Eyes for Lies Blog

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Story of the Danish Woman Seeking Father
by Eyes at 10:31 AM

The video you saw of "Karen and August" is actually a hoax. It was a government ad by VisitDenmark, are you ready, to promote tourism. I can't help but find this funny. What were these people thinking?

In the end, I think they realized they might get the wrong kind of tourists, and decided to pull the ad, but they have had a difficult time doing so. It keeps popping up on YouTube repeatedly. No surprise there.

For those of you who have interest, and wondered if the baby is hers, according to this website, it is not. You can read about that here.

There are, however, many clues to deceit in this video.

Read moreI thought it was hilarious how "Karen" (whose real name is reported as Ditte Arnth Jorgensen) totally forgets her baby's name, and in the process laughs about it. Her laugh was the second red flag for me. I would expect her to be nervous about truly trying to find the father, but there were absolutely no sign of nerves.

Then she says about the baby, "His name is August. Yeah." The "yeah" is indicative of deception that I have never seen written about anywhere. People who are deceptive often verbally confirm their own story, as she does here. It's like they are thinking through what they just said, and then, without a realizing it, they say "yeah" as if they are convincing themselves. Does that make sense? She does this four or five times in this video.

"Karen" also looks like she is going to break out laughing in the beginning of this video, which doesn't fit with the scenario. If a woman was really going to stick herself out there to do this, I would think she would really want to find the father, and wouldn't find the situation laughable. With that, she would likely be nervous, as she would be truly hoping to do this successfully, and get the answers she so craves. I did wonder, for a second, if an honest psychopath could do this, but in the end, there were too many clues to even consider it.

I love when "Karen" says, "I was on my way home and..." At this point, she makes a question face. I don't know how to say it any other way. Her face makes an expression, as if she is questioning what she is saying. This is another red flag. She also says, "I think you lost your friends." She thinks? It becomes very apparent this woman doesn't know any details whatsoever, which of course, is another red flag. Even drunk people remember some detail before they pass out.

Notice how she also swallows awkwardly? While this is not always a clue to deceit, when I see it amongst many other clues, it is supportive.

Watch her shoulder shrug when she says, "I don't remember where you are from, or.... yeah." I love that sentence! Two more indications of deception: a shoulder shrug and a verbal confirmation.

Then she says, "I don't even remember your name."

What woman on earth would be willing to put herself out there and say this? This was mind-boggling. Even if casual sex is more acceptable in Denmark, most people don't like to admit, especially women, they were so drunk out of their mind they couldn't remember someone's name with whom they were intimate! Most societies have less than pleasant names for people like this, and I am sure the Danes are not exception. I laughed when I watched this, because again, I wondered if a psychopath who is being honest might do this, but of course, that was out of the question by this point.

After she says she doesn't remember his name, she says that she does remember that they talked about Denmark. This is absolutely hilarious. Only "Denmark" sticks out with all the details this night? The person who created this video doesn't understand the human mind.

People remember the most detail when they have an association or a connection to something. Naturally, emotions will elicit the broadest recollections of past memories. So for this woman to say that Denmark was more memorable than the guy's name, a guy who fathered her child, is just comical.

I have to say "Karen" did quite well when she says she is not crazy or obsessive. She managed to get that smile off her face and be more serious, but then she says, "I feel I owe it to both you and him. Yeah." Another verbal confirmation that makes no sense unless she is trying to convince herself of her story.

She continues, "I haven't been with anyone else since that night. Yeah. Just so you know that." There is another "yeah", but more inconsistent would be the claim to her actions. If she is the type of woman who enjoys casual sex and drinking to the point of not remembering anything, it would be very unlikely she would have abstained from sex or drinking for a year and a half. That in and of itself makes her statement highly unlikely, even if everything else turned out to be true, which we know it is not.

I feel sorry for the people who created this. The backlash from this isn't likely to go away any time soon.

* While there are many signs to deception, don't forget, I believe there is not one clue that is reliable to predict deception in every case. Deception detection requires a multifaceted approach. If you show me a trait you think only liars do, I can be confident I can find you an honest person doing the same thing, so just be cautious!

Labels: deception detection, Video Review

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

Comment Links to this post

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Misty's Hypnosis Video
by Eyes at 1:30 PM

It's obvious why the police are saying Misty is inconsistent publicly now, because when you listen to her latest story with the hypnotist, you can't miss it. You don't need any talent to see the changes in Misty's story. I have not believed Misty nor Ronald from day one. You can read my original thoughts here.

When we live through an event, we usually recall the details similarly every time we talk about it, but Misty's story changes again and again, quite notably.

Read moreIn this hypnosis video, Misty says:

I woke up some...at three o'clock, I just woke up out of the blue. Three something, I just woke up. I don't know what made me wake up, and I seen the kitchen light that was on and I know my kitchen light was shut off, and it was glaring in my bedroom so I mean all the lights, every things turned off when I went to bed...and the light in the kitchen is glaring so I get up to see what is going on, and the back door was wide open, and there's a cement block holding the screen door open. I didn't know Haleigh was gone yet. I ran back into the bedroom to grab my cell phone, called 911, because the back door was open and I know the back door was shut when I went to sleep, and I freak'n out already, cuz the back door was open, and I didn't know what do, and as soon as I called...I got my phone and uh... and I as soon as I got on the phone and I turned around, she was gone. So I started look in the house, under the beds, closets, everywhere I could think of...just freak'n out. And by the time I opened the front door to go out the front door, Ronald pulled up, and he said call the cops so I immediately called 911 (end time marker 9:38).

Events that Misty marked before as notable are now different. Triggers such as having to go to the bathroom in her first recollections of Haleigh's last night have now changed to a blaring light streaming into her bedroom.

If you listen to her 911 call, and this video here, Misty in February gave a different account, "...I'd seen three--three o'clock in the morning. I got up and...I got up because I had to use the bathroom but I didn't make it to the bathroom. I seen the kitchen light on and I walked in the kitchen and the back door is wide open. I mean I didn't notice about Haleigh then until I seen the back door open and I go into the room and she's gone. And that's all I know."

Why didn't she mention calling 911 before discovering Haleigh missing?

Misty originally told us she called Ronald before calling the police, but this time she strangely forgets that important element. Watch here when Misty says, "Well, at first, I'd seen the back door was open, then I was running around the house looking for her, and I got my phone and I called her dad, and then I called the police."

Worse, the order in which Misty even picks up the phone varies from moment to moment. In the statement above, Misty first tells us she called 911 before realizing Haleigh was even gone, and then later in her ramblings she tells us, "Ronald pulled up and he said call the cops so I immediately called 911."

What is the truth? When did she actually call 911? She can't even get the basics accurate nor keep them consistent. Her story is so jumbled up, we can't even begin to dissect what she says with any confidence.

Do you notice the rate of Misty's speech in this hypnosis video? When people feign fear, they often speak fast. Notice how fast Misty talks at times?

More than that, when Misty talks about finding the door open, we should see a sense of fear on her face, if she is recalling a truthful event, but Misty is as calm and as collected as can be when recalling this memory (she reminds me of Jennifer Campbell on many levels--another having no urgency to find Haleigh. Both have a resignation about them that is palpable). All of Misty's "recollection" memories are missing the normal emotional connections, which is another huge red flag.

I could go on and on and on...

Labels: Haleigh Cummings, Missing Person, Misty Croslin, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Monday, August 31, 2009

Jennifer Campbell
by Eyes at 10:41 AM

Jennifer Campbell and her boyfriend, Louis Ross, were arrested Friday on suspicion of murdering Campbell's adopted nephew, Hassani. Due to all the requests, I will share my thoughts with you.

Read moreWhen I watch Campbell speak, the first thing that I notice is a resignation about her that blares at me. I don't feel any urgency from her to hurry up and find her nephew, which is very perplexing to me, if she truly believes he was abducted or walked away. It's an immediate red flag.

I also don't see her express any fear for Hassani or stress that he is missing. She is calm and relaxed, as if she knows the outcome already, which is not good. It's another red flag.

