Beating a Dead Horse

/in , /by

Okay, since the topic is so hot and people continue to wonder about the Tom/Katie relationship — Oprah re-ran the Tom Cruise Declaration of Love show this week. I taped it and watched it last night.

I am still CERTAIN that he is being honest — as is Katie.

They are truly head-over-heels for each other.

Haven’t any of you ever felt like this before??

Detecting Lies: Three Categories

/in , , , /by
Here is some mad science from my head!

I’ve realized that when I am reading someone as to whether or not they are telling the truth, I quickly categorize them into one of three categories within seconds:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

Positive people are those who immediately convince me they are trustworthy. It’s because their expressions are so genuine, or their actions, words or overall demeanor are very sincere. There is instantly no doubt about it: they are telling the truth. You just know they are being honest.

Most often, I don’t even have to listen to what positive people are saying, because their facial expressions are a dead giveaway: They are overflowing with emotion. It’s the sincere overflow of emotions that lead me to this conclusion.
Tom Cruise, with regard to the Katie Holmes engagement, is one person right now that comes to mind who is overflowing with genuine emotion. You can just watch his facial expressions and know that he is telling the truth, without even listening to what he has to say. Try lying and making those facial expressions with his enthusiasm: You can’t do it, no matter how hard you try.

The opposite of positive is, of course, negative. Negative people do things that instantly tell me they are lying. From telling stories that don’t make sense, to awkward speech patterns, to inappropriate facial expressions that contradict their story, to endless stuttering. They give instant clues that they are being deceptive. Most often, though not always, it is the emotions on their face that tell their story first.
The next type of person is a neutral person. These people are hardest to read, because these people don’t express a lot of emotion. Neutral people tend to lack genuine enthusiasm, and most often come across as someone who is not excitable. They usually come across as mundane and monotone.
While the majority of people who fall into the neutral category are suspicious, it does not mean that they are lying. And that is where it gets tricky. Some people just lack normal expressive emotions and instead are subdued, even when they are telling the truth.
When I realize I have categorized someone in the neutral category, I really have to focus to get to the truth, and it doesn’t always come quickly like it does with positive and negative people—it takes minutes rather than seconds (or even longer!). Listening to their story becomes imperative. With a rare few, sometimes I am not able to discern the truth, and I have to give it up until more information presents itself.

Neutral people who are liars are usually psychopaths.

What makes it even more tricky is that some psychopaths who are lying give off emotional indications that are supportive to their story, even though they are lying. You have to see this in action to understand it. They even make facial expressions that are consistent with what they are saying. It’s twisted and hard to explain until you can experience it.

What usually gives away that a neutral person or a pathological person is lying is that the actual events of their situation aren’t logical. These people stretch the truth, play on the “what-ifs” and the could-be-possible-odds too many times for reality to be present. When you add up all the usual bits to their story, the odds become one-in-a-million, or statistically very, very unlikely. That, combined with other subtle hints, all add up to give away a neutral or pathological liar.

Also, it is common for liars to dull their emotional responses and try to play neutral, but these liars are actually not true neutrals. I’ll call them false neutrals. These people leak information differently than classic neutral liars: They flicker emotions and microexpressions, whereas the true neutral liar likely will not. One suspect that comes to mind who acts like this right now is Joran van der Sloot. Of course, I am not accusing him of lying. However, I just think his behavior is very suspicious.

A false neutral liar’s speech may become unnaturally slow as if someone taped them and played it back in slow motion. It’s rather odd, because when they speak the truth, their speech rate increases to normal or above, but when they lie, they suddenly slow their speech way down, or vice-versa. Again, a true neutral liar will not do this. He will be the same throughout the interview. He will not change or vary at all. He is highly controlled in his all of his responses, or flat out lacks emotions, which is notable.

Sadly, most people want to give others the benefit of the doubt, and that is how these neutral masters of deception get away with lying so frequently. That’s how pathological people kill successfully! That is how serial killers get away with their crimes for so long. People don’t add up the odds—they don’t put the intricate piece of the puzzle together.

Neutral people who are lying are usually pathological liars, though not all pathological liars are neutral.

