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.
ABC's Chris Cuomo interviewed Thomas Morphey a few weeks back, and many of you have asked for my opinion. Thomas Morphey is Drew Peterson's stepbrother.
Is Morphey being honest with us? You can watch him speak here.
When I watch Morphey speak, I see a man who is casual and relaxed. He is not uptight, stressed or worried, which matches his demeanor when I look at his face. I suspect, by looking at Morphey, that he is an easy-going guy in real life and isn't demanding, nor is he highly driven. He is likely very accepting of people, and it would not surprise me that Peterson knew this, picked up on it and knew that Morphey was the perfect candidate to assist him, because he was easily malleable.
Read moreIn the interview, we learn that Morphey was diagnosed with bi-polar several years ago, and that he suffered from abuse and addiction issues. Furthermore, we find out that Morphey was drinking the night he talks about meeting up with Drew Peterson, but according to Cuomo, he still remembers that night. And we all know that Morphey ended up trying to commit suicide after he helped Peterson move a blue barrel.
With that, it is not surprising that Cuomo talks about how Morphey has not been called to testify in front of a grand jury. There is no doubt that Morphey has credibility issues which Morphey, himself admits to. However, when I watch Morphey speak, I believe he is being honest with us about what transpired between himself and Peterson.
Morphey says a few odd things, but they don't alert me that he is lying. He says that when Peterson asked him how much he (Morphey) loved Peterson, Morphy didn't say how much, he just said "I do." He doesn't answer the question. That could be because he doesn't want to admit exactly what he said on TV for fear he'll be ridiculed, or maybe it was just a slip of the tongue, since he is on camera. Either way, while it is odd, it doesn't mean terribly much to me.
Cuomo also tells us that Morphey said he was afraid of Peterson, yet in another sentence, Morphey said that he trusted Peterson. We typically don't trust people we are afraid of, yet when I look closely at the second statement Morphy said about trusting Peterson, he says it off the top of his tongue, without giving it much thought. Often times when we are put on the spot, like Morphey was here, we say things, that if we had given it thought, we wouldn't have said, so I don't put too much into this, either.
What would be Morphey's motivation to lie at this point? I think that is key.
Morphey doesn't hit me as a vengeful person, first and foremost, so I feel confident discounting that. Second, I don't think it would gain Morphey anything to come out publicly, and accuse Peterson, when at the same time, he is admitting to all of his own issues. Going public with all of Morphey's issues won't help him any, that's for sure.
Morphey, in my opinion, is actually being quite brave to go on television, to admit to all of his credibility issues and furthermore to admit that he thinks he helped Peterson move a dead body. You have to admire the guy at this point for being so frank. Just sadly, I don't think Morphey will be called as witness in Peterson's trial, should it ever make it that far.
NOTE: Regarding the other story suggestions, the video link that was supplied for the Crystal Sheffield request is not the right video. Also the other link is unavailable now for days. For me to do that story, I need updated video links. Just post them in the comment section. Thanks!
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 is a video of Misty, taken shortly after Haleigh disappeared, that has continually played in my head since I saw it over a week ago. I noticed what I suspect is a microexpression of disgust when Misty says, "I seen the kitchen light on."
Misty is truly distraught, but I can't figure out why she has feelings of disgust when she talks about the kitchen light being on. This emotion flashes for a fraction of a second. If Misty found the front door open, and the kitchen light on, as she tells us, I would expect to see fear or concern on her face, but instead, I see disgust.
Read moreDid Misty at some point walk in on something horrible that happened in the kitchen that, perhaps, involved Haleigh? She seems to be feeling an emotion, that upon first glance, is inconsistent with the story she is telling us. It makes me wonder what we don't know. Is Misty leaving out some details? Are the events she is describing from another night, and not the night Haleigh went missing?
I don't know the answers. I just know I have more questions. I want to know what disgusted Misty. It's perplexing.
