Kate McCann’s Emotional Interview

/in /by

I have been asked by one of my readers to review the latest interview of Kate and Gerry McCann given to a Portuguese reporter in the past week and shown here on Sky News in the UK.

When I watch the interview, I do not see anything that alerts me to the fact the McCanns are being deceptive. Do know I watch each and every video with an open mind, and I am willing to change my stance should I see any indications of deception. However, I just don’t see any evidence let alone suspicious red flags in the McCann’s behavior to support otherwise nor have I from day one.

To the contrary, I see many indications that Kate and Gerry are authentic and genuine. Their emotions, facial expressions and reactions are normal and consistent with what they have been through. If I get some free time, perhaps I will write up the expressions I see that support honesty.

Read moreI also don’t see Kate’s expressions much differently than in her other interviews. Yes, she shows slightly more emotion, but I wouldn’t personally say it was notable.

What surprises me the absolute MOST in this case is how people have not gotten mad at the Portuguese authorities for mucking up this investigation so bad. Why don’t we have critical articles and posts written all over the internet about them?

Nor have people gotten mad at the media for reporting every ridiculous, crazy rumor that has come forth. Since when is it the media’s job to report every rumor that circulates? That is where I believe the questions and the outrage need to be, but for some strange reason that has never properly developed.

If anything, the behavior the Portuguese police and media should give people pause, and perhaps a renewed interest to reconsider the McCanns as innocent people.

Instead, I see people holding on fast and furious to their emotional belief the McCanns are guilty without looking at anything that has developed around them. That flat amazes me, but I understand why. Emotions are powerful blinders to the truth.

Senator Larry Craig: Embarrassed?

/in /by

Senator Craig spoke to Matt Lauer on NBC last night for an entire hour during prime time. Did you see it?

For the past six weeks, since the story broke, I felt there was little reason for me to write about Senator Craig, because most people seemed to be suspicious of his behavior, and didn’t believe his story. I don’t think you need eyes-for-lies to see through Senator Craig. And while I don’t think that has changed, I thought it might be helpful for people to see why I don’t believe him, now that he has spoken publicly.

Senator Craig is a smooth man who is good at debating, according to the Boise State University debate team, and I concur. They said Craig was “an excellent deflector” and “he was very calculated.” Another debater, named Judy, stated that “There were a lot of contradictions.”

But no one elaborated as to why. I see many, many, many red flags in Senator Craig’s behavior when he spoke to Matt Lauer, and I don’t quite know where to start. I could probably write a book on just his interview. With that, I will start with the bigger, more general hot spots that I see, and then I will talk a little about the interview.

Read more

  1. Emotions: Throughout much of Lauer’s interview with Craig, you can see Craig smile when he is talking about very serious allegations. If you were wrongly accused of something you didn’t do, would you be smiling? I can be nearly certain that you would not. Rather, you would feel violated and angry. You would feel wrongly accused and persecuted for something you didn’t do. Senator Craig’s reactions are not consistent with his side of the story.

    When people are deceptive, however, they don’t feel normal, natural emotions—They don’t feel anger when they should. Furthermore, deceptive people often put on a front of smiles and niceness to help convince people that they are good as well as incapable of wrongdoing. Innocent people, when they are wrongly accused, could care less about any of this. For them, getting the truth out is paramount, and their true feelings of violation are not hidden. Their feelings may be tamed or subdued, but not hidden altogether and replaced with a smiling front.

  2. Senator Craig mentions over and over again about how embarrassed he was about the whole incident. This is absolutely perplexing. If he didn’t do anything, why would he have feelings of embarrassment?

    If I wrongly accused you of stealing from someone, are you going to be embarrassed? Or are you going to feel mad? Again, his emotions and words are inconsistent with a man wrongly accused.

  3. Furthermore, if you were wrongly accused of something you didn’t do, would you keep it a secret? Would you not tell a single soul? Or would you tell those closest to you, such as a spouse? The fact that Senator Craig didn’t tell a soul is inconsistent behavior with someone who is wrongly accused. When we feel violated and wronged, we need a release—we need to talk, to vent, to get it off our chest. And while some people may only tell those closest to them, they will tell someone. The fact that Senator Craig didn’t even tell his wife is a huge red flag!!

