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.

The Robin Spielbauer Murder on Dateline

/in , , /by

Did you catch Dateline this past weekend? It was the story of Katie Phipps, her love triangle with new husband, J.D. Spielbauer  and his ex-wife, Robin Spielbauer, which ultimately ends up in murder in 2014.

The story takes many twists and turns—leaving you wonder, what is the truth?!?

Do we have a jealous wife?  Or a vengeful husband? Or a conniving pair?

Even two members of law enforcement involved in this case have differing opinions on top of it!

D.A. James Farren first locked up Katie, but then he set free after 15 months.  He then locked up J.D. and J.D. went to trial. Katie testified against him.

Sgt. Allen Mongold says he still has unanswered questions with when it comes to Katie. He clearly shows doubt about Katie’s story.

Where do you stand on this case? Who do you believe?

[polldaddy poll=9979401]

When you read the news stories on this murder, there are more twists and turns. Reality cannot match fiction, if you ask me.

I do not in any way trust a word out of Katie Phipps mouth. Not one.  She demonstrates behaviors that give me chills up the spine to say it mildly.

I stand with Sgt. Allen Mongold.

When Sgt. Mongold was called to Katie and J.D.’s house in that one incident described on Dateline, he said that Katie was in charge. J.D. listened to Katie when she told him to go into the house upon her order.  Katie shows all the traits of someone who is domineering, controlling and manipulating, but we are supposed to be believe that suddenly J.D. took charge and stood up and became the aggressive one. People’s personality and behaviors don’t change that quickly.

Wasn’t Katie the one who was texting J.D. some 300 times in a fit of anger?  That says volumes about her character, if you want my opinion, and how she deals with her angry emotions.

I caution you:  Don’t fall for this mousey, sweet caring demeanor. It’s a guise.

To believe J.D. did this alone, you have to believe that J.D. was one intelligent man. That he methodically planned out ahead of time to kill Robin, get her “pink” gun, and smash it all over the windows to plant evidence to frame Katie.

If he were going to do that, you would think he would have made sure Katie didn’t have an alibi as was said on the show, don’t you think?  I’m not buying that version of events at all.

According to this news story, Katie believed J.D. confessed to her in so many words that he killed Robin, but she never told police–even though she called the lead investigator to talk to him early on.  And when she was questioned by police after her arrest, she never said a word about it either. Really, now.

When asked on the stand why she didn’t tell police, it is reported in that article that Katie said she didn’t tell Sgt. Mongold because he wanted her …”to confess… or tell him who did it.”  Check it out!  That’s her excuse for not saying anything?  She’s talking in circles.  It’s absurd.  Her excuse isn’t even valid, if that news report is correct. It’s nonsensical.

Sgt. Mongold testified in the case according to another article that Katie’s son told conflicting accounts of what happened the night of the murder.  Why would that be?  Was he coached?  That’s suspicious.

In this interview with Global News (G-N), look at Katie’s responses to the reporter:

G-N: Why do you think he (J.D.) abandoned you [after your arrest]?

Phipps: “Because he’s scared.”

G-N: Scared of what?

Phipps: “Me.”

G-N: Why you?

Phipps: “I could tell you, but you couldn’t put it in the paper. It’s case-
related.”
…       (WOW, who was the boss of this relationship?)

G-N: There’s always the possibility they could one day recharge you.

Phipps: “That’s just something else we’ll deal with. If I got through it the first time, I’m sure I get through it the second time. But I don’t see that happening. It’s an unsettling thought. But just like anything else in life, you cope with it and move on.”

If you were innocent, would you say that?  I mean seriously.  If you were wrongly charged, locked up and waiting for trial, would think it would be okay if it happens again?

Oh hell no you wouldn’t! Would you even entertain it?  Or say it?  I can bet if you were innocent, you would NEVER say, “I’m sure I will get through it a second time.”  You’d have a lot more to say about that then this flippant and arrogantly out-of-touch answer.

I would love to get my hands on Katie’s interrogation interviews as well as J.D.’s so I could sort out the truth.  I am sure there are ample clues in their interviews as to what the truth is…there always are!

Stephanie Clifford, aka “Stormy Daniels” on 60 Minutes

/in , , , /by


Link to Full Video here.

 

In watching Stormy Daniels, aka Stephanie Clifford, on 60 Minutes last night one thing is clear to me: While she tells us statements that I believe are truthful, she is not consistent in what she says is motivating her.

Daniels wants you to believe she is upset about people talking about her, and she wants to set the record straight. And she also wants you to know she isn’t doing this for the money.

Do I believe either of those statements?

No, I do not.

When it comes to Daniels account of meeting Trump, and having sex with him, I do believe she had sex with Donald Trump, though I believe she fudges a bit on what happened between her and Donald Trump on their second meeting.

