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.
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
The McCanns, ever hopeful for their daughter's return, released new video of Madeleine, appealing to people around the globe to continue the search for her.
This will be the McCanns second Christmas without her, and they say they don't want to experience a third. They are still clinging to the believe that their sweet little Maddie is still alive.
Link expired
I do not believe the McCanns killed, hid or disposed of little Maddie's body. I do believe she was abducted, and the person who most raises my eyebrows is Robert Murat.
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
CBS 48 Hours profiled the case of Gary and Bernadette Ohlemacher this past Saturday. Renee Ohlemacher's parents, Gary and Bernadette, were murdered in August of 2005. Police initially focused on Renee, but she was eventually cleared, and now the police are eyeballing the Ohlemacher's mortgage broker, Ron Santiago. You can watch the full show online:
Read moreWhen I watch Renee speak, I am immediately struck by a variety of oddities in a very short period of time. It does not bode well for Renee.
The first thing I notice right off the bat is that Renee is nervous, but that could be because it is the beginning of the interview, so I don't put too much weight on that. Right after that, however, I find it odd how she refers to her mother as "...such a cool lady". Her choice of words are distant and removed. If she said these words with other warm comments, I would discard the comment, but she doesn't. This is the extent of her warm feelings. It makes a strong statement.
Renee also said about her mom"She loved my dad." Notice how she is removed from this equation? She doesn't say anything personal or affectionate toward her mom, or how her mom was affectionate towards her. This is a glimpse how Renee really feels about her parents.
Renee then says "My parents were probably the greatest parents ever."
This struck me immediately. An alarm bell blared in my head. The word "probably" here is what I coined a "hedge word". When people say things that they don't mean, yet try to sound convincing, it is not uncommon for them to slip up -- perhaps even subconsciously--and add a hedge word.
Are Renee's parents kind of, sort of the best parents ever? She either believes it, or she doesn't. It's a half-baked statement, if you want my opinion.
"So many things stay in my mind from that morning," says Renee.
Watch when she says this--watch her expression. She doesn't shed a tear, or look sad as she supposedly thinks back to that horrible day. What does she do? She does what I would call a snicker. She starts to laugh, but then suppresses it. It's not a microexpression or anything fleeting--it's very obvious, and flat out haunting.
Think about a horrible time in your life. Now tell the story and snicker, geuninely. Can you do it? If you really felt horrible, scared, violated, or a victim in a vulnerable situation, I can be confident the one thing you would not do is snicker or laugh. When we remember painful memories, we remember the painful emotions, too. Emotions actually drive many of our memories.
Renee says "My mom was getting ready for work. I heard my mom scream. Dad yelled 'What are you doing?'"
Several things are interesting about this. First, it suggest that Renee was actually awake before the gunshots went off, and she was awake enough to be listening to her parents -- to know her mom was getting ready for work.
Isn't that in contradiction to her saying that she woke-up to her mom's screams? 48 Hours reports "Renee, 20 years old back in 2005, says she was sleeping when she was awakened by her mother's screams."
If you get startled in your sleep from a scream, are you going realize miraculously that your mom was already up and getting ready for work? Why doesn't she talk about being disoriented and frightened after waking up to haunting screams?
Second, I find Greg Ohlemacher's question "What are you doing?" odd. If the Ohlemacher's were murdered by a stranger, would they respond like this? What if they knew the person but the person entered the house uninvited, do you think Greg Ohlemacher would respond with a simple "What are you doing?" If that person shot his wife, do you think he would say "What are you doing?"? What Renee is saying here doesn't make sense to me.
Also notice how Renee doesn't recollect her dad saying "What are you doing?" in a panicked tone? You would think she would have felt his dire state in his voice and reflected those emotions in her recollection. It's strangely missing.
"Gunshots just went off," says Renee. Notice the words "just"? Watch her expression again. When she says "gunshots", there is a brief smile, or happy emotion that fleets across her face.
How come she is getting these emotions? It appears like classic duper's delight to me. It makes absolutely no sense no matter how you slice it unless you plug this into the equation. Renee's emotions are very inconsistent with the message she is trying to give us. Her words are not matching her emotions at all. There are gaping contradictions.
Renee says "It was just one thing after another happened and then, before you know it, there's silence. My dog went silent. Everything went silent."
Just one thing after another? Is there more than Renee is sharing with us? What else did she hear? What were these "things"?
I am also perplexed by the words 'before you know it." Usually people bearing witness to a horrific nightmare don't say 'before you know it'. Time usually stands still or moves painfully slow. Is Renee telling us time went really quickly for her during this nightmare? What does that tell us?