    When we are caught doing something we are embarrassed or ashamed of, we don’t want to discuss it—we want to hide it. We don’t want to tell one single person, because the embarrassment is overwhelming. We want it to go away, and we will do anything to make it go away. Clearly, you can see Senator Craig was willing to do whatever it took to sweep this under the rug and keep it there. He was even willing to plead guilty! This is very inconsistent behavior as well.

You can watch Senator Craig’s interview with Matt Lauer:

Larry Craig tells his bathroom story
Larry Craig tells his bathroom story

  1. Watch Senator Craig when Lauer asks him if he knew that particular bathroom was well known for anonymous sexual encounters between gay men. Craig says (time marker 0:55), “No, I had no reason to know that.” Notice his smirkish smile? Why is he smiling, or smirking as it may be? This emotion is inappropriate behavior for someone wrongly accused. Craig does this over and over and over throughout the majority of this interview. It’s a big red flag.
  2. Lauer asks if anyone had ever signaled Craig when he used the bathroom in the past. Again, you will see Craig acting almost jovial. You see no hints of anger whatsoever—which is what he should be feeling—even if he were to subdue or attempt to mask it.

    Listen to Senator Craig’s response (time marker 1:27) “No. No, never happened to my knowledge, ever.” The words “to my knowledge” are interesting because they show someone who is not certain. Yet, oddly, he tacks on the word “ever”, as if he were certain. This is contradictory: You either know or you don’t know. “To the best of my knowledge” suggests hesitation. People who are dishonest often say these qualifiers like “not to my knowledge”, or “not that I recall”, or “not that I remember”.

  3. Lauer goes on to state that six minutes after Craig walked into that bathroom, he was arrested. Lauer says (time marker 1:48), “Your career was in jeopardy. Your family life was in jeopardy.” Finally, I see a hint of anger come from Craig. Watch how he presses his lips together and licks them. Here he is concealing his anger, and it shows. This is the emotion we should have seen at key points when Craig talked about how he was wrongly accused, but we didn’t. When Craig talks, he puts on his smiley face again. This is very inconsistent behavior.
  4. Lauer goes on to discuss the actual incident with Senator Craig. Craig claims that he said “No” to the guy in the stall next to him. Lauer rightly calls him out, asking, “Why would you say No if you don’t know what is going on? If someone disturbs you, and you don’t understand it, you usually quietly remove yourself. You don’t say “No” to the guy next to you in a stall if you can’t see him. You don’t provoke craziness—you ignore it.

Later on in the interview (which is not online at MSNBC but shown on last night’s show), when Craig is talking to the police, many more inconsistencies pop up. When the undercover police officer recounts the story and asks Craig specific things, suddenly Craig doesn’t know, can’t recall, doesn’t remember. Then he admits to the fact that his foot did go under the stall divider. I think most people realize this is not an easy task to do when normally using the toilet in a stall, yet Craig’s only explanation is that he is a “wide” guy.

While I could go on and on, I will stop at this point. I think most people see Senator Craig and have their doubts. Hopefully, I have given people some good food for thought. I do not trust Senator Craig, but I think that is very clear at this point.

You can watch more excerpts of the interview here:

Sen. Craig on bathroom scandal
Sen. Craig on bathroom scandal

Update:
I found this interesting video of Senator Craig back in the 1980s. At the end of the clip, watch how Senator Craig denies any involvement. Notice his anger here!

Transcript: Police Interview Larry Craig

Mary Winkler on Oprah

/1 Comment/in , /by

Listen to and watch Mary Winkler on trial and during her interrogation here. In the audio segment found from the link above titled “My Ugly Came Out” Mary says, “…And it just came back out for some reason, and that’s the problem. I have nerve now and I have self-esteem now. And so my ugly came out.”

* * *

There are two potentials for Mary Winkler: Either her husband abused her and she could no longer take it, and she snapped. Or, it is the unthinkable: Mary’s husband Matthew wasn’t as cruel as she’d like us to believe, and she killed him in cold blood.

I personally believe Mary killed Matthew in cold blood. I felt that way from the day I saw her in court on a video. Her behavior was peculiar. She displayed a microexpression grin contrary to her spoken words when she was asked if she “intentionally” killed her husband that was flat out haunting. Her statements to police were odd and inconsistent as well. And now again, Mary’s behavior on the Oprah show doesn’t fit with her scenario. Her words and behavior are odd and inconsistent another time. Her facial expressions out-of-place. Except on the Oprah Winfrey show, Mary forgot her facts this time and Oprah caught it. Let’s begin there.

