PAX TV has a new show!

/in /by

If you are interested in lie detecting, there is a show that I have read about that is airing on PAX TV titled Lie Detector. On the show, famous people who have been in the spotlight will have a chance to take a lie detector test to sway people they are the ones being honest!

It should be very interesting!

It’s on every Tuesday at 9:00 p.m. ET. Check your TV listing for your local PAX channel.

Set your DVR or VCRs.

I plan on making it a date every Tuesday — and after the show I will post my thoughts here. I’m going to be looking for obvious signs of lying!

If you save your recording, you can go back and review the clues I see… Perhaps you can hone your lie detecting abilities!

Welcome to Spring

/in /by

A crocus in my yard, close up 🙂

“A Sack of Lies,” he says

/in /by

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, archbishop of northern Genoa, Italy, spoke out to the world last week calling best-selling novel, The DiVinci Code, “…a sack full of lies against the Church, against the real history of Christianity and against Christ himself.”

I was intrigued by this.

Isn’t The DiVinci Code a novel? A piece of fiction?

Where am I going wrong here?

Author of The DiVinci Code, Dan Brown, answers some questions here, if you have interest.

According to Dictionary.com:

Novel means: A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.

Fiction means: 1). A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact. 2).An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.

So where does Cardinal Bertone come from calling a piece of imagination that is not necessarily based on fact a lie?????

Is anyone else scratching their head on this one?

No one ever represented this book as the truth. People have wondered if it could be true — which is a totally different thing.

I personally have not read the book, but I will say that I think is a sign of the desperate times in the catholic church. Since so many priests have been accused and convicted of sexual abuse in the past few years, I suspect the support for the catholic church has dried up dramatically, and hence money is not flowing like it used to — to support these men of the church.

Perhaps this is why Cardinal Bertone spoke out with such nonsense? Perhaps that is why he asks catholics and all christians to not buy this book? Because he fears he will loose more money?

I can only speculate.

Knowledge is power — regardless of whether the knowledge is good or bad. I have to completely disagree with Cardinal Bertone.

We were all given a mind, and he should support using it!!

Schiavo Shivers

/in /by

Since this is such a hot topic, I decided to weigh in with my opinion. This opinion is not based on watching video of the Michael Schiavo or the Schindlers to determine who is lying. While I did see one clip of Michael Schiavo, I was only able to detect that he is angry — which could support the truth or a lie.

I doubt there is anyone in this country who hasn’t heard of the Schiavo case. Over the last few days, I have tried to turn away from the media reports because the pain of this story is so difficult to palate.

I am a firm believer that if I were seriously disabled to the point I couldn’t do anything but lay in bed, helpless, I would want to be put out of my misery. I say that strongly now, yet I don’t have the fervor to put this in legal paperwork. I just can’t do it because I am NOT that confident. This is my absolute truth.

On the other hand, if I were lying in bed in a vegetative state, and my parents saw life in me and they wanted me to live — and my husband fought to have me die by removing a feeding tube — I KNOW I’d turn over in my grave. And I tell you, I trust my husband with all my heart and soul. I love him dearly.

However, as much as one man can love me, no one will EVER love me more purely than my parents. EVER. Maybe as much, but NEVER MORE. Parents are the most likely people to do right by their child – even in the harshest of circumstances. Husbands and wives can be motivated for other reasons. It’s a harsh statement to make, but a true one — one that no woman or man can ever deny.

Of course, in contradiction, parents can have motives but the most likely of motive is they are unable to pull the plug because it will cause too much pain…because they care too much.

So with that thinking, I set out to read the case facts. I wanted to find out the history of Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers. I wanted to see their motives: Are they based on love and compassion? Are they purely out for Terri or are there other circumstances? I have not followed this case closely so I needed to do some research.

I want to find that Michael Schiavo is a kind-hearted and compassionate soul. I want to know that he passionately loves Terri and that he is acting with compassion in doing what is best for her. I want to see Terri on video to see if there are any responses from her. Is she conscious? If she is unconscious in a bed and totally unresponsive, I will have to wonder if the parents can’t let go. I also want to see the Schindler family.

Sadly, after what I have read and watched on the web, the case clearly presents itself if you look closely.

It appears to me, as an outside observer who is ironically pro-choice, that this is a battle of wills in which Michael Schiavo will not back down. This isn’t about what is best for Terri.

It took Michael Schiavo seven years to even mention that his wife supposedly told him that she did not want to be kept alive if she required life-support.

Seven years!!!

It wasn’t until after he filed a medical malpractice suit — and won over a million dollars on behalf of him and Terri — that he REMEMBERED. It was at this point, and conveniently at this point where he stood to inherit a large sum of money set aside for her care in a trust fund — that he wanted the feeding tube removed!!

You can only guess he wanted her gone to get his hands on the money. Why the sudden change of heart??

My skin is crawling.

How could he live with her on a feeding tube for seven years and never remember her wishes then?

This speaks loudly that Michael Schiavo cares for himself first — and then for others — only when it is convenient. Worse, it makes Michael Schiavo suspicious and not trustworthy. His motives are tainted. Money is involved.

