Toilet Trauma and the Polygraph

/in /by

I happened to go to Court TV.com which I visit on occasion to get new stories and videos — to detect lies. There was a juicy story there today that I had not heard about before.

A man claims he went to use the public bathrooms at Home Depot in Colorado, and found he was the recipient of a prank. When he tried to get up from using the toilet, he was super-glued to it, and couldn’t get up.

I found some nice footage of the guy talking about it here.

I will try to be serious about this post because this “could” happen to someone in theory. I suspect –though I don’t know how– someone could get glued to a toilet. I have a hard time understanding the logistics of it — in that glue that powerful I would suspect dries very quickly, but nonetheless, I gave the guy credit and open-mindedly watched the video.

Do I think this man was a victim of a prank?

No.

Do I think this man is lying?

It’s likely.

Do I think the man or an accomplice somehow put glue down and then got attached a few minutes later?

Yes.

While the man doesn’t give off facial clues that are inconsistent with his story that I can see in this video, I believe his story is contrived. He rambles, stumbles, and fumbles for words. He doesn’t talk like someone recollecting a story. He is constantly searching for words to say. When someone tells the truth — they may fumble a little — but they don’t do it to the extent this guy is. They tell their story straight to the point. This man is unable to do that. Repeatedly.

More than that, he is over-dramatic, over-traumatized and trying to make a big deal out of everything.

He also talks way too much and wants way too much attention. He is vying for our approval.

However, the biggest reason I believe this man isn’t being truthful is in the way he tells his story. When recollecting this situation, he doesn’t tell it like a man who was truly surprised by the experience. His story-telling doesn’t fit with that of a “victim”. In more simple terms, he isn’t telling the story from a victim’s point of view — like a victim would. He also says things out-of-context: unusually and abnormally. That is my biggest tip-off that he is less than honest. Combined that with his word-searching and I have huge doubts.

Granted, for anyone, to be glued to a toilet seat would be nasty. It wouldn’t be fun, but it wouldn’t cause the type of nightmares this guy says it does. It wouldn’t be THAT traumatic — two years later. This is simply NOT LOGICAL.

The big news about this guy now isn’t the prank — it is that he passed a polygraph test. He passed it. Amazingly, I am not surprised. But to me, that doesn’t convince me one iota that he is telling the truth.

Sadly, the more I watch people take polygraphs, the less I believe in their accuracy. I believe polygraphs are accurate somewhere in the neighborhood of 65-75% of the time which is better than chance, but I see a fair amount of people tricking it successfully to the point it should be abolished.

I am hoping that if this man takes his prank story to court that real evidence comes out and the truth will be known.

Watch with me…only time will tell!

I wonder if the state of Colorado allows polygraph evidence in court. I sure hope not!

Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald

/in /by

I watched CBS’s 48 Hours again this week. This week they profiled the case of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald.

In the first few moments, after I saw Jeffrey MacDonald talk, I believed him.

I believed he was innocent.

Then I sat at the edge of my seat, watching, listening and wondering. While I can determine a lie rather quickly, I have no idea of the facts behind the case — so I sit with anticipation to see if things logically fit with what I see.

Some of the evidence that 48 Hours presented caused me to doubt myself and to wonder about the case. Logically, I must say from what was presented on this TV show, you couldn’t help but look suspiciously at Dr. MacDonald.

Yet every time I saw him spoke, I felt he was telling the truth.

So, I make this post as a test for myself. Talk is that DNA evidence will be released this year which might help determine the truth in this case once and for all. If DNA exonerates Dr. MacDonald, I will have a solid belief in my abilities.

Right now, I am confident that I am capable to about 80%. Beyond that, I don’t have enough facts to know if I am right — or not. Cases hang in the balance to show my accuracy.

May this be a test…

Update: 7/06/07
I’ve come to understand my abilities a little better — and as of today, July 7th, I no longer stand by this opinion. I am not changing my mind — and stating that I disbelief MacDonald either. Rather, I refrain from judgment, and here is an explanation as to why.

On that note, if you see any old video of Jeffrey MacDonald shortly after the murderers, or anytime up to and through the trial — point me to them!

New Life Church

/in /by

Tom Brokaw did a special on Friday night called “In God They Trust“. It was all about the new religious movement in the United States—and the New Life Church.

Ted Haggard is pastor of a New Life church in Colorado Springs, and furthermore, he is the President of the National Association of Evangelicals. According to Mr. Haggard, he even talks to the White House daily.

Ted Haggard has one of the most insincere, fake smiles I have ever seen. It is constantly plastered on his face.

A fake smile reeks of someone who is insincere and dishonest.

American Justice: Is it fair?

