Ted Haggard Speaks Out on Oprah

/in /by

Today on Oprah, Ted Haggard is speaking out. If you go to Oprah.com, and look at the preview of the show, it should be interesting. She is asking some great questions!

The AP also released this video yesterday of a young man who formerly attended Haggard’s New Life Church.

Tune back later this week for my thoughts. In the meantime, you can read about my previous thoughts about Haggard. Did you know the first time I saw him, I just didn’t trust him? It was his fake smile that never ended that clued me in that this guy had big secrets! That’s always a big tip-off to anyone. When someone keeps a fake smile plastered on their face through everything they say, it’s a good indication what you are being told is being sugar-coated, in a big, big way!

Rod Blagojevich

/in , /by


Clip of Rod Blagojevich talking to Barbara Walters on The View
January 26, 2009

Read more I just decided to spend a few moments this morning to watch Rod Blagojevich, as several of you have requested my opinion, and all I can say after watching the first clip of him talking to Barbara Walters, on “The View”, is that he is one slippery man!!

It’s incredible.

Walters asks him some very direct questions, and he refuses to say anything. I sat there and said, well, if he claims to be being treated unfairly, well then, speak the truth, but he doesn’t want to do that, either. This is behavior that does not support honesty.

Blagojevich is as evasive as one could get. He won’t confirm or deny he even said some basic words. That’s absolutely hilarious, actually.

Why would he do that, you ask?

Well, its another avenue he can use later to refute anything. He can deny he ever said such words, that it isn’t even him talking, etc. You see, at this point, he doesn’t know what the wire tap tapes about him contain. I suspect he has no idea how conclusive they are, and so until he knows the whole enchilada against him, he doesn’t want to say anything that he can’t later refute. That’s slippery! He wants to claim all these things, but he won’t stand on anything. It’s absurd.

Blagojevich seems to find himself very important and has a grandiose sense of self, he doesn’t seem to show a lot of emotions when he talks, he wants us to believe the world is out to get him, and that the rules the rest of the politicians abide by aren’t fair to him. Add to that his evasive language, and the picture it paints, to me, isn’t far off from what Cynthia McFadden has said others have called him in this interview.

Cynthia McFadden did a great interview, by the way. She really corners him good! She says, “This kind of talk would be okay so long as you didn’t act on it. Is that what you are saying?”

Blagojevich says, “I think if you explore ideas and discuss things, and you are willing to think outside the box, and you test a variety of things, and you know you’ll end up doing only the right thing, once you sort it all out, and that there is a process unfolding, that that is part of what it takes to be a leader and make the right decisions….”

It’s total nonsense. I think that speaks for itself, personally.

Do I trust Blagojevich? No, I don’t. He hasn’t done one thing to support his honesty. Not one thing. Instead, he hopes he can convince people by being firm, aggressive and in-your-face about absolutely nothing, but proclaims his innocence. I suspect that this behavior has carried Blago a long time, but that isn’t working anymore.

Blagojevich has had mannerisms from day one that have always had me on alert, and made me very cautious about him. I am not surprised at all to see him where he is at right now. I was surprised this didn’t happen sooner, actually.

Rachael Mullinex and Ian Allen

/in , /by

“48 Hours Mystery” profiled the case of Barbara Mullinex this past Saturday night. Barbara ended up dead in the harbor not far from where she lived in Southern California. She was stabbed over 50 times, and found with a butter knife in her eye. Clearly, it was a vicious murder, but the big question was, who did it?

There were three potential suspects: Bruce Mullenix, her ex-husband with whom she currently lived, her 17-year-old daughter Rachael, and Rachael’s fiance, Ian Allen.

Read more“48 Hours” presented the story in a way to keep the mystery going as long as they could, but when you heard about the behavior and lies of Rachael Mullinex, it didn’t take much for the average person to see who was guilty. Allen confessed, and tried to protect Rachael, but Rachael wanted us to believe she was abused by Allen, and that he knocked her out, kidnapped her and she was just a victim in this case.

But when you hear that Allen left Rachael alone at the house for an hour, and she could have easily called 911 to get help, or left the house to escape, her story clearly falls apart. Also, when she was on the run with Allen, she was left alone in the gas station, and could have cried out for help, but she didn’t. Instead, she walks around the gas station, as seen on security video, without a worry. But the worst part was when Rachael text messaged Allen shortly after her mother’s murder, during that hour that he left her alone. She didn’t call for help. Instead, she typed the words “I love you” to Allen. That is what sealed her fate, or should have sealed her fate, for any doubters. It didn’t take Eyes for Lies to see this.

