Expression of the Day
What expression is this?
Hint: Its the same one shown in the video I posted a couple of days ago. What is the most notable element of this expression that’s can’t be easily faked? Oblique eyebrows.
Tag Archive for: Uncategorized
Take the Money and Run
I watched ABC’s TV show last night called Take the Money and Run. Have you seen it? (If not, click on the previous link to watch it). It’s an intriguing show where you, the viewer, get front row seats to a high-stake-lie interrogations. With that, I would love to take this opportunity to show you how a “natural” at deception sees an interrogation such as this, because I believe people with my ability can aid and assist professionals in spotting deception–saving police departments time and money as well as improve the time of criminal apprehension.
_______________________________________________________________________________What is a natural, you ask?
A natural is someone who was identified in a University of San Francisco study who can spot deception with exceptional accuracy. Scientists tested more than 15,000 people from the CIA to the FBI to the Secret Service to every day people, and only found 50 people who were exceptional–regardless of background, experience or training. I am one of these people.
_______________________________________________________________________________
While many seasoned investigators hone into clues such as eye gaze direction and aversion, anxiety, stress, and closed off body language, I look for inconsistencies in emotion, words spoken and behavior. That is one reason why I believe naturals have a much higher accuracy rate than most people.
I encourage newcomers to explore my blog because all of the clues I am about to point out in this article can be found throughout my blog in real-life, real-time interviews and interrogations. I have spent six years spotting deception in real-life cases identifying these exact same clues –before the truth was known– that I am about to point out to you here. I have a 97% success rate at identifying deception in real cases.
The two interrogators in this show, Mary Stone and Paul Bishop, both have extensive experience in law enforcement and are highly regarded in their field. They are without a doubt good at what they do — but what they do is different than what I do, and we can compliment each other perfectly. Together, we can nab criminals much faster! Let me demonstrate how.
The premise of the show, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is that two people are given the opportunity to hide a briefcase full of $100,000 in cash in one hour’s time. If they succeed, they keep the money. The suspects have to keep the briefcase handcuffed to their wrist until they drop it–wherever they decide. They are informed that their get away vehicle has GPS on it, and their cell phones calls will be shared with investigators. It’s that simple. Once the hour is up, they are arrested and taken into custody. Then the interrogation begins. The investigators then compete for the money! Can they catch the liars?
In this episode, the two suspects are Jimmy & Zuly Pumariega from the Miami Beach area. And while they think they did exceptionally well, because they ultimately won the $100,000, from my perspective, they leaked clues like a sieve.
I give Jimmy credit, his “Did I scare you tactic” was brilliant. It unnerved the interrogators, but I would never try this in real life. It wouldn’t help you in any way.
I love what Mary said, “If you lose control in an interrogation, even once, you’ll never get it back.” I completely agree. As I say, once a liar sniffs you believe their lies, their stress dissipates to a degree, and stress is what causes clues that to leak–so keeping stress high is important.
Let’s look at the interrogations. You can follow along by watching the episode online (link above).
In the first interrogation shown, Paul Bishop asked Zuly, “All that time through the beach, you had it [the briefcase] tied to you. Did you make any stops?”
Watch as Zuly as she says no.
Notice how she shrugs her shoulders? This is a classic non-verbal communication of “I don’t know” yet Zuly says an affirmative “no”. These two elements — the verbal and non-verbal are in conflict. This is a classic hotspot. This is a strong clue that she has a high probability of deception here.
Also watch how Zuly has to think about it before she answers no, too. She looks up to recollect it…thinking… did I have the briefcase? It’s quick but telling Her look upwards has no significant meaning to me other than the fact she has to THINK before she answers (I do not believe in neuro-linguistic programming).
When we lie, we have think a lot more and a lot harder to answer questions that should come naturally to us and without effort. Thinking before answering is another hotspot that strongly suggests deception.
When Paul asked Zuly about getting off on 119th street, he says, “When you got off at 119th street, did you have the briefcase?”
Zuly smiles here. It’s notable. What would make her smile at this point? It’ a hotspot for me that she could be lying! Why else would she smile?
Paul asks, “How close were you, two minutes away, one minute away [from the drop-off point]?”
