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

Rate My Abilities

/in /by
…and feel free to leave any comments you’d like below.
Many thanks for your rating. A poll should display below (occassionally it goes down).

Microexpressions — Test Yourself

/2 Comments/in /by


A micro expression of fear

A microexpression is a flash of emotion that tells what you are really feeling. For instance, if you ask someone how they are feeling and they reply they are doing great, when let’s say they are dying inside, people who can see microexpressions will potentially see a flash of pain or fear or sadness, regardless of what this person is actually saying.

In essence, your face has a natural lie detector built right in, which may indicate that you are being deceptive. And guess what, no matter how hard you try, you can’t fake it out or stop your true expressions from flashing themselves. They are involuntary.

Isn’t that wild?

But it is important to know that not all situations cause people to flash microexpressions. It’s just one piece of the detection puzzle.

Microexpressions may appear in the middle of a fake expression for an instant or a flash.

Even more interesting is that when you make a fake smile, you don’t use the same muscles you use when you genuinely smile. Isn’t that bizarre? The muscles you use for a fake smile are completely different. If I ask you to genuinely smile for me when you are not happy, guess what, you can’t do it. The smile will not be the same.

I find that fascinating!!

Before I knew microexpressions existed, I never noticed them (consciously, I suspect). Then once I heard about them, I suddenly noticed them all the time, as if someone turned the lights on. I’ll never forget the first one I was conscious about: I saw Scott Peterson flash an excited microexpression to Barbara Walters when she asked him a question. Instead of answering the question excitedly, he played the sad, downer-guy denying her the truth. It was clear as day what his true feelings were, and they didn’t match what he had just said and the expressed emotion on his face. He couldn’t hide them–just most people didn’t see it.

I believe I have always seen microexpressions and registered them, but I wasn’t consciously aware of them. I think for years, I have innately processed this information in my subconscious mind without ever being consciously aware of how I knew what I knew. I just knew it. (Finally, my world is making sense!!!)

In an odd twist, just because someone tells you microexpressions exist doesn’t mean you will see them like I do. I think in real life only handful of people out of 100 actually see microexpressions without training. Most people are oblivious to them. It’s not a common trait most people possess: the ability to see microexpressions.

When I saw the Scott Peterson microexpression, I asked my husband to see if he saw it. He missed it. Since that time, I have taped shows and I rewind them and repeatedly replay microexpressions to my husband and no matter what I do, he doesn’t see them.  For some people to see them, you must slow them down.

So, do you want to test your ability to work with and identify microexpressions?

I’ll warn you: This test is difficult. I believe it was difficult because all other verbal clues and hints from the face and body are stripped away. You have to solely rely on the face to do this test — and that is challenging. I am used to processing lots of clues and not just focusing in on one. Yet I think I scored 6 out of 10 on this test (I was too busy taking it and I didn’t keep score but I think I remember missing 4).

See how you can do… Good luck!
Facial Expressions Test

Update 2-11-2008:
I would say the microexpressions that I see consciously assist me in deception detection about 8-10% of the time. I wonder if I register a lot more subconsciously.

Update 3-25-2008:
See a new poll taken by my readers. It asks them what they think are the biggest clues to deception for me. Here is what I think are my biggest clues.

Book and Article Suggestion

/in /by

A new reader to my blog posted an interesting comment suggesting a book and an article. I thought you might want to read it:

Here is his comment:

Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink, might be of interest to you.
He wrote a piece in the New Yorker called “The Naked Face” about people who might just be like you.

Here’s the URL to the article:
http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_08_05_a_face.htm

Check it out.
-Steve

Thanks Steve!

I found article very interesting — and I find the book, Blink, facinating! I can’t wait to read it. All of the sudden, since October, I am finally finding people who understand me. It’s so awesome, and exciting. I have always trusted what I called my intuition, but Malcolm Gladwell puts it so much better when he calls it “rapid cognition”. I knew I wasn’t acting on a whim or an emotion but something more concrete because when I rely on those instanteous reactions, they are nearly foolproof.

