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 kept score on her blog for 7.5 years and had an accuracy rate of 95%
after identifying truth and deception in
38/40 people
before the truth was known by watching media clips. A record comparable to none.
Eyes for Lies is not psychic.
When I watch the Kelley Cannon interview with ABC's 20/20, these are my thoughts: Read more
Kelley tries to give Jim Avila on 20/20 a new theory about what she thinks happened to her husband Jim, and who wore those gloves found outside the crime scene. We don't get to see Kelley talk much about it as Jim Avila introduces it, but Kelley wants people to believe that she didn't call 911 or testify because she was protecting her husband. She wants us to believe that Jim had a private life that no one knew about, that he drank and had "rough sex" with strangers. Hence, according to her, she believes it was a stranger who likely wore those gloves and killed Jim. It's so outlandish, its humorous. Kelley Cannon is very desperate, which we see on her face.
If this is true, we can be sure he had to "meet" these "strangers" somewhere, so other people would be talking or at minimum there would be a paper trail that supports this as well (phone calls, receipts for bars, nightclubs, etc) because remember these were "strangers". So if this is what she believed all along, then why didn't she come up with supporting evidence to her theory? I suspect because she knows it doesn't exist!
Furthermore, why would she protect a man who had a restraining order on her, and who was trying to get full custody of her kids? Does that make any sense? One cannot argue that she kept the "secret" to protect the kids (which would have been a better excuse, frankly) because if that is true, she sacrificed herself for her kids, which makes no sense. Now the kids have no parents, so we know that is a line of B.S. Kelley seems to come up with the most outlandish rubbish whenever it suits her! She is so contorted in this interview, because she desperately wants to be believed. If you ask me, she can't handle that her old tricks aren't working anymore!
Listen when the detectives ask Kelley if Jim ever beat her. She pauses before answering and then says "Yeah" in what I would consider an upbeat tone -- similar in sound to how someone might say a question. This is notable and a common tone for deceptive people. When the detective asks if she ever filed a police report, listen to her say much softer and more down tone "No."
The way Kelley says "Yeah" and "No" are notable to me. It's the way she inflects that clues me in that she is not being honest. Furthermore, if this was the truth, why isn't she volunteering to the detective how he beat her? Notice she doesn't give him any substantiating information. Why? Surely if she was beaten, other people would have seen telltale signs but no one supports poor Kelley.
Kelley tells us she didn't file any police reports of the beatings because she was scared of Jim. I find that flat out laughable. She was so afraid of him that she threatened him once when he was in his car with the kids, and it was Jim that called 911. They played the call on 20/20. She sure was scared, wasn't she? And then the night Jim was murdered, she tells us she went to Jim's house --even though there was a restraining order on her. That's shows fear, doesn't it? Give me a break! This woman is terrible at her game.
When Jim Avila starts speaking to Kelley, look at how tense she is. She is showing incredible tension. Watch her let out a breath of air as she talks to Jim Avila. If she is innocent, why is she so tense? She clearly contorts her face. I think it is because she is trying to see if she can convince us of her "new" story. Not.
Kelley says, "I didn't do this and for some reason or another, nobody's interested in finding out who did." Why isn't she interested, if she is innocent? She is throwing out empty, meaningless words here.
Listen to how Kelley talks about herself about being at Walgreens. "That's just B.S. That's somebody else..no. That's that girl he had the affair with."
I think everyone can see that is Kelley in the surveillance video. It shows Kelley will lie whenever it suits her. Also, it is ironic that she talks that Jim had an affair with a "girl" here yet she told the cops at one point he was "queer". Another inconsistency. Kelley is inconsistent on a regular basis.
When Jim Avila asks Kelley if she killed her husband, we see tears. I suspect these are tears of self-pity, personally. She says somberly, "No". Why isn't she mad when she is asked this, if she is innocent?
Then Jim Avila asks her if she knows who did it (murdered Jim), and she says in a controlled and muted angry tone, "No." She doesn't want people to know she is angry here, but her voice gives her away. She is angry she can't point the finger at someone else!
