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.
Did you see Take the Money and Run last night? I gave live commentary on Facebook about the show as it aired, and I immediately noticed a similarity between the contestants. Trisha and her dad immediately brought images to my mind's eye of Tatum and Ryan O'Neal. The similarities between Rick and Ryan were stunning. There were also parallels to Tatum and Trisha, though not as many.
With that, I had an immediate sense of Rick's personality. He was going to be a lot like Ryan. With that, if you know how Ryan would act in a given scenario, you have a high likelihood Rick will act the same way, and he did. I predicted he would break early in the show, and that is exactly what happened.
Mary and Paul hatched a plan on the show which played into Rick's ego -- another strategy and it worked. Rick told Mary where the briefcase was after a 2.5 hour interview, and when they investigated it--sure enough! There it was.
Do you see similarities between these two? I call this paralleling.
*I caution the average person who is not skilled at paralleling to be careful. I suspect I see nuances in facial features and emotions that most people don't see. Many people have tried this around me and fail to make matches without my assistance.
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. Phil will be airing his interview with Cindy and George Anthony on September 12, 2011. In this clip, it shows him asking them tough questions.
The question I am sure everyone wants to know is has Cindy finally come out of her denial, and is she seeing things clearly? With the fact that Casey walked free, I think the odds of her embracing the truth are the lowest ever. With Casey's verdict, Cindy has more to hold on than ever to shield her from the reality that her own flesh and blood could kill, but it will be interesting to watch nonetheless.
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.
Here is my old blog promo...thought you might enjoy 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.
Here is a challenge for you. Set out and find "social smiles"--not genuine ones. Post your photo or link in the comment section and tell us why you believe your smile is a social (fake) smile rather than a genuine one!
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 is an eerie interview to watch of both Josh and his father, Stephen. Josh is working so hard to control himself in this interview, he talks very softly. He clearly lack confidence and yet in an odd twist, we see incredible arrogance leaking out of him.
Notice how he doesn't answer questions asked of him?
When Josh is asked why he didn't call his job the Monday he missed work when Susan supposedly disappeared, Josh says, "Saturday was a blur. I was convinced it was still Saturday." I believe him here. This is the truth.
Josh says one thing that stood out to me. He said that Susan walked out the front door in her underwear and started walking down the street. The statement comes out of nowhere, and I have to ask on the night that she disappeared, is this what she did?
To a controlling man like Josh, who may have been threatening her, she may have tried to escape out of fear, and her escaping like this would have humiliated him incredibly and might have caused him to snap. This statement by him paints a very eerie picture, and not the picture Josh had hoped -- that Susan was unstable.
And more troubling is Stephen Powell who claims that he and Susan engaged in sexual flirting and more. He said, "We interacted in a lot of sexual ways because Susan enjoys doing that." I don't believe Stephen here at all.
The reporter asked Stephen, "Do you think a part of you started to fall in love with Susan?"
Stephen says, "That's pretty likely, yeah."
Stephens answer says it all to me. His memory recall is off. He doesn't talk about it like it is a past tense event. He talks about it in present tense...instead of saying, "Yeah, I was (past tense) in love".
Will Josh move out of his dad's house with these claims, or will he stay? That's the question. If he stays, it sure supports the fact he and his dad are conjuring up stories together, doesn't it?
Click here to read my original thoughts on Josh Powell.
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.
Eyes for Lies Interviews Paul Bishop from Take the Money and Run
What is your favorite part of an interrogation?
I like the mind game of interrogation – really digging into a subjects psyche, finding what makes him/her tick, and then using that knowledge to open them up.
What is most difficult about doing an interrogation on "Take The Money and Run" versus in real life?
On Take The Money And Run (TTMAR), we don’t have real guilt or long term incarceration to hold over the hiders. In real life, these are our two big hammers when it comes to getting a confession. Without them, we have to really use hard earned deception recognition skills and psychological warfare to break the contestants down.
What is your favorite trick is to "break" a suspect?
