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.
This is an interesting news clip from Chicago that talks about how drownings may actually be homicides and missed by detectives who are not trained in water recovery. I found this fascinating.
There has been an abnormal number of young men who are in college who have drowned in the Chicago and Milwaukee area that I have noticed in the past 5-8 years and the trend deeply disturbed me. I have been suspicious of it for years and I am glad there are others who are too and are now taking a closer look at these deaths. I do not believe these were all accidental drownings.
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 did see some video footage of Casey online from Nancy Grace, and in that video Casey is gloating as the cameras pan on her as she is being led by police from one location to another (starting at time marker :05). Her eyes are glowing with excitement. She is clearly enjoying being in the spotlight, and being deceptive about her daughter.
Can we assume Casey killed her daughter? No, we can't. A number of things could have happened to her daughter--many of which are horrible to think about, but Casey definitely knows the truth and she isn't sharing it, and that doesn't bode well for Caylee.
I don't believe Casey accidentally killed Caylee. That glow that she had at that time was absolutely chilling. If she accidentally killed her daughter, she would not have felt this way. Add to that her rumored computer searches for breaking of the neck and for chloroform, and this case is bone chilling.
I personally think Casey was ultimately jealous of Caylee and her mom's affection for Caylee. When Cindy wanted Casey to move out and inquired about getting custody of Caylee, Casey lost it, and decided to make her mom pay the ultimate price, as sick as that is to write. She obviously had no regard to Caylee whatsoever to do what she did.
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 find Horvatt's smiles and positive emotions chilling at this supposed difficult time in his life. It doesn't add up no matter how you slice it. I don't see an ounce of sadness, loss, stress or difficulty on him whatsoever. I see glee, which is very disturbing.
To read my review of Horvatt's first interview, click here.
I also found this video and I think what the Putman County Sheriff's Major Gary Bowling said was very telling. He said:
What we’re trying to do here today is keep this in the public’s eye for another day or so, cause somebody saw something along state road 26. They either saw that vehicle, that red vehicle with the taillight missing and the bumper bent down, um dirty and junky looking, late 80s or maybe early 90s. Or, they may have seen Mr. Horvatt’s vehicle which is a late model, blue, Ford F150, and it has a wheelchair platform on the back...
We just want the public to know that the smallest thing they saw could be the biggest thing to us, and we really want some contact...
If the police believed there was a killer on the run, would they only give it another day or two? Also their plea to the public for anything even remotely small is quite informative too. I don't think the police have missed this case at all. I suspect they are trying to build a very tight case before they arrest Horvatt.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
A reader alerted me today to a story out of Gainsville which she read about on True Crime Report. Clint Horvatt tells a horrific story of being out with his fiancee last Friday afternoon to go shopping when she asked him to pull over because she recognized a truck that needed help on the side of the road. But what happened next is perplexing. They pulled over, and instead of getting out to help the guy, he came to them, robbed them and shot Horvatt's fiancee, Summer Smith, in the head. She died later that day.
Is Clint Horvatt telling the truth? Click to watch Horvatt for yourself.
Read moreMany things do not point to the fact that Horvatt is telling the truth, though Horvatt tells us he is on medication. I don't know what medication he is on, and because he is on medication, I think we should be cautious. I'd want to know how mind-altering of a drug Horvatt was on before I'd come to any final conclusions, but the following things are very notable to me.
Horvatt has no emotions. He's like a robot repeating a story that he memorized over and over again. He states the facts, totally detached, yet supposedly his own life was in jeopardy. This is a big red flag. Furthermore, he smiles multiple times without any indication of stress which is inconsistent for a man who should be grieving, who experienced such a devastating trauma, or who is in shock. It's very notable.
Horvatt acts like he is emotional a couple of time, but notice there are no tears?
Horvatt never refers to his fiancee by name until the end of the interview. Why? It shows detachment. Her name is Summer Smith.
Horvatt says "I'm not sure exactly what you all want me to say besides my fiancee was shot yest...a couple of days ago..uh..in a robbery."
