Clint Horvatt

/in , , /by

A reader alerted me today to a story out of Gainsville which she read about on True Crime Report. Clint Horvatt tells a horrific story of being out with his fiancee last Friday afternoon to go shopping when she asked him to pull over because she recognized a truck that needed help on the side of the road. But what happened next is perplexing. They pulled over, and instead of getting out to help the guy, he came to them, robbed them and shot Horvatt’s fiancee, Summer Smith, in the head. She died later that day.

Is Clint Horvatt telling the truth? Click to watch Horvatt for yourself.

Read moreMany things do not point to the fact that Horvatt is telling the truth, though Horvatt tells us he is on medication. I don’t know what medication he is on, and because he is on medication, I think we should be cautious. I’d want to know how mind-altering of a drug Horvatt was on before I’d come to any final conclusions, but the following things are very notable to me.

  1. Horvatt has no emotions. He’s like a robot repeating a story that he memorized over and over again. He states the facts, totally detached, yet supposedly his own life was in jeopardy. This is a big red flag. Furthermore, he smiles multiple times without any indication of stress which is inconsistent for a man who should be grieving, who experienced such a devastating trauma, or who is in shock. It’s very notable.
  2. Horvatt acts like he is emotional a couple of time, but notice there are no tears?
  3. Horvatt never refers to his fiancee by name until the end of the interview. Why? It shows detachment. Her name is Summer Smith.
  4. Horvatt says “I’m not sure exactly what you all want me to say besides my fiancee was shot yest…a couple of days ago..uh..in a robbery.”

    Does this make any sense?

  5. Horvatt tells us “She asked me to stop off and ah…help the individual out” yet when he continues, he doesn’t tell us that the guy was fixing a flat tire or anything. Oddly he says “the individual got out on the passenger side.”

    How did his fiancee know the guy was in trouble? People stop on the side of the road all the time. It doesn’t mean they are necessarily in trouble — especially if they are sitting inside the vehicle. I find this odd and perplexing. Horvatt gives so many details, but here they are lacking. Why?

  6. Also, why is Horvatt showing positive (happy) emotions when he says “stop off and ah…help the individual out.”? It’s like he feels good he was a “good guy”. If he was devastated right now, he would not feel like a good guy. He would careless about feeling this way if he truly felt he lost the love of his life. It makes no sense.
  7. Also, I have to wonder, when Horvatt told the police this story, did he tell them they drove by the truck first and then turned around to offer help? Most people don’t come upon a truck and immediately recognize it, and know a person needs help when the driver is still in the vehicle. Horvatt’s story alludes to the fact he likely didn’t drive past it and return which is unusual.
  8. If Horvatt’s fiancee stopped to help the guy, why did she roll down her window? Why didn’t she get out and meet the guy? This is odd behavior for someone who is stopping to help someone. It doesn’t make sense.
  9. What are the odds that you stop to help someone who does not appear to be in trouble and they, in turn, rob and kill you? Also, what are the odds they would leave a witness alive to speak about it? I would think the odds are highly unlikely.
  10. Horvatt says the suspect said “Give me your shit” (see video on bottom left here). Would you know that means give your wallet and purse, or would you wonder if he meant the truck? How come Horvatt and his fiancee knew what that meant, and didn’t ask any quesitons? I certainly wouldn’t have known what it meant, and without seeing a gun, I would have put the car in drive and drove away, or told the guy to go to hell or I’d roll up the window. Why didn’t Horvatt?
  11. If this is a robbery, why wouldn’t the perpetrator not show the gun immediately to show that he means business? Why would he hide the gun? Why would he only pull it out to shoot the fiancee? It defies logic.

  12. Horvatt provides great details about the suspect, however when it comes to the robbery, his details fuzz. I find this perplexing. Horvatt says “I kind of, uh, got the impression of what we were doing, what was going on, I was getting robbed.”

    He kind of got the impression, but not really? How does that work? Hmmm….I wonder if I am getting robbed. I don’t think so.

    “Kind of” is what I coined hedge words. It’s a notable red flag. It makes absolutely no sense. You either believe something this traumatic, or you don’t. He either believed he was going to be robbed or he didn’t. Why does he express doubt?

  13. Horvatt continues “After he took my wallet, with his left hand, I do remember, he put it up, he put his hand on her purse, she grabbed his arm and that is when he pulled out from his right hand, and then he shot her. I said [blanked out — “Oh Shit”?] and then she looked directly at him and then he shot her…. in the head, and by that time, I had the truck in reverse, I was backing up.”