Gentle physical contact. I love being able to judge the moment when a guilty suspect is at his or her most emotionally vulnerable. Assuming I am in my usual interrogation position, sitting very close to the subject with no barrier between us, and I judge the moment perfectly, I can reach out and place a hand on the subject’s shoulder and get almost an electrical shock from the contact that breaks the emotional dam and the confession floods out. I’ve done it again and again and it never ceases to amaze me the power carried in the human touch.
I see you use psychology in your interrogations. What is the best technique and why?
There are psychological things I do every time, because you are never sure when or which one of the techniques will work. Simple things like sitting next to a subject so as not to give him or her a barrier to hide behind; always maintaining a position of dominance (trapping the subject in a corner, putting them on an uncomfortable, lower, chair), giving or taking away little things (in TTMAR, we often take the contestants’ toothpaste and toothbrush), providing a meal you know the subject won’t eat resulting in their blood sugar dropping. In TTMAR Episode 4, it is one throwaway line, telling one of the contestants that his partner is in a much more comfortable place, that changes the whole game.
You never know which one, if any, of these or many other psychological touches will work.
After an episode, you mentioned that you get to debrief the contestants. What was the most helpful tip you got from them?
To a person, the contestants told us they hated being interrogated in their cells. Apparently, being taken to the interrogation room was like a field trip, a break in a very stark routine. When we interrogate in the cells, there is no break and we (the interrogators) are displaying our dominance by invading what the contestants think of as their safe space.
What interested you to get involved in law enforcement?
I was eight years old watching The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and told my parents I was going to be a policeman. It was something I never outgrew. Police work offered such a variety of options, I knew I would never be bored.
When you're actively interviewing someone, how much does it interfere with your ability to spot their deception?
A lot. It’s why I’m interrogating a TTMAR contestant by myself, Mary is off screen watching the contestant’s reactions and facial features while taking notes. Obviously, I do the same thing when she is the lone interrogator. When we are done, we compare notes and make sure we haven’t missed anything. Neither of us are ‘naturals,’ but we do a pretty good job due to our experience.
Do people get nervous around you when they find out you are an interrogator (like they do a natural)? Do you tell people in your private life?
Most of my personal friends know what I do, but they have no conception of what it really means. I don’t hang out with cops away from the station. The other half of my life is spent in the creative field, which is totally different. TTMAR is the first time most of my friends have ever seen me in ‘work mode.’
Since finding the truth is a matter of asking the right questions, how long did it take to develop the skill needed to ask the right questions in an interview/interrogation?
Years! And even now I sometimes wonder if I’m doing it right. It’s why, when I train interrogators, I don’t want them to be clones of me. I want them to take the techniques and apply them through their own personality.I try to break them of the conceit of, “If I can break the suspect, nobody can break the suspect.” It’s just not true. You have to set your ego aside and let somebody else take a crack because every suspect is different and you don’t know to which interrogatory personality they are going to respond.
It’s why with 35 years experience behind me, I’m still very interested in what Eyes Fro Lies can do. What does she have to teach me that can make me a better interrogator? I’m always open to trying something new, or adjusting a technique to my personality.
Do you look at how a person presents themselves to get clues about their personality?
Absolutely! How a person stands or sits, what they’re wearing, what condition their shoes are in, what is the expression on their face, how do they talk, what kind of shape are they in, what’s in their wallet (wait, that’s a commercial jingle, isn’t it?), how educated are they? All of these things and many more, including how you feel they react to you emotionally, are incredibly important in an initial reading of a subject. Things can change as you go along, but you have to start somewhere.
If someone wanted to become an interrogator, what advice would you give them?
Always leave your personal judgment about what somebody may or may not have done outside the interrogation room. The instant a subject gets an emotional flare indicating you’re judging them, you’ve lost them. This is one of the hardest, yet most valuable lessons to learn.
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.
Steven Powell shows his true colors when his daughter-in-law's family brings the search for their daughter to Washington, where Josh is currently living. The response by Josh and his dad, Steven Powell, clearly does not level with family who is concerned for Susan. They are much more concerned about themselves, without question. These two men don't act like victims, and what that suggests is horrifying...