Terri Schiavo isn’t on “life support” as I would consider life support. She is on a feeding tube, but she can breath on her own. She doesn’t need help. She just isn’t able to eat by herself though her parents state with training (which they say Michael Schiavo has never allowed) they believe it is possible she could eat on her own.

Michael Schiavo has also at multiple times denied Terri visitation from her parents even when they were deemed to be no danger to her. How has this ever been to Terri’s benefit? I see it as a move that hurts Terri and her parents. This outrages me. It shows serious anger towards the Schindlers and a lack of care on behalf of Michael Schiavo for Terri.

I then look at Terri Schiavo myself in videos– and while I see a person who is severely disabled — I do believe she is there in some way. She does seem to respond to her mother in the smallest of ways. Of course, you can argue these are just reflective responses. It certainly isn’t clear. To me, it appears that it is a major struggle for Terri to respond, but with will, she is able to do so with looks, moans and slight movements. If Terri were my daughter, I could not give up hope seeing her as she in these videos.

It is important to note that neurologists differ on their opinions of Terri’s ability to respond. The brain is not well enough understood for anyone to be accurate in what Terri actually perceives.

The Schindlers have asked Michael Schiavo if they can be appointed as her guardians. They have told him they don’t want any money — that he can keep it all — to just let them care for their daughter — and he refuses time and time again.

Watch some video of Terry here. Click on Multimedia and then on the right side of the screen, you will see links.

You can read more facts here from Dartmouth College/University of Miami.

Time and time again, I see cold, cruel and mean behavior on behalf of Michael Schiavo. I don’t see him caring for Terri by doing what is best for her. I see him doing what is best for him. Over and over again. If anything, the Schindlers may have too much love in their hearts.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
http://reports.tbo.com/reports/Schiavo/
http://www.terrisfight.net/

Opinion on Robert Blake

/in /by

Several people have asked me to give opinions on what I think about Robert Blake. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any video of him talking in so long I can’t remember when it was. I searched the web and tried to find some footage, but I am clearly unable too. The old footage has expired and been removed from the web. I am bummed so I thought I’d tell anyone out there, if you happen to find footage of him talking about the murder, let me know!

When I was searching, I did find and recall that I watched ABC’s 20/20 with Barbara Walters sometime ago — when she interviewed him. I don’t remember anything about the interview in particular, but I do remember I had formulated a “strong” opinion back then — and opinion that I didn’t believe Blake. I remember being confident about it.

In my search for footage, I did read little tidbits about the murder case and several facts really stand out as inconsistent and disturb me. They are:

  1. “Blake said he left her in the car while he returned to the restaurant to retrieve a handgun he had left behind. He told detectives he was armed because his wife feared someone was stalking her.”

    Isn’t this odd?? This statement jumped out at me and screamed more than any other. I had to stop and figure out why. After some thought, I did.

    If Blake is being honest and Bakley really was truly afraid that “someone” was “stalking” her, wouldn’t he or she have insisted that she go back with Blake to the restaurant?

    If you were afraid of someone was “stalking” you, wouldn’t you have done that??? Wouldn’t he have done that too??? This shows inconsistency in his story. He didn’t act like a person who was protecting someone else.

    HOWEVER, if you were afraid of Blake, you wouldn’t necessarily follow him back to the restaurant, would you? Perhaps you would wait in the car like Bakley did.

    I believe what Blake did was take the truth that Bakley was afraid of him, and twisted it and used it against Bakley by saying that she had some unknown “stalker” that she feared when in fact she feared him!!

    If he believed she had a stalker, the prosecutor should have asked him — then why didn’t you have her go back to the restaurant with you? You were carrying a gun for her sake — not yours as you suggest. Why didn’t you, Mr. Blake??

    In another odd twist, Blake considered Bakley a “celebrity stalker” when he met her. Those were his own words. The use of the word “stalker” is a bit haunting considering he used it in his defense (above).

  2. Isn’t the timing of this just miraculous? What are the odds! He happens to forget his weapon — his self-protection for him and his wife — his gun — haphazardly in the restaurant when they are supposedly afraid of some stalker.

    Then once he realizes it, he leaves his fearful wife alone in the car while he goes to retrieve it while at the exact same time (or within minutes of when) — someone ELSE shoots her.

    It’s important to note that the gun used in the killing wasn’t the one he went to retrieve.

    What are the odds of this happening? Also, more importantly — who takes their gun off when wearing it for self-protection and forgets about it? When there is supposed fear? This doesn’t make ANY SENSE.

  3. I have found four separate people who all speak of Blake approaching them to knock Bakley off when reading about this case. Two people were stunt men, one was a retired police detective and another was a co-star. I could doubt one person, maybe two if their reputations were exceptionally shady but I can’t discount three or four people — people who I am guessing didn’t know each other. It shows a pattern.

    Even more, I would have a real hard time discounting Welch, the retired police detective.

    In light of four people speaking of Blake’s desire for her to be killed, I ask myself: What was their relationship like? Was he loving and affectionate? Was his behavior inconsistent with what these four people said or consistent?