Does this make any sense?
Horvatt tells us "She asked me to stop off and ah…help the individual out" yet when he continues, he doesn't tell us that the guy was fixing a flat tire or anything. Oddly he says "the individual got out on the passenger side."
How did his fiancee know the guy was in trouble? People stop on the side of the road all the time. It doesn't mean they are necessarily in trouble -- especially if they are sitting inside the vehicle. I find this odd and perplexing. Horvatt gives so many details, but here they are lacking. Why?
Also, why is Horvatt showing positive (happy) emotions when he says "stop off and ah...help the individual out."? It's like he feels good he was a "good guy". If he was devastated right now, he would not feel like a good guy. He would careless about feeling this way if he truly felt he lost the love of his life. It makes no sense.
Also, I have to wonder, when Horvatt told the police this story, did he tell them they drove by the truck first and then turned around to offer help? Most people don't come upon a truck and immediately recognize it, and know a person needs help when the driver is still in the vehicle. Horvatt's story alludes to the fact he likely didn't drive past it and return which is unusual.
If Horvatt's fiancee stopped to help the guy, why did she roll down her window? Why didn't she get out and meet the guy? This is odd behavior for someone who is stopping to help someone. It doesn't make sense.
What are the odds that you stop to help someone who does not appear to be in trouble and they, in turn, rob and kill you? Also, what are the odds they would leave a witness alive to speak about it? I would think the odds are highly unlikely.
Horvatt says the suspect said "Give me your shit" (see video on bottom left here). Would you know that means give your wallet and purse, or would you wonder if he meant the truck? How come Horvatt and his fiancee knew what that meant, and didn't ask any quesitons? I certainly wouldn't have known what it meant, and without seeing a gun, I would have put the car in drive and drove away, or told the guy to go to hell or I'd roll up the window. Why didn't Horvatt?
If this is a robbery, why wouldn't the perpetrator not show the gun immediately to show that he means business? Why would he hide the gun? Why would he only pull it out to shoot the fiancee? It defies logic.
Horvatt provides great details about the suspect, however when it comes to the robbery, his details fuzz. I find this perplexing. Horvatt says "I kind of, uh, got the impression of what we were doing, what was going on, I was getting robbed."
He kind of got the impression, but not really? How does that work? Hmmm....I wonder if I am getting robbed. I don't think so.
"Kind of" is what I coined hedge words. It's a notable red flag. It makes absolutely no sense. You either believe something this traumatic, or you don't. He either believed he was going to be robbed or he didn't. Why does he express doubt?
Horvatt continues "After he took my wallet, with his left hand, I do remember, he put it up, he put his hand on her purse, she grabbed his arm and that is when he pulled out from his right hand, and then he shot her. I said [blanked out -- "Oh Shit"?] and then she looked directly at him and then he shot her…. in the head, and by that time, I had the truck in reverse, I was backing up."
What is interesting here is the guy grabbed Horvatt's wallet and tried to use the same hand to grab her purse. Isn't that odd? Why doesn't Horvatt talk about this in detail like "he tried to hold my wallet and grab her purse at the same time." He doesn't seem to recollect that, does he? Why no details here?
Horvatt tells us "I was always told to, of course, give up my possessions, keep’m calm, so I can get out of there." Then why did he promptly say "Oh shit!" or some expletive that needed to be bleeped out? Is that keeping calm?
More important, notice that "shit" seems to be a Horvatt word?
Notice he doesn't say the word "gun"? Why?
Was his fiancee she shot once or twice? I find it odd how later in the interview, when Horvatt is talking about the ambulance, he says "I only heard one gunshot go off." It was a strange place to recount this detail. It was notably odd and there was likely a reason for it.
Notice how once his fiancee is shot, Horvatt's details get real sketchy again? Horvatt recounts "...and then he shot her…in the head, and by that time, I had the truck in reverse, I was backing up, I seen him go back to cock the gun again."
