Mary Winkler Case

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Mary Winkler case has gone to the jury today. While I haven’t followed the court case because I’ve been busy with work, I did look for a video of Mary Winkler’s testimony this morning.

You can see the video I saw by clicking on this link.

Move the video to time marker 6:55. Then watch Mary when she listens to the person questioning her. He says, “Did you intentionally, purposefully kill your husband?”

At time marker 7:01 — watch Mary’s expression.

What do you see?

* * *

My personal opinion: I don’t believe Mary Winkler accidentally killed her husband.

When the man in the video says “Did you intentionally…” — at the point he says the word “intentionally” – Mary Winkler grins the most eerie grin I have seen in a long, long time. It’s bone-chilling! The grin lasts only for a split-second and disappears but that expression is very telling as to what Mary really believes…

Microexpression Madness

/in , /by

When I looked at my hits this morning, I noticed something was up. I had 878 page loads yesterday, and 396 unique visitors — about three to four times what is normal. And it is continuing on today.

What sparked the increased readership? My interest is piqued.

It appears there is a fascination with “microexpressions” in the Google search engine, and a few other search engines, and it is putting people here (on my blog).

I don’t see any external links bringing people here so I can only assume there is a newspaper article, radio show or a television show in the last two days that discussed microexpressions.

If you are coming here for microexpressions — clue me in on what generated such buzz. Of course, Paul Ekman, the guru of microexpressions is always fascinating.

What am I missing?

…

Perhaps Donny Deutsch featured Dr. Mark Frank yesterday on The Big Idea? Just a guess. Dr. Mark Frank, Dr. O’Sullivan and Dr. Ekman are colleagues.

How I Specifically Detect Lies…

/in , /by

At first, I thought that my decision-making process and determination of a who was lying was all subconscious, because I called a liar within seconds to minutes. But after looking back and forcing myself to think out loud for over a year now, I’ve realized that there are processes that I use to detect a liar that I can consciously recollect. The processes are not set in stone like A, B, C, but rather they are random and only drawn upon when needed.

Regardless, I still process a lot of information within seconds, and I have no explanation for how I do it. I suspect it is due to my innate ability.

Most of the time, it takes me less than three minutes to determine if someone is lying when they are asked direct questions. Sometimes I can spot a liar in 20-30 seconds. However, there are times when it can take up to 10 minutes or longer.

The reason for the delay in making a call is that some liars don’t lie right away, or worse, they are psychopaths. Psychopaths are the trickiest of people to read, because they are without emotion and without remorse. When someone doesn’t feel remorse, nor display any emotions, I lose 50% of my clues. Furthermore, if a psychopath is highly intelligent, he won’t mess up his facts, which makes it almost impossible for anyone to catch his falsehoods. It is the psychopaths who are highly intelligent who most often get away with the worst crimes.

According to Dr. Maureen O’Sullivan, who studies lie detection wizards, “There are two categories of clues to a lie: thinking clues and emotional ones.” (Source: “Wizards” can spot the signs of a liar, AP, Oct. 14, 2004, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6249749/?GT1=5472).

To further elaborate on that, specific examples of emotional clues are facial expressions, body language and spoken words. In essence, is the person reacting normally to the circumstances? Are they truly happy? Are they truly upset? Are their facial expressions consistent with what they are saying? Are they shrugging their shoulders like they don’t know when they are actually saying yes? Is their body language consistent with their words? Do their words match their emotions? Are their actions matching their projected emotion? Are their responses appropriate for how they are feeling? Do they convey how someone should feel in their situation?

While this process may sound simple, I believe it is rather complex, because to determine a liar, you must be able to answer these questions quickly, almost without thought. For most people, it is hard to spot such inconsistencies—even given the time—but for me, this process happens instantaneously. It’s almost, if not, innate.

The second set of clues are thinking clues. Thinking clues are what liars give off when they are making up the truth or trying to tell you a story they “made up” in their head. More specific examples of thinking clues are hesitations in speech, stuttering, stammering for words, weird word order, or speaking incoherently by incorrectly choosing the wrong words or not completing sentences. Other times, liars will speed up or slow down their speech. Or a liar will confuse the facts, so when added all together, the facts won’t add up. However, one or two clues alone are not enough to call a liar; it is the compilation of all the clues—emotional and thinking—that paints the broader picture of a lie.

Microexpressions are emotional clues that deserve a subtopic of its own. Microexpressions are flashes of emotions that come across the face of an individual who is lying. If someone is trying to conceal a strong emotion, it often leaks out in 1/25th of a second. This is known as a microexpression. Over ninety percent of people don’t see these (more).

