A reader of my blog informed me this morning that Drew Peterson has confirmed that he is engaged to another young 23-year-old woman. If Peterson gets his way, this will be his 5th marriage.
Peterson, for the record, is twice this girls age as he is 54-years-old.
The woman’s name has not been released to the media, and she has not made any media appearances that I can find. The couple according to Peterson have been dating for only four months.
Mind you, Drew Peterson is still legally married to Stacy, but that hasn’t stopped him from inquiring about his legal options for a split.
[Fox News]Desertion for at least one year is grounds for divorce under Illinois law — though Peterson, as the divorce petitioner, would have to show he wasn’t at fault for causing his wife to leave, Leving said.
All I can say is I feel sorry for this woman. She must have had a horrible background like Peterson’s other exes and has a need to feel sorry for Peterson, and believe him. Her life must have been empty for her to resort to finding comfort in a man as chilling as Peterson. How sad. Let’s hope this doesn’t end as tragic as his other relationships.
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2008-12-17 12:21:002008-12-17 12:21:00Still Married Drew Peterson is Engaged
A reader alerted me today to a story out of Gainsville which she read about on True Crime Report. Clint Horvatt tells a horrific story of being out with his fiancee last Friday afternoon to go shopping when she asked him to pull over because she recognized a truck that needed help on the side of the road. But what happened next is perplexing. They pulled over, and instead of getting out to help the guy, he came to them, robbed them and shot Horvatt’s fiancee, Summer Smith, in the head. She died later that day.
Is Clint Horvatt telling the truth? Click to watch Horvatt for yourself.
Read moreMany things do not point to the fact that Horvatt is telling the truth, though Horvatt tells us he is on medication. I don’t know what medication he is on, and because he is on medication, I think we should be cautious. I’d want to know how mind-altering of a drug Horvatt was on before I’d come to any final conclusions, but the following things are very notable to me.
Horvatt has no emotions. He’s like a robot repeating a story that he memorized over and over again. He states the facts, totally detached, yet supposedly his own life was in jeopardy. This is a big red flag. Furthermore, he smiles multiple times without any indication of stress which is inconsistent for a man who should be grieving, who experienced such a devastating trauma, or who is in shock. It’s very notable.
Horvatt acts like he is emotional a couple of time, but notice there are no tears?
Horvatt never refers to his fiancee by name until the end of the interview. Why? It shows detachment. Her name is Summer Smith.
Horvatt says “I’m not sure exactly what you all want me to say besides my fiancee was shot yest…a couple of days ago..uh..in a robbery.”
Does this make any sense?
Horvatt tells us “She asked me to stop off and ah…help the individual out” yet when he continues, he doesn’t tell us that the guy was fixing a flat tire or anything. Oddly he says “the individual got out on the passenger side.”
How did his fiancee know the guy was in trouble? People stop on the side of the road all the time. It doesn’t mean they are necessarily in trouble — especially if they are sitting inside the vehicle. I find this odd and perplexing. Horvatt gives so many details, but here they are lacking. Why?
Also, why is Horvatt showing positive (happy) emotions when he says “stop off and ah…help the individual out.”? It’s like he feels good he was a “good guy”. If he was devastated right now, he would not feel like a good guy. He would careless about feeling this way if he truly felt he lost the love of his life. It makes no sense.
Also, I have to wonder, when Horvatt told the police this story, did he tell them they drove by the truck first and then turned around to offer help? Most people don’t come upon a truck and immediately recognize it, and know a person needs help when the driver is still in the vehicle. Horvatt’s story alludes to the fact he likely didn’t drive past it and return which is unusual.
If Horvatt’s fiancee stopped to help the guy, why did she roll down her window? Why didn’t she get out and meet the guy? This is odd behavior for someone who is stopping to help someone. It doesn’t make sense.
What are the odds that you stop to help someone who does not appear to be in trouble and they, in turn, rob and kill you? Also, what are the odds they would leave a witness alive to speak about it? I would think the odds are highly unlikely.
