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.
Just an FYI...I want people to know that while my posting has slowed down, I will be back in full force after the New Year. Things are well, I just need to give myself a break!
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
A reader here at Eyes for Lies pointed me to an interesting study that identified a kindness gene. While that may not be surprising, it is surprising that people can spot people who have it successfully within 20 seconds of watching a silent video of two people interacting.
“Our findings suggest even slight genetic variation may have tangible impact on people's behavior, and that these behavioral differences are quickly noticed by others,” said Aleksandr Kogan, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto and the study’s lead author.
I am a firm believer that we communicate information through many channels, and behavior is one of the most revealing.
I am also a firm believer in what is called "personality identification at zero acquaintance". Just looking at a face, I can identify many traits about a person with high accuracy. The woman in the photo shows full lips, which is an indication of compassion, however, all the elements of the face must be considered before you come to a conclusion.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
When I watch Gary Giordano speak, I have to say I am left with a lot of answers that aren't logical or that make sense.
Gary wants us to believe he went with her girlfriend to Aruba and when she supposedly went missing at sea; oh well, he went to catch his regularly scheduled flight. Nothing odd about that. Yeah, right. It doesn't take Eyes for Lies to see that.
Furthermore, Gary wants us to believe he drove across the island to a beautiful beach, Baby Beach, yet he goes snorkeling farther down off a jagged, rocky shore. "Baby Beach" got its name because the shores are perfect for children and families. It was an ideal place to go snorkel. Click on the link above and see how beautiful Baby Beach is, and then look (on Dateline) where he claimed he swam. No one would chose to swim off the rocks where he claims. I suspect it is unlikely they went in the water here, or if they did, it was with sinister intent.
When Gary says he never heard there were a lot of accounts that they were drinking heavily, he says, "I know there were videos of us at the RumRunner, okay, we didn't order drinks, we didn't drink heavily, she was walking, I was walking--we were a sober couple."
Gary is saying that because they didn't order drinks, and they were upright, they were sober? Does that convince you? Also, his story about juice (as seen on Dateline)... I'm not buying it. Either he had an alcoholic drink, or that drink was more sinister. He is hiding something here, too.
Gary goes on to say that people are saying he took Robyn to a remote location. To that he responds, "We were 100 yards from a scuba diving store with tanks in the back...we were in view of other people at Baby beach."
Yet later in the video, he says about that same scuba shop, "There is nobody there. There is
not one person in the parking lot. Those are storm doors [in the video]....The scuba
diving shop is closed. There isn't a single car in the parking lot. So I
am screaming in the air?"
Oops. Gary is talking out of both sides of his mouth, isn't he? He seems to change the story whenever it suits him...honest people don't do this. Clearly, Baby Beach was remote that day.
When Gary is asked what he said to the airline clerk about Robyn, his flight companion, he denies he said that Robyn is taking another flight, but he doesn't remember what he said. That's a red flag. He says, "I didn't want to get into a long conversation about what is going on." He knows exactly what he said, but he doesn't want to admit to it, if you ask me. I trust the airline clerk. Considering the airport was shutting down, I'm sure she remembers him trying to catch a last minute flight minus his companion.
Gary couldn't be more removed from Robyn if he tried.
It's interesting when Gary recollects what the lead detective telling him that he is being arrested for the murder of Robyn Gardner, we don't see any response from Giordano like, "Did they find her? Is she gone?" He has no emotional response or memory that you would expect. Most people would not forget that moment if they are innocent -- being told you are being arrested for murder. You would immediately wonder if they found her --specifically if you didn't do it!!
Gary also says he swam with his shoes on. Give me a break!
When Gary talks about the flight insurance he got, he tells us he had to cover Robyn. He says he didn't have any other options. Yet strangely, while he makes the same claims to Dateline on Friday night, when Josh Mankiewicz says, "Couldn't you have taken out insurance on yourself without taking out insurance on Robyn Gardner, Gary responds while grinning, "I'm sure I could have done 15 different things."
Gary tells us he took out insurance for his boys, so why didn't he make them the beneficiaries on Robyn's policy? This is another inconsistency.
I am troubled by Gary's word choice when he talks about the insurance money, "When I give a thought about that, it's dirty."
Dirty? Really? If I am totally innocent and my girlfriend died at sea, would I think insurance money is dirty???? I might not want to collect on it because it emotionally kills me realizing my girlfriend died, but I would never think to call it dirty. Is it "dirty" to Gary because of what he knows happened?
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero tolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior.
Disclaimer:All data and information provided on this site is for
informational purposes only. Eyes for Lies Blog makes no representations as to
accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information
on this site & will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in
this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its
display or use. This is a blog and expresses opinions of the author. Just
because Eyes for Lies does not believe someone does not mean they are (a)
lying, or (b) a liar. All information is provided on an as-is basis. Eyes for Lies does not take
any responsibility for comments published by its readers. Readers publish comments at their own risk.
By reading this blog, you agree to the terms expressed
in this link.
Copyright
Notice 2004-2011
The content of this blog cannot in any way be reproduced, replicated, copied,
duplicated or performed in any manner without express written permission from
Eyes for Lies. You don't want to get caught in a lie, do you? Ask first.
