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.
Ginger White, an Atlanta business woman who is currently unemployed, spoke out to Fox TV in Atlanta this week confessing she had a 13-year adulterous relationship with the GOP candidate Herman Cain. Cain, however, denies this is true.
White is an interesting read because her face is literally frozen in this interview. I can't help but wonder if she spent her money on Botox instead of paying her rent. It makes this interview more difficult to interpret to say the very least.
White did, however, show reporters her phone records, which detailed numerous texts and calls between her and Cain on his private number. To double-check her claims, reporters texted Cain, and he called right back. He then denied any sexual affair and just said he was helping White out financially. Most people who you help out financially don't call back the instant you text them! More so, Cain admitted in an interview (seen below) he has known White about that amount of time (talking about the 13 years).
White also showed reporters two books Cain signed and once of them read, "Friends are forever! Everything else is a bonus.”
White describes Cain as arrogant, self-centered and in love with himself.
I do not see any signs that White is being deceptive in these interviews, but this is not a high stake scenario for White.
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 saw this clip and found it interesting that Kim Kardashian doesn't show any signs of anger in her face whatsoever when she punches her soon-to-be ex-husband. She acts like she was told to punch Kris as hard as she could, and she did just that. Her emotions are not supportive of her actions at all. What do you see?
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 lately have been talking about Voice Stress Analysis (VSA). Is it a reliable way to detect deception? Many companies are in the market today selling VSA tools, but there isn't much science to back these tools up unfortunately.
Here is a study I found on voice stress analysis (VSA):
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 on Friday night? Tom Foley and his wife lived on a farm in Coldwater, Michigan. In February 2009, they were going to attend a birthday party. Tom decided to leave early with his son and his son's friend, and his wife, Darlene Weber-Foley was going to meet up with them later.
Foley told his son to go start the truck while he did a few last minute things and when the kids went out in the yard, they heard a loud bang. Many wonder if the boys heard the gunshot that killed Darlene. Tom told them it was a window he broke, though someone came forward later to say the window was broken a week before.
I did not believe Tom Foley when I watched him. His emotions on the stand were not genuine. He dropped a lot of red flags for me as well when he talked about things. Listen to the 911 call above. The dispatcher says, "She fell in the shower?" Tom says, "No." Then he corrects himself and says, "I don't know". Whoa!! Huge red flag. If Tom truly didn't know what happened, how could say "No" so surely?
Tom Foley was originally convicted, but got a new trial based on new evidence and was eventually set free. I do think the majority of the interview of Tom on Dateline was taken after his trial, so you must remember once he was set free, the stakes in the situation dropped dramatically. Remember that when looking for 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.
Many people are speculating about what happened the night Natalee Wood drowned out at sea in 1981. She was 43 years old. She was on Robert Wagner's boat with Christopher Walkens, and the boat captain Dennis Davern. Davern came out last week publicly and said he believes there was foul play on the boat that night, though he remained silent all these years. He has co-authored a book on this as well.
The question is: Is Davern believable?
I have to say when I watch him speak, he is consistent and and he doesn't appear to be the type who would be motivated for money. He is emotionally flat in demeanor and comes off as average or above average in intelligence, an introvert and yet social awkward. The word Asperger comes to mind when I think of Dennis Davern, though I have no idea if he does or does not have the syndrome. The fact that he didn't speak out all of these years, however, does not contradict his personality, from what I see. So from what I have seen to date, I do not see any red flags.
On 48 Hours on Saturday, the lead investigator on the Wood case, Duane Rasure, spoke out and said that he has now become aware that Robert Wagner has changed his story, though he still believes Wagner. Rasure originally found broken glass on the boat, and Robert Wagner said it was because of rough seas earlier in the week. But in Wagner's memoir, he wrote, "At one point, I picked up a wine bottle, slammed it on the table and broke it into pieces. Natalie was below decks at that point."
Why on earth would Wagner lie about that if he was totally innocent? This is, without question, a red flag. I am also troubled by the fact it took so long for Wagner to call for help or conduct a search. If he thought Natalie was missing, and it was dark, late and Natalie was deathly afraid of the water, you think he would have launched a search immediately. If they had a fight, and he thought she fled, did he tell that to police?
