My Thoughts: Ted Bundy

When I watch the video of Ted Bundy, I am immediately struck at how his game is “on”. Bundy had an arsenal of tools that he used to fool people psychologically, and I am amazed at how many that he employs in the first eleven seconds of this video.

By Bundy’s behaviors, it is clear that he knew he could deceive anyone. Bundy understood human behavior and psychology at levels that far exceed most people, if you want my opinion, intuitively, and he knew how to turn the tables on people in seconds. He was wickedly manipulative.

Read moreWhile we all know that Bundy is guilty here, and we are all creeped out by the man in hindsight, I can assure you at the time when people first watched Bundy talk, he gave people serious doubts by his behaviors and actions. Bundy knew how to make people want to believe him. Add in his good looks and articulate speech, and it is no wonder he managed to get away with so many murders.

Bundy figured out that defensiveness is a sure sign of guilt, and what most people use as a gauge to detect truthfulness. He knew to avoid it at all costs. He also knew that if he appeared confident and self-assured, he’d gain more people’s trust.

Bundy also used distraction. He uses it here with chilling ease. He talks about how he stole a comic book when he was five years old. And even further, he knew that if he admitted to some wrongs, in a time of accusations, that people would think he was truthful and honest. But more than that, Bundy knew if he talked about something where he was guilty, if he displayed any guilty behaviors, people might attribute them back to the benign behavior, instead of the more serious one. After all, Bundy used in his calculations that it’s human nature to reject the people in front of us are capable of horrible things. It’s much easier to accept he stole a comic book and is honest, rather than believe he is lying and guilty of killing people. Most people are Pollyannas.

Bundy used multiple techniques in a matter of mere seconds to lure in his victims. It’s horrifyingly chilling in this video alone. The ease at which Bundy psychologically baits us is simply mind-blowing. In the first eleven seconds of this video, I count five psychological tools that Bundy used to fool people. That’s almost one every two seconds!! It’s no wonder Bundy was so successful at his crime.

When Bundy says, “I am not guilty of the allegations that have been filed against me”, it is fascinating to watch him. He is very articulate. Notice how he keeps his eyes locked on to the interviewer? He used this as a tool, too. Most people believed (and sadly still believe) that eye contact is a sign of honesty. But when Bundy says this, he shows doubt. He bites his lip. His confidence wanes, and if you are savvy, you would see not only this, but that his initial laughter was as a fake as a plastic cake!

Yet, when you stack up his leaks versus his luring techniques, he’s still ahead of the game.

Bundy goes on to say, “I don’t know all of what you are speaking about, Lucky, it’s too broad and I can’t get into it in any detail…” What is fascinating about this is, if he was innocent, what detail would there be to talk about?

Bundy employs psychological trickery, again, when he says, “No man is truly innocent…” and again when he stares intently, without loosing eye contact with the interviewer, when he says, “Nothing like the things you’re referring too.”

I find it chilling the way that Bundy laughs at how he is as likely to die in front of a firing squad as is the interivewer is of dying in a plane crash. Bundy says with an eerie grin, “Let’s hope you don’t.”

Bundy says he did not lie awake thinking about it (the charges against him, I suspect). He says, “Honest to god, not a moment.” I don’t believe him for an instant. Do you see the lip curl at the end? It’s an indication that what he said was a fib (It’s my husband’s classic clue to deception!).

Listen to what Bundy says here:

“I’ve been told the parents of these girls are fairly decent people… I don’t know, and I really feel for them because apparently these people suffered some incredible tragedy in their lives. The loss of a loved one is probably the most extreme kind of loss one could suffer in this life, and I say, I feel as much for them as anybody can.”

Bundy is trying to get people to accept him as compassionate and caring, but when you look at his words, they are very revealing. In his attempt to gain our trust, he actually rambles like a fool here. Bundy, I suspect, subconsciously minimizes what he is saying and doesn’t even realize it. Words can be so telling.

