Jessica Ridgeway: Her Parents Plea
Many of you have asked what I thought of Jessica Ridgeway’s parents as they plead for the return of her daughter.
While police are saying that Jessica’s parents are not suspects, her mom’s behavior is notable in one area.
She gives us a fake cry. We see no oblique eyebrows, no stress in the forehead and no tears when she “breaks down”. We don’t see fear either.
Why? There is no urgency on the mother’s part as well.
I would like to see more interviews with Sarah before I come to any determinations.
Sadly, Jessica’s body was found and police are saying it was not intact. Police are saying that the parents are not suspects.
Did Jessica’s mom have any boyfriends — past or present? I’d be curious to know.
When I watch the father, I see genuine and true sadness.
Is it possible LE would say they aren’t looking at the parents in hopes of the mom letting her guard down and revealing something?
Absolutely possible…yes.
I agree with you. Mom seems to be acting, dad is devastated. I hate to think where this story will end up.
I agree with your thought about the mother not showing typical sadness or angry for her daughter. After I saw the news of her death, I thought maybe this is contributed to her fear of being responsible for the child’s welfare and allowing her to walk to school. maybe guilt from that decision, I know that I would never forgive myself even thought it wasn’t her fault. I’m not sure.
Your perception and your world is bent around lies and deception.. No wonder you see things where they are not. You see an eyebrow movement, you don’t see a tear fall, or eye movement is up to the left or right. Notice anything suspicious of the people standing in the background? What are they hiding? What are they protecting? Your profession has its place and I respect your knowledge and your abilities, but I perceive differently. I will respect you decision after you have a one-on-one personal conversation with the mother.
Actually, your perception of me is quite inaccurate. My world is not bent around lies and deception. On the contrary, I live for the truth and that is what I seek. Tears are not true indicators of sadness, but it is clear you are not familiar with the science of true sadness.
From what you say here, it’s clear to me that you are likely basing much of your opinion about Eyes on the depiction of “lie experts” in popular culture. It’s definitely easy to make that mistake before you have had enough time seeing what she actually does and reading the (legitimate, peer-reviewed) literature on it. For example, “eye movement up to the left or right” is something invented in pop pseudo-psychology. It actually has no baring in reality and has no part in what Eyes does. I highly recommended reading the material Eyes has linked to on her site. It will definitely clear a lot of this up for you.
It’s true, I have followed EFL for years. She’s very optimistic and sees the good in ppl. She has a gift for this science, a natural gift. Most of WHY she empowers others is so that we all see how much truth and good there is out there. She doesn’t look for bad, but she sees deception where it is and teaches others to do the same so that we can all see all the good that’s out there, despite the baddies that run across us in the media or anywhere else.
I don’t like the …. almost flashing of a smile, right before the fake sad….right around 0:47
I saw that too and wanted to go back and re-look at it. She also in the full-length interview talks about her last day with her daughter as if she recollected “in general” their routine. She had no last memories of THAT day. This deeply disturbs me…
Aye, it’s not just this mother’s facial expressions, it’s her words as well. She is “off” and I would not trust her 🙁
I am really confused by the mother’s reaction – it is so lacking in emotion, but I’m wondering if living on this surface level of being is her normal. I somehow don’t think she allows herself to consider the worst outcome and so remains on the surface and says what’s expected of her rather than what she feels, because she doesn’t allow herself to feel. The father on the other hand is a very emotional person and feels deeply.
The thing that strikes me the most is when the mother said, “I just want to see my daughter walk through that door,” I noticed a look at that moment that seemed to say, she knew she wouldn’t. This was just an impression that I had
I noticed the things Eyes mentioned, also..The police seem to be looking at the home, again.
I did not see the interview but 9 times out of 10 it is a family member. People are really good at covering up when wrong has been done. Looking back on all the children killed by parents it is astounding. Something smells and I don’t buy it. Feeling sad for Colorado. Just getting over the shootings at the theater.
thanks for the posts. good stuff. great blog.
