Learning about the Innate

/in /by

When you do something innately, you do it without thought. You do it without prior experience, or even knowledge of how or what you are doing. But somehow, deep within your brain, you do it. It’s rather amazing and bizarre, when you think about it, isn’t it?

Take blinking for example and try to explain it. Yes, blinking is an instinctive response but it is comparable. You know you do it, you know why you do it, you even know what happens when you do it — but can you explain exactly how it is that you blink? What exactly triggers you to blink? If you had to teach someone else to blink, what would you tell them? If they’ve never closed their eyelids, what would you say to get them to move those muscles? I for one wouldn’t have a clue. I don’t know the answers. I just know I do it but I don’t how exactly I do it.

For me, my innate ability, spotting deception, is similar. I know I can do it, but trying to explain how it is I come to my determinations is complex.

I started writing this blog as a test to myself first and foremost. Once I realized I could, in fact, see lies more than the average person, I continued the blog in hopes of trying to understand how it is I do what I do. I figured if I thought about each situation I encountered and recollected why I felt the way I did, perhaps I could understand it. And amazingly, I have learned a great deal by being a witness to my own thought process, as strange as that is.

But I can tell you even after two and a half years, I feel like I only understand a small segment of it all. I know bits and pieces — but I certainly don’t understand the whole enchilada. Not by any means. I think I could write for another decade and still not completely understand it all. Perhaps I will reach a point where I won’t be able to understand anymore. Perhaps I will reach a limit of conscious understanding that meets up with the unconscious, and that is where it will end. I can only guess at the limitations of my understanding.

But I do know of all the determinations I’ve made, one rule has become clear to me now, and I understand it better than ever. It’s the rule of “high stakes lies“. When someone lies, you get the best clues to deceit when the pressure is on. Once time passes, and the stakes disappear — the emotional response and feedback of someone who is lying dulls, if not dissipates completely. The pressure that causes clues to leak, turns off — as do the clues.

I’ve watched several cases in the past six months –where prior to or during prosecution — the person of interest gives off many clues to the fact they are being deceptive — but as time passes — and I see interviews five, ten, fifteen years later — the clues basically disappear. I have seen people I know who are being dishonest — appear totally honest years down the line.

When I first saw it, it stopped me dead in my tracks. My conscious understanding went deeper.

On that note, I made one call in my blog — that I have absolutely no confidence in anymore. I watched Jeffrey MacDonald talk about his innocence in the murders of his family more than thirty years ago. I watched him speak decades after the crime — and when I didn’t see any clues to deceit — I believed he was innocent.

Today, I stand in a completely different place. Unless I could see Jeffrey MacDonald talk shortly after the crime, or when he was prosecuted, I don’t believe I can make a determination as to whether or not MacDonald is honest or not. I simply couldn’t do it, and I won’t do it. I stand corrected. I now know better and have a better understanding.

But what is interesting is there are cases in the media where time has passed but the stakes involved in keeping those lies secret still bear down on the suspect — most specifically when they haven’t faced prison time or a conviction. In these cases, the clues to deceit still surface because they have a lot to gain from continuing to tell the lie — and a lot to lose if the lie gets exposed.

So, I will have to evaluate each individual situation to determine if the stakes are still high before making a determination of honesty or not. If the stakes have already been paid by time in prison — and there are no more stakes to lose in telling a lie — I will have to refrain unless I can see footage of the suspected person much earlier in the case — when stakes were still high.

So there you have it — fresh knowledge from my head. I hope you enjoy this journey with me as I grow, learn and define my abilities. Where this journey will take me, I don’t know — but I am excited to be on the path of discovery, even if there is a bump or two along the way! I am learning and growing – which is all positive.

Off Topic: Photo Highlight of the Week

/in /by

Here are some photos I’ve taken during the past week that I thought you might enjoy — click to see them larger.

Happy 4th of July!

 

Dale Fullwood

/in , /by

Click here for an update on this case 8-12-2008

Click here for an update on this case 3-03-2009

Earlier this week, a reader asked me to look at the case of Coralrose Fullwood. Coralrose was a 6-year-old little girl who was reported missing by her parents shortly after they woke up on the morning of September 17, 2006. Within a few hours, a local resident was walking his dog two blocks from the Fullwood house when he stumbled upon Coralrose’s body at a new home construction site.

