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.
On tonight's episode of Nancy Grace: America's Missing - a show that aims at finding 50 people in 50 days - on HLN, Grace will be conducting an in-depth expose of Austin resident, Julie Ann Gonzalez, who disappeared in March 2010.
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 Crimesider is reporting that Julie Ann Gonzalez's (pictured left) estranged husband, George De La Cruz, is a person of interest in her disappearance.
CBS reports that a search warrant reveals that the police have found some pretty incriminating evidence against De La Cruz including Gonzalez' car keys, a debit card used after her disappearance as well as droplets of blood, fibers and human tissue at De La Cruz' residence.
They also report that De La Cruz was seen using Gonzalez' debit card on surveillance after she was missing to buy a video game for their daughter.
I reviewed an interview with George De La Cruz on May 7, 2010, on the Jane Velez-Mitchell show, before anyone else, and clearly found George's story to be questionable. Click here to see what I had to say about it. Photo courtesy of: http://www.julieanngonzalez.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
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
George de la Cruz, the estranged husband of missing Julie Ann Gonzalez, failed the polygraph on Dr. Phil's show last Friday.
Over a week ago, I reviewed audio of George and pointed out hot spots that I saw in his speech, so I am not surprised by the results. I will say I was surprised to hear polygrapher Jack Trimarco state that the polygraph is 93% accurate. I have done a fair amount of reading searching for a qualified study to identify the accuracy of the polygraph, and I have never seen any reputable study state the results were anywhere near that high. My research identified accuracy between 60-70%. I'd be curious to know where Jack got that statistic.
I searched for the latest news on Julie and found that police searched a home in connection to this case last week.
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
Don't forget to watch or record Dr. Phil today. He airs the second segment of his show about Austin, Texas' missing Julie Ann Gonzalez. They reveal the results of a lie detector test on Julie's estranged husband, George de la Cruz.
Julie was last seen, according to George, when she went to pick up their daughter, whom they share joint custody. When I listen to George tell his version of what happened, I do not believe George de la Cruz is leveling with us. You can read my thoughts here, or you can click on the labels below to read all of my posts.
Let's pray that Julie comes home safely. I am concerned for her safety at this time.
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 just saw that George will be on Dr. Phil today (its just airing now--I missed the first 7 minutes of Tiffany Tehan with Tres Hutcherson -- Were they were holding hands?).
I want to see this interview!!!
Setup your recorders. The preview seems to support the red flags I've seen in the post below. George uses the word "knew" when he talks about Julie and Dr. Phil immediately calls him out on it by saying that he just spoke about her in past tense. Great call, Dr. Phil!
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
Julie Ann Gonzalez disappeared in Texas after she visited her estranged husband, George de la Cruz, to pick up her daughter, who they shared custody of at the end of March. According to George, when she arrived, she wasn't herself. George said she then asked him if he could keep their daughter for the weekend. She hasn't been seen since.
Read more Julie's family has been on TV a few times hoping to get information because the police are saying they do not believe this is a case of foul play. However, Julie's car was found in a Walgreen's parking lot abandoned (not the Walgreens where she worked at), someone has used her credit card, and video surveillance identified that the person using it was not Julie.
I listened to George speak in this video above, and what he said has me curious to see more of him. I have highlighted things that are a red flag for me.
George said to Jane Velez-Mitchell :
Well, like I said, it was her time to come pick my daughter up, because, uh… like I said, we had joint custody and well she arrived … I was expecting her to go pick her up -- come and get her. Right. And …she came in, like I said I saw her …she was... ….different. Like I said I’d know I’ve been with her for at least four years, so I know when there is something wrong with her. And I tried talking to her -- I asked a question what’s wrong and she just said, well, I’m okay, don’t worry about it. So I just let it go, right. So like I said, “Here’s Leyla’s stuff and everything is there, so you want to go ahead and check , uh, check at it so you can make sure everything is there and you can take her.