What the mom said at the beginning of her comments struck me wrong: “You don’t want any parent, any parent, any parent…”. Is that really what someone would say if their OWN daughter were missing? Would they be thinking about it in such a generalized way?
I’m so glad you covered this, Eyes. I saw that clip and something was very, very off for me. As a parent, I wanted to immediately empathize with her, but all I could see was acting.
I am not against the Mom, but I immediately noticed, although she was informed that Jessica never made it to school (hours later she found out), she went looking for her first, even at the school. She left her cell phone downstairs to not be disturbed while sleeping. Who doesn’t simply mute the phone or turn it off. This tape is before the body was found but no tears is weird, no red eyes from crying earlier.
It’s possible and I hope so, that she reacts in a calmer fashion than most would. And maybe tears don’t come easily or not at all for her. It’s hard to believe she had anything to do with it; especially in light of what happened to the body. I just wish these suspicions could be cleared up. It’s not like only a few people have noticed.
It’s become a national past time, this dissection of parents’ grief in the wake of a child’s homicide. It’s irresponsible, and it’s wrong. There is ZERO indication of this woman’s culpability in her daughter’s death, and not one of us knows with any certainty how a mother “should” react in such a circumstance – but boy, we sure like to act like we do know, don’t we? And until we DO know such a thing to a certainty, passing judgment based on behavior prior to conviction is inappropriate, to put it mildly.
It’s very clear you are not educated in the science of emotion nor have you followed this blog for any period of time, or you would know what these elements have meaning and value.
Quite the contrary. As a former actor and former lawyer, I’ve had quite a bit of education in the “science” of emotion. I’ve also read your blog for quite some time. I have no problem with your opining (opinion being not quite the same thing as scientific evaluation – hence my placement of “science” in quotes, where it belongs) over truthfulness or lack of same in most circumstances. But the simple fact remains: human behavior is intensely, immensely more complex than we might like it to be, and when it’s the subject of this sort of musing and judging mere hours after the body of a child was identified, and the person you’re analyzing is the parent, it’s irresponsible – *especially* since your readers are all too eager to jump on the finger-pointing, blame-the-parent bandwagon with you.
I normally enjoy your pieces very much, but I’d encourage you to rethink your practices in this context. There’s a reason we place such emphasis on presumed innocence prior to trial, and it has nothing to do with arcane points of law — it’s in large part because human psychology & behavior are entirely too complex to fit neatly into boxes and labels.
I’d add as a postscript that your response is a little troubling. Why on earth would you feel compelled to make a personal attack and attempt to demean someone who expressed an honest viewpoint that just happened to disagree with yours? You seem very defensive and closed-off to differing opinions. Isn’t that sort of the antithesis of what you claim to be about?
Annie — I didn’t make any personal attacks and I am not sure why you are feeling that. I truly questions if you know about the “science” of emotions. I don’t see any supportive evidence that you do still. If you had followed my blog for any period of time you would have seen the value of emotional understanding in cases of deception. The two are very closely linked. I’m sorry you don’t see it or understand it. You are welcome to your opinion, but please respect differences.
I did not muse or judge. I made a statement based on concrete evidence, my friend. The mother is faking her sadness in this video and that is provable: scientifically.
I would also add that Eyes never said that the mom was culpable, she said that the mom was not showing honest sadness. She doesn’t imply anything more. In fact, Eyes even said, “I would like to see more interviews with Sarah before I come to any determinations.” What Eyes does is understand human behavior and emotion and applies that understanding to the recognition of deception. That’s it. She never claims more than that.
