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.
Here is a police interrogation audio tape of Eric Naposki after multimillionaire Bill McLaughlin's murder in December 1994. Its a 48 Hours extra (if you didn't see the show, click here).
In this clip, then a murder suspect (now a convicted killer), Eric Naposki, seems to be insinuating that he wasn't even dating Nanette Johnston, the woman who people believe conspired with Eric to kill McLaughlin. He calls her an acquaintance and a business partner.
Imagine that.
If you've seen 48 Hours, you will know that he has since confessed his love for Nanette.
Detective Voth, who worked this homicide, said about Eric's interviews, "He was very evasive."
Detective Voth remembers Eric wouldn't give him a straight answer about his relationship with Nanette.
When it came to owning a gun, Eric again was not forthcoming, either. He denied he owned a gun, but later confess to owning a .9mm--the same gun that killed McLaughlin. And ironically, Eric would never identify the location of his gun to police. Hmmm....
In his interview with 48 Hours, Eric was asked, "You never suspected that she [Nanette] and Bill McLaughlin shared an intimate relationship?" Eric replied, "I never once suspected."
Yet if you watched the 48 Hours show, at the end, Eric flat out contradicts himself. He seems to have a track record for that, doesn't he? When Eric tries to explain why he had written down McLaughlin's license plate number (which he gave no explanation for at his trial), he now tells 48 Hours that he wrote it down because, "I wanted her followed to see what she was doing....See I was catching on to her. ...I knew something was fishy."
Yeah right.
Eric truly has no problem stretching the truth whenever it fits him. He has demonstrated it multiple times in a short period of time. I can imagine his trial was loaded with a lot more inconsistencies--that's why he was convicted after only 7 hours of deliberation. I think his sentence was just.
You may have also noticed that Eric leaks micro expression smirks throughout his interview. It shows his arrogance and it what experts call duper's delight. Not only does his story not make any sense--neither do his emotions.
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.
There is an interesting case going on in Wisconsin. Prosecutors claim Justin Welch was hired by Darren Wold to kill his ex-girlfriend, Kim Smith, over a custody battle over their four-year old son. Darren Wold and his friend, Jack Johnson, allegedly funneled seven-thousand dollars to Welch to complete the hit.
In other videos, Welch talks about how he confronted Smith in her home, and that she asked what he wanted. He said she would know, and he says Smith said, "Darren" and he said "Yes". He proceeded to tie her up, and stab her to death.
The defense is claiming that Welch is violent and a liar, and was not hired by his clients Darren Wold and Jack Johnson.
While Welch is clearly a dangerous man, who has demonstrated violent tendencies outside of this murder, I do believe him when he says that he was hired by Darren Wold.
When I look at Welch, I see a very intelligent man who can read people like a book. And its also clear, he has little emotions for other people. During transport to Wisconsin, he stabbed a guard and escaped.
While Welch may be intelligent, his downfall was his arrogance (thank god).
Would you fear this man if you saw him on the street?
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Many people have mentioned that Deborah Bradley appears to have gotten a makeover. You can see she is "beautified" in this video. I can't help but wonder if this was a strategy by her defense attorneys, or if Deborah did this on her own. She doesn't hit me as the glamor type to care about dying her hair or wearing makeup unless she is going somewhere special or has a date. She didn't for the first several weeks and all of the sudden a high profile attorney moves in and things change.
I can't help but wonder if someone in her legal team (who I won't name) has sized up the situation, is looking at this case for big publicity, and has decided to do as much damage control long before the case develops to increase their odds of winning--knowing this has all the hallmarks of a high media coverage case. The thought truly troubles me...
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.
Jeremy Irwin, the father of missing 10-month old baby Lisa, has caught the attention of many people because he is emotional void. He is nearly expressionless, which is highly unusual in a situation like this. He doesn't answer questions until after Deborah answers them. He is what most people would call timid and reserved--a clear introvert.
His lack of emotions, while startling and concerning, don't give us much information, however. There is a high likelihood Jeremy is not an emotionally expressive person in every day normal life, either. Without knowing more about him, we can't say how much he his demeanor has changed. It is the change that would be noteworthy.
I believe Jeremy knows more than he is telling us, without question, but I can't make any other determinations from his behavior at this point.
Jeremy has expressed several emotions. In the photo above, he is clearly showing distress, and very subtle sadness. He also communicates a sense of resignation, too. I think whatever happened, Jeremy doesn't know what to do, and he is taking the lead from Deborah. That is about all I can say about Jeremy at this point and time.