How do you drive away in reverse, and notice that he is cocking the gun again at the same time? Didn't he also say he had his head down? How can he do all of this? How come no more shots were fired on his vehicle? Did he drive right by the guy again, or turn around? Remember, Horvatt says he only heard one gunshot go off.
Notice his details when he tells us he called 911. Why aren't they as good as when he told us the rest of his story? Why are they so sketchy? Naturally, of course, he could have been really shook up, but then why isn't he showing us emotions? I see neither of these, and it odd and perplexing. It's quite notable.
I find it really strange that Horvatt has no fear this madman might come and finish him off since he is the only witness. Horvatt freely volunteers his phone numbers to the people and the press. He talks about Summer Smith's child too with reckless regard. Does this make any sense? Would you do that when the are the only witness to a homicide?
When the reporter asks what the last couple of days have been like for him, watch Horvatt smile. It's chilling. He actually laughs and says he is taking his medication like crazy.
Horvatt talks about his love for "Cole Smith", how Cole doesn't have a mother now and his father doesn't want anything to do with him. Horvatt continues "I'm the only father he knows."
Is he hoping to raise Cole now?
Do you see John Mark Karr when you look at Horvatt? I do. I couldn't help but see it from the very beginning. Does Horvatt have a normal affection for children, or is this strange and unusual? My eyebrows are raised here. I'd be curious about looking into this. I hope Cole is not in his sole care right now. That would alarm me.
At the end, I find it odd how Horvatt says when talking about the perpetrator "If he's out there (smile almost laughs), I hope he's nervous, because, um, I'm not going to stop until I have justification."
If? What? Did the perpetrator disappear into thin air? If this madman really shot his fiancee, he is out there. There is no doubt about it, so why does Horvatt express doubt? It doesn't make sense.
I find the smile odd as well as the word "justification". How can anyone justify this crime?
The reporter asks "Do you think he would have shot you next?" and without any stress or fear, Horvatt says, "Yes. Yes... because...(notice his pause, and odd swallowing). He is thinking here. He continues "When I put that thing in reverse, I saw his finger (smile) on the trigger going backwards again, and he was cocking it..."
I find his smile perplexing here as well as his thinking, odd pause and swallowing. Also did Horvatt see the gun cocked twice? Did Horvatt see this before? Notice he says "again"? Did I miss the first time?
Most people would have fear when they recollected this, if they believed it. Memories and emotions are connected yet Horvatt has no negative fear or emotion. Instead Horvatt smiles. It doesn't add up. It's chilling.
Horvatt continues "I don't know if it was meant for her again, or if it was meant for me." Wait a minute, didn't he just say he thought it was for him above? This guy loves to talk and be the center of the limelight, that's for sure. Remind you of John Mark Karr? Clearly, Horvatt says one thing and then immediately changes his mind. Why isn't he feeling consistent?
I definitely have my eyebrows raised with Horvatt's story. We need to rule out that drugs couldn't influence his behavior to this extent before we come to any conclusions, but I'm uneasy to say the least.
To read more about Clint, click on the label below.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
This weekend 48 Hours profiled the story of Dr. Linda Goudey, and Dr. Timothy Stryker. The two doctors dated in the early '90s, but in October of 1993, Goudey ended up dead in the hospital parking lot found in wrapped in a blanket, face down in the backseat of her car. The cause of death: manual strangulation.
Read moreCriminally, no one to date has been held accountable for Goudey's homicide, but that didn't stop Goudey's family from going after Stryker in a wrongful death civil lawsuit. They believed Styker was responsible for their daughter's death. In June of 2006, a jury found Stryker responsible for Goudey's death civilly, and awarded her family 15.1 million dollars.
I think most people will see through Dr. Timothy Stryker's facade simply because Stryker attempted to clear his involvement by getting a man by the name of Craig Pizzano to come forward to share "new" information in the case -- more than a decade after the crime.
On the night Goudey disappeared, Pizzano says he saw Goudey and another man in her Saab in the hosptial parking lot, and that other man looked nothing like Stryker. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to dissect the insanity of the story Stryker and Pizzano told, and the police thankfully uncovered the lie. First, if Pizzano was genuine, why would he ever call Styker? Why would he bother looking up a man he doesn't know to tell him he saw Dr. Goudey with another man? Wouldn't most people just call the police directly? It's much easier, quicker and safe to do.