We must remember, after 30 years, if a crime was committed the stakes have dramatically reduced and the pressure on all parties is much less than what it was 30 years ago. We cannot forget that, and so while I am suspicious, I would like to see more before I make any decisions...
Do you think Robert Wagner or Christopher Walkens will speak out and address direct allegations? A few of you have submitted older videos of Wagner talking briefly about the night Natalie died, but he doesn't say a lot from what I have seen. I'd like details.
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 thought this was hilarious! Thanks, Ralph, for sharing.
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.
Sandusky: I say that I
am innocent of those charges.
BC: Innocent? Completely innocent, and falsely accused in
every aspect?
Sandusky: Well…. I
could say that I have you know, I've done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids, I..I have
showered after workouts, I…I have hugged them and I’ve..I have touched their
leg without intent of sexual contact, but um, uh …uh…so if you look at it that
way, there are things that …that ah, wouldn’t ah, you know, would be accurate.
1.Notice Sandusky does admit to inappropriate
behavior when he says, “some of those things”.
2.He doesn’t deny he
is completely innocent. He doesn’t give us an unequivocal “yes” when asked if he is completely innocent.
3.Sandusky says,
“Well, I could say…” We don’t want to
hear what he “could say”. We want to
hear the truth!
4.When people are
deceptive, science has identified that they have a lot speech errors, and we
clearly see that with Sandusky throughout his entire interview.
BC: Are you denying
you had any inappropriate sexual contact with any of these under age boys?
Sandusky: Yes, I am. Yes,
I am.
BC: Never touched
their genitals? Never engaged in oral sex?
Sandusky: Right.
BC: What about Mike
McQueary, the grad assistant, who in 2002 walked into the shower where he says in specific detail that you were
forcibly raping a boy who appeared to be
10 or 11 years old….that his hands were up against the shower wall and he heard
rhythmic slap, slap, slapping sounds and he described that as a rape.
Sandusky: I would say that that is false.
The words “would say” stand out to
me. Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s
false! It’s a lie!”
BC: What would be his
motive to lie?
Sandusky: You’d have
to ask him that.
BC: What did happen
in the shower the night that Mike McQueary happened upon you and the young boy?
Sandusky: Okay, we were showering and horsing around, and he
actually turned all the showers on and was ah… actually sliding across the uh floor
and um, and we were… as I recall possibly like snapping a towel or horseplay.
1.If you notice Sandusky
is talking in present tense. When we
remember something, we typically talk in past tense. This is a red flag.
2.He says “possibly like
snapping a towel or horseplay.” The
words “possibly like” are huge red flags. He is suggesting this is what they might
have done, not what they did.
BC: In 1998, a mother
confronts you about taking a shower with her son and inappropriately touching
him. Two detectives evasive drop on her conversations with you and you admit
maybe your private parts touched her son.
What happened there?
Sandusky: I can’t
exactly recall what was said there, ah, in terms of um… what I did say… was
that… if he felt that way than I was wrong.
1.When people hesitate in their speech as Sandusky does here,
speaking and pausing, it shows what I call thinking-on-his-feet behavior. When people honest, they don’t have the
think, the truth flows.
BC: During one of
those conversations, you said I understand.
I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness now speaking with the
mother. I know I won’t get it from
you. I wish I were dead. A guy falsely accused or a guy whose actions
have been misinterpreted doesn’t respond that way, does he?
Sandusky: I don’t
know. I didn’t say… to my recollection…
that I wish I were dead….uh…I…I was…hopeful…that …..we could reconcile things.
1.Notice the speech
hesitations?
2.He says “to my
recollection”. This is a red flag.
People often do this when they are lying so if they are held accountable
in the future, they can claim they didn’t remember.
BC: Shortly after
that in 2000, a janitor said that he saw you performing oral sex on a young boy
in the showers in the Penn State locker facilities. Did that happen?
Sandusky: No.
BC: How can someone
think they saw something as extreme and shocking as that when it hadn’t
occurred and what could possibly be their motivation to fabricate it?
Sandusky: You’d have to ask them.
BC: It seems that if
all of these accusations are false, you are the unluckiest and most persecuted
man that any of us has ever heard about.
Sandusky: (laughter) oh, I don’t know what you want me to
say. I don’t think …these have been the
best days of my life.
1.Notice the lack of hesitation when he answers here in
what we can be pretty confident is a true statement.