And on a personal note, I have to say that your placement of the word science in quotes does indicate that you aren’t familiar with it. There is legitimate science behind what she does. There is published, peer-reviewed literature on that science. Humans are not unknowable, and it isn’t true that all analysis of them is subjective opinion. That kind of thinking is a slippery slope away from knowledge, truth, and understanding.
katie k – you said it well – “humans are not unknowable.” Yet frequently we read or hear this excuse that humans are “complex beings,” the inference seeming to be that we shouldn’t even try to know human behaviour. Sales and marketing people are the first to know that human behaviour is knowable and predictable and they use it very well so they can influence us to buy. When I read the book Influence by Robert Cialdini, I saw how I had made decisions based on predictable patterns – it was an eye opener because I had seen it play out in my own decision making process. Human beings are very knowable.
OK, don’t call me “Friend.” You don’t know me. It’s a cutesy, arrogant way to put yourself in a superior position and it’s cheap. Just like proclaiming you didn’t make a personal attack. Here’s the thing – when you respond by criticizing the PERSON, and not the message, you’re making a personal attack. You didn’t respond to my opinion so much as you proclaimed I must be an idiot in one context, at least. I’ve lost a lot of respect for you, frankly, from this exchange. I won’t be back. I’m sure that’s not going to upset you, so … there ya go. Peace.
Anne- I’m wondering if you know the mother? Is that why you have so much emotion towards this conversation?
Interesting that you perceive “so much emotion” – that pretty much proves my point, I think, as I have zero connection to this case and any emotional context is pure generalized compassion for parents who have lost a child in such a horrible way.
Your reaction is not an unemotional one. Your showing more emotion regarding this case than the month seems to be in the video. Watch the father and then watch the mother. One is genuine emotion while the other appears faked. Annie surely you see the difference in reaction between the two parents. It’s a stark difference.
I never said I had an *un*-emotional response. I said the emotional context behind my response was mere ordinary generalized compassion, and was pretty mild compared to the hysterical screeds defending this post, its comments, and the finger-pointing going on in both.
And where did I ever say that there wasn’t a difference? My point was *solely* that it’s irresponsible to engage in this kind of finger-pointing, she-looks-guilty-to-me opining when it’s in the context of a child being viciously murdered and the people you’re analyzing are the parents. How was any of that not clear to you?
“hysterical screeds” … “irresponsible to engage in this kind of finger pointing”
What is “irresponsible” about writing about the behavior EFL observed? Could you explain that please?
There are many people who read here, who saw exactly what EFL saw. That’s because they’ve read and learned from EFL. Many here have also learned to spot microexpressions.
Did you see the microexpressions that Elizabeth S. identified and that EFL said she went back and relooked at?
EFL also added in the comments, that the mother only spoke in generalities about the last day with her daughter. This leaked behavior that EFL observed, is a red flag. Scientifically, it doesn’t track with what a truthful person would say, do.
In every single one of these cases where a child has gone missing (and there have been many that EFL has commented on) and the parents behavior leaks red flags, … again and again and again, EFL just states what she observes.
Respectfully, It’s my opinion that ‘you’ are reading more into EFL observations than what she actually said.
“Hysterical screeds”?
Eyes, why hasn’t this hostile, disrespectful person been banned?
Done.
Thank you!
I’ll let my mother know that it’s safe to return. She’s been avoiding this place out of concern that she’ll lose her temper with that person.
I consider a lot of people my friends even without knowing them in person, or even knowing anything about their backgrounds. Saying you aren’t educated in the science of emotion isn’t calling you an idiot either– I’m not educated in rocket science or brain surgery, so if a rocket scientist or brain surgeon were to tell me I’m not educated in rocket science or brain surgery, I wouldn’t feel like they were calling me an idiot– it’s simply true that I’m not educated in those fields. It isn’t something to feel ashamed about, most people aren’t educated in most fields– that’s only natural.
I think you’re interpreting things through your own lens and not seeing them for what they are– it’s because you have an emotional investment in your point of view. It doesn’t invalidate your point of view or opinion, human beings do that, all of us do. I would react the same way you have if I were in your position. But do at least consider the possibility that you’ve misread other people’s positions here, even if you choose not to accept it afterwards.
