Nicole Eggert’s Accusation of Scott Baio

 

Nicole Eggert came out on twitter to accuse Scott Biao of sexually molesting her back in 1986, and has now spoken out on the Today Show with Megyn Kelly.

Scott Biao also released a video on Facebook LIVE prior to this stating his side of the story.

Who do you believe?

When I watch Nicole Eggert, I am getting conflicting information from the story she is telling on the Today Show and it’s giving me pause.

What Eggert says in the interview is that Baio, as her boss during the time he was molesting her, told her by her account, “…you can’t tell anyone, this is illegal, I will go to jail…”

I cannot imagine a molester telling his young innocent victim, hey I’m doing something illegal to you. That blares at me like a beacon in the night as untrue.  If they were boyfriend and girlfriend, he may very well have said something like I could get in trouble for dating you. That would be feasible, but her story, as she is saying it flags me.

Also in the 1980s, there was no public culture of people speaking out about how it was illegal when someone touches you inappropriately. During that time, sexual molestation was hushed and rarely talked about from my memory. I do remember guys being afraid to date younger girls though and calling them “jail bait” (what do you remember?).

Later during the interview, Eggert says when asked by Kelly if she thought he was like a boyfriend, Eggert doesn’t answer the question.

She says, “There was a bit of…this person loves me, and I trust this person and he cares about me and I am safe.”  She then says it wasn’t until she “got a little bit older than she realized this was not love”.

Would you trust someone who is telling you they are doing something illegal to you and not to tell anyone?  It is possible a few people would, but the odds are statistically low percentage wise.  Her friends even gave her hesitation when she told them, right?

She then goes on to say is, “But what my truth is….is that I wasn’t ready to tell my story.”

My truth?  What about THE TRUTH?

If you notice when Kelly asks her if she was 18 when the show finished shooting, she doesn’t answer the question again.

Then Eggert says, “I always lied about it because I didn’t want anybody to know.”

Her responses are concerning for me.

I don’t find Eggert reliable in this interview, but it doesn’t mean I discredit her story in its entirety. I would have to talk to her more.  There is a possibility there are some grains of truth to it, but what those are at this point are speculation. Was she simply molested, and not raped as she claims?  Or is there another story?

My eyebrows are definitely raised. I am going to watch Scott Baio next.

What do you think?

Does Donald Trump know he is a racist?

Donald Trump denies he is a racist is the video above when asked about it after his “#hithole” comments last week.

Trump replies when questioned by reporters, “No, I am not a racist.”

Are you scratching your head?

How can he say that after what he said last week?  Does he believe people are that dumb or can he, himself, not see it?

Well, the answer is both.   He does believe people are beneath him and can’t see what he sees, but he also doesn’t see who he is.

When you look at someone who has very ugly traits or behaviors, be it habitual lying, narcissism, psychopathy, racism, bigotry, etc,  they will not see themselves as “that” person.  “That person” is a bad person and no one sees themselves as bad. “Bad” is always someone else.  No one ever owns “bad”.

This is why negative behaviors and traits like this continue on and on.  The person with the slanted way of seeing the world has no idea they see the world slanted.  If you talk to them, they will come up with 100 justifications as to why they are not that person and why in the end, you are wrong and they are right.

I am often asked in my classes, does a psychopath know they are a psychopath?

The answer is no.

Do they know they are different?

Most of the time, yes, but they attribute it to many reasons that are positive and not negative.  They are smarter, wiser, more in control, aren’t emotional, etc.

No one sees themselves as bad.  Take a look at yourself. We all have “bad” traits. Do you own yours??

Most likely not.   When is the last time you lied and said “my bad”.  Probably never.  You justified why you should do it, didn’t you? Or you wouldn’t have done it.

The healthier you are mentally, the more you are aware of your shortcomings and can openly talk about them and discuss them.  The more you are unable to face them, talk about them and own them, the more you lean towards displaying dark behaviors in a state of denial.

Where do you fall on that scale?

Can you even look at yourself?

Happy Monday!

Michael Wolff and Fire and Fury: Credible?

Prior to the release of Michael Wolff’s book ‘Fire and Fury’, I had never heard of the man.  Naturally with the book, I was curious as to who he is so I set out to look.

Watching Wolff speak, I see a flamboyantly styled man by his looks alone, yet in his recent interviews, I saw subdued. That’s a contradiction to me. I immediately question: subdued by purpose or by cause? Because he is not a subdued type.  I ponder:  Was he arrogant in the past and cut down?  Or does he need credibility so he is playing it cool?  Those are the questions running through my mind as I watch him speak in the video below.

