On Holiday
I’m taking holiday time starting today through September 12th. I’m taking a much needed break from two and a half years of blogging.
I’ll be parking my bum here! See you in mid-September.
I’m taking holiday time starting today through September 12th. I’m taking a much needed break from two and a half years of blogging.
I’ll be parking my bum here! See you in mid-September.
I thought I would share with you that I am now a contributor over at Crimeblog.US. Come on over for a visit. CrimeBlog.US is written by multiple contributors and as you can guess, the focus is on crime.
Steve Huff is a writer, the site owner and editor at CrimeBlog. He is quite a fascinating person if I do say so myself, and he has generated quite a bit of media attention. He seems to have a knack at understanding people and behavior, but in a very different way than I do.
Here is an excerpt from USA TODAY talking about how Huff honed into the famous killer “BTK “:
…But some conjectures turned out to be too close for comfort.
Steve Huff, an operatic tenor from Atlanta who maintains a BTK page on his Web log, or blog, speculated in December that the killer would be a balding, stocky, mustachioed neat freak who wore glasses with heavy frames.
Rader is balding, stocky, has a mustache and wears glasses. Another code enforcement officer described him to the Eagle as a meticulous dresser who kept every pen in his day planner in perfect alignment.
“Initially, I felt vindicated,” Huff said. “I thought, ‘I scored on a couple of things.’ Then I felt chilled by it.”
Huff seems to have a great knack for sleuthing out perpetrators through wisdom, insight and a good foundation of understanding human psychology.
Here you can see Huff on Geraldo At Large:
You can also find Huff today on his own personal blog at Random Lunatic News.
I’m thrilled to be able write for Huff’s blog. I love to follow the story leads that are posted on his site – and I am fascinated to get to know him and the other writers over there!
One thing I love is getting to know who is reading my blog.
How about introducing yourself?
You don’t have to tell me your name, or anything personal but how about how you found my blog, how often you visit and what you like most about it and what you like least about it (so I can improve it!)?
Or, just say something interesting about you!
Anonymous posts are accepted (no name or details required).
I think I have most quiet readers for any blog. You visit, but say so very little.
Are things bubbling in this case, or are these just unsubstantiated rumors?
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.