Watch Zuly show doubt in her body language again. She says “close” as she shrugs her shoulders! Hotspot! Now we have three solid hotspots in a very short period of time, which is what I require to say, “Deceptive”. Had the interrogators had this information from me at this time, I could have zoned them into that precise area to spend their remaining 45 plus hours. We may have been able to ask tougher questions and get to the briefcase, too.
I am not an interrogator. I am not an investigator. I am a deception expert– that’s all I do. I spot lies. I don’t ask questions. Combining these two adds overload to an investigators job. That’s why as a team, we can make a perfect duo–saving time and money.
Let’s continue to break down this interview.
Paul asks Zuly, “How hard was it to hide the briefcase?”
Zuly responds, “Probably was a little easier than I thought it would be.”
Notice the lack of a smile this time? She doesn’t find this worth smiling over, and answers the question seriously. I believe her. I see no reason to doubt her statement here whatsoever. She uses the word “probably” and that can be a hedge word, but here she is not giving us a definitive answer so there is no conflict. She is speculating that it was “a little” easier than she thought. It’s fair use of the word and an honest response.
When Paul asks Zuly, “Did you have to exert yourself to hide the briefcase?” Zuly tries to suppress a huge smile by pulling her lips down in the corners, but it is clearly undeniable she wants to smile! The suppressed smile indicates the answer is yes and that she is lying, but she wants to hide that, so she works to suppress her smile. It’s another notable hotspot. So now we would know that she did exert herself–the briefcase is likely not beside the road.
You’ll also notice as she talks that she shakes her head ambiguously. The ambiguity is important because when people say no honestly, they shake their head no in support. Or they nod their head up and down when they say yes. But when people are deceptive, their body leaks that just as you see here in an ambiguous head swirl. She neither gives a yes or a no head movement. The head shake is another notable hotspot for me.
Zuly also say the word “no” in a faint voice, which shows a serious lack of confidence! The inflection in her voice here is again another hotspot– as is the ambiguity of her head shake, and the smile suppression. Red alarms. We have a lot of information at this point from which to work.
These clues are very reliable if you know how and when to apply them, which is what I teach law enforcement in my training.You must understand when these behaviors have relevance and when they don’t, but once you do, your ability to spot deception will improve. I have no doubt about it.
Next we see Mary Stone interrogate Zuly’s husband, Jimmy.
Mary asks Jimmy if Zuly articulated where the hiding spot is. Jimmy responds, “It was going 100 miles per hour, I just can’t remember.” Listen to the inflection of his voice…it trails off into almost silence, similar to what Zuly did above. Red flag!!! It’s another hotspot showing a lack of confidence/buy-in to his answer. We all know that he remembers–including Mary.
Mary is good at upping the pressure with Jimmy. She says, “You appear to be an honest person. You appear to want to do the right thing.” She also talks about teaching his children to be honest–all emotional elements for Jimmy that ratchet up the pressure. These are brilliant!
When Jimmy is asked what they did after the phone call to their daughter, he says they stopped to get something to drink because they were thirsty. While he shows that he is nervous here, that statement is true and there are no hotspots in his answer.
Also, Jimmy volunteers some great information here! He says they were thirsty. We have no reason to doubt his answer. Why would they be thirsty unless they just exerted themselves at this point? This is a big tip-off the drop off was prior to this.
Mary then asks if they still had the briefcase after getting a drink, and Jimmy gives Mary a huge clue. He says, “Possibly, yes.”
“Possibly” is a huge hedge word. The question requires a yes or no answer — rightfully as Mary calls out, but Mary waited for a conclusive answer here a second time, when she already got one. Possibly says it all. He says Jimmy couldn’t commit to a solid yes. The words possibly leaked out subconsciously, if you ask me, and tells us everything we need to know. Hedge words are powerful.This was a lie.
Also watch how Jimmy looks around, pauses to answer Mary a second time, and then says yes. If Jimmy was honest, he shouldn’t have to think about something this simple.
How many hotspots is that so far? It’s a bucket load at this point.
Right here, I would know that there is an 95% chance that he did not have the briefcase at this point, and from looking at Zuly’s interview, I would be able to hone the investigators in the right direction by using words spoken, emotions and body language.
Naturals look at deception vastly different than most people, and while scientists haven’t answered why that is, one thing is for certain–we can help law enforcement hone into the truth quickly. We can teach them new ways to look at deception to make them more effective. Support Eyes for Lies in communicating this message–share the word.