Wait a minute. She doesn't know who did it? In my first point above, didn't she tell Jim Avila that she suspected she knew who the gloves belonged to? She hinted strongly there that it was one of his stranger sex partners. Why isn't she sticking to that here? Kelley flip-flops worse than a pair of shoes walking down the street of the same name.
This jury absolutely called this one right. It's no surprise they returned a verdict in 55 minutes. Good going, jury. This woman needs to be exactly where she is!!
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
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 intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
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 intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
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 intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Part One of ABC's 20/20 on the Linda & Jeff Dolloff Story
I just watched Friday night's 20/20 story about Linda and Jeff Dolloff. Linda tells the story of how she was shot in her hallway and never saw the person who did this her. She didn't even hear the person who did it. Oddly, her husband was attacked with a baseball bat and he suffered severe injuries. Linda believes it was an intruder. Jeff doesn't remember anything.
The crime happened April 11, 2009, and Linda Dolloff was convicted this May on charges she tried to kill her husband, aggravated assault and filing a false report. Her attorney, last week, has now filed for a new trial. It's a fascinating case.
In my opinion, Linda Dolloff's behavioral and circumstantial evidence were overwhelming.
Here are my thoughts as I watched the show:
Linda Dolloff says, "I heard from nondescript noises, nothing that seemed alarming to me. I walked down the hall, heard a loud bang, um...experienced some pain, fell, I saw movement and that’s all. When I opened my eyes, there was a gun in front of me on the floor. I reached for the gun made contact with it, it fired, it scared me, I dropped it. Certainly my husband would be here (shoulder shrug), I called out to him. "
How often do you walk down a dark hallway at night with your eyes closed? Anyone?
Linda's statement has elements out of order. She says, "I saw moment and that's all. When I opened my eyes...." How can you see movement with your eyes closed? When people remember things like this, they typically remember things how they occurred.
When Linda recalls the shooting ordeal, she has no emotions. If you didn't know any better, you'd think she was talking about walking to the mailbox or something inane. It's very notable.
What intruder/killer shoots a victim and drops the gun in front of his victim--especially if he doesn't know if he killed them?
I find Linda's lack of details very notable here. We don't get any memory recall about what she was thinking or feeling, she only gives us action-oriented details. She never talks about fear or anything, not even after she was shot. That's very notable to me.
After Linda says she called out to her husband, Jim Avila says, “What were you calling him, Linda?” She replies, "I absolutely don’t remember. I had to get to the phone. I had to get help." She doesn't remember any details that here? You would think after she realized she was shot, she would have had a lot of emotions and feelings running through her and she would share some of that, but she doesn't remember much, and shows no emotions. It flags me.
Isn't it fascinating if she was shot, she doesn't wonder where this shooter went, if he/she is waiting there still to ambush her again? It's strangely missing! She has no normal fears whatsoever. These are huge, blaring red flags!
Jim Avila says, “An unseen attacker in the night. Her husband bleeding in his bed unable to speak."
If it was dark, or she had her eyes closed, how come she didn't wonder if her husband shot her by mistake? How did she not know it wasn't her husband who shot her? Also if you fire a gun at night, doesn't it produce light in the form of a flash? Didn't she see the explosion from the gun? Even if her eyes were closed, she should still see the bright flash in the dark.
When I listen to the segments of Linda’s 911 call played during the show, and watch Linda speak, I do not hear or see any expressions of fear that support what she is saying. On the 911 call, she sounds like she is whining, which is very notable to me.
Listen to her call out Jeff's name. Why isn't she worried the intruder/killer isn't going to come back for her?
If Linda believed an intruder was in the house who was trying to kill her, why wouldn't she be covert in calling 911? Do you notice she doesn't keep her voice low? She seems to have no fear he might come back and get her. She says in what sounds like a loud voice, “Somebody in the house. Somebody’s in my house.” If you feared for your life, which she should have, would you do this?
In the 911 call the operator says, “Did you see anything at all?” She cries out in a whine, “It’s dark. It’s dark. It’s dark. I just saw movement.” I have to ask then how did she see the gun laying there, but not the guy who shot her running away? Once she realized she was shot, wouldn't she then tune in to noises? It could save her life, if she was truly in trouble, don't you think?