I personally suspect that “48 Hours” did the interviews after Rachael’s conviction, which should be taken into account, because, if this is true, it meant that the “high stakes” of Rachael’s lies dissipated, and many of her clues would have dissipated as well. But even with that, Rachael’s emotions were way off kilter. She was happy and smiling through the entire interview, which was very inconsistent with what she was saying. She smiled until the point where she talked about being convicted. Then her emotions changed, and changed notably. Suddenly that “I’m-innocent-girlish-smile” that she had on her face the entire interview dissipated when she finally felt pain. She tries to tell us the only mistake she made was dating Allen. Give me a break!

Rachael told us how much she loved her mother, but never shed a tear for her. She didn’t even have a hard time talking about her mother being murdered. And when she told us Allen was abusive to her, she had absolutely no emotional connection to that, either. Rachael talks about highly emotional subjects, but never gets emotional. That’s a big tip-off.

I did notice a few spots in the interview with Erin Moriarty where Rachael had a hard time concealing her deceptive ways. She ever-so-slightly indicated two or three times that she felt joy in being deceptive. Her face got a glow about it as she’d recalled a memory (her eyes looked upwards), and she’d grin ever so slightly. It was muted and very, very subtle, but it was there. Rachael also shows an expression of anger at the prosecutor when she talks about the fact that Rachael didn’t call 911. Rachael purses her lips and licks them, very briefly. She is clearly mad, but manages to hide it very well. If Rachael was innocent, or cared about her mother, that memory would have caused her pain. Instead, she is angry because, I suspect, she knew she messed up.

I personally believed that Rachael was crying a true cry of desperation in the police interview at times, specifically when she was told she was going to be arrested for her mother’s murder. She was distraught that she was caught. That devastates Rachael, but of course, I don’t think her cry is consistent throughout that interview. It ebbs and flows from real to fake, depending on what they talk about. At one point, she cries out and then suddenly stops and talks normally (which is very abnormal). It might be an edit in the tape, or bad acting on Rachael’s part. Either way, I do not trust Rachael and I believe the jury got this right. Rachael’s dad is an innocent man.

I don’t disagree with the prosecutor here when she says that she believes Rachael Mullinex is a psychopath.

* * *

FYI: I made comments about last week’s “48 Hours” audio segment of Bob Eckhart in the comment section, if you have interest.

48 Hours: The Lady In The Harbor

/in /by

Did you see “48 Hours” last night? It was a fascinating mystery. There some good clues. Did you notice them?

I went to 48 Hours website today to see what people were saying about the case, and I see it is a toss up. Some people believe Rachael Mullenix is innocent, others believe she is guilty. One person suspects the father, Bruce, did it.

What do you think? Feel free to share your thoughts below.

My Thoughts on “Lie to Me”

/in /by

Here are your questions and my thoughts from the first episode of “Lie to Me.”

Read more

  1. What was your overall impression of the show?

    For a drama, amazingly, I enjoyed it. As my regular readers know, I don’t watch too much on TV that is fictitious. It just doesn’t cut it for me, but this show, naturally, had interesting content that relates to my passion, so I liked it. I will definitely watch it again.

    I was surprised that the show focused on body language and more importantly microexpressions alone when there are so many other clues to deception. For those of you who read my blog regularly, you know there are a whole host of other clues that I use. See this poll.

    I was a little concerned that people will think that just because someone touches their forehead that it will always mean the person doing the behavior feels shameful. This is not the case. As with all clues to deception, they cannot be applied across the board.

    For me, each case needs to be looked at individually. If I applied clues across the board to all people I saw, I’d be mistaken equally as much as I am correct. In essence, I’d be no better than chance. Deception detection, for me, isn’t about the clues as much as it is about the “inconsistencies” of behavior, speech, personality and demeanor. I am fearful that people will attempt to do this, and it could have devastating results. I’ve seen many people here on my blog attempt to read microexpressions, and miss the mark. In my opinion, not all head shakes “no” when someone is talking positively about something automatically means the person is lying. And if you can’t accurately identify a smile and its meaning, it can be disastrous. Not all smiles mean a person is happy. Nor is every hand to the forehead shame. So please be cautious, and realize this is a TV show. Spotting deception is much more complex than what this show can cover in an hour. Liars are as diverse as the lies they tell. If it was only about spotting the clues to deceit, I think most people would be wizards.

    I also don’t know why the show uses the polygraph, or at a minimum shows it. It doesn’t make any sense. People with this ability do not need to use, nor would they want to use a polygraph. I suspect it is all for effect, but if people believe this show is “the science”, it may send the wrong message. I think people should know the show is “based on science,” but they need to take into account that it is a drama and entertainment, first and foremost. You can’t forget it has been “Hollywoodized.”

