Tag Archive for: poll

Hillary Clinton: My Thoughts

With regards to the post below, you may actually be surprised to know how I see Senator Hillary Clinton because my vote would be in the minority. I believe Clinton is being sincere in this video. I do not see her head shake as a sign she disapproves of Barack Obama. I see it as affirmation of her beliefs, her strong and true beliefs.

Think of someone saying “That’s amazing” as they think about the impact of what is before them. Have you ever noticed they often shake their head from left to right instead of up and down as they absorb those thoughts of amazement? It is not because they don’t believe what is before them.

Read moreWe all shake our heads in a variety of directions and we cannot just assume because someone shakes their head left to right, it is a negative sign, or has negative meaning. Reading body language is much more complex.

Notice as Clinton starts her head movements she says, “It’s really, for me, a tremendous opportunity and honor to be part of what I hope will be a great next couple of years for America.”

Can you feel the words “tremendous opportunity and honor”? Her head movement supports what she is saying here. It’s like added oomph, even though I believe she does it subconsciously.

This is a notable trait of Clinton’s and she does this when she truly believes something. This is not the first time she has done it.

When Clinton talks in this video, she is quite introspective which I think throws people. She isn’t performing for a crowd. She isn’t speaking into the camera. She is sharing her thoughts off the top of her head as they come to mind. She is being herself. With that, I think her lack of eye contact confuses people as well.

I do not see one indication that she is being deceptive, dishonest or disingenuous with us.

Can I ask what purpose she would have to disapprove of Barack Obama at this point and time? They both share the same ideologies and while she may believe she was the better candidate, I don’t think she disagrees with the majority of Obama’s beliefs. She should be looking forward to working with her party after eight years of a republican in the white house.

Clinton did this exact head movement before, and I spoke about it here:

What Senator Clinton is doing here is what I would call a head swagger. It’s actually her confidence that is causing this, and it is not what I would call a head shake no when she is saying something affirmative.

When people shake their head no when they say yes (a gesture, I believe), it is a quick, swift movement. It comes from the subconscious, and it is most alway brief. It doesn’t languish on like this does, and furthermore, when conscious thoughts kick in, the person usually stops the “no” movement abruptly and switch to a “yes” motion. You can see the thoughts “kick-in” to conscious awareness. It quite fast, and fascinating to witness.

You may find it helpful to watch the video in full-size.

The Hillary Clinton Head Swagger

One reader asked me about this today, and I shared with her my thoughts. Now its your turn, what do you think of this:

See what my thoughts are here.

Who are you voting for?

It’s an easy question, or so one would think. But I am curious, unless you live in Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii or Maryland, you may not know who you are actually voting for. Think I am kidding? I am not.

These four states have decided to change their electoral votes to the popular vote in what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but in every other state, you are not voting for John McCain or Barack Obama like you think you are. You are voting for your electoral college representative, who will decide who he thinks should be president for you.

Some states don’t even put the electoral college representatives names on the ballot. Instead they just list the candidates for you to vote for, but that doesn’t mean they will pledge their vote to that candidate. Electoral college representatives have the right to change their mind or to vote against their party.

So how much power does your vote have?

That’s the question.

When you look around online, watch local news or otherwise try to find actual electoral college representatives, they are not easy to find, yet these are the people representing you. How much do you know about your representatives?

I can take an educated guess: not much.

How democratic is that?


Dr. Timothy Stryker

This weekend 48 Hours profiled the story of Dr. Linda Goudey, and Dr. Timothy Stryker. The two doctors dated in the early ’90s, but in October of 1993, Goudey ended up dead in the hospital parking lot found in wrapped in a blanket, face down in the backseat of her car. The cause of death: manual strangulation.

Read moreCriminally, no one to date has been held accountable for Goudey’s homicide, but that didn’t stop Goudey’s family from going after Stryker in a wrongful death civil lawsuit. They believed Styker was responsible for their daughter’s death. In June of 2006, a jury found Stryker responsible for Goudey’s death civilly, and awarded her family 15.1 million dollars.

I think most people will see through Dr. Timothy Stryker’s facade simply because Stryker attempted to clear his involvement by getting a man by the name of Craig Pizzano to come forward to share “new” information in the case — more than a decade after the crime.

On the night Goudey disappeared, Pizzano says he saw Goudey and another man in her Saab in the hosptial parking lot, and that other man looked nothing like Stryker. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to dissect the insanity of the story Stryker and Pizzano told, and the police thankfully uncovered the lie.

First, if Pizzano was genuine, why would he ever call Styker? Why would he bother looking up a man he doesn’t know to tell him he saw Dr. Goudey with another man? Wouldn’t most people just call the police directly? It’s much easier, quicker and safe to do.