    What is interesting here is the guy grabbed Horvatt’s wallet and tried to use the same hand to grab her purse. Isn’t that odd? Why doesn’t Horvatt talk about this in detail like “he tried to hold my wallet and grab her purse at the same time.” He doesn’t seem to recollect that, does he? Why no details here?

  14. Horvatt tells us “I was always told to, of course, give up my possessions, keep’m calm, so I can get out of there.” Then why did he promptly say “Oh shit!” or some expletive that needed to be bleeped out? Is that keeping calm?
  15. More important, notice that “shit” seems to be a Horvatt word?
  16. Notice he doesn’t say the word “gun”? Why?
  17. Was his fiancee she shot once or twice? I find it odd how later in the interview, when Horvatt is talking about the ambulance, he says “I only heard one gunshot go off.” It was a strange place to recount this detail. It was notably odd and there was likely a reason for it.
  18. Notice how once his fiancee is shot, Horvatt’s details get real sketchy again? Horvatt recounts “…and then he shot her…in the head, and by that time, I had the truck in reverse, I was backing up, I seen him go back to cock the gun again.”

    How do you drive away in reverse, and notice that he is cocking the gun again at the same time? Didn’t he also say he had his head down? How can he do all of this? How come no more shots were fired on his vehicle? Did he drive right by the guy again, or turn around? Remember, Horvatt says he only heard one gunshot go off.

  19. Notice his details when he tells us he called 911. Why aren’t they as good as when he told us the rest of his story? Why are they so sketchy? Naturally, of course, he could have been really shook up, but then why isn’t he showing us emotions? I see neither of these, and it odd and perplexing. It’s quite notable.
  20. I find it really strange that Horvatt has no fear this madman might come and finish him off since he is the only witness. Horvatt freely volunteers his phone numbers to the people and the press. He talks about Summer Smith’s child too with reckless regard. Does this make any sense? Would you do that when the are the only witness to a homicide?
  21. When the reporter asks what the last couple of days have been like for him, watch Horvatt smile. It’s chilling. He actually laughs and says he is taking his medication like crazy.
  22. Horvatt talks about his love for “Cole Smith”, how Cole doesn’t have a mother now and his father doesn’t want anything to do with him. Horvatt continues “I’m the only father he knows.”

    Is he hoping to raise Cole now?

    Do you see John Mark Karr when you look at Horvatt? I do. I couldn’t help but see it from the very beginning. Does Horvatt have a normal affection for children, or is this strange and unusual? My eyebrows are raised here. I’d be curious about looking into this. I hope Cole is not in his sole care right now. That would alarm me.

  23. At the end, I find it odd how Horvatt says when talking about the perpetrator “If he’s out there (smile almost laughs), I hope he’s nervous, because, um, I’m not going to stop until I have justification.”

    If? What? Did the perpetrator disappear into thin air? If this madman really shot his fiancee, he is out there. There is no doubt about it, so why does Horvatt express doubt? It doesn’t make sense.

    I find the smile odd as well as the word “justification”. How can anyone justify this crime?

  24. The reporter asks “Do you think he would have shot you next?” and without any stress or fear, Horvatt says, “Yes. Yes… because…(notice his pause, and odd swallowing). He is thinking here. He continues “When I put that thing in reverse, I saw his finger (smile) on the trigger going backwards again, and he was cocking it…”

    I find his smile perplexing here as well as his thinking, odd pause and swallowing. Also did Horvatt see the gun cocked twice? Did Horvatt see this before? Notice he says “again”? Did I miss the first time?

    Most people would have fear when they recollected this, if they believed it. Memories and emotions are connected yet Horvatt has no negative fear or emotion. Instead Horvatt smiles. It doesn’t add up. It’s chilling.

  25. Horvatt continues “I don’t know if it was meant for her again, or if it was meant for me.” Wait a minute, didn’t he just say he thought it was for him above? This guy loves to talk and be the center of the limelight, that’s for sure. Remind you of John Mark Karr? Clearly, Horvatt says one thing and then immediately changes his mind. Why isn’t he feeling consistent?

I definitely have my eyebrows raised with Horvatt’s story. We need to rule out that drugs couldn’t influence his behavior to this extent before we come to any conclusions, but I’m uneasy to say the least.

To read more about Clint, click on the label below.

Dr. Timothy Stryker

/3 Comments/in , /by

This weekend 48 Hours profiled the story of Dr. Linda Goudey, and Dr. Timothy Stryker. The two doctors dated in the early ’90s, but in October of 1993, Goudey ended up dead in the hospital parking lot found in wrapped in a blanket, face down in the backseat of her car. The cause of death: manual strangulation.

