Tag Archive for: Negative Person

Jessie Davis/Bobby Cutts, Jr.

/in , /by

The Canton Repository did an audio interview with Bobby Cutts, Jr. on June 19th. I have been curiously looking for video footage of Bobby Cutts, Jr. talking about the disappearance of his girlfriend, but I guess I am not going to get it. I would have loved to see his facial expressions when he talked to the Canton Rep, Todd Porter, the other day. Instead, I will have to settle for audio only.

I have listened to his audio-taped interview — and while I CANNOT draw the same conclusions I do when I watch someone, I can see if things are making sense, and are logical — and at this point, I must say my eyebrows are raised.

Todd Porter interviewed Cutts for a reasonable amount of time — at least 10 minutes from what I can tell — and what amazed me the most during that entire time is all he did was talk about himself. He didn’t once talk about Jessie or the baby. Cutts gives me a real strong feeling that he thinks he is the “victim” here by his choice of words. He even goes so far as to say the word “betrayed”. That really perplexes me.

Who does he feel is betraying him? Why is this all about him?

If I interviewed him, I’d have to find this out. Many spouses, boyfriends, and lovers are closely examined in a missing persons case — but when they are innocent — they don’t act like victims. They usually go public and state their innocence, and try to keep focus on finding their loved ones. They want to do all they can to help get their loved one back. We aren’t seeing this behavior in any vein from Cutts. Why?

Does he feel the police station where he worked is betraying him? Could that be why he feels betrayed?

TODD PORTER: Uh, how have uh, your co-workers and colleagues and, and supervisors at the Canton Police Department been throughout this process?

CUTTS: They’ve been very supportive. They told me they had my back in anything I need.

So, why is Cutts playing the victim? Why would he feel like a victim? He even said they weren’t calling him a suspect in the media.

TODD PORTER: Have the, have any authorities told you that you’ve been cleared in this, in this investigation?

BOBBY: No they, they, they have not told me that I have been cleared but as like I said, on the media, I mean they said to the media that I, me nor my wife are suspects but uh, I don’t feel that we’ve actually been treated as that was 100 percent true.

He isn’t giving us any strong indication that he is upset about this, or is he holding back his true feelings? If people are suggesting you might be a suspect, and you are innocent — what would you do? Would you say what Cutts is saying, or would you defend your innocence? Would you be clear and precise, or beat-around-the-bush?

The next statement below is the first statement within the interview that I heard, and it immediately caught my attention. You can tell he is clearly thinking as he is talking. He is not letting the words flow naturally.

TODD PORTER:
Bobby, what have the last five days been like for you?

(Do I hear laughter here? — or is this some object moving in the background? I can’t tell. If it is laughter, that is a big concern!)

CUTTS:
“The past five …five days.. have been a like nightmare that that …won’t end, like…every…every second of it , I mean when it seems like it’s turning… and gonna change… it goes back to same, or it gets worse … its different…the way I’ve been…. betrayed and just, I mean I haven’t been myself. I…I can’t sleep. I can’t eat. Anybody that knows me knows me that if I’m normal joking around and laughing…trying to have fun and make everyone else laugh and…it’s juss….just been hell.”

This statement perplexes me as well. It isn’t very coherent, it rambles on and on — and then I am perplexed by what it all means. When Cutts says “…every second of it , I mean when it seems like it’s turning… and gonna change… it goes back to same, or it gets worse … its different…“. What is Cutts referring to?

What’s been “turning”? What gives him the impression “it” (whatever it is) is going to change? He continues “…and it goes back to being the same, or it gets worse.”

What has gotten worse? From the media, we haven’t received any clues that there is any new evidence with regards to the police finding Davis. There have been no false hopes, no false leads, etc. This statement is perplexing. What has gone back to the same? What is he talking about here?

I have to wonder is Cutts referring to being looked at as a suspect. Is that his nightmare? Or is his nightmare that his girlfriend disappeared?

If your girlfriend disappeared with your unborn child — which of the two would be a priority for you — nurturing your feeling-like-a-victim, or fighting for her safe return? This is a man who says he can’t eat or sleep, but ironically he does have it within him to do an interview to talk about himself. He can do that — but he can’t muster anything for Jessie? Who is Cutts concerned about?

I found the next two statements odd too. Why does Bobby have to be prompted to talk about the unborn child he is expecting? Isn’t this all about Davis and her unborn child in the first place?