Renee talks about what she was going to do now that she heard the gun shots. She says "Grab my cell phone, went to my closest." She also doesn't use pronouns which can be a hot spot to deception. Also notice how she says "grab" instead of "grabbed"? People usually remember things in past tense. They don't talk in present tense (grab) and past tense (went) when recollecting a memory. They stay in past tense consistently.
People who are deceptive, however, who didn't actually do what they say often confuse the two. This is notable and unusual.
This is 8notable points in 1:34 seconds into the show
I find Renee's word choices on the 911 call interesting too. First she says totally emotionless, "I just dialed 911." "Please God...cannot be happening."
She 'just" called 911? Notice, too, the lack of pronoun usage again? It's another red flag to add to the pile.
The fact that Renee did not call 911 immediately is also a red flag for me. If you think there is an intruder, a robber, a burglar, or a stranger in your house killing your parents, wouldn't you fear for your own life? How come Renee did not have fear the killer or killers might come get her?
If you thought someone was in the house to kill your family, would you really risk pushing seven digits instead of three digits to get help -- if you feared for your safety? Dialing any phone in a silent house can be loud and noticable. It could easily lure a killer or killers into your room or a closet--especially if they are looking for you. How come Renee was so sure the killer or killers were gone and not looking for her or downstairs robbing the house?
Notice she didn't whisper on the 911 call, or keep her voice super low out of fear? Why not? Renee appears to have felt totally secure to sit in her closet and dial other people and talk without a whisper -- even when she did finally call 911. It speaks volumes.
Why did Renee call her mom's co-worker before she called 911? Were they in cohoots or something? It definitely raises my eyebrows. Renee's mom had talked to Mike Allen 23 times in the month leading up to her death, as well as the night before. Why was Renee calling him? Mike Allen according to 48 Hours also showed up at the crime scene "very quickly". It's interesting to say the least.
Renee continues "My dad was just lying on the floor. My mom was in her bath towel."
Is Renee recollecting this as a memory? Her behavior seems to support this. It's part of her story of that morning yet a few minutes later she tells us the police escorted her out of the house, she asked if her parents were okay, and then she found out about her parents being deceased. See #18. Does that make any sense? Did Renee see them dead before she was told they were dead? Has she admitted to this?
Notice here that she acts like she is crying, but there are no tears?
"I felt like that morning was the end of my life." Notice the smirk again?
That's all in the first 1:58 seconds into 48 Hours.
The fact that Renee's entire family stands as one in suspicion of Renee I think also speaks volumes. Their recollection her behavior is indeed perplexing. For Renee to be waving hi to friends and to be texting during the service clearly shows a woman without boundaries. And for her to be out BMW shopping shows she wasn't too upset about her mother's death, or worried about coping without them.
Erin Moriarty asks, "Why not 911?" and Renee says, "Yeah...ah...because I thought that you could get through faster or something, for some reason. I didn't know what to do. I was in a world of shock."
Does this make any sense? It's total nonsense.
Clearly, by Renee's behavior here, we can see this question took her by surprise. She didn't seem prepared to answer Moriarty's question which is a red flag. She seems to be thinking as she speaks. When people are honest, they don't have to be prepared. They don't have to think. They just speak from the heart.
Erin Moriarty asks "When did you realize your parents were dead?" Renee says "Well they escorted me out of the house and they went upstairs. I asked one of the cops, are they okay? Are they fine?"
Did they escort her out of the closet? If so, this brings up two points. Why does Renee have this memory of her parents gunned down in number 14 above if she was escorted out of the closet by the cops? If she saw a picture later or went into the house later, why isn't that part of her memory and story she is telling us? Why isn't it in chronological order? People when they recollect things usually tell them in logical order.
Second, this is proof that Renee had total disregard for her parents life. If she didn't know they were dead or injured at this point, how could she not summons help on the spot and express urgency on the 911 call? Hearing gunshots doesn't mean her parents had died yet - even if they were hit with bullets. It's like she gave up--which normal people don't do. Normal people hang on to every shred of hope -- even against all odds that maybe, if they get help, the people will survive--regardless of what happened. But Renee seems to have held no hope.
Had Renee told us she found her parents dead bodies, and needed time to cope, perhaps it would make more sense, but I don't believe this is the story. Correct me if I am wrong.
I also find it inconsistent how Renee says that she was shocked about Ron Santiago being named a suspect. 48 Hours writes "It does sound a little far fetched, even to Renee. " She made some comments supporting disbelief as well.