Read more

Point #1:

Look at the inconsistencies in Mary’s different testimonies/statements.

OPRAH: According to Mary’s statement to police, just after 6:00 in the morning, the Winklers’ house on Molly Drive was quiet. Mary and Matthew were asleep in their bed. The Winklers’ youngest daughter, one-year-old Brianna began crying from her crib. According to Mary, Matthew woke up in a rage and stormed into Brianna’s room.

MARY: So I went in there after him and took the baby…took Brianna from him, asked him to let me have her. And got her settled back down.

OPRAH: I had read–I don’t know if it’s true — that’s why I’m interviewing you — that he literally kicked you out of bed.

MARY : Mm-hmm.

OPRAH: So when I read that, I thought, like, with his feet, kicked you out of bed? Is that true?

MARY: That’s correct.

(moments later)

OPRAH: He was trying to suffocate her (Brianna)?

MARY: He was trying to get her to go back to sleep. He…I don’t think he had intentions of killing. He just…trying to get her to pass out.

OPRAH: So what was he doing? What was he doing? Get her to pass out? Really, you have to explain that because that doesn’t make any sense to me or anybody else who’s hearing this.

MARY: Well, I don’t understand it myself.

OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): What did he do?

MARY : Just covered her mouth and her nose.

(moments later)

OPRAH: …cover the baby’s mouth and cover the baby’s nose and then you take the baby from him. And you were obviously upset and, what, he walked away?

MARY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, he just–hmm.

OPRAH: And then what?

MARY: Just…I got her…got her situated, and I just wanted to talk to Matthew.

OPRAH: Mm-hmm.

MARY : And there’s just that awful…awful sound.

Yet oddly, in Mary’s police confession to the police, this is what she said:

“I don’t know of anything he specifically said or did to me to upset me, but I had an uneasiness about me. I remember not sleeping well (the night before the murder). The next morning, the alarm went off 6-6:30 and I got up. He was still in bed. I don’t think I left the room. He had a shotgun he kept in the closet just in case. I don’t remember going to the closet or getting the gun. The next thing I remember was hearing a loud boom, and I remember thinking that it wasn’t as loud as I thought it would be.”

Furthermore, in Mary’s police interrogation transcript on the bottom of page 14, the conversation goes like this:

The police asked Mary,” Had ya’ll talked yet that morning? Had he woke up or did you wake up and do it before he got out of bed?”

Mary says, “He had gotten up but I want to say he’d just gone back for a few more minutes.”

Clearly, Mary is not telling the same story to us. There are big inconsistencies here. Furthermore, what really stands out to me is when Mary says “I remember thinking that it (the gunshot) wasn’t as loud as I thought it would be.” If you don’t anticipate shooting a gun, you have no anticipation for how loud it would be, do you??

Point #2:

Again, look at the inconsistencies in Mary’s different testimonies/statements.

Once Mary shot Matthew, she tells Oprah the following:

OPRAH: Was he dead when you went back into the room?

MARY: That’s what I thought so.

OPRAH: Yeah. Did he say anything?

MARY: No.

OPRAH: To you?

MARY: No, there was nothing.

Yet in Mary’s transcribed statement on March 24, 2006 Mary said:

“I heard the boom and he rolled out of the bed onto the floor and I saw some blood on the floor and some bleeding around his mouth. I went over and wiped his mouth off with a sheet. I told him I was sorry and that I loved him, and I went and ran.I do remember me holding the shotgun, hearing the boom, and then the smell. He asked me why and I just said I was sorry.”

Clearly two different accounts.

Point #3:

I think this is self-explanatory.

OPRAH: Did one of your daughters come into the room?

MARY: No.

OPRAH: I’d read that one of your daughters came into the room.

MARY: Right. She said that she looked in the room, I believe. This is off the top of my head. I don’t think came in. And I could not tell you from my memory…

OPRAH: And you said, daddy had been hurt.

MARY: Mm-hmm.

OPRAH: Do you recall that?