Furthermore, according to Dr. Ekman, a facial expression expert from the University of California at San Francisco, you can’t mask your true feelings. When you are happy, you smile one way. When you are mad but pretending to be happy, the muscles you use to genuinely smile are not used and other ones are. Hence, when you wonder if you saw a fake smile, you probably did! In essence, you as a human do not have the power to activate your true happiness (smile) muscles unless you are truly happy. Wizards—scientifically proven human lie detectors—hone in on these falsehoods in expressions, according to Dr. O’Sullivan.

To me, Scott Peterson is famous, because I believe he was one of the first few microexpressionists I noted consciously. He tried to act sad and worried, yet he couldn’t help but flash microexpressions of glee. His expressions of glee only lasted for a fraction of a second, and most people didn’t even see them. Watch Scott Peterson’s famous Barbara Walters interview: Perhaps you will be one of the few who can spot them.

I also find I use a personality catalog in my head or personality-matching technique when trying to spot a liar. I don’t use it every time, and I don’t know specifically why I use this technique—I just do. This technique involves matching personalities of people I’ve known in the past to people I am observing now.

For example, if I notice that you have traits of someone else I’ve known in the past, my mind will immediately match you up with that person. The person’s face I have known in the past will just pop into my head without thought, and I will then consciously compare behaviors. If you are similar, you should act similarly. It’s amazingly powerful, though I must state I believe there are hundreds of different personality types. I’ve come to call this paralleling. Paralleling is something I don’t do by choice, people just pop into my head from memory without thought.

People, while very different in many ways, typically have a set of standard reactions which are normal for their personality type. So, armed with that knowledge, knowing someone well, I can predict their behavior pretty accurately. This technique of personality matching gives me red flags immediately if things aren’t adding up for this individual’s personality type, and I quickly hone in to a deeper level of observation. I’d say I use this technique about 10–30% of the time.

I also look at personalities in general. Certain personalities are more likely to lie than others. If you come across as a braggart or an arrogant individual, I will quickly watch you for inconsistencies. If you are not able to laugh at yourself and you are defensive, I will look for cover-ups. If you are happy and yet willing to admit your downfalls, I will be less likely to spot anything.

It all comes down to the question: How down-to-earth are you? The more down-to-earth you are, the more likely you are to be honest. This technique allows me to hone in on the dishonesty much more quickly.

So far, to date, these are the skills or techniques that I use within seconds to minutes to quickly spot a liar.

* * * * * * * *
Call for links, stories, articles where lie detection is needed. Do you know a story where you wonder what the truth is? If so, ask me. All that I need is a video clip with a headshot of the suspect talking, for preferably a few minutes.

Detecting Lies: Three Categories

/in , , , /by
Here is some mad science from my head!

I’ve realized that when I am reading someone as to whether or not they are telling the truth, I quickly categorize them into one of three categories within seconds:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

Positive people are those who immediately convince me they are trustworthy. It’s because their expressions are so genuine, or their actions, words or overall demeanor are very sincere. There is instantly no doubt about it: they are telling the truth. You just know they are being honest.

Most often, I don’t even have to listen to what positive people are saying, because their facial expressions are a dead giveaway: They are overflowing with emotion. It’s the sincere overflow of emotions that lead me to this conclusion.
Tom Cruise, with regard to the Katie Holmes engagement, is one person right now that comes to mind who is overflowing with genuine emotion. You can just watch his facial expressions and know that he is telling the truth, without even listening to what he has to say. Try lying and making those facial expressions with his enthusiasm: You can’t do it, no matter how hard you try.

The opposite of positive is, of course, negative. Negative people do things that instantly tell me they are lying. From telling stories that don’t make sense, to awkward speech patterns, to inappropriate facial expressions that contradict their story, to endless stuttering. They give instant clues that they are being deceptive. Most often, though not always, it is the emotions on their face that tell their story first.
The next type of person is a neutral person. These people are hardest to read, because these people don’t express a lot of emotion. Neutral people tend to lack genuine enthusiasm, and most often come across as someone who is not excitable. They usually come across as mundane and monotone.
While the majority of people who fall into the neutral category are suspicious, it does not mean that they are lying. And that is where it gets tricky. Some people just lack normal expressive emotions and instead are subdued, even when they are telling the truth.
When I realize I have categorized someone in the neutral category, I really have to focus to get to the truth, and it doesn’t always come quickly like it does with positive and negative people—it takes minutes rather than seconds (or even longer!). Listening to their story becomes imperative. With a rare few, sometimes I am not able to discern the truth, and I have to give it up until more information presents itself.

Neutral people who are liars are usually psychopaths.