I commend the Cox family for putting pressure on the Powells. Susan needs to come home and they need to cooperate with investigators.
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 was an interesting press conference to watch. These men are clearly overwhelmed and exhausted by the system. I think they were very genuine and sincere in this interview.
When I watch Damien Echols, I see a deep thinking man, who has a lot of intellect. He is the one who obviously speaks on their behalf because he is most comfortable doing so.
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.
Josh Powell hasn't spoken out about his missing wife, Susan, in a long time, but he did speak out to MSNBC recently regarding a credible lead in the search for his missing wife. Investigators are now searching new areas in hopes of finding Susan's remains. She went missing in 2009. Josh was the last person to see her alive.
I find Josh's behavior in this interview peculiar. He is clearly fighting back a smile as he talks -- the entire time. What on earth is so funny?
It makes me question: Does he know the new lead is bogus??
As he works hard to keep the corners of his mouth down, he says, "Luckily, the police have a credible lead. I can't say it hasn't crossed my mind that this will be vindication, as well."
How ironic that the vindication is his SECOND THOUGHT?!
Josh has never participated in any searches for his wife, ironically.
I do not believe Josh Powell and haven't from day one.
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 haven't read the news today, there is chatter all around the Internet that the West Memphis Three may be released this afternoon. For all of us who believe in their innocence--that's amazing news. But there is a glitch. While there is a gag order on anyone speaking about the case, Forbes is reporting that the court is going to allow the three men, who were incarcerated almost two decades ago, to change their plea to an Alford plea.
If you haven't heard of an Alford plea, you are not alone. An Alford plea is where the defendant agrees to plead guilty, but maintains he is innocent, but he does so because he agrees that the prosecutor has enough evidence to convict him.
From Wikipedia:
According to the University of Richmond Law Review, "When offering an Alford plea, a defendant asserts his innocence but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense."
Mark Byers, the father of one of the boys who were killed, said that when he talked to the prosecutors, they planned to enter a no-contest plea. He also said that he believed this was a cop-out by the state so they don't have to admit they made a mistake.
I've also read that only 2 of the 3 men will be released on time served and one will remain in prison.
I would really like to hear from these men, if they get released. Are they feeling immense fear after being wrongly convicted that they could be falsely convicted if they went to trial again, as the system failed them once? Or is there truly sufficient evidence in this case that they feel could win a case against them?
I have to admit if I was railroaded once by the system, I would not take a second chance and I would get out to live my life anyway I could. I would be jaded for a lifetime, without question, but I wouldn't care about what anyone thought as long as I had freedom.
Imagine being set free and trying to live a life if you are these guys. Their chances of successful integration into society would be immensely difficult.
This will be interesting to watch develop. Seeing the men speak out, if they get released, will truly be fascinating!
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.
We've started this discussion on my Facebook page and I thought I would bring it to my readers who are not on Facebook as well.
If you could ask me any question, what would it be?
If you are not a friend of mine on Facebook, you are welcome to become one! Click here.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
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 Take the Money and Run tonight at 8 PM CST on ABC.
If my schedule permits, I plan to log on to my Facebook account and share my thoughts live while the show airs. You'll get to see a natural's perspective. I'm on central standard time for those who can join in!
Paul Bishop, the interrogator on the show, has offered to do an interview for us, so if you have any questions for Paul, please post them below.
I can't wait to see tonight's episode! Enjoy spotting the clues to deception!! See you on FB!
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.
Jodi Arias comes across as a sweet, innocent young girl in this video, doesn't she? I think most people who didn't know she was locked up behind bars would find her "safe" to be around, but they would be surprised to know that she is sitting in jail awaiting trial for first degree murder and facing the death penalty.
Travis Alexander, 30, was found dead in his apartment in June 2008, and while Jodi first confess to police she was with him, though she fled the scene, she told them they were attacked by two masked gunmen. When she could get away, she original told police she did, but ironically she never called 911 to help her friend, Travis.
