 So what do you got? Today, we're going to analyze the body language of Wendy Adelston on the stand. Greg, won't you tell us about the videos you're going to watch? Yeah, so this is going to be an interesting win for us, because number one, she is not on trial. She is there in testimony in her brother's conspiracy to commit murder trial. The story is, and all those of you who watch this are going to know the story much better than we do, but the story is her ex-husband was killed by someone who was paid to kill him and her brother and I believe her brother's ex-girlfriend are charged with conspiracy. Hopefully I got all those facts right, but Wendy Adelston is on the stand and being asked questions that lead up to a lot of things that are right up against is she involved, including she'll outright get asked, is she involved, but she has immunity of a sort that protects her for anything she says on the stand during this testimony. This is a good one. So remember, while we're talking about this, we have, these are just our opinions. These aren't facts. This is just what we think from what we're looking at in these specific videos. We don't know the backstory on this. We hardly ever know the backstory on whatever case we're talking about because we're not the, what is it? You always say Chase, we're not the what panel? What is it panel? Yeah, we're not the forensics panel, we're the behavior panel. So it's not just body language, it's behavior overall. All right, here we go. I wanna talk a little bit about Jeff Lacoste. You first met Mr. Lacoste in the fall of 2013? Yes. It was casual at first? It was. You were dating other people as well? It was. It got more serious around March of 2014? That's right. He was in, fair to say he was in love with you? I don't really remember. I don't think I could say, but it was more serious. Okay. You weren't so sure about him, is that fair to say? I think my feelings developed over time. And then they undeveloped? And then they undeveloped. You were very different people from very different backgrounds, right? Yeah. He didn't spend much time with your parents, right? I think maybe he met them once. He wanted to meet them more than once, right? He didn't like that, he didn't get to see them more times. I think he wanted to be more integrated into my life. Jeff Lacoste met Charlie Adelson one time in March of 2014, right? That's right. He accompanied you on a trip with law students, right? I used to run an alternative spring break and he came with me. And you decided to visit, come down to South Florida for a day or two, right? That's right. And you had dinner at a place called Yardbird, right? That's right. Are you aware that that happened on March 11th, 2014? No, I don't remember the date, just that it was during the spring break. Fair enough. You remember sitting outside on the patio? I do. And it was you and Mr. Lacoste and Charlie and a woman named Catherine Magbanawa. Do you recall that? That's right. Who was Charlie's girlfriend at the time? Yes. Are you aware that Sigfredo Garcia was watching you at that dinner? No. Are you aware that he was contemplating running your brother over with his car at that dinner? No. After dinner, you and Jeff Lacoste stayed at Charlie's house, right? We did. Miss Magbanawa wasn't there, right? I don't remember her being there. It was just the three of you. I think so. And you left the next morning? We did. All right, Greg, what do you got? So this is going to be a good one. Remember, she's not on trial. So what we're looking at is baseline. We're looking for body language deviations. What we do is we look for a baseline and how a person's responding and we look for a change. And that's how we know something's going on their head. Doesn't mean we know they're guilty or innocent because we're not mind readers. We are reviewing behavior. But this is a good example of her upfront when she is in baseline and thinks something's amusing. I would guess, this is my guess, my opinion, but she has prepared this part of the testimony. She's ready for what kind of questions might come as a result of that. She knows what's coming up. And so she's more relaxed. She's smiling and the movement. It almost feels like there's some inside joke with the attorney about when she's talking about what was it disenchanted or disconnected, something in those words. You can see she shows some amusement. And then when we get to this issue around where there is her brother and she's at dinner with him and his co-conspirator, you see an increase in blink rate and that spikes pretty good. Now, if you were watching us all the time, you know that blink rate doesn't indicate deception. It indicates stress. It indicates the autonomic nervous system is taking over and trying to say, hey, something's up. That is identifying fight or flight. And if you like and subscribe, you'll get a lot of those lessons from us as we go through this. This attorney is painting a picture with questions and she's likely some kind of prepared so she can say yes or no and make that picture. Mark, what do you get? Yeah, look, really calm, isn't it? Head tilted to one side, listening