Update: When I watch Jeremy in this interview, I get a strong sense he is totally infatuated with Deborah and all he wants is to be with her, and he will do everything in his power to stay with her no matter what. He seems rather spellbound by her, and his desire for her affection may be his motivating factor here. Jeremy may not have had a lot of luck with women and Deborah may have captivated him like no one else ever has before, and he is desperate to hang on to that.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Two of Deborah Bradley's former friends spoke out on the news and talked about her. One of her friends, Shirley Pfaff, says Bradley was an "attention hound" and did drink. This attention seeking behavior is concerning when we think of all the other traits we have seen in Deborah lately...
Thanks, Karon, for the link.
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.
The parents of little baby Lisa Irwin spoke at length with Fox News yesterday and while I've only found a small portion of the interview this morning, I find it very revealing. As many of you know, they are now being represented by Joe Tacapino, the same man who represented Joran van der Sloot.
When I watch the interview above, I am most frustrated by Fox News. Why would they display images of baby Lisa when the parents answer the most important questions of all! I could just scream. Watching them here could have possibly revealed key information. So at the most important time, I only have audio to go on, but it still reveals important information.
The first question is did you kill little Lisa? Deborah answers the question with a no. It's not an emphatic no, which is notable.
When Deborah is asked if her baby is alive, I here a desperation in her voice -- a desire to grab onto that answer, which stuns me. An honest mom who truly believes her baby was abducted would not have this confidence. It's the confidence that stands out here, and distinguishes her answer from a woman whose doesn't know for sure what happened to her baby. It supports, again, that Deborah likely does know.
Deborah is then asked if she hurt her baby. Listen to the volume of her speech as she and Jeremy both answer this question. It falls off notably, which is a big red flag. Why is she not emphatic about this answer? Why is she showing a lack of commitment to this answer in her voice?
The reporter then says, "Would you ever hurt your baby?" Lisa then answers confidentially. This is a question about future activities, and it would make sense that her speech would change here--because she is projecting about what she would do.
When Deborah is asked if she sold her baby and she says no, I do believe
her. We see the most emphatic answer at this point compared to all the
other questions she answers. I would expect to see this on all answers -- most notably about killing or hurting her baby, but we don't see it then, which again makes it all the most notable.
It is precisely where she is asked did you hurt your baby that I get the biggest clue indicating possible deception.
I find it odd how Deborah laughs when she talks about why the police are saying she and Jeremy are not talking. Speculating, she says, "...because we won't let them interview our children, maybe..." Why would that be funny? Is she getting some joy because she feels a measure of control here? Why would she want to control anything if it meant withholding information that could be helpful in finding Lisa?
Deborah also says, "My kids would know nothing." This is a huge red flag. If your baby was abducted sometime after you went to bed, could your children have heard something important? You bet they could have! They could have heard noises, maybe even seen something, but Deborah is truly confident they know nothing. Well how could that be unless she knows what happened to baby Lisa?!! This flat out does not fit with her story.
I also was troubled with how she now is saying that she was drunk that night, and could have passed out. What stands out at this point is that Deborah has no remorse, if she is honest and her child was truly abducted, that her actions could have resulted in something happened to her daughter because she was incoherent. Her lack of guilt over her irresponsible behavior is flat out chilling. She either didn't drink that night and it is an excuse, or she did drink and has no emotions for anyone (which supports psychopathic tendencies) -- neither of which look good for her child.
Furthermore, Jeremy should be devastated that the mother of his baby was so irresponsible, if he believes she drank that night and he is uninvolved. His emotions in that regard are missing here too, which is a red flag. If he was innocent and uninvolved, I would expect him to mad and upset with Deborah, but he is not, which is highly indicative he knows exactly what happened. He is standing by Deborah through thick and thin. Granted Jeremy is not an emotional guy, but we would at least see him apart from Deborah if he was angry, which we do not. Instead we see him holding her hand!
Sadly, this will not be a good outcome for baby Lisa. I just hope they find her soon and hold the people who did this to her accountable.
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.
Deborah Bradley now admits that she didn't put Lisa Irwin to bed at 10:30 like she said, but rather 6:40 PM. And she also admits that she was drunk that night. When we look back at Deborah's behavior, she clearly has no problem changing facts to suit her. I can't help but wonder at this point if she is a pathological liar.
Today Jeremy nows adds that Deborah sleeps with the fan on high. Has this ever been mentioned before?
As many of you noted, it makes absolutely no sense that Deborah and Jeremy would be protecting the two boys from the police at Lisa's expense, if they had nothing else to hide.
Deborah talks about how the boys heard noises that night, but says she hasn't inquired with them further to find out specifics. A mom who truly doesn't know what happened to her daughter would have long ago talked to those children and would understand what they heard, and would share that openly with law enforcement. the fact that they are not says they have more to hide.