I have since heard that Jodi Arias has changed her story, and now says that she killed Travis Alexander in self-defense. I don't think she has much of a chance if this is hers story now.
Even more surprising, last week, Jodi Arias declared in front of a court that she wants to act as her own attorney, though she has no more than an 11th grade education. The judge asked her if she had an legal experience, had a law license or even read the statute she is accused of violating and Arias replied "no".
There is no doubt this woman is smart, cunning and manipulative, but I think her arrogance will finally get the best of her.
While this case is not getting any press coverage at this time, should that change, I will keep you posted.
To read my original thought on this case (when Jodi claimed she fled from 2 attackers), click here.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Hint: Its the same one shown in the video I posted a couple of days ago. What is the most notable element of this expression that's can't be easily faked? Oblique eyebrows.
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 ABC's TV show last night called Take the Money and Run. Have you seen it? (If not, click on the previous link to watch it). It's an intriguing show where you, the viewer, get front row seats to a high-stake-lie interrogations. With that, I would love to take this opportunity to show you how a "natural" at deception sees an interrogation such as this, because I believe people with my ability can aid and assist professionals in spotting deception--saving police departments time and money as well as improve the time of criminal apprehension.
A natural is someone who was identified in a University of San Francisco study who can spot deception with exceptional accuracy. Scientists tested more than 15,000 people from the CIA to the FBI to the Secret Service to every day people, and only found 50 people who were exceptional--regardless of background, experience or training. I am one of these people. _______________________________________________________________________________
While many seasoned investigators hone into clues such as eye gaze direction and aversion, anxiety, stress, and closed off body language, I look for inconsistencies in emotion, words spoken and behavior. That is one reason why I believe naturals have a much higher accuracy rate than most people.
I encourage newcomers to explore my blog because all of the clues I am about to point out in this article can be found throughout my blog in real-life, real-time interviews and interrogations. I have spent six years spotting deception in real-life cases identifying these exact same clues --before the truth was known-- that I am about to point out to you here. I have a 97% success rate at identifying deception in real cases.
The two interrogators in this show, Mary Stone and Paul Bishop, both have extensive experience in law enforcement and are highly regarded in their field. They are without a doubt good at what they do -- but what they do is different than what I do, and we can compliment each other perfectly. Together, we can nab criminals much faster! Let me demonstrate how.
The premise of the show, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is that two people are given the opportunity to hide a briefcase full of $100,000 in cash in one hour's time. If they succeed, they keep the money. The suspects have to keep the briefcase handcuffed to their wrist until they drop it--wherever they decide. They are informed that their get away vehicle has GPS on it, and their cell phones calls will be shared with investigators. It's that simple. Once the hour is up, they are arrested and taken into custody. Then the interrogation begins. The investigators then compete for the money! Can they catch the liars?
In this episode, the two suspects are Jimmy & Zuly Pumariega from the Miami Beach area. And while they think they did exceptionally well, because they ultimately won the $100,000, from my perspective, they leaked clues like a sieve.
I give Jimmy credit, his "Did I scare you tactic" was brilliant. It unnerved the interrogators, but I would never try this in real life. It wouldn't help you in any way.
I love what Mary said, "If you lose control in an interrogation, even once, you'll never get it back." I completely agree. As I say, once a liar sniffs you believe their lies, their stress dissipates to a degree, and stress is what causes clues that to leak--so keeping stress high is important.
Let's look at the interrogations. You can follow along by watching the episode online (link above).
In the first interrogation shown, Paul Bishop asked Zuly, "All that time through the beach, you had it [the briefcase] tied to you. Did you make any stops?"
Watch as Zuly as she says no.
Notice how she shrugs her shoulders? This is a classic non-verbal communication of "I don't know" yet Zuly says an affirmative "no". These two elements -- the verbal and non-verbal are in conflict. This is a classic hotspot. This is a strong clue that she has a high probability of deception here.