MARY: I’m sure–I don’t remember that exactly, but I know that day, I did say that he was hurt.

Yet Court TV reports the following:

The 9-year-old daughter of a Tennessee preacher was reduced to tears Monday as she described the morning she heard a “boom” in her parents’ bedroom and discovered her father wounded and dying.

“I went in and I saw my daddy face-down on the ground,” Patricia Winkler quietly testified Monday in the first-degree murder trial of her mother, Mary Winkler. “He was just groaning.”

Patricia testified that, before her mother closed the bedroom door on her, she noticed a telephone “behind” her father. When investigators arrived at the scene later that evening, Matthew Winkler was lying face-up and the telephone was unplugged at his feet.

…”She said we were going somewhere special,” said Patricia, describing her mother’s demeanor as “normal” for the next day that they spent driving to Orange Beach, Ala. “She said Daddy was in the hospital.”

Point #4:

Here are a handful of oddities. You have to read the statement first to follow this. I will explain it afterwards.

OPRAH: In court, you also said you felt that you were sexually abused.

MARY: Mm-hmm.

OPRAH: How so?

MARY: You know, when two people have tastes and likes, it’s fine for each person in their own home who agrees. But just…at some point, when there’s one person saying no, not to do something, then the other person who’s just pushed himself on that person and made them do that.

OPRAH: So he would force you to do what? (Mary almost breaks out into a laugh, but works hard to stop it by biting her lip).

MARY: Do sexual acts that I didn’t wanna do.

OPRAH: Uh-huh. I think in court you said you watched pornography…

MARY: Mm-hmm.

OPRAH: …which you didn’t wanna do, oral and anal sex, which you thought were unnatural acts, correct? And when he would force you to do it and you didn’t want to do it, would you tell him? Would you say to him, I don’t want to do it?

MARY: In the…at the moment… I know…I know there were certain times where my natural reaction would have been to push him off and he would stop that. When we were not in the heat of the moment and he would say, what do you think about this or that? And I would say no, don’t like that. Let’s not. And he’d say, okay. But he just would get going and that was just it.

Here during the interview when Oprah started talking about being sexually abused, and says, “So he forces you to do what?” Mary reacts with a grin like a cat who ate a canary. You can tell she wants to laugh. And no, it is not a nervous reaction. Mary was not nervous during this interview. I can guarantee, if you were sexually abused, talking about it would not make you want to laugh. If anything you would want to cover your face, or cry — not laugh.

Furthermore, Mary’s testimony is inconsistent. She says at times her “natural reaction would have been to push him off and he would stop that”. Then she says “he would get going and that was just it.” These are inconsistent number one. Number two, if she was the meek mouse she claims to be who never stood up for herself, would she really push him off? It doesn’t fit with the image she is portraying. And last, her words give her away, “I know there were certain times where my natural reaction would have been to push him off and he would stop that.” This is not how people recollect a story. “Would have been” indicates what she would do in that situation — not what she did do — but then she ends the sentence as if she did do it — because Matthew stopped.

This is a mound of red flags!

Point #5:

Here, I think you can see Mary’s story is absolute nonsense.

OPRAH: Did you wanna hold the gun to get his attention?

MARY: That’s what I would think. That’s just…just wanted to talk to him.

OPRAH: And you wanted to talk to him holding a gun?

MARY: I was so afraid.

OPRAH: Because you thought he would do what?

MARY: At that point, it was…I didn’t think…at that point,I felt like my life was in danger.

OPRAH: So you chose to speak to him by getting the gun. What did you wanna say?

MARY WINKLER: Just to stop. Just–be happy. He just…he had to be miserable the way he acted, and just to stop being so mean.

OPRAH: Mm-hmm.

MARY: And just relax and enjoy life.

OPRAH: That’s what you’d wanted to say to him?

MARY: Mm-hmm.

Here are other clues that Mary exhibits on the Oprah show that I believe strongly point to deception:

ONE
Mary displays classic “thinking-on-your-feet” behavior throughout the majority of her interview. Her sentences are spliced and all chopped up. She says little snippets of information — but not complete sentences. She pauses at odd times — over and over. All of which are red flags.

Here is one example:

OPRAH: Was it what you expected marriage to be?

MARY : Well…um…no. I just remember at some point… the….just being shocked…um… at the yelling and the…just this different person.

