Dateline: To Catch a Predator

/in /by

Have you seen the series produced by Dateline NBC: To catch a predator? It’s a difficult show to watch, but also a show you don’t want to turn away from. The realization that we have that many sexual predators openly approaching strangers houses in city after city after it is widely known that the show is traveling around the country is mind boggling.

We are facing an epidemic in sexual compulsive behavior where predators feel they can safely and privately lure their victims without anyone knowing — and it is clear they are getting away with it more than any of us would ever like to know.

If only we could profile these guys — so we could look out for them. But sadly, if you have watched this show, there is no profile that fits these guys. They come from all walks-of-life.

I thought it would be interesting to review the red flags I spot in cases where we are unsure someone is lying — to a case where we know for sure someone is lying.

What is interesting about this guy is he doesn’t do any of the classic liar signs that most people look for during most of his lies. He doesn’t shift his eyes, he doesn’t look away — he looks straight into Chris Hansen’s eyes. But he does give off classic “thinking clues” in his lies. He is thinking as he talks and it clearly shows. When we tell the truth –we don’t have to think about it. We intuitively know what we did. When we lie, we have to think about it. It’s not a guarantee that someone is lying – – but if someone continually does it over and over — your red flags will pile up into an undeniable outcome.

At time marker 3:24, the predator says: “I’m sorry, I’m not here to really do anything, though.” What is interesting is his use of words: I’m not here to ‘really‘ do anything ‘though‘. Notice the choice of words shows his own self-doubt. When we are confident and telling the truth, we don’t speak like this. This is a classic thinking-on-the-spot lie.

Time Marker 2:58: (Predator denying he knew victim was 13) “You know, it was due…I was actually home at that time, really drunk. I probably didn’t even pay attention.” Again, classic thinking-on-the-spot red flag. Stuttering in his speech, fragmented sentence and the weak conviction of “I probably didn’t even…”. When we tell the truth, we are certain. We don’t “probably”, “maybe”, “really”, “perhaps” excuse ourselves.

When Chris Hansen says that the girl was really 13, the predator says “Wow”. What is scary about this is it hints that he may be accomplished at deception. He quickly fakes an expression with the hopes of fooling you. This response alone and out of context might fool most people. I maybe no exception — though the guy is subdued over all — and that is a red flag. If you were truly honest in this situation, I would expect fire and fury if you realized what you were being accused of. I would not expect such a dull, and dead — lack-of-emotions response.

Time Marker 2:46: Chris Hansen asks, “And how old are you?” The perpetrator says “I’m twen…ty…(he looks off to his left and pauses)…actually twenty-eight. Yeah.”

Yeah? He is answering his own question!! That’s not normal behavior. Clearly, here you can see this is a thinking clue. He is trying to decide how old he is and once he decided, he answers himself. Oops! Do you answer yourself by accident ever? Whenever someone can’t answer a basic question like that on the spot– it’s likely a red flag (though of course not always).

Time Marker 1:43: The perpetrator says, “I mean look at me. Do you think I would do something like that? I’m very professional.” Here this man is playing on your doubts and he obviously has had practice doing it. This in itself is a red flag because of the tone he is using. He is trying to be all soft and sweet and kind — playing on Chris Hansen’s emotions (whereas an honest man would be mad, angry, frustrated anything but kind and soft) .

Most people hate to accuse other people of lying — and this guy knows that if he connects with you emotionally and gets your sympathy — he’ll win you over. If he shows you he is soft, kind and patient — you won’t believe he is deceptive. He may be able to change your mind. He’s definitely done this before.

Furthermore, do you notice he has no emotions? He doesn’t act any different when he is trying to be nice earlier compared to when he is being accused of lying? His emotions are baseline. That is always a red flag. Your emotions should match your situation and when they don’t — red flag!

Time Marker 1:11: Later with an investigator, the perpetrator continues to insist he believed the girl was 19. “I was drinking at that time, and I didn’t really….um….you know, pay attention while she’s 13…like I mean, if I was awake and I had known, I would not be here.”