Why didn't she hear the shooter drop the gun? Does she want us to believe he just gently placed it there?
When the operators says, “Are you hurt?” She says, “I heard a bang. I’m bleeding.” Didn't she figure out she was shot? She said that to 20/20. Why doesn't she say that in the 911 call?
It's interesting the police dog never found any scent outside to support an intruder.
What killer goes into a house on a holiday weekend with five cars in the driveway?
When Jeff calls Linda after he recovers a bit, I find it strange how she says, “Can I come see you?” Hasn't she been visiting him? Would you have to ask your spouse if you could come see him? It's insane.
When Jeff asks what happened, Linda says, “I was shot. I don’t know what happened to you specifically.” This seems to suggest Linda didn't care to find out what happened to Jeff. If you were a victim, wouldn't you want to know all the details so you could try to figure it out. Were the police keeping information from her or did she not care enough to find out?
When Jeff says to Linda, “Why would (A) they beat me with a baseball bat, and shoot you with my gun?” She replies with anger, “I have no friggin’ idea.” Why would she be angry at him for asking that question, if she was totally innocent? Wouldn't she want to know to?
Jim Avila asks Linda “Are you incapable of a violent act?” Watch how Linda responds. Her head goes all over from no to yes to no. It's highly notable. I suspect her conscious and unconscious were battling there in the communication.
I believe Jeff when he tells us there is enough of a light source where Linda says she was shot and she says she couldn’t see. He said there was an outside light. I believe him.
What murderer is going to go into a house with no weapons and dig for a bat in the garage and find Jeff’s gun in his bedroom and use different weapons on each person? It’s a complete joke.
When police tell Linda Jeff thinks she may have had something to do with the attacks, she doesn’t act surprised at all. She doesn't get mad. She stays calm, cool and collected. It doesn’t fit to me at all. If she is innocent, she should be outraged, mad, concerned, frustrated—anything but a calm, collected response! Why isn't she saying, "You've got the wrong person. I am innocent"?
Linda says about the time she was first confronted by people thinking she did it, “I guess I didn’t want to accept the fact that somebody could think I was capable of doing such an act.” Isn’t interesting she never says anything about her innocence? That they have the wrong person? When you know you are involved, you don’t think like that, do you?
Linda says she wasn’t bitter at all about the way things were ending between her and Jeff. Yet she completely contradicts herself as she tells us, she had a dinner with him that night, they took a bath, and had sex.
At one point in the conversation with Avila, she says, "The door was not completely shut" when talking about their status--which I think most people would take to interpret, she still hoped to win him back. She can't have it both ways.
I do believe Linda was jealous that Jeff told her he was going to bring another woman home the following week to survey his life and she if she wanted to share it with him. Linda was mad she was asked to move out. Linda, in my opinion, wasn't going to have any part of it.
When the forensics were done with the gun and residue, Jim Avala talks about the “bright muzzle flash” when the gun is fired and how come Linda has no memory of this?
I listened to the 911 call, too, and I hear nothing that supports honesty.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
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 intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
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 intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
There is also an interesting article, worth reading, at Jacksonville.com about Jared Harrell. A reporter reviewed newly released records in the case and found some interesting things. From the article:
The records show detectives first interviewed Harrell on Oct. 30 in Somer’s case. He allowed them to search the home and property, but they spotted nothing suspicious.
...Harrell’s mother, Annis Dailey, told police she was with him, apparently at the home, between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m., the records show. She said they left together, gassed up their vehicles, had dinner at a McDonald’s and split up about 5:30 p.m.
The article states that Somer was last seen at approximately 2:45 so that could leave a 45 minute window still, if the time is accurate. I wonder if police questioned Harrell on October 30, and documented that he was with his mother at that time?
One of the most interesting aspects of the newly released records are that Harrell suspects he may have been setup by his roommates on pornography after he was accused of theft. Records indicate, according to this article, that the roommate was interviewed and given a polygraph and his responses were "inexplicably deceptive". That's interesting.