Campbell also cries, yet ironically, there are no tears for quite some time. More than that, she "cries" and talks in this high-pitched voice, which is more indicative of a whine to me. It doesn't seem genuine, though I do think she is genuinely sad. She expresses a genuine pain, at times, though I don't know if I can explain it. I just feel she is sad about whatever happened. I just do not believe she is as distraught here, in the present, as she wants us to believe. If her behavior is any indication, she has had some time to come to accept this outcome, if you want my opinion.

I also find it weird how Campbell suggests that someone could have pulled in the driveway behind the store and saw Hassani, and hence taken him, without her or her boyfriend knowing. When you look at the scenario of how and where Hassani supposedly disappeared according to Campbell and Ross, most people would conclude the chances of this actually occurring would be nil--almost an impossibility -- simply because of the time it would take compared to the time it took Ross to walk to and from the front and back door. But Campbell entertains it, which is notable. For Campbell to believe this shows a big inconsistency in her story, if you want my opinion. What is more interesting is when she says this, her shoulder goes up in doubt.

Campbell's body language towards the interviewer is also perplexing, if she is telling us the truth. She is leaning away from them, with a frightened look in her eyes. Why is she afraid of them? If her nephew was truly abducted or wandered off, the media would be her best potential help to get the word out there. They would be her friend, but she doesn't appear to feel that way. It's another red flag.

I also read in the case that Campbell said she didn't want to take a lie detector test because she is pregnant and she didn't want to get stressed out, or stress the baby out. This is huge red flag as well. Everyone knows if you are telling the truth, a lie detector test is not a stressful event. It's when we lie that the stress becomes overwhelming!

I personally think Campbell knows more than she is letting on here. Sadly, I believe she ultimately knows what happened to Hassani, but isn't saying.

I will try to write about Louis Ross and Misty Cummings this week! Stay tuned.

Labels: Hassani Campbell, Jennifer Campbell, Louis Ross, Missing Person, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Michael Jackson: Unseen Video
by Eyes at 12:26 PM

Many people now that Michael Jackson has died are wondering if Jackson was honest when he was alive and perhaps, even taken advantage of because he was uber-rich. Several readers have written to me since his death wondering if Jackson was honest when he spoke out about the child molestation accusations in the recently released video deposition of Jackson (below).

Read moreWhen I watch Jackson speak, his soft-sweet demeanor immediately puts me on alert. When people act like this, it is usually an indication they are putting on a facade.

When this video above first starts, the interviewer asks Jackson, "Where you aware that Jordan Chandler or his family on his behalf filed a litigation, a lawsuit against you?" Watch how Michael Jackson reacts just before he says "yes". He appears to be in a movable chair that flexes, and when Michael Jackson thinks about it, he rocks backwards. Why is Michael Jackson moving away when they ask this? He becomes almost timid.

If you had nothing to do with a false lawsuit, would it make you want to shrink away or be timid?

Next the interviewer says, "To your knowledge, Mr. Jackson, um, were you ever accused of having sexually molested Brett Barnes?" When you watch Jackson here, he acts totally surprised, but it is an act, if you want my opinion. If this was the first time Michael heard this and it was a false allegation, he should be showing anger or bewilderment, if he was innocent, but he doesn't. He should show some--any --adverse reaction other than surprise, but he doesn't. Instead, he smiles. He tries to laugh it off. He feigns surprise. That's a big red flag that makes absolutely no sense! It's a big tip-off something isn't right here.

Watch how giddy Jackson gets when he is asked if he ever sexually molested Macaulay Culkin? Would you feel like this if you were truly repulsed by the these thoughts? If you were wrongly accused? If you were being fingered as a child molester when you weren't??? Would you be laughing about it?

Look at time marker 1:10-1:11. Here Jackson lets out his real emotions. Notice his smile dissipates? That is the real Jackson for an instant, before he reverts back to his false smile. Then he shakes his head no over and over again. Some people may think this is a sign he is honest. However, others may argue that Jackson is mad that he is being called out on his behavior and can't believe it (denial). Either is a potential here, though I tend toward the latter.

When Michael Jackson talks about crazy stories people have created abaout him, notice how happy-go lucky he acts again? Yet, in a strange twist, isn't he supposedly angry because people believe all these lies? It sure makes you wonder why Jackson can't be his authentic self, doesn't it?

Michael Jackson talks that he didn't get his skin bleached. Yet if you look up the skin condition, Vitiligo, you see that no one is as white as Jackson became. They aren't flawlessly white. They had patches of skin that faded, but normal color, too. Logic tells us that Jackson, if he did have the disease, did something to make all his skin uniform, so why doesn't he just admit to that?

The same goes for Jackson when he says he didn't have plastic surgery (in other videos). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this is untrue. Simple logic is all one needs to identify the truth.

At the end of the video, Jackson says, "Jesus said to love the children and be like children. Be youthful and be innocent and be pure and honorable," Jackson said. "He was talking to his apostles. And they were fighting over who was the greatest among themselves, and he said, 'Whoever humbles yourself like this child is the greatest among me.' And he always surrounded himself with children, and that's how I was raised, to be like that and to imitate that. I don't know what you're trying to make out of this."

When Jackson finishes this statement, do you see his smirky smile? Does his statement make any sense? Is that a good defense of the accusations? Jackson tells us he doesn't know what they are trying to make out of this. Give me a break!

Jackson, if you want my opinion, lived in a world of make-believe. Perhaps it was due to his abusive father and a method of escape for him. Perhaps it came from his incredible wealth. With his money, he could surround himself with only people who supported his beliefs, no matter how off the charts they became. Perhaps it is because he has a demon inside that adored children at levels that are abnormal and unhealthy, and dangerous.

Anytime people do not express sincere and genuine emotion, anytime people smile when they should be angry or mad, or anytime people talk in a sweet demure manner over serious topics, take what they say with a grain of salt!

Now with that being said, I must say Michael Jackson did have a profound effect on music, and he should be remembered for his good contributions to the world, too.

Labels: Michael Jackson, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Sunday, June 28, 2009

My Thoughts: Ted Bundy
by Eyes at 11:50 AM

The first thing anyone who watches this video needs to take into account is that there are no high stakes for Bundy here, so there is no pressure on him to be honest or to tell the truth. With that, if he were lying, the clues to deception would be dramatically reduced, if not completely undetectable. This is key to keep in mind.

However, when I watch the video, I see a man who is down to earth. I see a man who is sharing his thoughts about his crimes. What he says makes logical sense. Some of you questioned if his words were sincere, because you presumed it was an apology. This is not meant to be an apology.

Read moreOther people questioned if Bundy was just repeating what Dobson wanted to hear, but I don't think that is the case either. He seems to believe what he is saying, if you want my opinion.

Bundy could have blamed his parents or his upbringing, but he doesn't. He simply states that he feels pornography played a role in his abnormal behavior, but he admits in the end, his demons even went farther then pornography. I get the sense that just thinking about his crimes still gets Bundy turned on and the positive emotions Bundy expresses when talking about this confuses people into thinking he is lying.

Bundy talks about how he sees himself as a normal person, and identifies that other people didn't point him out to be a pervert. Bundy grins slightly when he talks about this. I think he enjoys that he could "out smart" people so well. He hid his demons well, and he knew it. We knew it, too, in hindsight. I think this snaky grin has made people question Bundy and disbelieve him as well.

I believe Bundy is honest when he says he lived a normal life, but "this one very small, but potent and destructive segment that I kept very secret, very close to myself..." This is how Bundy sees himself. We may not agree, but that doesn't make his statement untrue.

I believe Bundy is honest when he says, "It happened in stages. It happened gradually." I do think that serial killers like Bundy have an addiction, and crave more and more... so this is absolutely logical and plausible, and nothing that makes sense to even doubt.

