Tracy Hacker

/in , , /by

Tracy Hacker was viciously attacked last October, and nearly ten months after her ordeal, no one has been arrested.

I take a close look at this case reviewing what little information I can find and I share it with you.

You will find my post over at CrimeBlog.US today.

Update:
CrimeBlog.US has now changed to and is being redirected to TrueCrimeWeblog.com and not all post are loading up so with that, I will repost this post for you below:

Attacked from Behind

Posted by Eyes for Lies on Aug 22 2007

The last thing Tracy Hacker remembered was sitting in her backyard with her husband on a Friday night in October. Three weeks later, she woke from a coma after a traumatic brain injury.

Read more

Part of Tracy’s skull had to be removed in an effort to save her life. Doctors feared she may not survive, but she did — and today she is thriving. Looking at her now, you’d never know the ordeal she went through just ten months ago…

On that fateful day last October, Hacker’s husband called 9-1-1 and told the dispatcher that someone, possibly Asian, hit his wife with a baseball bat. Police draw up a sketch of an Asian man wearing a knitted cap.

To date, no one has been arrested in this case and police are now saying that they only have circumstantial evidence – not enough to arrest anyone – but they do not believe the guy in the police sketch is the one who committed this vicious attack. They have their eyes on someone else.

So then, who did this? Someone random or perhaps someone close to Hacker?

When Hacker is asked who did this to her, she responds, “I’ll never know because I was hit from behind.” However, since the attack, Hacker has divorced her husband and has not gone back to the house where the attack occurred.

That certainly is odd.

In looking at this case, I found very little information but I did find the 9-1-1 transcript which I find intriguing. You can read it here.

Hacker’s husband is only referred to as “C” for (male) caller in the transcripts.In reviewing “C’s” responses, I find them odd and strangely inappropriate for this situation.My eyebrows are raised immediately and throughout much of the transcript.

“C” doesn’t answer many of the questions he is asked, nor does he give details.

When the 9-1-1 dispatcher answers the phone, “C” politely asks police for an ambulance.“Please, please, please send an ambulance, please.” The dispatcher than asks “C” what is going on. “C’s” rely is two words: “My wife”.

I find this odd and interesting.Was he anticipating the next question to be “Who is this ambulance for?” Or does he not have anything else to say?

Most people in this situation would go rambling off in hysterical detail about what they just witnessed. The shock and terror of it all would cause most people to say as much as they possibly could – just to get it off their chest. It’s a normal emotional response.

Yet why isn’t “C” doing this? Instead, he seems to be controlling his words.Why?

When the dispatcher continues and says I need you to take a breath, and tell me what is going on, all “C” can say is “baseball bat, baseball bat.He hit her in the head with a baseball bat”.

Notice the details that are lacking? “C” doesn’t give any details. Most victims of a crime have searing memories that they repeat over and over again.They give the details that are fresh in their head.They give descriptions. They give everything they know as fast as they can to help catch the assailants and to get help for the victims.Why isn’t “C” doing this? This just isn’t normal.

The dispatcher then asks “Who hit her?”, and “C” responds, “I don’t know. I am at home. Please God.”

What does being at home have to do with this? When people are dishonest, they say weird and illogical things. Is “C” being dishonest here? You have to wonder.

As the transcript progresses, I find it really odd how “C” is talking to his wife telling her to lay down. He also says “no, no, no, not on that side” when telling her to lay down, but when he is asked immediately after he is heard saying it — if his wife is conscious, “C” responds “I don’t think so.”

This is a big inconsistency. His actions are not supporting the facts he is giving. You don’t tell an unconscious person to lie down. You just don’t do it. If, however, you were being deceptive and attempting to play the part of a caring husband, you might just slip up. Is that what is happening here? I sure do wonder.

The dispatcher then asks for clarification if Hacker is going in and out of consciousness, and what does “C” say? He doesn’t answer the question. Instead he says, “There is blood in her ears.”

Further down, the dispatcher asks, “Do you know who did this?” Again, I find “C’s” description troubling. “C” says, “Two little guys, possibly Asians. Ran out of my back yard. They hit my wife. I tacked one, I got the bat, I hit one.”

