Joran van der Sloot: Honest or not?

/in /by

To see the latest opinions I have on the Joran Van der Sloot case, click here.

* * *

Case Overview: Natalie Holloway “…disappeared on May 30, 2005 during a graduation trip in Aruba. Holloway remains officially missing to this day, although according to Aruban authorities, she is most likely dead.[1] The disappearance generated a media sensation in both the U.S. and Aruba and sparked considerable interest in the Netherlands.” (Source: Wikipedia) One person of interest in the case is Joran Van der Sloot as he was the last person to see Natalee alive.

Video of Interview:
Part 1, Part 2

* * *

I watched the interview with Chris Cuomo, and Joran Van der Sloot last night. I taped it, and went back this morning to write down the conversations in the areas that concerned me. I will share them with you.

The first thing I noticed was that Joran was very neutral. He was your classic neutral person in this interview. He didn’t show emotions, he didn’t get excited, he didn’t get angry–he just spoke monotone without emotions. Joran was a blank slate 99.9% of the time. However, when you look at other videos of Joran, he is not a blank slate. He expresses emotion. His face is expressive.

This raises a red flag for me immediately. Joran should be full of emotions. Anyone would be full of emotions being wrongly accused. However, if you are accused of something you did– you would have every reason to hide those emotions, wouldn’t you?

In looking at the Joran case, I will tell you that Joran is a difficult read. When someone doesn’t offer up emotions like Joran, and conceals them quite well, we are only left with one thing: the facts. Is what Joran saying logical? Does it fit? Is he answering questions like an honest man?

Joran did offer a few odd smirkish smiles at strange times. They weren’t in “contradiction” to what he was saying, but they were odd, and what I’d consider inappropriate in their timing. These raise more red flags, but by themselves they are not enough to say anything. I personally don’t think a normal person, who is innocent in his situation, would smirk, or smile when he did. However, this is not enough to form an opinion. It is just a clue to a bigger picture.

With all real life situations, when you add up the pieces of the puzzle, you get a picture. You will get a picture of the truth, or you will see a lie. I don’t think I’ve ever called out that I didn’t believe anyone without a mountain of clues. One thing may be odd, or out of character, but when multiple things rear their head, and create a pile of questions, you can’t deny the painting that stands before you.

Below I will review segments of the interview with you:
CC = Chris Cuomo
J= Joran

  1. CC: Did you remember who initiated the kissing?

    J: Ah…yeah. I did.

    CC: Did you ever say that she was the one who started kissing you?

    J: I don’t know. Maybe. I said a lot of things.

    Now Joran can’t remember the lies he told? He knows the truth. He just doesn’t want to tell you. Often times, thought not always, when people say “maybe” they mean “yes”.

  2. J: We were planning on going to my house…because she said she wanted to go to my house.

    CC: What were your intentions in taking her to your house?

    J: Um…my intentions to take her to the house were…yeah..um…to have sex with her.”

    Did she want to go to Joran’s house — or did he want sex? Which is it?? I suspect it was the latter.

  3. Chris Cuomo goes on to say that Joran has second thoughts. He decides not to take Natalee to his house because he says his father and brothers are sleeping. Then he says Natalee has an idea to go to the light house on the northeast coast to see sharks.

    I find this very odd:

    a) Most people don’t look for sharks in the dark. This isn’t logical. I don’t think Natalee said this.

    b) Joran first wants to go to his house sometime after midnight, and then he decides not to because he realized his family is sleeping. I don’t believe this. It isn’t logical. It wasn’t like he was going to bring Natalee home at 10:00 p.m., and then next thing it was 2:00 a.m. It was midnight, or later the first time he thinks about bringing her home. He knew his family was sleeping then! I’m not buying this.

  4. Also, later in the evening, Joran says he made up all the lies the first time around because he had a girlfriend, and didn’t want his family, and friends to think bad of him. However, here he was willing to bring Natalee home to his house. He obviously wasn’t worried about what his dad, or family thought then, was he? This points to deception. Another piece of the picture.
  5. CC: It’s 1 a.m., and you say Natalee wanted to see sharks. Are there a lot of sharks around Aruba?

    J: No. Not at all. But she wanted to see the sharks. Yeah…and I don’t know. I told her there are no sharks on Aruba.