Clearly, Jeremy and Lisa still know more than they are telling us, without question... It isn't looking good for baby Lisa, sadly.
Click here to read my original opinion when the parents first spoke out.
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.
Amber Kirwan went out with her friends in Novia Scotia to a pool hall and was last seen in the early morning hours on Sunday. She parted from her friends saying she was going to a convenient store where her boyfriend was going to pick her up.
Amber's boyfriend, Mason Campbell, said when he arrived at the convenience store, Amber was no where to be seen. You can watch him talk in this video.
Mason says, "The second I got there, and she wasn't, it was completely out of character right there and then."
So, I wonder, did he start searching for her? Did he call her friends and family?
I have to say its odd that Mason talks about his "common relationship" with Amber. He says, "She gets upset if there is something else I have to do..." and focuses on the negative of their relationship right away when she is missing. Most people when a loved one disappears grasp on fondly to the specialness of their relationship. Why isn't Mason?
Did he say to Amber when she called that he had something else he had to do that night, and she got upset? Did they have a fight? Did he show up way late or not at all? I can't help but wonder...
Mason continues, "I should have been there. I should have waited longer around there. I should have tried harder to skim up and down that road."
I have to say this baffles me. Why does he say he should have been there? I thought he was there. Or is he talking about the pool hall--that he should have been there instead of the convenient store? He also says he should have waited longer. Yet in the interview above, Mason tells us he knew it was flat out of character for Amber not to be there. If he didn't start calling around and raising alarms that night, that would be a huge red flag for me. Did he go looking for her that night or not?
Mason says, "I wasn't preparing myself for a situation like this, you know?"
This is a definite red flag. Who prepares for a situation like this? No one can prepare for something like this...but if something happens, such as a fight and things go wrong -- one might say this.
Mason isn't making a lot of sense at this point.
He then speculates about what happened to her. Speculation is quite unusual, too, but his speculations are not out of reason. They are just odd.
I see some strange behavior which flag me and one solid red flag, but these are not enough for me to reach any conclusions at this point. I am curious to see more.
If anyone sees other interviews, 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.
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.
Many of you have likely seen the story of missing baby Lisa Irwin from Missouri. She is 10-months old. The story being told to the press is that her father, Jeremy, discovered her missing from her bed at 4:00 a.m. this past Tuesday in the early morning after he came home from his work shift. He woke up his wife and they called police. At some point, they discovered an open window that was tampered with.
The couple claims that whoever abducted their daughter also stole three cell phones from the house from the kitchen counter. I find this perplexing. If the father goes to work, doesn't he carry his cell phone with him? Or does he leave it home? I would be curious why he wouldn't have it with him at work. Is there a logical reason for it?
In watching this video, the mother, Deborah, is displaying true sadness, which can support the truth or deception--so it has no other meaning than to tell us she is truly sad. The father, however, shows no sadness, no oblique eyebrows--no emotions whatsoever. He is stoic. It's notable.
In the very beginning of the interview Jeremy says, "...obviously all very unusual and I started checking on the kids. Checked on the boys first, and then we checked on her and that's when we realized she was gone."
If you notice Jeremy goes from "I" to "we". His word usage is suggesting that when he was with his wife that is when "they" discovered Lisa was gone, but I thought he discovered it first. Which is it?
I am also flagged by Deborah when she says about the missing cell phones, "They were on the counter in the kitchen and there's ah...whenever I was....we woke up...and I woke up and he came home and I was..he said she is not in her crib and I said what do you mean she's not in her crib? And I just knew, you know....something was really wrong and we run around the house and we were screaming for her and she nowhere and then I said call 911, call 911 and he said where are the phones? And they weren't on the counter where I left them. They were gone.
Why is Deborah having trouble talking and keeping her story straight about waking up? Why does she have all these false starts and self-censoring?
Both of them seem to be having trouble sticking to their story that he came home and found Lisa missing and he, Jeremy, woke Deborah up. Why is that if they are telling us the truth?
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
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 see Dateline this past weekend when they featured "The Secret"? They profiled the life and death of Mike Snyder, a well known auto mechanic in Albuquerque. His wife, Ellen, eventually confessed to police that she was the one who killed him after her son's friend went to police detailing all he knew about the murder. Ellen had told everyone for years that Mike had left her for a gay lover, but the truth was she shot and killed him, and along with her son, they buried him near the garage. Her son told a friend who sat on that secret for years, but when Ellen became his boss and fired her-- he went to the police in revenge.