/in /by

There is a very interesting video segment on MSNBC today about the Horowitz murder. It’s a long segment, so to get to the point, move 3 minutes and 40 seconds into it and then play it.

A criminal prosecutor, Jonna Spilbor, takes on the role of the defending the accused young man in this case — and in attempting to “protect him” because we don’t know for sure if he or someone else killed Pamela Vitale — she does the only logical thing in our legal system: she attacks Horowitz.

How else can you legally defend someone in this situation?

Seriously?

She makes a great case to show the public how the legal system works. She makes you question Horowitz — even though she says herself she doesn’t think Horowitz did this. She is left with little else as she clearly states — baring that no DNA is found.

Imagine being appointed by the state to defend this guy. Imagine being his attorney — especially if you believe he is guilty (not that I am saying he is).

She gives you the chills at what she would have to do. She is clear, she makes you ask great questions, she makes you want to naturally question Horowitz. She gives you instant doubt!

It’s amazing how we can bend the truth — even what we believe — if we need to. This defense attorney is GOOD!

Doesn’t this seem to go against the attorneys sworn oath — that they will defend the truth at all costs? That is what the oath was meant to do — but when you look at the oath, you clearly see the loopholes — don’t you?

Ms. Jonna Spilbor sure points that out clearly. Doesn’t she?

What a flawed system.

* * *

On the Horowitz case, I must say that I am anxious to see if they find any substantial evidence that this young man actually did this. So far, we haven’t heard any to conclusively show us that HE did in fact kill Pamela Vitale. How do we know that there isn’t a killer at large still? I am hoping this poor guy gets a fair trial because the media and the police have unequivocally stated that Horowitz couldn’t possibly be the murderer — without taking any of the normal investigative avenues. The police have really dropped the ball in this case the way they handled Horowitz.

I don’t believe Horowitz killed his wife either. His face is genuine and honest and match his words, but regardless — it is really setting this case to be botched now matter what comes forward.

Murder on Grapevine Lake

/1 Comment/in /by

Last night, my husband and I were catching up on previously recorded TV shows, when we watched Saturday night’s CBS 48 Hours: Murder on Grapevine Lake.

David Nixon, a married man with a son from a previous marriage shows up dead — shot in the head and brutally burned to death on the side of the road. The question is who killed him?

60 minutes did a quick intro segment. They introduce you to his current wife, his son and his ex-wife. You aren’t able to tell who did it — because in the small segments, no one lies.

Then still within the first 2 to 3 minutes of the intro, they segway into a police interrogation tape. You can barely see it. It’s black and white, blurry, fuzzy and very small but as I listened to it, I quickly stated to my husband, “She lied.” His first wife did it — I declared.

My husband said, “No, that woman was his current wife.” He paused the DVR.

By the timing of the segment and the switching back and forth between intro pieces, I got confused about who was who. I thought the next person they were talking with was Donna, not Tracey.

Before my husband rewound the DVR, I said, “Whoever that is in the video tape — they are lying!!”

He replayed the tape, and he was right, it was Nixon’s second wife, Tracey.

Tracey sat in there in the police station and the police asked her two questions in this segment.

When they ask her these two questions, what caught my eye wasn’t her face. I couldn’t distinguish it. It was her response to the question that focused me in. I think they asked her “Why did you do this?” or something of that nature (unfortunately, they have entirely different footage on their website they didn’t even have on the show! so I can’t show you).

The first thing that Tracey did is what caught my eye. The second thing she did within seconds confirmed to me she was lying.

First she repeated the question the police asked her. Out loud. Then she turned on this winy baby-pout voice that sounded like poor-me-poor-me-I’m-being-picked-on-unfairly. You could hear she was playing the poor little hurt victim after the question even though she denied any involvement.

When you are being questioned for murder and you didn’t commit it, you don’t have the feel-sorry-for-me attitude. It doesn’t fit. It’s not normal or natural for adults.

Second, you don’t have to repeat the questions asked of you out loud. You heard the question or you don’t, and if you don’t — you ask for clarification. Many times people who lie — though NOT ALL PEOPLE who do this are liars — will repeat everything you say to them because they are trying to keep their lies straight. This behavior is a notable point, at best. Combine Tracey’s two behaviors — and bingo — you have a big tip-off.

Within the first couple of minutes, I had my answer about who was lying, but I didn’t know WHY.

We watched the rest of the show after that — and amazingly Tracey gave away more and more clues. Her eyes flashed a expression of glee at one point, she kept repeating questions asked of her, she stuttered, she couldn’t answer important questions.

Thankfully, at the end of the show, 48 Hours showed a jury convicting her! She is eligible to be out of prison in 20 years — at the age of 55. Now that is scary. This woman is a complete psychopath!