Yet at the end of the show she changes her tune and says ""What bugs me is that he's still living a normal life. He's got a family. I don't get to have laughs with my mom, I don't have a home. I don't have somebody to go back to." Why does Renee now believe he is guilty? What suddenly changed her mind? It's rather inconsistent and perplexing.
Also notice when she says the last sentence she acts like she is crying again, but there are no tears.
I'm going to stop here. Do I think Renee killed her parents? I cannot say. Could she have let someone else in the house that morning, perhaps telling her parents that she was going to do something with someone else, and that person pulled the trigger? It's entirely plausible, but if you want my opinion, Renee knows a lot more than she is telling us. I don't trust a word out her mouth.
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
A reader asked me my opinion on Robert Murat last week, and kindly provided me with some very good video links.
I was always curious about Robert Murat because I never saw him speak, but he spoke publicly in late July. Here is his interview. You can watch him on video, or read the transcript which I also provide (below).
Did you know that Murat has been cleared of his suspect "arguido" status like the Kate and Gerry McCann?
Murat: I would like to know ... ah... why... um... uh... I was made an arguido...ah..because ah, sincerely, I don't understand I... why I was made an arguido. Um...yeah, I would like to find out. I would like to find out.
Reporter: Would there be satisfaction or anger... (inaudible...if you understand this please send me the text).
Murat: Well, I can't really answer that because, ah, they may have, ...they may have had, um............they may have felt, should I say, that...that there was a reason to do it, and if there's a justifiable reason to make me an arguido, um, then... I have to look at it and be sensible about it. Um, it doesn't help in anyway shape or form, me, um, here, 14 months down the line, ah, still an arguido, but that is the law of Portugal. Now this happened in Portugal and as much as we do not like how the legal system works in Portugal, this is their legal system and they are doing their job.
Read moreThis interview is a real hair-raiser for me. The day I saw it, I had to get up and walk away. It really bothered me.
This makes absolute sense if Murat is a victim here, and was unjustly looked at for a crime he didn't commit.
Fast forward five days (in this video), Murat confirms he is still being looked at as an "arguido" though news was already circulating that he would likely be cleared in the near future. With that, Murat tells us he wants to know why he was made an arguido.
Naturally, we should expect the same response in this video as when Murat talked about the libel suit. After all, if the police inaccurately labeled him an arguido, this is what caused the media frenzy, and ultimately what would have caused the destruction of Murat's life, and where his deepest wounds and anger would reside.
With that, we should see a man who is feeling violated, misunderstood and unjustly treated. Is this what we see when we watch Murat speak here?
Absolutely not.
What we see, instead, is a man who is enjoying the spotlight. You'd think in this interview that Murat was sitting down for an afternoon tea, and not a serious conversation about how his life was ruined. He is enjoying speculating and bantering about this whole scenario as if it had no implications for him, yet he readily acknowledges he is still a suspect. Look at how he smirks and grins.
More importantly, we don't see any distress, or feelings of violation. We don't see anger for all the pain he has supposedly had to endure. We don't see a hint that this is a man who was wrongly looked at, put under the microscope, called a suspect and had his life destroyedas he says himself.
I am flabbergasted to say the least. His behavior is a complete contradiction to the circumstances that he wants us to believe here. It is totally different than the script he read out to the media after he won his libel suit, but it shouldn't be.
It's one thing not to be bothered by the entire frenzy and to ignore it because he knows he is innocent, and that the police couldn't possibly have anything on him. It's quite another to tell us it devastated his life and to go after the press, but to then turn around and act like it was no big deal, and entertain that if the Portuguese police had reason to call him a suspect that they are just "doing their job" and that he should be "sensible" about it, is absurd.
It's flat out pompous.
If the police inaccurately labeled you a suspect, would you ever entertain such nonsense?
I can't believe I am even seeing this arrogance. Is that how you would feel if you have been wrongly looked at as a suspect for an entire year? After the police searched your house multiple times? After your life was supposedly ruined, and the media trashed your name around the world?
If shoddy detective work destroyed your life, was inaccurate or faulty, I can be 100% confident in saying that you'd never go there. It defies logic. It's like asking the devil to take a closer look at you and beat you, unjustifiably, just one more time.
What injured man does this? Is Murat really a victim here?
Look at this sentence:
I can't really answer that because, ah, they may have, ...they may have had, um............they may have felt, should I say, that...that there was a reason to do it...
When you watch Murat speak here, he is talking naturally up until he says the words "they may have..." At that point, something stops him. You can clearly see his thought process stop and hesitate, and then he switch gears.
