CNN has a good article on “Resumes Lies you can’t get away with”:
Although just 5 percent of workers actually admit to fibbing on their resumes, 57 percent of hiring managers say they have caught a lie on a candidate’s application, according to a CareerBuilder.com survey.
Of the hiring managers who caught a lie, 93 percent didn’t hire the candidate.
The truth was finally revealed today that Larry Birkhead is the father of Dannielynn. I am so happy for Larry Birkhead and Dannielynn.
Back in October — seven months ago –when I gave my original opinion on Larry Birkhead that I believed him and that I didn’t trust Stern– I was the odd ball out.
Many people believed Howard K. Stern because Anna Nicole sat beside him in support. But thankfully, as the months wore on and people saw the behavior of Howard Stern, they started to doubt him.
It’s such a joy today to know that Howard can’t go around telling us all like a drone that he believes he is the baby’s father anymore. He certainly didn’t behave like he believed he was the father even for a day.
Here are my posts and reviews of Larry Birkhead and Howard K. Stern:
October 4th, 2006
I believe, therefore I am
February 27, 2007
Stern Video Review (Larry King Live)
February 28, 2007
Video Review of Larry Birkhead
Now I can add two more people that I have accurately read months before the truth revealed itself. I will put them in my “Dishonesty Caught to Date” and “Truth tellers who I believed” section to the right. That brings my total 8-0!
P.S. I just watched Howard K. Stern speak about how he is disappointed about the outcome. If you watch Stern in this video compared to when he was on Larry King Live — notice the difference in his expressions. Now he is expressive, and showing his emotions. His reactions, responses and expression are NORMAL. They are not subdued. It’s a tremendous difference!
Last night, Dateline NBC profiled the case of Diane Zamora. She was a high school girl and a young lover who whose boyfriend, David Graham, confessed to her that he had sex with another girl.
The situation so enraged Zamora that in her police confession, she admitted to police she told David Graham to kill this other girl. She also confessed to her involvement in the crime though she quickly took it back. Nonetheless, she was subsequently convicted on capital murder for the death of 16-year-old Adrianne Jones.
During this segment on Dateline NBC, Stone Phillips meets with Zamora ten years later because she says she never intended to kill anyone — and that confession she gave ten years ago? It was a big sack of lies. Phillips recollected years ago that Zamora said if she could take a polygraph, she would pass. Dateline decided to put her to the test.
Stone Phillips interviews Zamora about her story and then reveals the result of a lie detector test arranged by Dateline. The results? Diane Zamora was deceptive on the key questions on the test — though it could have been ruled inconclusive because she showed signs she was trying to fool the test.
With that, Dateline asked the audience if they believed Zamora. I am happy to report, the live poll on Dateline NBC clearly shows that people see through Zamora. Right now, 94 percent of the people polled, don’t believe Zamora is telling the truth. I suspect the majority of people don’t believe someone who makes a confession and then later retracts it. But furthermore, Zamora’s arguments were weak.
But putting the polygraph aside, can we tell if she is being honest or not by what she is saying to Stone Phillips? Are there any clues in her interview with Dateline that might indicate she is less than honest? I believe there are many clues and I will share a handful of them with you.
I happened to turn on the TV when the interview was nearly over as I was recording it — and when I did – I saw Zamora answer a question by Phillips.
Phillips: Despite the unusual breathing, here’s what the examiner found. We’ll—we’ll go through ‘em.
(1) Did you tell David to kill Adrian Jones? Your answer? No.
Zamora: No.
Watch it here. Video 5. Time Marker: 1:32
At this point in the interview, they are reviewing the results of the polygraph. As Phillips reads the questions from the polygraph aloud, Zamora answers them again in this interview in real-time. When she says no to the first question — amazingly she doesn’t shake her no in agreement. Instead, she shakes her head yes. She says no, but shakes her head yes. This behavior is odd and can be an indication someone is lying. It’s a contradiction between body and mind.
Zamora does it again.
Phillips: Many examiners, if they felt that you were altering your breathing and ignoring their warnings not to, would stop the test right there. I’m just gonna ask you very directly Diane, did you try to influence the outcome of this examination?
Zamora: No, I tried to keep myself calm.
Same video as above. Watch it here. Video 5. Time Marker: 3:39
She also shakes her head yes again when she says no here, too (it’s just a little more ambiguous):
Phillips: So you’re claiming she was not hit in the head when she left the car?
Zamora: No.
Watch here (Video 2): Start at time marker 00:44.
I also found this a little perplexing during the interview:
Phillips: Why did you go out there that night?
Zamora: I went out there to talk to her.
Phillips: Why? About what?
Zamora: ‘Cause I didn’t believe he was telling me the truth. And maybe I just didn’t wanna believe it. And now I know he was lying.
