Psychogenic (si-ko-JEN-ik) Seizure

/in , /by

As many of you know, the situation that is brewing in Indiana has kept my attention because there are a lot of strange events going on.

I was looking to see if any news came out this morning and I found this article which I think is interesting. The odds are getting more and more unusual day-by-day. In the article, it says:

…Dr. Kelley Parnell, a Richmond neurologist who published a detailed study on psychogenic or pseudo seizures in the Journal of Neurology in 1999 while completing an internal medicine internship at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said Wednesday she’s never heard of the ailment causing death.

There is a very slight chance of death in an epileptic seizure, but ‘it is so rare,’ she said.

‘There may be some data on (death caused by psychogenic seizure) but I’ve never heard of it,’ she said.

Hmmmm… Anyone else find things to be strange?

A Baffling Mystery

/in , /by

If there was every to be a strange and baffling mystery going on in the here and now, it would have to be the case of the two young Indiana sisters who ended up dead less than a week apart earlier this year. I’ve written about it before here.

The two sisters, Erin (19) and Kelly (18) Stanley, were young, vibrant and healthy. Yet sadly, on September 1, 2007, Erin’s body was found lifeless at her family home by her boyfriend in the middle of the night. Erin and her boyfriend, James McFarland, had just recently moved home to her family’s house with their young daughter.

At first, police didn’t release any details. Then, rumor abounded that Erin died of strangulation — which the police later confirmed.

When Erin’s sister, Kelly, ended up dead six days later, it was widely reported that she, too, died from homicide, and again, indications were that it was from strangulation as well. Obviously, there was a murderer among them.

Read more
As reported by the Palladium-Item, “The affidavit for the search warrant said that both deaths appeared to be caused by “similar action on the part of another party.“

During all of this, I looked to see if I could find any red flags. The only thing I could find to review was the 911 call made by the girls’ mother, Lonny Stanley.

Lonny Stanley’s behavior was strange during the 911 call. It was odd, and the first thing I questioned was if the mother was on drugs, because her behavior was not normal. She acted weird and strangely disconnected.

I wrote this story on Crimeblog.US., which has now moved and been renamed to TrueCrimeWeblog.com. With that, while the post is up, the comments have not been transferred by the site editor over to the new site. However, I do have a copy of what I wrote on September 23:

I heard a segment of the 911 tape here:
http://www.wishtv.com/global/story.asp?s=7086963

I found the mom’s behavior exceptionally STRANGE!! Something isn’t right here.

Why isn’t this mother concerned?!!!! Is she high as a kite on drugs? You sure do wonder, because her reactions aren’t normal.

911 SNIPPET:

“Is she breathing,” the operator asked.

“I don’t know. Is she breathing, dad? …She’s trying,” Mrs. Stanley said.

This is just WEIRD! It was like she was asking if there was tea or coffee being served — not if her daughter was facing life or death!!

I’d like to hear more of this, and the other 911 call.

On September 25th, here is an excerpt of another comment I wrote:

But when I listen to the entire 911 call, there are inconsistencies that cannot be ignored. Emerson, you are right on the money, and I completely concur!

When a child is near death, either the mother is right there doing all she can, or she is in hysterics because she can’t cope—in another room, unable to deal with it. I’ll accept either, but I can’t accept this middle ground of running to and from, yet offering no help. It does not fit.

I also find it extremely odd how she conveniently finds time to pick up the cell phone when the EMT arrives, but didn’t find it important enough to grab it when her daughter was in the throes of death. There (sic) This is a huge red flag. The only thing that makes sense here is when the EMT got there, she wanted to see if they were going to revive her daughter. She didn’t seem to care to help her when her daughter needed it most, but she sure was curious if someone else was going to help her. This gives me the creeps!!!

And it still does give me the creeps. If we knew that Lonny Stanley was on drugs or medication, it could explain her strange behavior. I could at least live with the fact she was subdued and not thinking clearly, but we do not know this for sure. So, for me, it will remain a big red flag.

Then on October 2, 2007, I wrote the following in the comments section (which is not online at this time):

Apparently, James McFarland is making statements (to the media?) stating his innocence.

http://tinyurl.com/2r5uzf

I looked around hoping to find video of him, but I haven’t been able to.

From what the media has quoted, nothing raises my suspicion, but without reading an entire transcript, it’s not conclusive in any way.