Horvatt says the suspect said “Give me your shit” (see video on bottom left here). Would you know that means give your wallet and purse, or would you wonder if he meant the truck? How come Horvatt and his fiancee knew what that meant, and didn’t ask any quesitons? I certainly wouldn’t have known what it meant, and without seeing a gun, I would have put the car in drive and drove away, or told the guy to go to hell or I’d roll up the window. Why didn’t Horvatt?
If this is a robbery, why wouldn’t the perpetrator not show the gun immediately to show that he means business? Why would he hide the gun? Why would he only pull it out to shoot the fiancee? It defies logic.
Horvatt provides great details about the suspect, however when it comes to the robbery, his details fuzz. I find this perplexing. Horvatt says “I kind of, uh, got the impression of what we were doing, what was going on, I was getting robbed.”
He kind of got the impression, but not really? How does that work? Hmmm….I wonder if I am getting robbed. I don’t think so.
“Kind of” is what I coined hedge words. It’s a notable red flag. It makes absolutely no sense. You either believe something this traumatic, or you don’t. He either believed he was going to be robbed or he didn’t. Why does he express doubt?
Horvatt continues “After he took my wallet, with his left hand, I do remember, he put it up, he put his hand on her purse, she grabbed his arm and that is when he pulled out from his right hand, and then he shot her. I said [blanked out — “Oh Shit”?] and then she looked directly at him and then he shot her…. in the head, and by that time, I had the truck in reverse, I was backing up.”
What is interesting here is the guy grabbed Horvatt’s wallet and tried to use the same hand to grab her purse. Isn’t that odd? Why doesn’t Horvatt talk about this in detail like “he tried to hold my wallet and grab her purse at the same time.” He doesn’t seem to recollect that, does he? Why no details here?
Horvatt tells us “I was always told to, of course, give up my possessions, keep’m calm, so I can get out of there.” Then why did he promptly say “Oh shit!” or some expletive that needed to be bleeped out? Is that keeping calm?
More important, notice that “shit” seems to be a Horvatt word?
Notice he doesn’t say the word “gun”? Why?
Was his fiancee she shot once or twice? I find it odd how later in the interview, when Horvatt is talking about the ambulance, he says “I only heard one gunshot go off.” It was a strange place to recount this detail. It was notably odd and there was likely a reason for it.
Notice how once his fiancee is shot, Horvatt’s details get real sketchy again? Horvatt recounts “…and then he shot her…in the head, and by that time, I had the truck in reverse, I was backing up, I seen him go back to cock the gun again.”
How do you drive away in reverse, and notice that he is cocking the gun again at the same time? Didn’t he also say he had his head down? How can he do all of this? How come no more shots were fired on his vehicle? Did he drive right by the guy again, or turn around? Remember, Horvatt says he only heard one gunshot go off.
Notice his details when he tells us he called 911. Why aren’t they as good as when he told us the rest of his story? Why are they so sketchy? Naturally, of course, he could have been really shook up, but then why isn’t he showing us emotions? I see neither of these, and it odd and perplexing. It’s quite notable.
I find it really strange that Horvatt has no fear this madman might come and finish him off since he is the only witness. Horvatt freely volunteers his phone numbers to the people and the press. He talks about Summer Smith’s child too with reckless regard. Does this make any sense? Would you do that when the are the only witness to a homicide?
When the reporter asks what the last couple of days have been like for him, watch Horvatt smile. It’s chilling. He actually laughs and says he is taking his medication like crazy.
Horvatt talks about his love for “Cole Smith”, how Cole doesn’t have a mother now and his father doesn’t want anything to do with him. Horvatt continues “I’m the only father he knows.”
Is he hoping to raise Cole now?
Do you see John Mark Karr when you look at Horvatt? I do. I couldn’t help but see it from the very beginning. Does Horvatt have a normal affection for children, or is this strange and unusual? My eyebrows are raised here. I’d be curious about looking into this. I hope Cole is not in his sole care right now. That would alarm me.
At the end, I find it odd how Horvatt says when talking about the perpetrator “If he’s out there (smile almost laughs), I hope he’s nervous, because, um, I’m not going to stop until I have justification.”