Was Murat actually thinking the police may have had reason or evidence to call him a suspect? Is he curious because he wants to know what they have, knowing they haven't had enough to charge him in 14 months?
If there is one person on this earth who should never have doubts about Murat's innocence, it should be Robert Murat himself.Instead he is playing the "What if game..." with us....begging us to look at him closer.
It gives me the chills, that's for sure.
It's a cockiness at a level that I don't recall seeing before. It's downright arrogant and flippant, like someone who thinks they are smarter than everyone.
Has Murat outsmarted the system? It sure makes you wonder...
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
It's been two years on June 13, 2006 since Dave Hawk's wife, Debbie, disappeared, and has never been seen again. This past Thursday, however, Dave was arrested and charged with her murder. Dave's plea? Not guilty.
Dave was on Dateline NBC last May, and the man I saw was arrogant, manipulative and controlling yet in an odd twist he left his under age children at their mother's house when mom wasn't there after a weekend with the children.
Dave's story just doesn't add up. Read why I believe that here in my post from May 2007.
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 on February 13th, Christine Francisco waited for her husband to come home from work to make Valentine's Day cookies with their children, but Christine's husband, Nicholas, never came home.
It has now been several months since Nicholas just walked out of work never to be seen again, but there are still no leads for police to follow. While his car was found in a condo parking lot that has no previous known connection for the Franciscos, there was also no sign of foul play discovered by police.
Christine, however, has maintained from the beginning that something sinister had to have happened to Nicholas because he was not the type of guy to just walk out of their lives. She says he was not a coward.
Read moreI watched several videos of Christine talk about Nicholas' disappearance, and I find Christine's behavior peculiar.
The first video where Christine spoke to the news is dated February 16, 2008. In this video, Christine appears to be crying, yet I do not see any tears. She says:
"I am begging everybody, everybody to please, please help find my husband because I can't live my life without him."
The first notable thing I see is a lack of tears falling from Christine's eyes, yet Christine acts like she is crying, and even wipes her face as if there were tears.
The second notable point for me here is Christine's tone-of-voice. It doesn't sound distressed, upset, or concerned. Instead, it sounds whiny--like she is complaining. It also sounds notably different that in her video interviews with Nancy Grace and Greta Van Susteren. Usually when people are distraught and upset, they sound consistent.
I also found it odd how she says the following:
"If you can't find him, these kids don't have a daddy, then this unborn baby won't have a daddy."
Notice she says if you can't find him. Where is her connection to the search? I find the word you an odd word choice. Most people would say if we can't find him. "We" have to find him.
The second video I looked at was Christine talking to Greta Van Susteren.
Greta says, "Did you get the sense that anything unusual was going on in his life?" Listen to Christine's response. She holds back laughter when she replies, "Not at all." When she continues, notice how normal she acts, like she is talking about a PTA meeting or something. "He sounded so excited to come home, and he was ready to go with the cookies."
As she continues her conversation with Greta, she shows absolutely no emotion, and no concern.
Greta asks Christine if Nicholas was having any personal problems at work, and Christine holds back laughter again. She smirks, lets out a sigh and replies "Not that I'm aware of."
Why does Christine feel the need to laugh? Is it nerves, or something more sinister?
Greta then questions Christine about financial problems. Watch Christine when she says "We are not in poverty...we're just in the middle". Watch how animated she is...she teeters her head from side-to-side to gesture when she says "in the middle". This shows she is relaxed. There is no hint of sadness, or concern whatsoever. If you didn't know what Christine was talking about here, you'd think she was just having a casual conversation about gardening or something.
When people are worried or concerned, they are usually subdued in their reactions, and are less likely to gesture like this--especially about unimportant things like financial status when someone could be in danger. That's because their one and only focus is to bring back their loved one. Greta then questions Christine about when she first got suspicious something wasn't right. Christine says she was concerned when Nicholas wasn't home to make cookies--about eight o'clock which is the children's bedtime, but she figured she was just overreacting and ignored it. I thought that was a little strange.
If Nicholas was going to make cookies with the children, wouldn't she be expecting him earlier than the children's bedtime? By bedtime, wouldn't you feel justifiably alarmed?
When Christine talks about Nicholas not being home by 10 pm, she also says she was "absolutely petrified", yet when she recollects this, she strangely shows no emotion again.
When people recollect a terrifying time, they display the fear of that moment on their faces, if only for a second. Our emotions are closely tied to our memories. Yet for Christine, this doesn't seem to be true. She just chats as if nothing were wrong. It's very strange.
Christine smiles again when she says it was very peculiar for him to be at the condominium complex. Why does she smile like this over and over again? Her emotions aren't adding up with a woman who is fearful her husband is in trouble. Where is the fear??