Many of you have questioned if Misty is truly crying here. I believe the answer is yes. Her tears and emotions of sadness are genuine.
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
MyFoxTampaBay.com has the police report narrative on their website for the Cummings case. If this is the actual police narrative, it shows there are many inconsistencies in the story being told by both Misty Croslin and Ronald Cummings.
Read moreIn the report, once the officers arrived, the cop said Cummings repeatedly said, "Someone took my child".
Ronald repeadtedly [sic] said that someone had taken his child and also said, "when I find him, I'll kill him." Ronald was referring to a 9mm Beretta hand gun [sic] which heowed [sic] inside of his residence and that if law enforcement found whoever had this child, he would shoot them through the back window of the patrol car. I attempted to get information from Ronald regarding HAleigh [sic], however, due to his emotional state he was unable to provide any useful information.
I am in awe at how quickly Cummings ruled out every other potential outcome for his daughter's absence within minutes of arriving home and finding Haleigh missing. How come he doesn't have the normal thoughts of parents, and attempt to investigate, or consider other potential outcomes before jumping to one conclusion? Why did he not even once consider she may have wandered off, that the doors or windows could not have been unlocked by other people when he was away? It's very notable. He clearly didn't have 30 minutes to do any type of investigation, but he knows the outcome: someone took Haleigh.
I also find it interesting that Cummings was not able to calm himself down for his child's sake, and help police get the information they needed. I suspect this was a facade, because he didn't know what to say, personally.
The report continues:
I then made contact with Misty Croslin, Ronalds girlfriend. Misty told me that she had put the children to bed at approximately 8pm. MIsty [sic] said that they were sleeping in HER BED, and when she laid down at around 10:30pm both children were still in bed. I asked MIsty [sic] who the other child was and she advised the other child was Haleighs [sic] brother. Misty old me that she woke up just before 3am to get a drink and she noticed that Haleigh was missing, however the OTHER child was still in bed. MIsty [sic] ran around the residence franticallly [sic] looking for haleigh [sic] and that she noticed the back door was stanfing [sic] open. MIsty [sic] said that she was sure the back door had been locked prior to her going to bed.
There are multiple inconsistencies when reading this segment of the report above, if we compare it to what Misty has said in video interviews. Here Misty tells the police that she was in the SAME bed with Haleigh. Yet we've seen Misty say on video that Haleigh was in another bed. Clearly, Misty isn't able to keep her facts straight.
Notice the time Misty says she went to bed as well? Misty has been saying in news reports that she went to bed at 10:00 p.m. Yet, early on, to the police (here), she is saying she went to bed at 10:30 p.m. Again, Misty is unable to stick to any facts.
Moreover, Misty doesn't say she got up to go to the bathroom, which she has said all over the news. She says here that she got up to get a drink. She also doesn't talk about finding the kitchen light on (or at least the police don't report that here).
By the way this report is written, you get the distinct feeling that Misty told the police that she instantly noticed Haleigh was gone when she got up to get a drink, and then searched for her, whereas in videos, Misty has said she went to the bathroom, noticed the light on in the kitchen and saw the door open, and then realized Haleigh was missing. These are two very different stories.
The report continues:
Mist [sic] said that at approximately 5 minutes after she noticed Haleigh missing, Ronal [sic] arrived home.
In news reports, Misty has told us that she awoke at 3:00 a.m., and that Ronald Cummings came home around 3:30. This is another inconsistency.
Fox's On the Record with Greta van Susteren, on February 12, even discusses this with Cummings, and notes there is a 27-minute time lapse from when Misty wakes up to when Cummings arrived home.
From "On the Record":
VAN SUSTEREN: So let me -- let's -- let me try to ask you some questions about it. What time did you arrive home, Ronald, on Tuesday morning?
RONALD CUMMINGS, FATHER: Approximately 3:30.
Clearly, the stories of Ronald Cummings and Misty Croslin are not adding up. Nothing in this report supports their latest version of events. What the truth is, of course, I can't say, because I don't know. But I know I don't trust either one of these people. They are not telling us what I suspect they know to be true.