Nine months later, police have not named any suspects, but have not ruled anyone out as a suspect, either. Apparently, DNA was found on Coralrose’s body that does not match any of the family members.

The reader pointed me to some videos of Coralrose’s father, Dale, here.

I watched the three videos yesterday, and I must say I got a horrible pit in my stomach. It really upset me and bothered me- so much so that I had to walk away for a few hours. Nothing in the video sat right with me. Dale is not a person I trust. He makes me feel uneasy and uncomfortable. And while his DNA was not found on his daughter’s body, I still don’t believe Dale is telling us what he knows to be true.

Read more

  1. The first thing that struck me about Dale was his demeanor. It brought me right back to Adam Saleh. You don’t get a hint from his demeanor that he has just suffered a major life tragedy within the past two weeks. Instead, he jabbers on and on like he is talking about remodeling his house or something inane. You don’t get a clue that his children were taken away and his daughter was murdered— that this man’s life is in (or should be in) total chaos. His emotional response is completely in contradiction to his circumstances. Why isn’t he feeling normal emotions? That’s a big question.

    I know many of you are thinking that someone could go into denial about a situation like this, and it’s absolutely possible, but we would see other behavioral traits that would support this. With Dale, however, we see the exact opposite. He is willing to conjecture with you about all the “what-ifs”, which is not someone who is in denial. It’s hair-raising!

  2. In the video interviews, the reporter talks about how Fullwood’s number one mission is to clean up the filthy house so he can get his children back into the home. Dale tries to act like the house wasn’t all that bad. The reporters continues, “Reason number two is obviously trying to find out who did this,” to which Dale responds:

    “Who is the person who just took my daughter away from me? Yeah, and…”

    I find this statement perplexing. Most parents whose daughter gets murdered violently — don’t say “take my daughter away from me” so matter-of-factly. There is an anger in people who are violated to this extreme. There is a resentment, or at least a deep sorrow and pain –but with Dale, he isn’t feeling any of this. Why?

  3. The reporter goes on, “Are you surprised it’s taken this long?” (It’s been approximately two weeks):

    Fullwood: In all honesty, I think they are moving along at a very rapid pace. I mean…uh..the first 48 hours, you’re kind of hoping and praying that it’s a quick fix – that there was something… that the person dropped…a….a cell phone or something like that, that has his phone number on it. I mean or I mean… you could…you could…you could come up with scenarios. The first 48 hours is basically what the police did is sealing off the whole area.

    Dale is showing classic thinking-as-he-speaks-clues, with his word-stuttering and speech repetition.

    Rapid pace? When you endure life’s tragedies, time usually stands still, or moves at a snail’s pace. It doesn’t speed up during nightmares, tragedies or huge losses. Only when we have fun does time fly. Is Dale enjoying this? He sure makes you wonder. This is another red flag.

    Quick fix? A quick fix for a murder? This is simply nonsense. Normal people who feel normal emotions don’t believe that a quick fix can ever happen after someone they loved is murdered. It’s ludicrous. I suspect this is just Dale rambling off the top of his head, without thinking.

  4. The reporter: What do you think happened after you went to sleep?

    Fullwood: Um… (long pause) There were a couple of strange things, and the more I think about this, that and the other – it’s…it’s kind of weird. Um…I notice when I took the dog out, there was like….you know how the dews in the morning and when something crosses the path, it …it leaves…you could actually see a visible trail. I noticed a trail like that…and at first I thought it might have been an ATV or something like that, but they’re erratic. Um……(long pause) And it was kind of strange – because there was two trails. So, if….you’re walking you normally make one trail…and I don’t know there’s …. there could have been a second person. Eh..Uh… Everything is just speculation and everything like that.

    There is more classic thinking-on-your-feet speech again. When we recollect things, we do not talk like this.

    When a parent of missing child gets asked this, they typically don’t conjecture. Number one: it’s way too painful. Number two: what purpose does it serve? And when they do talk, they usually tell what they saw and know in order to help people crack the case. Dale isn’t doing that here. First he hints that he saw “a trail”. He suggests he thought it might have been an ATV, but ATVs are erratic. What? Where is the logic in this that ATVs are erratic? It’s quite illogical and nonsense again. And then he pauses a long time before suggesting there were actually two trails! Yeah, right. I wonder if Dale is hinting there were two people involved in this crime.