Notice how Bundy uses the word “apparently”? That word discredits the parents suffering, as if maybe the girls weren’t really murdered, as if he needs proof, and doesn’t believe this is so. Perhaps this was a subconscious form of distancing? It’s notably odd.

Then Bundy postulates that the loss of a loved one is “probably” the most “extreme” kind of loss there is. Why is he hedging with “probably” here, yet using the word extreme? Either he believes it or he doesn’t. These words identify Bundy is inconsistent. His subconscious, I suspect, is leaking out his real feelings.

He also uses the word “some incredible tragedy”. Why the word “some”? It’s as if he is saying “some tragedy”, but not the worst tragedy, isn’t it? Again, his words are minimizing things without him even realizing it. Then if you consider the use of the word “incredible”, one can immediately see he is inconsistent and immediately knows that he is B.S.-ing.

I also find it odd how he says he’s been told the parents of these girls are “fairly decent”? What normal person would even consider putting into question the decency of the parents? Why does he use “fairly” instead of just decent? I don’t think anyone told Bundy, “Hey, you know, these girls parents were fairly decent.” It’s ridiculous. I suspect this was another subconscious slip of the tongue. He wanted to say decent, but just couldn’t do it. I also like how he ends the sentence with, “I don’t know”.

Bundy was rambling in an attempt to gain support, and this last paragraph, if you ask me, backfired on him, but I am not sure if the average person would have picked up on his hedging. Most people don’t see the importance of what I coined “hedge words”, but they are very, very telling.

I certainly wouldn’t want to have met Ted Bundy. He could manipulate many people into believing they were holding an orange when it was really an apple, if you want my opinion.

Matthew Johns

There is a big story breaking in Australia this week about rugby player Matthew Johns. He was also a TV commentator, but due to a sex scandal that broke recently which involved him, he was removed from the Australian TV Nine Network indefinitely.

Johns went public to talk about the allegations on the Nine Network this week (part 1, part 2, part 3) and his interview is fascinating. When he sits down to talk to the reporter, before he ever says a word, his face ticks with many movements, one of which appears to be contempt. He actually appears to show contempt many times in this interview.

Several people from Australia have contacted me and are interested to know what I think so below I will share with you my personal opinion.

Read moreIn this interview, I see Johns as someone who is continually holding himself back, self-censoring and angry. Look at how tense his lips and body are. You can feel it just watching him. It’s palpable. Other times, he clenches his teeth, takes deep breaths, and pulls his lips in. He sighs heavily. We see his nose twitch upwards rapidly once or twice, too–all of which suggest anger. I suspect if you were to talk to Johns in private, he would be full of anger, not genuinely sorry for his actions and what happened that night, but sorry and angry that he was exposed and is being held accountable, at the very minimum, in the public eye. I also suspect there is more to this story than what we know right now.

Because of his anger, his apology comes off very weak and insincere. When we take responsibility for our actions, hold ourselves accountable, and are truly sorry, it is natural for anger to dissipate. Instead, with Johns, I see resistance, incredible resistance, and I don’t feel Johns is owning up to an apology, outside of empty words, which are easy to say. Giving a heart felt apology is entirely different.

At one point in the interview, Johns even says, “….my thoughts and my energies are directed towards my family, all the pain I’ve caused them.” It confirms for me the woman, who is at the center of this matter, isn’t truly a concern of his.

Johns doesn’t seem to show any anger at himself for his actions either. I would expect him to say he was angry at himself, if he was. There would be absolutely no reason to hide it. It would only support his apology, make it stronger and more believable, but it is oddly missing. And at the end of the interview when the reporter says he career is over, and he finishes speaking, he cries. I suspect he is crying for himself.

Also, when Johns talks, he hedges, stammers, searches for words, has long pauses and many false starts, because he is thinking as he speaks, instead of speaking from his heart about what he knows to be true. This behavior does not support honesty. It does not support that Johns is telling us what he truly believes, if you want my opinion.

When Johns say, “I take full responsibility… for the predicament I find myself in” watch as he finishes. There is this slight head shake afterward (no), which I suspect is a gut response–a subconscious response. But as he thinks about what he said consciously, you then see him nod slightly yes. It’s fascinating body language.