Also watch how Zuly has to think about it before she answers no, too. She looks up to recollect it...thinking... did I have the briefcase? It's quick but telling Her look upwards has no significant meaning to me other than the fact she has to THINK before she answers (I do not believe in neuro-linguistic programming).
When we lie, we have think a lot more and a lot harder to answer questions that should come naturally to us and without effort. Thinking before answering is another hotspot that strongly suggests deception.
When Paul asked Zuly about getting off on 119th street, he says, "When you got off at 119th street, did you have the briefcase?"
Zuly smiles here. It's notable. What would make her smile at this point? It' a hotspot for me that she could be lying! Why else would she smile?
Paul asks, "How close were you, two minutes away, one minute away [from the drop-off point]?"
Watch Zuly show doubt in her body language again. She says "close" as she shrugs her shoulders! Hotspot! Now we have three solid hotspots in a very short period of time, which is what I require to say, "Deceptive". Had the interrogators had this information from me at this time, I could have zoned them into that precise area to spend their remaining 45 plus hours. We may have been able to ask tougher questions and get to the briefcase, too.
I am not an interrogator. I am not an investigator. I am a deception expert-- that's all I do. I spot lies. I don't ask questions. Combining these two adds overload to an investigators job. That's why as a team, we can make a perfect duo--saving time and money.
Let's continue to break down this interview.
Paul asks Zuly, "How hard was it to hide the briefcase?"
Zuly responds, "Probably was a little easier than I thought it would be."
Notice the lack of a smile this time? She doesn't find this worth smiling over, and answers the question seriously. I believe her. I see no reason to doubt her statement here whatsoever. She uses the word "probably" and that can be a hedge word, but here she is not giving us a definitive answer so there is no conflict. She is speculating that it was "a little" easier than she thought. It's fair use of the word and an honest response.
When Paul asks Zuly, "Did you have to exert yourself to hide the briefcase?" Zuly tries to suppress a huge smile by pulling her lips down in the corners, but it is clearly undeniable she wants to smile! The suppressed smile indicates the answer is yes and that she is lying, but she wants to hide that, so she works to suppress her smile. It's another notable hotspot. So now we would know that she did exert herself--the briefcase is likely not beside the road.
You'll also notice as she talks that she shakes her head ambiguously. The ambiguity is important because when people say no honestly, they shake their head no in support. Or they nod their head up and down when they say yes. But when people are deceptive, their body leaks that just as you see here in an ambiguous head swirl. She neither gives a yes or a no head movement. The head shake is another notable hotspot for me.
Zuly also say the word "no" in a faint voice, which shows a serious lack of confidence! The inflection in her voice here is again another hotspot-- as is the ambiguity of her head shake, and the smile suppression. Red alarms. We have a lot of information at this point from which to work.
These clues are very reliable if you know how and when to apply them, which is what I teach law enforcement in my training.You must understand when these behaviors have relevance and when they don't, but once you do, your ability to spot deception will improve. I have no doubt about it.
Next we see Mary Stone interrogate Zuly's husband, Jimmy.
Mary asks Jimmy if Zuly articulated where the hiding spot is. Jimmy responds, "It was going 100 miles per hour, I just can't remember." Listen to the inflection of his voice...it trails off into almost silence, similar to what Zuly did above. Red flag!!! It's another hotspot showing a lack of confidence/buy-in to his answer. We all know that he remembers--including Mary.
Mary is good at upping the pressure with Jimmy. She says, "You appear to be an honest person. You appear to want to do the right thing." She also talks about teaching his children to be honest--all emotional elements for Jimmy that ratchet up the pressure. These are brilliant!
When Jimmy is asked what they did after the phone call to their daughter, he says they stopped to get something to drink because they were thirsty. While he shows that he is nervous here, that statement is true and there are no hotspots in his answer.
Also, Jimmy volunteers some great information here! He says they were thirsty. We have no reason to doubt his answer. Why would they be thirsty unless they just exerted themselves at this point? This is a big tip-off the drop off was prior to this.