My training is getting solid 4 and 5 star reviews from the most seasoned law enforcement professionals–even at the federal level. They see I look at the world totally different. Together we can make a difference!
___________________________
Did you enjoy this review? Do you want to see more? If I get enough interest, I will review the rest of the interrogations this week.
Emotion of the Day: Sadness
The Navy Seal’s widow in this video displays true sadness. What elements in her expression tell us this?
Kent Heitholt Murder: Ryan Ferguson or Michael Boyd?
Part 2
I watched Dateline NBC on Friday (Mystery on Halloween Night) and long before Kathleen Zellner identified her person of interest in this case, I noted odd behavior in one person, too. The same person: Michael Boyd. His behavior was unusual. When he talked about the murder of his boss, Kent Heitholt, he grinned away.
Yes, he grinned: True and sincere.
Boyd laughs as he tells us about the night Heitholt was murdered. He tells us he laughed at a stray cat scratching at Kent Heitholt’s tires and laughed as he drove out of the parking lot about that silly cat. He even talks about being called back to the scene where Heitholt’s body laid slain, and he says as he fights a smile (see photos below), “Seeing him lying there, you’re just like…(grin) I don’t know… I’m sorry, um…”
Boyd covers his face as this point. He says, “It’s just…” as he shrugs his shoulder signifying a non-verbal “I don’t know.”
Why is he having such a hard time keeping a smile off his face? This is disturbing to me.
How can anyone think back to the night a murderer came within feet of you, and your boss got murdered, and the memory puts a smile on your face? I just don’t get that. It’s a red flag.
Most people who crossed the path of a murderer would feel negative feelings even when recollecting it years later. And many, though not all, would feel some sadness about their boss being murdered.
Could it be nervous laughter? It could be, but when I see nervous laughter, I often see hugely conflicting emotions because the person doesn’t want to laugh, but they do. In between, however, I typically see more supportive expressions of how a person really feels, which I am not getting from Boyd. Boyd doesn’t even contradict his smile with appropriate words of sadness for his colleague. I don’t see any negative emotions at all.
Heitholt’s murder was a personal attack, if you want my opinion, by someone who knew him. He was beaten over the head many times and strangled. A random stranger is not likely to strangle someone for a watch and car keys. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Heitholt obviously fed the stray cats at night after work as cat kibble was found scattered at the scene, and you have to wonder if someone knew that, and they were waiting for Kent to feed the cats and attacked him– as a big man like Heitholt would not easily be vulnerable to this sort of attack. He was towering in stature. Whoever attacked him took him in a vulnerable state and likely knew where and how to find him vulnerable.
Ironically, Boyd tells us he did wait for Kent that night. Well, one time anyway. Another time he changed his story. Was the waiting story too close for comfort? You sure do wonder.
When Boyd is asked about being the last person to see Heitholt alive, he says, “I didn’t see anybody come through, or uh..eh…you know…that looked suspicious.” Notice how he changed his story mid-sentence? This is called self-censoring. It’s a common hotspot for deceptive people. They change their thoughts mid-sentence as they catch their misleads.
Boyd was also asked if anyone was in the parking lot and he says it was only “me, him and the cat” in that parking lot. As he says it, he smiles again and gives us a deep laugh. Clearly, Boyd is not consistent.
Zellner shares her suspicions of Boyd as well–that Boyd was not getting rave reviews from his boss. Zellner says, “He felt very bitter about the way he was treated, very angry and I think something happened in the parking lot in a split second that triggered a rage.”
From what I see, I tend to agree with Zellner.
Dateline reports that not long after the murder that Boyd moved away and took job at another paper some 170 miles away. I wonder why he left?
Boyd tells us, “A decade later, this still hurts” as he laughs again. What hurts, I wonder. He was never a suspect nor looked at questionably that I know of until Zellner pointed her finger at him, so why is there pain? According to Dateline, he wasn’t close with his boss.
Zellner has identified that Boyd’s account of where he was and what happened that night has changed several times. And all Boyd has to remember is one short brief encounter. How hard could that be?
The first time he told police he ran into Kent while walking through the parking lot. The second story according to Dateline is that he was waiting in his car, listening to music and drove up to talk to Heitholt. Why does Boyd have two different stories? If you are honest, you only have one memory, and you don’t confuse things like this. But this is not the only story Boyd gets confused.