position there. So it could well be prepared, could have well have decided to be that soft, calm listener throughout this, not a bad character to have during this. I mean, it seems like she's under very little pressure. And if nothing in this really counts against her, then it could feel a very positive place to be. So head tilt, that's interesting. A lot of vocal clicks in there which often if it was the out of baseline, I'd be going, there's a lot of stress happening here, but it's pretty much baseline for her. So anyway, maybe underlying all of this, there may be more stress than I might think because she has a lot of good control of her upper body there, her hands, her face, her head, a lot of control there. Even to the extent where there seems to be no big reaction to her brother being the target for murder and the group being covertly watched. Greg, you picked up on the eye blinking, blink rate going up over that, but that's not a very grand expression of it. So really seems to me like very calm, very controlled, even when some of the situations are a bit bizarre being talked about here, very little reaction to it. Media plays a huge role in shaping the conversation of the cases we discuss. And that's why it's important to look at the larger context, not just the narrative you're being told. And Ground News is a really amazing tool to do just that. Their website and app combines news sources from around the world and gives you context about the source of the information. You can compare coverage and read entire articles all in one place. It's a real time study in how the media can manipulate at a really deep level. Now Chase is in the process of writing a book on this very topic because he believes it's a critical issue. And this is one of the most practical solutions he's seen. When you start using Ground News, you can actually keep track of your reading habits on their My News Buyers dashboard to make sure you're getting a balanced view. That feature is only available through their Vantage Plan which you can get 30% off using our link, ground.news.com forward slash tbp. It's a tool that delivers context and transparency, making it invaluable in today's media landscape. I've personally found Ground News to be a game changer. The link is in the description. Chase, what do you got on this one? Yeah, I think this really shows the issue with I think attorneys being told to ask a lot of closed-ended questions. And there needs to be a mix. Whether you want somebody to look good on the stand or bad, you have to mix up closed and open-ended questions. Ideally, open-ended questions that involve anything negative to expand and illustrate negative issues and closed-ended questions on anything that potentially makes somebody look compliant or open or positive depending on what side you're on. But there's also a downfall of just open-ended questions. You can't get to facts if somebody's unwilling to answer unless you get down to them. So there needs to be a good mix there. And Greg and Mark, you both talked about shutter, I'm sorry, eye blink rate, which is how often we blink. We blink more often when we're stressed out. But one thing to note here is her shutter speed. And this is the speed that the eyelid closes and then opens back up. Hers is very slow. So I want you to pay attention to this as we go through a couple of these videos. And I have a feeling it's about to change pretty dramatically very soon. And the shutter speed is typically an increase in fear or stress because we're minimizing the time that our eyes are closed so we can pay attention to what's going on around us. Keep in mind this is a subconscious thing. It happens below our awareness. And people with slow shutter speeds will be at a disadvantage if you have a naturally low shutter speed because it's so easy to spot because we're looking at people's eyes most of the time that we're talking to them. And just right there at the, are you aware he was contemplating running him over with his car at that dinner? There's just rapid increase in how often she's blinking. Her 22 per minute to 71 per minute. So that's a huge increase. There's also an immediate increase in the shutter speed there. So we're starting to see that this increase in shutter speed and blink rate do mean something. And along with that there's this pronounced swallow, the largest inhale she's taken so far following this question. And it's interesting she and the attorney are shaking their head no together at the same time. And she copies his movements here almost identically. When I first clicked on this this morning I knew nothing about the case. I thought this was opposing counsel the first time I saw this. That's how, that's the job I think the attorney should be doing to maybe show her in a better light here. I thought this was the prosecution. I did not think this was on her side at all because of all these closed-ended questions. Scott, what do you got? I'm with you, I thought that as well. When I first saw this, I was like, what the questions start or what started changing my mind about what's happening and of course her behavior did as well. Because