Deception Blog Commentary

One blog I check out from time-to-time is Deception Blog. This blog’s purpose is to “collate information about psychological research on deception, and the applications of this research.” Yes, it is for the most part academic, but it is quite interesting nonetheless. If you haven’t visited there, I highly recommend it.

It was a pleasure to see Deception Blog post a commentary on my post about TSA Behavior Detection Officers. It is always nice to get support of other people who study deception detection.

On that note, at the bottom of the post, you will see a link to a YouTube video where Dr. Paul Ekman talks about “Why We Lie”. For those of you deception detection junkies, you will enjoy this video!

Kate McCann is now a Suspect

Yes, it is official — Kate McCann is now a suspect in the disappearance of her daughter, and news reports are saying that Gerry McCann will likely be named one as well — though that has yet to happen.

The reports are suggesting that the Portuguese police believe that the McCanns, more specifically Kate, accidentally killed their daughter and disposed of her body. They say that they have found blood evidence in the car rented by the McCanns 25 days after Maddie disappeared.

Read moreDo I question my original position on believing the McCanns? Absolutely not.

I have not seen one thing that has lead me to question the McCanns. To be guilty of killing their daughter intentionally or accidentally, you would expect to see hints of “fear” — fear that they are going to get caught in one of the biggest (self-) hyped lies in history.

Furthermore, they would have to be constantly on their feet to “think and talk” like a victim instead of a perpetrator. I see none of this.

More than that — if you accidentally or intentionally killed your daughter — are you really going to incite a worldwide media frenzy to focus on your every move? It’s ridiculous. Most liars want to avoid their lies — not be forced to talk about them day in and day out with cameras tracking their every move.

I do see many questionable things from the Portuguese police, however; delayed interviews, delayed forensics, and a lack of anything substantial.

The Portuguese police are accusing the McCanns of transporting a dead Maddie in their car — rented 25 days after her disappearance. If this truly happened, don’t you think someone would have seen something? After all, the McCanns every move has been watched since May 3rd.

Furthermore, if the McCanns had a body to hide, would they really create a media whirlwind? It defies logic.

Consider, however, the Portuguese police. They have the pressure of the world mounting on the shoulders. Are they smart enough, savvy enough — and professional enough to solve a missing person case? Each day that goes by where they are unable to generate credible leads makes them look bad. It makes them look unprofessional and unskilled. It tarnishes their reputation.

Consider as well that the McCanns are in Portugal still four months later. The constant barrage of media reports — on the missing girl — around the globe is painful to the economy of this nation. Tourism suffers, the image of Portugal suffers as do business owners. The McCanns presence is only negative to the people of Portugal. People who are economically strained by this impact are also likely to put immense pressure on the police — and officials to wrap this intense focus up and quickly.

You have to wonder if the mounting pressure on the Portugese police is causing them to jump to conclusions, don’t you?

Where do I see the most questions? When I look at the Portuguese police, not the McCanns.

Matthew Gretz Arrested

A neighbor of Kira Simonian informed me today that Matthew Gretz has been arrested for her murder. Thank you for the notification, Daydream Nation.

I am sad to say that I am not surprised as Gretz’s behavior at the vigil was odd and perplexing to me. I write about it here.

Unless more news breaks, I will be back next week as stated below.

On Holiday

I’m taking holiday time starting today through September 12th. I’m taking a much needed break from two and a half years of blogging.

I’ll be parking my bum here! See you in mid-September.

 

Tracy Hacker

Tracy Hacker was viciously attacked last October, and nearly ten months after her ordeal, no one has been arrested.

I take a close look at this case reviewing what little information I can find and I share it with you.

You will find my post over at CrimeBlog.US today.

Update:
CrimeBlog.US has now changed to and is being redirected to TrueCrimeWeblog.com and not all post are loading up so with that, I will repost this post for you below:

Attacked from Behind

Posted by Eyes for Lies on Aug 22 2007

The last thing Tracy Hacker remembered was sitting in her backyard with her husband on a Friday night in October. Three weeks later, she woke from a coma after a traumatic brain injury.

Read more

Part of Tracy’s skull had to be removed in an effort to save her life. Doctors feared she may not survive, but she did — and today she is thriving. Looking at her now, you’d never know the ordeal she went through just ten months ago…

On that fateful day last October, Hacker’s husband called 9-1-1 and told the dispatcher that someone, possibly Asian, hit his wife with a baseball bat. Police draw up a sketch of an Asian man wearing a knitted cap.

To date, no one has been arrested in this case and police are now saying that they only have circumstantial evidence – not enough to arrest anyone – but they do not believe the guy in the police sketch is the one who committed this vicious attack. They have their eyes on someone else.

So then, who did this? Someone random or perhaps someone close to Hacker?

When Hacker is asked who did this to her, she responds, “I’ll never know because I was hit from behind.” However, since the attack, Hacker has divorced her husband and has not gone back to the house where the attack occurred.

That certainly is odd.

In looking at this case, I found very little information but I did find the 9-1-1 transcript which I find intriguing. You can read it here.

Hacker’s husband is only referred to as “C” for (male) caller in the transcripts.In reviewing “C’s” responses, I find them odd and strangely inappropriate for this situation.My eyebrows are raised immediately and throughout much of the transcript.

“C” doesn’t answer many of the questions he is asked, nor does he give details.

