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.
48 Hours ran the latest updates to the Ryan Ferguson story last weekend. The show was titled "The Accuser". I have been following this story since 2006.
For those of you who haven't followed the story, you can read about the story here, and you can read my original thoughts on this case from February 2006 here. I titled the post "Confess to a murder you didn't commit?"
I never believed Charles Erickson (who then went by the name "Chuck" back then)--not one time nor did I believe that Ryan killed Kent Heitholt. Now for the first time, Charles speaks out about the case to 48 Hours. He says he lied and wants to correct a wrong.
I have absolutely and 100% have stood by the fact that I believe Ryan Ferguson is innocent and honest, and had no part in the killing of Kent Heitholt. I have also said from day one that Charles Erickson was lying.
When I watch Charles Erickson speak to Erin Moriarty on 48 Hours, I do believe he is FINALLY BEING HONEST. He is telling the truth! He didn't remember anything, and under pressure, he lied to save his own hide --obviously realizing he was in way too deep.
Charles said, "The reason I felt I needed to lie and make things up is because I couldn't remember anything." This is the truth and it is sad to see the judge doesn't believe it.
If there is one case in our justice system that I find horrifying, it is this case. Ryan Ferguson should not be locked up and needs to be freed IMMEDIATELY.
I believe Ryan has the best and most capable attorney, Kathleen Zellner, helping his cause, but all her amazing work has yet to free Ryan -- mind you however, I believe she will work tireless until he is freed, and he will be freed. He has to be, if we want to have a fair system!!
Please show your support for Ryan on your Facebook page, website and with your friends. Justice needs to be served and served now!!
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
I have been following the Ryan Ferguson case since 2006 when I first saw it air on 48 Hours. I immediately believed Ryan Ferguson was innocent from the very first interview I saw of him, and I was sad that he was serving time for a crime that he didn't commit.
I held out great hope that Ryan would be freed as people came out and started backtracking on their stories--the stories that were used to convicted Ryan. And I held out the greatest hope that his latest appeal by Kathleen Zellner, who I highly respect, would be granted, but sadly last week while I was out of town training professionals, I got the word his appeal was denied.
To say that I am very upset is an understatement. This is a huge injustice being done to an innocent man. The judge in the case, Green stated in his ruling that Ryan did not prove his “actual innocence” in the killing of Kent Heitholt, a sports editor at the Columbia Daily
Tribune.
Eriely, Green's ruling came exactly 11 years to the day that Heitholt was killed.
As someone who is an expert in deception, I have always struggled with proving, and showing innocence. How do you do it? I think for someone to have to prove this standard, we need to define exactly how this is done because the only way I know to prove innocence is to show any lack of involvement, which Ryan has proven without a doubt.
I'd personally like to ask the judge, how does one meet this standard of actual innocence? How does one prove it? What are the guidelines for this?
It's easy to prove guilt. It is much, much more difficult to prove innocence.
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
Here is the last update to the Ryan Ferguson case. If you aren't familiar with it, you can read my original post here.
Ryan Ferguson was locked up seven years ago for allegedly murdering Kent Heitholt, a newspaper editor in Missouri. Two people testified against Ryan during his trial and now both have recanted their stories.
First, Chuck Erickson, Ryan's friend, recanted his story that he was with Ryan at the murder, and now Jerry Trump, an employee at the newspaper where Heitholt worked has recanted his story as well as that he saw Ferguson.
I have said from the first time I saw this case that Ryan (& Chuck) are innocent, and hopefully a judge will agree after this evidentary hearing is ruled upon sometime in July.
I absolutely LOVE Kathleen Zellner. She is brilliant!
The person who I believe should be a person-of-interest in this case is Michael Boyd. I agree whole-heartedly with Kathleen! The original prosecutor in this case needs to be held accountable, if you asked me for abusing the system, and Ryan needs 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
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.
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
I watched Dateline NBC on Friday (Mystery on Halloween Night) and long before Kathleen Zellner identified her person of interest in this case, I noted odd behavior in one person, too. The same person: Michael Boyd. His behavior was unusual. When he talked about the murder of his boss, Kent Heitholt, he grinned away.
Yes, he grinned: True and sincere.