Attorney speaks….
BC: (6:09) To your knowledge, did Joe Paterno have any
information regarding objectionable activities on your part prior to that
report in 2002?
Sandusky: My…I can’t
…totally answer that question….my answer would be …no.
1. Notice the speech hesitations again?
2.We also see what
is called “false starts”. He starts to
say something, and then stops himself. Why?
When we are honest, our words flow…
3.Why are his
thoughts all over the place? Why can’t
he answer that question?
4.His answer “would
be” no? Why doesn’t he say “No!”.
BC: Did Joe Paterno at
any time ever speak to you directly about your behavior?
Sandusky: No.
BC: Never?
Sandusky: No.
BC: He never asked
you what you might have done.
Sandusky: No.
BC: He never asked
you if you needed help…if you needed counseling.
Sandusky: No.
BC: Never expressed
any disapproval of any kind?
Sandusky: No.
1.When Sandusky says
this, the word “no” is said differently than previous times, and I hear a bit
of surprise in his voice suggesting Paterno never did express any disapproval.
I found this notable and likely true.
BC: How do you feel
about what has happened to Penn State and Joe Paterno and to the Penn State
Football program, and your part in it?
Sandusky: Well, how
do you think I would feel about a university that I attended, about people I
have worked with, about people that …I care so much about, uh, how do you think
I would feel about it? I feel horrible.
1. Notice the lack of hesitations in what is
likely a true response.
BC: You feel
horrible, do you feel culpable?
Sandusky: I’m not sure
I know what you mean.
1.Notice the lack of hesitations in what is likely a true
response.
BC: Do you feel
guilty? Do you feel as if it is your
fault?
Sandusky: No, I don’t
think …it’s my fault … I’ve obviously played a part in this.
1.If you are
innocent, would you ever say you played a part in it?
BC: How would you
define the part you played? What are you
willing to concede that you’ve done that was wrong and you wish you had not
done?
Sandusky: Well, in
retrospect, I… you know….. I …I…shouldn’t have …showered with those kids, you
know, so…
1.Speech hesitations
again…
2.What adult man who
is not a sexual pervert would want to shower with young boys? Most adult men want their privacy. This is very odd and suspicious behavior as well as highly inappropriate.
BC: That’s it?
Sandusky: Yeah, well,
that’s what hits me the most.
1.The most? This is suggestive there is more.
BC: Are you a
pedophile?
Sandusky: No.
BC: Are you sexually attracted to young boys—to under aged
boys?
Sandusky: Am I
sexually attracted to under aged boys?....Sexually attracted? You know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them, uh, I…I…but no, I’m
not sexually attracted to young boys.
1.If you notice Sandusky repeats the question
here. I call this parroting. It’s a red
flag. He needs time to think of an answer.
2.I am struck that
Sandusky doesn’t immediately deny this.
If you were accused of this, and you weren’t, you’d be firm and adamant
in your response. Sandusky clearly is
not. It’s notable.
3.Look how he
stutters for words (hesitates) when he gets to saying “no”.
BC: Obviously you are entitled to a presumption of innocence
and you’ll receive a vigorous defense.
On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of information out
there, and fair-minded common sense people have concluded that you are guilty
of monstrous acts, and they are particularly unforgiving with the type of
crimes that have been alleged here, and so millions of Americans, who didn’t
know Jerry Sandusky’s name until a week ago now not only regard you as a
criminal, but I say this in I think a considered way, some sort of
monster. How do you respond to them?
Sandusky: I don’t
know what I can say or I could say…. that would ….make… anybody feel …any
different now. I would just say that….
if somehow ….people could hang on… until ……my attorney has a chance to fight….you
know, for my innocence. That’s …that’s
about all I can ask right now…I…. Obviously, it’s a huge challenge.
Where is Sandusky’s anger? When
people are wrongly accused, they show negative emotions. The fact that Sandusky doesn’t have any and
appears to be simply sad doesn’t fit with an innocent person being accused of a
serious crime.
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.
All I will say about this man is he is "slippery". Justice was served. He acted inappropriate without question.
What hotspots do you see? This interview is loaded with them!
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.