Classic thinking-on-your-feet lie. Classic Joran van der Sloot behavior, isn’t it? This predator’s sentence is fragmented, doesn’t make logical sense, and is inconsistent. First he says he was drunk, then he says he wasn’t awake. Which is it? Earlier he told us he didn’t come here for that — but then he says if he had known her age — he wouldn’t be here. Two different stories! Inconsistencies in fact. You really have to watch the little details. These are what will point out a liar quickly and swiftly even if you missed all the other red flags. And facts won’t make you doubt your emotions. They either match or they don’t. It’s black and white.

This perpetrator continues on — still believing he is going to convince someone that he is a good guy – even after all of the evidence against him. He doesn’t give it up. He continues to defend himself in a mild manner. It likely means he has convinced other people before successfully that he is honest when in fact he is not. This hints at how it is likely this guy is accomplished at deception.

Did you find this interesting? Helpful? Would you like me to do more?

Murder Suspect Talks

/in /by

Sadly, a young mother of three children, Sherri Carman, was brutally murdered in mid-January in Brevard County, Florida. She was struck by a large pipe and bludgeoned to death. Police arrested her long-time friend, Michael Townson.

After Townson was picked up, at first he confessed to killing Carman but then reneged his story and is now blaming his daughter’s boyfriend.

While the story, actions and behavior of Mr. Townson don’t support his newly claimed innocence to anyone watching, watching Mr. Townson speak and tell his new version of what happened is very telling.

Watch the video here: It’s in on the right side of the window. You can right-click on it – and enlarge it to full screen. Click on Zoom, then on Full Screen.

If Mr. Townson is telling the truth NOW, we would expect to see some confidence and certainty. Is Mr. Townson confident?

Watch his body language, facial expressions and the words he uses when he talks. At 1 minute and 44 seconds, he says, “I should have never left her (Carman) there with that person.”

That person? That person is his daughter’s boyfriend. Is that how you would refer to him? Usually, you would refer to him by name. The fact that he isn’t is odd. It’s a little red flag. Something out of place.

Next, watch his lips (1:44). Mr. Townson squeezes them together and inward. This movement of his lips can be taken as a sign of insecurity, doubt, or potentially a sign that he is withholding information. This is clearly not a confident response. If Mr. Townson was certain he should have never left Carman there with this other guy — he would not be expressing doubt, but he is.

Try this: Say something you are very confident about. Go ahead. Say something you are passionate about and believe in. Now when you are finished, make that expression with your lips. How does it feel?

Can you do it? It is exceptionally difficult, if not possible at all.

Continue watching the video. Right after that, Townson says, “But I did.” (1:46). Watch Townson’s behavior again. He looks at the person he is speaking with — not confidently but with question. He is wondering if the person listening to him is buying what he is saying.

Then Townson swings his head again in a very insecure fashion. When you say “I don’t know”, you are likely to do this motion with your head. This is a movement of someone who doesn’t know what he is saying to be true — or has doubts about what he is saying to be true or is simply unsure and insecure. Should Townson have doubts if he is now telling the truth? Absolutely not. Why does he?

You don’t swing your head like this this when you are stating something to be factual, or something you strongly believe. In this situation, it is another red flag that Mr. Townson himself is doubting what he is telling us.

Move your head this way. Go, ahead and try it. Now say something you are confident about (and passionate) and try to move your head that way when speaking. Can you do it? How does it make you feel? It’s challenging, if again, not at all possible to do.

I think most people will believe Mr. Townson is lying now because he changed his story and because the facts surrounding the case don’t bode well for him. However, his facial expressions and body language in his second rendition of what happened only go on to to further that belief.

Mr. Townson’s behaviors are not consistent with what he is saying.

Beauty is Deceptive

/in /by

John Ramsey Interview

/in , /by

Case Summary: John and Patsy Ramsey’s six year old little girl was reported missing by her mother. Eight hours later, her body was discovered in the family basement. While the Ramsey’s have declared their innocence, no suspect has been formally charged with the murder. Public opinion on the case varies. Some people believe there was an intruder. Others suspect the parents of foul play.
* * *

I have to say that part of my heart really goes out to John Ramsey. He has had a tragic life, full of pain, regardless of who killed his daughter. He lost another grown daughter in a car accident in 1992. He lost JonBenet to murder in 1996. And now, this past year, he lost Patsy Ramsey. That’s almost too much for a sane person to handle.