When Greta says "What do you think happened to him? Where do you think he is?", watch Christine. First she grins. Then she looks up before speaking which is an indication that she is thinking, not talking from her heart about how she feels. Then she speaks about herself in third person which is odd.
Instead of saying "My intuition tells me..." She says "Ummm...ah...a wife's intuition, it's foul play." This is weird. It's another red flag. Why the sudden change of tense? It's as if she is repeating what she has heard someone else say before. It sure makes you wonder, doesn't it?
When most people face a crisis, normal behavior is for them to hold on to every shred of hope that the worst case scenario didn't happen. They don't want to believe that something horrible is wrong. Instead, they cling to "safe potentials" because it is comforting, but Christine does not. She doesn't plea to her husband to come home, or worry that perhaps that something else happened. She just accepts foul play without question--which is unusual.
Look at her lack of emotions as well. Here she is telling us she thinks her husband was potentially harmed, or coerced into leaving, and yet she doesn't seem to show any concern whatsoever when she first talks about it. Then in the middle of it, she expresses some emotion, but it dissipates quickly.
Greta then asks if there were any peculiar phone calls to the house to which Christine replies as calm and collected as one can be "No, not at all."
Christine's emotions almost turn on and off like a faucet, don't they? And last, on one of Christine Francisco's profiles at JPG Magazine, Christine Francisco is listing herself as single!
You read that right. Single.
It's not even four months since this happened, and she is content listing herself as single? I can't imagine the courts have declared her husband dead without a body. What is Christine thinking?
If that doesn't turn your head, I don't know what will. It's like she is resigned to the fact he is gone forever. Hmmm....
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
Thanks for all the votes requesting a review of the Drew Peterson interview. I was rather surprised by the results of the poll.
The overall interview by Drew Peterson was quite lackluster compared to his previous interviews. Two words kept coming to mind through the entire interview: stone-faced. Drew was a blank slate emotionally through much of the interview this time. This time he held his grimaces and smirks in check a whole lot better. That's not to say that we didn't see some classic arrogance from Drew, or a few odd smirks, but he has dramatically tamed his responses.
Read moreClearly Drew is working hard to change his image, and wants us to believe he is the good guy despite the fact that everyone from Drew's past who has come forward doesn't have a nice thing to say about him except his friend Steve. The odds are clearly stacked against him.
Listen to how Drew responds...
KING: Drew, you're a bright guy. Do you begin to think that the public might say that if it looks like a duck and it acts like a duck, it might be a duck?
PETERSON: Right, but they're not getting all the duck's information. So when they get all the information, then maybe we can re-examine that.
KING: All right, let's straighten it out. The third wife.
PETERSON: OK.
Do you think Drew will be satisfied this time that he gave us the real story? Hasn't he had ample opportunity in front of the camera to tell us his side of the story?
The media even gave him a video camera to give us a day in the life of Drew, and that didn't satisfy him either? I found his answer to this question ridiculous. Drew's had plenty of opportunity to tell us his version of events.
Furthermore, Drew tells us that media only wants to portray him as sinister because sinister sells. He goes on to say that anything that is said that is positive about him is "washed under blankets".
With that, I have to ask why he isn't using the funds he raised, and the website he has, DefendDrew.com (which is now inactive), to tell his side of the story, and to post all the positives about which he speaks? He has all the freedom in the world to post his version of events. Why isn't he? Instead, he only complains.
I also found it odd when Drew said the following statement to King about Kathleen Savio:
KING: What happened?
PETERSON: I don't know. I don't know. She...we got information that she drowned in the bathtub.
Drew talks like he wasn't there. I found this choice of words odd. Drew often lack affirmative answers when he should feel definitive which is red flag.
Below King asks Drew about his marriage when Stacy disappeared:
PETERSON: We were living together and we talked that morning. And what happened...
KING: Was it -- was the marriage going through problems?
PETERSON: The marriage had been going through problems since her sister died. And her sister died maybe several months prior of cancer. And it was a very rough death on the family. And it was very rough on Stacy. Stacy was very close to her sister, Tina. And when Tina died, it was...
(Drew got stuck for words here, and then King saved him! I wish he didn't do that!)
KING: She changed?
Drew's answer here is a complete contradiction to his first responses to the media after Stacy disappeared. Drew was quoted by the Chicago Sun-Times as saying within days of Stacy's disappearance "I believed our marriage was good, but maybe she didn't." Then when he went on the Today show with Matt Lauer, Drew gave us the whole new story that Stacy changed after her sister died. That wasn't his original story.