ABC's 20/20 released the survelliance footage showing Travis Forbes, who is now serving time for killing Kenia Monge earlier this year, in
the bakery space he rented. It's absolutely chilling. His body language
is so calm, cool and collected in this video, its flat out stunning. He is wheeling around the body of the woman he killed as if it were no big deal. 20/20 will feature this story tomorrow. This behavior by Forbes makes me wonder if Monge wasn't his first victim. He's way too calm and "experienced" for a better term.
I wrote about Forbes when he spoke out to the media after Kenia went missing in April and I was immediately on high alert that he wasn't being honest. You can read my thoughts here.
I plan to chat with the bakery owner, Monica, in the coming days and share that interview with you.Forbes rented space from her. I'd like to talk to her what she thought about Travis Forbes, and coming so close to a dangerous person. If you could ask Monica a question, what would it be?
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.
Find Herman Cain's contempt expression....such arrogance, I must say. You know what I think about arrogant people...they have a much higher propensity to be deceptive.
I have been unable to find the video the second accuser speaking out, which MSNBC shows a very brief clip, but we cannot hear her speak.
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 good video of Mariah Yeater who is accusing Justin Bieber of having sexual intercourse with her that resulted in the birth of her 4-month old son, Trystan.
I do not believe Mariah.
Her story lacks details, she refuses to answer key questions such as what the evidence is, and she seems to feign her emotions. Nothing adds up to me.
If she really believed she was having Justin's baby, why wouldn't she have tried to contact him first before suing for paternity? We never hear her say that she tried that.
She says when she went backstage, "As soon as I stepped in, he immediately took a liking to me." If you notice, she has few details to give us. This raises alarms for me.
Why isn't she talking all excited about meeting Justin? Why doesn't she say what it was like backstage? She gives us no details whatsoever.
She continues, "And uh, we just got to talking and it was kind of me and him, with other people elsewhere, and then he eventually asked me, "Would you mind if we can go somewhere, and be alone."
When Mariah talks, she is as dull as a piece of paper. Where is this girl's emotions?? She shows no excitement or interest to even be with Bieber. It's oddly missing.
I find it odd that Bieber would tell her as he is walking her to another location about how he wanted to make love to her. Most young men doesn't announce their intentions -- they just act on them. I find this very strange. I also find it strange how she says he is all lovey and then turns more aggressive in the bathroom, and yet it doesn't in anyway seem to trouble Mariah. Most women at this point would be mad and upset and feel violated, and yet Mariah doesn't. That is a red flag. She actually starts to glow when she uses a the "f" word. It's so inconsistent to how normal people act. Most women don't take kindly to the use of such a word.
She tells us Justin said it was his first time (do young guys admit this? It seem rather ridiculous) and she went with "the heat of the moment". It's absurd. What heat of the moment?
She shows no confidence whatsoever, either. She acts like a victim here, which she would not feel like if she knew Justin was going to be held accountable, and furthermore according to her own story, she was a willing participant!!!
If she knows for a fact it is Justin--she wouldn't have any doubts, but she shows so many.
Mariah also says, "Come on, people don't talk out of there...(butt)..." She suggests that people lie all the time.
When Mariah is asked if the other girls in the room could substantiate this story, Mariah shows stress on her forehead. She sighs real hard, and then covers her face in a pout. She should have said confidently, "Yes". She does not.
I think Mariah is a very troubled individual. I personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near her. She scares me, frankly. She is not a timid meek person like she'd like us to believe she is.
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 several times when people put on a soft-sweet demeanor and speak in a soft-toned voice, for me, it is an automatic red flag, unless I see an intensely shy person-- a person who could never ever go on stage. When I saw Michael Jackson talk in public, I never believed that was his real voice. It was a voice to charm people into Michael Jackson's world. People argued with me about this--that no, that high pitched voice was Michael's voice and he wasn't faking it.
Most people don't talk like a whisper unless they want to charm you into thinking they are nicer than they really are!
When I heard this voice recording of Michael Jackson in the Conrad Murray trial, I said, "There it is. Proof." He was high as a kite on drugs here, and he was so out of it, he "forgot" to put on his fake voice. We get to hear the real Michael Jackson, and surprisingly he has a normal deep male voice.
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.
If there was ever an awkard, unaffectionate couple who appears to have paired up purely for an offspring, it has to be Prince Albert and his wife Princess Charlene.