Yet when I watch John Ramsey speak, I get ill-at-ease. I don’t feel his words flow naturally. His emotions, behavior and actions don’t seem to be consistent with someone who is truly looking for the killer of their daughter.

If either John or Patsy Ramsey were in anyway involved in their daughter’s death, I do believe it was an accident — not premeditated.

Here are my thoughts from the 48 Hours interview that aired this past weekend:

  1. In the 911 call from Patsy Ramsey, she says, “Sir…we have a — there’s a note left and our daughter is gone.”

    I find this choice of words very strange. Also, who puts politeness first on a 911 abduction call? I also find the pauses troubling. If your daughter was missing, you’d likely say anything but “sir”, “we have a–there’s a note…” The last thing you would say is not that “our daughter is gone.” It would be the first thing you would say.

    Also, the pauses wouldn’t be there. The speech wouldn’t be so interrupted. It would flow– out of fear. More complete thoughts would come naturally. They might flow to together but they would be complete — not totally disjointed. Patsy’s thoughts were really broken up. It’s a red flag.

    Comment: (Added 4-13-2007). It has been brought to my attention that Patsy Ramsey didn’t say “Sir”. I stand corrected. I suspect what happened was that when I watched 48 Hours they started the audio mid-recording (after the address information) and with that, the first word I heard wasn’t a complete word, and I misheard it. I stand corrected.

  2. Throughout the interview with John Ramsey, he keeps smiling. It wasn’t a genuine, I’m- happy-smile. It wasn’t a nervous smile. It was a strange, deceptive smile. It was inappropriate in timing — almost as if the smile is expressing his true feelings — that he is so happy 48 Hours is doing this show because they are pointing the finger away from him. It’s like he is so thrilled with it, he can’t contain it. I find John Ramsey making this smile throughout the majority of his interview. It bothers me more than a little. There is no logical explanation for it.

    An innocent man would not be joyous thinking about finding the killer of their daughter. He would more than likely be mad at the whole scenario, tired of being treated so badly by the media that there would be hints of anger – a truly felt emotion — that would not flee in time upon reflection. There would be a desire to get resolve — to find the true killer – because it would be haunting to know that killer is still out there potentially killing other children. None of these emotions would make a true victim of such a heinous crime smile. So, when I don’t see any normal expressions — and I see expressions that are out of place — I’m on alert.

  3. John Ramsey says, “We should have just stood right up there in the beginning and said, ‘Okay, charge me.You think I’m guilty? Charge me, or clear me,'” John Ramsey says.

    I find this statement arrogant now — after the fact — when he knows they have nothing to charge him with at this point and time. He says this at a time when 48 Hours is focusing their efforts on the people who believe the Ramseys are innocent (Tracey, Smit, Demuth), when they show a DNA report that is supposed to (but doesn’t for me) remove suspicion from the Ramseys. It’s an easy time to be so smug — when all the fingers are pointing away from you!

    Tracey also clearly shows his bias on the show when he says something to the effect if the media can convict them (the Ramseys), then surely I can use the media to clear them! Tracey’s investigation is clearly biased.

  4. In Tracey’s British documentary of the case, Tracey asks the Ramseys…”Did you have anything to do with the death of JonBenet?” Watch John Ramsey’s face. He shakes his head up and down in a yes motion. Then he sighs.

    Don’t you find that perplexing??

    Then his conscious mind appears to kick in, and he shakes his head in a side to side “no” motion before he speaks…”That is the most difficult question I have ever been asked…ah…I would have given my life for JonBenet and I regret…I will regret…(he continues on)…

    What does Ramsey regret? Why does shake his head yes, at first and then no before he answers? Why the inconsistency? He does this again later on, too.

  5. During the same question from number 4 above, Patsy Ramsey says no, shakes her head no — consistently unlike John, yet then she smiles really oddly. The timing and behavior of her smile doesn’t fit. It isn’t consistent.