Second, the timing of Pizzano's claim is ridiculous. After more than a decade, this man decides to come forward, a man who was just a passerby? Oops, he remembers something now, all of the sudden, something totally irrelevant to his life a decade later? It's ridiculous.
Pizzano in another amazing feat also recalled how tall the guy was and even what his approximate weight was even though this unknown guy was sitting in a car at night in the dark. Isn't that just over-the-top? And Pizzano says he looked nothing like Stryker to boot. How convenient.
Also, how many people would think the car sitting next to you in the middle of the night with occupants would likely have a condom, motivating you to get out in the dark and knock on a stranger's car window to ask for one? Anyone? It's laughingly hilarious, and an obvious lie just by looking the story alone.
But even knowing that, I think Styker gives us many classic clues that do not support honesty.
Styker's speech is very notable to me. He talks in a higher pitch (or tone?) than normal. It's slight but instantly notable. I call it the "nice guy facade". He talks more gentle, more soft and airy, more sweet and innocent than what I suspect his natural voice is. And sure enough, 48 Hours shows clips of Stryker talking to a patient and/or a nurse, and you can hear the difference immediately. The rate of his speech also changes when he is talking to people at the hospital. Why does he feel he has to put on an act on 48 Hours, if he is innocent?
When Stryker spoke in this abnormal way, I also kept getting flashes of Hans Reiser in my head. Reiser used the same approach with his voice. These highly intelligent men seemed to be arrogant enough to think they can fool us by falsifying a sweet, gentle demeanor. It then hit me that both Reiser and Stryker were very successful men who courted very successful women --women who were both well regarded OB-GYNs. You can't help but notice the irony of it. Were both men feeling out-of-control that they couldn't keep these highly-driven women in their lives?
Stryker lacks genuine emotion much like Reiser did, too. They show us fake smiles, but nothing genuine in sadness, anger or joy. It's strangely missing.
You have to plug into this equation that Stryker is a practicing doctor who has been considered a suspect to a murder for 15 years. He also has a judgment against him for 15 million dollars. For any innocent person, this would cause incredible anger and feelings of injustice if they are innocent, yet we see none of this with Stryker. It's very notable. Instead we see Mr. Nice Guy. I'm not buying it.
Also, we don't see any genuine feelings of sadness or concern for what happened to Dr. Goudey. Instead, he tells us how he called her a "pea brain". Yes, Mr. Sweet and Innocent, the gentleman, called her a pea brain. Do you see the inconsistency? It further supports that Goudey's friend, Lisa Zolot, who called Stryker controlling, rigid, and self-centered was honest, and Stryker is not. This further supports the facade theory.
When Stykers current wife of 14 years, Micael, spoke in his defense and said he he was not abusive or violent, I did not believe her. She was in denial, if you ask me. She also gives a notable shrug of doubt with her lips just after she finishes her claim of Stryker's character. Try to say something you fervently believe and make a doubt expression (curl your lip down and out). It's very hard if not impossible to do.
Notice in court, too, that she cries really hard when the judgment comes down civilly. If your husband was innocent, would you sob in sadness, or be outraged and angry?
I also found Stryker's sister Jean's story unusual as well when she said her mother told Stryker to go on vacation because he was being harrassed. Stryker missed Goudey memorial service. What mother would advise her son to do that? What man who loved his girlfriend would do that? I've italicized the words that are flags for me in what Jean said below.
"He did mainly because my mother told him to. Yeah, my mother told him to go on vacation because he was talking with her, you know, about all of the harassment he was getting. She’s like, 'Tim, you need to just go on this vacation.' 'Cause I thought it was not such a great idea."
I always find it interesting when people answer their own question like Jean did here, "Yeah, my mother told him to go..." Was she trying to convince herself, or us?
