The Nanny Who Won’t Move Out: Who’s Lying?

/2 Comments/in , , /by


ABC News | ABC Sports News

If you watched ABC 20/20 this weekend, you got to see the story of a nanny, a homeless woman, who took a job for free room and board in exchange for cooking and cleaning for a family with two boys. The agreement posted on Craiglist was clearly vague.

So who is telling the truth here?

I personally don’t believe either party and I believe both wanted something for free, and they each got more than they bargained for.

On 20/20, the reporter says the nanny claimed the original agreement was 20 hours a week. The homeowner, Marcella says back, “Ummmm….no.” To which the reporter shoots back, so what was it? Marcella says, “I would say…she probably a week ten hours.”

First off, Marcella doesn’t answer the question and jumbles her answer all up. And second, who would bring a woman into your home for 10 hours a week of work, feeds her and let her share your home? No one — that’s who. It would be much cheaper to hire someone to come in on an hourly basis and it wouldn’t invade your privacy. This is nonsense.

Ralph Bracamonte said, “It was help out with the kids when needed, to pick up little things and to maybe prep up a little bit of dinner if [Marcella] was running a little bit late.” Do you see how he minimized everything? Ralph also said the nanny was like “family” yet within two weeks things started to sour? This is inconsistent.

And on behalf of the nanny, she said this job would allow her to ” …get my legs up and take care of my heart condition.” This is flat out inconsistent. I suspect she knew the laws and thought she’d find a free home for a while and she did. She was identified on 20/20 as being “… listed on the state of California’s Vexatious Litigant List.” What does that mean? She is known to sue people without just cause. How does that translate? People use the threat of lawsuits frequently to get people to cave in or buckle to their demands.

I think they both say all we need to know to see the truth. What do you think?

Melody Granadillo, Joran’s Ex-girlfriend Speaks

/in /by


ABC 20/20 video with Melody Granadillo and Chris Cuomo

ABC 20/20 tonight will show an interview with Melody Granadillo, Joran van der Sloot’s ex-girlfriend from Aruba. You can see a snippet of it here. It’s clear by this interview that Melody still has a soft spot for Joran. She appears to be a very kind, soft-hearted individual. When the two were together, there is little doubt that Joran called the shots.

Read moreInterestingly, Melody may never have been in danger with Joran, because psychopaths, even serial killers, often deem people “important” in their life, and these people they never seem to touch. It’s an odd phenomenon. Don’t get me wrong, I would never say you are safe with a psychopath, but most of them do have an odd history when you look at them.

Perhaps these “deemed-important-people” walk gingerly around these killers, and subconsciously know to never upset them. I don’t know. It would be interesting to study the personalities of those who were involved with psychopaths, who escaped their fury. What does a psychopath use to deem someone important? Joran still seemed to cling to Melody up until the end.

Think of BTK–aka Dennis Rader. He was married with children all of those years and never touched his wife or kids. Other serial killers, I think it was the Iceman, cried over someone he loved. I can’t remember if it was his mother who died when he was in prison or if he was falsely told his wife was dead or dying. Forgive me. Whatever it was, I remember being awestruck at how he had deemed someone of significance to him, because he was such a cold, callous man!

ABC 20/20 is also reporting this morning that Joran van der Sloot’s mom communicated with ABC and has stated she believes her son, Joran, is not a murderer. It’s not surprising, is it?

It surprises me that people can’t understand a parent’s denial. I can hear the logic from a distance. “I raised my son! I’ve known him his whole life. I know him better than anyone and he would not kill anyone. He could not kill anyone. They must have the wrong person. I am his mom and I know him the best!” Tell them that their child lies, and I can hear them reason back, “Who hasn’t lied? Who has raised a child that doesn’t lie?! Give me a break.”

Aaron Vargas: Hero or Vigilante?

/in /by

On the evening of February 8, 2009, a distraught young man, Aaron Vargas, 32, drove to the trailer of Darrell McNeill, 63, and shot and killed him in front of his terrified wife. Aaron Vargas, only weeks away from his wedding, had just learned that he wasn’t the only one that Darrell had molested. The knowledge shocked and angered Aaron, and in a drunken angry state, he arrived at Darrell’s with a loaded revolver in his pocket. After a short dispute between the two men, Aaron shot and killed Darrell.

Read moreThe people of Fort Bragg, California were stunned and surprised at the killing of Darrell until the truth started coming out. Several men came forward to say they had been sexually molested by the man, also. The town began to rally around Aaron and called him a hero.