Boyd also had problems recalling what car he drove that night. First he told police it was a red Plymouth. Then he said it was a blue Oldsmobile. Now he says he can’t remember. When asked about it, Boyd says, “I don’t remember driving the blue car that much.”
I believe he knows exactly what car he drove that night and he doesn’t want people to check into that blue car. Clearly, Boyd’s answer leaves you questioning him and ironically, according to Dateline, his blue car has “gone missing”.
Boyd also has trouble remembering who was in the parking lot when he spoke to Heitholt that night. When Dateline asked Boyd who was in the parking lot that night, Boyd says it was just him, Boyd and the cat. That’s what he told the police, too, originally, but once Ryan and Chuck were arrested his story changed–saying he saw two people in the parking lot like the custodial crew reported from day one.
For two years, Boyd didn’t remember that until Ferguson and Erickson’s arrest? Boyd even said that he almost ran into these two people as he left the parking lot (supposedly laughing about the cat scratching the tire). I don’t believe this.
When Boyd was questioned why he didn’t tell the police he saw two people when he was first questioned, he said, “Because they asked me if I saw anybody suspicious…and I…just…they didn’t look suspicious to me.”
Compare that to his earlier statement where he self-censored himself: “I didn’t see anybody come through, or uh..eh…you know…that looked suspicious.”
Eye-opening?
Boyd is asked by Keith Morrison, “Do you feel the need to tell people I’m innocent? I didn’t do it?”
Boyd says, “I would like them to know I didn’t, and Kent’s my friend. And you know, he was a wonderful guy….you know, and…there is no reason for anybody to want to hurt him.”
When he says this, he has a strange look on his face. I’d call it a strained face. Why is he strained when he says these nice things about Heitholt? It is as odd as his smile and laughter when he talks about seeing Heitholt’s slain body in the parking lot. His answer seems like a ramble to me, when I would expect a solid and strong denial about wrong accusations! They are eerily missing.
Boyd says there is no reason for anybody to “want” to hurt Heitholt. I find the word “want” interesting here. Did someone want to kill Heitholt, or did they lose their temper and kill him? These are two totally different motives that could result in murder, and I find it odd that Boyd chooses the word “want”. It’s highly notable. According to his co-workers, Boyd and Heitholt had a contentious relationship.
And last when Dateline talks to Boyd about the arrest of Ferguson and Erickson, Boyd told us he was “relieved” by it, and I believe him when he says it. This was one of the biggest hot spots for me. If he relocated over 170 miles away, why on earth would he be relieved that his bosses killers were finally arrested? Is Boyd someone who worries about the public at large and I am unaware of this? It would be interesting to hear from Boyd’s friends.
I agree with Zellner that he needs to be thoroughly investigated. I don’t trust him. I tend to suspect that Boyd may have waited for Heitholt that night. I think he knew Heitholt liked to feed the cats after work, and he wanted to talk to him about something–something that was obviously upsetting him. If it was just idle chat, why wouldn’t he have done it in the office earlier? Something was on his mind to wait for his boss at 2:00 a.m.
I wonder if we will ever know what that was… It’s time to set Ferguson free!! Ryan Ferguson is a good man who is not deserving of this injustice put upon him so unfairly.
Convicted Murder Speaks: What do his words reveal?
To get up to date on this story, read about it on Wikipedia.
Here is an interesting video where you can hear a convicted killer, Bradley Murdoch, talk about the crime he is convicted of. He claims innocence, yet his words are very telling.
Listen to Murdoch speak. He says, “…a lot of my close immediate friends know that I sort of didn’t do it.”
He sort of didn’t do it?
How is that possible?
He either did it or he didn’t, but when people use hedge words like “sort of” in the middle of a definitive statement, it is a clue that they are subconsciously hedging. They can’t quite commit to say something that is not true, and hence the clue leaks out without their knowledge. Our brain is interesting this way, isn’t it?
Murdoch also talks about the surviving victim, Johanne Lees, in an attempt to discredit her. He says, “There’s things, um, that she sort of totally got wrong.”
Hmmm…He could say there are things that she totally got wrong, but why add sort of? It shows a lack of conviction in his own statement again!
Please note that I believe to call someone dishonest, you need at least three solid clues. The use of hedge words would be one clue.
There are many clues to deception including emotional clues and leakages in the form of micro expressions, factual leakage or inconsistencies, behavioral clues, and cognitive clues.