this is her lawyer, so she's relaxed and she doesn't have to think about what she's saying because she knows what the questions are gonna be and I'm sure she's rehearsing questions. We help people do that. So we know how that works and that's what we're seeing there. Her blink rate's fairly normal like you guys were talking about and her answers are solid with really no big signs of stress. And by that I mean her cadence is stable the speed she talks, the words are still staying at the same distance apart as she keeps talking. She's not loping, loping is where I just talk and everything's flowing very well but she's remembering the idea of what she said as she delivers it but there's not a lot of inner dialogue going on up there but she's very calm. Her tone is fairly smooth and her volume is stable as well. So I don't think she's very stressed here at the top. Even though this isn't the very beginning of the questioning it's as we enter this wherever it is in the questioning I think she's fairly calm here. She's asked if she knows Garcy was watching her at dinner and everything changes there. The attorney doesn't ask, were you aware? He asks, are you aware of that? And if you think for one second there's not anybody in that courtroom that understands that that's her attorney because they've been there the whole time. We had just gotten into it to see what was happening as we looked at him. Her brothers. Yeah, oh yeah, her brother's attorney. It's her brother's attorney, yeah. And I say her attorney because she's on his side it would be my, I would think that in this situation. So I- It's such a weird one, I'm not sure. Yeah, yeah, it's kind of odd but if you don't understand that if you don't see this after a little while then I don't think you're tactically savvy when it comes to what's going on in court room. And I think everybody can fairly see, can tell fairly easily what's going on after just a few minutes of that. And before answering, she makes this confused semi-surprise look. She gets on her face, it happens really quickly and she answers no quietly. And her blink rate at that point like you guys were talking about again is it just sky rockets. It doesn't last that long, but it does go up. She has, it's almost fluttering as she goes through. Almost have eyelid flutter. And then she gets really still and she takes a deep breath. And from a body language perspective, I think every panelist has watched this that's been watching us for a while. From the top, this can see right there that something's up. Cause that's when she starts with the inner dialogue and watching what she says. Not that she hasn't rehearsed what she's gonna say, not she doesn't know the angle she's gonna come from. But I think her wording is what she's trying to get straight. I wanna talk a little bit about Jeff Lacoste. You first met Mr. Lacoste in the fall of 2013? Yes. It was casual at first? It was. You were dating other people as well? It was. It got more serious around March of 2014? That's right. Fair to say he was in love with you? I don't really remember. I don't think I could say it, but it was more serious. Okay. You weren't so sure about him, is that fair to say? I think my feelings developed over time. And then they undeveloped? And then they undeveloped. You were very different people from very different backgrounds, right? Yeah. He didn't spend much time with your parents, right? I think maybe he met them once. He wanted to meet them more than once, right? He didn't like them. He didn't get to see them more times. I think he wanted to be more integrated into my life. Jeff Lacoste met Charlie Adelson one time in March of 2014, right? That's right. He accompanied you on a triple with law students, right? I used to run an alternative spring break and he came with me. And you decided to come down to South Florida for a day or two, right? That's right. And you had dinner at a place called Yardbird, right? That's right. Are you aware that that happened on March 11th, 2014? No, I don't remember the date, just that it was during the spring break. Fair enough. You remember sitting outside on the patio? I do. And it was you and Mr. Lacoste and Charlie and a woman named Catherine McBannawa. Do you recall that? That's right. Who was Charlie's girlfriend at the time? Yes. Are you aware that Sigfredo Garcia was watching you at that dinner? No. Are you aware that he was contemplating running your brother over with his car at that dinner? No. After dinner, you and Jeff Lacoste stayed at Charlie's house, right? We did. Miss McBannawa wasn't there, right? I don't remember her being there. It was just the three of you? I think so. And you left the next morning? We did. She makes us the five groom. Do you recall on the left-hand corner of the invitation, it says, help the bride and groom stock the bar for their wedding and bring a bottle of bullet bourbon? Do you recall that? Yes. You can put that aside. Now, you decided to go to ABC Liquors on Bed and Road to look for the bourbon, right? I did. Okay. You're not a big drinker, is that fair to say? That is fair to say. You went to that store because you were familiar