If? What? Did the perpetrator disappear into thin air? If this madman really shot his fiancee, he is out there. There is no doubt about it, so why does Horvatt express doubt? It doesn’t make sense.
I find the smile odd as well as the word “justification”. How can anyone justify this crime?
The reporter asks “Do you think he would have shot you next?” and without any stress or fear, Horvatt says, “Yes. Yes… because…(notice his pause, and odd swallowing). He is thinking here. He continues “When I put that thing in reverse, I saw his finger (smile) on the trigger going backwards again, and he was cocking it…”
I find his smile perplexing here as well as his thinking, odd pause and swallowing. Also did Horvatt see the gun cocked twice? Did Horvatt see this before? Notice he says “again”? Did I miss the first time?
Most people would have fear when they recollected this, if they believed it. Memories and emotions are connected yet Horvatt has no negative fear or emotion. Instead Horvatt smiles. It doesn’t add up. It’s chilling.
Horvatt continues “I don’t know if it was meant for her again, or if it was meant for me.” Wait a minute, didn’t he just say he thought it was for him above? This guy loves to talk and be the center of the limelight, that’s for sure. Remind you of John Mark Karr? Clearly, Horvatt says one thing and then immediately changes his mind. Why isn’t he feeling consistent?
I definitely have my eyebrows raised with Horvatt’s story. We need to rule out that drugs couldn’t influence his behavior to this extent before we come to any conclusions, but I’m uneasy to say the least.
To read more about Clint, click on the label below.
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2008-12-15 15:06:002008-12-15 15:06:00Clint Horvatt
I ran across this interesting quirky test online yesterday and I thought you would enjoy it. It’s from the book Quirkology.
Are you a good liar? Most people think that they are, but in reality there are big differences in how well we can pull the wool over the eyes of others. There is a very simple test that can help determine your ability to lie. Using the first finger of your dominant hand, draw a capital letter Q on your forehead.
Some people draw the letter Q in such a way that they themselves can read it. That is, they place the tail of the Q on the right-hand side of their forehead. Other people draw the letter in a way that can be read by someone facing them, with the tail of the Q on the left side of their forehead. This quick test provides a rough measure of a concept known as “self-monitoring”. High self-monitors tend to draw the letter Q in a way in which it could be seen by someone facing them. Low self-monitors tend to draw the letter Q in a way in which it could be read by themselves.
High self-monitors tend to be concerned with how other people see them. They are happy being the centre of attention, can easily adapt their behaviour to suit the situation in which they find themselves, and are skilled at manipulating the way in which others see them. As a result, they tend to be good at lying. In contrast, low self-monitors come across as being the “same person” in different situations. Their behaviour is guided more by their inner feelings and values, and they are less aware of their impact on those around them. They also tend to lie less in life, and so not be so skilled at deceit.
I ended up being a high self-monitor, but I really don’t care too much what people think about me, though I am extremely conscience of how I communicate with others. I am always putting myself into their shoes so I often look at how I might appear from the outside looking in, if that makes any sense. It’s important to me that people understand me as I want to be understood so I guess I would agree, I am a high-self monitor. Mind you, I have no idea how accurate or true this is, but its fun nonetheless.
I do have to wonder if where you place the “Q” end is related to if you are right or left-handed. Anyone draw the “Q” end on the opposite side you write with?
What are you? Feel free to share the rest of us!
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2008-12-12 15:56:002008-12-12 15:56:00Friday Fun: The “Q” Test
Apparently a utility worker a couple of blocks from the Anthony home (approximately 1/4 of a mile) today at approximately 9:30 found a plastic bag and when he picked it up, a child’s skull fell out. Inside were badly decomposed remains of a young child. The bag was found in a wooded area.
“[EquuSearch volunteer Deborah] Smith said the area where the remains were found is “really wet and steep and there’s lots of snakes back there.”
“EquuSearch spokeswoman Mandy Albritton said their workers did not check that location earlier because it was submerged in water when they had looked in September. When they returned in November, the site had been fenced off [private property].”
May Caylee Anthony get justice.