TWO
Mary also doesn’t speak in a manner that is consistent with memory recall. When we recall our past, we tell a story. We explain what happened in a coherent manner. We don’t pause because the story rolls off the top of head. Often times, in memory recall, the words flow faster than we can speak them. I see none of this with Mary. Instead, I see someone who appears to be brainstorming. She strangely doesn’t use pronouns much of the time which is another trait of liars.

Example 1:

OPRAH : Yes. And what surprised you the most? Did you see a side of him that you hadn’t seen when you were dating?

MARY: Mm-hmm. And the things that he would say… just off the wall. And … I didn’t understand where he was coming from. I didn’t understand his train of thought.

OPRAH WINFREY: Like what?

MARY: Um…he just…one day…he may encourage me to be with family, and… then… another day, he may say… we’re…you’re never talking to them again. It just…it was just sad. I mean… I don’t think he… knew exactly all that he was thinking all the time.

Example 2:

OPRAH: And how did that rage show itself in other ways? Would he rage against you?

MARY: Mm-hmm. Just certain thing…see…I couldn’t tell you one thing…what was the reason was. If something upset him…if he’s having a bad day that was just all there was about it. There was no…it was just get out of the way. He was just…he verbally could just say some very horrible things.

Mary’s words don’t even make sentence or answer the question she is being asked. Mary’s answers also lack detail and personal identity as well — which is also inconsistent with memory recollection. Each of these things mentioned above hints at deception.

THREE
Also, throughout the interview with Oprah, Mary makes expressions with her lips that are odd. She purses them together at times which is an indication she is holding things back. I thought she came onto Oprah to help other women. Why is she holding back?

Many times, she purses her lips together and drops the outer edges of her lips down like when you say, “Hmmm…I don’t know. Let me think about it.”

This facial expression indicates that Mary likely doesn’t know the answers to the questions she is being asked — which fits with her speech pattern of talk-pause, talk-pause and her inability to give precise, clear definitive answers. I suspect it is because she didn’t experience what she is telling us.

People never turn the outer edge of their lips down when they are certain of what they are saying. It’s one of the biggest clues I see on a regular basis that someone is hedging on me and not being honest when they use words to try to tell me otherwise.

Mary makes several more expressions which are odd.

FOUR
Mary also lacks any emotions or caring. She shows no signs of having an attachment to anyone — not even her children. She shows no regard or pain for what her children endured, or are enduring because of what she did. Did you notice her children don’t even enter into the equation — and supposedly she wants her kids back!

She even suggests that Matthew smothered the children with a pillow to shut them up, and that doesn’t even evoke emotion. This is abnormal and odd. It makes me question what she says, over and over again.

FIVE
Also, Mary tells us she “loves” Matthew still — which is really off the mark. If someone abuses you, and then you kill them in self-preservation — you can say you still love them. That is absolutely a possibility — I’ve seen people do it and say it honestly. But if Mary was being honest in saying this, wouldn’t she be the slightest bit remorseful? When we love someone and we hurt them, it devastates us. Why is Mary not feeling this emotion?

I can even accept a woman who kills her abusive husband, and has no remorse due to the fact she suffered dearly at the hands of sick man for years. But then, I would not expect to hear the words “I love him”.

You can’t have it both ways. It’s inconsistent. It’s like saying you love the guy who cracked your skull open with a bat, but you hope he gets the death penalty and dies. It’s nonsense. We never wish to harm or kill those we love. Ever.

SIX
Mary also acts like she is answering questions for a job interview — not telling the most painful story of her life. This is a huge red flag! Even if she was emotionally vacant and overwhelmed by her situation, we would still see snippets of emotions — feelings of pain and violation or expressions of love for her children – but strangely this is not the case for Mary.

So many people have said, yes, but that is because she is traumatized and emotionally withdrawn. I’m not buying that. If she was that traumatized still, would she be coming out saying that she wants to help other people on the Oprah show — and go on TV in front of millions of people– when she herself is still in shambles? It’s highly unlikely.

SEVEN
Compare Mary to Susan Still. Susan was a battered woman, who was soft-spoken and subservient to her husband, like Mary wants us to think she was. Yet the behavior between the two is drastically different. Susan has emotions, expresses feelings and complete thoughts. She expresses how she cares about her children, and how this will effect their lives — and how it has affected hers. Susan genuinely recollect her horrible ordeal and it shows.