Boyd laughs as he tells us about the night Heitholt was murdered. He tells us he laughed at a stray cat scratching at Kent Heitholt's tires and laughed as he drove out of the parking lot about that silly cat. He even talks about being called back to the scene where Heitholt's body laid slain, and he says as he fights a smile (see photos below), "Seeing him lying there, you're just like...(grin) I don't know... I'm sorry, um..."
Boyd covers his face as this point. He says, "It's just..." as he shrugs his shoulder signifying a non-verbal "I don't know."
Why is he having such a hard time keeping a smile off his face? This is disturbing to me.
How can anyone think back to the night a murderer came within feet of you, and your boss got murdered, and the memory puts a smile on your face? I just don't get that. It's a red flag.
Most people who crossed the path of a murderer would feel negative feelings even when recollecting it years later. And many, though not all, would feel some sadness about their boss being murdered.
Could it be nervous laughter? It could be, but when I see nervous laughter, I often see hugely conflicting emotions because the person doesn't want to laugh, but they do. In between, however, I typically see more supportive expressions of how a person really feels, which I am not getting from Boyd. Boyd doesn't even contradict his smile with appropriate words of sadness for his colleague. I don't see any negative emotions at all.
Heitholt's murder was a personal attack, if you want my opinion, by someone who knew him. He was beaten over the head many times and strangled. A random stranger is not likely to strangle someone for a watch and car keys. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Heitholt obviously fed the stray cats at night after work as cat kibble was found scattered at the scene, and you have to wonder if someone knew that, and they were waiting for Kent to feed the cats and attacked him-- as a big man like Heitholt would not easily be vulnerable to this sort of attack. He was towering in stature. Whoever attacked him took him in a vulnerable state and likely knew where and how to find him vulnerable.
Ironically, Boyd tells us he did wait for Kent that night. Well, one time anyway. Another time he changed his story. Was the waiting story too close for comfort? You sure do wonder.
When Boyd is asked about being the last person to see Heitholt alive, he says, "I didn't see anybody come through, or uh..eh...you know...that looked suspicious." Notice how he changed his story mid-sentence? This is called self-censoring. It's a common hotspot for deceptive people. They change their thoughts mid-sentence as they catch their misleads.
Boyd was also asked if anyone was in the parking lot and he says it was only "me, him and the cat" in that parking lot. As he says it, he smiles again and gives us a deep laugh. Clearly, Boyd is not consistent.
Zellner shares her suspicions of Boyd as well--that Boyd was not getting rave reviews from his boss. Zellner says, "He felt very bitter about the way he was treated, very angry and I think something happened in the parking lot in a split second that triggered a rage."
From what I see, I tend to agree with Zellner.
Dateline reports that not long after the murder that Boyd moved away and took job at another paper some 170 miles away. I wonder why he left?
Boyd tells us, "A decade later, this still hurts" as he laughs again. What hurts, I wonder. He was never a suspect nor looked at questionably that I know of until Zellner pointed her finger at him, so why is there pain? According to Dateline, he wasn't close with his boss.
Zellner has identified that Boyd's account of where he was and what happened that night has changed several times. And all Boyd has to remember is one short brief encounter. How hard could that be?
The first time he told police he ran into Kent while walking through the parking lot. The second story according to Dateline is that he was waiting in his car, listening to music and drove up to talk to Heitholt. Why does Boyd have two different stories? If you are honest, you only have one memory, and you don't confuse things like this. But this is not the only story Boyd gets confused.
Boyd also had problems recalling what car he drove that night. First he told police it was a red Plymouth. Then he said it was a blue Oldsmobile. Now he says he can't remember. When asked about it, Boyd says, "I don't remember driving the blue car that much."
I believe he knows exactly what car he drove that night and he doesn't want people to check into that blue car. Clearly, Boyd's answer leaves you questioning him and ironically, according to Dateline, his blue car has "gone missing".
Boyd also has trouble remembering who was in the parking lot when he spoke to Heitholt that night. When Dateline asked Boyd who was in the parking lot that night, Boyd says it was just him, Boyd and the cat. That's what he told the police, too, originally, but once Ryan and Chuck were arrested his story changed--saying he saw two people in the parking lot like the custodial crew reported from day one.
For two years, Boyd didn't remember that until Ferguson and Erickson's arrest? Boyd even said that he almost ran into these two people as he left the parking lot (supposedly laughing about the cat scratching the tire). I don't believe this.
