…but it makes for a quiet blog.
There are few stories in the news right now where people wonder what the truth is — so with that — if you see a local or national story that you are interested in a getting a second opinion on — don’t hesitate to tell me about it.
I just request that you send me a video link that clearly shows the person’s face when they talk.
Last night, the jury came back with voluntary manslaughter for Mary Winkler.
With that, I wanted to read the police report again, because I remembered something else that was a hot spot for me. But instead of finding the police report, I found Mary’s confession — which was transcribed as she spoke. You can find it here.
I find this document to be interesting. What Mary says seems to be inconsistent with a woman who accidentally shot her husband.
(1) “I don’t know of anything he specifically said or did to me to upset me, but I had an uneasiness about me. I remember not sleeping well.”
Usually when women reach their breaking point with their husbands, especially when they are abusive, there is a breaking point. There is a moment, a memorable moment that sets them off, that makes them snap. This is odd. Either this isn’t the truth, or perhaps she didn’t snap – but premeditated this?
(2) “The next morning, the alarm went off 6-6:30 and I got up. He was still in bed. I don’t think I left the room. He had a shotgun he kept in the closet just in case. I don’t remember going to the closet or getting the gun. The next thing I remember was hearing a loud boom, and I remember thinking that it wasn’t as loud as I thought it would be.”
If you shot your husband by accident, you don’t have any preconceived notions about how loud a gunshot would sound if you didn’t anticipate discharging it, would you? Doesn’t this hint at premeditation?
(3) “I heard the boom and he rolled out of the bed onto the floor and I saw some blood on the floor and some bleeding around his mouth. I went over and wiped his mouth off with a sheet. I told him I was sorry and that I loved him, and I went and ran.
I do remember me holding the shotgun, hearing the boom, and then the smell. He asked me why and I just said I was sorry.”
She was so calm, she just wiped away the blood — as if she was resolved to the outcome, wouldn’t you say? She obviously wasn’t in shock about what she just did, was she?
If she was truly boiling over from abuse when her husband asked her why she did what she did — would you expect that she would tell him? “You were a bastard! You deserved this!!” Perhaps she did — but she wasn’t going to admit to it?
Furthermore, if she shot him “by accident” — and he was still taking — why didn’t she call the police? She left him to die, knowingly.
(4) “Patricia came to the hallway and asked what was going on, and I told her Daddy was hurt and I told her we were leaving.”
She even has enough reason about her to talk rationally to her daughter and say that daddy is hurt. It obviously registered what she had done.
(5) “That Tuesday night, we had also talked about our finances that night. I had gotten a call from the bank and we were having troubles, mostly my fault, bad bookkeeping. He was upset with me about that. I was upset at him because he had really been on me lately, criticising me for things, the way I walk, what I eat, everything. I was just tired of it. I guess I just got to a point and snapped.”
I find the choice of the word “guess” interesting. You know you either snapped or you didn’t. You don’t guess that you did — for no apparent reason.
Does this sound like a woman whose husband was horrible to her? As I have seen this morning, Mary was involved in a check fraud scam of sorts — and if her husband knew about it as she suggests above — if he was abusive — don’t you think he would have really let her have it here? She is admitting it was mostly her fault, and she doesn’t say he hurt her in anyway. Earlier she even says “I don’t know of anything he specifically said or did to me to upset me, but I had an uneasiness about me. I remember not sleeping well.” This is a complete contradiction.
What a complete tragedy.
I have to admit, I double-checked the documents source — it seems so unreal.
CNN has a good article on “Resumes Lies you can’t get away with”:
Although just 5 percent of workers actually admit to fibbing on their resumes, 57 percent of hiring managers say they have caught a lie on a candidate’s application, according to a CareerBuilder.com survey.
Of the hiring managers who caught a lie, 93 percent didn’t hire the candidate.
The truth was finally revealed today that Larry Birkhead is the father of Dannielynn. I am so happy for Larry Birkhead and Dannielynn.
Back in October — seven months ago –when I gave my original opinion on Larry Birkhead that I believed him and that I didn’t trust Stern– I was the odd ball out.
Many people believed Howard K. Stern because Anna Nicole sat beside him in support. But thankfully, as the months wore on and people saw the behavior of Howard Stern, they started to doubt him.
It’s such a joy today to know that Howard can’t go around telling us all like a drone that he believes he is the baby’s father anymore. He certainly didn’t behave like he believed he was the father even for a day.
Here are my posts and reviews of Larry Birkhead and Howard K. Stern:
October 4th, 2006
I believe, therefore I am
February 27, 2007
Stern Video Review (Larry King Live)
February 28, 2007
Video Review of Larry Birkhead
Now I can add two more people that I have accurately read months before the truth revealed itself. I will put them in my “Dishonesty Caught to Date” and “Truth tellers who I believed” section to the right. That brings my total 8-0!