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2008-12-11 13:42:002008-12-11 13:42:00Child Remains Found Near Anthony Home
David Temple: Is he an innocent man or a murderer? Unfortunately, we only have circumstantial evidence in this case so all we are left with is to listen to the facts, see if they add up, and to watch each of the players involved tell their story to see if they are consistent, and honest.
When I watched David Temple, I also had to wonder, was he interviewed by 48 Hours before or after his trial? If he was interviewed after the trial, the high stakes for Temple will have dissipated, and hence his clues to deception will have waned dramatically. I do not know the answer to this, but it would be interesting to find out. Normally, in most cases, there is plenty of audio and video footage from the trial where we can glean enough information that the interview timing is not important, but since court audio was not allowed in this case and no footage was shown, it becomes more critical.
However, even considering all of this, I still have major questions about Temple.
Very difficult to live back through that day. My name is David Temple. Belinda was the best thing that ever happened in my life. She was the mother of my child. She was fixing to give me my second child. She was pregnant. She got home about four o’clock. We just decided I would take Evan out and run around. We stopped at (grocery store), just to get a drink. We stopped, got two drinks, and I picked up cat food while we were in there getting the drinks. Then we decided to go to Home Depot. We’d have time to do that, making it home in time to take Belinda to eat dinner.
We pulled into the garage. We got my son out, started to walk towards the back door and I could see that the back door is open and that it’s cracked with glass and took my son across the street, and banged on my friends house, and handed them Evan and asked them if they could call 911. Then ran back across the street, went in through the gate into my house. Then making it upstairs to her lying in a pool of blood, in our closet, with her knees up underneath her stomach to protect her baby. Dove across the bed, and got the phone to call 911.
The intro piece by Temple is interesting on multiple levels. When David talks about facts, he seems to be quite precise, and gives us details. He says they got two drinks, he decided to buy cat food and that they decided to go to Home Depot because they would have time to do that before dinner. He talks about pulling into the garage, getting Evan out (we?), and seeing the back door. Yet when Temple goes into the house without Evan, suddenly the details and his thoughts vanish. Suddenly, he has no details of what he thought, or how he looked for Belinda in the house.
“…handed them Evan and asked them if they could call 911. Then ran back across the street, went in through the gate into my house. Then making it upstairs to her lying in a pool of blood, in our closet…”
I find it strange, too, how Temple just ran upstairs and found her. How come he didn’t look for her downstairs, call for her and wonder where she was? He seemed to instinctively know she would still be resting upstairs. Isn’t that a big assumption? Especially if someone broke into the house?
Notice that Temple tense changes as he speaks, too. This is a notable red flag. He talks in past tense through most of his recollection until he goes into the house. Suddenly then he says “…making it upstairs to her lying in a pool of blood.” Why doesn’t he say then I went upstairs, past tense? Or I made my way upstairs? Why present tense all of the sudden? Most people who are honest don’t have difficulty speaking in the proper tense.
Notice, too, the pronouns disappear at times. It’s another red flag.
I also found it interesting how Temple says he “Dove across the bed, and got the phone to dial 911.” By this, we can assume he used the master bedroom cordless phone. Holtke talks about what was recovered at the crime scene. He says “This is her cell phone, the cordless phone that was found in the closet,…”
Was there a cordless phone, and a cell phone found in the closet? Or just a cell phone which he refers to as a “cordless phone”? Because if there was a cordless phone found the closet, is that the one that Temple claims to have used to dial 911? If there was only a cell phone in the closet, there is nothing unusual here.
If Belinda retrieved a cell phone (and it wasn’t planted there), why didn’t she call 911? She managed to make it into the closet.
Also, notice how Temple tells us that he found his wife “with her knees up underneath her stomach to protect her baby.” In the crime scene photos, we see Belinda with her legs stretched out. Did Temple move her to check her pulse, or to attempt CPR which he said he couldn’t do? Do the investigators move Belinda, or the EMT? Or does Temple have a memory that is inconsistent with the crime scene? We need more facts here.