When Boyd was questioned why he didn't tell the police he saw two people when he was first questioned, he said, "Because they asked me if I saw anybody suspicious...and I...just...they didn't look suspicious to me."
Compare that to his earlier statement where he self-censored himself: "I didn't see anybody come through, or uh..eh...you know...that looked suspicious."
Eye-opening?
Boyd is asked by Keith Morrison, "Do you feel the need to tell people I'm innocent? I didn't do it?"
Boyd says, "I would like them to know I didn't, and Kent's my friend. And you know, he was a wonderful guy....you know, and...there is no reason for anybody to want to hurt him."
When he says this, he has a strange look on his face. I'd call it a strained face. Why is he strained when he says these nice things about Heitholt? It is as odd as his smile and laughter when he talks about seeing Heitholt's slain body in the parking lot. His answer seems like a ramble to me, when I would expect a solid and strong denial about wrong accusations! They are eerily missing.
Boyd says there is no reason for anybody to "want" to hurt Heitholt. I find the word "want" interesting here. Did someone want to kill Heitholt, or did they lose their temper and kill him? These are two totally different motives that could result in murder, and I find it odd that Boyd chooses the word "want". It's highly notable. According to his co-workers, Boyd and Heitholt had a contentious relationship.
And last when Dateline talks to Boyd about the arrest of Ferguson and Erickson, Boyd told us he was "relieved" by it, and I believe him when he says it. This was one of the biggest hot spots for me. If he relocated over 170 miles away, why on earth would he be relieved that his bosses killers were finally arrested? Is Boyd someone who worries about the public at large and I am unaware of this? It would be interesting to hear from Boyd's friends.
I agree with Zellner that he needs to be thoroughly investigated. I don't trust him. I tend to suspect that Boyd may have waited for Heitholt that night. I think he knew Heitholt liked to feed the cats after work, and he wanted to talk to him about something--something that was obviously upsetting him. If it was just idle chat, why wouldn't he have done it in the office earlier? Something was on his mind to wait for his boss at 2:00 a.m.
I wonder if we will ever know what that was... It's time to set Ferguson free!! Ryan Ferguson is a good man who is not deserving of this injustice put upon him so unfairly.
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
I have written about and watched this case evolve since 2006. I have always believed in Ryan Ferguson's innocence, and I did not trust Chuck Erikson. To read my original post, click here, or click on the labels below to read all of my posts on this case in reverse chronological order.
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
I am looking forward to watching this on Saturday night. I have long believed in Ryan Ferguson's innocence. You can read my original thoughts here written in 2006. Chuck Erickson, the key witness against Ferguson, gave a deposition last year stating that he believes Ryan Ferguson is innocent now. It was on the Internet, but has since been taken down.
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
A petition was filed on Valentine's Day in the case of Ryan Ferguson that says the key testimony of two witnesses in his murder trial have now recanted their stories. See the story in the Columbia Tribune.
I have always believed in Ryan Ferguson's innocence. This is music to my ears!! You can read my original thoughts on this case back in 2006 here.
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 an interesting article on false confessions that was published in the NY Times in the last couple of weeks that is well worth reading. I think it is so important that people realize false confessions happen.
Most people will convict a person who admits to a crime without giving it much thought. Here are some interesting statistics of people who made false confessions from the article:
"Of the exonerated defendants in the Garrett study, 26 — more than half — were “mentally disabled,” under 18 at the time or both. Most were subjected to lengthy, high-pressure interrogations, and none had a lawyer present."
The article talks about important it is to videotape interrogations and I think this should become the gold standard. Right now only 10 states require it for specific cases -- such as death penalty cases. I believe they should be a requirement in our legal system in every state. Its the only way we can go back should we need to revisit things.
Have I seen a false confession on this blog? I believe I have. It's the case of Ryan Ferguson and Charles Erickson. While Ryan has always maintained his innocence, Charles Erickson confessed to the crime, which I do not believe he commit.
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
Ryan Ferguson, who was convicted of killing a local Sports Editor Kent Heitholt in 2004, is requesting that he be allowed to pay for Touch DNA on the clothing of Heitholt. Here is an article about it. It's quite interesting because the Ferguson family feels there is resistance from the prosecutor to allow this to happen. They felt they had no choice but to run a full page add in the local paper to get their request noticed.