Read moreCriminally, no one to date has been held accountable for Goudey’s homicide, but that didn’t stop Goudey’s family from going after Stryker in a wrongful death civil lawsuit. They believed Styker was responsible for their daughter’s death. In June of 2006, a jury found Stryker responsible for Goudey’s death civilly, and awarded her family 15.1 million dollars.

I think most people will see through Dr. Timothy Stryker’s facade simply because Stryker attempted to clear his involvement by getting a man by the name of Craig Pizzano to come forward to share “new” information in the case — more than a decade after the crime.

On the night Goudey disappeared, Pizzano says he saw Goudey and another man in her Saab in the hosptial parking lot, and that other man looked nothing like Stryker. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to dissect the insanity of the story Stryker and Pizzano told, and the police thankfully uncovered the lie.

First, if Pizzano was genuine, why would he ever call Styker? Why would he bother looking up a man he doesn’t know to tell him he saw Dr. Goudey with another man? Wouldn’t most people just call the police directly? It’s much easier, quicker and safe to do.

Second, the timing of Pizzano’s claim is ridiculous. After more than a decade, this man decides to come forward, a man who was just a passerby? Oops, he remembers something now, all of the sudden, something totally irrelevant to his life a decade later? It’s ridiculous.

Pizzano in another amazing feat also recalled how tall the guy was and even what his approximate weight was even though this unknown guy was sitting in a car at night in the dark. Isn’t that just over-the-top? And Pizzano says he looked nothing like Stryker to boot. How convenient.

Also, how many people would think the car sitting next to you in the middle of the night with occupants would likely have a condom, motivating you to get out in the dark and knock on a stranger’s car window to ask for one? Anyone? It’s laughingly hilarious, and an obvious lie just by looking the story alone.

But even knowing that, I think Styker gives us many classic clues that do not support honesty.

  1. Styker’s speech is very notable to me. He talks in a higher pitch (or tone?) than normal. It’s slight but instantly notable. I call it the “nice guy facade”. He talks more gentle, more soft and airy, more sweet and innocent than what I suspect his natural voice is. And sure enough, 48 Hours shows clips of Stryker talking to a patient and/or a nurse, and you can hear the difference immediately. The rate of his speech also changes when he is talking to people at the hospital. Why does he feel he has to put on an act on 48 Hours, if he is innocent?
  2. When Stryker spoke in this abnormal way, I also kept getting flashes of Hans Reiser in my head. Reiser used the same approach with his voice. These highly intelligent men seemed to be arrogant enough to think they can fool us by falsifying a sweet, gentle demeanor. It then hit me that both Reiser and Stryker were very successful men who courted very successful women –women who were both well regarded OB-GYNs. You can’t help but notice the irony of it. Were both men feeling out-of-control that they couldn’t keep these highly-driven women in their lives?
  3. Stryker lacks genuine emotion much like Reiser did, too. They show us fake smiles, but nothing genuine in sadness, anger or joy. It’s strangely missing.

    You have to plug into this equation that Stryker is a practicing doctor who has been considered a suspect to a murder for 15 years. He also has a judgment against him for 15 million dollars. For any innocent person, this would cause incredible anger and feelings of injustice if they are innocent, yet we see none of this with Stryker. It’s very notable. Instead we see Mr. Nice Guy. I’m not buying it.

  4. Also, we don’t see any genuine feelings of sadness or concern for what happened to Dr. Goudey. Instead, he tells us how he called her a “pea brain”. Yes, Mr. Sweet and Innocent, the gentleman, called her a pea brain. Do you see the inconsistency? It further supports that Goudey’s friend, Lisa Zolot, who called Stryker controlling, rigid, and self-centered was honest, and Stryker is not. This further supports the facade theory.
  5. When Stykers current wife of 14 years, Micael, spoke in his defense and said he he was not abusive or violent, I did not believe her. She was in denial, if you ask me. She also gives a notable shrug of doubt with her lips just after she finishes her claim of Stryker’s character. Try to say something you fervently believe and make a doubt expression (curl your lip down and out). It’s very hard if not impossible to do.

    Notice in court, too, that she cries really hard when the judgment comes down civilly. If your husband was innocent, would you sob in sadness, or be outraged and angry?

  6. I also found Stryker’s sister Jean’s story unusual as well when she said her mother told Stryker to go on vacation because he was being harrassed. Stryker missed Goudey memorial service. What mother would advise her son to do that? What man who loved his girlfriend would do that? I’ve italicized the words that are flags for me in what Jean said below.