When Bundy talks about the people he knows in prison who were into violent crime like he was, he says, "Everyone of them was deeply involved in pornography, without question." He says it with conviction and I believe he feels this way. I see no reason to doubt him whatsoever. I bet it is highly likely there are statistics that violent offenders are often drawn to pornography, though I am not sure if there is a correlation. That's another topic.

Bundy talks about how people with this violent pornography addiction are not monsters, and he is right. These people are our brothers, sons, uncles and husbands. They live transparently among us. We often don't know about these people's demons until it is too late. He is being honest here. These are not people who are bums on the street, who are whacked out and strange living in institutions. They often blend in among us with chilling ease.

Once someone is labeled a liar, it is hard for us to ever believe them again, isn't it?

Labels: murder, Ted Bundy, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

My Thoughts: Ted Bundy
by Eyes at 9:26 AM

When I watch the video of Ted Bundy, I am immediately struck at how his game is "on". Bundy had an arsenal of tools that he used to fool people psychologically, and I am amazed at how many that he employs in the first eleven seconds of this video.

By Bundy's behaviors, it is clear that he knew he could deceive anyone. Bundy understood human behavior and psychology at levels that far exceed most people, if you want my opinion, intuitively, and he knew how to turn the tables on people in seconds. He was wickedly manipulative.

Read moreWhile we all know that Bundy is guilty here, and we are all creeped out by the man in hindsight, I can assure you at the time when people first watched Bundy talk, he gave people serious doubts by his behaviors and actions. Bundy knew how to make people want to believe him. Add in his good looks and articulate speech, and it is no wonder he managed to get away with so many murders.

Bundy figured out that defensiveness is a sure sign of guilt, and what most people use as a gauge to detect truthfulness. He knew to avoid it at all costs. He also knew that if he appeared confident and self-assured, he'd gain more people's trust.

Bundy also used distraction. He uses it here with chilling ease. He talks about how he stole a comic book when he was five years old. And even further, he knew that if he admitted to some wrongs, in a time of accusations, that people would think he was truthful and honest. But more than that, Bundy knew if he talked about something where he was guilty, if he displayed any guilty behaviors, people might attribute them back to the benign behavior, instead of the more serious one. After all, Bundy used in his calculations that it's human nature to reject the people in front of us are capable of horrible things. It's much easier to accept he stole a comic book and is honest, rather than believe he is lying and guilty of killing people. Most people are Pollyannas.

Bundy used multiple techniques in a matter of mere seconds to lure in his victims. It's horrifyingly chilling in this video alone. The ease at which Bundy psychologically baits us is simply mind-blowing. In the first eleven seconds of this video, I count five psychological tools that Bundy used to fool people. That's almost one every two seconds!! It's no wonder Bundy was so successful at his crime.

When Bundy says, "I am not guilty of the allegations that have been filed against me", it is fascinating to watch him. He is very articulate. Notice how he keeps his eyes locked on to the interviewer? He used this as a tool, too. Most people believed (and sadly still believe) that eye contact is a sign of honesty. But when Bundy says this, he shows doubt. He bites his lip. His confidence wanes, and if you are savvy, you would see not only this, but that his initial laughter was as a fake as a plastic cake!

Yet, when you stack up his leaks versus his luring techniques, he's still ahead of the game.

Bundy goes on to say, "I don't know all of what you are speaking about, Lucky, it's too broad and I can't get into it in any detail..." What is fascinating about this is, if he was innocent, what detail would there be to talk about?

Bundy employs psychological trickery, again, when he says, "No man is truly innocent..." and again when he stares intently, without loosing eye contact with the interviewer, when he says, "Nothing like the things you're referring too."

I find it chilling the way that Bundy laughs at how he is as likely to die in front of a firing squad as is the interivewer is of dying in a plane crash. Bundy says with an eerie grin, "Let's hope you don't."

Bundy says he did not lie awake thinking about it (the charges against him, I suspect). He says, "Honest to god, not a moment." I don't believe him for an instant. Do you see the lip curl at the end? It's an indication that what he said was a fib (It's my husband's classic clue to deception!).

Listen to what Bundy says here:

"I've been told the parents of these girls are fairly decent people... I don't know, and I really feel for them because apparently these people suffered some incredible tragedy in their lives. The loss of a loved one is probably the most extreme kind of loss one could suffer in this life, and I say, I feel as much for them as anybody can."

Bundy is trying to get people to accept him as compassionate and caring, but when you look at his words, they are very revealing. In his attempt to gain our trust, he actually rambles like a fool here. Bundy, I suspect, subconsciously minimizes what he is saying and doesn't even realize it. Words can be so telling.

Notice how Bundy uses the word "apparently"? That word discredits the parents suffering, as if maybe the girls weren't really murdered, as if he needs proof, and doesn't believe this is so. Perhaps this was a subconscious form of distancing? It's notably odd.

Then Bundy postulates that the loss of a loved one is "probably" the most "extreme" kind of loss there is. Why is he hedging with "probably" here, yet using the word extreme? Either he believes it or he doesn't. These words identify Bundy is inconsistent. His subconscious, I suspect, is leaking out his real feelings.

He also uses the word "some incredible tragedy". Why the word "some"? It's as if he is saying "some tragedy", but not the worst tragedy, isn't it? Again, his words are minimizing things without him even realizing it. Then if you consider the use of the word "incredible", one can immediately see he is inconsistent and immediately knows that he is B.S.-ing.

I also find it odd how he says he's been told the parents of these girls are "fairly decent"? What normal person would even consider putting into question the decency of the parents? Why does he use "fairly" instead of just decent? I don't think anyone told Bundy, "Hey, you know, these girls parents were fairly decent." It's ridiculous. I suspect this was another subconscious slip of the tongue. He wanted to say decent, but just couldn't do it. I also like how he ends the sentence with, "I don't know".

Bundy was rambling in an attempt to gain support, and this last paragraph, if you ask me, backfired on him, but I am not sure if the average person would have picked up on his hedging. Most people don't see the importance of what I coined "hedge words", but they are very, very telling.

I certainly wouldn't want to have met Ted Bundy. He could manipulate many people into believing they were holding an orange when it was really an apple, if you want my opinion.

Labels: human behavior, psychology, psychopath, Ted Bundy, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Friday, May 15, 2009

Matthew Johns
by Eyes at 4:28 PM

Pt 1-Grimshaw talks to Matt Johns

There is a big story breaking in Australia this week about rugby player Matthew Johns. He was also a TV commentator, but due to a sex scandal that broke recently which involved him, he was removed from the Australian TV Nine Network indefinitely.

Johns went public to talk about the allegations on the Nine Network this week (part 1, part 2, part 3) and his interview is fascinating. When he sits down to talk to the reporter, before he ever says a word, his face ticks with many movements, one of which appears to be contempt. He actually appears to show contempt many times in this interview.

Several people from Australia have contacted me and are interested to know what I think so below I will share with you my personal opinion.

Read moreIn this interview, I see Johns as someone who is continually holding himself back, self-censoring and angry. Look at how tense his lips and body are. You can feel it just watching him. It's palpable. Other times, he clenches his teeth, takes deep breaths, and pulls his lips in. He sighs heavily. We see his nose twitch upwards rapidly once or twice, too--all of which suggest anger. I suspect if you were to talk to Johns in private, he would be full of anger, not genuinely sorry for his actions and what happened that night, but sorry and angry that he was exposed and is being held accountable, at the very minimum, in the public eye. I also suspect there is more to this story than what we know right now.

Because of his anger, his apology comes off very weak and insincere. When we take responsibility for our actions, hold ourselves accountable, and are truly sorry, it is natural for anger to dissipate. Instead, with Johns, I see resistance, incredible resistance, and I don't feel Johns is owning up to an apology, outside of empty words, which are easy to say. Giving a heart felt apology is entirely different.

At one point in the interview, Johns even says, "....my thoughts and my energies are directed towards my family, all the pain I've caused them." It confirms for me the woman, who is at the center of this matter, isn't truly a concern of his.