TODD PORTER: Um, just for the record and to clear this up, how many children do you have? Um…

CUTTS: Cur- currently I have three children.

TODD PORTER: And expecting a fourth with Jessie, correct?

CUTTS: Possibly, yes.

I found the words “currently” and “possibly” odd as well.

Last, wasn’t Bobby Cutts supposed to pick up or drop off his son on Thursday? Why then was the child still home alone on Friday? I find it odd if he was close to his girlfriend that he wasn’t the one to figure out she was missing.

These are just a handful of things that I see that are odd. At this point, I think all eyes should remain on Cutts as a suspect. My eyebrows are most certainly raised by his behavior. If any video comes out — please let me know.
____________

To see more that I have written on Davis/Cutts, click on the Label below.

Stern Video Review

/in , /by

There is a new interview with Larry Birkhead out today on MSNBC where Birkhead talks about Dannielynn. Click here to see it.

I think the video is worth watching because Larry Birkhead shows deep and true emotions. He is being honest in this entire video and he deeply, honestly and truly believes Dannielynn is his baby. You can trust everything Birkhead says in this video as it truly represents what Birkhead believes to be true. If you want me to pinpoint why, ask me and I’ll point it out.

Back on October 4, 2006, I believed Birkhead when most people thought he was just out for money and Howard Stern was the father. Now, thankfully, people are seeing through Howard Stern.

While I cannot be 100% because affairs to happen, I still stand behind what I said on October 4th that it is a 90% that Birkhead is the father and 10% that Stern (or another suitor) is the father.

Here is the video of Howard Stern when he says he is the father of Dannielynn on the Larry King Live show. I’ll explain why I don’t believe Stern:

King: Why has Anna Nicole been so secretive about who the real father of her new daughter is?

Stern: Well, um, (sigh/awkward swallow/frustrated face).… I’m going to tell you that right now. Uh, Anna and I have um…been in a relationship and we love each other and its been going on for a very long time and ah…because of my uh…relationship as her lawyer..uh…we felt that it was best to… keep everything uh…hidden. And we’ve actually done a pretty good job of that (awkward swallow).

King: You sure have. So, you are the father?

Stern: Yes, sir. (Awkward swallow again! Notice the lack of conviction in his response and in his head shake?)

King: Have there been any DNA tests taken…?

Stern: Proud father. (Awkward swallow again!)

King: Were DNA tests taken?

Stern: Well based on…based on the timing of a… when the baby was born, ah, there really is no doubt in either of our minds (Awkward swallow again. Notice Stern avoids answering the question directly).

King: Did Daniel know you were the father?

Stern: He did. He did.

Here are the red flags:

  1. Before Stern even starts talking to King, notice how he swallows awkwardly. Sometimes when people lie, they salivate more than usual and I don’t know why. Not all people do this – just some. When they salivate more — they are forced to swallow more — and in this interview, we clearly see Stern swallowing awkwardly — repeatedly. He does it over and over again — which is unusual. Once, we can over look it. Twice, we can let it go. Repeatedly, it becomes questionable. Why is he salivating so much? This become a red flag.
  2. Furthermore, before Stern answers the first question and after he says “well, um” notice the frustrated face he makes. He is frustrated because I believe he doesn’t have an answer in his head – and he has to come up with one. If you are answering honestly, why would you be frustrated?? Another red flag.
  3. Stern’s tone of voice is without emotion of any kind. Why? It’s monotone, abnormally so. He talks drone-like. Is he trying to conceal his true emotions? Wouldn’t he be happy if he truly were the father? Wouldn’t we see proud moments in his eyes like we see in Birkhead’s interview?
  4. Stern gives clues that he is thinking up his answers as he goes. He wasn’t prepared for the questions.
    • He pauses frequently and at odd times.
    • He struggles for words and hence uses lots of “um and ah’s”.
    • He doesn’t answer the question(s) right off the bat or directly when the answer requires more than a yes or a no– which he likely would if he were honest.
      • When King asks Stern why Anna has been so secretive about who the father is — if he were honest, I believe he would have said something much more simple like “Because I was her attorney. We felt it was a conflict of interest.” Instead, Stern rambles on and on — as I suspect he was trying to come up with a reply instead of answering truthfully.