    When Joran says “Yeah, …and I don’t know” he smiles very oddly, as if, he does in fact know something. It’s perplexing. It’s another odd odd piece of this picture.

    Which picture is it painting for you? An honest one, or a deceptive one?

  6. Chris Cuomo says Joran says he left (Natalee on the beach) without his shoes.

    CC: Should the fact that you left your shoes be seen as a sign of panic? That you were nervous and scared about what had happened there?

    J: No. Because that is not what happened.

    Joran has glint of a smile, again, when he replies to Chris Cuomo. Why is he smiling? Another question mark. Another piece of the picture.

  7. J: I’d left them on the beach, I’d walked to the car, we got in the car, and right then, there, I couldn’t go back because… we were going home.

    The timing of his pause in the sentence above is odd “because…(Was he thinking of a reason?)…we were going home.”

    Furthermore, is his answer logical? Absolutely not. Add to that his shoes were never found.

    We are painting a picture here. Actually, Joran is. What do you see?

  8. CC: When you heard that a girl had gone missing on the beach what did you think?

    J: Um…..well, the first thing that popped into my head was…(bleep)…what if something happened to her? What if she went swimming…I was thinking after everything she told me, she probably might have gone back to her hotel, hooked up with…gone to someone else…hooked up with someone else and wanted to stay another day on the island.

    First of all, Joran’s answer is not free flowing. It is broken up, hesitant, chopped, and not logically said at times. Second, the fact that he insinuates that she “probably, might have hooked up with someone else” is disturbing. He is trying to push everything away from himself.

  9. Chris Cuomo say something to the effect of why didn’t you go to the police, and tell them everything you know. That would be a normal reaction.

    J: That’s what should have been the reaction…but…ah…I guess…ah.. we decided that I didn’t want anyone to know that happened.

    This is interesting because there are three boys here, but clearly this is about him. He says “we decided that I didn’t want…” He decided. That’s the truth. Furthermore, he stutters for words, a lot. When people tell the truth, they don’t stutter like this. Just another piece of the picture.

  10. CC: What is your first impression of Natalee’s mother?

    J: … She screamed at me, tell me where my daughter is.

    CC: And did you?

    J: I told her I don’t know.

    Chris Cuomo goes on to say to the audience ” But he told them more that that. ” Joran told everyone that he, and his friends dropped off Natalee at the Holiday Inn.

    CC: People don’t lie when they have nothing to hide. Why did you lie if you had nothing to hide about Natalee ?

    J: I lied because…yeah…I was scared. I had a girlfriend at the time. I didn’t want my dad to think bad about me, I didn’t want my friends to think bad about me.”

    Earlier, Joran was willing to bring another girl who was not his girlfriend home to have sex with him, and he wasn’t worried about what his parents might think THEN. But NOW he cares?? This doesn’t add up.

    Second, he had a girlfriend, yet he is out with Natalee, and wants to have sex with her. This show that Joran doesn’t not have good moral values. He is deceptive, and willing to use people for his own benefit regardless of HOW others feel. He admits to that much.

  11. CC: Why not just tell them the truth?

    J: I didn’t want anyone to know. I didn’t want anyone to know I left her on the beach.

    If you honestly didn’t do anything, why would you lie? It just doesn’t add up. Most normal people would get out there, and start looking, would confess everything they know in hopes of finding Natalee. They would think about Natalee instead of themselves.

  12. CC: You tell the police that Natalee fell out of the car when she got out to go (at the Holiday Inn). Why did you tell them that? (Referring to Joran’s lies).

    J: For no specific reason.

    At this point, Joran gives a smirk that is puzzling. I believe there is a reason. I believe at one point Natalee did fall out of the car.

    CC: Was there a little bit of the truth in it? Was Natalee more drunk than you are letting on?

    J: No, not at all.

    When Joran says “No. Not at all.” There is another odd grin.

  13. Chris Cuomo says Joran now says he might have told the police the real story, the one he’s telling you tonight, then and there, if the family hadn’t been so aggressive when they met that first night.

    J: The way they were putting pressure on us probably…uh..made us lie more…because it seemed like we were in big trouble.”

    CC: Even though they were being hostile , they were searching for a girl that hasn’t been found.

    J: They were searching for a girl who wasn’t found…but…a…and I lied to them about it but….a….ah…how they acted towards my family and …ah…my friends is not a normal way parents would go about….if their daughter was missing.