    I suspect people who have known Dale in the past would tell you he changes everything he says to suit his needs. He says whatever works for him. I suspect Dale has been telling tall tales for a long, long time. The thing is, he comes across as happy-go lucky and nice, and he isn’t threatening looking in any way, so he probably got away with it a lot.

  5. The reporter: I’m sure you have been …you know, working it over and over in your brain. How often do you think about that night?

    Fullwood: Every night.

    He only thinks about her at night? That’s ODD. Most parents in his situation would tell you they think about a situation like this constantly…every waking moment, all day long, every day… but they usually don’t say “every night”.

    Furthermore, most parents would tell you that being at the home where the abduction occurred would be unimaginable, because they would keep reliving the nightmare. Yet Dale has no problem being at the home where this occurred, cleaning it up, building shelves — getting everything ready so they can live again as if nothing ever happened. Dale makes you feel like he is ready to get back to everyday life. So soon? It just doesn’t fit.

  6. Fullwood continues:

    I mean, since I’ve got into this house, ah…I really don’t think I have slept more than two hours — an hour and a half at time without waking up, hearing something or something that just shocks me, and I take a walk around the house, even though the house is not there, and nobody else is here right now….um…double-checking, triple checking—quadruple checking the doors – making sure they’re locked. Um…as I said…I don’t think I locked the front door.

    The house is not there? This is odd, and a sign he is just rambling for attention — not thinking things through.
  7. Why does he feel the need to say he doesn’t believe he locked the front door that night? He is trying to make sure people believe his story? Why isn’t he saying, “If only I had locked that door that night, my little girl would still be here!”
  8. Dale confuses me with his obsession about keeping the doors locked now. He doesn’t give any indication he is truly afraid. He says he wakes up frequently at night — which sounds more like a paranoia than fear, if you ask me. If there was an accomplice, could he be afraid of what they might do to him?

  9. Fullwood continues:
    As for a theory or philosophy of what might have happened? What seems strange is …um…on this side of the house over here – the screen was pulled out and left on the ground. So I don’t know if somebody tried pulling that screen out to break into the house at first and knowing those windows were locked … might of come around back here…and in coming back here, the only thing I can think of is this door was always kept unlocked, and I mean its not now, as you can see, I always keep checking things all the time. Somebody might have come in here, and I really don’t think, in my mind, they were out to grab her.     If it was a sole thing just to go grab her, they would have just grabbed and ran…and with the opportunities with five children here…ah…there’s a lot of things. I think it might have been like a quick robbery where the guy came up here…my wallet was sitting up here and he could have been grabbing my wallet and…I can’t tell you for sure if my daughter was in the bedroom. She might of waken up and come out. Or, if she was sleeping here on the couch right here and someone grabs a wallet and she wakes up there, the person might have panicked, or something like that seeing that okay this is someone who could identify me, or recognize me or something like that whether… I’m not saying it’s someone from our neighborhood or anything like that….ah but…

    Here Dale tries to play detective. It’s very unusual behavior for a victim to do this. Most parents are too overwhelmed with grief to play this game, but of course Dale isn’t. It’s hair-raising. Maybe it’s just his happy-go-lucky demeanor that is hair-raising at this point. I’m just not liking this.

  10. What are the “opportunities”, that Dale is speaking about, with five children? This is really perplexing. A man who is a sexual predator might see children as “opportunities” but would a normal person ever put the word “opportunities”, in the mix here? It’s quite strange and very out-of-place.
  11. The reporter says “Do you think it could be (a neighbor)?

    Fullwood: (pause) Nh…The possibilities are endless. I could say that. I mean the possibilities are endless. Do I have somebody that I suspect in my neighborhood? I would have to say honestly say at this time, no. I really don’t think somebody would go to that type of extreme, seeing we’ve only been here two months …um…to do something like this. You know, but it is something that was done.