His speech is odd and weird. He is speaking in sentence fragments. Normally people don’t talk like this – even people in distress. People in distress usually do the opposite: they ramble frantically using lots and lots of words. Also, where are the details again?

I find the word “possibly” (in possibly Asians) odd as well. I can understand someone saying something like: I think they were Asian, but I am not sure with the struggle. But you don’t say, “possibly Asians”. The word selection and word order here are not how people recollect information.

When we create stories, however, we add on descriptive details as afterthoughts. People also usually speak in the order of which things occurred. They don’t mix them up as we see “C” doing here. This is more supportive of someone who is creating a story. He talks about the assailants running out of his backyard and then of attacking them. This isn’t logical.

Furthermore, why would two men start hitting his wife with a baseball bat first? Wouldn’t the man, who is normally bigger and stronger than the woman, likely be the main threat in most scenarios? Or was the wife the main target?

I also find the word “little” interesting. People don’t usually use the word “little” when describing people unless they are really small, like a dwarf. And to have two small assailants — that is really odd.

When the dispatcher asks, “Which way did they go?” why isn’t “C” giving us details? They went west, past the fence and behind the bushes. They ran towards the Jones’s house! They ran east towards Main Street. His lack of details, again, is another red flag added to the pile. Notice how the dispatcher tries harder to get more information again, and again, “C” gives no new information, but instead repeats the same line?

Then he stutters and stammers for words when he answers. That’s another red flag.“Ah… ah…. ah… towards… parallel… across the way.” This answer, in the end, isn’t even logical. Who talks like that? This is classic thinking-on-your-feet speech.

Next the dispatcher asks if “C” can describe what either assailant was wearing. “C” says, “Ah…one was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt…. ah… he is the one I tackled. Jeans, both baggy… ah… I don’t know. I think one was Asian for sure, the one I tackled.”

Now both men are little Asians and both are also wearing jeans, that are baggy. Notice, too, how the description of the jeans comes as an afterthought again. I don’t like the hesitations here, either.

Also, notice how “C” is saying that “one was Asian for sure.” This is inconsistent again as he just said shortly before they were “possibly Asians”. Now all of the sudden he is sure that one was Asian?

When we witness a crime, we usually can state the basics. Why is “C” having trouble here?

When the police arrived, they asked “C” who did this. Now all of the sudden, he says the assailants were trying to rob them.

Wouldn’t that be the first thing you would say? My wife and I were sitting out back, when two men approached and tried to rob us.Then they started to beat me and my wife. Why is this important detail not mentioned until now? This is another big red flag.

I also find it odd when “C” says,“I threw my wallet, he didn’t take it. That was after…I don’t know.” He threw his wallet and the robber didn’t take it? That’s odd and so is his speech.He isn’t making sense.He is truly thinking-on-his-feet here again, if you want my opinion.

“C” spoke very little in a short amount of time, but I believe what he said and how he said it is very telling. Unless I find out “C” is an addict of sorts and was out-of-his-mind this day, I don’t believe “C’s” story at all.

Related Info:

It appears the home where this vicious attack took place is currently for sale:

What is Normal?

/in , , , /by

I think one of the biggest questions people have when I review someone who is potentially lying is how do I determine what is “normal” behavior?

Let’s face it, people react differently to different scenarios. This is absolutely true.

When faced with the loss of a loved one, for example, some people will sob uncontrollably. Others will be stoic and in shock—perhaps unable to grasp their loss—and yet other people might reflect in the sadness of their loss by talking lovingly about memories. And some will likely retreat and not want to discuss it. Another might be mad, especially if the loss was due to an accident or a crime. And still others may take charge and get down to business to solve the problem—working feverishly to get to the root if crime or foul play was involved, all the while without showing a lot of emotions.

All responses are completely normal.

So then, how can you be sure that when someone laughs or grins that the behavior is inappropriate? They could just be nervous, couldn’t they?

If someone has the finger pointed at them and they are being looked at as a suspect, couldn’t they be completely distraught because of that, and unable to speak about anything else?