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
Many, many, many of you have asked me to review the case of missing Haleigh Cummings. She went missing last Monday night from her home, and hasn't been seen or found since. Haleigh's father, Ronald Cummings, and his girlfriend, Misty Croslin, tell us that Croslin put Haleigh to sleep, later went to sleep herself, and when she woke up to use the bathroom in the middle of the night, she found the kitchen light on, Haleigh was gone, and the back door was wide open, propped by a brick.
Read moreWhen I watch Cummings and Croslin speak, many things jump out at me. They are so numerous, I don't have the space here to write them all out, but I will identify a few things I've noted:
When I first saw Ronald Cummings crying in his first plea for his daughter, several things jumped out at me. His crying episode was eerily reminiscent of a child's cry. Most adults don't cry like children. He whined, and acted out of breath, yet he wasn't. It was notable and perplexing.
Yet he did sound truly congested; however, no tears fell from his face. Later on, however, he did cry very genuine and sincere tears, and the pouting cry notably changes into a regular cry. I find his behavior inconsistent here, and I can't explain it. Is he under the influence of something? He seems really glassy-eyed.
I am also immediately struck by how he portrays no composure of hope in this interview. He seems to have zero hope that his daughter could still be alive. Why isn't he hanging onto the fact that if he and others get out there, they can potentially find her? This disturbs me.
Why isn't he talking to his daughter on camera? "Haleigh, I'm here for you, if you are watching this. I'm going to find you." Does he even think about her being out there, and watching the news? Why isn't he thinking about being strong for her?
When I see this interview, it seems to be more about Cummings being devastated than finding Haleigh. It's like he is feeling sorry for himself. Why? This is odd. Haleigh's mom, ironically, does talk to her daughter on camera, as I would expect any parent would, if they feared their daughter was kidnapped. She says, "Everybody's here for you. If you're watching these, your momma misses you, daddy misses you ... your whole family misses you and we will bring you home" (source).
At time marker 1:15, Cummings drops down to the ground crying. This is so unusual for an adult to do. Children do this, but how many adults have you seen do this? Especially when the news is not conclusively devastating yet? How come everyone else who loved Haleigh is so composed and acting "normally", but Cummings is not? Here his cry is very shallow. It's not believable for me. If I re-look at this with the angle that Cummings could befeeling sorry for himself, it makes more sense.
He says, "I know somebody took my little girl...some sorry piece of trash that will be wasted when it's all over." This is baffling to me. Haleigh was once found floating in a nearby waterway and nearly drowned, so how could he so conclusively rule this out? How can he so confidently rule out that Haleigh didn't wander away, that he didn't lock the door as he thought he did, that when Croslin's relatives came to visit earlier that night, that they didn't unlock another door or open a window when he was away?
Would you as a parent be so certain about this, especially since you know your daughter wandered away before? This bothers me.
At one point, Cummings says, "All I want is my children…All I want is my child back.” I thought this was very unusual. Another day, he talks about how others are making this situation all about a custody issue. That was really strange, but if we pair that, with this statement above, you have to wonder, is he afraid he won't have either of his children, perhaps, due to something he has done here? Then this strange slip might actually make sense, wouldn't it?
Then he says something that unnerved me in a huge way. Cummings says, "I’d give my life for my child’s life back.”
What? Why is he saying this? It makes no sense. Is that why his cry is so confusing? Does he fake concern and worry, and then really cry over what he may know already happened to his daughter? You would think he would have said instead, "I'd give my life for my child back", but that is NOT what he says. Does this indicate that he believes his daughter is not alive? Is that why he thought earlier, "All I want is my children..." because he fears if the truth comes out, he will lose them, or at least his remaining son?
It's troubling, to say the least.
