Scott Falater: My Thoughts

If you haven’t seen the ABC 20/20 show While He Was Sleeping, you might want to watch it before you read my opinion here.

This space has been left blank on purpose so I don’t spill the beans before you watch the show…ready? Scroll down.

Scott Falater comes across as a simple man, who doesn’t seem to carry a lot of emotions. He doesn’t fit an irate, jealous or angry husband–the type who might murder his wife in a fit of rage. However, his lack of emotions may or may not be an indicator that you cannot ignore.

Watching him speak throughout the show, I can’t help but wonder did he just tire of his “dumpy” wife?

Cold calculating people who suffer from anti-social personality and a lack of emotions are the type to do this. Could he be one of them? His flat affect raised an eyebrow to keep an open mind.

On Falater’s sleep walking, as I mentioned I am very familiar with sleep walking. I had dozens of episodes into my teens. But I find his story rang untrue.

Here is why: If you’ve ever witnessed or been a sleepwalker, you know the sleepwalkers sense of reality is off, and their ability to understand their surroundings isn’t normal. They are asleep.

They may get some sense of normalcy for minutes, but it gets changed by the subconscious dream state. It’s like two world’s collide and they aren’t connected. Most people have heard people who had to use the bathroom while sleep walking and peed in strange places (which thankfully I didn’t do!). You get the drift.

Essentially sleepwalkers behavior is less normal, if you will, less “accurate” at what they do because of their altered state. And while it is possible someone could drive a car, or could harm a person, I believe there would be telltale signs of disoriented actions that still support a sleepwalking event.

If Falater was sleepwalking, he might of stuffed his clothes in some odd place–like in a toilet or food pantry or refrigerator, but not in the trunk of his car, which was too perfect. He may have injured or seriously harmed his wife but he wouldn’t come to get her a second time pushing her in the pool.

It is precisely the lack of disoriented actions by Falater that truly make me doubt him. He is too precise. Yes, he missed the blood on his neck and when it is pointed out, he immediately tries to remove it. That doesn’t hit me as dream-oriented. That hit me as guilty behavior.

Think of your own dreams. Your dreams don’t flow in a logical and normal fashion. You get flashes of things that don’t connect, that don’t add up–they flow oddly and weirdly.

But the most telling part for me was at the end of the show, when 20/20 chatted with Falater.

Falater said, “I cannot swear on a stack of bibles…that I was sleepwalking. All I can say is I do not know what happened.”

What????????

Would you EVER say that if you truly had no memory of killing your wife????

Um, no, you wouldn’t. I wouldn’t even think to say that!!!

What you would likely say is something to the effect of I don’t know what happened that night, but I can swear on a stack of bibles I was not consciously awake and knowingly doing this to my wife. I loved her. I’m devastated and will suffer this tragedy a lifetime — or something like that!

No, in my opinion, Scott Falater slipped up and revealed the truth. He was so relaxed he leaked it out. He killed his wife while awake and knows it. He knows he is where he belongs and will not be set free. He is resigned to it for good reason!

Would you kill for love: Jens Soering on 20/20

Did you catch ABC’s 20/20 last weekend?  It featured the story of Jens Soering and Elizabeth Haysom, and the murder of Elizabeth’s parents: Derek and Nancy Haysom in 1985.

The two oddly-coupled pair skipped the country after the killings and then confessed when apprehended in England.

Soering later said he didn’t do the killings. He said he stayed back while Elizabeth did it to create an alibi.

I found Soering very arrogant and he showed no signs of being a candidate for a false confession, instead everything he did convinced me he isn’t trustworthy.

These two were truly scary, callous and cold, weren’t they?

Hannah Overton’s Conviction Overturned!!


More ABC News Videos | ABC World News

I am so thrilled to learn that Hannah Overton’s conviction has been overturned. This poor woman and her family suffered from Hannah being wrongly convicted.

Back in October of 2008, I watched her story on 20/20 and immediately trusted her despite a handful of clues that made people look at her. You can read my post here.

And now this week, seven years later, Hannah was finally freed!

This is the best news ever!!

It feels so good to see the truth prevail!!

Let’s just pray that they do not bring further charges again.

So happy for Hannah and her family!

Michael Vilkin versus John Upton: What really happened?


ABC News | More ABC News Videos

ABC 20/20 featured the story this past weekend of John Upton and Michael Vilkin–both neighbors who didn’t get along.

Vilkin owned a vacant lot and tended to it as if it were a full-time job but Upton had some serious complaints that he aired with Vilkin. The two were known to not get along.

The last fight these two men had involved Vilkin cutting down trees on his own property and Upton being upset that his privacy would be lost at his current home where he rented.

Vilkin ended up shooting and killing Upton, got convicted of murder and faces 25 years to life for the murder.

So what really happened here?

When I watched the show, I do not question that Vilkin was bullied by Upton. There is no doubt in my mind he was bullied.

But I have a problem with Vilkin’s story. At first, Vilkin told us he was assaulted by Upton when he shot him in self-defense, but the second time he said he saw Upton coming at him with a gun, and shot and killed him. The gun Vilkin thought he saw Upton carrying ended up being a cell phone.

The two versions of Vilkin’s story are completely inconsistent.

So I do believe Vilkin was bullied and it probably was driving him mad, but I don’t believe that he had to shoot Upton as an act of self-defense.

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


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?