with it? I'd seen it close to my house, so. Close to your old house? Close to my old house. There could have been liquor stores that were closer to your current house? Sure. Now, when you drove to ABC Liquor, you tried to go through Trescott. Is that fair to say? It was blocked. There are other ways to go to ABC Liquor, right? You could have gone down other roads. I don't have the best sense of direction, so when I find a route, I just kind of keep using that route. I don't look for something else. Okay. You got to Mosaic at around 1 p.m. That sounds right. And your lunch was interrupted by investigator Isam who told you that something had happened? That's right. You went with him voluntarily? I did. To speak with him? You let police search your car? Yes. You were interviewed with the investigator from approximately 2.45 p.m. until 7.50 p.m.? Yes. He told you that your ex-husband had been shot and was unlikely to survive, right? You were in shock. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so contempt and an alternative opinion happens within seconds of each other. You get part of the mouth go up one side and then the other part, I don't think I can even do it. Another part of the mouth goes up on the two asymmetrical gestures. That's what happens. You could have taken other roads. So it's around that. You could have taken other roads. The question here is, why did you go in that direction? I think, Greg, because as you were telling me, she ends up taking some roads which take her past the scene of a crime, the crime. And so there's a little bit of contempt around that and a differing opinion as to why that would be. Now, in her favor, I would say, it's fair to say, I mean, her angle there is, look, I always kind of took this route. And so though I'm going over there, I'm taking the route that I knew. And the route that you know tends to trump common sense every time. So it is actually quite reasonable, I would say, from a kind of a grand behavioral point of view that people will do behaviors that aren't quite economical for the situation, for the sake of just staying with the pattern that they've already always had. And that seems to be the case here. Again, very stable, very calm, especially around the questioning. And strangely enough, strangely calm around the critical condition of her ex-husband seemed to be very little big effect of that. And given the control that she has of her body, I would expect when things are going, when stories are going a little more extreme, I might expect that her body might react to that in a bigger way, but I don't see that, though we have seen some good changes within blink rate. I'd be interested to see what other people picked up, which isn't in that grand expressive realm. Greg, what have you got on this one? So let's talk about why her blink rate goes up. We don't know. What we know is something triggers a response in her. We see that blink rate go up when they're talking about why she went down this convoluted path. Mark, I agree with you. This is what the organism does, what may the organism successful means. We get up in the morning, we brush our teeth the same way, we go to bed the same way. All those things we get into routines around, we're not likely to change those simply for a one-off, just because it's easier. Our brain likes continuity and patterns. It's just how we function. Chase, we're just talking about the two of us are probably more than anybody else designed around that. I guarantee you, if you look at Chase's shoes, if he laced them, then the laces go in a certain order over each other, because that's the way the military told us to do it. We're wired that way. The side of your belt that goes in is always the same. It's just the way we're wired. And you were in military school, so guaranteed it's there. Anybody who does something out of the norm every time is wasting energy. And Mark, you talk a lot about the organism needing resources and that kind of thing, but her bleak rate goes up when she's talking about this liquor cabinet. I don't get why, but it don't have to get why. I just have to say something happened. If there's a conspiracy to commit murder, she might've wanted to know that it had happened. Who knows? We don't know that, but it also could be true that she was driving her old route and her ex-husband lives down this road and she drove down there, saw the roads blocked her and left. So we don't know. We can't tell you that way. We can just tell you that we see things increasing. Her respiration and her pulse rate is going up when she's asked about getting back to that restaurant. That's interesting for me because some reason she's feeling this, maybe it's just because it does implicate her if there's a reason for her to have gone down that road. But we see a different thing than we've seen yet. She does a little twist in the chair when she's asked about the investigator. Don't know why. Don't know why, just know something happened. And then there's a huge blink rate deviation. And blink rate for me, I always say when fight or flight hits us, it's not your eyes going, okay, my eyes are dry. It's not your brain