P.S. I just watched Howard K. Stern speak about how he is disappointed about the outcome. If you watch Stern in this video compared to when he was on Larry King Live — notice the difference in his expressions. Now he is expressive, and showing his emotions. His reactions, responses and expression are NORMAL. They are not subdued. It’s a tremendous difference!
Last night, Dateline NBC profiled the case of Diane Zamora. She was a high school girl and a young lover who whose boyfriend, David Graham, confessed to her that he had sex with another girl.
The situation so enraged Zamora that in her police confession, she admitted to police she told David Graham to kill this other girl. She also confessed to her involvement in the crime though she quickly took it back. Nonetheless, she was subsequently convicted on capital murder for the death of 16-year-old Adrianne Jones.
During this segment on Dateline NBC, Stone Phillips meets with Zamora ten years later because she says she never intended to kill anyone — and that confession she gave ten years ago? It was a big sack of lies. Phillips recollected years ago that Zamora said if she could take a polygraph, she would pass. Dateline decided to put her to the test.
Stone Phillips interviews Zamora about her story and then reveals the result of a lie detector test arranged by Dateline. The results? Diane Zamora was deceptive on the key questions on the test — though it could have been ruled inconclusive because she showed signs she was trying to fool the test.
With that, Dateline asked the audience if they believed Zamora. I am happy to report, the live poll on Dateline NBC clearly shows that people see through Zamora. Right now, 94 percent of the people polled, don’t believe Zamora is telling the truth. I suspect the majority of people don’t believe someone who makes a confession and then later retracts it. But furthermore, Zamora’s arguments were weak.
But putting the polygraph aside, can we tell if she is being honest or not by what she is saying to Stone Phillips? Are there any clues in her interview with Dateline that might indicate she is less than honest? I believe there are many clues and I will share a handful of them with you.
I happened to turn on the TV when the interview was nearly over as I was recording it — and when I did – I saw Zamora answer a question by Phillips.
Phillips: Despite the unusual breathing, here’s what the examiner found. We’ll—we’ll go through ‘em.
(1) Did you tell David to kill Adrian Jones? Your answer? No.
Zamora: No.
Watch it here. Video 5. Time Marker: 1:32
At this point in the interview, they are reviewing the results of the polygraph. As Phillips reads the questions from the polygraph aloud, Zamora answers them again in this interview in real-time. When she says no to the first question — amazingly she doesn’t shake her no in agreement. Instead, she shakes her head yes. She says no, but shakes her head yes. This behavior is odd and can be an indication someone is lying. It’s a contradiction between body and mind.
Zamora does it again.
Phillips: Many examiners, if they felt that you were altering your breathing and ignoring their warnings not to, would stop the test right there. I’m just gonna ask you very directly Diane, did you try to influence the outcome of this examination?
Zamora: No, I tried to keep myself calm.
Same video as above. Watch it here. Video 5. Time Marker: 3:39
She also shakes her head yes again when she says no here, too (it’s just a little more ambiguous):
Phillips: So you’re claiming she was not hit in the head when she left the car?
Zamora: No.
Watch here (Video 2): Start at time marker 00:44.
I also found this a little perplexing during the interview:
Phillips: Why did you go out there that night?
Zamora: I went out there to talk to her.
Phillips: Why? About what?
Zamora: ‘Cause I didn’t believe he was telling me the truth. And maybe I just didn’t wanna believe it. And now I know he was lying.
Phillips: But why go to those extremes? I mean, Diane, you’re hiding in the trunk of a car. You’re going out on this deserted lake. I mean, it almost just doesn’t seem to square with a story that you just wanted to go out and talk to Adrianne about what had happened.
Zamora: I didn’t know where it was gonna be. That wasn’t my choice. I didn’t know where we were go—where we were going.
Phillips: And what was the point of hiding in the trunk?
Zamora: He told me she wasn’t gonna wanna talk to me if I was there… which I can understand (notice she flashes a look of gloating here). If you slept with a guy’s girlfriend why are you gonna wanna to ….get… in a car (another gloating look here) with her there? …
Watch here (Video 1): Start at time marker 5:33
First, I find her word mix up interesting — “guy’s girlfriend”– but I am not sure it points to anything other than her nerves at this point. But if you look at what Zamora is saying, she is saying she only wanted “to talk to Adrianne” about what happened. Fine. Let’s take her at face value (though I don’t believe her). Let’s say that is all she wanted to do. Then why does she say this, “If you slept with a guy’s girlfriend why are you gonna wanna get in a car with her there?“
If you only want to talk to the girl — getting her into the car wouldn’t be important — but it clearly shows getting her in the car was important. You have to ask why. Her answer isn’t supported logically. In fact, her answer actually supports the story that she did in fact want to get Adrianne in the car for some reason. What reason might she have? It’s rather creepy.
During this interview, Zamora also:
There is just too much to write about. Do you think these items I pointed out above indicate potential deception?
Dateline has uploaded video of the entire show, if you want to watch it.