    “He did mainly because my mother told him to. Yeah, my mother told him to go on vacation because he was talking with her, you know, about all of the harassment he was getting. She’s like, ‘Tim, you need to just go on this vacation.’ ‘Cause I thought it was not such a great idea.”

    I always find it interesting when people answer their own question like Jean did here, “Yeah, my mother told him to go…” Was she trying to convince herself, or us?

    I suspect Jean didn’t think it was a great idea, but I don’t believe it had anything to do with Stryker’s mother.

Unfortunately, 48 Hours wouldn’t let me rewind segments, and note the online segment time markers so I could give them to you. That is a total bummer. I hope they change that in the future.

William Walsh Arrested for Murder

/in /by

Thanks to those of you who informed me of the news that William Walsh was arrested on suspicion of murder last night. I just wrote that I didn’t trust William Walsh yesterday.

Police identified the body of Leah Williams Wednesday evening and shortly thereafter arrested William.

William is a person I would call a negative person. He is one of the easiest people to read. I knew immediately that he was lying. It was instant. None of his behaviors left any doubt. They were all off and none made any sense whatsoever.

What a tragedy.

Drew Peterson: One Year Later

/in , /by

It’s hard to believe Stacy Peterson disappeared a year ago today. So much has gone on over the past year, but sadly nothing productive enough to bring the truth to the forefront in a way that would hold the responsible party accountable–despite the confidence in the American people who believe that Drew Peterson is responsible for the death of both of his wives.

Today to mark the one year anniversary of Stacy’s disappearance, Drew Peterson and his attorney flew to New York to meet with Matt Lauer again, and Drew gave a lot less arrogant interview this time around.

Living under the umbrella of suspicion has tamed Drew Peterson’s wild side. He is clearly preparing himself mentally for the potential of life behind bars as he says and as he should. There is no denying that Drew looks tired, and worn out. We are no longer seeing this cocky man sitting on the stage thinking he is fooling us all. Clearly, Drew’s life wasn’t the cake walk he had hoped for last November.

Read moreThere wasn’t much to glean from Drew’s interview today until the very end when Matt says what do you want to say to Stacy, if you believe she is still out there? It’s not what Drew said that is remarkable, but how he said it that is.

Watch as Drew speaks. His thoughts go into himself, and then he rambles to no one “Show yourself. Put an end to this nightmare.”

Notice how he doesn’t look at anyone? Notice he doesn’t try to plead to Stacy directly by looking at the camera?

When we believe someone is alive and we are pleading to them to come home, we look straight at the camera to give our message. We say it with fervor and meaning — especially if our neck is on the line. But clearly Drew doesn’t do this. It’s palpable. It’s notable, and Drew’s behavior continues to support he is not telling us the truth.

FIRST MEMORIES OF THE CASE

I’ll never forget reading about the case for the first time last year, and reading an article in the Sun-Times within hours of Stacy’s disappearance. Drew Peterson hadn’t made a public comment yet so all I had to go on was Drew Peterson’s words printed in the paper, and what I read clearly gave me pause.

Drew Peterson said “I believe she’s not missing.” Those five words stopped me dead in my tracks. No one talks like that. Last year I wrote…

“I don’t like the way Peterson said ‘I believe she’s not missing.’ When people are dishonest, they often add the qualifer and descriptive text to the end [of a sentence] as an after thought. Most people would normally say ‘I don’t believe she is missing.’ They don’t start out with ‘I believe she’s’ and then tack on ‘not missing.'”


PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS CASE

To read my review of Drew Peterson on the Today’s show last year, click here, or click on the labels below to see all I wrote about the case over the past 12 months.

Witness Testifies in Custody Hearing

/in /by

A witness testified in the custody hearing for Brad Cooper that she saw Nancy Cooper jog the morning she went missing.

[NCWanted.com] Also testifying Thursday was Rosemary Zednick, a woman who says she was walking her dog on July 12 when she saw Nancy Cooper jogging. The two made eye contact and spoke, she said.

“I saw that gal,” Zednick said, adding that she contacted Cary police up to nine times but never heard from investigators.

“All I said to the police was ‘I don’t want Nancy Grace on my doorstep,'” she said.

Zednick said that after three months of not hearing from detectives, she went to Brad Cooper’s attorneys, who sent an investigator to interview her.

This is absolutely interesting! Is this the first and only eye-witness?

Where was Nancy when Zednick saw her? What time was it? What did they talk about? What was Nancy wearing? I’d be curious to know.

——————
Update 10:03 AM:

I found the affidavit of Rosemary Zednick here. It answers my questions above.