Johns doesn't seem to show any anger at himself for his actions either. I would expect him to say he was angry at himself, if he was. There would be absolutely no reason to hide it. It would only support his apology, make it stronger and more believable, but it is oddly missing. And at the end of the interview when the reporter says he career is over, and he finishes speaking, he cries. I suspect he is crying for himself.

Also, when Johns talks, he hedges, stammers, searches for words, has long pauses and many false starts, because he is thinking as he speaks, instead of speaking from his heart about what he knows to be true. This behavior does not support honesty. It does not support that Johns is telling us what he truly believes, if you want my opinion.

When Johns say, "I take full responsibility... for the predicament I find myself in" watch as he finishes. There is this slight head shake afterward (no), which I suspect is a gut response--a subconscious response. But as he thinks about what he said consciously, you then see him nod slightly yes. It's fascinating body language.

Notice how Johns doesn't answer the reporter's question here?

TG: How could she in going back to the room with two of you have ended up being a willing participant in a queue of blokes at the foot of the bed having sex with her?

MJ: Well, at the time, when we went back, I was totally unaware that other people were coming into the room. At the point that they did, I stepped away.... from it. Ugh.............In the statements that were made.... to the police.... it says that..... she encouraged players to come forward..... and then she actually......................what she, she said "someone come forward and have sex with me", um.....at which one player said he would.... and she said "no no, anyone but you" and pointed to me again, which I declined.

This is really confusing! He stepped out of the room at the point when other people entered? Earlier Johns said, "I was there on the night and I did see what happened and at no point did she object, at any stage, to what was going on." How can he then make the latter statement, conclusively, if he stepped away at some point? Even more odd, he cites police report statements, yet in a weird twist, suddenly he is back to being in the room again. If he stepped away, then how could she point to him again, and how could he decline? How could he leave as soon as others came in unexpectedly, but still be there when she supposedly picked and chose her men (which is ridiculous)?

Johns story doesn't make sense, and doesn't follow chronological order of how we remember things. It's is riddled with inconsistencies, which is a red flag. Was Johns there the whole time or not? Why does he refer to police statements instead of sticking to his memories?

Johns continues:

MJ: After I declined, I stepped out of the room, but I stepped back in to make sure that everything... was okay, that she was not under any distress.... and at no time was she under any distress.

Again, when did Johns step out? Before or after the other players arrived? I don't believe he was the saint he is portraying himself to be that night. Notice the pauses, which indicate he is thinking on his feet, not talking from the heart.

TG: You see Matthew, most right-thinking people would be listening to you right now saying how could you have looked at that scenario and seen anything that was OK in it.

MJ: Morally, it's not OK.

TG: She was 19 years old, she was naked, she was outnumbered, there was a very clear power imbalance in that room, wasn't there?

A minute later:

TG: Isn't there something in your mind, that says this is wrong, this is wrong on every level, this is a vulnerable woman, she wants more from this situation than we're ever going to give her, and this is just wrong (time marker 7:47, video 1).

Watch Johns response before he even talks. He shakes his head no, and he gives another expression of contempt. Does that seem like he is sorry to you? As he responds, he wrinkles his nose very briefly, which is an expression of anger as well, repressed anger. Why does this make him angry? Why does he feel contempt?

More of the interview:

TG: You have a perfect opportunity right now to step up and send a message to other players about this culture. This is your opportunity Matt.

MJ: Tracey, I would say to players, if it's a situation where . . . I'm just looking for the right words . . . if it's a situation where......... things occur which are dangerous and they're stupid and you make decisions that you most certainly will regret later, that at the time you give no thought to, but Tracey at the moment, as much as I love the game of rugby league and the people who play it, my thoughts and my energies are directed towards my family, all the pain I've caused them.
TG: And what about to this girl?

MJ: For the pain and the trauma that she's felt out of all this and the embarrassment, I'm truly sorry. It's caused a lot of pain and embarrassment to a lot of people.

Here the reporter gives Johns an opportunity to speak about his situation, and offers him a way to help others. Does his answer reflect any concern for the woman whatsoever? Does it expresses sorrow or regret for what happened to the woman here, or other women due to this sex culture among the athletes? Or does Johns show more concerned about himself and his love of rugby and the people who play it? You tell me....Notice he has to be prompted to think of the woman at all.

Johns talks about being afraid about this all coming out for seven years, and that when the reporter called him, it was a relief to "ending all the fear". Why would he be so afraid if it was all consensual? If he did nothing wrong?

When the reporter asks the couple at the very end, what effect has all of this commotion had Johns and his wife, both of them look around and don't answer for a notable amount of time. They obviously don't want to discuss their true feelings, or they would have spoke right up. They didn't know what to say (perhaps because they've been really angry?) and finally John's wife spoke up, and talks about how they had to remove the children because they didn't want them to be a part of it.

The interview continues:

TG: Well, you've lost your career to speak of, you came awfully close to losing your marriage, what do you do now?

MJ: Well, I've got to go away and make it up to my wife and make it up to my family, that's where my priorities lay. As far as my career at Channel 9, that's the furthest thing from my mind at the moment.

Johns tears up finally, because I suspect he realizes his career is over, and that is his pain. This is all about Johns and his family, not the woman who is the center of this. I just don't believe Johns is sorry about what happened to her in any way, and I do not believe the woman had consensual sex with a group of rugby players by choice.

Notice at the end of the interview how Johns wife takes a minute before she defends him and says they have worked it all through (past tense) and are closer than ever before? But once she is finished talking, she abruptly walks off the set without him? Her body language and actions speak volumes louder than her words, don't they? So do Matthew Johns.

Labels: matthew Johns, rape, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

My Thoughs: Carlos Perez-Olivo
by Eyes at 12:49 PM

Carlos Perez-Olivo was featured on Dateline: Murder on a long dark stretch of road. Earlier in the week, I asked you, my readers, to share your thoughts on Carlos.

I heard about this story when it broke in the news back in 2006, but unfortunately, I never got to see Carlos speak prior to or during his trial. I can tell you that the circumstances alone were a huge red flag to me. Here is an attorney who is out of work, who has been disbarred, who was in financial trouble, and he decides to go home on a dark, desolate side road to get cheaper gas late at night. Amazingly, he gets run off the road, and the attacker kills his wife, but forgets to finish him off. You have to admit, the odds are pretty unlikely, especially since he tells us he was the target of threats, not his wife. The attacker also didn't do anything to conceal his identity either, which is notably odd.

Read moreThat aside, when I saw Carlos Perez-Olivo speak for the first time, I saw a man whose demeanor immediately struck me as inappropriate given the circumstances he tells us that happened the night his wife was murdered. When we recollect memories, especially difficult or painful ones, we feel the emotions again, as we think back. With that, we would expect to see Carlos express fear, panic, terror, worry and show a general sense of vulnerability after being attacked, but it is oddly missing.

Carlos' details of his account are sparse and lacking detail, too. I would classify Carlos as a negative person.