Phillips: But why go to those extremes? I mean, Diane, you’re hiding in the trunk of a car. You’re going out on this deserted lake. I mean, it almost just doesn’t seem to square with a story that you just wanted to go out and talk to Adrianne about what had happened.
Zamora: I didn’t know where it was gonna be. That wasn’t my choice. I didn’t know where we were go—where we were going.
Phillips: And what was the point of hiding in the trunk?
Zamora: He told me she wasn’t gonna wanna talk to me if I was there… which I can understand (notice she flashes a look of gloating here). If you slept with a guy’s girlfriend why are you gonna wanna to ….get… in a car (another gloating look here) with her there? …
Watch here (Video 1): Start at time marker 5:33
First, I find her word mix up interesting — “guy’s girlfriend”– but I am not sure it points to anything other than her nerves at this point. But if you look at what Zamora is saying, she is saying she only wanted “to talk to Adrianne” about what happened. Fine. Let’s take her at face value (though I don’t believe her). Let’s say that is all she wanted to do. Then why does she say this, “If you slept with a guy’s girlfriend why are you gonna wanna get in a car with her there?“
If you only want to talk to the girl — getting her into the car wouldn’t be important — but it clearly shows getting her in the car was important. You have to ask why. Her answer isn’t supported logically. In fact, her answer actually supports the story that she did in fact want to get Adrianne in the car for some reason. What reason might she have? It’s rather creepy.
During this interview, Zamora also:
There is just too much to write about. Do you think these items I pointed out above indicate potential deception?
Dateline has uploaded video of the entire show, if you want to watch it.
Ever since the pet food scare that caused hundreds of dogs and cats to get sick, and some to die from the toxins, I’ve seen articles talking about people starting to cook for their pets.
I commend these people for taking care of their best friends, for being concerned, for questioning things, for seeking out alternatives, and wanting something better.
I am a little more than annoyed when I read supposed “experts” telling us that it is okay to cook for our pets short-term — but long term it is unhealthy, potentially leaving a dog with an unbalanced diet, or worse. The pet food industry is big business.
I read an article on the topic this morning on CNN. In this article, they even say that garlic and salt can be dangerous. I find that very questionable since my dogs have eaten a fair amount of raw and cooked garlic for over a decade, and a reasonable amount of salt for iodine for years. And garlic is even recommended by some veterinarians (see Dr. Pitcairn’s book below)! Salt, of course, in high doses is dangerous for any living creature.
Dogs lived on scraps from humans for eons before commercial dog food came around. They survived, and thrived just fine. Perhaps eating the leftovers wasn’t ideal for their diet, but I’d also like to argue that neither is commercial pet food an ideal diet. If you’ve ever investigated what makes up dog food, I am sure you would agree. Dogs didn’t graze on corn and wheat gluten as a main source of protein nor did they eat corn syrup, food dyes and additives when they roamed in the wild. They ate a diet much higher in quality protein which all dog food today is highly deficient.
Ever since my childhood canine friend had an allergic reaction to pet food, my family was forced to cook to save her life. And over the years of feeding her a simple diet of boiled chicken, rice, carrots, and celery — or hamburger, rice and a mixed assorted veggies — we became convinced by experience that not only was this a better diet for our dog friends — but that it was cheaper too — if only a little more time-consuming.
For over a decade now, I have been cooking two to three meals a week for my dog companions. I started out with Dr. Pitcairn’s book “Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats” and over the years I have learned to adapt to recipes that work best for my dogs. I highly recommend reading the basics, if you want to do what is best for your furry friends. Education is knowledge, and knowledge is power.
If I can help anyone out there — don’t hesitate to ask me. My two dogs are vibrant for their age. While I am not an expert, I have 12 years of experience to share with you. When people hear how old my current two dogs are — their jaws drop because they are so youthful in their behavior. They feel good!
My family has successfully cared for six dogs on a natural diet — and we swear by it! But don’t take my word for it…
Knowledge is power
Check out his book: The Nature of Animal Healing : The Definitive Holistic Medicine Guide to Caring for Your Dog and Cat
I ran across a story this weekend of suspect, Juan Aguilar, who is accused of harassing a 12 year-old girl in El Paso, Texas. Click on the video link on the left side of this page to watch the suspect talk.
The suspect denies the accusations that he did anything, but I don’t believe him. The situation doesn’t bode well for him from the circumstances and his past history — but that is not what caught my eye. Innocent people are accused all the time so I don’t let that impact my opinion.
What caught my eye, however, is that this man repeatedly flashes what is known as duper’s delight. He keeps radiating a type of joy or pleasure as he speaks over and over again! His eyes flash it, his mouth shows it — it’s undeniable.
If you are accused of something you DID NOT DO and you could face time behind bars — I would expect to see emotions that are consistent with that: anger, frustration, fear, etc. but I don’t see any of that. I see flits of joy, or glee which is a HUGE, HUGE red flag.
Do you see the duper’s delight? You don’t have to watch more than a minute or two of the video to see it.