Next, on October 10, news came out that Erin’s boyfriend, James McFarland, who openly admitted to finding her unresponsive, was arrested and charged with her murder. While I found that odd, it could be plausible, but how would that explain the fact that Kelly ended up dead six days later?? After Erin’s death, James McFarland moved out of the house. Did he break back in, do they have the wrong suspect, or did something else happen?

I was waiting and wondering what would develop when I saw more news come out about Lonny Stanley again that raised the hairs on my neck. On October 11, police release a few more details of the case, and a comment made by Lonny stopped me dead in my tracks again (in bold below). I wrote about it here:

“Lonny Stanley…called for an ambulance for Erin about 5:15 a.m. Sept. 1. Although she suggested during the 911 call that her daughter was still trying to breathe, court documents filed Wednesday indicate Stanley likely was dead before a police officer arrived.

Lonny Stanley later told investigators that “was more of a hope than an observation,” according to a probable cause affidavit.” Indy Star

This statement is flat out STRANGE again. It’s odd, and it is not normal whatsoever. Either Lonny couldn’t cope or she could, but she keeps playing this middle ground and waffling, which people don’t do in situations like this. In high-stress environments, people tend to be very black and white. Her behaviors are not–they are gray and inconsistent–that is all I can say. I am not comfortable with them.

With all of the news that has broken, I have not seen anywhere where the Stanleys have come forward and spoken about their daughters’ deaths. I would find it valuable to see them speak, as they leave me with lots of questions.

And now, yesterday, more news has developed. According to the coroner, the second sister’s death is being ruled death by natural causes. Apparently, they are saying she died of a stress-induced seizure, or a psychogenic seizure (what are the odds?). Just a few weeks ago, reports were suggesting that she died of homicide (see above).

This is one mystery to say the least. The odds are very unusual here — one-in-a-million — or higher, and while freaky things happen, until I see James McFarland and Lonny Stanley speak, I won’t be at peace.

Update February 2009:
http://eyesforlies.blogspot.com/2009/02/stanley-sisters-mystery-update.html

Are you truly living?

/in , , /by

Randy Pausch is one incredible human being and every person should hear Randy’s “Last Lecture”. Yes, that includes you!

His messages are fabulous. I think he is a wake up call to so many of us. So many people live life checked-out and he, who is dying, gives us an incredible message on how to live. I love every one of his life messages.

Are YOU truly living?

“We can’t change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” — Randy Pausch

Quick Note

/in /by

This is just a quick note to say my dog is feeling under the weather, and right now my mind is distracted because she is old — and I don’t know how serious this is. We have a vet appointment today. Wish us luck.

Once she gets back to a routine, I’ll write more.

Story suggestions always welcome — video links preferred.

Senator Larry Craig: Embarrassed?

/in /by

Senator Craig spoke to Matt Lauer on NBC last night for an entire hour during prime time. Did you see it?

For the past six weeks, since the story broke, I felt there was little reason for me to write about Senator Craig, because most people seemed to be suspicious of his behavior, and didn’t believe his story. I don’t think you need eyes-for-lies to see through Senator Craig. And while I don’t think that has changed, I thought it might be helpful for people to see why I don’t believe him, now that he has spoken publicly.

Senator Craig is a smooth man who is good at debating, according to the Boise State University debate team, and I concur. They said Craig was “an excellent deflector” and “he was very calculated.” Another debater, named Judy, stated that “There were a lot of contradictions.”

But no one elaborated as to why. I see many, many, many red flags in Senator Craig’s behavior when he spoke to Matt Lauer, and I don’t quite know where to start. I could probably write a book on just his interview. With that, I will start with the bigger, more general hot spots that I see, and then I will talk a little about the interview.

Read more

  1. Emotions: Throughout much of Lauer’s interview with Craig, you can see Craig smile when he is talking about very serious allegations. If you were wrongly accused of something you didn’t do, would you be smiling? I can be nearly certain that you would not. Rather, you would feel violated and angry. You would feel wrongly accused and persecuted for something you didn’t do. Senator Craig’s reactions are not consistent with his side of the story.

    When people are deceptive, however, they don’t feel normal, natural emotions—They don’t feel anger when they should. Furthermore, deceptive people often put on a front of smiles and niceness to help convince people that they are good as well as incapable of wrongdoing. Innocent people, when they are wrongly accused, could care less about any of this. For them, getting the truth out is paramount, and their true feelings of violation are not hidden. Their feelings may be tamed or subdued, but not hidden altogether and replaced with a smiling front.