Ellen Snyder had no problems lying to people or eliminating her husband Mike. She was actually quite happy after Mike supposedly disappeared.
I don't believe much of what Ellen said in the show. I don't believe Mike had a gay relationship. I don't believe he woke her up in the middle of the night to scream at her. I don't believe he was jealous of her. I also don't believe their relationship came to boiling point that night because he was abusive and she killed him self-defense. I think the reverse has more merit than anything.
Ellen was no little mouse. That's all nonsense. They may have had fights, but Ellen stood her ground, without question.
Ellen Snyder is one cold, calculating and scary woman, and I am sad to hear she only had to serve 11 years for killing her husband.
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.
Amanda Knox's appeal will be decided this week--possibly as early as today. Will Amanda be set free? It sure looks that way when we listen to the American news media report on this story. Not being fluent in Italian, I have no idea how things look from their perspective.
This case has taken many twists and turns over the past few years--the biggest of which is the fact that the Italian police bungled their investigation at the crime scene and have been very unreliable in getting information to substantiate people's involvement--most specifically Amanda Knox and her boy friend, Raffaele Sollecito.
Many people are curious about what I think so I thought I would write an update. When Amanda first gave the police her story, I immediately called out that I did not trust what she said to be true.
Back in November, 2007, Amanda Knox told police, "Patrick and Meredith were in Meredith's room while I stayed in the kitchen. I can't remember how long they were together in the room, but I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I was scared so I covered my ears. After that, I don't remember everything, my head is very confused."
Which in response to the comment above, I wrote, "Several papers have printed a statement made by Knox to police, and if this statement is true, I find it quite interesting and telling that perhaps Ms. Knox is not being forthright with us...." I conclude after giving my analysis, "...a strong indication of deception. I don't believe Knox is being honest with us " You can read my original thoughts and analysis of Amanda Knox statement here (from 2007).
Amanda has since retracted that statement (I need to mark this on my track record as another deception called out before the truth was known -- I never did!), but she has yet to give us anything viable to hang our hat on. In all of these years, she has yet to make one statement that clearly delineates what she knows is true. That troubles me.
48 Hours obtained the tape of Amanda describing to an Italian judge what happened to her that night which I believe was recorded in 2008 at Rudy Guede's trial. Amanda asked to address the court. It was the one time where she wasn't translating between Italian and English and where she spoke freely about what she knew that night. Amanda had an entire year to gather her thoughts at this point, too, so I expected something substantial from Amanda, but what she said was anything but substantial.
Not only did Amanda NOT give us a clear memory of what happened that night that supports the truth, she hesitated a lot, self-censored her speech tremendously and stops herself from saying complete thoughts over and over again--which are more strong indicators of deception.
From all we know about this case up to today, I find it very strange that Amanda's first confession involves her being at the house, with Meredith in her room with a black man. What are the odds that Amanda would make up a story that comes so close to what we do know the Italian police supposedly got right -- that Rudy Guede's, a black man, had his DNA everywhere in Meredith's room?
The odds of this happening by coincidence are exceptionally rare. While it wasn't Patrick Lumumba who killed Meredith as Amanda first said, I don't think many people question that Rudy was there. It points to the fact Amanda likely has more knowledge about what happened that night than what she is willing to admit.
I also find Amanda's original statement troubling when she said she heard screams and covered her ears. No one who hears screams, without knowing the source, would cover them up (end of story)!! They would run to the source to see if someone accidentally hurt themselves, or they would flee if they felt they were in danger. At which point Amanda conveniently had no memory.
For Amanda to make this element up that she didn't know the cause of the scream, but just stood there and covered her ears is ILLOGICAL and nuts because she would have to think illogical when she made up that lie, if she didn't experience this--and that is ridiculous (and very,very unique!!). To me, it supports that fact that she was at the house, she did hear screams, BUT SHE KNEW who and possibly what was going on in the bedroom for her not to react. Add to that, she tells us in her first confession, it was a black man -- and low and behold another black man was implicated in the murder. That's pretty substantial for me.
So while Amanda lied in her first statement to police, I believe the truth is scattered in the middle of it and if we pay attention to her words, I believe it does reveal that Amanda had some knowledge of what happened that night.
Was she involved beyond that? I CANNOT SAY and never have...I don't have good enough interviews of Amanda to tell you. Maybe that will change if she gets set free.
I also believe that Amanda was involved in drugs and may have a foggy memory that night as well--which causes her absolutely weird ramblings that make no sense whatsoever. I suspect she thinks back to that night, has weird dream-like visions of what happened and doesn't dare share them because they certainly wouldn't help her case...
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.
