Blake Seylhouwer Takes Stand
Blake Seylhouwer, a former radio host, says he “accidentally shot at” his wife in the testimony above. He says he didn’t mean to cause her harm, but the bullet from his high-powered rifled sprayed shrapnel and bits of concrete when it hit their driveway injuring Beylhouwer’s wife, Misty.
Misty testified that she believes her husband Blake fired at her on purpose.
When I watch Blake above, I don’t believe him whatsoever. The amount of clues he gives off in a short amount of time is staggering.
his fake crying is so irritating! That initial sniff with the huge contempt leak. I could barely watch the whole clip.
To start with, he says,(not exact wording) “I just saw the gun, and I don’t know I was just so tired of hurting my wife, and it just made sense.” If he was so tired of hurting his wife, why would he take a gun and fire it near enough to her to cause flying debris to injure her? He was tired of hurting her, so he just tried to put a horrible amount of fear into her, She won’t ever get over that kind of fear, even if she recovers from her injuries. Just think about what he would have done, if he hadn’t been tired of hurting her! I have the distinct feeling that he was wanting to put an end to their fighting, once and for all, but couldn’t quite do it.
There are many red flags in his testimony, but the part that really stands out to me is when he tries to shift the blame back on the person questioning him. He says, that he is sorry that he didn’t say it perfectly enough or wasn’t specific enough for the prosecutor. In other words, it is all the prosecutor’s fault for being too picky. This man is a loose cannon.
Yes just before the second part “That is what was in my mind, that that’s what happened”
Did what he said to the detective actually happen or was it just in his mind?
Then he say’s I’m sorry x 3, followed by my state of mind wasn’t good.
So, did he just avoid answering the question with a little verbal antagonism?
The crying with no tears is always a huge flag. He’s just crying with his voice. Then when the prosecutor questions him, and he responds “Yeah,” he lifts his head and raises his chin, tilts his head back which looks like arrogance to me.
I have often heard that when you use a word with a “ly” in a denial that it’s a no no. Is this true?
It’s pure nonsense.
Thanks.
Can you help me out Eyes I can’t see the clues?
Saying he would never point the gun at “something” bothered me. Why couldn’t he say he wouldn’t point a gun at “someone”? She is a person, not a thing.
That’s a good point, Beth.
No it is not – its overanalyzing. Something is not at all contempt laden as implied here. Dont ever go the route of “what people should have said insted..” this is a standard you can’t even hold yourself applicable to most times in your life.
That high pitched squeaky voice is full of lies…
He was found guilty of a lesser charge of negligent assault, and he may be out as early as today. The judge will sentence him later this month, but since he has already been in jail for 6 months, he will probably get out on time served. His wife is terrified. She had some pretty bad injuries from this incident, but the prosecutor thinks that the jury ruled the way they did because of the lifestyle the couple lived.
Their children being caught up in all of this is always my biggest worry. I hope they stay safe, because I don’t trust this man.
He had to close the bolt. I am ignorant of guns but look here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKa4OQBejKQ
It makes his description of his having to close the bolt because he’d pulled it out a little bit sound ridiculous. Correct me if I’m wrong as I could well be, however I was prompted by his words that sounded off to me.
I find it interesting how people, such as Blake here, can relatively easily fake their emotional state. The voice pitch, the breathing rate, a little bit of inflammation in the eyes. But I still find it hard to get past those behaviours to get to the truth and I’m not sure why. I definitely think the whiny pitch affects my judgement. Any advice would be welcome.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the common consent here –
When I first watched the clip up to the point he gets confronted with “potential evidence” – and breaks his stride (gets harshly more confrontational – mood shift), I was buying it hookline and sinker.
He portraits emotional distress extremely well. Also there is the modus to cover up lies with fragments of truths – and as soon as he gets into detail I want to buy his argument (pull back, pointed downward, …).
On a second viewing I could identify one “role break” in the first part of the interview, when his thoughts are drifting, the already mentioned sniff – where he shows contempt, and a split “realigning emotions”, when he seeks the eyes of the prosecutor at a later moment –
do I believe that he is telling a whitened version of the reality – yes. Do I believe that he had the intent to kill at the time – not from what I am seeing. He masks too well.
And this is the simple jist of it.
This is cringe-worthy. He’s so fake, it’s embarrassing.