I suspect Jean didn't think it was a great idea, but I don't believe it had anything to do with Stryker's mother.
Unfortunately, 48 Hours wouldn't let me rewind segments, and note the online segment time markers so I could give them to you. That is a total bummer. I hope they change that in the future.
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
Thanks to those of you who informed me of the news that William Walsh was arrested on suspicion of murder last night. I just wrote that I didn't trust William Walsh yesterday.
Police identified the body of Leah Williams Wednesday evening and shortly thereafter arrested William.
William is a person I would call a negative person. He is one of the easiest people to read. I knew immediately that he was lying. It was instant. None of his behaviors left any doubt. They were all off and none made any sense whatsoever.
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
It's hard to believe Stacy Peterson disappeared a year ago today. So much has gone on over the past year, but sadly nothing productive enough to bring the truth to the forefront in a way that would hold the responsible party accountable--despite the confidence in the American people who believe that Drew Peterson is responsible for the death of both of his wives.
Today to mark the one year anniversary of Stacy's disappearance, Drew Peterson and his attorney flew to New York to meet with Matt Lauer again, and Drew gave a lot less arrogant interview this time around.
Living under the umbrella of suspicion has tamed Drew Peterson's wild side. He is clearly preparing himself mentally for the potential of life behind bars as he says and as he should. There is no denying that Drew looks tired, and worn out. We are no longer seeing this cocky man sitting on the stage thinking he is fooling us all. Clearly, Drew's life wasn't the cake walk he had hoped for last November.
Read moreThere wasn't much to glean from Drew's interview today until the very end when Matt says what do you want to say to Stacy, if you believe she is still out there? It's not what Drew said that is remarkable, but how he said it that is.
Watch as Drew speaks. His thoughts go into himself, and then he rambles to no one "Show yourself. Put an end to this nightmare."
Notice how he doesn't look at anyone? Notice he doesn't try to plead to Stacy directly by looking at the camera?
When we believe someone is alive and we are pleading to them to come home, we look straight at the camera to give our message. We say it with fervor and meaning -- especially if our neck is on the line. But clearly Drew doesn't do this. It's palpable. It's notable, and Drew's behavior continues to support he is not telling us the truth.
FIRST MEMORIES OF THE CASE
I'll never forget reading about the case for the first time last year, and reading an article in the Sun-Times within hours of Stacy's disappearance. Drew Peterson hadn't made a public comment yet so all I had to go on was Drew Peterson's words printed in the paper, and what I read clearly gave me pause.
Drew Peterson said "I believe she's not missing." Those five words stopped me dead in my tracks. No one talks like that. Last year I wrote...
"I don't like the way Peterson said 'I believe she's not missing.' When people are dishonest, they often add the qualifer and descriptive text to the end [of a sentence] as an after thought. Most people would normally say 'I don't believe she is missing.' They don't start out with 'I believe she's' and then tack on 'not missing.'"
PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS CASE
To read my review of Drew Peterson on the Today's show last year, click here, or click on the labels below to see all I wrote about the case over the past 12 months.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
A witness testified in the custody hearing for Brad Cooper that she saw Nancy Cooper jog the morning she went missing.
[NCWanted.com] Also testifying Thursday was Rosemary Zednick, a woman who says she was walking her dog on July 12 when she saw Nancy Cooper jogging. The two made eye contact and spoke, she said.
"I saw that gal," Zednick said, adding that she contacted Cary police up to nine times but never heard from investigators.
"All I said to the police was 'I don't want Nancy Grace on my doorstep,'" she said.
Zednick said that after three months of not hearing from detectives, she went to Brad Cooper's attorneys, who sent an investigator to interview her.
This is absolutely interesting! Is this the first and only eye-witness?
Where was Nancy when Zednick saw her? What time was it? What did they talk about? What was Nancy wearing? I'd be curious to know.
------------------ Update 10:03 AM:
I found the affidavit of Rosemary Zednick here. It answers my questions above.