Mary then asks if they still had the briefcase after getting a drink, and Jimmy gives Mary a huge clue. He says, "Possibly, yes."
"Possibly" is a huge hedge word. The question requires a yes or no answer -- rightfully as Mary calls out, but Mary waited for a conclusive answer here a second time, when she already got one. Possibly says it all. He says Jimmy couldn't commit to a solid yes. The words possibly leaked out subconsciously, if you ask me, and tells us everything we need to know. Hedge words are powerful.This was a lie.
Also watch how Jimmy looks around, pauses to answer Mary a second time, and then says yes. If Jimmy was honest, he shouldn't have to think about something this simple.
How many hotspots is that so far? It's a bucket load at this point.
Right here, I would know that there is an 95% chance that he did not have the briefcase at this point, and from looking at Zuly's interview, I would be able to hone the investigators in the right direction by using words spoken, emotions and body language.
Naturals look at deception vastly different than most people, and while scientists haven't answered why that is, one thing is for certain--we can help law enforcement hone into the truth quickly. We can teach them new ways to look at deception to make them more effective. Support Eyes for Lies in communicating this message--share the word.
My training is getting solid 4 and 5 star reviews from the most seasoned law enforcement professionals--even at the federal level. They see I look at the world totally different. Together we can make a difference!
___________________________
Did you enjoy this review? Do you want to see more? If I get enough interest, I will review the rest of the interrogations this 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.
The Navy Seal's widow in this video displays true sadness. What elements in her expression tell us this?
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 Dateline NBC on Friday (Mystery on Halloween Night) and long before Kathleen Zellner identified her person of interest in this case, I noted odd behavior in one person, too. The same person: Michael Boyd. His behavior was unusual. When he talked about the murder of his boss, Kent Heitholt, he grinned away.
Yes, he grinned: True and sincere.
Boyd laughs as he tells us about the night Heitholt was murdered. He tells us he laughed at a stray cat scratching at Kent Heitholt's tires and laughed as he drove out of the parking lot about that silly cat. He even talks about being called back to the scene where Heitholt's body laid slain, and he says as he fights a smile (see photos below), "Seeing him lying there, you're just like...(grin) I don't know... I'm sorry, um..."
Boyd covers his face as this point. He says, "It's just..." as he shrugs his shoulder signifying a non-verbal "I don't know."
Why is he having such a hard time keeping a smile off his face? This is disturbing to me.
How can anyone think back to the night a murderer came within feet of you, and your boss got murdered, and the memory puts a smile on your face? I just don't get that. It's a red flag.
Most people who crossed the path of a murderer would feel negative feelings even when recollecting it years later. And many, though not all, would feel some sadness about their boss being murdered.
Could it be nervous laughter? It could be, but when I see nervous laughter, I often see hugely conflicting emotions because the person doesn't want to laugh, but they do. In between, however, I typically see more supportive expressions of how a person really feels, which I am not getting from Boyd. Boyd doesn't even contradict his smile with appropriate words of sadness for his colleague. I don't see any negative emotions at all.
Heitholt's murder was a personal attack, if you want my opinion, by someone who knew him. He was beaten over the head many times and strangled. A random stranger is not likely to strangle someone for a watch and car keys. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Heitholt obviously fed the stray cats at night after work as cat kibble was found scattered at the scene, and you have to wonder if someone knew that, and they were waiting for Kent to feed the cats and attacked him-- as a big man like Heitholt would not easily be vulnerable to this sort of attack. He was towering in stature. Whoever attacked him took him in a vulnerable state and likely knew where and how to find him vulnerable.
Ironically, Boyd tells us he did wait for Kent that night. Well, one time anyway. Another time he changed his story. Was the waiting story too close for comfort? You sure do wonder.
When Boyd is asked about being the last person to see Heitholt alive, he says, "I didn't see anybody come through, or uh..eh...you know...that looked suspicious." Notice how he changed his story mid-sentence? This is called self-censoring. It's a common hotspot for deceptive people. They change their thoughts mid-sentence as they catch their misleads.