Well, it depends. The most important question is: Is his or her behavior consistent across the board?

When people are faced with a situation, it is important to look at the big picture and then correlate all the pieces together. You know the rules that govern completing a puzzle—well, they apply equally to figuring out the puzzles of life, too. Look at people’s behavior, words, and actions: They are pieces of the puzzle. Do they all add up to the same picture? Are they consistent?

Often, in life as in the game, you may be working on a section and think you have the right piece of the puzzle, only to find you don’t, and it needs to be abandoned for the time being. What do you do next? You search for the piece that makes sense.

Life, like a puzzle, is exactly the same.

For example, if someone laughs and appears nervous, they could absolutely be nervous, but are they acting that way consistently? Are they giving off other signs of being nervous? Or do they only appear nervous one moment, and not another? Nerves don’t dissipate that quickly.

If they only appear nervous for a moment, something is fishy—something doesn’t fit. You have the wrong piece of the puzzle in your hand; armed with that knowledge, you have to ask yourself what would fit? What behaviors would be consistent? What piece of the puzzle makes sense when you look at the big picture again?

With Bobby Cutts, he had people looking at him closely, and while they didn’t call him a suspect, they were treating him as one. He was distraught. It’s completely plausible that someone in his shoes would act this way. But if you were that distraught over being looked at as a suspect unfairly, what would you do? Wouldn’t you declare your innocence for everyone to see? Wouldn’t you tell the world how and why you feel violated if you were that distraught over it?

What is normal behavior in a situation where you are wrongly accused? There is really only one behavior, universal to all people: defense of the truth—or at least legal representation advising you, or speaking on your behalf. While defense of the truth may have different manifestations, we will see it in one form or another if we accuse an innocent person.

With Cutts, we didn’t see it. Instead, we saw him hinting about it, or beating around the bush — but not speaking directly about it. This is inconsistent behavior.

If I accuse you, right now, of stealing $500 dollars, and you didn’t do it, what would you do? You’d defend yourself in any way that you knew how because you would feel violated. You wouldn’t beat around the bush, and hint at your innocence, would you? Absolutely not.

So while normal varies from person to person, one thing is true about all people: When we behave a certain way—when we are honest, our behavior, our actions and our words are consistent across the board. When we lie, however, inconsistencies glare up to the surface, begging us to ask why.

People who are the worst…

/in , , /by

…at spotting deception, if you want my opinion, don’t question things.

They don’t question things.

While they may ask questions — they don’t dig for answers, or play the “what if” game. Or, if they do– they don’t do it with an open mind. These people are not researchers or fact finders. The majority of them don’t question authority. To them, people in authority are usually “experts” and “good people” who shouldn’t be questioned. After all, they hold a high-ranking status in society which should be respected — not doubted. I’ve come to describe these people as literalists.

Literalists are the people in our society who are the worst at spotting deception, and I guestimate they are somewhere around 15 -20% of people I meet.

The definition of a literalist from the dictionary is: “one who adheres to the letter or exact word; an interpreter according to the letter.” Most people when they hear the term literalist usually think of people who take the book of their religion and choose to believe in it word-for-word — like strict fundamentalists.

When I say literalist, I am using the term slightly differently. I am talking about people who take everything and everyone they met or get to know at face value — but my definition is void of religious implications.

Literalists, to me, don’t see the world in shades of gray. They only see black and white.

If you were to say to a literalist that their best friend was just seen stealing fifty dollars, while they might listen you out, they wouldn’t question the details of what happened. Instead, they’d automatically defend their friend, and tell you all the ways you must have misinterpreted the situation. They’d be certain someone misunderstood something. Literalists don’t stop to say with a truly open mind, “You know, that isn’t the person I know — but what happened? Why do you say that?” They don’t investigate the situation , or truly listen to what someone is saying without bias.

Literalists, however, are usually good people. They truly want to believe the best in everyone. They are often kind and giving and fiercely loyal people — probably to a flaw. They usually make good friends too.

If you continued to insist to a literalist that their best friend stole this money, and you are going to take action against their friend, a literalist would likely get annoyed with you. They would think quietly to themselves that you are the one with a problem — that you are a pessimist for thinking the way you do.