    It’s not normal?? Here Joran is playing the victim. He wants people to feel sorry for him. He doesn’t not have the ability to have any compassion for Natalee, or her family. This, again, is odd. Most people who were innocent would have GREAT compassion for the family, and would defend their innocence.

    Also, Joran stutters a lot, and talks odd. This raises my eyebrows repeatedly.

  14. CC: Nobody had a sense of right and wrong at the time among you three.

    J: No.

    Chris Cuomo goes on to say that over eleven days, the three boys all met at Joran’s house to discuss the situation.

    J: Deepak and Satish came to my house about every day, and we talked, and we talked. We…a…tried to… and we discussed things. And we were like a…we also at that time said, well maybe,, its time to go to the police, and tell them exactly what happened.

    Why is Joran’s speech so chopped up? He isn’t nervous. Is he thinking of what to say, and has to “change his story” to hide the truth? Why is he talking nonsense?

  15. Chris Cuomo says that neither of the two brothers admit to driving Joran home that night.
    CC: Why would they lie?

    J: I don’t know. Well….the thing that…the only explanation I can…a..get for that is at the point if they said they would have picked me up…all…the…everything goes towards them…because…then that meant that they dropped me off at my house and ah…I went to sleep…and they had a car and they could have done anything they wanted.

    Joran — This answer makes absolutely no sense. None. The brothers had the car all night long regardless. That doesn’t mean they committed murder now, does it? Or, were involved, but that is what Joran is suggesting. This sentence really raises my eyebrows. He is having hard time saying clear, sensible answers time, and time again. This is nonsense. People who are honest don’t talk nonsense.

  16. CC: Do you think there is a chance one of your friend went to that beach where she was to hurt Natalee?

    J: I cannot answer that question. The thing that keeps me …that does make me think they know something more about it is they won’t tell the truth about Satish picking me up.

    Now…listen to the next sentence.

    CC: The one thing you three agree upon is that you were the last person to be with Natalee.

    J: Um..Yes.

    Does that make any sense at all? It doesn’t.

    Time and time again.

  17. CC: Do you think you did anything wrong that night?

    J: Yes.

    CC: What was your responsibility as you see it?

    Joran says he shouldn’t have left her at the beach.

    J: I should have brought her back to her hotel, or I should have …um…made sure I left her with someone, one of her friends, but I should have gotten her back to where she should have been.

    Here Joran is honest. Look at how his speech flowed naturally, normally and without chop, hesitation and nonsense. Very interesting.

  18. CC: Have you ever given a girl a drug?

    J: (smirking) No. Never.

    I don’t believe this. Why is he smirking???

  19. This was the most shocking part of the interview!!!

    CC: What would you say to Natalee if you were still able to speak to her?

    J: If I were to see her, if she’d be found tomorrow, I’d hate her. Yes, I’d hate her if she really ran away from home, I’d hate her.

    First, he doesn’t have anything he’d say to Natalee. His brain didn’t even think in those terms. Why?? Instead, he thought about how he’d feel. He’d feel HATE.

    This shows a callousness about Joran that is scary. This whole situation is about him, and he has no sympathy for Natalee, or her family. People who are honest would most likely respond something like this: “I’d be thrilled. ” “I’d hug her.” “I’d hug the ground I walk on. It would prove my innocence.” “Thank god.” “I’d ask her what happened?”. “I’d say how could you do this to me? You had to see on the news, I was being framed for something I didn’t do!!!” “I’d be relieved.” “The truth would be revealed.”

    Honest people would say anything but HATE HER. Joran, however, DOES hate her. I have no doubt about it. He hates her because SHE has RUINED HIS LIFE. Perhaps due to his actions?

19 pieces to this puzzle. What picture does it paint for you?

Joran is still a big suspect in my eyes. I believe he knows way more than he is telling us. I think he knows where Natalee ultimately ended up.

Life & Mind of a Hitman

/in , , /by

Sunday night on A&E, I watched the Iceman Tapes: The Conversations with a Killer.

It was chilling.

Haunting.

Creepy enough to give you nightmares, to make you double-check your locks, to pull all your blinds, and to make you want to fear every man you’ve ever known!!