How exciting!

Anne Bird, a Very Calculating Sister

/in /by

Anne Bird, Scott Peterson’s half-sister, is on the circuit, making the rounds, selling her story that she believes Scott Peterson is guilty. I tuned into Dateline NBC last night to watch her and sadly, I was disturbed by what I saw.

She doesn’t act normal. You can’t distinguish normal emotional responses from her. You can’t easily discern when she is supposedly hurt or upset versus when she is happy. She is like a doll without emotions, babbling and saying what she thinks she is supposed to say—only adding appropriate smiles or a twinge when she thinks she should—not because she is actually feeling that way. It is clear that her emotional responses aren’t genuine.

Her behavior is oddly similar to that of her half-brother Scott, although Scott Peterson mastered putting on the emotions more, so as to fool the average person. Scott said and acted the part he believed society expected of him, and he did his true dirty deeds behind the scenes. It really makes you wonder…

We all know that Scott was raised by Anne’s biological mother and was supposedly taught to shun real emotions, according to Jackie herself—but Anne Bird was raised by an entirely different family. Why is she shunning normal emotions? It’s rather scary.

Anne tries to convince you, the audience, that she is writing this book because she wasn’t asked to testify at her brother’s trial—and so now she believes the burden is too heavy on her conscience to keep it all inside. I believe she even says she feels she had no other choice but to tell her story.

During the trial, Anne stood steadfast by her half-brother. She says she thought he was innocent. But now she thinks he is guilty, as is obvious by her book title: 33 Reasons Why My Brother is Guilty.

Regardless of what she thought during and after the trial, it isn’t like the jury freed Scott Peterson, so why does she have to tell the world why she believes he is guilty?? They convicted him. So where does her guilt come in? She only had supporting evidence to the story. Her reasoning is flawed. Very flawed.

The real reason I believe Anne is writing this book? (A) She wants to get back at her mother. She has deep anger that she was given up for adoption, that her mom called Scott the “Golden Child”. This is her form of revenge: a very hurtful book for her biological mother. (B) She wants notoriety. (C) She wants the money from the book. (D) This is all about Anne, and Anne alone.

Anne is very calculating.

Anne also tries to convince you that she never doubted Scott’s innocence during the trial—that she completely trusted him regardless of incredible mounting evidence—and she saw way more than you and I did behind the scenes, which is supposedly written in her book. If you ask me, Anne knew damn well her half-brother was guilty long before she admits it.

Jackie Peterson, who gave Anne up at birth, has led a very tragic life. As told by NBC’s Dateline, Jackie “…had suffered a terrible childhood. Her father was murdered when she was just two years old—murdered just before Christmas. Then Jackie’s mother suffered a breakdown. Jackie grew up in an orphanage.”

Now add to that, Jackie gave up two children for adoption. And worse, as we all know, her flesh and blood killed someone. How much can one person handle? Wouldn’t a normal person have some form of compassion for her??

When you watch Anne talk, and you hear her divulge things about her mother that are painful, her face remains strangely emotionless, despite the fact she is saying very hurtful things. This is just another big red flag that things aren’t as they seem.

As a lie-detector, Anne’s behavior scares me. She is too emotionless to get a good read from her expressions. She is too calculated. I can only tell you that her behaviors don’t add up, that her expressions aren’t genuine—and real—and with that, I know enough to be very concerned with anything she says.

* * *
Did you know according to forensic psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow, who was featured on Oprah, that 1 in 25 people show sociopathic (non-empathic) tendencies?? I believe this is absolutely true.

However, Dr. Ablow went on to say that he thinks people are born good, and through deep struggle, stop empathizing. Then he says in time, they look at people suffering with bewilderment and curiosity.

I couldn’t disagree more. You can’t teach it—you just can’t. The normal person can’t turn it off. It’s not possible, no matter how hard you try—hence the reason why a lot of people pull the plug on life. You either have empathy or you don’t but if psychiatry admitted it, they’d loose a lot of business, wouldn’t they????