Furthermore, Susan gives us details and facts. She explains what she thought, how she coped and how she got through her ordeal. She gives advice and insight. She speaks in a way that is consistent with memory recall. She doesn’t tell us how she loves her abuser now either, does she? You can feel her resentment towards him which is natural.

EIGHT
Mary got her facts wrong, which I find incredibly disturbing. It wasn’t like when Oprah asked her the question, she didn’t hear her, or got confused. It wasn’t like she struggled to answer the question. Oh, no. She went right into her story, and oops, forgot the details.

FINAL NOTE
In the end, this is really just the tip of the iceberg of what I see when I look at Mary. I see pages and pages more, but if I wrote it all up, I’d have a book on my hands, not a blog post. This post is long enough as it is. If you are interested in this interview, you can purchase the transcripts from Oprah.com to see more detail.

Looking at Matthew Gretz (Kira Simonian)

/in , , /by

Matthew Gretz is the husband of Kira Simonian. Simonian was a graduate student at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design. On June 28, 2007, Simonian’s landlord found her dead in her Minneapolis apartment. She was 32-years-old and an art student. Police are not saying exactly how she died, but they are calling the case a homicide and they are saying there are “multiple causes of death”. No one has been called a suspect, yet no one has been ruled out either.

That leaves us to look at Gretz. Where was he the night before and the day that Simonian was found dead?

According to news reports, he left town for business on Thursday morning before Simonian’s body was found later that evening. So, I would think by the time line, if reports are accurate, Gretz could still be a suspect.

Read more Gretz has only spoken publicly one time that I am aware of and there is only a tiny snippet of him speaking at a vigil held for Simonian several weeks after her death.

Does it tell us anything?

We know he is not lying in this video simply because he doesn’t say anything that is worthy of a lie. He makes the most generic statements which I personally find a bit odd. Usually at vigils, people talk personally about the loss of someone they love. That’s not to say that Gretz did or did not say more personal things. We really can’t discern this from the tiny snippets of vigil shown in this clip. He may have and the camera crew may not have caught it, or showed it on TV — which would be odd in itself. I would think the camera crew was looking to get him talking emotionally about Simonian, wouldn’t you? With that, we have to wonder and ask is this all he said at the vigil? If this is all he said, I’d find it perplexing.

What Gretz does say is this:

“Since my wife was murdered, everyday it gets a little bit harder in some ways…But it’s kinda days like today or moments like this: seeing your faces and seeing your support and knowing were all in this together, that makes it a little bit easier.”

He continues:

“I know that we all appreciated Kira in different ways. It’s not just my loss, it’s friends losses, it’s student’s losses, it’s neighbors losses. Going forward, let’s tell good stories about Kira because that’s what she would have wanted.”

Can we glean anything from this?

We can glean, at this point, Gretz is not in denial about his wife’s murder by the fact he uses the word “murder”. It’s a strong word. If Gretz were to try to play the part that he couldn’t accept her death , I would find that odd and contradictory — but we don’t know how Gretz is behaving at this point. If we did, we could see if his behavior is consistent. That’s key.

I do find the fact that he says, “…everyday it gets a little bit harder in some ways…But it’s kinda days like today or moments like this…” interesting. These statement shows that Gretz is having some confusing and conflicting feelings.

Things are getting harder “in some ways”? They either do, or do not get harder after the murder of a loved one. When emotions run high, things become stark black and white. I can accept either answer, but I would expect a definitive answer. You either will or will not face challenges — but you don’t face them “in some ways” at a highly volitile time in your life. It’s a half-baked answer. It’s odd. It’s unusual. It’s a raised-eyebrow but nothing more.

I would like to ask Gretz what has gotten harder in some ways? His answer might be telling.

Gretz goes on with his wishy-washy response when he says “But it’s kinda days like today…” It kind of is, but it isn’t? This is another odd answer. It’s unusual. This response doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Either you find solace in the gathering of Simonian’s friends, or you don’t. You don’t sort of find solace, do you?

Is he not finding solace– but trying to act like he is?