  2. Senator Craig mentions over and over again about how embarrassed he was about the whole incident. This is absolutely perplexing. If he didn’t do anything, why would he have feelings of embarrassment?

    If I wrongly accused you of stealing from someone, are you going to be embarrassed? Or are you going to feel mad? Again, his emotions and words are inconsistent with a man wrongly accused.

  3. Furthermore, if you were wrongly accused of something you didn’t do, would you keep it a secret? Would you not tell a single soul? Or would you tell those closest to you, such as a spouse? The fact that Senator Craig didn’t tell a soul is inconsistent behavior with someone who is wrongly accused. When we feel violated and wronged, we need a release—we need to talk, to vent, to get it off our chest. And while some people may only tell those closest to them, they will tell someone. The fact that Senator Craig didn’t even tell his wife is a huge red flag!!

    When we are caught doing something we are embarrassed or ashamed of, we don’t want to discuss it—we want to hide it. We don’t want to tell one single person, because the embarrassment is overwhelming. We want it to go away, and we will do anything to make it go away. Clearly, you can see Senator Craig was willing to do whatever it took to sweep this under the rug and keep it there. He was even willing to plead guilty! This is very inconsistent behavior as well.

You can watch Senator Craig’s interview with Matt Lauer:

Larry Craig tells his bathroom story
Larry Craig tells his bathroom story

  1. Watch Senator Craig when Lauer asks him if he knew that particular bathroom was well known for anonymous sexual encounters between gay men. Craig says (time marker 0:55), “No, I had no reason to know that.” Notice his smirkish smile? Why is he smiling, or smirking as it may be? This emotion is inappropriate behavior for someone wrongly accused. Craig does this over and over and over throughout the majority of this interview. It’s a big red flag.
  2. Lauer asks if anyone had ever signaled Craig when he used the bathroom in the past. Again, you will see Craig acting almost jovial. You see no hints of anger whatsoever—which is what he should be feeling—even if he were to subdue or attempt to mask it.

    Listen to Senator Craig’s response (time marker 1:27) “No. No, never happened to my knowledge, ever.” The words “to my knowledge” are interesting because they show someone who is not certain. Yet, oddly, he tacks on the word “ever”, as if he were certain. This is contradictory: You either know or you don’t know. “To the best of my knowledge” suggests hesitation. People who are dishonest often say these qualifiers like “not to my knowledge”, or “not that I recall”, or “not that I remember”.

  3. Lauer goes on to state that six minutes after Craig walked into that bathroom, he was arrested. Lauer says (time marker 1:48), “Your career was in jeopardy. Your family life was in jeopardy.” Finally, I see a hint of anger come from Craig. Watch how he presses his lips together and licks them. Here he is concealing his anger, and it shows. This is the emotion we should have seen at key points when Craig talked about how he was wrongly accused, but we didn’t. When Craig talks, he puts on his smiley face again. This is very inconsistent behavior.
  4. Lauer goes on to discuss the actual incident with Senator Craig. Craig claims that he said “No” to the guy in the stall next to him. Lauer rightly calls him out, asking, “Why would you say No if you don’t know what is going on? If someone disturbs you, and you don’t understand it, you usually quietly remove yourself. You don’t say “No” to the guy next to you in a stall if you can’t see him. You don’t provoke craziness—you ignore it.

Later on in the interview (which is not online at MSNBC but shown on last night’s show), when Craig is talking to the police, many more inconsistencies pop up. When the undercover police officer recounts the story and asks Craig specific things, suddenly Craig doesn’t know, can’t recall, doesn’t remember. Then he admits to the fact that his foot did go under the stall divider. I think most people realize this is not an easy task to do when normally using the toilet in a stall, yet Craig’s only explanation is that he is a “wide” guy.

While I could go on and on, I will stop at this point. I think most people see Senator Craig and have their doubts. Hopefully, I have given people some good food for thought. I do not trust Senator Craig, but I think that is very clear at this point.

You can watch more excerpts of the interview here:

Sen. Craig on bathroom scandal
Sen. Craig on bathroom scandal

Update:
I found this interesting video of Senator Craig back in the 1980s. At the end of the clip, watch how Senator Craig denies any involvement. Notice his anger here!

Transcript: Police Interview Larry Craig