While these are nothing conclusive, I am a firm believer than remaining open-minded until all the facts of this case come out is very important, if you want to find the truth. Once the truth reveals itself, the pieces of the puzzle should fit together and make sense.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
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 intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
The state of Texas has taken on the case and is now pursuing murder charges against Matt Baker. His trial starts today. His attorney asked for a change in venue, but was turned down by the trial judge. More info from the WacoTrib.com.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
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 intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Doug Grant and his wife Hilary were featured on ABC's 20/20 last Friday night (You can watch the show here). Doug was put on trial for the murder of his 2nd wife, Faylene Eves Grant, who supposedly drowned in the couple's bathtub in 2001. Doug was just convicted of manslaughter this month, and he will be sentenced in a couple of weeks.
Faylene's daughter, Jenna Stradling, from her first marriage believes Doug killed her mother, and held her head under water. She claims she heard her mom that fateful day calling out for help. Others wonder if Faylene wanted to commit suicide.
In this poll, as I am writing, 15% of people believe Doug's story that Faylene accidentally drowned in the tub while he was asleep, 65% do not believe Doug, and 19% of people are undecided.
Read moreWhen I watched Doug and Hilary speak on 20/20, both of them raise my eyebrows and cause me concern. Here are some of my thoughts as I watched the show:
Why didn't Doug call 911 when he found Faylene? Instead he called his friend, Chad White, a physicians assistant. Why would he do that? It makes absolutely no sense.
Doug said about his call to Chad, "I called Chad. 'You gotta come. Take the prescriptions. I....(unknown) found her in the tub, you gotta come. I'm scared.'" Does Doug say "They found her in the tub"? The word he says before "found her" is really baffling me, and I can't quite make it out. He also seems to be struggling with pronouns here which is a red flag. Notice he doesn't say who should take the prescriptions? Why? Why do the prescriptions even enter into his mind at this point? If Doug was telling Chad to "take the prescriptions", why would he be saying that? This is very odd. Each of these elements are red flags for me.
Chad White in his 911 call to police said that Doug was afraid to call 911. Does that make any sense if this was an "accident"? If it was a premeditated murder, would it make sense?
Doug and his ex-wife, Faylene, went on a business trip to settle a company lawsuit for Doug's company. It was during this trip that Doug and Faylene talked of reconciliation yet Doug tells us how he was only weeks away from asking Hilary to marry him. Does this make any sense? Why would he consider a reconciliation if he is in love with another woman?
Jay Schadler says to Hilary, "It must have come as a blow to you" to hear about the talks of reconciliation. Hilary says, "I felt like, you know, Doug told me he had to work out his feelings, but I still felt like Doug and I would be together." Is this how you would respond if your boyfriend just got back from a business trip with his ex-wife, and he told you they talked of reconciliation? Hilary's response really raises my eyebrows. It doesn't make sense. I'm just not buying it.
Hilary remembers when Doug told her it was over. It was just after they had spent an intimate night together. "He came out of the bathroom, and I was standing there, and I said, 'It's over, isn't?' and he said 'It's over,'" said Hilary. The entire time she recollects what should be a horrible memory for her, she is smiling. This give me the complete chills!! Why is she smiling?? Wouldn't this conversation be a bad memory?
Emotions and memories are intertwined and Hilary doesn't seem to be feeling the emotions you would expect for a woman who is being rejected. She seems much too positive. Alarm bells are going off in my head. Was she somehow in on some plan with Doug to get rid of Faylene? I can't help but wonder this, time and time again.
When Faylene tells Doug that she had this revelation that she and Doug are supposed to be together, Doug tells us he told Faylene that he was just intimate with Hilary, and according to Doug, Faylene's simply says, "That's interesting. All I can tell you is that I've been told at the San Diego temple...." Does that even seem plausible? Doug seems to make Faylene out to be a complete idiot, who has no emotions and is completely able to overlook that Doug just slept with another woman. I'm not buying it.
When Hilary recounts her story about hearing that Doug and Faylene got remarried, she tries to act surprised, but it doesn't sit right with me. She is smirking through it all. Why? Why wasn't she truly surprised? Her emotional memories are not matching her story, which is a huge red flag for me, again.
Faylene at one point writes, "I must have faith in Doug's vision." I think this is powerful. Whose vision was Faylene following? Her vision or Doug's vision?