I also find Gretz’s word choices odd here when he says, “It’s not just my loss, it’s friends losses, it’s student’s losses, it’s neighbors losses. ” This statement lacks personal connection. It’s almost as if Gretz is distancing himself. You have to wonder. It’s just unusual again. I would expect to him to say something like, “It’s not only my loss, but your loss too. We all lost…”.

And last, when I watch Gretz talk, I see fear in his eyes and in his face. He looks frightened: really frightened. You can see he is trying to comfort himself by rubbing his chest. His voice quivers and he sounds as if he is out-of-breathe when he starts talking. Why? Is it due to the cut of the video, or is this how he started talking? I’d be curious to know. It would give me more information because if this is how he started talking, his voice pitch is strange.

Can I determine why he is frightened? No. I can only speculate. Why would he be afraid? Well, he could be deathly afraid of the person who murdered his wife, if he is a victim here. If that is the case, would he go to or hold a vigil after dark in the same neighborhood — a block away — if he feared for his life? That makes me ask the question who organized the vigil? I’d be interested to know.

All these answers would give me more definition.

Perhaps Gretz would be the type to push his fears aside and go to a vigil to honor Simonian. I can’t determine that from the little I know about Gretz. He doesn’t hit me as the type to take risks for his safety when I look at him, but I could be wrong. That’s simply just a guess.

Another scenario is that Gretz is an extremely shy guy — and going to this public vigil was too much for him. Could that be why he was afraid? When I watch Simonian’s video on CrimeBlog.us, I see Simonian was a strong character. I don’t believe such a timid guy would be attracted to someone like her, if that was the case. She hits me as the type to make him deal with situations — not avoid them. With that, I don’t believe Gretz was that shy and hence simply afraid of being on TV.

I’d be interested to talk to Gretz to ask him why he was so afraid. I think his responses would tell us a lot.

We can only guess at this point what is going on inside Gretz’s head. I’d love to ask him some questions, but I am not sure if I would like the answers I got back.

_________________________
Update:

September 2007:
Matthew Gretz has been arrested.

June 2008
Gretz Confesses
_________________________

Click on the labels below to see the most current posts.

Melanie McGuire Interview

/in , /by

Primetime Live interviewed Melanie McGuire last night on TV. See Primetime Webcast: Body of Evidence (click on the videos to the right).

Melanie’s husband was found floating in Chesapeake Bay, dismembered, in three Kenneth Cole suitcases just like the ones Melanie used to own. Melanie says she and her husband had a fight — and he took off and never returned. She didn’t report him missing. Furthermore, Melanie McGuire was a fertility nurse who was having an affair with one of the doctors at the fertility clinic where she worked. Yet, she had just bought a big, beautiful home with her husband. The story is intriguing.

They say there was no apparent motive for murder. I absolutely disagree. There absolutely was a motive in my eyes. Melanie wanted to marry the doctor with whom she had an affair. She wanted the big dream home she had just bought with her husband – and she wanted the two, together, WITHOUT her gambling husband in the mix. If she divorced him, she’d lose the house – she’d be less attractive to her potential doctor-lover with whom she hoped to marry — and so what other option did she have, if she wanted it all? To me, it is clearly visible: Rid herself of the burden in the path of her dreams — her husband.

I see Melanie as a person who is exceptionally manipulative — as someone who will do everything in her power to control her surroundings. I suspect she has learned over the years how to charm gullible people, and how to use them to her advantage so much so I suspect she got a head too big for her shoulders.

To Melanie, I suspect most people were pawns. If she liked you, she’d treat you okay. But if she didn’t – she had no problem lying to you, using you, or getting her way at your expense. Melanie is a woman who is void of emotions – except when the pain is hers. She is cold, callus and calculating. I don’t doubt for an instant that Melanie committed this crime.

I think the facts of this case are overwhelming, first and foremost. Too many things point to Melanie to write off, but setting that aside — when I watch Melanie with an open mind — I see don’t see an innocent person.

When you listen to Melanie when she is asked if she committed this crime, listen to how she responds. She has no conviction in her voice when she answers the question. Why? If you were wrongly accused, innocent and facing prison time — is that how you would respond? Absolutely not. You’d have some pretty strong emotions coming through and that would affect the pitch and tone of your voice. It would affect the inflection, and how you stressed your words. You’d be full of emotion. Notice how Melanie is void of emotions? It’s because she is controlling herself, and playing a role– not being honest with us.