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
Per your request, I have spent a short period of time watching Brad Cooper talk in the video deposition that has been released online. I also couldn't help but glance at the affidavits in the case that were listed in the sidebar near the video links. With that, I thought I would share with you my first impressions and thoughts.
Read morePlease know I did not watch any deposition in its entirety. I reviewed at a couple of segments highlighted for me, by you, my readers. Thank you for giving me time markers, it is much appreciated.
The first thing I noticed about Brad Cooper is that he is what I call a classic neutral person. Classic neutral people are void of emotional expression.
These people are hardest to read, because these people don't express a lot of emotion. Neutral people tend to lack genuine enthusiasm, and most often come across as someone who is not excitable. They usually come across as mundane and monotone.
While the majority of people who fall into the neutral category are suspicious, it does not mean that they are lying. And that is where it gets tricky. Some people just lack normal expressive emotions and instead are subdued, even when they are telling the truth.
With that, I am left to ask, is this normal behavior for Brad, or is this notable and unusual?
Most people are not this baseline in their emotions especially after something as traumatic as loss of your wife to murder. Most people would be devastated/angry/mad for their children that they have been robbed of a mother, at the very least. Yet I see none of this with Brad. It definitely raises my eyebrows.
Since Brad does seem to be a reserved type of person who could repress his emotions, and he was going through a divorce, I would need to know from his friends if this is the "typical Brad" or if his behavior is notably different. If his friends told me his emotions were notably void here, it would raise a big red flag.
Since we can't depend on Brad's emotions and body language to guide us positively or negatively, the next thing we need to look at are his words, and the facts. Is Brad consistent in what he is saying?
The first video I zoomed into was what Brad says happened the day that Nancy disappeared. Almost immediately, I found a big inconsistency in what Brad is saying when he talks about running to the store the morning Nancy disappeared. In the deposition here (around time marker 25:00), Brad talks about how his wife Nancy was upset that they were out of detergent.
Questioner:
When you got home from the Harris Teeter, what did you do?
Cooper:
When I got home from Harris Teeter, I put the milk back in the fridge. Um..by this time, the washing machine had finished the first load that, um, we had put in earlier, and um, Nancy then indicated that we were out of laundry detergent and was upset that we were out of laundry detergent as well.
Questioner:
Was she upset with you about that?
Cooper:
Yes, she... well, she was upset that one, we ran low on milk, we ran low on laundry detergent, and um, she was gone the week prior so she kind of felt it was my fault that I hadn’t restocked with milk and laundry detergent. (Time marker 25:18).
Questioner:
So what does she say?
Cooper:
She indicated that it was kind of my fault and therefore my responsibility and hop back in the car and go to the store and pick up laundry detergent.
If you compare that to what Brad said in an affidavit here, Brad's story has changed.
"I start to get ready for the girls to get up and noticed we were out of laundry detergent and could not do laundry, so Nancy asked me to go back out to get some laundry detergent around 6:30 A.M."
I find this odd and perplexing. Why is Brad not able to keep his facts straight? In one version, his wife notices they are out of laundry soap. In the other, he notices. In the deposition, he starts the laundry and does one load. In the affidavit, he says he "could not do laundry".
This is a notable red flag. When we are honest, we remember the basic details of what we did and who discovered what. We don't confuse basic facts such as this.
It's also very notable (above) that Brad talks about getting ready for the girls to "get up" in the affidavit. Yet oddly, in his deposition, he talks about how Katie, his daughter, was up early and fussing because she didn't have milk, and that he went to get her milk, came home and got a bottle of milk to give to Katie. He wasn't home a few minutes before the laundry detergent scenario played out, and after returning with the laundry detergent he tells us he takes Katie back upstairs with him to put her down.
What is the truth here? Was Katie up or not? Clearly, Brad is having a hard time keeping his facts straight and that begs us to question why.
It's odd, too, that when Brad Cooper went to the grocery store the first time, he knew exactly how he got there. He was sure about his route. The second time, however, he couldn't remember which way he went, yet he said he remembered getting a phone call at a specific intersection. Why did he take a different route? How come he remembers this specific phone call, but he doesn't remember the different route? It's perplexing. Notice that Brad is asked why he took a different route, but he doesn't answer the question.