Kabbalah

/in /by

Did you see ABC new’s 20/20 on Friday night?

If so, you may have been introduced to Kabbalah like I was.

Very interesting, wouldn’t you say?

Did you watch the family who started it all in this country?

I did.

I don’t believe those three said one word they genuinely believed to be true.

Not one.

Tom Cruise & Katie Holmes

/in /by

Speculation is abound that Tom and Katie are hitting the circuit — not because they are in love — but because they want to publicize their movies.

While the timing is of course PERFECT, from everything I see of these two — they are genuinely infatuated with each other.

I believe they are head over heels in lust right now.

I really don’t question them. Their responses are real and true.

Update 11/20/06:
Katie and Tom wed this past Saturday, November 18, 2006. I think that’s proof this wasn’t just a publicity stunt.

Michael Blagg — 48 Hours

/1 Comment/in /by

Last night, CBS news program 48 Hours aired a segment about Michael Blagg, a man whose wife had disappeared and was later found dead — shot in the head — at the local garbage dump. Michael Blagg’s six year old daughter was also missing and has never been found.

Michael Blagg swears by his innocence that he had nothing to do with the murderers. 48 Hours takes you through the unfolding story so you can be the judge as to what happened. Did Michael Blagg do it? Or did someone else?

Watch a segement of the story here. You can see Michael Blagg talk for yourself.

Within the first few minutes of the show (less than 5 minutes actually), I told my husband this guy is guilty. He isn’t trstuworthy — long before you have any reason to suspect Michael Blagg.

At first, it was just a strong intuition, and intuition that fought heavily with my desire to “want” to trust him. Michael Blagg looks innocent, kind and like the all-American-neighbor next door. Chillingly so. So much so you want to believe him, but I got this gnawing “No! No! No!” in the back of my head — yelling at me. So, I made the call to my husband that he did it — instantly — and then I waited to see why.

My husband watched the show intently at that point. He wanted to see the outcome — curious at my call because I had no basis to make it outside of hearing and seeing Michael talk about the morning he found his wife missing.

There were multiple reasons why I felt Michael was guilty outside of my gut instinct as the story unfolded.

First, his phone messages home to his wife from work the morning his wife disappeared weren’t “normal”. The inflections in Michael’s voice were abnormal and inconsistent with a man who was calling home wondering where his wife was. I could clearly hear deception in his voice.

Second, his call to 911 was odd as well. When some people calculatingly lie, they slow their speech. They try to act “rational” and “calm” as if to be normal — but when you find such a gruesome discovery of blood like Michael did, calm doesn’t naturally prevail yet Michael was acting calm. It’s inconsistent and a big clue something is fishy.

Also, when Michael called 911, he forgot to even look for his daughter!! Why? Perhaps because he didn’t naturally wonder where she was — because he knew where she was?? A father whose wife and daughter disappeared wouldn’t forget such big details as a daughter. This was another big red flag.

Michael Blagg was a smart guy — and he believed he was so smart, he could get away with murder, and he did for nearly seven months (before they found his wife’s body).

Michael Blaggs case was weak. All they had was speckles of his wife’s blood in the back of her mini-van. That was it. There was no other evidence to convict him — yet a jury found him guilty. And I agree with the verdict. I think it is justice in this case.

What do I think happened?

I think when Michael Blagg’s wife had a hysterectomy, she lost her sexual drive and desire. She didn’t find sex interesting like it used to be or perhaps she got frustrated. In either case, this is what I believe drove a wedge through the marriage.

Michael Blagg is a high testosterone-driven male. He was a fighter pilot. He wanted and demanded a fulfilling sex life from his wife — and when she wasn’t able to meet his needs, he turned ugly. He got mad. He viewed pornography on the web and visited two escorts.

Michael Blagg blamed his wife for taking away his sexually fulfilling relationship– and hence he wanted to eliminate her. He believed it was all her fault and he blamed her — deeply — for his loss.

With that, he felt his only option was to eliminate her in the least costly way he knew how. Divorce would put financial burdens on him that he didn’t think were justified as he was the one in his mind who was being denied.

Warped, I know…but that is what Michael Blagg was thinking, if you want my two cents.