Second, the timing of Pizzano’s claim is ridiculous. After more than a decade, this man decides to come forward, a man who was just a passerby? Oops, he remembers something now, all of the sudden, something totally irrelevant to his life a decade later? It’s ridiculous.

Pizzano in another amazing feat also recalled how tall the guy was and even what his approximate weight was even though this unknown guy was sitting in a car at night in the dark. Isn’t that just over-the-top? And Pizzano says he looked nothing like Stryker to boot. How convenient.

Also, how many people would think the car sitting next to you in the middle of the night with occupants would likely have a condom, motivating you to get out in the dark and knock on a stranger’s car window to ask for one? Anyone? It’s laughingly hilarious, and an obvious lie just by looking the story alone.

But even knowing that, I think Styker gives us many classic clues that do not support honesty.

  1. Styker’s speech is very notable to me. He talks in a higher pitch (or tone?) than normal. It’s slight but instantly notable. I call it the “nice guy facade”. He talks more gentle, more soft and airy, more sweet and innocent than what I suspect his natural voice is. And sure enough, 48 Hours shows clips of Stryker talking to a patient and/or a nurse, and you can hear the difference immediately. The rate of his speech also changes when he is talking to people at the hospital. Why does he feel he has to put on an act on 48 Hours, if he is innocent?
  2. When Stryker spoke in this abnormal way, I also kept getting flashes of Hans Reiser in my head. Reiser used the same approach with his voice. These highly intelligent men seemed to be arrogant enough to think they can fool us by falsifying a sweet, gentle demeanor. It then hit me that both Reiser and Stryker were very successful men who courted very successful women –women who were both well regarded OB-GYNs. You can’t help but notice the irony of it. Were both men feeling out-of-control that they couldn’t keep these highly-driven women in their lives?
  3. Stryker lacks genuine emotion much like Reiser did, too. They show us fake smiles, but nothing genuine in sadness, anger or joy. It’s strangely missing.

    You have to plug into this equation that Stryker is a practicing doctor who has been considered a suspect to a murder for 15 years. He also has a judgment against him for 15 million dollars. For any innocent person, this would cause incredible anger and feelings of injustice if they are innocent, yet we see none of this with Stryker. It’s very notable. Instead we see Mr. Nice Guy. I’m not buying it.

  4. Also, we don’t see any genuine feelings of sadness or concern for what happened to Dr. Goudey. Instead, he tells us how he called her a “pea brain”. Yes, Mr. Sweet and Innocent, the gentleman, called her a pea brain. Do you see the inconsistency? It further supports that Goudey’s friend, Lisa Zolot, who called Stryker controlling, rigid, and self-centered was honest, and Stryker is not. This further supports the facade theory.
  5. When Stykers current wife of 14 years, Micael, spoke in his defense and said he he was not abusive or violent, I did not believe her. She was in denial, if you ask me. She also gives a notable shrug of doubt with her lips just after she finishes her claim of Stryker’s character. Try to say something you fervently believe and make a doubt expression (curl your lip down and out). It’s very hard if not impossible to do.

    Notice in court, too, that she cries really hard when the judgment comes down civilly. If your husband was innocent, would you sob in sadness, or be outraged and angry?

  6. I also found Stryker’s sister Jean’s story unusual as well when she said her mother told Stryker to go on vacation because he was being harrassed. Stryker missed Goudey memorial service. What mother would advise her son to do that? What man who loved his girlfriend would do that? I’ve italicized the words that are flags for me in what Jean said below.

    “He did mainly because my mother told him to. Yeah, my mother told him to go on vacation because he was talking with her, you know, about all of the harassment he was getting. She’s like, ‘Tim, you need to just go on this vacation.’ ‘Cause I thought it was not such a great idea.”

    I always find it interesting when people answer their own question like Jean did here, “Yeah, my mother told him to go…” Was she trying to convince herself, or us?

    I suspect Jean didn’t think it was a great idea, but I don’t believe it had anything to do with Stryker’s mother.

Unfortunately, 48 Hours wouldn’t let me rewind segments, and note the online segment time markers so I could give them to you. That is a total bummer. I hope they change that in the future.

4 Year Blog Anniversary

Today marks the 4th year that “Eyes for Lies” has been blogging and bringing you the truth before it was known. It’s been another successful and rewarding year.

The one case that is questionable in my four years of blogging and that one could suggest affects my perfect track record would be the JonBenet Ramsey case. It all depends on how you feel.

John Ramsey was cleared by District Attorney Mary Lacy, but her move was quite controversial.

I’d be honored if you, my readers, would share your thoughts about my blog, your interest in it, how long you’ve been reading it, and what you think about my track record. Anonymous comments are allowed.

Thanks for all your commitment and interest in my blog. May we have another successful and rewarding year! May the truth prevail!