Notice how Cummings reiterates that he is trying to do the best he can, that someone stole his child while he was at work? Is he building an alibi?Setting a timeline? Why isn't he focusing his energy on getting Haleigh back instead of feeling sorry for himself? Most parents of missing children are focused on getting their children, and don't care at all about themselves, but Cummings is notably different. Most parents know they have to be strong for their children, and work to bring them home. Why not Cummings?
The reporter then asks, "Can I ask when you noticed the back door was open, and if that was what kind of alerted you to something?" Just before the reporter asks Cummings this, he is crying, sobbing and somber. Then listen to Cummings' response to the question. His demeanor and voice change dramatically. It's very notable and very alarming for me. You don't stop crying and change your entire demeanor when you are deeply sobbing and in pain like Cummings wants us to believe he is. You just don't do it, yet oddly Cummings does. Cummings says in an angry, deep and controlled tone, "No. My girlfriend was awake at 3 o'clock in the morning when I got off of work." When he says this, there is a deep anger in Cummings' voice that appears out of nowhere. It's chilling. Clearly, this question got Cummings angry. Why would that be?
Later in the interview, Cummings says very strangely and out of nowhere, when he deeply sobs, "I do plan to take the trash out when it is time." This blindsides you. It's not related to anything being said at the time. It's like Cummings is in his own world. I am sure like most people, at first you think, what is he talking about?? It's absolutely perplexing.
But when I watch him say it and watch his emotions, he shows pure destitution in his face. Like someone sold his soul. It's absolutely haunting. I can't help but wonder, is this some type of warning he is contemplating suicide "when it is time"? Perhaps, if he were to get caught?
What else could this statement mean? Is he warning us? Is he under the influence of drugs here and extra emotional? Also, just after he says it, and thinks about it, he also shows true distress and sadness on his face. It's alarming and notable. But when the reporter asks the next question, all of these genuine emotions fade away again.
The reporter asks, what would you say to people who may have information out there? Notice Cummings doesn't even think to talk to his daughter again. Why?
Both Cummings and Croslin's body language in all the videos I see displays a sense of defeat. They are hunched over. Their shoulders come forward. They physically look down, and act subdued. It appears they have no hope whatsoever, again and again, that Cummings' daughter will be returned to them. This strikes me as very odd. Why aren't they tense, nervous and anxious to find her? That would be normal. They should be on edge that things might not happen fast enough, yet there is no urgency with these two. Anyone can spot that? Why aren't these two on a mission to find Haleigh? Compare their behavior to that of George and Cindy Anthony. It's notably different.
News reports say that on the 911 call, Cummings was in a rage, and really worried about his daughter. I don't hear that in the call at all. I don't hear any indication of fear, stress or true and genuine alarm. I hear feigned anger, by his threats and choice of words.
Why did Croslin wait 30 minutes from waking up and finding Haleigh missing to alert someone of the possible abduction? Why didn't she summon for help earlier? Especially since she knows Haleigh once wandered off and nearly drowned before?
What predator is going to go into a house late at night, and risk taking one child out of a room full of people? Let's say Haleigh wandered outside; there should have been some proof of a door unlocked or something, but Cummings and Croslin deny that. They, instead, tell us that the door where the predator went out, had to be forced closed, that Haleigh couldn't open it, and couldn't reach the deadbolt. This tells us that the door likely stuck when you opened or closed it. That would likely mean the door made a fair amount of noise to open and close it, and it took some effort to open it, right? What predator would use that door?
What predator would turn on a light in the kitchen, risk announcing himself and make it possible to be clearly identified by someone in the house or outside? What predator would take the time to bring or find a cinder block, and take the time to prop the door open? How come there are no signs of forced entry into the home? To me, these are highly unlikely or implausible circumstances.
I also haven't seen Cummings or Croslin participate in any searches reported by any news agencies. Have I missed this? I have looked for it several times. Has anyone seen them help in the search? Post fliers, or go look for her themselves? If they haven't, why aren't they?