Boyd was also asked if anyone was in the parking lot and he says it was only "me, him and the cat" in that parking lot. As he says it, he smiles again and gives us a deep laugh. Clearly, Boyd is not consistent.
Zellner shares her suspicions of Boyd as well--that Boyd was not getting rave reviews from his boss. Zellner says, "He felt very bitter about the way he was treated, very angry and I think something happened in the parking lot in a split second that triggered a rage."
From what I see, I tend to agree with Zellner.
Dateline reports that not long after the murder that Boyd moved away and took job at another paper some 170 miles away. I wonder why he left?
Boyd tells us, "A decade later, this still hurts" as he laughs again. What hurts, I wonder. He was never a suspect nor looked at questionably that I know of until Zellner pointed her finger at him, so why is there pain? According to Dateline, he wasn't close with his boss.
Zellner has identified that Boyd's account of where he was and what happened that night has changed several times. And all Boyd has to remember is one short brief encounter. How hard could that be?
The first time he told police he ran into Kent while walking through the parking lot. The second story according to Dateline is that he was waiting in his car, listening to music and drove up to talk to Heitholt. Why does Boyd have two different stories? If you are honest, you only have one memory, and you don't confuse things like this. But this is not the only story Boyd gets confused.
Boyd also had problems recalling what car he drove that night. First he told police it was a red Plymouth. Then he said it was a blue Oldsmobile. Now he says he can't remember. When asked about it, Boyd says, "I don't remember driving the blue car that much."
I believe he knows exactly what car he drove that night and he doesn't want people to check into that blue car. Clearly, Boyd's answer leaves you questioning him and ironically, according to Dateline, his blue car has "gone missing".
Boyd also has trouble remembering who was in the parking lot when he spoke to Heitholt that night. When Dateline asked Boyd who was in the parking lot that night, Boyd says it was just him, Boyd and the cat. That's what he told the police, too, originally, but once Ryan and Chuck were arrested his story changed--saying he saw two people in the parking lot like the custodial crew reported from day one.
For two years, Boyd didn't remember that until Ferguson and Erickson's arrest? Boyd even said that he almost ran into these two people as he left the parking lot (supposedly laughing about the cat scratching the tire). I don't believe this.
When Boyd was questioned why he didn't tell the police he saw two people when he was first questioned, he said, "Because they asked me if I saw anybody suspicious...and I...just...they didn't look suspicious to me."
Compare that to his earlier statement where he self-censored himself: "I didn't see anybody come through, or uh..eh...you know...that looked suspicious."
Eye-opening?
Boyd is asked by Keith Morrison, "Do you feel the need to tell people I'm innocent? I didn't do it?"
Boyd says, "I would like them to know I didn't, and Kent's my friend. And you know, he was a wonderful guy....you know, and...there is no reason for anybody to want to hurt him."
When he says this, he has a strange look on his face. I'd call it a strained face. Why is he strained when he says these nice things about Heitholt? It is as odd as his smile and laughter when he talks about seeing Heitholt's slain body in the parking lot. His answer seems like a ramble to me, when I would expect a solid and strong denial about wrong accusations! They are eerily missing.
Boyd says there is no reason for anybody to "want" to hurt Heitholt. I find the word "want" interesting here. Did someone want to kill Heitholt, or did they lose their temper and kill him? These are two totally different motives that could result in murder, and I find it odd that Boyd chooses the word "want". It's highly notable. According to his co-workers, Boyd and Heitholt had a contentious relationship.
And last when Dateline talks to Boyd about the arrest of Ferguson and Erickson, Boyd told us he was "relieved" by it, and I believe him when he says it. This was one of the biggest hot spots for me. If he relocated over 170 miles away, why on earth would he be relieved that his bosses killers were finally arrested? Is Boyd someone who worries about the public at large and I am unaware of this? It would be interesting to hear from Boyd's friends.