Notice how Johns doesn’t answer the reporter’s question here?

TG: How could she in going back to the room with two of you have ended up being a willing participant in a queue of blokes at the foot of the bed having sex with her?

MJ: Well, at the time, when we went back, I was totally unaware that other people were coming into the room. At the point that they did, I stepped away…. from it. Ugh………….In the statements that were made…. to the police…. it says that….. she encouraged players to come forward….. and then she actually………………….what she, she said “someone come forward and have sex with me”, um…..at which one player said he would…. and she said “no no, anyone but you” and pointed to me again, which I declined.

This is really confusing! He stepped out of the room at the point when other people entered? Earlier Johns said, “I was there on the night and I did see what happened and at no point did she object, at any stage, to what was going on.” How can he then make the latter statement, conclusively, if he stepped away at some point? Even more odd, he cites police report statements, yet in a weird twist, suddenly he is back to being in the room again. If he stepped away, then how could she point to him again, and how could he decline? How could he leave as soon as others came in unexpectedly, but still be there when she supposedly picked and chose her men (which is ridiculous)?

Johns story doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t follow chronological order of how we remember things. It’s is riddled with inconsistencies, which is a red flag. Was Johns there the whole time or not? Why does he refer to police statements instead of sticking to his memories?

Johns continues:

MJ: After I declined, I stepped out of the room, but I stepped back in to make sure that everything… was okay, that she was not under any distress…. and at no time was she under any distress.

Again, when did Johns step out? Before or after the other players arrived? I don’t believe he was the saint he is portraying himself to be that night. Notice the pauses, which indicate he is thinking on his feet, not talking from the heart.

TG: You see Matthew, most right-thinking people would be listening to you right now saying how could you have looked at that scenario and seen anything that was OK in it.

MJ: Morally, it’s not OK.

TG: She was 19 years old, she was naked, she was outnumbered, there was a very clear power imbalance in that room, wasn’t there?

A minute later:

TG: Isn’t there something in your mind, that says this is wrong, this is wrong on every level, this is a vulnerable woman, she wants more from this situation than we’re ever going to give her, and this is just wrong (time marker 7:47, video 1).

Watch Johns response before he even talks. He shakes his head no, and he gives another expression of contempt. Does that seem like he is sorry to you? As he responds, he wrinkles his nose very briefly, which is an expression of anger as well, repressed anger. Why does this make him angry? Why does he feel contempt?

More of the interview:

TG: You have a perfect opportunity right now to step up and send a message to other players about this culture. This is your opportunity Matt.

MJ: Tracey, I would say to players, if it’s a situation where . . . I’m just looking for the right words . . . if it’s a situation where……… things occur which are dangerous and they’re stupid and you make decisions that you most certainly will regret later, that at the time you give no thought to, but Tracey at the moment, as much as I love the game of rugby league and the people who play it, my thoughts and my energies are directed towards my family, all the pain I’ve caused them.

TG: And what about to this girl?

MJ: For the pain and the trauma that she’s felt out of all this and the embarrassment, I’m truly sorry. It’s caused a lot of pain and embarrassment to a lot of people.

Here the reporter gives Johns an opportunity to speak about his situation, and offers him a way to help others. Does his answer reflect any concern for the woman whatsoever? Does it expresses sorrow or regret for what happened to the woman here, or other women due to this sex culture among the athletes? Or does Johns show more concerned about himself and his love of rugby and the people who play it? You tell me….Notice he has to be prompted to think of the woman at all.

Johns talks about being afraid about this all coming out for seven years, and that when the reporter called him, it was a relief to “ending all the fear”. Why would he be so afraid if it was all consensual? If he did nothing wrong?

When the reporter asks the couple at the very end, what effect has all of this commotion had Johns and his wife, both of them look around and don’t answer for a notable amount of time. They obviously don’t want to discuss their true feelings, or they would have spoke right up. They didn’t know what to say (perhaps because they’ve been really angry?) and finally John’s wife spoke up, and talks about how they had to remove the children because they didn’t want them to be a part of it.