On the show, notorious mob hit man, Richard Kuklinski shares snippets of his mind with the audience. He answers frank questions calculatedly yet amazingly honest at times. Regardless, Kuklinski is a difficult person to read. Why? Because he is clearly a psychopath. He admits he had no guilt for all the horrific crimes he committed. He said he never thought about them nor was he ever haunted by them.

Richard Kuklinski was known to aerosolize cyanide, using a spray to kill his victims in less than a minute. He also told a story where he walked into a bar, acted drunk, spilled his drink on a guy — a drink laced with cyanide — walked away — and later heard he claimed another victim.

Kuklinski earned the title Ice Man because he froze one of his victims for two years and when he disposed of the victim, he didn’t take into account his victim needed to thaw before discovery to successfully pull off the crime. The medical examiner realized upon review that they body was still frozen — and that there was more to this murder than what met the eye.

It doesn’t take much to say that this man was deeply, deeply disturbed. He disturbed ME!

I had a realization during this show last night. I realized that psychopathic liars do feel emotions – – even though most of the time, they are neutral. I realized they only feel their own pain — and not the pain of others. When I see this, it hints at a bigger picture. It hints for me to look closer.

Psychopaths, who are capable of serious crimes, do not feel emotions for other people. While I knew that, I never connected consciously that the only emotions they feel are their own.

Murderers like Kuklinski, BTK, Scott Peterson, etc. see other people as objects and not human beings. They will treat you right — usually better than average (if you are a stranger or a friend, not the target of their obsession. They will pull out all the stops to make you believe in them, but behind their facade, you will not see any deep or true emotion.

Some psychopaths can fake emotions quite well–good enough to really make me second-guess myself. If that is the case, the only other way to uncover a psychopath like these guys is to look for inconsistencies in fact to back up your suspicions. That will be the biggest clue that something is amiss. When 1 + 1 = 4 time-and-time again — something is up. That can make for a tough investigation, though.

There are people who are safe around these crazy psychopaths. If the psychopath has deemed you IMPORTANT and SPECIAL, in the power of their world, and they don’t believe you are any threat to them emotionally or physically in any way — you will be safe. You will be lied to repeatedly, but you will be safe and unharmed. Case-in-point: The wives and children of both Kuklinksi and BTK. Both men, in a sick way, loved their family and never once imagined hurting any one of them.

The big question is just how do you know you are deemed important to a psychopath?? Of course, you can’t so you can never ever trust them! Laci Peterson and her son were a threat to Scott Peterson. Scott Peterson lost control with Laci I believe due to the expectant baby and felt his lifestyle was threatened and in the end treated her like an object and killed her.

The world of psychopaths is complex, bizarre and out right strange — if not utterly creepy.

BTK: Classic Neutral

/in /by

Dateline NBC had a special last week where they showed an interview with BTK. It was chilling watching a man who calculatedly killed so many people for over 30 years without getting caught.

Hearing him talk about these people—and how he killed them—made my skin crawl! He had absolutely no remorse for what he did, or for the victims or their families. His victims were clearly conquests, not people.

How erie is that??!

There are no two doubts about it: BTK, aka Dennis Rader, was a smart man—exceptionally smart, yet obviously mentally off, way-off.

He made me sit and look at myself. Could *I*, Eyes for Lies, have picked up on this man? Could I have sensed something was up with him?

I sat and pondered it. Would I have fallen victim to this man and befriended him if he were my neighbor? That was my question for the day.

He certainly had the looks to make me “want” to trust him. He certainly had that going for him, — especially when he was young.

We naturally want to trust those who are good-looking.

Would my instincts have told me differently in the company of his good looks? Certainly, I’ll never know. I can only guess…

I am not psychic, so I couldn’t have known anything more then the average person, unless he told a lie to me or to someone else I knew. He may not have had the need to lie to me, so I certainly couldn’t count on that to tip me off.

However, BTK fits my classic description of a “neutral” person: He is a person who doesn’t get excited, doesn’t show highs and lows in emotions. He stays on a neutral playing field. He does not give others vibes of joy, sorrow, happiness or pain. He is always even-keel—which is a warning to anyone.

People who are genuine to themselves and others feel sorrow, happiness, joy and pain.

When you or I see someone who is not showing these emotions, while we can’t gleam they are lying, because not all neutral people lie, we can be sure of one thing: They are hiding something. That something could be anything: benign or cancerous. It could be fear, insecurities, emotional troubles, a bad relationship, a difficult past, etc. The possibilities are endless.