    The first thing that struck me here is it appears as if Dale started to say the word “no” when answering the reporter’s question. That’s really important. If he has no idea of what happened, why would that come out of his mouth? It was a normal and natural response, and yet Dale stopped it. Then he repeated himself to be sure he was clear,”I could say that. The possibilities are endless”. How could he be so certain a neighbor wasn’t involved? Then his continued rambling is utter nonsense. Innocent victims of a crime like this don’t make such arguments. They just don’t do it. How could they possibly rule anyone out — so much without a thought? It’s inconsistent and illogical.

  12. The reporter “Does it make it harder for you because officially you guys have not been cleared as suspects?

    Fullwood: I think…in all honesty, the answer on that…the police department are trying to cover everything. I don’t think they are really looking at my wife or myself or the children. I do know there are a lot of ….detectives out there …that maybe a couple of them might be following up everything on me….

    Notice how he doesn’t answer the question directly? That’s a big red flag. Notice how he pauses at key points within the sentence? He is clearly thinking as he speaks, not talking from his heart and about his true feelings. Honest people would immediately talk about their innocence, how painful it is to have the finger pointed at them in a time like this. They would show emotions. Dale doesn’t. Why? Instead, he acts like he is at a party conversing with a friend.

  13. Reporter: “You don’t feel like they are putting undue heat on you, another words?”

    Fullwood: No, no, no

    Watch Fullwood as he answers that question. His body language is key here. When people are overly stressed or feel they’ve held composure through a difficulty or have been scared and manage to cope, many times, they collapse their knees in response to the situation. I don’t know if the response is subconscious or not, but it’s definitely odd for Dale to do this here. It’s not something someone would do if they felt there was no pressure.

  14. Somewhere I would expect Dale to stop and show some emotion for Coralrose — some compassion, some care, some feelings of loss, share some thoughts, some memories about her – but he doesn’t. Coralrose doesn’t seem to enter Dale’s mind AT ALL, and this is a double-triple-quadruple WHY NOT?

I’ll stop my assessment here. Do I trust Dale? I absolutely do not trust Dale. Do I think he killed his little girl? I cannot say. Was he involved somehow? I suspect so, because he isn’t telling us all he knows. In my opinion, Dale knows more than he is admitting to, sadly, and the implications of that are a little more than I can handle thinking about…

Melanie McGuire Interview

/in , /by

Primetime Live interviewed Melanie McGuire last night on TV. See Primetime Webcast: Body of Evidence (click on the videos to the right).

Melanie’s husband was found floating in Chesapeake Bay, dismembered, in three Kenneth Cole suitcases just like the ones Melanie used to own. Melanie says she and her husband had a fight — and he took off and never returned. She didn’t report him missing. Furthermore, Melanie McGuire was a fertility nurse who was having an affair with one of the doctors at the fertility clinic where she worked. Yet, she had just bought a big, beautiful home with her husband. The story is intriguing.

They say there was no apparent motive for murder. I absolutely disagree. There absolutely was a motive in my eyes. Melanie wanted to marry the doctor with whom she had an affair. She wanted the big dream home she had just bought with her husband – and she wanted the two, together, WITHOUT her gambling husband in the mix. If she divorced him, she’d lose the house – she’d be less attractive to her potential doctor-lover with whom she hoped to marry — and so what other option did she have, if she wanted it all? To me, it is clearly visible: Rid herself of the burden in the path of her dreams — her husband.

I see Melanie as a person who is exceptionally manipulative — as someone who will do everything in her power to control her surroundings. I suspect she has learned over the years how to charm gullible people, and how to use them to her advantage so much so I suspect she got a head too big for her shoulders.

To Melanie, I suspect most people were pawns. If she liked you, she’d treat you okay. But if she didn’t – she had no problem lying to you, using you, or getting her way at your expense. Melanie is a woman who is void of emotions – except when the pain is hers. She is cold, callus and calculating. I don’t doubt for an instant that Melanie committed this crime.

I think the facts of this case are overwhelming, first and foremost. Too many things point to Melanie to write off, but setting that aside — when I watch Melanie with an open mind — I see don’t see an innocent person.