Cummings and Croslin have told two different stories of where Haleigh slept that night. This is interesting. You would think their stories would be the same. Cummings told Nancy Grace that Croslin slept in the same bed as the children on February 11. Then on February 12, Croslin says that Haleigh was in a different bed in the same room. Why aren't they getting their facts right?
Worse, when they are both on Greta van Susteren's show, Greta asks, "How far was Haleigh physically from you, Misty?" Croslin says, "Probably, like, not three or four inches away." Look at Cummings' eyes when Croslin talks. They are plastered towards Croslin though he doesn't turn his head. It's very controlling behavior. He is fascinating to watch.
Greta then asks Croslin how far they were apart a second time, and at that time, Cummings shakes his head in a side-to-side motion, indicating he is thinking "no". With that, Croslin backtracks and says, "No, um, I'm not sure. It wasn't that far away." Next, as Greta is talking again getting ready to ask another question, Cummings is trying to coach Croslin, and tell her what to say! I can't hear what he is saying, but why does he feel the need to do this? Cummings then says, "No, I know where the beds were at. They were about four feet apart from the edge of the bed she was in to the edge of the bed Haleigh was in."
These two can't even agree where the beds were placed in this room! Forget about who slept in what bed. This is a huge inconsistency. Clearly, both are capable of describing how far two beds are apart, but if the facts aren't true, we wouldn't be surprised to see such a discrepancy, would we?
Earlier on the Greta show, Greta asks Croslin who was closest to the back door: Haleigh or Croslin? Look how long it takes Croslin to answer that. She makes an "Hmmm...I don't know" expression. Why doesn't she know? She should spout the answer off without thought, but she doesn't. She finally answers and when she does, under his breath, Cummings says, "I'd like to comment." He doesn't say what is on his mind because Greta didn't hear him, but it shows he is controlling nonetheless, over and over.
Also in the Greta interview, Cummings says to Croslin, "Look at the camera" at one point. He gives us every indication he has a temper, and is very controlling and manipulative. Cummings also nods his head when hears what Croslin says at points in the interview, as if he approves. He is scrutinizing her every word, and Croslin knows it.
Croslin also keeps saying the same story over and over again. She says something to the effect that she got up, went to the bathroom, found the kitchen light on, and then she went back and found Haleigh was gone. She always finishes it with "That's all I know." I find her memory of that event is quite sparse and lacking. You would think she would remember more detail. When we recollect a story, oftentimes, we remember different details, or thoughts--things we were thinking at the time. Yet Croslin seems to have no "thinking memories" of her experience. It is more like she is talking from rote memory. She only repeats the same thing over and over again.
The same is true for her 911 call. The details are sketchy at best. Her memories don't flow logically. It doesn't make sense.
911: "911, what's your emergency"
Misty Croslin: "Hi...umm...we just woke up...and our back door was wide open, and we can't find our daughter."
We just woke up?
911: "OK, when did you last see her?"
Misty Croslin: "Um, we like just...you know...it was about 10 o'clock... we were...she was sleeping- I ...she?...cleaning...
Why doesn't she have normal recollections here?
I so hope I am wrong for Haleigh's sake. It doesn't look good from where I am sitting now.
* * * To read all of my thoughts on this case, click on the labels below.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Back in September of 2007, I wrote about the death of two sisters, Erin and Kelly Stanley, both in their late teens, who died mysteriously, just days apart.
My original post was on Steve Huff's True Crime Weblog. I also wrote another update about the story here on my blog. Clearly, for me, Lonny Stanley, the mother of the two deceased girls, raised my eyebrows, and in a big way, several times over.
Read moreYou see, Erin died on September 1, 2007, after just moving back home to her parents' house with her boyfriend, and new baby, Alexis. Six days later, after Erin's death, her sister, Kelly, who still lived at home, was also found supposedly "dying" by her mother, and by the time the EMT arrived, she was deceased.
