Chris Watts Interview: My Thoughts

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Many of you have wondering if Christopher Watts revealed clues that he was deceptive. The answer is yes. If you don’t know, he has sadly confessed to the killing of his wife and their children.

In the beginning of the interview, Chris actually glows when he first starts talking, yet he is putting on a down-tone in his voice and working hard to keep his emotions baseline. You get that deadpan feeling? That’s him manipulating his responses–trying to “act” down when he really isn’t. It’s an epic fail.

You can see him suppress a smile when he is asked what happened. It’s creepy. This is not a man grieving for or worried about his supposed missing wife.

When talking about her not responding to “her people” he talks about “That is what concerned a lot of peoples.” If you notice, it didn’t concern him. Isn’t that interesting? He also makes a disgust expression.

As he talks about coming home, he says, “Nothing. Just vanished. Nothing was here.” This is extreme distancing from his wife and kids. He acts like they are objects, not human beings who went missing. He then corrects and says, “She wasn’t here. The kids weren’t here.”

Interestingly, when he talks about the kids and says their names, you see a slow blink. There is some, albeit slight, emotional response here about the kids that is revealed by this. Does it bother him he killed them? Are their visions that get into his head that cause him to feel some emotion here? I believe the answer is yes, even if it is a minor emotion. With his wife, there is nothing.

When Chris spells Celeste’s name, he has an awkward swallow. It’s making him very uncomfortable and its notable.

As Chris talks about where they could be, he has a glow again. I get that sense he feels he is being believed and is successfully duping the reporter here. It’s very creepy. And it continues as he talks about the girls, and how they would be eating dinner and how he supposedly (not) misses it. He actually breaks out in slight laughter at 3:24. What you are seeing is a man who is loving the fact he is duping the reporter and getting away with his lies and thinks he is being believed.

He laughs again at 3:51.

He says they had an emotional conversation. Yeah, a fight. No doubt. He laughs again at 5:01.

When the reporters question him about what the police or sheriff are saying to you, he shows real indications of being uncomfortable and nervous again, which only helped investigators! He shows doubt throughout this interview as well.

And in the end, he says, as he pleas for his wife, “IF you are out there…” IF??? I love when they say “if”. It’s quite common and a huge reveal.

I personally suspect this man was controlling, angered easily and kept his demons behind closed doors. And something happened, and he snapped.

Roger Clemens: My Thoughts

/in , /by

Many of you have asked me over the past several days, in private, if I believe Roger Clemens.

The first time I had ever heard Roger Clemens name was last week: I kid you not. I am not a pro-sport enthusiast for many reasons, but that is an entirely different topic. While I had heard of the Mitchell report, I didn’t pay much attention to it. Steroids in sports are no surprise.

Anyway, one reader asked me to watch a clip about Roger Clemens online at CBS last week, and then I saw the full Roger Clemens interview this past Sunday on CBS 60 Minutes.

When I watched the interview, while I didn’t see any indications of deception, I didn’t get a positive feeling that, boy, this guy is honest. What I got out of the 60 Minutes interview with Clemens was simply that he was angry, upset, frustrated and stressed out, but there was nothing more conclusive in the interview.

Clearly, Clemens could be frustrated, angry and annoyed that the truth came out equally as much as he could be that someone is lying about him using steroids.

Read moreWorse, since Clemens is exceptionally wealthy, one of the richest athletes in North America, he may feel a superiority and power with his financial status, and believe that he can overcome anything. I do detect an arrogance.

This, I fear, could impact his demeanor, beliefs and feelings about what he can and cannot do–what he can get away with. It could diminish his “fear” if he was lying as he has the power and connections to make things happen, and that, in turn, could effect the clues that leak and indicate deception. Read more about high-stake lies here.

Clemens high-stakes scenario is not as high-stakes when you factor in the power of money, influence and status. If Clemens or the Clemens camp can pressure McNamee, or offer him something under the table (or others for the matter), it can have major impact to these allegations. He knows it, you know it, and I know it. Money buys many things. And if McNamee is as desperate as he sounds, will we ever know the truth? If Clemens camp discredits McNamee, and McNamee falsely fesses that he made it all up (hypothetically), who will believe whom?

That gives me pause in watching for clues to deception in this scenario, and makes me question the efficacy of it all with the uber-rich. Maybe that is why I have been hesitant to give opinions on big pro athletes.

It’s certainly not black and white. There will be cases where power and influence are weaker, and the effects won’t be the same, but it is something to consider when power, influence, status, and money are equally strong. If the baseball industry as a whole were steadfast against steroids, that would change things but we are not dealing with an industry that is. None of the players are willing to denounce others if they use steroids.

There is a known problem with steroids within the industry, and yet we still allow the industry to self-police, if I understand it correctly, which makes absolutely no sense. This is a business where billions of dollars are generated, and one that keeps a large group of people “uber” wealthy. There are plenty of people here who would have reason to fight and support Clemens, regardless of what the truth is.

To expect one to cut off his own foot in the name of morality isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. What industry is going to cut off a billion dollar money generator, and admit to their advantage? Be reasonable.

Furthermore, these powerhouses have the funds, and connections to do what they have done before, to create undetectable drugs. It’s big business. Why on earth would they stop when the public keeps swarming to them despite all the allegations?

With that, while I have a suspicion in this circumstance, power, money, influence and status all can impact the clues I see, rendering them less effective and less trusthworthy. Furthermore, Clemens has an industry that has every reason to want to fight for Clemens, regardless of the truth, which further complicates this situation.

I hope you appreciate my sincere honesty to refrain from an opinion on Roger Clemens.

High-Stake Lies

/in , , , , /by

When a liar stands to get a notable gain, or faces a notable loss by telling a lie, this type of lie is known as a high-stake lie. In this situation, the liar stands to gain or lose either emotionally, physically, financially or psychologically by maintaining his lie. If his lie leaks out, the liar will pay a sizable price.

It is also when the stakes are high for the liar that clues to deception leak from a liar at a far greater level than a low-stake lie.

With that, if someone lied to me about his favorite color, and had nothing to gain or lose for doing so—which is a low-stake lie—he likely wouldn’t give off detectable hints. With that, I would be in the dark along with everyone else as to what the truth is. Quite simply, this is because it doesn’t cause anyone much difficulty to say blue instead of red, or wine instead of beer.

Now, not all low-stake lies are undetectable; it really depends on the simplicity of the lie. The more simplistic the lie is, the more difficult it is to spot (e.g., favorite color). The more complex the lie becomes, the more likely it is a clue will leak (e.g., lying about your whereabouts for six hours). Regardless, though, you still don’t get the same abundance of clues as you would in a high-stake lie.

For example, in low-stake lies, you may or may not see word searching, stammering, or thinking clues. In high-stake lies, you will likely see a mixture of those, plus emotional clues.

However, when a murderer who kills for the psychological thrill is facing charges, the stakes are high. He knows his days could be numbered, and that puts pressure on him if he wants to continue to get his sick thrill. That pressure is what causes more clues.

So, next time you tell me what your favorite color is—and lie—don’t be surprised if I don’t see it. I see lies when it comes to high-stake lies. Low-stake lies are another ballgame.

Update 7/19/2007:
High-Stake Lies also dissipate once someone is convicted of a crime. After a conviction, a person no longer has anything else to lose by continuing the lie (since they are paying the ultimate price by the conviction and the sentence). Hence, the pressure that comes from having to maintain a lie dissolves away, and the person is no longer under any pressure to lie. There are no more repercussions to lying, and as a result, the clues will be greatly diminished, if not disappear altogether.