When the 9-1-1 dispatcher answers the phone, “C” politely asks police for an ambulance.“Please, please, please send an ambulance, please.The dispatcher than asks “C” what is going on. “C’s” rely is two words: “My wife”.

I find this odd and interesting.Was he anticipating the next question to be “Who is this ambulance for?” Or does he not have anything else to say?

Most people in this situation would go rambling off in hysterical detail about what they just witnessed. The shock and terror of it all would cause most people to say as much as they possibly could – just to get it off their chest. It’s a normal emotional response.

Yet why isn’t “C” doing this? Instead, he seems to be controlling his words.Why?

When the dispatcher continues and says I need you to take a breath, and tell me what is going on, all “C” can say is “baseball bat, baseball bat.He hit her in the head with a baseball bat”.

Notice the details that are lacking? “C” doesn’t give any details. Most victims of a crime have searing memories that they repeat over and over again.They give the details that are fresh in their head.They give descriptions. They give everything they know as fast as they can to help catch the assailants and to get help for the victims.Why isn’t “C” doing this? This just isn’t normal.

The dispatcher then asks “Who hit her?”, and “C” responds, “I don’t know. I am at home. Please God.”

What does being at home have to do with this? When people are dishonest, they say weird and illogical things. Is “C” being dishonest here? You have to wonder.

As the transcript progresses, I find it really odd how “C” is talking to his wife telling her to lay down. He also says “no, no, no, not on that side” when telling her to lay down, but when he is asked immediately after he is heard saying it — if his wife is conscious, “C” responds “I don’t think so.”

This is a big inconsistency. His actions are not supporting the facts he is giving. You don’t tell an unconscious person to lie down. You just don’t do it. If, however, you were being deceptive and attempting to play the part of a caring husband, you might just slip up. Is that what is happening here? I sure do wonder.

The dispatcher then asks for clarification if Hacker is going in and out of consciousness, and what does “C” say? He doesn’t answer the question. Instead he says, “There is blood in her ears.”

Further down, the dispatcher asks, “Do you know who did this?” Again, I find “C’s” description troubling. “C” says, “Two little guys, possibly Asians. Ran out of my back yard. They hit my wife. I tacked one, I got the bat, I hit one.”

His speech is odd and weird. He is speaking in sentence fragments. Normally people don’t talk like this – even people in distress. People in distress usually do the opposite: they ramble frantically using lots and lots of words. Also, where are the details again?

I find the word “possibly” (in possibly Asians) odd as well. I can understand someone saying something like: I think they were Asian, but I am not sure with the struggle. But you don’t say, “possibly Asians”. The word selection and word order here are not how people recollect information.

When we create stories, however, we add on descriptive details as afterthoughts. People also usually speak in the order of which things occurred. They don’t mix them up as we see “C” doing here. This is more supportive of someone who is creating a story. He talks about the assailants running out of his backyard and then of attacking them. This isn’t logical.

Furthermore, why would two men start hitting his wife with a baseball bat first? Wouldn’t the man, who is normally bigger and stronger than the woman, likely be the main threat in most scenarios? Or was the wife the main target?

I also find the word “little” interesting. People don’t usually use the word “little” when describing people unless they are really small, like a dwarf. And to have two small assailants — that is really odd.

When the dispatcher asks, “Which way did they go?” why isn’t “C” giving us details? They went west, past the fence and behind the bushes. They ran towards the Jones’s house! They ran east towards Main Street. His lack of details, again, is another red flag added to the pile. Notice how the dispatcher tries harder to get more information again, and again, “C” gives no new information, but instead repeats the same line?

Then he stutters and stammers for words when he answers. That’s another red flag.“Ah… ah…. ah… towards… parallel… across the way.” This answer, in the end, isn’t even logical. Who talks like that? This is classic thinking-on-your-feet speech.

Next the dispatcher asks if “C” can describe what either assailant was wearing. “C” says, “Ah…one was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt…. ah… he is the one I tackled. Jeans, both baggy… ah… I don’t know. I think one was Asian for sure, the one I tackled.”

Now both men are little Asians and both are also wearing jeans, that are baggy. Notice, too, how the description of the jeans comes as an afterthought again. I don’t like the hesitations here, either.

Also, notice how “C” is saying that “one was Asian for sure.” This is inconsistent again as he just said shortly before they were “possibly Asians”. Now all of the sudden he is sure that one was Asian?

When we witness a crime, we usually can state the basics. Why is “C” having trouble here?

When the police arrived, they asked “C” who did this. Now all of the sudden, he says the assailants were trying to rob them.

Wouldn’t that be the first thing you would say? My wife and I were sitting out back, when two men approached and tried to rob us.Then they started to beat me and my wife. Why is this important detail not mentioned until now? This is another big red flag.

I also find it odd when “C” says,“I threw my wallet, he didn’t take it. That was after…I don’t know.” He threw his wallet and the robber didn’t take it? That’s odd and so is his speech.He isn’t making sense.He is truly thinking-on-his-feet here again, if you want my opinion.

“C” spoke very little in a short amount of time, but I believe what he said and how he said it is very telling. Unless I find out “C” is an addict of sorts and was out-of-his-mind this day, I don’t believe “C’s” story at all.

Related Info:

It appears the home where this vicious attack took place is currently for sale: