Diane Zamora on Dateline

/in /by

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:

  • Varies the speed and tone of her voice. At times, she speaks faster and precise, and at other times, she speaks slower and softer struggling more for words. You can see a change back and forth, back and forth. Why? I suspect when she tells the truth she speaks differently than when she lies.
  • She stumbles for words a lot. Why? Is she thinking things up as she talks — trying to remember contrived answers?
  • Her answers aren’t always logical in multiple places throughout the interview, and that doesn’t make sense. Once or twice, we can overlook — but her answers repeatedly don’t add up. When we tell the truth, our answers do add up.
  • Zamora also flashes a gloating expression (noted above) as if she is proud of what she did. Her expressions at the time they occur do not make sense, if she didn’t do anything. Why would she be happy or proud at that moment — unless perhaps she came up with a wise plan to trap Adrianne in the car — and she is proud of herself for it? What other reason would she have to gloat here? Play it in slow motion if you don’t see it.
  • I also found it ironic that Zamora remembers her so-called false confession perfectly. When she recites a small segment of it to Phillips, it flows from her lips effortlessly. When you made up a supposed lie ten years ago — most people won’t remember it now. However, if you told the truth, it would be crystal clear in your head — even 10 years later.

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.

Pet Food Scare

/in /by

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…

Ask questions
Wonder why
Get your own answers

Knowledge is power

4-26-2007 Update:
I saw Dr. Martin Goldstein D.V.M. yesterday speaking on TV about optimal diets for dogs. He also supports feeding our dogs a natural diet. He says that dogs by nature are carnivores and that high carbohydrate diets which are often found in dry cereal and many canned foods — are not optimal for a healthy dog. Dogs need protein!

Check out his book: The Nature of Animal Healing : The Definitive Holistic Medicine Guide to Caring for Your Dog and Cat

Duper’s Delight

/in /by

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.

People who are the worst…

/in , , /by

…at spotting deception, if you want my opinion, don’t question things.

They don’t question things.

While they may ask questions — they don’t dig for answers, or play the “what if” game. Or, if they do– they don’t do it with an open mind. These people are not researchers or fact finders. The majority of them don’t question authority. To them, people in authority are usually “experts” and “good people” who shouldn’t be questioned. After all, they hold a high-ranking status in society which should be respected — not doubted. I’ve come to describe these people as literalists.

Literalists are the people in our society who are the worst at spotting deception, and I guestimate they are somewhere around 15 -20% of people I meet.

The definition of a literalist from the dictionary is: “one who adheres to the letter or exact word; an interpreter according to the letter.” Most people when they hear the term literalist usually think of people who take the book of their religion and choose to believe in it word-for-word — like strict fundamentalists.

When I say literalist, I am using the term slightly differently. I am talking about people who take everything and everyone they met or get to know at face value — but my definition is void of religious implications.

Literalists, to me, don’t see the world in shades of gray. They only see black and white.

If you were to say to a literalist that their best friend was just seen stealing fifty dollars, while they might listen you out, they wouldn’t question the details of what happened. Instead, they’d automatically defend their friend, and tell you all the ways you must have misinterpreted the situation. They’d be certain someone misunderstood something. Literalists don’t stop to say with a truly open mind, “You know, that isn’t the person I know — but what happened? Why do you say that?” They don’t investigate the situation , or truly listen to what someone is saying without bias.

Literalists, however, are usually good people. They truly want to believe the best in everyone. They are often kind and giving and fiercely loyal people — probably to a flaw. They usually make good friends too.

If you continued to insist to a literalist that their best friend stole this money, and you are going to take action against their friend, a literalist would likely get annoyed with you. They would think quietly to themselves that you are the one with a problem — that you are a pessimist for thinking the way you do.

Literalists automatically assume if someone is nice — they are inherently good. Even in the face of people saying otherwise, literalists will continue to believe a good person is good until the evidence against that belief is clearly visible to their own eyes, or it is so overwhelming (i.e. they are the last to hold that believe), it is undeniable.

If someone has done something bad that they have witnessed with their own two eyes (like stealing) — a literalist will not trust that person again, and he or she will be known as inherently bad. They will still be nice, and kind to these “bad” people — but under the cover of their thoughts will be feelings of distrust, and perhaps feelings of “fear” that is not likely to ever go away completely — even after the passage of time — and renewed efforts to restore the distrust.

Literalists don’t understand human nature nor are they able to read emotions in people. Hence, they take the world at face value. When you and I see color, they only see black and white. They don’t see gray. They are, in essence, color-blind.

The reason I write this post is get people to ponder things more — to question things around them. I am not suggesting that you distrust anyone and everything you hear. Give people the benefit of the doubt, always– but do look at things and ask questions. If someone tells you someone is really nice — it’s okay to wonder why. Why are they nice? If someone tells you someone is really bad — don’t just accept it. Question why. You might find a brilliant, exceptional person underneath the exterior who has been greatly misunderstood.

The dumb question, as the saying goes, is the one that was never asked. As I see it, you have absolutely nothing to lose by questioning things. In fact, you might actually discover a new truth!

As I see it, people who are good at spotting deception find evidence to either support or reject their belief system. They are always looking for things to substantiate what they believe. They are naturally curious and inquisitive. They also don’t take things at face value. They question things all the time, and are open to a new belief if the evidence points them in a different direction.

Anyone, with any ability to detect lies, can improve their abilities by wondering why and asking questions — with a truly open mind to discover whatever may come their way.

The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)
Truth fears no questions.
Anonymous

Nealy 100,000 page loads

/in /by

If you are the 100,000 visitor — say hi!