If Wolff and I met in a lobby of a hotel and chatted, I wouldn’t put my guard down with him as I can with some people. There would be a watchful eye at all times. There is something about him that raises my eyebrows. I settle on his flamboyant style as what pings me.  His personality fits a profile of a person that loves to get attention, attract people’s interest and tell things with a flare.  Do you see it? It fits with what he is doing as well (behaviorally).

When I watch Wolff in the interview, I believe Wolff believes what he is telling us.  And he tells us directly–he witnessed lots of conflict, and through that conflict he made choices as to what the truth is. When he tells us everyone was lying, and that he had to discern the truth, he is truthful on that–but as an expert in human behavior and deception, at what level is he able to discern the truth accurately?  I question that.  Is he good at it or not?

So I have a flamboyant man who I am now relying on to determine what he thinks is truthful. That gives me pause. I would prefer someone who remains neutral and gives me both sides of the story and lets me decide. Do you agree?  Does he do that in his book? From the interview, he suggests he does not.

I have not read his book, so I cannot comment on the book. I can only comment on his statements.  And much of what I hear in the video above supports what I have seen so far myself from the reporting by people in the White House directly. It supports what I have seen from Trump, Bannon, Priebus, Conway, Spicer and others.   It’s no secret the White House is in chaos, that rational thinking doesn’t apply there (what rational WH would give recording access to anyone cart blanche)?

Which makes me ponder: Did they give him access?  Why would they? Ironically, I have not heard a denial on this front from the White House on the recording being illegal or not vetted or approved, so I am assuming they did or they would go after him since he is claiming he had tapes. Right?  Have you seen a story on this?  The absence of it will speak volumes. I will be watching.

So the overall messages from Wolff does not ping me as fundamentally false in this interview, but I would not trust things verbatim.

And oddly, in reading more about him, I see quotes that he writes in the introduction of his book  that accounts from the book “are in conflict with one another” and may be “badly untrue,” according to thehill.com.

That screeches me to a halt.

I am not comfortable with his words that things may be “badly untrue”.  If he is reporting what people said–what they said would never be untrue, even if the person told a lie.  They said it. That would be fact, right?  What they said, however, may not be fact but as a journalist, I am not responsible for their lies, so I would never write that statement unless I may not be truthful.  That statement is a caveat flip-card to say I told you so, isn’t it?

That smells to me of an excuse.

 That doesn’t work for me.

CNBC is reporting that Wolff said in his Today Show interview, “I certainly said what was ever necessary to get the story.”  I didn’t watch the interview, so I am trusting CNBC and if that’s true:  Ouch.

Further CNBC is showing how Wolff slipped up on facts already that reporters are exposing (see link above).

I don’t like that sloppiness.

So for me, while I know the White House is a chaotic mess and I am sure a lot of stuff being reported is based in the truth, take it with a kernel of “maybe, maybe not.” I don’t need Wolff to tell me things are way out of whack in the White House. They are insane.  I’ve seen enough with my own eyes to know that much is true. The rest I will take with caution and remember, this is the story by a man who profits.

Science Says 7 Factors Predict Divorce

ArtsyBee / Pixabay

MSN has an interesting article today about elements in relationships that can predict a higher divorce rate.  I think it is a good article.

I have a horrible knack for watching people and seeing the signs that predict divorce. I have predicted many before their time, and its awkward and uncomfortable to know two people are not heading down the right path.  You can’t exactly knock on their door, or start a conversation with, “hey, just so you know, the way you two went at each other at dinner the other night, it’s a bad sign. There is a lack of boundaries and respect.”  You know?

If you find you have one of these seven factors, see if there is something you can do to change your marriage. Do you stonewall your partner?  Shut down when you have fights?  If you find an element, see if you can take the steps to fix it and reduce your odds!!

Here is the article.

Happy 2018!  I do plan to blog more in the coming year, I promise. I’ve had a lull and I hope it to pick it back up!!

Roy Moore-Ouch!

Listening to Roy Moore, I don’t believe him.

This is why: He says, “These attacks involve a minor and they are completely false and untrue–about something that happened nearly 40 years ago…”.

Wait a minute, if they are completely false, how could they have HAPPENED 40 years ago?

This is what I would call a subconscious slip.  The conscious mind can’t reconcile information fast enough to hide his true thoughts!