  2. Did you feel like the actors were acting to you, or did it seem real to you?

    It was a toss up for me. There were times when I was really absorbed into the show, and there were other times when I’d lose the moment because something wasn’t right. That is very normal for me, and why I typically don’t enjoy dramas or movies. It’s nothing specific to “Lie to Me”.

    I did think, however, that “Lie to Me” did a good job with all the expressions and acting out emotions overall. Some were perfect! I think Monica Raymund did a superb job, and I really liked Tim Roth and Kelli Williams. I struggled, however, with Brendan Hines’ character. He just didn’t do it for me. He seemed to want to laugh or be giddy when he said really serious things, and it just didn’t work for me. His character, in my opinion, is a liability rather than an asset, but I also have a horrible sense of humor. I am way too serious most of the time for my own good, and I know it. So take that for what it is worth.

  3. What are your thoughts about the show seeming to endorse or at least show indifference to lying at times?

    That’s a great question. In the one scene, Dr. Lightman lied to the student to get her to confess what she knew about the murder by telling her another student committed suicide (which was a lie). In the police interrogations I’ve seen, when the police lie, it has had devastating results, getting honest people confused and mixed up. It’s caused honest people, who are insecure, to doubt themselves and make false confessions. I do not believe in lying to subjects in interrogations.

    As for Brendan Hines, and his radical honesty: Is it radical honesty when someone says everything that is on their mind? I think rather it is about having no tact. Being honest does not mean that one has to be tactless or say whatever is on their mind; nor does it have to be horrible in timing.

    As for Dr. Lightman not going public with the information he found out about the senator, is that lying? I don’t think it is. Just because we have become privy to information, and choose not to share it with people, in my mind, isn’t considered lying. Now granted, if he was paid to do a job and discover if someone was lying, well, he had an obligation. In that circumstance, I would probably have to tell my client that I discovered the truth and that truth is not what I expected, and is more private than I ever could have imagined. I would likely refund his money, and refer him to talk to the senator. That wouldn’t be lying, but choosing to respect the complexity of the situation I found myself in.

    I am a firm believer you can be honest in 98% of situations with people; it’s just a matter of what you say, and how you say it. If you don’t like something, you don’t have to say you hate it. You can always say something that you believe to be true instead of lying by changing the focus, and still dealing with the subject at hand (i.e., “The jeans you wore last night were my favorite. I prefer them to these.”). There are always tactful ways to be respectful, truthful and not lie.

  4. Were the microexpressions displayed longer in the show than in real life?

    That’s a good question. There were times when they clearly slowed them down, or replayed them so that people could see them, but I am not sure if they did that for every single one. I didn’t pay that close attention. I would think they would have had to speed them up actually to make them 1/25th of a second, because when we make the expressions consciously, they are much slower. I don’t know if they did that. That’s a great question for the producers of the show! You’d need to contact them directly, as I am in no way affiliated with “Lie to Me”.

  5. Did you experience the scenes and lies like you do in real life, or was it different?

    The answer is no, it felt different to me for a variety of reasons. It definitely felt like acting. I do have to say that it didn’t seem natural for me to spot the lies on the show. It felt weird, probably because people were acting. More than that, to spot deception, a lot of what I do is match people’s personalities to their behaviors. I look for inconsistencies. By looking at a face, I immediately get a sense of a person’s personality, and that information gives me a foundation to understand people. Peoples’ facial features give me valuable information, too. I talk about this in what I call “paralleling” elsewhere in my blog, and with actors, you can’t do that because the actors don’t play their true selves. The actors play “characters”, and many times, the actors chosen for the part don’t fit the “characters” they are playing. More than that, their behaviors across the board are not natural. They are scripted, so things don’t occur naturally.

Interestingly enough, more than one of you have pointed out to me that I need to change careers and go to Hollywood to become an acting coach/consultant. I should help actors achieve their expressions, and hit the mark more. It’s an interesting concept. I’ve always thought about doing that for the television commercial industry, because they miss the mark all the time! Missing the emotions and expressions in a TV commercial has to influence how people buy products. I bet you’re not surprised to know I am rarely ever influenced to buy a product due to a commercial. I find them very ineffective for the most part.

Overall, I think the show is good, because it opens people up to a valuable science. It introduces that there are people who can spot lies by using body language and a host of other clues that people give off when they deceive. So, I’ll leave you with a word of caution. Just remember, the traits of a liar are as diverse as the people who lie. Just because someone does something you think only liars do, it’s not that simple. I can almost always find an honest person who does the exact same behavior for a different reason.

So there you have it, an inside perspective from a wizard. What did you think of the show? Will you watch it again?

*For more comments about the show from me, click on the “Lie to Me” label below.