her blood in his pocket.
That defense explanation has serious holes and the jury fell for it? What happened to critical thinking?
48 Hours asks, "How important is that blood in the pocket?" The defense says, "Ah...critical. It's probably the key fact in the case."
Yes, it is a key fact in the case along with many others that Kirk is not being honest with us. I believe Jennifer never had that spear and the evidence and the story seem to strongly support this.
Kirk says, "I remember turning around and seeing a symmetrical silver thing in my leg." When Kirk says this, there are absolutely no emotions of pain or fear or shock or anything whatsoever . He says it as if he noticed a stone under his foot. When we experience something painful, we have emotional memories that form along with the experience, but Kirk seems to be void of them here. It's a huge red flag for me.
Kirk was asked if he remembered going into his pocket to get his knife. He says no. Isn't that odd? He feared for his life supposedly, but he doesn't remember reaching for something that supposedly would save him? Ridiculous!
Then he says he remembers flailing his arms around (side to side) "going like this". His behavior as he demonstrates it wouldn't scratch a flea, forget murdering someone by nearly decapitating them. To me, it is utter nonsense--another big strike against Kirk.
While everyone is supposedly liked in this group of players as good people, one thing is for sure: Several people spoke out that Jennifer was afraid her husband might kill her. Two friends attested to this on 48 Hours as did her daughter, and when I watched them, I believed them. All three of them. Another strike against Kirk.
When Wendy, the couple's daughter, testified that her mother told her that her dad said there was more than one way to end a marriage, I think most people get the drift of that means. Kirk, however, tells us that he meant "separation". Did anyone believe that? Another strike.
I get a distinct sense watching Kirk on the stand as he complains about having to work on the barn that he was simply jealous of his wife's love of horses. He says, "We had no time at all together." You can see the anger, if you watch closely.
Kirk was obviously a rich enough man he could afford to pay workers to care for the barn, so his excuse that he had to work on it doesn't make logical sense to me. It does, however, support that this is the source of his anger. Did her love of horses alienate his affection? Is that what he thought? Is that why her alienation of affection lawsuit against his lover make him so furious? If you recall, his son also repeated similar words about her love of horses ruining their relationship.
Even though Jennifer is the one who filed for divorce, 48 Hours reports that Kirk said Jennifer offered him a sweetheart deal to drop everything (the alienation of affection lawsuit and the divorce) if he moved home. According to Kirk, she said he could even continue to see his lover, Tonya. When Kirk says this, watch Tonya, his lover, drop her head.
To me, it's a good indication she likely knows this is not the truth. I certainly don't believe this story. There is no logic behind it whatsoever. Its a male fantasy, if you ask me. Why would any sane woman do that? It defies logic. She was in the drivers seat at that time, not Kirk, and he knew it. She was to get $30,000 a month from him. Which begs to ask, was money his motive, too?
The defense also says that "if Greg Smithson is telling the truth, Kirk is not guilty of homicide".
I wish Greg would have told more of his story when he was outside the courtroom. You must remember, though, we do not know when the interview with Greg and 48 Hours took place. It may have taken place after the trial, which is key here. If it was taken after the trial, the stakes would have been much lower at this point.
However, when we witness Greg on the stand, we get to see the real man and his emotions under pressure and did he look like he was going to burst! Greg is so nervous, he can't keep his hands steady. He is sweating profusely. He breaks his glasses. He shakes like a leaf--as if he is about to have a nervous breakdown. Why is he so nervous? If he was honest, he would have no reason to become so flustered. He wasn't that flustered when he talked to 48 Hours outside the courtroom, was he? Interesting. It's a huge red flag he has something to hide, if you ask me.
I wish they would have tested the spear for Greg's fingerprints. Could he have been the one to stab Kirk?
It's obvious that Kirk wanted to strong-arm Jennifer the day she was killed. Kirk brought two papers over to the house-- a document to force the sale of the farm where she lived, and an affidavit from her first husband, stating that her first marriage failed because of her obsessive love of horses (which further supports the jealousy factor for me).
Kirk testifies about the documents, "I just wanted to show Jennifer that I didn't want this to get ugly and that if he had to proceed...in court...that it wasn't going to be nice for either one of us." If you ask me, Kirk is not talking from the heart here. He appears to show signs of thinking on his feet.
Kirk at another point says about the documents, "I never thought about it as a threat." He didn't think it was a threat?? If you bring documents that are threatening to sell my home where I live with my horses, I will see that as a threat. Does anyone see that differently?
Furthermore, according to 48 Hours reporter, "Smithson swears the fatal encounter...happened in a flash in the two or three minutes after Smithson left the shed and he insists there was no cover up. No time for Kirk to stab himself... Smithson figures it was around 8:00PM when a wounded Kirk came stumbling toward him from the shed. But he didn't call 911 until 9:35...leaving 90 minutes unaccounted for."
Smithson's explanation for the time gap? He must have been confused.
Oops.
I'm not buying it.
Is there any evidence anywhere that supports that Jennifer ever held that spear as Kirk said? Anyone? I'm all ears...
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.
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.