When you listen to Melanie when she is asked if she committed this crime, listen to how she responds. She has no conviction in her voice when she answers the question. Why? If you were wrongly accused, innocent and facing prison time — is that how you would respond? Absolutely not. You’d have some pretty strong emotions coming through and that would affect the pitch and tone of your voice. It would affect the inflection, and how you stressed your words. You’d be full of emotion. Notice how Melanie is void of emotions? It’s because she is controlling herself, and playing a role– not being honest with us.

Melanie doesn’t want you to see any anger – because then she thinks you might think she did do it. It’s part of her manipulative game. But that is how a liar’s mind works. An honest person who has just been wrongly convicted of a crime they didn’t commit would be full of emotions — and one of them would likely be anger but Melanie didn’t put that into her equation. An honest person would likely be upset, angry, distraught — because they are innocent and wrongly accused. Melanie doesn’t give us any of this. Her behavior is flat-out inconsistent with her story. It is however very consistent with a liar.

When Melanie says about her gambling husband “He wanted what he wanted and he couldn’t get it fast enough” (time marker 1:35)– look how she grits her teeth. This is an expression of anger – which Melanie is attempting to hold back. Melanie is madder than ever at her husband still. If her husband was brutally murdered by someone else, I have to wonder if she’d still be as angry at him.

What is interesting is that Melanie is honest off and on throughout this interview in an appeal to play on people’s emotions — to give them reason to have doubts — that perhaps she is honest. It’s a sign of an ultra-manipulator. They know this is a key secret to getting away with lies –being honest at points to confuse people.

Melanie admits to the fact she still would have an affair with the doctor knowing now that he went to the police behind her back. She is trying to admit to some of her flaws – in an attempt to gain empathy for the rest of what she says. I shudder to think of all the lies Melanie told in her life to different people and got away with.

Melanie’s tone of voice also really stands out to me in this interview. I bet if we could talk to people who knew her in life prior to this crime — we would be told that this is not Melanie’s normal demeanor. She did not talk like this everyday. This is her “think I am a nice person” voice — a manipulative voice — to try to convince us she is sweet, and kind and decent — that she would never commit a heinous crime like this. I’m not buying it. Melanie is a strong person with strong emotions and strong opinions. She wasn’t soft, gentle and very kind like this often in life. This is her “role playing” voice.

When Melanie says (at time marker 3:15) “ But one thing I am is candid, and blunt” – she is honest again. Notice how she moves her mouth to one side? It’s a sign of complete arrogance. She thinks she is super smart and intelligent.

You see how Melanie disperses her lies in between the truth. She mixes it up nicely. She’s learned over the years, I suspect, that if you admit to some things honestly – your lies go over much easier. Melanie is admitting to who she really is here. This is the “true” Melanie.

When Melanie is asked if is she wrongly accused, or a cold, calculating murder – and McFadden asks which it is — watch Melanie’s smile (at time marker 3:40) Number one, its fake. It falls to fast from her face. Number two, is that how you would respond if you were wrongly convicted? Would you smile??? Absolutely not!

If you were playing a sweet character, however, trying to be nice – might you do this? Melanie has in her mind to be sweet and pleasant through the whole interview – and that is her focus – hence her real emotions are held in check – and we see fake responses – but inappropriate reactions like this smile. The way she finishes answering that question is haunting to me, too. She continues to try to play on people’s emotions – by saying you don’t have to like me, you don’t have to think I’m nice. Yet she can’t contain her real feeling here. You see a glimmer in her eyes, an arrogance — a woman who thinks she’s truly going to get away with it. It’s haunting. She is so manipulative! Thankfully, she underestimated the power of a jury as a collective group!

Part 2: Family Secrets: A Brutal Murder (click on the video on the right).

I find it interesting that Melanie says the following — knowing she is facing life in prison for a crime she supposedly didn’t commit: “This is the definition of terror. Absolute mortal terror.” For a manipulator and a killer– prison would be ‘mortal terror’. She won’t be able to manipulate people anymore.

But what I find ironic is this…. If you were innocent — and someone killed your husband — and for an entire year — the crime was not solved — and you lived in the free world — wouldn’t that be mortal terror? Knowing that a murderer is still out there and that he could come back to get you?! But we never hear Melanie talk about the murderer, if it is not her– do we? Did she live in fear that year? I’d love to know. I suspect not.