I found Drew's volunteer information about being a police officer below really eerie. He was talking to King about Stacy, and King had asked if he was ever physical with her. Drew answers the questions completely stone-faced, but what lead him to the following train of thought below? Often times people's mind wonders to familiar places...
PETERSON: And I don't work for the phone company or the power company. And as a police officer, we don't have the same ability to do things as the common person. If I get involved in a domestic situation where I'm physical with a wife, I'll lose my job. And I would never even care to even come close to risking that. And I kind of challenge anybody out there to find anybody that has ever even seen me mad. So...
In a situation like this where Drew was about to retire, if he did in fact lose his temper, and lash out at Stacy, and she threatened to go forward with charges, wouldn't this be a potential motive for why he might do something to Stacy? If Stacy spoke about abuse and could substantiate it, she could have destroyed his retirement, and generous pension!
I also found the words "kind of" telling in the paragraph spoken by Drew above. He kind of challenges anybody out there to find anybody that has ever seen him mad. Drew clearly knows there are people speaking out about this now, but he doesn't want to hear it. Instead he just badmouths them, too.
Furthermore, I found Drew's statement and word choices odd when he says that the police "don't have the same ability to do things as the common person." Is it an ability to strike a spouse? Or is that abuse? Notice Drew's choice of words here. It's quite unique. It tells us of his mindset. Most police officers wouldn't find this a lack of an "ability".
I got quite annoyed with Drew when he says he didn't want to badmouth his step-brother*, and yet he does just that. He also goes after his ex-finance* Piry, and his neighbor too, trying to paint everyone black as black, and yet he wants us to continue thinking he is a rose. Does he not see his thorns? I don't believe a word he says about these people.
I also don't believe that Drew has no temper, doesn't get angry or that he was never physical with Stacy. It's nonsense, pure and simple.
King also asked Drew why he thought Stacy might leave and Drew responded "Stacy loves male attention."
I've learned over the years that people who are less than honest will often project their own feelings, emotions, beliefs and actions onto other people. And ironically, a little while in the interview, Drew says the following about himself:
KING: You said in the past you have cheated on your wives, except for Stacy, right?
PETERSON: Everybody says I cheated, but I went out and sought female attention elsewhere after the marriages were over. But we were still legally married. So technically I cheated.
(...)
KING: Would it shock you that she was involved with someone else?
PETERSON: (long pause, thinking)...Not really. Like I say, Stacy loves male attention.
And anytime we would be anywhere, she would have to be the center of attention for the males on the scene -- older, younger, anyone.
Isn't Drew talking about himself here? I do not believe this definition would fit Stacy's character.
When King gets into the details about how Stacy left, I find Drew's answer lacking. Most people when they recall the last time they spoke to a loved one usually give us details and descriptions. They share words exchanged, etc. Notice how Drew doesn't do this, nor has he ever.
KING: Who called you?
PETERSON: Stacy called me.
KING: And?
PETERSON: She told me she found somebody else and she was leaving.
KING: She left under those circumstances, good-bye, Drew.
PETERSON: Right. Correct.
KING: What about the children?
PETERSON: Didn't say much about them.
KING: Didn't say much about them? She was taking them? Not taking them?
PETERSON: Didn't say. There were at home with me, and she didn't say anything about them during the phone call.
I find the word choice "much" interesting here. She either did or did not speak about the kids, if she even talked. When people are dishonest they often throw in hedge words like "much", "sort of", or "kind of". I don't believe they even do it consciously.
I found the following quite interesting as well. It was the only place that Drew Peterson got choked up with his emotions.
KING: We have an e-mail question from Fay in Rocky Mountain, North Carolina: "How do you sleep at night?" Do you sleep well, or are you bothered by at least some aspect of this?
PETERSON: I'm bothered by the fact that she left. And I'm bothered by the fact that my children don't have a mom. I'm raising a little girl who needs female attention. And, yes, sometimes I have trouble sleeping with it.
This is where Drew grabbed his ear with his hand and tugged it slightly. He grabs it at the end of the statement. Some people would tell you that touching one's face or ear is a sign of deception. I can't think of one instance where this has proven true for me.
On the contrary, Drew really believed what he said here. I think he is truly bothered that his children don't have a mom, and that he is raising a girl who needs a mom. I believe that is his truth. In the pain of it, he became overwhelmed, and that overwhelming feeling I suspect made him self-conscious, and hence that is why I believe he touched his ear at the end. It was a sign of vulnerability from showing his true emotions. He quickly shook it off.