Literalists automatically assume if someone is nice — they are inherently good. Even in the face of people saying otherwise, literalists will continue to believe a good person is good until the evidence against that belief is clearly visible to their own eyes, or it is so overwhelming (i.e. they are the last to hold that believe), it is undeniable.

If someone has done something bad that they have witnessed with their own two eyes (like stealing) — a literalist will not trust that person again, and he or she will be known as inherently bad. They will still be nice, and kind to these “bad” people — but under the cover of their thoughts will be feelings of distrust, and perhaps feelings of “fear” that is not likely to ever go away completely — even after the passage of time — and renewed efforts to restore the distrust.

Literalists don’t understand human nature nor are they able to read emotions in people. Hence, they take the world at face value. When you and I see color, they only see black and white. They don’t see gray. They are, in essence, color-blind.

The reason I write this post is get people to ponder things more — to question things around them. I am not suggesting that you distrust anyone and everything you hear. Give people the benefit of the doubt, always– but do look at things and ask questions. If someone tells you someone is really nice — it’s okay to wonder why. Why are they nice? If someone tells you someone is really bad — don’t just accept it. Question why. You might find a brilliant, exceptional person underneath the exterior who has been greatly misunderstood.

The dumb question, as the saying goes, is the one that was never asked. As I see it, you have absolutely nothing to lose by questioning things. In fact, you might actually discover a new truth!

As I see it, people who are good at spotting deception find evidence to either support or reject their belief system. They are always looking for things to substantiate what they believe. They are naturally curious and inquisitive. They also don’t take things at face value. They question things all the time, and are open to a new belief if the evidence points them in a different direction.

Anyone, with any ability to detect lies, can improve their abilities by wondering why and asking questions — with a truly open mind to discover whatever may come their way.

The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)
Truth fears no questions.
Anonymous

Change in Demeanor

/in , /by

The other day my parents went to visit a local eye doctor to get their prescription renewed for their eyes glasses. My dad was diagnosed with glaucoma several years ago now, so he sees an eye specialist frequently — but this specialist doesn’t do regular eye-glass exams. Hence why he was visiting this doctor on this day.

My dad’s glaucoma specialist is well known in his field and recommended one of his past students to my parents — so my parents made an appointment and went to the recommended eye doctor.

My mom was the first patient. Dr. X treated her as if she wasn’t there, she says — or as if she were a non-entity. He did his job, was brief in his words and then he saw my dad. As my mom reflected upon her quick exam, she didn’t like the doctor’s demeanor. He was rude and she had decided she wouldn’t come back again.

Then when the doctor visited my dad, and realized my dad had glaucoma, his demeanor completely changed. He immediately came out, and got my mom — and was super friendly. All of the sudden, my mom was someone to notice.

He took my mom into the exam room with my dad and he started talking about the seriousness of my dad’s eye condition — and then promptly went on to scare the life out of both of them. This new doctor said my dad’s eye pressure was very high (which can be dangerous). He went on explain that my dad’s tear ducts were about to close and that could cause a serious medical emergency at any time which my parents had never heard about before.

He explained to my dad that the emergency could cause my dad blurred vision, vomiting, headaches — and could cause my dad blindness within hours unless the pressure was resolved and resolved quickly.

He went on to tell my parents that my dad should consider doing an iridotomy — where they laser a small hole in the eye to help reduce the pressure. He also told my dad he had cataracts, which were just starting (my dad didn’t know about this either) — but those cataracts cause eye pressure to increase — so they should have those removed too. Promptly.

This doctor went so far as to tell my dad he called his glaucoma specialist and told him that his specialist backed this doctor’s recommendations. With that, he tried to schedule my parents to come in the following Monday to start with the iridotomy and cataract removal!

My mom, who is also a truth wizard, was on to him — though nonetheless unnerved. She had no intentions of switching doctors — so what was this doctor thinking? She came home, rang me up — and asked what I thought.