In one letter that Faylene wrote, it has the word "I" underlined in multiple places. This is very strange and notable (a reader pointed this out in the comment section). Most people don't underline "I", however if someone else wrote it, they might to emphasize it. Have you ever written a letter, and emphasizes "I" with an underscore? This is a huge red flag for me.
When Hilary reads that letter, her "cry" jumps out at me. There are no tears. Nothing about Hilary feels genuine.
When Faylene believes that she is going to die, and she writes to Hilary that she wants Hilary to be with Doug, she writes"Hilary, only you can know between Heavenly Father and yourself if it is heavenly father's will for you to be with Doug & to be part of our eternal family." How do we know that she means marriage by this? How do we know that this is Faylene's Doug, Doug Grant? Could Hilary have introduced another character with the name Doug to Faylene as a part of a bigger scheme? I'd have to read the diaries and journals to see. Of course, Faylene could have simply been brainwashed. She has the personality and predisposition for someone who succumbs to brainwashing.
I find it odd how Faylene wrote "...whoever this guy is that you are dating..." If Hilary and Faylene are close, why wouldn't Hilary tell Faylene his name?
Also nowhere in that letter does Faylene talk about her Doug and Hilary raising her children as a family, nor does she use the term marriage. It's oddly missing. You would think she would have written this letter to Doug and Hilary, wouldn't you, if she wanted them to be together? Perhaps she only wanted Hilary to raise her children and be a "mom" for them should something happen to her. Then again, she could have been brainwashed. You can rule that out.
I don't believe Faylene could fall of a 60-foot cliff and still be standing, or would be able to get up and walk away. That's flat out outrageous to me and a huge red flag.
Schadler says, "If she did fall, did you push her?" Notice Doug smiles, and laughs and then very controllingly stops himself and softly says, "No". All of these behaviors are notably odd and out of place for me and they are blaring red flags for me as well.
Doug insists he made a 911 call, but there is no record of it. It's absolute nonsense. Chad White further supports that Doug didn't want to call 911 either because he was "afraid".
And how ironic is it that just three weeks after Faylene dies that Doug and Hilary marry? Clearly, Doug wanted to be with Hilary.
I can't help but wonder if Doug stood a financial gain by eliminating Faylene. , I suspect Doug confuses a lot of people because the tears stream down his face, but he could have been crying because he was worried about loosing his freedom, as his trial date was looming. At times, Doug's tears seem genuine, such as when he looks at Hilary, but other times, I wonder if they are manufactured by thinking about how he would cope if he was convicted and lost everything, instead of truly feeling empathy for Faylene.
Faylene was deeply religious and believed in revelations. This tells us she was very open to suggestions, and had the personality which was highly susceptible to brainwashing, and I wouldn't put it past someone like Hilary or Doug to do it to her for money. Not for an instant. I certainly don't trust either one of them.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
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 intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
When you first hear the story that a recently adopted boy dies in his new home after only four months time, you immediately go on alert. The timing of little Andrew Burd's death raises a red flag. There is no doubt about it.
Read moreWorse, the little boy's former foster mother, Sharon Hamil, testified that the boy was fine and never exhibited any excessive or odd eating behaviors in her care.
The hospital where Andrew Burd was taken also said they saw bruising on the little boy's body which alerted them.
That's three red flags that can't be ignored. So then you would think it was appropriate that in 2007, Hannah Overton was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Well, sadly, I completely disagree.
When I watched this case on 48 Hours, and I listened to Hannah Overton speak on the stand, I can tell you that I trust her. I believe she is 100% innocent, and I suspect that little Andrew Burd did indeed suffer from pica.
There is just a genuineness about Overton that can't be faked. There is a sincerity, and honesty that are undeniable. Overton is someone who I would call a postive person. Overton truly believed the truth would set her free, but sadly, it did not.
More than that, when you look at Overton's demeanor, she does not have any of the typical traits of a mom who would abuse her children. She is not full of anger, hate, rage, or unsteady in her emotional state. She is quite the contrary: balanced, even-keeled and loved children more than most people.