I never interpreted this blog post to suggest that Jessica’s mother was guilty or involved in her abduction or horrific death, and I don’t think most of her readers did either– certainly not her regular readers. I do understand where you’re coming from because these parents just lost their child in a particularly ugly way from what I’ve heard people say. Sensitivity is important, but so is the truth.
We aren’t here to discuss whether the parents in this case or other cases are guilty or innocent, we’re here to discuss what can be observed, how it can be observed, and why it means what it means. In some cases what can be observed is enough to conclude involvement in a case, but in other cases what can be observed is only enough to make one wonder– and then sometimes people will speculate, but we generally speculate in order to understand what we observe and how we observe it, and whether or not we’re actually seeing what we believe we’re seeing. It’s pretty objective in that regard. But it’s possible to see it as subjective and purely speculative, and thereby insensitive and harmful if you don’t look at it from the correct perspective.
Bravo Keith.
You’re completely paranoid.
I’m more than a little puzzled by what I’m reading here Annie. It feels like open hostility and I can’t help but wonder why you would be so hostile towards someone with such a proven track record. What dog do you have in this race?
I finally got a chance to watch this clip– that is odd. Jessica’s dad is pretty clearly emotionally drained as well as genuinely sad. The mother seems to be trying to push it out but isn’t able to. She also doesn’t appear emotionally drained to me in the same way her dad does.
I see a couple of people criticized you on this post, but I agree with you in this case. I think they might misunderstand what you mean here. Seeing something out of place like this doesn’t make someone guilty of murder, it just means there are pieces missing from our knowledge. Once those pieces are put into place, “odd” behavior like we see in this clip makes sense and is no longer odd. If people associate noticing that something is odd or out of place when it’s odd or out of place as the same thing as condemning someone as guilty of something they may not be guilty of, then perhaps it’s their own horizons that need to be broadened because no such association exists. Odd does not mean guilty. Out of place does not mean guilty. Odd means odd, and out of place means out of place. Both of these have perfectly logical explanations once the missing pieces of information are known. Sometimes that explanation is guilt, and sometimes it isn’t.
In my experience, generally speaking, this site is the probably the LAST site on the net which comments on current cases in the news in which readers will declare someone as probably guilty based solely on publicly observable behavioral evidence when that evidence is lacking or inconclusive. Have you read some of the stuff about the McCann case online? And how about that creepy pedophile teacher guy who claimed to be JonBenet Ramsey’s killer a few years ago? Lots of people were ready to lynch people in both of those cases, but you mostly didn’t see that here. I’d say the readers of this site are among the most fair-minded and rational folks you’ll find online ANYWHERE commenting on emotionally charged cases like these. But that doesn’t mean that sometimes a few people won’t read into this site what they see on other sites– that seems to happen once every few dozen cases or so here.
And no, “science” doesn’t belong in quotes when talking about the science of emotion– it’s real live, honest to goodness science that follows the scientific method conducted by real scientists and published to actual, peer-reviewed scientific journals. It’s real science. Some of the stuff one might encounter as a lawyer or actor– now that might legitimately require the word science to be put into quotes, because a lot of what’s out there today is not valid (I’ve never been a lawyer or heard anything about what they encounter in the course of practicing law, but I’ve seen plenty of actors acting, and they mostly don’t get it right, and often not even close).
Unfortunately, the world today (post Lie To Me etc.) is filled with loads of self-proclaimed experts who know little to nothing about the real science, but that doesn’t make the real science invalid. There really is good, solid, scientifically valid information out there– it’s just a matter of being able to dig through all of the garbage to find it and being able to tell the difference between what’s real and what isn’t. That’s admittedly not an easy thing to do, which is probably why most people don’t have Eyes’s ability.
How can anyone rely on what Eyes teaches here on this site to be the real thing? Her 7+ year public track record should be a reasonably solid hint. The trouble is that what she does is complex, so if you take something she says about one person and apply it to another person without understanding the nuances of it, you can wind up finding plenty of evidence that it’s wrong. But it’s usually not wrong– it’s just that you have to know when something applies to a certain person and when it doesn’t apply to another person. If it were easy, everyone would have her ability and she’d be churning out truth wizards in her training seminars like there’s no tomorrow.