I, too, noted that the change in demeanor was the first red flag that this guy was a less-than-honest individual. When my parents were there just for an eye exam — they were just a frustration to this doctor. They weren’t a good source of money. However, when the doctor saw money in my dad’s glaucoma — all of the sudden my parents were deserving of lots of attention! That’s scary. Suddenly, the doctor was energetic, interested and full of information.

But worse, he scared the hell out of them, gave them urgent time-frames and wanted to take action immediately. He also had no regard for the fact my dad already had a glaucoma specialist — he didn’t need a plain-old-eye-doctor calling the shots! That was the second huge red-flag that substantiated the first red flag. This man was not trustworthy.

You see, my dad had just seen his specialist two weeks before — and they had noted my dad’s pressure was elevated — but they were trying a new medication and giving it a reasonable and safe period of time to see if they could affect safe changes. It was during this last visit, that my parents were concerned and my dad’s specialist said not to be — there were still plenty of options before surgery. Then this new guy scared the hell out of them, unnecessarily!!

I set out to investigate what this new eye doctor was telling my dad. I couldn’t find anything anywhere on the web that says cataracts in themselves cause higher eye pressure in glaucoma patients or that they should be removed due to glaucoma.

After an hour of intense searching, I finally found out that advanced cataracts (defined as limiting vision and seriously impacting quality of life) can affect eye pressure. However, my dad was no where near this point. Essentially, what the doctor said versus what I found on the web were not in agreement. I suspect the doctor was stretching the truth for money.

My dad called his specialist and told him what this doctor had said to him. My dad asked if he should try another medication at once — or perhaps come in to review what to do — and my dad’s specialist said he didn’t see any reason for alarm and he’d see him as previously scheduled on March 1st. My dad also got the feeling that perhaps this other doctor never even called his doctor when they discussed it. We will never know for sure.

When people change their demeanor — and there is something to gain that can cause a change of demeanor — like in this situation — this doctor realized he had a great potential to do lots of procedures and make money off of my dad’s glaucoma — it’s time to run — and run fast!!! This guy wasn’t out to care for my parents. He was out for the all mighty buck.

Busted!

High-Stake Lies

/in , , , , /by

When a liar stands to get a notable gain, or faces a notable loss by telling a lie, this type of lie is known as a high-stake lie. In this situation, the liar stands to gain or lose either emotionally, physically, financially or psychologically by maintaining his lie. If his lie leaks out, the liar will pay a sizable price.

It is also when the stakes are high for the liar that clues to deception leak from a liar at a far greater level than a low-stake lie.

With that, if someone lied to me about his favorite color, and had nothing to gain or lose for doing so—which is a low-stake lie—he likely wouldn’t give off detectable hints. With that, I would be in the dark along with everyone else as to what the truth is. Quite simply, this is because it doesn’t cause anyone much difficulty to say blue instead of red, or wine instead of beer.

Now, not all low-stake lies are undetectable; it really depends on the simplicity of the lie. The more simplistic the lie is, the more difficult it is to spot (e.g., favorite color). The more complex the lie becomes, the more likely it is a clue will leak (e.g., lying about your whereabouts for six hours). Regardless, though, you still don’t get the same abundance of clues as you would in a high-stake lie.

For example, in low-stake lies, you may or may not see word searching, stammering, or thinking clues. In high-stake lies, you will likely see a mixture of those, plus emotional clues.

However, when a murderer who kills for the psychological thrill is facing charges, the stakes are high. He knows his days could be numbered, and that puts pressure on him if he wants to continue to get his sick thrill. That pressure is what causes more clues.

So, next time you tell me what your favorite color is—and lie—don’t be surprised if I don’t see it. I see lies when it comes to high-stake lies. Low-stake lies are another ballgame.

Update 7/19/2007:
High-Stake Lies also dissipate once someone is convicted of a crime. After a conviction, a person no longer has anything else to lose by continuing the lie (since they are paying the ultimate price by the conviction and the sentence). Hence, the pressure that comes from having to maintain a lie dissolves away, and the person is no longer under any pressure to lie. There are no more repercussions to lying, and as a result, the clues will be greatly diminished, if not disappear altogether.