Here are some of my thoughts when I watched Carlos speak:

Carlos talked to Dateline about getting old. His statement was very strange.
Carlos: We wanted to enjoy ourselves while we were young. I think we were both deathly afraid of getting old, and ah, we saw too many people who, ah, became old, and couldn't...they had money, but then couldn't really enjoy themselves.
Does this statement make any sense? Notice how Carlos throws in the words "they had money" very oddly? It's like it came out of no where. How does that even fit in with what he is saying? It's like he wanted to talk about failing health, but thoughts of money derailed him. Didn't prosecutors say Carlos had a 900,000 life insurance policy on his wife? Yet Carlos says money wasn't important? This sentence above clearly hints otherwise...
Carlos talks about the fuel status of his cars:
Carlos: We were going to go in her car but it didn't have gas. So we went in mine that had a little bit of gas.
The words "a little bit of gas" stand out to me here as very unusual. Most people don't talk like this. Most people would note that both cars were low on gas, and before embarking on a two-hour drive for the night, they would gas up. Is Carlos trying to set the stage for what happened that night?
When it came to gasoline, Carlos said he was super cheap. So I wonder did his past purchases support this behavior? Was his car found on low like he said? So how low would it have been before he left his home, and drove to New York city that night? A two-hour round trip drive usually requires a little more than "a little bit of gas", wouldn't it? Ironically, Carlos managed to get to the hospital without running out of gas. Couldn't he have made it home then, too, and got gas another time?
When Carlos talks about spending 15 cents more for a gallon of gas, he thinks it is funny. He smiles as he talks about it. This is very perplexing. A man who honestly was run off the road and his wife was murdered by a stranger, would forever regret buying cheap gas on an off-beaten path. They would feel like their decision indirectly cause their wife's murder. They would feel incredible guilt. They would have remorse that their cheapness cost them their wife's life. Yet strangely, Carlos doesn't seem to have any feelings of regret nor does he feel guilty. He doesn't seem to feel anything negative. He thinks it is funny he likes to buy cheap gas. It's flat out eerie and inconsistent.
Notice how Carlos never talks of or uses the word murder with regard to himself or his wife? Is he sanitizing the situation? If you are victim, are you going to sanitize this monster's acts? Acts which ruined your life?
Look at Carlos' account of of what happened:
Carlos Perez-Olivo: I'm driving, and all of sudden this car kind of cut in front of me. My concern at the moment was not to get into an accident for the obvious reason that i didn't want the cops coming because I had been drinking.
This car "kind of" cut in front of him? Has that ever happened to you, where a car kind of cut in front of you? Give me a break. It's the classic hedging, a dead give away, because Carlos is trying to tell us something that should be very definitive yet his words are anything but definitive. His words are hedging, which I suspect are a subconscious leak to what the truth really is.
Carlos says the car cut in front of him, and his first fear was about getting in an accident. Then he says his initial reaction was to get out and yell at the guy. How did they come to a stop? Why doesn't Carlos give us these details?

Usually when a stranger tries to cut in front of us, they either keep on going or we go around them. Why did Carlos act differently? Why doesn't he tell us what caused him to act differently?
Next thing Carlos hints at is he saw someone who looked Colombian according to Dateline. If he didn't recognize the guy, why wouldn't he drive away? He knew he had enemies--he tells us so himself. As a defense attorney, you would think he would be a bit wiser, wouldn't you? He dealt with criminals all the time.

Later on, in the 911 call, he calls the guy a Hispanic. Did he use both terms? I'd be curious to know. Why would he switch terminology?
Dateline reported, "But in an instant, a man wearing jeans and a baseball cap and who Carlos thought vaguely looked Colombian was standing by his car window pointing a gun at him."

Okay, why wouldn't this guy conceal his face? Does this make sense to anyone? Also, where are the details in Carlos' story (see below).
Carlos Perez-Olivo: I froze. I should have put the car in reverse or I should have tried to hit the car, but I didn't. And he got into the backseat. I then reacted.
If Carlos saw a gun, why wouldn't he take action to prevent this guy from getting in the back seat? Many cars today have doors that automatically lock when we drive. Did Carlos' car have that feature? This would be interesting to know, because if he did, it would have meant that he had to unlock the doors for someone to get in if he just slowed to stop.
When Carlos said he froze, he shrugs his shoulders. He talks without any emotion. Most people in this situation would be horrified, but clearly Carlos is not. He doesn't seem to have any emotional memories from that night, which is a huge red flag, considering someone murdered his wife and supposedly attempted to murder him, too. If you didn't know the subject he was talking about, you would think it was something benign. You'd never know he was talking about the last few minutes he spent with his wife. It's a huge red flag.
Carlos never talks of his wife, or his wife's reactions during all of this, which is odd. If he was run off the road, she should have woken up. If some attacker got into the car, she should have woken up, but she seems eerily missing in this story. It flat doesn't add up.
Carlos also never recounts when the guy shot his wife, which he should recall. He should have been fearful of the gun since he saw it outside the car, and been very aware what was going on with the gun at all times. It was supposedly his central focus. How could he miss that this guy shot his wife? It's ridiculous. He was in the car the whole time.

I would have loved to have seen Carlos re-enact this crime for us.
Here is a snippet from Dateline that I think is fascinating:
(Dateline) Carlos knew he had been shot. Peggy still looked asleep in the passenger seat upfront.
The gunman fled.
Carlos got back in the driver's seat.
Carlos Perez-Olivo: I turned the car on. I picked up the phone. And I started to drive away, I called 911.
We got shot by the side of the road ... I'm going on 133, I'm trying to get to get to northern Westchester.
How did he know "we" were shot, if Dateline's account of the story is correct? If she still looked asleep and he doesn't have any memories of his wife being shot, how does he know she was shot here? It's rather perplexing, isn't it? It doesn't add up at all. Dateline could have edited this out, but I tend to doubt it by the other clues I see.

Later to 911, he says, "I can't stop, I gotta get my wife to the hospital. I think she may be...I think she may be..." Why didn't he say he thinks she was dead, or murdered? Why doesn't he say someone tried to kill him? Why are all of these details missing?
Carlos laughs when he talks about the 911 operator asking where he was. Isn't that creepy? What could possibly be funny about that? He wanted to give the operator the perpetrator's car description instead. That was more important to Carlos...more important than getting his wife help, it appears. What would be most important to you when your spouse is dying beside you--getting the word out on the killers, or saving her life? Carlos priorities are notably off.
I find it strange how Carlos hobbles into the ER. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't leave my spouse. I would start screaming for help as I stood by the car. Or I'd run in a panic screaming for immediate help. Carlos appears to slowly "hobble" in and seems content getting help for himself. He even walks quite notably calm to the front desk as if he was a normal visitor. He never makes a ruckus at all. Where did all his panic in the 911 call go? Was he giving his wife more time to expire??
Carlos Perez-Olivo: They took me into a room and I remember being upset because i thought they were working on me and not doing anything with her.
Carlos' shirt is all tucked in. Dateline made a great point about this, and I concur it doesn't fit with his scenario.

Carlos thought he was going to get away with murder, and thought he could beat the system, if you want my opinion, but now that he is in jail, and he is paying the price. Look at him here (thanks CD for sending me this today), after spending time in jail. Suddenly, Carlos is feeling remorse, for no one other than himself!! He should have felt this pain for his wife when he met with Dateline, but it was strangely and eerily missing.

Labels: Carlos Perez-Olivo, Dateline NBC, murder, Peggy Perez-Olivo, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Friday, April 10, 2009

My Thoughts: Doug Grant ABC 20/20
by Eyes at 10:39 AM

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.

Labels: 20/20, Doug Grant, Faylene Grant, murder, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Monday, April 6, 2009

My Thoughts on Lyle Herring
by Eyes at 1:42 PM

I wasn't actually going to post the story and video of Lyle Herring because his behavior is obviously suspicious to anyone who looks at the facts, alone.

[ABC.com]"LAPD Det. Chris Gable called his cooperation "fragmented" and "less than helpful," and added that Herring is "not someone I would expect as a grieving husband."

Read moreThis is an immediate and huge red flag by itself. Another huge red flag is that Lyle didn't report his wife missing. It was Leslie's sister, Aasha Davis, who reported Leslie missing after Leslie missed work several days in a row. You would think if Lyle and Leslie got into a fight, and he awoke and she was gone, that if he didn't hear from her for a day, he'd call people to see if she was okay, but he didn't do that. It's very notable.

Furthermore, Lyle told police he and Leslie had a fight, but at a news conference, he refused to answer any questions about their argument. If Lyle is being honest, he should have nothing to hide, so why won't he talk about it? It's another red flag.

Leo Stallworth, the reporter, also tells us that Lyle is launching his own investigation into his wife's disappearance, but if Lyle is truly interested to find his wife, why wouldn't he be cooperating with detectives? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The facts in this case speak volumes, but of course, it is always important to see Lyle speak.