I have no quibble with her record. In fact, that’s the main reason why I think it’s sketchy and irresponsible to post opinion on parent guilt – and let’s not quibble here, we’re all talking about guilt or innocence in these contexts. Precisely because of this record, others clamber onto to the bandwagon.
And by the way – of course it’s opinion – it says so right up there. These articles are gathered under the category of “OPINION.”
As a former lawyer, this one is right up your alley. It’s opinion because it is Eyes’s opinion. It’s opinion that’s based on science and observable facts, but it’s not an exact science (her record on the site is 95%, not 100%) and she’s human, so sometimes she’s wrong. If she were to post something as other than opinion (ie. as fact) and were later proven wrong, then she’s open to defamation lawsuits for posting as fact something which can be then proven wrong– the law doesn’t care that she didn’t have access to all of the facts at the time she posted something as fact because it, probably just like you, would consider that an irresponsible exercise in free speech (and it is). Eyes isn’t involved in these cases as a prosecutor or investigator, so she doesn’t enjoy the immunity from those lawsuits that the people who are actually involved in the cases enjoy, so posting her opinions as fact WOULD BE sketchy and irresponsible. That’s why she doesn’t. But it doesn’t mean that what she bases those opinions on aren’t based on things that have been confirmed through valid scientific research.
You may be talking about guilt or innocence, but I’m not and I know that several of the regular readers here aren’t either. Guilt or innocence is only one point of view to read this blog from, but it isn’t the one that many of us are here for, although it is one of the things that we’re curious about. I’d say it’s one that nearly all people are curious about in a case like this, or there wouldn’t be all of those other websites and blogs out there discussing and commenting about the various cases in the news like this one. Curiosity is a natural human trait.
I suspect that you’re right that others will take her opinion and clamber onto the bandwagon of guilt or innocence because of her track record– it’s a valid point. I also know that it’s one that Eyes is conscious of when she writes her blog posts– the possibility of wrongly accusing someone of something they didn’t do weighs heavily on her in what she writes, I can personally assure you of that. I also know from experience over the years here that, because of the way Eyes sees the world through her ability, sometimes she writes something in a way that makes it obvious– to her– what she’s saying, but isn’t as obvious to people who don’t understand how to do what she does what she means, and it can lead to people misunderstanding what she meant. I think this is the issue that you’re talking about here in that some readers will read what she wrote in this blog post and reach the conclusion that she believes that Jessica’s mother was involved in her disappearance or death. That isn’t correct, but I can see how some people will reach that conclusion because they lack the understanding of how to interpret what she wrote, because they only read the post cursorily, or because they came to the blog with a preconceived idea that one of the parents might be involved. Again, it’s a valid point and a valid concern. It’s also one of the inherent dangers in trying to teach others how she does what she does, and I don’t think there’s always a way to mitigate that danger because ignorance will always do what ignorance does. It’s unfortunate, but ignorance exists in the world whether someone works to eradicate it or not. I personally think we’re better off with someone with Eyes’s ability trying to teach what they can to the world rather than just quietly sit on it and pretended it doesn’t exist. Harm will be caused with or without truth wizards, but with them I think there is slightly less harm caused. I think, as a species and a civilization, we’re better off having access to the truth than we are without it.
I respect where you’re coming from, and I respect and appreciate that, as a former lawyer, you consider the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” more than just a legal concept. I’m glad to see that you advocate for that too. It’s the best system humankind has come up with to date.
Thank you. Reasonable discourse: refreshing to see. 🙂
Very well said Keith! I have learned a lot from following Eyes For Lies blog and one of the most important things I have learned is to not jump to a conclusion about someone’s guilt or innocence based off of one piece of the puzzle or one interview. Which is exactly why she says something is odd but she wants to see more at the end of her blog. She is very careful with that.