Last year, the other man convicted in this killing, Charles Erickson, changed his story and gave a deposition saying now that he lied in court and that Ryan Ferguson is actually innocent.
I have always believed Ryan Ferguson was innocent. To read all of my thoughts on this case, click on the labels below, or use the search bar below my eye icon on the right.
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
Above is the deposition taken by Kathleen Zellner from Charles Erickson (he says he does not go by the name "Chuck") in November of last year. I have to tell you, I don't get much from this deposition, because Erickson is just reading a statement, and not talking about things as they come to his mind naturally. That's a real bummer.
Read moreHowever, what Erickson says still causes me concern. He wants us to believe he remembers some things for sure, but other things he just doesn't know. Either he remembers or he doesn't. The fact that he says he didn't remember for two years until after a dream still hangs in my mind. I'd have to see more to form an opinion.
I think at this point, investigators or attorneys need to go back and see if anything Erickson is saying now really points to him knowing the truth. Does he know things that only the killer would know? If he is just repeating the same things as he did before, that was littered with loopholes, we know this is just another crazy dream and Erickson is unreliable like he was the first time. But since Erickson is saying he is a liar, that should absolutely be considered in the case against Ryan Ferguson.
One last note, I can't believe they are allowed to broadcast his social security number. We needs laws on this stuff!
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 a lot of buzz in the news right now about the Ryan Ferguson case. In November, one of the top trial lawyers in the U.S., Kathleen Zellner, took on his case pro bono. She is working on an appeal to get a new trial at the circuit court level. I was very happy to see this as I have always believed in Ryan Ferguson's innocence.
New information came out last night as well (Thanks, Stacy) that Chuck Erickson, in a deposition taken last November, changed his story. Erickson wrote to Ferguson for the first time since the trial and asked Ferguson to send his attorneys to speak to him.
Have your lawyers come speak to me the next time that they’re down here. If you tell the media that I asked to see your lawyers, or you tell the media what I talked to your lawyers about before I can talk to my family and/or consult an attorney, it will be regretful. I hope that you are holding up.(source)
Ferguson and his lawyers obviously complied with Erickson's requests and met up with him. They took a deposition.
In the deposition, Erickson says, "I made up what I said about Ryan being on top of the victim." Later he admits, "I lied about him strangling the victim."
Erickson says he was solely responsible for the robbery and death of Heitholt and says it took so long to come out with this version of the events because he couldn't believe he could have acted so aggressively. He says he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of the murder.
I have never believed Chuck Erickson from day one, and I have always believed Ryan Ferguson was innocent. It's about time!!!
If anyone sees this deposition uploaded online, please let me know. I want to watch Chuck make his statements to see if I believe this is the truth. I am still skeptical that Erickson isn't giving us the entire truth, personally, though I think it is true that Ryan had nothing to do with this.
To read my original thoughts on this case back in 2006 before much was known, click here, or click on the the labels below.
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
This week there is a hearing going on for Ryan Ferguson. His attorneys are requesting a new trial because they say due process wasn't followed, and he had ineffective assistance of counsel.
Ferguson's defense team is putting forth some interesting information. Several new valuable pieces of information are being presented.
Shawna Ornt (a trib employee) testified that she repeatedly told then-Boone County Prosecutor Kevin Crane that a man she saw near the body was neither Ferguson nor Erickson. She said Crane scared her, and she did not know what she was allowed to say to attorneys or in the trial. So she did not tell anyone else during the trial or the deposition.
“He made me feel like I was wrong,” Ornt said of Crane. And Ornt did not tell Ferguson’s attorney because she didn’t know whether she was allowed to (source below).
Also during the trial, the janitor at the trib, Jerry Trump, pointed to Ferguson and said the man he and Ornt saw was Ferguson. But now the employee, Christine Varner, who got Trump the job is saying something different.
She (Varner) said Trump told her that he was standing in a lit dock area next to the Tribune’s building and roughly 30 feet from Heitholt’s car, and the two people were standing near the car in the dark, so he couldn’t identify them. Varner said after she saw coverage of the trial, where Trump pointed to Ferguson, she contacted the public defender’s office.