If one were to suspect that Drew killed Stacy, it would not be out of line that now in hindsight that he may regret that his children don't have a mom, and that he is now left to do her job. It's completely logical...especially if this was a crime of passion.
I was quite surprised that Drew took the kids and went to Disneyland. Did that surprise anyone else?
As many of you know, I do not critique attorneys because I believe everyone deserves the right to a legal defense, and with that, Drew is no exception.
Do I trust Drew Peterson? I do not, and have not since Drew first said "I believe she's not missing" within hours of when Stacy disappeared. Those five words were my first big red flag that something wasn't right.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky are talking to Matt Lauer again. I love when Lauer does interviews. He asks great questions, but as we know from experience, that doesn't mean that Peterson always answers them.
Watch the latest interview that aired this morning.
If you are interested in an in depth review of this interview, let me know. If I get enough interest, I will consider writing up a review.
I do have one request though. Would anyone be interested in writing up the text from the interview? It would save me a considerable amount of time. Just post a comment below if you are interested and when you can do it by. 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
Penny Boudreau pleads for her 12-year-old daughter's safe return in this video clip. Just sadly, her plea didn't help. Karissa Boudreau was found dead within days of this plea along a nearby riverbank, and her death was determined to be a homicide. Police aren't releasing any details at this time pending the investigation.
When I first watched the video, Penny's behavior didn't sit well with me. Penny also said something that was a big red flag for me. She said, "Nothing can be done to make things better, but it's comforting to have support."
Read more Clearly, this is a very odd statement. Why can't things be done to make things better? Why wouldn't finding her daughter make things better?
Parents of missing children hang on to every shred of hope, because facing the loss of a child is too painful to face until they absolutely are forced to do so. Penny's statement is in complete contradiction to this. She basically says without saying it, she has no hope, which doesn't make sense...unless, of course, she knows more than she is telling us.
Most parents, while heartbroken and devastated at this point, would force themselves to forge forward with courage, because there is no other alternative. They wouldn't dream of giving up. But it appears Penny has here. It's very unusual behavior.
Penny also shows she is distancing herself away from Karissa, which is a concern. I suspect these clues come from deep within her subconscious. I'll bet she wasn't even aware she said these things. She says in her plea to Karissa, "Your Aunt April is here. Your mom is here". She doesn't say "It's me, mom." She doesn't refer to herself as I. She doesn't say "I" miss you, "I" love you. Instead, she she says "we". These word choices are unusual.
Penny also acts like Karissa won't be able to see the TV, but will only be able to hear it, which is another oddity. If you don't know where your daughter is, how can you make this assumption?
Why would you make such assumption?
And later, she says another statement that shows distance when she says, "It is hard not to know where your kids is." To refer to her daughter as "your kid" is strange and removed. Most people would say "It is so hard not knowing where my daughter is."
Furthermore, I find it odd how Penny talks to Karissa as if she merely ran away. She says "Please just reach out to someone, at least call us and just let us know you're okay." Penny seems to be acting like Karissa is an adult here who left on her own free will. What if Karissa can't reach out because she has be abducted? Most parents would fear that their child could have been abducted in a circumstance like this, but Penny doesn't seem to even think about that, which I find unusual. It's another red flag.
I am not one to use lack of eye contact as a clue to deception, but here it is so outstanding, and usual, it is a red flag. Penny pleads to her daughter to make contact, yet she doesn't look at the camera. She looks down or away. Then later, after she finishes talking to Karissa, she looks back up normally as she talks. It is this distinction in her behavior that is a big red flag. It's the change of behavior that is notable. When you compare the behaviors side-by-side, it's astounding. She makes no eye contact, then suddenly she starts to again. She also stops crying after talking to Karissa. The timing is a bit odd.
Yes, Penny is reading something previously written when she talks to Karissa, but she should still want to "connect" with her daughter in some visual form, but she doesn't even attempt it. I would think she would want to speak from her heart to tell her daughter she is sorry and no matter what the differences of opinion are, it can all be worked out. But Penny doesn't get personal in any way, which alarms me.
When people talk to others on camera, who are not present in the studio, especially when they are missing and they are pleading for their safe return, they usually make direct eye contact with the camera. But Penny isn't here. Why?
Penny also doesn't seem to shed a tear, which I find odd. She does seem distraught to me, and in distress, but how come there are no tears? I have seen people cry themselves dry. Was Penny crying all day before this? Her eyes don't hit me as extra puffy, but only people who know her could judge that. I'd be curious to know.
I do see fear in Penny's eyes. Is that fear that her daughter may never return, or is there another reason for the fear? Penny's hand on her face is an indication she is trying to calm herself down, to self-soothe herself.