What made this case even more fascinating to me were the other players in this trial. While I don't want to name names, I will tell you there were several people who spoke against Overton whom I do not trust nor would I ever trust. They hit me as angry and mad, and completely unable to be objective. That's unfortunately how an injustice like this can and does occur.
I hope that Hannah Overton's appeal is granted. She is truly deserving to be set free.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
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 intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Matt Baker was featured on ABC's 20/20 this weekend. Matt was a Baptist preacher, and his wife, Kari, an elementary school teacher.
On April 7, 2006, Kari turned up dead in their home. Matt says she asked him to go rent a movie after the 11 p.m. news, and to gas up the car. When he returned, she was naked on the bed, dead, and had left a suicide note: an unsigned, typewritten note that consisted of one small paragraph (only a few sentences).
Investigators ruled her death a suicide (by overdose). No autopsy was performed on Kari.
A lone detective took photographs of the scene and the justice of the peace -- who didn't come to the house -- made a ruling of suicide over the phone and without an autopsy (ABC 20/20).
But Kari's family didn't believe it, and after several months, they managed to dig up enough questions that the justice of the peace changed his ruling. In September, when Texas Rangers went to arrest Matt at a school where he was a substitute teacher, Matt fled the scene, but shortly thereafter turned himself in (source). Matt was arrested and charged in the murder of his wife and is now awaiting trial.
Read moreThere is a pile of circumstantial evidence in this case that doesn't bode well for Matt. Kari's suicide note, typed and unsigned, is very unusual. Women usually have a lot more to say than one small paragraph if they are going to write a suicide note. I would really like to see what the note said, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere.
Matt also has admitted to searching for overdosing on sleeping pills on the Internet, but said it was only because he was concerned about his wife.
"I did research to see can you overdose, is that even a possibility that I need to worry about, my wife overdosing on sleeping pills," Matt said (source).
I find Matt's words here interesting. When I watch Matt talk, he gives the classic thinking-on-your feet speech behaviors. He doesn't seem to be recollecting things, but rather thinking as he speaks. This is not conducive to honesty.
Kari confided in a counselor before her death that she found crushed pills in Matt's briefcase, and she told the counselor she feared Matt might kill her, because she believed he was having an affair. And cell phone records and records from Matt's work phone reveal several times a day for weeks she was calling the daughter of the music director at the church where Matt was preaching.
“She was kind of panicked about the whole situation when she found those crushed pills. No. Really, she was a lot panicked,” Shae Dickey, who taught with Kari Baker at Spring Valley Elementary School in Hewitt, told the Tribune-Herald. “She suspected that he was having an affair, and she told me she thought he was trying to kill her (source)."
And within days of Kari's death, Matt was seen with the music director's daughter shopping for jewelry, apparently an engagement ring. Matt says he was just looking to buy his daughter earrings.
I also find Matt emotionless. Listen to Matt's 911 call here when he finds his wife's dead body.
Doesn't he sound like this is a routine call to say, perhaps, the cleaners? Does he sound like a husband who is upset or distraught that his wife is dead?
Worse for Matt is that he couldn't even keep his facts straight on 20/20. He changed his story about finding and reading the suicide note. When he talks to the 911 operator, he says he found the suicide note. Yet when he talks to 20/20, he says that the police officers found it, and when John Quinones questions him, you can clearly see that he gets nervous.
John Quinones also asked Matt if he was capable of killing his wife, and the way Matt answered this question really raised the hairs on my head. He stopped, thought about it, and then answered. He said, "Absolutely!..." I think he meant to say absolutely not, but he forgot the word "not" in his scheming brain. I wish there was a clip of that segment online, but I have been unable to find it.
I don't believe Matt for a variety of reasons, and I don't believe you need "Eyes for Lies" to see why.
There are too many witnesses coming forward to say they saw Matt do something for which Matt has a totally different version of events, or denies. Second are Matt's lack of emotions when he talks about a wife he supposedly loved. Third, Matt's speech shows signs of thinking-on-his-feet behavior. And last, Matt can't keep his facts straight, and he tells different people different things, which strongly supports someone who is less than honest.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
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 intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
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 2004-2013
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.