The person who was arrested and charged with Erin's murder, however, was a big surprise. It was her boyfriend, James McFarland, who was asleep with her on the night she died, and who subsequently moved out just after her death, and was not in the house when Kelly died. McFarland has been in jail ever since, awaiting trial, until this past week.
Shortly McFarland's arrest, the death of the second daughter, Kelly, was ruled a death by natural causes (a seizure).
As you can see, the story has taken incredible twists and turns that no one could expect. I was really baffled by it. The arrest of McFarland, the boyfriend of Erin, made little sense to me when I considered the untimely and strange death of her sister, Kelly. Worse, the actions of the girl's mother made my hair stand up on end. Repeatedly.
For the past year, I have looked for news on this case, concerned about McFarland. I was hoping for video of him so I could feel at ease that they did get the right guy, but nothing ever surfaced. Nothing happened on this case until this week, when jury selection began, and then the most surprising news came out.
The murder charges against McFarland have been dropped.
You read that right. They have been dropped.
[Pal-item.com]"...forensic pathologist Dr. Joseph Czaja reversed his original finding that Erin Stanley had been strangled. On Monday, Czaja testified that he couldn't be medically certain of the cause of death because Stanley's body had been washed and sterilized and tissues had been removed prior to the autopsy."
Defense attorneys Terry O’Maley and Adam Forrest contend in their motion Shipman knew there were problems with the case after a discussion with Czaja in November 2007. That was more than a year before O’Maley and Forrest learned of the pathologist’s doubts, they contend.
It looks like this mystery has yet to be resolved. I only hope there is enough evidence for police to find the real killers of these two innocent young women. If only the parents would speak out. Lonny Stanley makes me very uncomfortable, to say the least. Has she ever been investigated?
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
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
Last week, Primetime Crime detailed the story of Justine and Eric Abshire. Married just five months, Eric says that he and Justine had an argument early on November 3, 2006, about his mother's ailing health at which time Justine took off in her car. It was the middle of th night. Next, according to Eric, Justine calls him to tell him that her car broke down approximately 5 miles from the house, and so Eric says he got on his motorcycle to go get her.
Eric says he drove up on what looked like an animal in the road, but then realized as he got closer, it was a person, and that person was Justine. I find this statement interesting, and unusual.
"I turn onto Taylorsville Road. I saw something in the road, which I assumed was an animal, and as I got closer, I realized it was Justine in the road."
First, I find it odd how Eric's tense changes from "turn" to "saw". We usually recollecting things in past tense.
Also, what human body in the road would like look a dead animal? I'd be especially curious to know what Justine was wearing that night. Regardless, this statement is a red flag for me.
Read morePolice who have investigated this crime say that Justine had defensive wounds with her body, and if this is true, it is flat out inconsistent with what Eric wants us believe. Furthermore, and on top of that, Justine's injuries were just not consistent with colliding with a car say investigators.
The scene of the crime also did not support a hit-and-run scenario either. There was no broken glass, no skid marks--nothing. And there was no grease, oil or other elements from a car found on Justine's body or in the vicinity of where Justine laid.
In the interview on Primetime, Jay Schadler asks Eric if he thinks someone could have beaten up Justine, and Eric's response to Jay also raises a red flag for me. Instead of giving the idea consideration, Eric immediately discards it. This is unusual behavior for an uninvolved person to do.
When we truly don't know what happened to our loved one, we typically don't rule anything out. We consider all options and all investigations because we want to get to the truth. We want to know what happened to our loved one because we want to hold the person who did this to them accountable.
Eric never seems to talk about any of this. He doesn't seem to feel violated in anyway that someone, in one form or another, robbed him of his beloved wife. I find this a red flag as well.
Eric, instead, gives us a lousy explanation as to why he wants to believe she was hit by a car instead of having been beaten up. He says he didn't want to believe she exited the world that way (being beaten up), or something to that effect (forgive me, but I don't have the transcript).
