Tag Archive for: Rachael Mullenix

A Word of Caution

What is so fascinating about the Bruce Mullenix in the video is his body language when he speaks. After Erin Moriarty says Bruce had a “rock solid alibi” the night of the murder, if you only watched Bruce’s body language and tried to discern if he was honest or not here, you would likely conclude Bruce was being deceptive. He shakes his head no when he says yes, and he shrugs his shoulders when he says “Yeah, and I knew that” to Erin Moriarty.

Read moreYet Bruce is NOT lying here. If you thought he was, you’d be clearly mistaken.

The reason I point this out is because there is not one universal clue to deception, and I want people to see this conclusively. Yes, shrugging of the shoulder, or shaking of the head opposite to verbal clues can indicate deception, but when you see it, it doesn’t always mean that someone is being deceptive.

We know that what Bruce is saying here is the truth. The police made him a suspect, their number one suspect at the time, and cleared him. Bruce Mullenix was also out of town when his ex-wife, Barbara, was murdered. And to back it all up, I believed Bruce when I saw him talk. His behaviors were very consistent with what he was saying to me.

Well, how could that be, you ask?

For me, deception detection is not all about the clues. I can’t stress that enough. For me, when I look at a person, I have an immediate sense of their personality. I don’t know if it is facial features, or expressions, but I can usually tell people many facts about a stranger with stunning accuracy, without ever saying a word to them — by simply looking at them, or a photo of them (see what I call paralleling). With that, I listen to what a person says, to see if it matches their personality type, and their typical, expected behavior. That’s how I come to the conclusion whether someone’s behavior is natural and honest, or deceptive, much of the time. The clues only come as supportive evidence for me.

Dr. Maureen O’Sullivan says it best when she says, “They [wizards otherwise known as naturals] seem to have templates of people that they use to make sense of the behavioural deviations they observe… So it is not a set of disembodied cues, but embedded behaviours that are consistent with each other as well as with the kind of person exhibiting them (source).”

So next time you spot a clue to deception, don’t be quick to call someone a liar by one or two clues alone. The process is a lot more complex than what it appears on the surface. I personally recommend focusing on the facts and looking for inconsistencies, first. That will be much more reliable and trustworthy for the average person. Had we done that in this case as well, Bruce would have been cleared quickly, and focus would have fallen where it should, on Rachael Mullenix and Ian Allen.

Rachael Mullinex and Ian Allen

48 Hours Mystery” profiled the case of Barbara Mullinex this past Saturday night. Barbara ended up dead in the harbor not far from where she lived in Southern California. She was stabbed over 50 times, and found with a butter knife in her eye. Clearly, it was a vicious murder, but the big question was, who did it?

There were three potential suspects: Bruce Mullenix, her ex-husband with whom she currently lived, her 17-year-old daughter Rachael, and Rachael’s fiance, Ian Allen.

Read more“48 Hours” presented the story in a way to keep the mystery going as long as they could, but when you heard about the behavior and lies of Rachael Mullinex, it didn’t take much for the average person to see who was guilty. Allen confessed, and tried to protect Rachael, but Rachael wanted us to believe she was abused by Allen, and that he knocked her out, kidnapped her and she was just a victim in this case.

But when you hear that Allen left Rachael alone at the house for an hour, and she could have easily called 911 to get help, or left the house to escape, her story clearly falls apart. Also, when she was on the run with Allen, she was left alone in the gas station, and could have cried out for help, but she didn’t. Instead, she walks around the gas station, as seen on security video, without a worry. But the worst part was when Rachael text messaged Allen shortly after her mother’s murder, during that hour that he left her alone. She didn’t call for help. Instead, she typed the words “I love you” to Allen. That is what sealed her fate, or should have sealed her fate, for any doubters. It didn’t take Eyes for Lies to see this.

I personally suspect that “48 Hours” did the interviews after Rachael’s conviction, which should be taken into account, because, if this is true, it meant that the “high stakes” of Rachael’s lies dissipated, and many of her clues would have dissipated as well. But even with that, Rachael’s emotions were way off kilter. She was happy and smiling through the entire interview, which was very inconsistent with what she was saying. She smiled until the point where she talked about being convicted. Then her emotions changed, and changed notably. Suddenly that “I’m-innocent-girlish-smile” that she had on her face the entire interview dissipated when she finally felt pain. She tries to tell us the only mistake she made was dating Allen. Give me a break!

Rachael told us how much she loved her mother, but never shed a tear for her. She didn’t even have a hard time talking about her mother being murdered. And when she told us Allen was abusive to her, she had absolutely no emotional connection to that, either. Rachael talks about highly emotional subjects, but never gets emotional. That’s a big tip-off.

I did notice a few spots in the interview with Erin Moriarty where Rachael had a hard time concealing her deceptive ways. She ever-so-slightly indicated two or three times that she felt joy in being deceptive. Her face got a glow about it as she’d recalled a memory (her eyes looked upwards), and she’d grin ever so slightly. It was muted and very, very subtle, but it was there. Rachael also shows an expression of anger at the prosecutor when she talks about the fact that Rachael didn’t call 911. Rachael purses her lips and licks them, very briefly. She is clearly mad, but manages to hide it very well. If Rachael was innocent, or cared about her mother, that memory would have caused her pain. Instead, she is angry because, I suspect, she knew she messed up.

I personally believed that Rachael was crying a true cry of desperation in the police interview at times, specifically when she was told she was going to be arrested for her mother’s murder. She was distraught that she was caught. That devastates Rachael, but of course, I don’t think her cry is consistent throughout that interview. It ebbs and flows from real to fake, depending on what they talk about. At one point, she cries out and then suddenly stops and talks normally (which is very abnormal). It might be an edit in the tape, or bad acting on Rachael’s part. Either way, I do not trust Rachael and I believe the jury got this right. Rachael’s dad is an innocent man.

I don’t disagree with the prosecutor here when she says that she believes Rachael Mullinex is a psychopath.

* * *

FYI: I made comments about last week’s “48 Hours” audio segment of Bob Eckhart in the comment section, if you have interest.

48 Hours: The Lady In The Harbor

Did you see “48 Hours” last night? It was a fascinating mystery. There some good clues. Did you notice them?

I went to 48 Hours website today to see what people were saying about the case, and I see it is a toss up. Some people believe Rachael Mullenix is innocent, others believe she is guilty. One person suspects the father, Bruce, did it.

What do you think? Feel free to share your thoughts below.