When I first saw Lyle, I got an immediate sense that he likely has a temper. I get that from what I call paralleling. I also suspect that he is the controlling, dominant one in the relationship, and his wife, Leslie, was the more docile one of the two of them. This means that his character doesn't bode well for the given situation. If I saw someone who was humble here, it would make me question everything, but I don't. I see arrogance, instead, which gives me more concern.

When the detective says that Lyle's cooperation is fragmented, did you notice Lyle is exchanging some words with a woman at that time? Look at how he is talking, ignoring the press conference and telling her what he thinks. Look at his body language and how he moving his hand as he talks. There is obviously tension between Lyle and this woman, and Lyle is clearly making his opinion known. Why did Lyle feel like he had to speak up at this moment during the press conference? Why couldn't he control himself here? Notice how the woman at the end ignores him? She realizes Lyle is making a spectacle of himself.

Lyle's body language is interesting when the reporter talks to him in the parking garage. Do you notice how relaxed and calm he is? I get no sense that he is upset, agitated or grieving for his wife. He acts like this day is like any other day. Most people who are looking for a lost loved one show some tension, stress or express their emotions. Lyle does none of this. It's another oddity.

Lyle goes on to say, "Couples have...ah... discussions about many things all at a time, you know, so, um...you know, it was nothing out of the ordinary, uh...uh... but ah... I really can't put a finger on it, you know?" I find it interesting how he changes the tone of his argument to a "discussion" here. Is he sanitizing his behavior? Trying to paint himself in a different light?

Furthermore, it appears like he might be smirking when says he can't put a finger on it, but I can't tell for sure because it is cut. However, does his statement, "I really can't put a finger on it" make any sense at all? It's suggestive that he is denying they even had an argument now, isn't it? Why would he do that? This is suggestive of someone who is manipulative.

Lyle goes on to say,"I enjoy the warmth of my wife, I enjoy everything about her, you know, so... I just truly miss her right now." Clearly talking about the "warmth of my wife" is an odd statement. I completely agree with you all in the comment section. I also find the words "right now" rather odd and interesting as well. Why does he feel that way "right now"?

Lyle talks about himself and not about his wife when he says, "I don't think it was a fair overview of my character. I haven't slept. My eyes are red. I'm just totally devastated here." If he is devastated, like he says, I would expect to see some emotions regarding his missing wife, but they are notably and strangely absent. He is a blank slate. More than that, if he is truly devastated, shouldn't he be describing his wife to us, asking us for our help, so he can bring her back, if she is truly missing? Shouldn't he have a photos of her if he is launching his own investigation?

Notice that everything Lyle says contradicts his actions, behavior and emotions? When actions, behaviors or emotions don't match the spoken word, pay attention: Pay close attention. It means things aren't as they appear.

I fear for what happened to Leslie Herring...

Labels: Leslie Herring, Lyle Herring, Missing Person, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

48 Hours: Bob Eckhart and Toni Soren
by Eyes at 8:37 PM

"48 Hours Mystery" profiled the story of Bob Eckhart, and Toni Soren (Heartsong) this past Saturday. Soren was found dead at the back entrance to the family home by her husband Eckhart. Soren was badly beaten in what cops called "overkill". If you haven't seen the show, you can watch it here, or you can read the story here.

I think people are likely torn in this case because there was no solid evidence to directly link Eckhart to the murder, and more than that, a jury did not convict him. However, on "48 Hours", the jury foreman spoke out and clarified his position. He said that 10 or 11 of the jurors actually believed Eckhart was guilty, but they didn't have the evidence to convict. You must remember that the police initially didn't think that Eckhart could have done this, so they didn't take a close look at him at the time when good evidence was still present. Eckhart wasn't arrested for six years.

Read moreWhen I watched Eckhart from the very beginning of "48 Hours", his speech seems contrived. He talked slowly and methodically. He seemed calculating. His emotions didn't match his situation, and his words, at times, were very odd and unusual. Furthermore, Eckhart's emotions were exceptionally dull. Other times, I believe they were flat out fake. The clues, to me, in this interview, were numerous and telling.

Here are some of my thoughts:

Eckhart says, "I remember my wife from meeting her the very first day with her eyes. I had seen her eyes for all of my life. I think I've... always been in love with her."

Notice the words, "I think" here. Does that convince you? Do you tell people you "think" you love your spouse, or that you love your spouse? The words "I think" show doubt on the part of Eckhart. I suspect it is a subconscious slip of the mind.
Listen to Eckhart in the 911 call. When the operator answers, Eckhart screams as if he is in a panic, or about to go over the edge. As soon as the operator talks to Eckhart, his tone and pitch changes instantly. He calms down. People who are in a panic or on the edge can't turn their emotions on and off sentence by sentence, or this quickly. This is a notable red flag for me.
Also listen to how Eckhart says, "My wife has been killed...by someone...here in my house." I find that statement strange. Notice the pauses? Someone? Here in my house? It shows thinking, which is unusual. In emergency situations, we usually go into auto-pilot and just react.
Eckhart says, "My fear is a guy like this could be doing it again...He'd have to be the most horrible monster in the whole universe to do that."

The words "a guy like this" are immediate red flags for me. It's as if he is talking about people in general who do this, not "this guy" who killed his wife. Very strange.

I also find his benign choice of words for the "murderer" of his wife fascinating here. I wonder if he ever used the words "murderer" or "killer" when he talked about his dead wife. He certainly wasn't in denial about this crime, because he had the news media at his house within days of her death. People who kill often sanitize their acts, and have a difficult time saying such harsh words as "murderer" and "killer". Why wouldn't he say "killer"? Does he ever use "killer" or "murderer"?
Then Eckhart tries to say that whoever did this must be a monster. Is that to say, "Look at me, I'm not. So how could I do this?"
Eckhart says when talking about Toni, "An incredibly beautiful little girl knocked on my door, and her name was Toni, and we talked for must have been six or seven hours," Bob recalls. "We could connect completely with no walls, no shields. Everything was just magic."

Do you notice how he never talks about Toni being the love of his life? How he loved her, how beautiful she was, how special she was, how this madman stole her from him? It's eerily missing. Also, does he have to think back to their early marriage to say something even remotely nice about Toni?
Notice how Eckhart has no anger whatsoever that someone has killed his wife. Why? I would expect to see some emotions of violation. Not only was his wife killed, but the killer was in his house. I watched the tape of Eckhart showing the news media around his house a few days after the crime, and I just don't see it. That's puzzling.

Also, did Eckhart stay in the house after the murders? Didn't he worry that staying in that house with his two sons after his wife was murdered? Wouldn't you worry about your kids if that happened to you? Especially since the killer has never been found. Wouldn't you worry they may come back to shut you up? Or harm your kids? How come Eckhart has no worry about that?

Also, the fact that his wife was murdered in that house doesn't seem to bother him. That's unusual, too. The sanctity of his home was violated, and that would bother most people.
Then notice when Eckhart talks about Toni's extra-marital affairs. He says, "I think she had sex with another man once or twice." Watch his shoulder shrug when he says this. His body language tells us he has doubts about this. This is fascinating. I don't think he believes she slept with two men. So why is he trying to paint her in a negative light? When we lose a loved one, especially to murder, we usually idealize them. We don't even remember the negatives. It's way too painful, but obviously not for Eckhart. He seems to want to point them out, and possibly even exaggerate them.
At time marker 9:00, Eckhart says, "I used to describe it as living in nirvana." Then a few seconds later, in a distinct change of emotion, he goes into what I believe is a "forced" cry. To me, the cry seems very contrived. Notice, too, there are absolutely no tears, which is always a huge tip-off. Somehow Eckhart went into the sob that comes naturally from tears in the sinuses, but he doesn't have any tears. Oops! His facial expressions, too, don't fit with a crying individual.
Watch Eckhart talk about how he found Toni. I find the tone of his voice an immediate red flag. It's void of any emotions in what should have been a highly emotional and painful experience. If you didn't know the topic he was speaking about, you'd think he was talking about something benign like lifting up or moving a sleeping dog. But he is talking about finding his MURDERED wife, the supposed love of his life. The alarm bells are blaring for me here.