The interview continues:

TG: Well, you’ve lost your career to speak of, you came awfully close to losing your marriage, what do you do now?

MJ: Well, I’ve got to go away and make it up to my wife and make it up to my family, that’s where my priorities lay. As far as my career at Channel 9, that’s the furthest thing from my mind at the moment.

Johns tears up finally, because I suspect he realizes his career is over, and that is his pain. This is all about Johns and his family, not the woman who is the center of this. I just don’t believe Johns is sorry about what happened to her in any way, and I do not believe the woman had consensual sex with a group of rugby players by choice.

Notice at the end of the interview how Johns wife takes a minute before she defends him and says they have worked it all through (past tense) and are closer than ever before? But once she is finished talking, she abruptly walks off the set without him? Her body language and actions speak volumes louder than her words, don’t they? So do Matthew Johns.

My Thoughts: Doug Grant ABC 20/20

Doug Grant and his wife Hilary were featured on ABC’s 20/20 last Friday night (You can watch the show here). Doug was put on trial for the murder of his 2nd wife, Faylene Eves Grant, who supposedly drowned in the couple’s bathtub in 2001. Doug was just convicted of manslaughter this month, and he will be sentenced in a couple of weeks.

Faylene’s daughter, Jenna Stradling, from her first marriage believes Doug killed her mother, and held her head under water. She claims she heard her mom that fateful day calling out for help. Others wonder if Faylene wanted to commit suicide.

In this poll, as I am writing, 15% of people believe Doug’s story that Faylene accidentally drowned in the tub while he was asleep, 65% do not believe Doug, and 19% of people are undecided.

Read moreWhen I watched Doug and Hilary speak on 20/20, both of them raise my eyebrows and cause me concern. Here are some of my thoughts as I watched the show:

  1. Why didn’t Doug call 911 when he found Faylene? Instead he called his friend, Chad White, a physicians assistant. Why would he do that? It makes absolutely no sense.
  2. Doug said about his call to Chad, “I called Chad. ‘You gotta come. Take the prescriptions. I….(unknown) found her in the tub, you gotta come. I’m scared.'” Does Doug say “They found her in the tub”? The word he says before “found her” is really baffling me, and I can’t quite make it out. He also seems to be struggling with pronouns here which is a red flag. Notice he doesn’t say who should take the prescriptions? Why? Why do the prescriptions even enter into his mind at this point? If Doug was telling Chad to “take the prescriptions”, why would he be saying that? This is very odd. Each of these elements are red flags for me.
  3. Chad White in his 911 call to police said that Doug was afraid to call 911. Does that make any sense if this was an “accident”? If it was a premeditated murder, would it make sense?
  4. Doug and his ex-wife, Faylene, went on a business trip to settle a company lawsuit for Doug’s company. It was during this trip that Doug and Faylene talked of reconciliation yet Doug tells us how he was only weeks away from asking Hilary to marry him. Does this make any sense? Why would he consider a reconciliation if he is in love with another woman?
  5. Jay Schadler says to Hilary, “It must have come as a blow to you” to hear about the talks of reconciliation. Hilary says, “I felt like, you know, Doug told me he had to work out his feelings, but I still felt like Doug and I would be together.” Is this how you would respond if your boyfriend just got back from a business trip with his ex-wife, and he told you they talked of reconciliation? Hilary’s response really raises my eyebrows. It doesn’t make sense. I’m just not buying it.
  6. Hilary remembers when Doug told her it was over. It was just after they had spent an intimate night together. “He came out of the bathroom, and I was standing there, and I said, ‘It’s over, isn’t?’ and he said ‘It’s over,'” said Hilary. The entire time she recollects what should be a horrible memory for her, she is smiling. This give me the complete chills!! Why is she smiling?? Wouldn’t this conversation be a bad memory?

    Emotions and memories are intertwined and Hilary doesn’t seem to be feeling the emotions you would expect for a woman who is being rejected. She seems much too positive. Alarm bells are going off in my head. Was she somehow in on some plan with Doug to get rid of Faylene? I can’t help but wonder this, time and time again.