That’s when she told me, “Well, you know what? I got plans… uh…this weekend can you please take care of her?” I‘m, well, okay, yeah. And I said so when are you going to come pick her up? She says I’ll let you know. I’ll call you whenever I want her.But she said its going to be this weekend? And I'm like yes. So, I just said, I never thought anything bad was going to happen, cuz like I said, well okay, I’ll take her for a couple of more days, and whenever she is ready, she’ll call me to pick her up this weekend. So like I said, I didn’t expected nothing to come bad from this, until Saturday, that we find out she hasn’t contact no one. So like I said yeah...yeah, I kind of feel bad, because I was the last person, I should have done a little extra to find out if something was wrong, if there was something wrong cuz.... its gone a month and there is nothing....that we have heard from her.
Has anyone verified that Julie's car was seen at George's house that day? George seems to say what appears to be a slip of the tongue when he says, "well, she arrived … I was expecting her to go pick her up.." You have to wonder, did George meet Julie somewhere else the last time he saw her, and expected Julie to go pick up her daughter somewhere else? Or did George not have his daughter and told Julie she was somewhere else? What George says here is awfully strange.
Notice he talks in the past tense about custody. They "had" joint custody. Why isn't he talking in present tense--having custody?
I wonder does he always say "Right" after he says things. People who are deceptive often confirm their stories verbally out loud to themselves like this. However, if this is not George's native language, that could explain it. I'd need to know from those who knew George if this is normal behavior or not.
I thought it was strange that Julie would ask George to care for her daughter when in reports she was very close to her own family, and estranged from George. Julie's uncle said that Julie always went to pick up her daughter escorted and this time she didn't, and something happened. George called the police and reported Julie for abandoning her daughter after she left this day, which shows the two were not getting along, according to George himself. Furthermore, George supposedly called the police according to her uncle (on the same show, different segment) and said her family was harassing him when they were posting missing posters in his neighborhood. George didn't deny this in the interview. George attempted suicide when Julie decided to leave him. Knowing all of this, it makes little sense Julie would voluntarily leave her daughter with him longer than she was required.
I find it even more unusual that Julie would say, "I will call you whenever I want her." That doesn't sound like something a mother would say--especially to someone she appeared not to trust. It's unusual.
I find it odd how George says, "But she said its going to be this weekend? And I'm like yes." Notice how he got who said what mixed up here? If he is recalling something from memory, I wouldn't expect this to happen. You have to wonder did he say that to Julie that he wanted to keep the child for a few more days? Did Julie ask him if it was going to be this weekend and he said "yes" as he says. People usually don't get facts like this so badly messed up without reason. Why aren't the things George is saying making sense?
George says he "kind of" feels bad. This is what I have coined hedging. Either he feels bad or he doesn't. "Kind of" is notable for me. I've heard him use this a few times. It's a red flag for me.
And last George says, "if something was wrong." When I have watched him in small snippets in other interviews, he is pretty insistent something was wrong. He used the word "despondent" when describing Julie in another interview. That's a change from his statement here. What caused that change? Why is he confident in one interview and not in another? If he doesn't know anything, I would expect him to be consistent, but this is not. Why is he not consistent?
Furthermore, George gives us very few details of their last meeting. He doesn't talk about greeting Julie, how she interacted with the child, how they parted, or any other details of their conversation. The details are few and sparse, and only pertain to what George wants us to know. I'd expect some extraneous information, but there is nothing. Imagine describing the last time your saw your mom. What would you say?
I'd like to see George tell us verbatim exactly what happened that day down to the details. That would be an important interview for me.
At this point, George interests me and I'd like to see more. He raises my eyebrows. Please know George de la Cruz is not a suspect a the time this was published.
___________________ Please consider donating to keep funding posts for this blog (on right side). It would mean a lot to me. I dedicate a minimum of 4 hours a day most days to keep this blog active and fresh, and I have expenses to keep it going that I have paid for on my own for 5.5 years. I have never profited from this blog. I am also planning on seeking legal counsel, which is advised by several media blogging associations, which will cost me. * Thanks to Donna for the story.
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.