He says, "I lifted her up with my arm like this, and I held her up, and when I saw her face, I freaked out."

He "freaked out"? Knock me off my chair! This is nuts. Mind you, his wife was lying in a pool of blood, dead. Shouldn't that have freaked him out? Apparently not. He had to pick her up to get freaked out. It shows you the lack of normal emotional responses Eckhart had. This is very abnormal. An innocent person would have been very traumatized by simply seeing their wife in a pool of blood. Second, they'd wonder if the killer was still around, but Eckhart is the exception time and time again.

The words "freaked out" are also chillingly cold for a man who loved his wife. Monsters freak us out, people we love when they are injured devastate us, tear us up, cause us searing emotional pain. Notice at that point, there are no emotions on Eckhart's face whatsoever! That makes no sense. Our memories and emotions are highly intertwined. Eckhart is just an exception again.
Eckhart continues, "...and when I saw her eyes were beaten closed, I was just destroyed by it. I gently laid her back down and I said to myself, 'I don’t want to remember this.'"

Notice Eckart didn't cry, try to apologize to her, hug her, feel guilty he didn't protect her, wasn't there to help her, nothing. Notice it is all about Eckhart? Notice he has no emotions for what she endured, or her pain? There is no anger about who did this to her. It's surprisingly missing, and so are the tears when we'd expect to see them the most. They are absent. All big red flags.
There was no rape, and there were no valuables taken. Clearly, this wasn't a robbery, or a rapist, and what are the odds a stranger is going to go into overkill? What would be the point?
In talking about his alibi of being at the construction site, Eckhart says, "I was there until about...about 2:30." The pause in his speech in indicative that he has to think about it. He doesn't remember this. You would think his memories of that day would have been seared into his mind after an experience like that, wouldn't you? But if he didn't experience things as he tells us he did, he would constantly have to think to recreate what wasn't.
Bob Eckhart says he was in tears the entire time he was at his son's wedding six months later, yet when you see "48 Hours" show two clips from his son's wedding, Eckhart is dancing. Check out his moves on the dance floor! He's got this giddy swing going on, certainly not what a man would do if he was all choked up and devastated. In another clip shown earlier, Eckhart is standing by his son smiling. He certainly didn't appear to be choked up as he said. Here Eckhart's words seem to contradict his actions. It's another red flag added to the pile.
Notice when Eckhart talks about his shrine to Toni, he is void of emotions again. His voice pitch gives no indication that he is upset, sad or emotional on any level. He talks about the object like objects. Where is his emotional connection? Is this shrine just a measure to pull on your heartstrings?
When Eckhart was brought into the police station six years later, he says, "I don't think it is my blood." If you were innocent and you knew it, would you say "I don't think"...? I think you would say conclusively, "It is NOT my blood." To me, the words "I don't think" are an indication of hesitation, or insecurity.
Eckhart talks about being locked up before trial. He says, "Twenty months in jail is not something any one of us would want to do." Look at his emotions! Wow. He woke up. He felt discomfort for the first time in this interview, and look at all his normal emotions that come blaring out. Isn't this fascinating? Eckhart does have normal emotions when it is his pain. Why didn't he have any emotions for Toni? Notice, too, he doesn't talk about how vile it was to be locked up as an innocent man? Wouldn't it have bothered you to be in jail for two years, if you were innocent?
Watch his new wife's response when she is asked if she thinks it is conceivable that Eckhart could kill someone. Watch her head shake go all over the place as she says no. Try to say no, and do that. Go ahead. Don't you feel ambiguous?
It is fascinating that Eckhart made no phone calls between 12:30 and 1:41, isn't it? Isn't that the perfect opportunity to commit a murder? Yet the rest of the day, he was on the phone. Hmm.... and he didn't have an alibi for lunch. What are the odds? If he was out of town, surely he could have told police upfront that he went to Wendy's, and they could have vouched they saw him. Surely the police should have done that. What did he do for lunch that day?
At the murder scene, there is a knife block on the counter right near the drawer where the knife was pulled from. As the prosecutor said, what stranger is going to ignore that and open drawers? It defies logic. It takes time to search for a knife, whereas pulling a knife from a knife block is quick and easy. That is certainly suggestive that whoever did this knew where all the knives were kept.
Listen in court when the police interrogate Eckhart on tape, and Eckart says he has no idea why his blood was found on her. He is calm, cool and collected. He says, "I have no idea...no idea at all." There is no anger or frustration in his voice whatsoever. If the police are zooming in on you as the killer and you are innocent, are you going to be that calm?
Eckhart at one point says, "I don't believe that any human being in the whole world has the right to harm another being in any way." Watch how he shrugs his shoulder in doubt when he says that. You can't miss it. He is saying something affirmative, very affirmative, yet his body language is telling us he isn't convinced. Isn't that interesting?
Dow from "48 Hours" asks Eckhart: "What would be your reaction if the jury finds you guilty?"

Eckhart says, "I have to accept the life that’s given me. And I have to continue to walk on my path. And if it happened that way, I’m certainly going to be very, very sad."

Would you be sad if you were wrongly convicted? Or would you be mad and feeling violated?

Dow says: An innocent man going to jail? Eckhart replies, “Yeah, absolutely," Bob says. "It would be a... [raised eyebrow as he thinks]...travesty."

This is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING! He had to think about what it would be like for him, if he were to be wrongly convicted. He had no feelings to guide him. That was mind-blowing for me.
Watch Echart's reaction when he hears the jury finds him "not guilty".

Suddenly he is full of emotion, yet when he talked about Toni, we saw none of this. Does Eckhart only feel for himself? That's very common for psychopaths. The only emotions they feel are their own. You sure do wonder. Look at his true and genuine smile!
Listen to how Eckhart talks to the reporters. In an angry tone, he says, "All I am going to say to you is I am free."

You can feel Eckhart's emotions here. This is what we should have seen when he was wrongly accused, but we didn't (revealed or concealed). But now, his emotions are genuine, real and true. He is steaming mad! He glares at the media now. Is that because he has the confidence of a jury behind him (I don't think he knew at that time what they would later tell "48 Hours")?

He continues, "As I should be. I didn't do it."

I find it odd how he says he didn't do it second, and not first. This is not a clue, it is just notable.
Dow says you've gotta know there are still people out there that think you killed your wife. Watch Eckhart. Look at his emotions. Listen to the inflection in his voice. All of this was completely missing when he talked about being wrongly accused. It was completely missing when he recollected memories of Toni. Why isn't he Mr. Calm again? Instead, you see this anger in him. It's the anger that I suspect bubbled up one day and was inflicted on his wife in a fit of rage--in a crime of passion.
Eckhart continues, "But I know what I did and what I didn't do. I know I didn't kill my wife, so what they think, that's their problem to deal with. Hopefully somewhere along the line, I can create the...there will be enough truth that will be brought out in this case that exoneration will be complete."

CREATE? Need I say more?
Eckhart continues, "They're going to have to find the people who did this incredible act. I won't rest until that is brought out."

Notice "the people"? Isn't this interesting? Does he think there is more than one person now? Why the change? Also notice he doesn't use the words "killer" or "murderer"? Do they make him feel uncomfortable?

Eckhart also say he won't rest until these people are brought to justice, but then why doesn't he go out and try to find the true killer himself? If it bothered him that badly, why isn't he on a quest? Do you see how ridiculous this statement is? He won't rest until everyone else does what he wants. Give me a break!

I think you can see I'm not buying Eckhart's story.

Labels: 48 Hours, Bob Eckhart, murder, Toni Soren, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

48 Hours: Jenny Eisenman
by Eyes at 10:44 AM

Last night, 48 Hours profiled the case of Jenny Eisenman. Jenny was a wife, a mother, a second grade teacher, and a woman who admitted to shooting her husband dead. Jenny, however, claims she acted in self-defense and that her husband abused her.

Is Jenny being honest when she claims she acted in self-defense, or is she being deceptive?