  4. It is clearly consistent with the pattern of the four people speaking out against him. Blake did not like Bakley at all. He despised her for outsmarting him and trapping him into becoming a father. I found part of the 20/20 interview in text. Bakley acts off-balanced here — another concern. He makes it clear he is beyond outraged that he was fooled by a woman. He loathes her for it to the point I remember how scary he looked on 20/20 — frightfully scary. I am remembering his facial expressions. I feared the man.

  5. Blake offered Bakley $250,000 to get out of his life after learning about the pregnancy– yet Bakley refused. Then Blake offered to marry her and let her and the baby live on his property if she agreed to rules –rules which if she broke — they mutually agreed would allowed him to take full custody of the child. More than that, when he married her, he told her whoever breaks the marriage agrees to give up the child. He was trying everything in his power to set her up to fail him so he could claim victory. Victory was that he got the child and got rid of her.

    This was a relationship between two very ugly people, let me tell you. Bakley was known to marry men just for the money. I think I read somewhere Blake was her 10th husband. It’s chillingly evil!

    Blake was an incredible control freak and he did everything in his power to break Bakley into giving him the child and getting the heck out of his life. Just sadly, she continued to stay strong and outsmart him — and he couldn’t cope with it.

    I see a logical outcome building here…rage. Pure rage, and Blake shows that in his ABC 20/20 interview from the text I see (it’s only a small portion unfortunately). It jogs my memory. Worse, I believe Blake shows outrage for another reason. He is fuming mad that his gun trick still made police question HIM!!! He thought he could outsmart people too — like Bakley — and it wasn’t working at that point! He was furious. He hated Bakley all the more because of it.

  6. Even more odd: Blake always went to his favorite restaurant and had the valet park his car. He even sat at the same table every time he went. However, on the night of the murder, he didn’t do his “usual”. Why???

    Instead, I read he parked his car behind a dumpster that fateful night. And he forgot his gun when he left– how convenient — at the exact same time when someone happened to kill Bakley. Uh, huh.

    More odd again is that on the night of the murder, at the restaurant, Blake introduced Bakley as his wife to staff for the first time. He had never done this before. The staff didn’t know he was married!

    Why did he do that — this night??? Perhaps so they would remember him when he came back into the restaurant — to make sure he had a rock solid alibi?? Chilling.

    These behaviors are NOT NORMAL, and NOT CONSISTENT in anyway. The truth is always consistent. Always.

  7. The staff at the restaurant that night speaks of Blake in the bathroom vomiting. He doesn’t deny it. He did…why?? Was he nervous? What was he nervous about???? He wasn’t sick — everyone knows that.

    Was he afraid his plan might not go off as expected???

In looking at the pieces, here is what I think happened. Blake was lonely and desired the affection of a woman. He met Bakley. He knew of her questionable past, but was more tempted in pleasure than self-respect — and enjoyed her company. He played with danger and danger trapped him, as logic would expect.

Bakley framed Blake with the hopes to get money by having his child. Blake thought in their hot and heavy trysts, he could trust her and convinced himself he could, so when she violated him by getting pregnant, he was outraged.

He schemed and plotted, and finally decided he was going to outsmart this beast-of-a-woman who outsmarted him! That was his original game plan. That’s when he offered her money. Then when that didn’t work, he decided to marry her with a contract that gave him everything — or so he thought – and her very little. Furthermore, Bakley had to agree that no friends or family could ever visit her at his estate. Ever.

He enticed Bakley into it by offering her and their daughter a place to live on his estate separate from his own quarters — at no charge. She took him up on it — but didn’t break any of the rules to the point he could get her out of the contract. He was stuck AGAIN. He was stuck paying for a woman who continually fueled him and most importantly made him feel inadequate! And he couldn’t take it.

Clearly, he wanted to her out of his life. Four people speak out openly about this. What do they have to gain by doing so? It doesn’t make them look good — that’s for sure. Even worse, Bakely’s family says she spoke to them, too, about his threats — but was she too greedy to “get away” in self-preservation? Perhaps she knew she’d loose her daughter after all of her scheming and couldn’t accept that either?

Blake tried to hire four people we know about to supposedly kill her. I suspect he successfully hired a fifth. I believe he convinced someone else out there to kill her — in a much planned event. And when it happened, he once again became outraged when the police pointed a finger at him. I keep seeing his insanity during the ABC 20/20 interview. More and more flashes of it are coming back to me. I don’t remember words, just expressions of rage.

But Blake got off. I believe because there wasn’t any concrete evidence though I am convinced from what I have read there was definitely reasonable doubt. However, more than all of this, our justice system doesn’t rely on the truth, it relies on which of the two attorneys can make a better case — and convinced the jury that their side is believable.

It appears, in this case, the defense truly was a better salesman then the prosecution and so Blake, like OJ Simpson, gets to walk free.

Did you ever notice neither man has ever insisted the police focus on finding the “real killer”? That’s what an innocent man does…

Articles I used to write this piece:
http://www.courttv.com/news/blake/background_ctv.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6968006/
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/17/blake.jurors/index.html