    If you were WRONGLY accused of killing your daughter, could you EVER smile when you talked about it? Ever? I think not. If you were trying to “play cool” and hide something, you might.

  6. Tracey says that in an e-mail Karr referred to Patsy’s mother by her nickname, Neddie. This got Tracey excited. John Ramsey says, “He referred to Patsy’s mother’s nickname: Neddie. And that was unusual that someone would know that. I went to a book that we’d written about it. To see if we ever mentioned that in the book. And we had not,” Ramsey recalls. “That added fuel to the fire in my mind.”

    I ask you — how would the killer find this out? Was it written on the walls of the house? How does that in any way link John Karr? I don’t make that connection. John Karr was obsessed with the Ramseys so he may have unearthed it at some point — but that doesn’t mean he killed JonBenet.

  7. It really disturbed me when John Ramsey said (about Karr) “He was so abused and vilified and convicted in the media that I started to feel sorry for the guy, which is a bizarre feeling,” Ramsey says. “Having been through what we went through, I was gonna be the last guy that leaped out there and said, ‘Aha! This is the guy!’”

    If you just potentially laid your eyes on someone who you believed might have killed your daughter — do you honestly think you’d feel sorry for the killer because the media harassed and accused him — after he made a public confession?

    I think not. I know not! A true victim would be mad, furious, hoping for justice — but would never feel sorry for the criminal –especially a criminal who could have killed his daughter and who confessed!!!

    This statement by John Ramsey is exceptionally scary!!! It’s inconsistent, out of place, and definitely, hands-down out of character for an innocent man. It is consistent with a man who knows who killed his daughter — and knows the killer isn’t running around out in the world somewhere. Then and only then would someone feel sympathy for Karr.

  8. 48 Hours goes on…”This was the biggest effort to find a suspect since really your daughter was killed,” Moriarty remarked to John Ramsey.

    “Oh yeah,” he agrees. And he acknowledges that he had his hopes up. “I mean I was grateful that the effort was going on and I was hopeful that this, in fact would be the conclusion.”

    Notice Ramsey’s grin. The timing is just odd. The pain of seeing a killer, or a potentially killer, would be immense. Most people whose daughter was killed, even recollecting the Karr situation, even when Karr was released — would still feel immense pain. Why isn’t John Ramsey feeling that pain??

  9. 48 Hours goes on… Moriarty asks John Ramsey…”John be honest. He’s obsessed with your daughter and your family. Are you at all concerned that he could show up here?”

    Ramsey shakes his head side-to-side as if he is saying no. Then he says “I” as he then moves his head in a yes motion. You can see his conscious thought kicking in… “The thought has gone through my mind, absolutely and you know that you can’t live your life in fear. But you know, we tend to be careful,” he replies.

  10. 48 Hours releases some of the tape of Karr talking about the murder of JonBenet. I find it interesting.

    Karr: She, of course, was asleep from the time that she was…that I took her from her bed and took her into the basement. Her first reaction was “Where am I?” And I said, “You’re in your basement.”

    Did you notice the searching for words? Also, when you listen to the words as Karr says them above — he speaks slow and methodical — as if he is thinking as he talks. When you tell a true story, it flows much more naturally. The speed and pitch of your voice is also more natural. It’s not slow and methodical, calculating.

    Then as Karr continues, notice the speed and pitch of his voice. It changes completely. It’s fast, and full of emotion — where before it was void of emotions. Why the change?

    (Karr) “She wasn’t in that room to be disgraced. I would never disgrace her or dishonor her. She was there temporarily. And what really hurts me is that she stayed there, and that’s where her father found her, and I couldn’t just…it’s just a horrible thing. “

    In the segment of speech from Karr above, I believe he talking about his true feelings. He thinks its a disgrace that her body was left there and he almost says “I couldn’t just”. Was he thinking, I couldn’t do that?

    (Later) Karr: No man could worship a pretty little girl more than this man does.

    Listen to the emotion, and emphasis in Karr’s voice. It’s strong, said with conviction and full of emotion. Yet when Karr talks about the crime, he is void. Why?