In May, ABC’s 20 20 did a story on Aaron. Aaron spoke for the first time to Chris Cuomo. He revealed that he had been molested by Darrell since he was 11 years old. He told Chris that he didn’t go there with the purpose of killing Darrell, but he was trying to warn him to stay away from himself and his family. Aaron said Darrell had began to come around his baby daughter and was showing too much interest in her, and Aaron feared Darrell would start molesting his daughter, too. He also said that fear for his child and the need to put a stop to Darrell’s hold over him, which had driven him to a breaking point.

Aaron plead no contest to a charge of involuntary manslaughter in April. On June 16, 2010, in front of a packed courtroom, Judge Ronald Brown sentenced Aaron to 9 years out of a possible 10 year maximum sentence. The Vargas family was upset. They had hoped for probation, and they plan to appeal.

Darell’s sister, Mindy Galliani said after the sentencing, “It’s clear that the justice system still doesn’t have an understanding of childhood sexual abuse.”Judge Brown said “I believe the defendant intended to kill and intended him to suffer,” and that Vargas’ actions “were consistent with an intentional killing.” The judge said he could not overlook the use of violence to solve problems.

What do you think? Do you think the sentence is too severe or do you think the sentence should have been longer?

More info CBS 5 CrimeWatch

Kelle Jarka

/in , /by

Police Interrogate Kelle Jarka in Murder
(You can read the story here)

Man in a Cap Aiming a Pistol

ABC’s 20/20 featured the Kelle Jarka story last Friday. Jarka comes home to find his wife, Isabelle, dead after running morning errands. He believes it is a break-in and denies any involvement. He is later convicted of murder.

In this interview we get to see Jarka talk and his behavior is fascinating.

Read moreJarka, an hour after his wife’s murder in a police interrogation tape, says the following about finding his wife upon his return, “I ran over there, ‘Babe, Babe’ uh, what’s w… , you know, and I couldn’t move her.”

What flags me instantly when I listen to this is how Jarka’s voice inflection changes when he says the words “Babe, Babe”. It’s a telling clue for me. For some reason when people are deceptive and put on an act, they often add in emotional inflection in the middle of normal conversation. It’s like what they would envision they would do, if they actually did this. When honest people recollect facts, they don’t do this at points where they “think” they should be emotional. I’ve seen this time and time again. It’s a pretty reliable clue to deceit. Probably one of the most reliable across the board.

Notice how he was about to say, “What wrong?” but stops himself? Then later he tells us he thought she was dead, so why on earth would he ask her what’s wrong? It makes no sense, likely because it never happened. I suspect he is just babbling up a story here, and got caught!

I love when the investigator says no innocent person is going to let me accuse them of brutally murdering their wife of 19 years. Bingo! And what is so fascinating is how Jarka responds to the questioning. Notice there is no anger? No negative emotions whatsoever? Instead, we get this subdued response–so classic of people who are deceptive. It’s what I call the “nice-guy-facade syndrome”. When people lie, their biggest goal is to be believed and they think if they are going to be trusted, they have to be liked, so they don’t ever get mad! Another very common clue to deceit seen in high stakes lies.

I also find it strange that Jarka says he couldn’t move her. What would be the reason for that? I wish that was questioned. It would have revealed his senseless babble.

I also noticed how Jarka’s voice is devoid of any stress whatsoever, and when he recalls what should be painful details, he is like a drone, devoid of normal emotional memory recall. Two more huge red flags.

Clearly, the jury got this case right on the money, circumstantial evidence and all.

ABC: Dating In the Dark

/in /by

Have you seen the new show on ABC this summer called Dating In the Dark? It’s a must see for all of you people who love reading people! You get lots of opportunities to test your abilities.

Three men and three women are put in a dark room together and are then setup on “blind dates” with one of the participants who is supposed to be their ultimate match, though they have opportunities to pick another partner from the group, if they choose.

Read moreIt’s fascinating because they don’t ever get to see each other, but you can see them through the use of an infrared camera. When the lights are out, it becomes clear people are much more genuine–I suspect because of the sense of vulnerability they share being blinded. They are much more expressive and less inhibited, and their body language is entirely different at times!

Plus, at the end of the show, while the couples are still in the darkroom, each person is revealed to the other via a spotlight. What this does is put one person on display while still hiding the other. With that, you can get to see each person react to the other in a genuine way, because they are still hidden in the dark as they get to see their partner visually for the first time. You can then see if you can read their body language and facial expressions! It’s LOTS of fun!

I’ll be tuning in again. Will you?