Please don’t assume because you see these mannerisms in someone– that they are lying. There is much more to this than meets the eye! I take into consideration many, many more things then I write about. These are only the surface clues.

New Life Church

/in /by

Tom Brokaw did a special on Friday night called “In God They Trust“. It was all about the new religious movement in the United States—and the New Life Church.

Ted Haggard is pastor of a New Life church in Colorado Springs, and furthermore, he is the President of the National Association of Evangelicals. According to Mr. Haggard, he even talks to the White House daily.

Ted Haggard has one of the most insincere, fake smiles I have ever seen. It is constantly plastered on his face.

A fake smile reeks of someone who is insincere and dishonest.

Detecting Lies: Three Categories

/in , , , /by
Here is some mad science from my head!

I’ve realized that when I am reading someone as to whether or not they are telling the truth, I quickly categorize them into one of three categories within seconds:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

Positive people are those who immediately convince me they are trustworthy. It’s because their expressions are so genuine, or their actions, words or overall demeanor are very sincere. There is instantly no doubt about it: they are telling the truth. You just know they are being honest.

Most often, I don’t even have to listen to what positive people are saying, because their facial expressions are a dead giveaway: They are overflowing with emotion. It’s the sincere overflow of emotions that lead me to this conclusion.
Tom Cruise, with regard to the Katie Holmes engagement, is one person right now that comes to mind who is overflowing with genuine emotion. You can just watch his facial expressions and know that he is telling the truth, without even listening to what he has to say. Try lying and making those facial expressions with his enthusiasm: You can’t do it, no matter how hard you try.

The opposite of positive is, of course, negative. Negative people do things that instantly tell me they are lying. From telling stories that don’t make sense, to awkward speech patterns, to inappropriate facial expressions that contradict their story, to endless stuttering. They give instant clues that they are being deceptive. Most often, though not always, it is the emotions on their face that tell their story first.
The next type of person is a neutral person. These people are hardest to read, because these people don’t express a lot of emotion. Neutral people tend to lack genuine enthusiasm, and most often come across as someone who is not excitable. They usually come across as mundane and monotone.
While the majority of people who fall into the neutral category are suspicious, it does not mean that they are lying. And that is where it gets tricky. Some people just lack normal expressive emotions and instead are subdued, even when they are telling the truth.
When I realize I have categorized someone in the neutral category, I really have to focus to get to the truth, and it doesn’t always come quickly like it does with positive and negative people—it takes minutes rather than seconds (or even longer!). Listening to their story becomes imperative. With a rare few, sometimes I am not able to discern the truth, and I have to give it up until more information presents itself.

Neutral people who are liars are usually psychopaths.

What makes it even more tricky is that some psychopaths who are lying give off emotional indications that are supportive to their story, even though they are lying. You have to see this in action to understand it. They even make facial expressions that are consistent with what they are saying. It’s twisted and hard to explain until you can experience it.

What usually gives away that a neutral person or a pathological person is lying is that the actual events of their situation aren’t logical. These people stretch the truth, play on the “what-ifs” and the could-be-possible-odds too many times for reality to be present. When you add up all the usual bits to their story, the odds become one-in-a-million, or statistically very, very unlikely. That, combined with other subtle hints, all add up to give away a neutral or pathological liar.

Also, it is common for liars to dull their emotional responses and try to play neutral, but these liars are actually not true neutrals. I’ll call them false neutrals. These people leak information differently than classic neutral liars: They flicker emotions and microexpressions, whereas the true neutral liar likely will not. One suspect that comes to mind who acts like this right now is Joran van der Sloot. Of course, I am not accusing him of lying. However, I just think his behavior is very suspicious.

A false neutral liar’s speech may become unnaturally slow as if someone taped them and played it back in slow motion. It’s rather odd, because when they speak the truth, their speech rate increases to normal or above, but when they lie, they suddenly slow their speech way down, or vice-versa. Again, a true neutral liar will not do this. He will be the same throughout the interview. He will not change or vary at all. He is highly controlled in his all of his responses, or flat out lacks emotions, which is notable.

Sadly, most people want to give others the benefit of the doubt, and that is how these neutral masters of deception get away with lying so frequently. That’s how pathological people kill successfully! That is how serial killers get away with their crimes for so long. People don’t add up the odds—they don’t put the intricate piece of the puzzle together.

Neutral people who are lying are usually pathological liars, though not all pathological liars are neutral.