When Cynthia McFadden asks Melanie if she killed, shot or dismembered her husband – listen to Melanie’s voice again. It’s weak, without conviction or stance. It’s not a normal response from someone who claims they are innocent.

I am thankful for the conviction that has put Melanie behind bars. I believe she is a dangerous, callus, and manipulative murderer.

Bobby Cutts Clues in Detail

/in , /by

This post is a continuation/expansion on this post which was written before Bobby Cutts, Jr. was arrested.

What are some of the other clues that hinted to me that Cutts wasn’t being honest?

  1. Cutts tone-of-voice when he said the words “No, I did not” when asked by Todd Porter if he had anything to do with the disappearance of Jessie Davis. More than just the tone, it was the lack of stressing enunciation in the presentation of the words, if that makes sense. When someone says something definitively, there is a stressing of the words when one is confident of what they are saying. When Cutts said “No, I did not”, he said it mousy, weak and without conviction.

    For a comparison — right after that when Cutts was asked if he had an attorney –Cutts puts confidence behind his statement when he says the word “yes”. There is more behind that word then when he said “no”. Yet the more serious question was by far the first one where the stakes were exceptionally high. We should have heard a strong enunciative response. We didn’t and that difference clued me in, and raised my eyebrows.

  2. When I listened to Cutts talk, I tried to understand what he was saying– by making logical sense out of the words he was speaking. When he said the following, I tried to figure out what scenario would make this statement make sense.

    “The past five …five days.. have been a like nightmare that that …won’t end, like…every…every second of it , I mean when it seems like it’s turning… and gonna change… it goes back to same, or it gets worse … its different…the way I’ve been…. betrayed and just, I mean I haven’t been myself. I…I can’t sleep. I can’t eat. Anybody that knows me knows me that if I’m normal joking around and laughing…trying to have fun and make everyone else laugh and…it’s juss….just been hell.”

    If I plugged into the equation the what-if-he-did-this-scenario — it all seemed to add up. He was upset that he was being looked at as a suspect — and the stress of being looked at as a suspect was overwhelming him. When the police looked at him closely and then retreated again — it was a living hell for him. He was falling apart wondering if and when the dam was going to break — and the uncertainty of it all was driving him insane. It would make sense why he couldn’t eat or sleep — and why Jessie wasn’t the focus of his thoughts. Cutts was breaking under the pressure and this fit with his behavior and words — and actions — to a tee. Every other scenario I plugged in had inconsistencies.

  3. When Bobby Cutts said he “tried” not to watch the news stories on TV about Jessie Davis — that raised my eyebrows as well. If you are seriously distraught over your missing girlfriend and had nothing to do with her disappearance, you either do or do not watch. You have strong emotions that dictate your actions one-way or another — but you don’t waffle and and “try” not too. I suspects Cutts was afraid to watch it on TV because it would make him go even more crazy — but at times, he couldn’t resist the temptation to hear what was going on — hence he “tried” not too.
  4. When Cuts was asked how many children he had, he stuttered when he asked back “Currently?”. That really got the hair on the back of my neck to stand up. If you have nothing to do with your expected-child’s disappearance, you don’t question “Currently?”. You can interview 100s of people who are innocent and you won’t hear that. The reason I suspect for this is that the pain of accepting the loss of the expectant child is too great for an innocent person — so they stay in the current of what they last knew — until something changes. Innocent people who face a loss like this hang on to every shred of hope they can before conceding it is over.

    Furthermore, Cutts backed it up again when he answered Todd Porter’s question if he had a fourth child on the way with Jessie. Cutts said “Possibly, yes”. Again, for an innocent person — the words “possibly” would NEVER enter into their mind. They would be hanging on to every shred of hope they could muster. But when someone has something to do with harming someone, they often “distance” themselves from things.

  5. Bobby acted completely distraught far beyond what everyone else was. That was a red flag in itself. While there are scenarios where people will react differently — and emotionally out-of-the-norm and could still be totally uninvolved, we would expect to see behavioral patterns that support the emotions. With Cutts, I did not.

To come to these conclusions, it’s important I share with you that I am constantly doing a balancing act between what is said, how a person is behaving, feeling and acting. Alone a piece of information may be potentially logical — but in a puzzle, a square piece will never fit in a round hole.