I was one of the people that requested for Eyes to take a look at this. As a mother, this interview did not sit well with me at all. I found the mothers choice of words odd. When she talks about how they will be stronger from this and Jessica will be too. Who thinks, “my kid is going to be stronger from being kidnapped?”. Now that we know she is dead, it really doesn’t sit well. I saw and heard disdain from her in some places when she talked about her daughter and of course the forced cry lacking tears. I wanted to know more about what might cause these odd responses. I am trying to learn about how others react to things. Just because I don’t think this is the way I would react if my daughter went missing, doesn’t mean it isn’t perfectly normal for some. This is what Eyes teaches us. To look at all the variables.
In this case, she acknowledged there isn’t enough information. I don’t see how people can say this irresponsible.
I would like to once again emphasize something I think is very important, in response to Annie but also to any new readers curious on this point: Eyes isn’t (and her regular commenters aren’t) talking about guilt and innocence unless it is explicitly stated. We don’t dance around our point or try to obscure it. This blog aims at truth; to do that would be counterproductive.
You can see this in those posts where Eyes does explicitly discuss guilt or innocence (for example, she occasionally features cases where she believes someone was unjustly imprisoned, and in those she will explain why she suspects they aren’t guilty). Those kinds of posts are rare, and they help highlight the care with which she selects all her words to express what she means, what she finds evidence for, and nothing more.
So, when Eyes says something like, “her mom’s behavior is notable in one area,” you can trust that it isn’t code for “she’s guilty” It means just what it says.
So I watched this clip before reading your observations so that I could be as objective as possible about the parents’ interviews. I felt the father’s emotions were sincere and I felt genuine suffering from him. The mother did seem to be over-acting and really trying to force an outward appearance of grief.
Perhaps she is currently numb from the magnitude of her loss? Can shock caused by a trauma be so overwhelming that one might not feel the devastation they believe they should feel and then try to force the emotional response they think society expects from them?
I have no idea whether she knows anything, but I agree that her reaction seems…curious.
May Jessica rest in peace.
Hi, I’m a long time reader of your blog – and a big fan. I thought I’d chime in with my thoughts. I watched the clip on mute – just curious to focus on facial expressions without hearing what they were saying. What stood out to me were two moments where I really noticed what looks to me like the mom trying to suppress a smile – around the 47 second mark and around 1:11ish mark. Another thing that stood out to me was the mom’s body language. Eyes, I’m not sure if I’ve read you address this – but the mom seems to be very open with her body language – visually she looks almost like a queen holding court – whereas the dad seems to be very deflated (caving his body in) and is sitting off to the side. I’m not sure if I’m reading too much into this. But her body seems to convey a confidence or assertiveness and level of comfort that stood out to me. She is surrounded by people supporting her (which of course is normal given having a missing child) and yet her body doesn’t seem to need support. Excited to be joining the conversation! GREAT blog!
I noticed that the mother’s aunt (sitting on her right hand side) was quietly coaching her in what to say. It’s my opinion that the mother is not entirely comfortable speaking and is misunderstood.
Sadly, people who are not familiar with EFL’s work are totally misrepresenting this entry. They are claiming that EFL is “insinuating” the mother is involved. I recommend they read Keith D.’s entry that starts “I finally got a chance to watch this clip” to get a better understanding exactly what it is that EFL does. I agree with Keith. People are coming to an inaccurate conclusion without fully understanding what it is EFL does.
Oh, I finally watched the video on this case. Her mother’s behavior seems to lack natural flow. I would not tend to think her grief was genuine based on her behavior. If she was my friend, I would be worried for her. If she was my friend, I would be torn. Allegedly grieving friend who seems “off” under the circumstances… what to do, what to do? I would be looking for the truth, very very gingerly. But I would seek it as I would not believe that, at this point, I had it from her.
Thanks for your thoughts. I saw the mom talk and I noticed the fake cry which made me want to hear your opinion.
People talk too much.