In the case of BTK, we now know what he was hiding. Murder—serial murder.

Neutral people are detached and for a reason. About that you can be certain.

The million-dollar question is: What are they hiding? What is the reason for the detachment??

I am pretty sure I would have noted that BTK, aka Dennis Rader, was a neutral person, and I would have been naturally curious about him to the extent that I would have watched what he said to see if it matched what he did. The more I would have seen him lack “normal” emotion, the more concerned I would have become — and likely withdrawn from him. That’s about all I can say about Dennis.

Then again, he was a master manipulator—a manipulator I hope to never, ever meet in my lifetime!

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.

Totally Perplexed

/in , /by

CBS news show 48 Hours ran an episode on Saturday night about a medical examiner in Memphis, Tennessee, who was found wrapped in barbed wire around his hands, feet and face. The story was titled Terror at the Morgue. It was gruesome.

Furthermore, the medical examiner was locked up with TWO padlocks locks around each hand forcing him into the crucifix position over a grated window. And worse, the medical examiner had a real live homemade bomb super-glued to his chest.

When he was found, Dr. O.C. Smith told police that he was attacked after leaving work late at night. He told the police that someone threw lye at him to render him blind and then they went about tying him up and attaching the bomb.

He said the assailant told him, “Push it, pull it, twist it, and you die. Welcome to death row.”

After a year and a half investigation, the police were not able to come up with a plausible assailant. Early on in the investigation, investigators did focus on a death row inmate that Dr. O.C. Smith knew well: Phillip Workman. Phillip Workman was accused of robbery and killing a cop — and he always maintained he didn’t kill the cop. Workman managed to get a clemency hearing — a hearing that Dr. O.C. Smith devastated by presenting new and convincing evidence that supposedly showed Workman was in fact guilty. Dr. O.C. Smith sealed Workman’s death sentence. Workman says to police Dr. O.C. Smith’s testimony was all lies.

After months of investigation, the police were unable to find anyone who could have carried this out on behalf of Workman so they dismissed him from the list of suspects.

Furthermore, the EMT who arrived on the scene where Dr. O.C. Smith was shackled said that his wounds were not consistent with his story. If someone splashed lye into his face, why didn’t he have burns under his eyes? He only had it on his cheeks. Why didn’t the barbed wire injure him more? He didn’t have puncture wounds…only scratches from it. How could that happen?

The police said that Dr. O.C. Smith’s also got his story mixed up. He didn’t clearly recollect how he was tied up with the barbed wire. One time he thought his feet were tied first, another time he remembered his hands being tied first.

What really happened that night?

Well, the state of Tennessee charged Dr. O.C. Smith with the crime of doing this to himself to get attention. Yet Dr. O.C. Smith was a well-recognized and well-established medical examiner for the county for over 20 years.

While watching Dr. O.C. Smith, I am totally perplexed. He seemed to say the right things. He showed some emotions. Yet with the questions raised in the case, I do lift an eye-brow.

I reject the claim made by the state that Dr. O.C. Smith has Munchausen disease — a disease that would have caused him to do this for attention — because he got plenty of attention as the medical examiner according to 48 Hours. But I question how come the lye didn’t get onto his cheeks underneath his eyes and I wonder why the barbed wire didn’t puncture his face? It’s simply odd.

Dr. O.C. Smith was tried in a court of law — however the jury couldn’t agree on a verdict, deadlocked and the case has yet to be retried. The state, while still maintaining their belief that Dr. O.C. Smith did this to himself, doesn’t believe they have enough evidence to try the case again so Dr. O.C. Smith is free.

Dr. O.C. Smith says he fears for his life still…got a guard dog and now carries a gun. He no longer works for the county.

While I want to believe Dr. O.C. Smith when he talks, I can’t say it with 100% certainty if he is honest or not. I have to pass. This could go either way. I cannot make a call here. Dr. O.C. Smith does act very similar to a pathological liar. Pathological liars usually say all the right things, and yet in a weird twist, their expressions are usually baseline — more baseline than normal — and Dr. O.C. Smith’s emotions are not very deep — which is a concern.

This case simply stumps me at this point. How I would love to have access to more footage of Dr. O.C. Smith to see if I could come to a stronger conclusion.