Brad Cooper in this deposition tells us that he cleaned out the garage on June 28th so that one car could fit into their two car garage. He explains that it was summer and hot, and that Nancy needed a cool car for the kids.
Yet ironically, Gary Beard, of Gary's Pest Control, says in his affidavit that he entered the garage on July 8 and that there was no way a car could be parked inside the garage due to the toys and things Brad says he supposedly removed. It's another inconsistency, another oddity, another red flag. Why would Gary Beard lie about this? Why would Brad Cooper lie about this?
At this point, from what little I have reviewed, I think it is clear that Brad is unable to keep his facts straight, and that concerns me. _______________________________ Update: Brad Cooper was sentenced to life in prison May 2011 for the killing of his wife, Nancy.
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
Dateline NBC profiled a case they titled A Deadly Triangle Saturday. Did you see it?
It is the case about married couple Eric and Erin McLean. Erin, a teacher, started dating a former student of hers, Sean Powell, and in the end Eric ended up killing Sean.
Eric always maintained it was an accident, but Erin resorted to calling Eric a psycho. She told police he threatened to kill her or himself, but she didn't think he would really do it.
It was a true mystery indeed.
When I watched Eric talk, I believed him. I trusted what he said to be true. His grief was genuine, intense and real. His story was logical.
Eric was tried for first degree murder but the jury only convicted him with reckless homicide. His sentence, which will be given in November, could be as light as time-served (6 weeks) plus probation. I believe justice was served in this case.
At this time, Erin McLean is on the run with their children.
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
Thanks to a reader, Joyce Ham, for informing me that there was an arrest Friday in the Nona Dirksmeyer case. On Friday police arrested a man, Gary Dunn, who lived in Dirksmeyer's apartment complex at the time of her murder.
I originally wrote about the case in February of this year after Kevin Jones, Dirksmeyer's boyfriend, was tried for her murder and acquitted. Even though Jones acquitted last July, public opinion was not supportive of Jones.
"...even after being acquitted, Jones continued to face public scrutiny in Pope County. Arkansas Tech denied him admission for the fall semester, because Jones said he didn't send in proper transcripts and the school viewed him as a safety concern. (source)"
Many people did not believe justice was served. That's when my reader's wrote me, and asked me for my opinion.
The police found Jones' behavior questionable and suspicious. Watch as police interrogate Jones here.
Furthermore, Jones had failed a polygraph, and police believe they had Jones DNA on the murder weapon.
Nona's parents also made it very clear on 48 Hours as well that they believed Jones was Dirksmeyer's killer, too. Yet a jury didn't find enough evidence to convict Jones.
Upon watching Jones speak on 48 Hours, I knew without a doubt he was innocent. I had no doubts about it. This case is particularly pleasing to see come to light now because Jones is a good man who does not deserve this injustice.
I will be curious to see how this case plays out. In the end, you have to wonder if the DNA on the condom wrapper in Dirksmeyer's apartment is what finally brought Dunn into focus. Only time will reveal the details as right now as the police are keeping the details mum.
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
News is breaking today about a case I have reviewed: The Coralrose Fullwood case. A man named Patrick Dewayne Murphy has been arrested and charged in the death of Coralrose.
I reviewed videos of Coralrose's father, Dale, and when I watched him, I didn't trust him. Yet I knew that in the police investigation, the police did not find any DNA evidence of Dale on his daughter. Yet, I still couldn't explain Dale's behavior.
"Despite the arrest, authorities say the investigation is far from over."
"We believe that other people are involved," said [North Port Police Chief] Lewis, who explained that by ‘involved,’ he means people who either helped commit the crime, or who knew about it."
I don't think we've seen the entire puzzle of this case unfold yet either.
In my post last June, I wrote:
Do I trust Dale? I absolutely do not trust Dale. Do I think he killed his little girl? I cannot say. Was he involved somehow? I suspect so because he isn't telling us all he knows. In my opinion, Dale knows more than he is admitting to, sadly -- and the implications of that are a little more than I can handle thinking about...