  11. Tracey says that it is odd that Karr is using the words “Listen carefully” as those words were in the ransom note. Really? Who on earth didn’t know about those words in the ransom note after the murder? Six years after the murder? And wouldn’t you expect a man who is obsessed with the JonBenet case to at least know the basics? The basics the media printed everywhere!?
  12. Tracey says the following about why he is motivated to follow this case for eight years, “I wasn’t doing this as a journalist, as a scholar, I was doing this as someone who is extremely concerned about what I was reading and extremely concerned about what might happen to some other kids.”

    I don’t find this to be true. If this is true, then how come Tracey didn’t get the police involved as soon as D/December Man/Daxis admitted that he knew who did it. And furthermore when Daxis said it was he, himself!? Instead, Tracey had no problem e-mailing him and then letting this man disappear for 18 months. Tracey’s behavior is inconsistent with what he is saying.

    Tracey was in contact with Karr for four years before he decided to go to the district attorney — before he started to worry. I find that haunting. If Karr truly was the killer — how many children could he have killed or molested in four years Tracey stayed in contact with him? I shudder at the numbers.

  13. 48 Hours basic premises for the show is that John Karr was not arrested for the crime because his DNA did not match to the crime scene. And ironic as it may be — the Ramseys also took a DNA test back in 1996 (or 1997) and were also not a match to the DNA yet no one knew. 48 Hours obtained the documents in manner they did not disclose.

    With that, 48 Hours hints, why was Karr let go — and the Ramseys are still under suspicion? Granted, the Department of Homeland Security is still investigating Karr.

    With that, I have to ask this:

    A) Why didn’t the Ramseys and their attorney bring up their DNA tests to the media and go all over town with it? They should have known they gave DNA samples, shouldn’t they? Weren’t they given the results?? If not, why didn’t they make a public outcry for them to be released…if they knew they were innocent. What did they have to hide? Let’s face it, as parents, they have every excuse to be present in DNA on JonBenet regardless. A positive match to DNA on JonBenet to her parents really tells us nothing.

    B). Just because JonBenet had DNA under her finger nails and in her underwear — doesn’t mean that DNA is the killer’s DNA, either. JonBenet was at a party with other children the night she was killed. It is not out of the question that she could have lightly scratched one of the children while playing and got DNA under her nails — where she could have further contaminated herself. While I am not saying that happened, it could happen. Correct?

    C). At some point, 48 Hours said that investigators were not sure if the DNA was the killers. If that’s the case, it should NOT be the main focus in the investigation to find the killers — should it?

    D). If I were the D.A. at this point, I would ask permission from the parents of the other children who were at the party to obtain their DNA to see if there is a match. Why not rule out self-contamination – childhood play, scratches — different explainable DNA? If there is, it ends this whole DNA fiasco. If it’s not, we are narrowing down the search.

With that, I don’t find anything new in this interview that clears the Ramseys. I do not believe Karr had anything to do with the murders.

PAX’s Lie Detector Show Review

/in /by

Tuesday night I watched my second episode of Lie Detector which was a re-run of the first episode of the show which aired back in March. I had not seen this episode before. I disagree with two of the results found by polygraph. I concur with one.

Guest #1
The first person on the show was Robert Smitty. He donated a kidney to a psychologist who was legally advertising on the web to find a donor. Donors are not allowed to profit according to U.S. law. The big question at hand is did he profit or intend to profit from the donation of his kidney.

Smitty spoke that he donated a kidney to do good by another person. At first I believed him. He seemed sincere but as Smitty continued to speak, I got two twinges for reasons I am unable explain. They were just pangs of emotion — a lack of trust that welled up inside me, and I started to have my doubts about the guy.

In the end, I suspected Robert Smitty was going to fail the lie detector test for reasons I couldn’t explain– and he did.

After taking the test and being confronted that he failed, Smitty of course denied that he had anything but the truest intentions.

But then he hinted that he had some encounters with people who posed as donor recipients when in fact they were reporters. He said there was some “banter” between them and the reporter was fishing for a story. You are left with the feeling Smitty wasn’t above board in these dealings though nothing ever materialized from them.

As the story goes on, I feel that Smitty wanted the world to believe he donated his kidney to the psychologist because he was a kind man.