I don’t believe she just watch TV with Trump for four hours while nothing happened. Like with Bill Clinton, the caveat here is what Daniels would classify as “sexual relations” or sex.

When Daniels talks about being alone in the hotel room with Trump, I find her reasoning for having sex with him total nonsense and ridiculous:

Stormy Daniels: I realized exactly what I’d gotten myself into. And I was like, “Ugh, here we go.” (LAUGH) And I just felt like maybe– (LAUGH) it was sort of– I had it coming for making a bad decision for going to someone’s room alone and I just heard the voice in my head, “well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this.”

Anderson Cooper: And you had sex with him.

Stormy Daniels: Yes.

Every woman knows that getting an invite to a hotel room to meet a man alone in the evening has a high chance the man is expecting sex—especially with a very powerful man with a reputation such as Trump.

Daniels wasn’t so naïve as to not realize this. To suggest so is flat out insulting.

Of course she went with her own expectations and a goal in mind—so if you are going to be honest, Daniels, admit it.

There is also a pattern of Daniels trying to get money. She’s tried and tried and tried.

First she agreed to take $15,000 in 2011 from In Touch magazine, but supposedly the money never came.

Then she took $130,000 from Michael Cohen, Trump’s attorney, on behalf of Trump, but the contract was never signed. Oops.

You wonder when Daniels discovered this?  Was it recently?  Another goldmine?

If she truly got great offers before, then why didn’t she take them between 2011 and the election? I mean she wouldn’t have had to sign a “hush agreement”, which didn’t benefit her at all. The only way I could see her great offers as being true is if she held out and held out for better ones and they never came. Oops, her mistake.

To me, it appears Daniels attorney, Michael Avenatti, is playing a game here. He is slowly building the stakes for Cohen and Trump. Little by little, Daniels is revealing more and more about what happened to the public, and I believe they are hoping before she reveals too much, Cohen and Trump will settle for another undisclosed amount.

Don’t believe me?

Watch Daniels on Jimmy Kimmel a few weeks ago. She taunts and teases the audience and Kimmel—letting her adversaries know she’s willing to talk, but she’s holding back for now.

That didn’t work.

So next she goes on CBS 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper.

She reveals more: Will that work?

Watch her attorney speak since the 60 Minutes interview. He’s upping the stakes even more.

Why do you supposed that is, if it’s not for more money?

Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be in a room with either Trump or Daniels.  I would not trust either of them behind my back for a second.

[polldaddy poll=9969148]

Dylan Farrow: Did Woody Allen sexually assault her?

/32 Comments/in , , /by

I know many of you wonder what the the truth is in this story: Did Woody Allen sexually assault Dylan Farrow? Or was it Mia getting her children to retaliate at Allen for walking away with Farrow’s adopted daughter, Soon-Yi?

Compare Dylan’s interview to Woody Allen’s interview in 1992 on 60 Minutes.

What do you think? Who do you think is honest (vote below!)?

I will share what I believe in the comment section below in the next couple of days. Check back!

[polldaddy poll=9920901]

The Ramsey Family Photo

/11 Comments/in , /by

Christmas Card Family Portrait — search web for image

With JonBenet Ramsey being a little “beauty queen” competing in pageants and center of her mother’s eye, you can’t help but wonder if Burke felt left out of the family. We can only turn to photos to see if there is any evidence of this.

When you look at this family photo of the Ramseys, it’s startling to me.

It says so much.

Who is the center of this photo?  It’s Patsy.  Not JonBenet or Burke–no, its her!

Worse, look at little Burke. He is literally put in the back–out of the way!  It’s heart-breaking that his mom and dad could do this.  Usually children are the star of family photos–the prize of the family, their pride and joy.  But that’s missing here, sadly.

When I look at Patsy Ramsey, I see a woman who lived in fantasy. She created images in her head that she wanted to be reality and she tried to create reality around these visions.  What reality was, however, was very different. I suspect she pushed reality away for her fantasies.

John Ramsey is pulling JonBenet close. Why didn’t he put his arm around Burke then, too?

Do you notice how JonBenet’s foot is turned awkwardly away?  That’s a sign of discomfort–a pulling away.  You can even see her dress is crinkled because of her pulling-away motion! And her hand is curled slightly, not relaxed.  There is tension there.

When I look at JonBenet in the videos of her, I do not see a child who loves the beauty queen life. I see a girl doing what she’s told–smiling, not because its genuinely felt, but because she was told to.

Of course, it is possible the photographer of this photo made a horrible suggestion to put Burke in the back.  But with all we know, Burke was sidelined when JonBenet became her mother’s “doll”.

Such a sad, sad story.