This explanation as to why Eric doesn't want to consider another theory really bothers me. Would it be any easier for you to believe your spouse was hit by a car than beaten up by a stranger? Would either one of these scenarios give you more comfort than the other? Would you not want to find the correct individual who did this, and hold them accountable? Wouldn't finding the truth be important to you?
Why isn't it important to Eric?
Also, when Jay Schadler tells Eric that the police drove Justine's car away from the scene without any mechanical problems (and the car was also looked at by a certified mechanic and found to be fine), Eric's response bothers me again. He says something to the effect that that's what the police are saying. His response indicates that he isn't willing to accept that.
Tell me, if your wife called you with a broken down car, and you come up to her body on the road and find her dead, and then the police tell you the car is running fine, wouldn't you want to know that? Wouldn't you want to find out what the heck went on? Wouldn't you be curious about that fact? Why isn't Eric? Does he know what went on? This troubles me, too.
Also, Justine's family says that Eric had insurance policies on Justine that he could cash in the event this accident is truly ruled a hit-and-run worth over a million dollars. Eric says it is only a fraction of that in reality, but regardless, he is not going to cash it in. He is adamant about it.
This is perplexing to me, and again, this makes no sense. If your wife was truly a victim of what you believe is a hit-and-run, and you had a policy on her for that, and you are 100% innocent, why wouldn't you cash it in? Isn't that why you got the policy in the first place? Or is he not able to cash in it at this time because of legal issues? I'm curious.
Let's hypothesis further for a minute. What if, in a fit of anger, you lost it on your wife and you accidentally killed her, would you ever want to cash in that policy? Just food for thought.
Also, according to phone records, a call came in from Justine's cell phone at 1:19 a.m., but it wasn't until 1:57 that a neighbor near Justine's body was alerted by Eric to the situation and called 911.
What took Eric so long to get help? Worse case scenario is that it took Eric 15 minutes to get to Justine after the phone call, and that would put him on the scene at 1:35. Eric says he ran to several houses before he got help -- all the while leaving Justine lying in the road.
How many houses did he attempt to get help at? How far apart are the houses? Were the people not home in those houses? Has that been checked? Does his time frame add up?
Also, he had a cell phone on him, but he didn't use it. I find this perplexing. He says he forgot about it until an hour later. Did he remember it when it was convenient?
Eric also tells us that he placed his jacket over Justine, but that he didn't move her off the road. Did Eric believe Justine was dead and could not be revived? I am curious if it was outwardly apparent that she was deceased. Police are not discussing the details of Justine's injuries.
Also, was there an indication she couldn't be revived? Usually loved ones hold on to ALL hope until the very end that their loved one is alive, or could be revived. They summons help immediately, and cling to the hope they will make it. But it appears Eric didn't do this. I wonder why. Was she that visibly deceased?
"There are no words to describe it," [Eric] said. "That's a situation nobody, unless they've ever lived through it, could describe …I just held her and talked to her."
Abshire says he was overcome with emotion.
"I [sat] there with her. I covered her up with my jacket, and when I finally came to my senses enough I went and called for help."
All the while Eric talks, he doesn't show a lot of emotions. I can also be pretty confident that not many people would leave their loved one lying dead in the road in the middle of the night when they went to get someone to call for help. Would you?
The idea of it is mortifying. It goes against every grain of common sense. We all know roads are dangerous places -- especially at night. What if another car came barreling into his motorcycle and hit her again? Most people would instinctively move their loved one without thought to a safe place when they summoned for help. It would be a reflex response, whether that person is dead or alive, but again, this wasn't the case for Eric.
Add to all of this that Eric has a history of physical violence against women, was seen being physical with Justine in their relationship, that Eric didn't want to be married, that Justine was known to not go out at night alone, or have a temper (which would cause her to go out at night), and frankly, you get a picture of what likely happened here, and it isn't pretty.
I think Eric is an intelligent man, but I am not buying his story. At a minimum, discarding all the red flags that I see, the facts just don't add up no matter how you look at it.
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.