I believe Smitty knew that he wasn’t going to profit from the psychologist directly when he agreed to do it, but he didn’t discount the fact that he could profit from it in other ways. At the very end, Smitty reveals he has a ghost writer who is going to write his story.

So, did Smitty get illegal money from the donation — I don’t believe so. That was the point he was trying to make but failed to accurately convey through the lie-detector test.

Will he profit in the end — and was that his ultimate goal? I believe the answer is yes. He is trying to do so in every way he can conceive. The lie detector sniffed him out.

Guest #2
The second guest was Bob Pagani. He worked at Yankee Stadium between 1971 -1979. He worked at the stadium the year a bronze bust of Mickey Mantle was mounted and displayed at the stadium. He also worked at the stadium when that exact bust was stolen.

Oddly, sometimes thereafter these events, Pagani happened to find a bust of Mickey Mantle at a flea market for $75.00, bought it and stashed it away. He states that it “looked like what I saw at Yankee Stadium” but he makes no mention that he ever questioned its authenticity.

Yeah right.

After Mickey Mantle died, Pagani says he decided he was going to sell it. He called around to a Hall-of-Fame dealer and the dealer supposedly told him the bust he described on the phone could be worth some $30,000. Bob seemed happy — $30,000!

I guess it still didn’t dawn on Bob that this might be the stolen bust. Hmm….

Bob then says some guy called him up wanting to buy it. So with that, Bob flies out of town to meet this guy and agrees to take $25,000 cash on the spot. He grabs the cash, leave the bust and tries to run (he used the word “run”) –but the FBI nabbed him and he is now a convicted felon.

He swears he is innocent. He is hoping for a Presidential pardon.

Bob comes on the show because he wants people to know that he was honest. With that I guess that means, he wants us to believe he did not know the bust he had was the one that was stolen. He takes the polygraph and passes.

He passes.

Personally, I don’t believe Bob. I have to wonder if perhaps he studied polygraph machines and manipulated this one. Something isn’t right here. I do not agree with the polygraph finding.

Guest #3
And last guest on the show was Paula Jones, the administrative assistant who accused then Governor Bill Clinton of sexually harassing her back in 1991. Do you remember her?

She says she was working a convention when the Governor’s body guard, a state trooper, tells her that Mr. Clinton would like to see her in his hotel room. She says she was excited to meet the Governor so she happily went up to his room. She says the door was ajar. She walks in, they have small talk, and he pulls his pants down, exposes himself and asks for favors.

She says she left at once and said she told Mr. Clinton she wasn’t that kind of girl. She says when she left Mr. Clinton said , “You’re a smart girl. Let’s leave this between ourselves.”

I believe Mr. Clinton did say she was a smart girl and to keep the situation just between the two of them. That’s true. Very true. I believe that Mr. Clinton did expose himself to her as she says too. She is honest when she says that.

Paula Jones passes the lie detector.

But what I don’t believe is that Paula is telling the whole story. There is more here than she is letting on. She did some other things…things she doesn’t want to discuss. At least, that is my belief. Here is why…

When Paul Jones says after she left the hotel room where Mr. Clinton was, “I proceeded to go out the door and when I walked past Andy Ferguson, he had a smirk on his face and I flew right past him.”

She continues, “I was scared. I thought someone was going to come after me. I thought honestly, maybe I was video-taped in the room or something.”

Huh?

Excuse me? What did you say???

Why would you be AFRAID you were video taped if you were victimized???

Wouldn’t a video camera be the biggest and best proof you could have asked for?? If there was a video recording of the event, wouldn’t it have been relief for her — if she was telling the truth???

I find it so ironic that 14 years later when she is recounting her story, she still talks about her fear of a video camera in Mr. Clinton’s room as she is running out. That concern was very powerful to recount all these years later…because it is the truth.

Want to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Ms. Jones? While you passed the lie detector that Mr. Clinton did expose himself… I think you know a lot more than you are willing to admit.

I wonder what Paula Jones is hiding… don’t you?? I do not agree with the final results of the lie detector. Because there weren’t enough questions asked, we didn’t get to the true heart of this matter.