Temple clearly lies several times in the 48 Hours interview, and it doesn’t take anything more than common logic to see it. If he is innocent, why is he doing this? People only lie when they have something to hide.
(A) Temple says “January 10th, we were a happy threesome as anybody in the country. Being at the zoo. Her fryin’ chicken for me, which is my favorite meal, when we got home. That weekend was perfect.”
In that statement, Temple wants us to believe he was happily-ever-after in love with his wife, Belinda. However, if we look at the facts, that he was out cheating on his wife just 10 days before on New Year’s Eve (after lying to her), we see that Temple is willing to say anything regardless if it is the truth or not.
(B) Temple also tells us that he wasn’t falling in love with Heather Scott, and that he planned to break up with her. Yet Scott tells us, herself, in a written statement that Temple told her just three days before Belinda’s murder that he was falling in love with her. Add to that, that he marries her just two years later.
I also find it odd how Temple’s son comes home from daycare because he has a fever, but within no time that fever is miraculously gone and his son is fine to go out for the day to play. Most parents when they have a sick child don’t take the child out to play for the day–especially if it means they may have to miss work a second day to care for the child if he isn’t well.
Remember, Temple doesn’t tell us he had to run any specific errands. He tells us they went out to “run around”, and he tells us they basically didn’t have anything to do! I find this very strange and unusual.
I also wonder if it was common for Belinda to rest and sleep directly after work when she was pregnant. Was this normal or unusual behavior?
In Temple’s 911 call, I find it really odd how Temple is calm and that he has no fear for his life, that the gunman could still be in the house, or that he could be a target, too. This is extremely strange. Our natural instincts kick up in a situation where we see a loved one dead on the ground, murdered.
Temple even asks the 911 operator “Do I need to stay on here?” He wants to hang up before the police and EMTs show up. His lack of fear is abnormal here. Very abnormal.
Temple’s sobs in the beginning of the 911 call sound fake to me. He is doing what I call the “child sob”. He has this “I’m-out-of-breath stutter” that adults typically don’t get because adults don’t cry so hard they lose their breath, yet Temple oddly does. Notice, however, when Temple speaks to the operator, it stops?
Notice how Temple never sniffles either with all of his crying?
Later in the 911 call, the operator asks him “Okay, does it look like someone has made entry into the house, sir?” Temple says “It…it looks like it. I don’t know. When I ran my son across the street, gave him to a neighbor and came right back in.”
His statement is a bit odd and doesn’t make much sense, number one. Second, if your wife is laying there dead and you saw the back door was busted out, wouldn’t you know if someone made entry into the house? You’d be damn confident about it. You wouldn’t say “I don’t know”. This is a huge red flag for me. Why on earth would he have doubt? Why didn’t he panic at this point–that maybe they are still in the house? He had to realize the potential here, even if he had overlooked it before, but he doesn’t seem to do so. Why?
How come nothing was stolen from the house when jewelry was laying there? How come the TV was lying on the floor, yet still plugged in? What type of burglar is going to break in at 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon when people are most likely to come home from work or school? When the neighborhood is most likely to be busy with activity? Who is going to carry a shotgun in broad daylight? Who would risk being seen and identified at a normally very busy hour? None of this makes any sense.
At the end of the 911 call, Temple says without any sign of crying in his voice, “I got a policeman here. I’ve got a policeman that’s pulled up now.” Did he forget to continue sobbing and weeping? Suddenly, his agony dissipated.
With regards to Temple’s arrest six years after Belinda’s murder, I found detective Dean Holtke’s account very telling. Holtke pulled Temple over and arrested him.
“The only thing I’d asked him the entire time was, ‘You know what this is about, right?’ And he says, ‘No, what?’ I said, ‘Belinda,'” Holtke remembers. “He’s like, ‘You gotta be kidding me, man. That was like, six years ago.'”
If you are innocent of murdering your wife, are you going to say “You gotta be kidding me, man. That was like six years ago“? Or, are you going to defend your innocence and focus the police back to the truth?
I personally believe the jury got this case right, and justice was served.
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2008-12-08 12:47:002008-12-08 12:47:00David Temple