Melanie doesn’t want you to see any anger – because then she thinks you might think she did do it. It’s part of her manipulative game. But that is how a liar’s mind works. An honest person who has just been wrongly convicted of a crime they didn’t commit would be full of emotions — and one of them would likely be anger but Melanie didn’t put that into her equation. An honest person would likely be upset, angry, distraught — because they are innocent and wrongly accused. Melanie doesn’t give us any of this. Her behavior is flat-out inconsistent with her story. It is however very consistent with a liar.

When Melanie says about her gambling husband “He wanted what he wanted and he couldn’t get it fast enough” (time marker 1:35)– look how she grits her teeth. This is an expression of anger – which Melanie is attempting to hold back. Melanie is madder than ever at her husband still. If her husband was brutally murdered by someone else, I have to wonder if she’d still be as angry at him.

What is interesting is that Melanie is honest off and on throughout this interview in an appeal to play on people’s emotions — to give them reason to have doubts — that perhaps she is honest. It’s a sign of an ultra-manipulator. They know this is a key secret to getting away with lies –being honest at points to confuse people.

Melanie admits to the fact she still would have an affair with the doctor knowing now that he went to the police behind her back. She is trying to admit to some of her flaws – in an attempt to gain empathy for the rest of what she says. I shudder to think of all the lies Melanie told in her life to different people and got away with.

Melanie’s tone of voice also really stands out to me in this interview. I bet if we could talk to people who knew her in life prior to this crime — we would be told that this is not Melanie’s normal demeanor. She did not talk like this everyday. This is her “think I am a nice person” voice — a manipulative voice — to try to convince us she is sweet, and kind and decent — that she would never commit a heinous crime like this. I’m not buying it. Melanie is a strong person with strong emotions and strong opinions. She wasn’t soft, gentle and very kind like this often in life. This is her “role playing” voice.

When Melanie says (at time marker 3:15) “ But one thing I am is candid, and blunt” – she is honest again. Notice how she moves her mouth to one side? It’s a sign of complete arrogance. She thinks she is super smart and intelligent.

You see how Melanie disperses her lies in between the truth. She mixes it up nicely. She’s learned over the years, I suspect, that if you admit to some things honestly – your lies go over much easier. Melanie is admitting to who she really is here. This is the “true” Melanie.

When Melanie is asked if is she wrongly accused, or a cold, calculating murder – and McFadden asks which it is — watch Melanie’s smile (at time marker 3:40) Number one, its fake. It falls to fast from her face. Number two, is that how you would respond if you were wrongly convicted? Would you smile??? Absolutely not!

If you were playing a sweet character, however, trying to be nice – might you do this? Melanie has in her mind to be sweet and pleasant through the whole interview – and that is her focus – hence her real emotions are held in check – and we see fake responses – but inappropriate reactions like this smile. The way she finishes answering that question is haunting to me, too. She continues to try to play on people’s emotions – by saying you don’t have to like me, you don’t have to think I’m nice. Yet she can’t contain her real feeling here. You see a glimmer in her eyes, an arrogance — a woman who thinks she’s truly going to get away with it. It’s haunting. She is so manipulative! Thankfully, she underestimated the power of a jury as a collective group!

Part 2: Family Secrets: A Brutal Murder (click on the video on the right).

I find it interesting that Melanie says the following — knowing she is facing life in prison for a crime she supposedly didn’t commit: “This is the definition of terror. Absolute mortal terror.” For a manipulator and a killer– prison would be ‘mortal terror’. She won’t be able to manipulate people anymore.

But what I find ironic is this…. If you were innocent — and someone killed your husband — and for an entire year — the crime was not solved — and you lived in the free world — wouldn’t that be mortal terror? Knowing that a murderer is still out there and that he could come back to get you?! But we never hear Melanie talk about the murderer, if it is not her– do we? Did she live in fear that year? I’d love to know. I suspect not.

When Cynthia McFadden asks Melanie if she killed, shot or dismembered her husband – listen to Melanie’s voice again. It’s weak, without conviction or stance. It’s not a normal response from someone who claims they are innocent.

I am thankful for the conviction that has put Melanie behind bars. I believe she is a dangerous, callus, and manipulative murderer.