The question is was Fullwood somehow connected to Murphy?
TampaBays10: "There is a $10,000 reward for information about Murphy. Anyone with information can call Crimestoppers at (800) 780-TIPS or the Coralrose Fullwood Hotline at (941) 429-7336."
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
Brad Cooper, whose wife disappeared after jogging a week ago Saturday, has declared his innocence through his attorney on Friday, but he hasn't spoken to the media since his wife's body has been discovered.
Nancy Cooper's family gained custody of the couple's children because they believed Brad Cooper was a danger to the children.
The judge found that Brad had recently threatened to commit suicide, that he "has a history of emotional instability," and that he is under "intense scrutiny . . . as a result of the ongoing criminal investigation of Nancy Cooper's murder." (Ottawa Citizen.com)
The only video that has surfaced of Brad speaking to the media at this point is when he briefly spoke out to thank people for their search efforts. This was while the search for Nancy was still underway.
The video doesn't give me much to go on. All I can say is that he is very nervous and appears to be under notable stress. The nerves and stress can come from speaking in front the news cameras, or it can be due to other reasons, such as foul play or deception. I can't determine the cause from this video at this point because Brad doesn't say anything noteworthy. I really need to see him talk about his wife and the crime to see if he is being deceptive or not.
While Brad's actions are unusual, if he and his wife were truly in the process of separating, this would be an awkward situation for anyone to be in, if he is, in fact, innocent. So it is possible that he might withdraw as we are seeing, if there family tensions prior to the murder.
At this time, I haven't seen Brad talk about his wife's murder to make any opinions. What the media says about Brad doesn't bode well for him and I acknowledge that, but I am not willing to draw anymore conclusions at this time.
If you see Brad talk about his wife's murder, please let me know and I will glad share my thoughts.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
There is a story breaking out of Cary, North Carolina, that a woman, Nancy Cooper, age 34, disappeared on Saturday, and was found dead on Monday. Police are calling it a homicide.
From what I have heard and read, it doesn't look good for her husband, Brad. They are searching the family house, and they are telling people they don't believe Nancy's homicide was a random act of violence. They also have a police car supposedly tracking Brad's movement, but they say it is to keep him safe. The police, however, stop short of calling him or anyone a suspect.
Most people, I suspect, are suspicious of Brad, and I am no exception.
Brad is acting strange. He has declined to speak at several media events. He also didn't report his wife missing: A friend did.
If you find any video of Brad talking and would like my opinion, feel free to send me the link.
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
MSNBC is reporting that a new DNA test called "Touch DNA" (that wasn't available back in 1996) was recently run on JonBenet's leggings, and the results, they say, clear the Ramsey family.
The discovery, from a new testing method, prompted the Boulder district attorney’s office to release a letter officially clearing the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy and their immediate relatives, of any involvement in the December 1996 death of 6-year-old JonBenet.
What I find odd is that apparently this DNA match is a match to a DNA test they ran in 1997. That's what is written in the article. So with that, I have to ask what is new?Why the change of heart? Was the old DNA in question? Or is something else going on here? I'm rather perplexed to say the least.
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
Yesterday afternoon, with hopes of getting a dealing with prosecutors, Hans Reiser revealed where he buried Nina.
Hans Reiser also admitted that he and his wife fought, and that he strangled Nina.
The body was less than half a mile from the home on Exeter Drive where Reiser lived with his mother, and where Nina Reiser, 31, was last seen alive Sept. 3, 2006.
In the article, it also mentioned that a cell mate of Reiser testified during the trial that Reiser raced to the television screen when a news report came out that a body was found in Oakland Hills, and that he was visibly relieved when he heard it was the body of a black man.
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 suspect I am the last to know, but I just saw that Neil Entwistle was convicted of double murder. Clearly, no one is surprised. We all saw it coming, but did you see Neil's reaction to the verdict? Look at his arrogance. It's amazing. It makes my stomach churn.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
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.