  7. When Faylene tells Doug that she had this revelation that she and Doug are supposed to be together, Doug tells us he told Faylene that he was just intimate with Hilary, and according to Doug, Faylene’s simply says, “That’s interesting. All I can tell you is that I’ve been told at the San Diego temple….” Does that even seem plausible? Doug seems to make Faylene out to be a complete idiot, who has no emotions and is completely able to overlook that Doug just slept with another woman. I’m not buying it.
  8. When Hilary recounts her story about hearing that Doug and Faylene got remarried, she tries to act surprised, but it doesn’t sit right with me. She is smirking through it all. Why? Why wasn’t she truly surprised? Her emotional memories are not matching her story, which is a huge red flag for me, again.
  9. Faylene at one point writes, “I must have faith in Doug’s vision.” I think this is powerful. Whose vision was Faylene following? Her vision or Doug’s vision?
  10. In one letter that Faylene wrote, it has the word “I” underlined in multiple places. This is very strange and notable (a reader pointed this out in the comment section). Most people don’t underline “I”, however if someone else wrote it, they might to emphasize it. Have you ever written a letter, and emphasizes “I” with an underscore? This is a huge red flag for me.
  11. When Hilary reads that letter, her “cry” jumps out at me. There are no tears. Nothing about Hilary feels genuine.
  12. When Faylene believes that she is going to die, and she writes to Hilary that she wants Hilary to be with Doug, she writes”Hilary, only you can know between Heavenly Father and yourself if it is heavenly father’s will for you to be with Doug & to be part of our eternal family.” How do we know that she means marriage by this? How do we know that this is Faylene’s Doug, Doug Grant? Could Hilary have introduced another character with the name Doug to Faylene as a part of a bigger scheme? I’d have to read the diaries and journals to see. Of course, Faylene could have simply been brainwashed. She has the personality and predisposition for someone who succumbs to brainwashing.
  13. I find it odd how Faylene wrote “…whoever this guy is that you are dating…” If Hilary and Faylene are close, why wouldn’t Hilary tell Faylene his name?
  14. Also nowhere in that letter does Faylene talk about her Doug and Hilary raising her children as a family, nor does she use the term marriage. It’s oddly missing. You would think she would have written this letter to Doug and Hilary, wouldn’t you, if she wanted them to be together? Perhaps she only wanted Hilary to raise her children and be a “mom” for them should something happen to her. Then again, she could have been brainwashed. You can rule that out.
  15. I don’t believe Faylene could fall of a 60-foot cliff and still be standing, or would be able to get up and walk away. That’s flat out outrageous to me and a huge red flag.
  16. Schadler says, “If she did fall, did you push her?” Notice Doug smiles, and laughs and then very controllingly stops himself and softly says, “No”. All of these behaviors are notably odd and out of place for me and they are blaring red flags for me as well.
  17. Doug insists he made a 911 call, but there is no record of it. It’s absolute nonsense. Chad White further supports that Doug didn’t want to call 911 either because he was “afraid”.
  18. And how ironic is it that just three weeks after Faylene dies that Doug and Hilary marry? Clearly, Doug wanted to be with Hilary.

I can’t help but wonder if Doug stood a financial gain by eliminating Faylene.
,
I suspect Doug confuses a lot of people because the tears stream down his face, but he could have been crying because he was worried about loosing his freedom, as his trial date was looming. At times, Doug’s tears seem genuine, such as when he looks at Hilary, but other times, I wonder if they are manufactured by thinking about how he would cope if he was convicted and lost everything, instead of truly feeling empathy for Faylene.

Faylene was deeply religious and believed in revelations. This tells us she was very open to suggestions, and had the personality which was highly susceptible to brainwashing, and I wouldn’t put it past someone like Hilary or Doug to do it to her for money. Not for an instant. I certainly don’t trust either one of them.