I find Penny's behavior odd here, to say the least. I suspect she knows more than she is telling us...as painful as that is to write. I hope I am wrong.
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
Karissa Boudreau was a 12-year-old girl from Nova Scotia who disappeared after her mother says they got into an argument in the parking lot of a grocery store at 5:30 pm on January 27.
Penny Boudreua, Karissa's mother, says she went into the grocery store for 15 minutes, and when she came back, Karissa, who had never run away before, was gone. Three hours later, Penny reported her daughter missing after conducting her own search.
Two weeks later, Karissa's body was found on the bank of a nearby river, and now a homicide investigation is under way.
Karissa's mother, Penny, made two emotional pleas for her daughter. Here is one of them.
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 Saturday night, 48 Hours profiled the case of Nona Dirksmeyer, a 19-year-old pageant queen who was found dead by her boyfriend Kevin Jones. She was murdered.
Jones was with his mother when he discovered her lifeless body, and his mother called 911. Jones wanted to assist the police with the case, but ultimately he ended up getting charged with her murder and faced a trial by jury.
Read moreSeveral of you have asked me, do I believe Kevin Jones in innocent? The jury let Jones go free, but Dirksmeyer's family believes he is getting away with murder even still.
The police found Jones' behavior odd on multiple occasions. When they came to the crime scene after the 911 call, Jones went to shake the police detectives hands, but Jones then realized he was covered in blood from trying to revive Dirksmeyer, and so he pulled back his hands. The police found this odd behavior.
I do not. If Jones was a polite man, his manners are a part of his normal behaviors, and they wouldn't dissipate in a difficult time. This does not raise my eyebrows.
The police also found Jones behavior in the interrogation room suggestive that he could be a violent person. When detectives left the room where Jones was at, he hit the back of the chair he was sitting in hard multiple times. He was angry and visibly upset. Why would he do that? Does it mean he is violent?
If Jones loved Dirksmeyer, and he wasn't able to protect her, and someone killed her, he may have felt like a failure. He may have felt like he let Nona down even though he wasn't there when this happened. This is likely an emotional response due to the feelings of being helpless after the fact. That's what I suspect was going on here. Or he was frustrated that he wasn't being believed when he was telling the truth. Could his actions be suggestive of violence? They absolutely could, but it is nothing definitive own its own. If there are not any character witnesses to corroborated that Jones had violent behavior, I would discount this, personally.
Jones volunteered to help the police by submitting to DNA tests and by taking a polygraph, but surprisingly he failed the polygraph which only caused police to look at him even closer. Polygraphs, in my eyes, are not reliable so I wouldn't much too much into this.
At the crime scene, the police believe they found the smoking gun when they found Jones palm print on the light-bulb of the lamp police believe was used to deliver a fatal blow to Dirksmeyer.
I suspect that Jones could have easily grabbed that light-bulb when he found Dirksmeyer and tried to revive her. Perhaps it was in the way? I do not see this as any smoking gun.
Another interesting fact in this case is that at the scene police found a used condom wrapper, and with that, they theorized that Jones found it and went into a rage, and killed Dirksmeyer because Dirksmeyer had been seeing other men behind his back.
Those other men were ruled out by police.
When I watch Jones, I do not see a man who is violent, and while all people have the potential to be violent, he doesn't hit me as a man who would kill his girlfriend over her finding a condom wrapper. He is more likely the type to buy into a story that Dirksmeyer would make up to cover herself. Jones was a trusting, honest guy as seen by his willingness to assist the police so freely. I also think it would take more than infidelity with his girlfriend to get Jones murderous. He is not a man who has a temper. Those who knew Jones testified to that fact.
Furthermore, the police only checked the condom wrapper for finger prints, but not DNA. They said the lab would only do one or the other but not both because each test could potentially render the other useless. I find that unusual, but I am not a forensic expert. In either case, no finger prints were found.
And the jury? It took less than 2 days to find Jones not guilty, and I agree with the jury. When I watch Jones' behavior, I do not see one red flag. I see nothing that alerts me to deception. I see honesty through and through. I believe Jones without any doubts. He is a good person caught in a horrible situation as is his mother.
And it looks like this case isn't over yet. Remember that condom wrapper? Well, Jones defense attorneys had it tested for DNA and they found some. It belongs to a male other than Jones. Of course, people who thinks Jones is guilty will say this makes sense.
I think this DNA may provide important clues to help solve who really killed Dirksmeyer because it wasn't Jones, if you want my personal opinion.
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.