I personally don't believe these two when they talk about her cold feet, or this affection for one another. They couldn't be more cold, more forced, and looking for each other's approval. When they try to convince us otherwise, both look to the other like, "Was that good? Do they believe me?" You can't miss it!
I would say this is a good example of denial. The only ones they are fooling, if you ask me, are themselves. What a charade!
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 watched the 60 Minutes interview of Ruth Madoff and her son Andrew, I was struck by Ruth's casual talk about her suicide attempt with Bernie. She smiles as she talks about it and she is almost flippantly about it.
Do I believe Ruth and Bernie tried to commit suicide? I do not.
When Ruth talks about the suicide, and is asked whose idea it was, Ruth says, "I don't know whose idea it was, but we decided to kill ourselves because it was so horrendous what was happening."
If either one suggested to the other to end their lives, I can be damn sure they would remember who came up with the idea--because such a suggestion is shocking to any living human being. And to ask another human being to end their life is exceptionally difficult, at best.
Imagine it: "I want to kill myself, will you kill yourself too?" No one forgets that conversation and the fact that Ruth suggests she did is strongly suggestive it didn't ever happen in the first place.
Ruth then says that they took pills, and when asked what they took, she hedges. She says, "I think Ambien." She thinks? Give me a break!
She continues talking about the pills, "How many? I don't remember."
Who believes this? I certainly don't.
The entire time Ruth talks about her suicide attempt she is smiling. Smiling!!
It's an arrogant and egotistical smile. It doesn't fit. Ruth does not give me any warm feelings whatsoever.
Has Ruth ever expressed remorse for the victims at all? After all, knowledgeable or not, she did live the high-life on other people's money illegally.
Ruth also tells us how she sent her baubles and family heirlooms to Andrew when
she planned to commit suicide, but I personally suspect Ruth wanted to
hide her assets in fear they would be taken away, so she sent them to
her son in hopes he would hide them for her. The problem is she allegedly wasn't
talking to her sons at that time and Andrew says he didn't know what it
was all about. I can't help but wonder if the suicide story is a cover as well as a way to garner a little sympathy.
When Ruth talks about Bernie coming home with the boys to tell her about his ponzi scheme, she again can't remember anything, which makes absolutely no sense. She couldn't remember if Bernie was emotional that day, which is
ludicris. She can't remember if he was even apologetic. If she hadn't know about this ponzi scheme that moment would have been seared into her brain and she would never, ever forget! These things would have been exceptionally important to her at that time, but ironically they weren't.
And furthermore, if she is so shamed by Bernie as she says then why the heck is she still married to him? She has no plans for divorce. She cut off contact with him only to have her son back in her life -- which if one looks closely at could be a very selfish act. I would suspect there are few people in her life these days outside of her relatives.
While I can't be certain that Andrew and Mark knew about the ponzi scheme (it seems unlikely because they did turn in their father, and Mark committed suicide), I bet there were a lot of red flags that they saw which they discounted. I am further troubled by the fact that Andrew feels entitled to nearly $60 million dollars knowing that this money was not legitimate. But when it comes to Ruth, her words and behaviors are painting a much clearer picture...if you want my opinion.
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've been watching the Anderson Cooper show lately, you've seen Anderson isn't a big lover of food. He's been open-minded and willing to try new foods, but there is a common theme that occurs when he tries a new food. He most often makes the classic expression of disgust. He does it so well, you almost want to gag for him! Food clearly is not appealing to Anderson.
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.
Had Cain not contradicted himself, this may not have become such a big story, but he stuck his foot in his mouth. Listen to him talk all over the place. You don't need "eyes for lies" to see this...sadly.
When I listen to Cain talk in his interview with Greta Van Susteren, I hear him make more contradictions. One time he says he told his counsel about the problem. Another time he tells us his counsel told him about the problem. Clearly something is not jiving here, Mr. Cain.
Please do not turn this into a political discussion. Political comments will be deleted. Thank you.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
For those of you following the Ryan Ferguson case, there is an interesting video created by Citizens for Justice (CFJCOMO.COM).
On the night that Kent Heitholt was murdered, a co-worker of Heitholt, Michael Boyd, was the last to see him alive, has made inconsistent statements, yet was never closely looked at as a murder suspect.
I find Michael Boyd's behavior suspicious, too. You can read my thoughts 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.
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.