A jury decided that Jenny Eisenman was not acting in self-defense, and sentenced her to 23 years in prison. Yet 48 Hours brought back some of the jurors and discussed case facts that were withheld from them during trial.

Read more In trial, photos of bruises on Jenny's legs taken after the murder were withheld from jury as was testimony from a friend of Drew who said Drew admitted to him that he got "physical" (at one point) with Jenny.

Juror Ann Robey says if she had known then what she knows now, it could have changed everything because she could not have voted to convict. "What I now know? I don’t think so. It probably would’ve been hung," she says.

It could have been a hung jury. "I would have really held my ground," Robey says.

Clearly, this is a case where people fall on both sides of the pendulum. Some believe Jenny, others don't.

When I watched the 48 Hours interview, I saw a mountain of clues that led me to doubt Jenny's story, over and over again. Do I think she and Drew fought at times? Yes. Do I think things got physical between them at times? I do, but I don't believe Drew was the monster Jenny wants us to believe he was. And I don't believe the night that Drew was murdered that he came at her like she tells us he did.

Jenny told police that on the night of murder in the interrogation video "He came at me, then he just kinda he fell back, then he kinda got up like to come at me again." She says this as she talks of shooting him.

This sentence was a huge red flag for me.

First, when someone is threatening me and violating me, they don't "kinda" do anything. They are coming at me, attacking me, scaring me...not kinda getting up to come at me again! They either did or they didn't. They didn't kinda do it.

People who are deceptive, I have noticed, try to make strong sentences, but inadvertently, most likely subconsciously, use the word "kinda" ( or kind of) in the mix. They want to make a strong statement but kinda weaken it a bit which makes no logical sense.

Another person who used the word kinda is Matthew Gretz. He is facing trial for murdering his spouse. He was trying to play the part of a distressed husband, kinda. You are either distressed or you aren't. You aren't kinda distressed.

Think back to something in your life where you felt threatened or violated. Describe the incident. Say it aloud. Did the perpetrator "kinda" scare you, or did he scare you, come at you, threaten you? Or did he kinda threaten you, kinda scare you, kinda come at you? It's illogical when you look at it for what it is.

Furthermore, Jenny recounted her life much like an actor would who was creating a scene. She would play the parts as she discussed them. She said something to the affect that she and Drew were pretending to live the perfect life, and when she said that, she put on a "pretend" posture as if she were pretending to be happy for that second when she recalled it. Honest people when recalling a story don't re-enact the facts as they tell them (i.e I was happy at that time so look at me smile now). They usually tell the scenario again with deep emotions, showing their pain, and feelings in the aftermath.

Instead, Jenny seems to have no pain in the aftermath, whatsoever. Rather, she genuinely laughs at points during her interview which is hair raising. Most people after a serious traumatic event, such as murder in self-defense, typically don't feel like laughing for a while afterwards. This is another red flag.

Look at Jenny on the interrogation video, she is matter-of-fact. She is without emotions as if she is telling someone about a spat between two children, not the self-defense murder of her husband. This was a traumatic event, but she shows not signs of trauma. If your life is threatened, you are traumatized. Period. Why isn't she?

When the interrogator asks Jenny if Drew was panicked, Jenny says, "I think he was tryin to stay calm." This is not how someone who experienced this situation would respond. They would give the facts by stating yes or no. The would not speculate what Drew was attempting to do with his emotions. After all, if she wants us to believe her life was on the line, how did she have time to speculate about Drew's emotions? It's nonsense and rubbish.

The investigator asks if she had her "eyes open when she was firin?" Jenny says "The first time?... When I shot the wall, I did." Here she pauses after the asking the question "The first time?", and thinks about it. Then she answers. This appears to be thinking-on-her-feet speech. She doesn't seem to be recollecting a memory, or be confused, or have no memory from the trauma.

Jenny's tone of voice is another red flag for me. I don't know why, but it is.

Jenny tried to dispose of her husband's body, bought all the things she needed to conceal the crime, and shows absolutely no real genuine emotions of sorrow or fear when she talks to police. She is quite content to read People magazine, have a soda and a snack. Is this a woman who feared for her life? A woman who is traumatized by a cruel husband?

Her body language shows no signs of stress outside of the fact she is chewing her finger nails which could also be a sign of nerves, fear or even boredom.

Jenny could have experienced shock from a trauma like this, but in the police interrogation I would expect to see signs of that such as confusion or denial, but I don't. I see none of it.

Justice, in this case, if you want my opinion was served as deserved.

Labels: 48 Hours, murder, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Friday, January 11, 2008

Genuine Emotions, or Not?
by Eyes at 9:48 AM

A reader asked me yesterday to comment on Hillary Clinton's emotions in this video yesterday. Do I believe they are genuine, or are they faked?

I believe that Hillary Clinton is being absolutely genuine here. Look at her eyes. They get glassy (wet). She opens them wide to see better because of the moisture. Her voice cracks. Her pitch changes, and the facial expressions she makes supports someone who is feeling emotional.

Got a question about a candidates body language or facial expression? Ask me.

Note to Readers:
(1) I do not endorse any candidate. I am merely trying to help people understand the candidates as best as I can. (2) I do not wish to get involved in the political debate. I merely wish to answer genuine and honest questions about body language, and facial expressions.(3) As long as I believe I can remain unbiased, I will continue to do so. (4) I do not moderate my comments, and I don't plan to, but if people decided to make my blog a political place to vent, I will start moderating until the election are finished, or I will stop talking about politicians in general. (5) Respectful opinions are welcome, however, political bashing will not be tolerated.

Labels: Emotions, Presidential Candidate, Video Review

Comment Links to this post

Social Bookmarking Links Older Posts

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.

Thursday, September 17, 2009 Story of the Danish Woman Seeking Father by Eyes at 10:31 AM

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 Misty's Hypnosis Video by Eyes at 1:30 PM

Monday, August 31, 2009 Jennifer Campbell by Eyes at 10:41 AM

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 Michael Jackson: Unseen Video by Eyes at 12:26 PM

Sunday, June 28, 2009 My Thoughts: Ted Bundy by Eyes at 11:50 AM

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 My Thoughts: Ted Bundy by Eyes at 9:26 AM

Friday, May 15, 2009 Matthew Johns by Eyes at 4:28 PM

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 My Thoughs: Carlos Perez-Olivo by Eyes at 12:49 PM

Friday, April 10, 2009 My Thoughts: Doug Grant ABC 20/20 by Eyes at 10:39 AM

Monday, April 6, 2009 My Thoughts on Lyle Herring by Eyes at 1:42 PM

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 48 Hours: Bob Eckhart and Toni Soren by Eyes at 8:37 PM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 48 Hours: Jenny Eisenman by Eyes at 10:44 AM

Friday, January 11, 2008 Genuine Emotions, or Not? by Eyes at 9:48 AM

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Story of the Danish Woman Seeking Father
by Eyes at 10:31 AM

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Misty's Hypnosis Video
by Eyes at 1:30 PM

Monday, August 31, 2009

Jennifer Campbell
by Eyes at 10:41 AM

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Michael Jackson: Unseen Video
by Eyes at 12:26 PM

Sunday, June 28, 2009

My Thoughts: Ted Bundy
by Eyes at 11:50 AM

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

My Thoughts: Ted Bundy
by Eyes at 9:26 AM

Friday, May 15, 2009

Matthew Johns
by Eyes at 4:28 PM

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

My Thoughs: Carlos Perez-Olivo
by Eyes at 12:49 PM

Friday, April 10, 2009

My Thoughts: Doug Grant ABC 20/20
by Eyes at 10:39 AM

Monday, April 6, 2009

My Thoughts on Lyle Herring
by Eyes at 1:42 PM

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

48 Hours: Bob Eckhart and Toni Soren
by Eyes at 8:37 PM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

48 Hours: Jenny Eisenman
by Eyes at 10:44 AM

Friday, January 11, 2008

Genuine Emotions, or Not?
by Eyes at 9:48 AM