What makes it even more tricky is that some psychopaths who are lying give off emotional indications that are supportive to their story, even though they are lying. You have to see this in action to understand it. They even make facial expressions that are consistent with what they are saying. It’s twisted and hard to explain until you can experience it.

What usually gives away that a neutral person or a pathological person is lying is that the actual events of their situation aren’t logical. These people stretch the truth, play on the “what-ifs” and the could-be-possible-odds too many times for reality to be present. When you add up all the usual bits to their story, the odds become one-in-a-million, or statistically very, very unlikely. That, combined with other subtle hints, all add up to give away a neutral or pathological liar.

Also, it is common for liars to dull their emotional responses and try to play neutral, but these liars are actually not true neutrals. I’ll call them false neutrals. These people leak information differently than classic neutral liars: They flicker emotions and microexpressions, whereas the true neutral liar likely will not. One suspect that comes to mind who acts like this right now is Joran van der Sloot. Of course, I am not accusing him of lying. However, I just think his behavior is very suspicious.

A false neutral liar’s speech may become unnaturally slow as if someone taped them and played it back in slow motion. It’s rather odd, because when they speak the truth, their speech rate increases to normal or above, but when they lie, they suddenly slow their speech way down, or vice-versa. Again, a true neutral liar will not do this. He will be the same throughout the interview. He will not change or vary at all. He is highly controlled in his all of his responses, or flat out lacks emotions, which is notable.

Sadly, most people want to give others the benefit of the doubt, and that is how these neutral masters of deception get away with lying so frequently. That’s how pathological people kill successfully! That is how serial killers get away with their crimes for so long. People don’t add up the odds—they don’t put the intricate piece of the puzzle together.

Neutral people who are lying are usually pathological liars, though not all pathological liars are neutral.

How’d he do that?

/in /by

Last night, I was watching The Apprentice. My husband has become more addicted to the show than I am.

At the end of the show, after Stephanie was fired, Donald Trump said to Chris, a 21-year-old real estate guy from Las Vegas as he was leaving the room, that he is always having problems…”and that he better get going…FAST…or he’ll miss his potential.”

Chris was standing in the doorway about to exit the room when he stopped and listened to Mr. Trump. His upper lip lifted up for a hair of a second but he didn’t show any teeth. It kind of quivered. I immediately sensed a very threatening feeling. My heart started to pound and I felt a real sense of danger. Chris then responded in a tense voice by saying thank you to Mr. Trump. It all happened in an instant.

I immediately asked my husband if he saw it. He said no. Thankfully, we had recorded it so I played it back in slow motion and pointed it out to my husband. He still struggled to see it but after a couple of playbacks he finally caught it with my guidance. The beauty of slow motion!

I knew this expression by Chris was an expression of deep anger at Mr. Trump. It was a rageful response. Chris was boiling inside as he has done on the show many times. Except this time, he was trying to be polite and hide it because he had just narrowly escaping being fired himself. Chris knew if he didn’t hold it in – he’d be let go on the spot. Even still, he couldn’t entirely contain his true emotions. They flickered for an instant.

Expressions are a wealth of information! I suspect this what experts would call a microexpression.

Ironically, too, after Chris left the boardroom, I think Mr. Trump had a sense of this as well because he responded to George and Carolyn that this Chris guy is really volatile and needed to be closely monitored. I wonder if he subconsciously registered what I did.

I believe he did.

When I went to bed, I was thinking about this expression. I wanted to see if I could make it myself — and I couldn’t. I was flat puzzled as I continually tried to find the right muscles to move my upper lip. He moved his upper lip upwards, yet didn’t show any teeth.

It was more like a twitch — a twitch of rage!

How did I know it was even anger, I asked myself. I was puzzled. I didn’t know this expression. I don’t ever remember seeing it before. Chris didn’t act angry at all with his verbal response or his body posture.

I asked my husband if he knew what that expression meant now that he saw it, and he was clueless. He didn’t get any feelings from it at all.

I just knew — instinctively– that it was a rage of some sort: a very serious rage. Perhaps innately I knew. Perhaps I registered it subconsciously. As Malcolm Gladwell would say, it was a rapid form of cognition — a form we don’t know too much about consciously.

After trying to make the facial expressions, I realized I couldn’t. More than likely because facial experts say we can’t mimic real feelings. The muscles we use to act out fake emotions are voluntary and totally different than the ones we use in a genuine expression of emotion. Genuine expressions involve using muscles that are activated involuntary.

The closest I came to making Chris’ expression was to flare my nostrils.

Try it. Flare your nostrils.

Does it make you feel a bit angry? Negative? Perhaps mad? Do you feel your heart race a bit?

Fascinating stuff!!