I agree with Zellner that he needs to be thoroughly investigated. I don't trust him. I tend to suspect that Boyd may have waited for Heitholt that night. I think he knew Heitholt liked to feed the cats after work, and he wanted to talk to him about something--something that was obviously upsetting him. If it was just idle chat, why wouldn't he have done it in the office earlier? Something was on his mind to wait for his boss at 2:00 a.m.
I wonder if we will ever know what that was... It's time to set Ferguson free!! Ryan Ferguson is a good man who is not deserving of this injustice put upon him so unfairly.
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 written about and watched this case evolve since 2006. I have always believed in Ryan Ferguson's innocence, and I did not trust Chuck Erikson. To read my original post, click here, or click on the labels below to read all of my posts on this case in reverse chronological order.
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.
To get up to date on this story, read about it on Wikipedia.
Here is an interesting video where you can hear a convicted killer, Bradley Murdoch, talk about the crime he is convicted of. He claims innocence, yet his words are very telling.
Listen to Murdoch speak. He says, "...a lot of my close immediate friends know that I sort of didn't do it."
He sort of didn't do it? How is that possible?
He either did it or he didn't, but when people use hedge words like "sort of" in the middle of a definitive statement, it is a clue that they are subconsciously hedging. They can't quite commit to say something that is not true, and hence the clue leaks out without their knowledge. Our brain is interesting this way, isn't it? Murdoch also talks about the surviving victim, Johanne Lees, in an attempt to discredit her. He says, "There's things, um, that she sort of totally got wrong."
Hmmm...He could say there are things that she totally got wrong, but why add sort of? It shows a lack of conviction in his own statement again!
Please note that I believe to call someone dishonest, you need at least three solid clues. The use of hedge words would be one clue.
There are many clues to deception including emotional clues and leakages in the form of micro expressions, factual leakage or inconsistencies, behavioral clues, and cognitive 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.
Are you wondering if someone is lying to you? And you don't know how to find out if they are?
Many people write me all the time saying that they suspect someone is lying to them, and ask me for advice. Without being there to watch a person's behavior, and with many people unsure of their own ability to judge behavior accurately, there is one thing anyone can do to spot a lie.
What is it you ask?
Fact check, plain and simple. Simply checking facts can be quite revealing. Liars are not usually good at keeping facts straight, and often leak clues to their deception, if you pay attention. The problem is most people overlook the leaks and discount them.
Last week, a woman wrote to me and said a friend had told her she had twins, but she never, ever saw them and she never talked about them around other people. She was suspicious and with good reason, and she was listening to her gut instincts.
What I advised her to do was go on her friend's Facebook page and post a question like, "I'd love to see a photo of your beautiful twins. How about a picture? I bet they look just like you!"
An honest person would be happy to respond to that request, even if they do it privately, but a dishonest person would get defensive, and more than likely delete the request because they don't want other people seeing their falsehoods.
What happened upon investigating this is that the woman who wrote me found that her friend wouldn't let her friends post on her Facebook page. That immediately sends up alarms. Either the person is very insecure, or they are hiding something. Now you have two red flags in a short period of time: not ever seeing or meeting the "twins," and now limitations in the flow of information.
So the woman wrote her privately asking to see photos of the twins and guess what? She was chewed out and blocked. Blocked. What mom of twins would act so outrageously? The questioner found out that it is likely her friend was being deceptive because she had no reason to go off like that on a simple request. That is three hot spots in a short period of time.
Fact finding can be as simple as asking the right questions or it can be more complex of keeping track of dates and times to see if there are discrepancies, or digging around to see if there is supportive evidence. I believe you need three solid hot spots before you decide someone is being untrustworthy, at the very minimum. In this case, these behaviors are all suspicious.
Most people who tell lies, even white lies, often forget to remember the details of their story and to most people's surprise they drop factual clues that tell what the truth is more frequently than most people realize. But even if they don't, you can look around a little, and ask questions and you should get a clearer picture. It's one way most people can uncover a liar in little time. It's much easier than people think.
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.