“It just bothered me,” she said (source below).
Also, a bouncer at the bar where Chuck Erickson said that he and Ferguson went to after the murder testifies that he has never seen the bar open as late as it would have been according to the testimony of Chuck Erickson.
And there is a more. A man by the name of Ronald Hudson, in the court paperwork, talks about running into a man named Clarence Mabon, who talked about being involved in an incident where a man got killed -- in connection to the incident with the newspaper reporter.
Much of the testimony completely contradicts what Chuck Erickson wants us to believe, and gives doubt to the fact Ryan Ferguson was involved.
There is much more developing on this case, and I am thrilled to hear it. I have always believed Ryan Ferguson is innocent, and I have not believed Chuck Erickson's story either. You can read my original opinion here from February of 2006.
Check out the details for yourself. There is a lot here!
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
CBS News show 48 Hours profiled a case on Saturday night about a Halloween night murder in Columbia, Missouri, a few years back. A newspaper editor, Kent Heitholt, was found bludgeoned to death beside his car in the parking lot at 2:00 in the morning -- and police couldn't solve the case.
For two years.
Then, a local young man started talking to his friends and telling them he was dreaming about the murders. The young man finally went to the police and told them.
You have to watch the video of the young man, Chuck Erickson, talking to police. Go to this page, and then on the right-hand side of the screen, you will see Chuck on a video screen . Watch the video footage. Chuck is being lead by police.
For some strange reason, this young man either convinced himself he was the murderer from his dreams, or was lead by police and then convinced by their actions he was the murderer. Perhaps this young man is mentally ill and twisted and wanted to see how far he could take things by trying to get his friend convicted and sentence to prison. I have no idea what the motivating factor is to admit to a crime he didn't commit, but I can tell you I don't believe Chuck killed anyone.
I have little doubt that Chuck Erickson has a troubled past. More than that, I think Chuck Erickson is likely to be pathological. He is a classic "neutral person" who doesn't express one OUNCE of emotion. He is like a drone. Void and empty. With that, I can tell you what wouldn't motivate a young man like Chuck to go to the police and confess: a guilty conscience. Chuck didn't and still doesn't have any emotions -- let alone a guilty conscious. When Chuck talks and points out Ryan Ferguson in court, he is saying what he thinks he should say without any conviction in his face or voice.
I do not believe that Chuck Erickson murdered anyone. Nor do I believe his friend, Ryan Ferguson is guilty, either. (FYI: Ryan was sentence to 40 years in prison. An innocent man is sitting in jail).
When I see Ryan Ferguson talk, I truly believe what he has to say. In the first thirty second clip of Ryan on the show, when he said he was glad his parents believed him, Ryan flashed a an expression which showed genuine relief -- which was congruent to what he was saying. It was at this point, I knew Ryan was innocent. And the more Ryan talked, the more he convinced me. His emotions matched his words and his actions. It was all congruent.
Here are other reasons why I don't believe either committed the murders:
The crime scene was bloody. Blood spatter was everywhere -- yet no one saw these unprofessional high-school-aged killers with bloody clothes, or found bloody clothes disposed of.
Nor did the police ever find the murder weapon.
Don't tell me youth like these can commit the perfect murder without a conscious plan to commit murder. I don't buy it. I personally suspect this was a politically motivated murder executed by a hitman. It was too perfect.
How come the police were never able to link the two boys to the crime with DNA? The police had DNA -- a hair in the victim's hand.
While there was a janitor in the building who thought he saw two boys in the parking lot, he wasn't able to give any description of them for years! He only remembered when the police told him what he was supposed to remember. Furthermore, this janitor has a shaky past (as he was in prison).
Chuck Erickson comes across as a man who feels no emotion, has no emotion or feelings for any other person. He is emotionally void. When he spoke in court, I did not get one hint of support that he was telling the truth. Everything he said however points to a lie.
The evidence against Chuck that he is a liar is mounting. Chuck's story about the murder involves the two boys who were at the time of murder in high school going back to a bar after the crime. If this is accurate, the boys would have returned to the bar after 2:00 a.m. The bar closed at 1:30 a.m. Chuck's story is a lie.
Ryan Ferguson emotions, and facial expressions were all consistent with what he was saying. I have no doubt this boy is honest in the face of all of these facts.
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.