My Thoughts on Lyle Herring

I wasn’t actually going to post the story and video of Lyle Herring because his behavior is obviously suspicious to anyone who looks at the facts, alone.

[ABC.com]”LAPD Det. Chris Gable called his cooperation “fragmented” and “less than helpful,” and added that Herring is “not someone I would expect as a grieving husband.”

Read moreThis is an immediate and huge red flag by itself. Another huge red flag is that Lyle didn’t report his wife missing. It was Leslie’s sister, Aasha Davis, who reported Leslie missing after Leslie missed work several days in a row. You would think if Lyle and Leslie got into a fight, and he awoke and she was gone, that if he didn’t hear from her for a day, he’d call people to see if she was okay, but he didn’t do that. It’s very notable.

Furthermore, Lyle told police he and Leslie had a fight, but at a news conference, he refused to answer any questions about their argument. If Lyle is being honest, he should have nothing to hide, so why won’t he talk about it? It’s another red flag.

Leo Stallworth, the reporter, also tells us that Lyle is launching his own investigation into his wife’s disappearance, but if Lyle is truly interested to find his wife, why wouldn’t he be cooperating with detectives? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The facts in this case speak volumes, but of course, it is always important to see Lyle speak.

When I first saw Lyle, I got an immediate sense that he likely has a temper. I get that from what I call paralleling. I also suspect that he is the controlling, dominant one in the relationship, and his wife, Leslie, was the more docile one of the two of them. This means that his character doesn’t bode well for the given situation. If I saw someone who was humble here, it would make me question everything, but I don’t. I see arrogance, instead, which gives me more concern.

When the detective says that Lyle’s cooperation is fragmented, did you notice Lyle is exchanging some words with a woman at that time? Look at how he is talking, ignoring the press conference and telling her what he thinks. Look at his body language and how he moving his hand as he talks. There is obviously tension between Lyle and this woman, and Lyle is clearly making his opinion known. Why did Lyle feel like he had to speak up at this moment during the press conference? Why couldn’t he control himself here? Notice how the woman at the end ignores him? She realizes Lyle is making a spectacle of himself.

Lyle’s body language is interesting when the reporter talks to him in the parking garage. Do you notice how relaxed and calm he is? I get no sense that he is upset, agitated or grieving for his wife. He acts like this day is like any other day. Most people who are looking for a lost loved one show some tension, stress or express their emotions. Lyle does none of this. It’s another oddity.

Lyle goes on to say, “Couples have…ah… discussions about many things all at a time, you know, so, um…you know, it was nothing out of the ordinary, uh…uh… but ah… I really can’t put a finger on it, you know?” I find it interesting how he changes the tone of his argument to a “discussion” here. Is he sanitizing his behavior? Trying to paint himself in a different light?

Furthermore, it appears like he might be smirking when says he can’t put a finger on it, but I can’t tell for sure because it is cut. However, does his statement, “I really can’t put a finger on it” make any sense at all? It’s suggestive that he is denying they even had an argument now, isn’t it? Why would he do that? This is suggestive of someone who is manipulative.

Lyle goes on to say,”I enjoy the warmth of my wife, I enjoy everything about her, you know, so… I just truly miss her right now.” Clearly talking about the “warmth of my wife” is an odd statement. I completely agree with you all in the comment section. I also find the words “right now” rather odd and interesting as well. Why does he feel that way “right now“?

Lyle talks about himself and not about his wife when he says, “I don’t think it was a fair overview of my character. I haven’t slept. My eyes are red. I’m just totally devastated here.” If he is devastated, like he says, I would expect to see some emotions regarding his missing wife, but they are notably and strangely absent. He is a blank slate. More than that, if he is truly devastated, shouldn’t he be describing his wife to us, asking us for our help, so he can bring her back, if she is truly missing? Shouldn’t he have a photos of her if he is launching his own investigation?

Notice that everything Lyle says contradicts his actions, behavior and emotions? When actions, behaviors or emotions don’t match the spoken word, pay attention: Pay close attention. It means things aren’t as they appear.

I fear for what happened to Leslie Herring…