thinking that your body is taking moisture away from the mucus membranes and your eyes will do even more than normal. That's why the blink rate gets really crazy. And this could be residual emotion. We talk about it all the time, about being arrested, about being questioned. All of us would feel that and apprehension would come back. But she's pretty contained to now and we see a couple of really good blink rate increases and a couple of deviations in one ad that we haven't seen before. Scott, what do you got? All right, so let's pay attention to the brother's eyes. He has this tick where he squints and then he keeps his eyes closed too long. It's not that hardcore, but it's pretty obvious. And I think what's happened in there is he's so nervous. He's not showing any other adapters. I think he's adapting that way. And so I think he's on the impression most people won't see that as most people are when they have a tick like that. So when he does that, he thinks it looks normal. So when people have that tick, you'll see it at odd times. That's why you see it so many times over and over, especially when somebody else is talking, then it sort of kicks in into high gear. And here he never speaks on camera. So I guess it's kicked into high gear for him. And the bags under his eyes are pretty dark too. So he looks almost, they're so dark. He looks almost like a goth. Looks like they've been painted there or something. It's pretty hardcore. It looks like maybe a goth who's mom put a suit on and said, look, man, you know, you're in enough trouble already. So let, you know, try to sit up straight and be still and don't do anything. He said they're doing all that. So it looks kind of odd. I could be wrong about that. Probably. Anyway, so when she's asked about the choice of roads she took to the ABC liquor store, we see a quick side lip down there where our bottom lip is pulled to the side. Typically when we see somebody do that and they pull their bottom lip to the side, that suggests feelings of doubt and uncertainty or discomfort. And I think she did this on purpose to give the impression she wasn't sure what road she took because she takes all kinds of different roads to get to whatever area that town was in. And I think if, for what you said earlier, Greg, maybe that's the road that went by where the murder had happened. Is that correct? That's our trust cut is the house that he was murdered in. Okay. And like Mark was saying, I guess that's why the question came up. And from that point we see in here quite short answers. And already I'm under the impression she has what's referred to as guilty knowledge because things almost shut down on her. In other words, she may have not committed the crime or had anything to do with it, but she knows more about it than she's letting on at this point. That's what looks like to me anyway. Chase, what do you got? Yeah. Just add on to what you all spotted in here. It's just brilliant. There's some lip compression here. And when we see somebody squeeze the lips together, and this is, you're talking to your teenagers at home or you're talking to somebody at work, typically means something's being withheld. It's usually emotion or opinion that's kind of being held back. And I'm not able to determine yet since we're on the second video here whether or not this is a baseline for her, but we do know she's breathing into her chest. So people who are fully relaxed breathe into their abdomen a lot more, although anybody on the stand, innocent or guilty, could be in a position of stress, especially knowing when there's cameras all over the place. So I wanna get a little bit better feel for the baseline here. So remember, Greg is great at reminding us of all this is that baseline is for in this moment, not their baseline when they're sitting on the couch eating Cheetos, I think you don't believe. Cheetos, yeah, Cheetos. Always go back to the Cheetos. So the way that she arrived and then planned this route to the liquor store, and I know nothing about the case, and I'm writing these notes this morning, is of extreme significance to the attorney here. He was hyper focused on something off to his right. And this is the defendant, her brother, way off to his right until this exact question came up and this is where his entire attention snapped back to her. And his blink rate started increasing as facial touching started right during this line of questioning. And her answer about using these other roads might have been truthful, but it was not an answer to the question. So his breathing is now into his chest. So if you ever watch a baby sleeping or watching even your dog or your cat sleeping, you'll see abdominal breathing. We do that the more relaxed we are. So we didn't see a shift into chest breathing. So we're seeing chest breathing. We just need to wait to see, is there a lull in the trial later where we can see it shift back down to abdominal so we can make that a more firm distinction between those two things. So his mouth is still closed while his breathing rate, which is how often he's breathing, is going up. So this is a stress indicator. But when we do that and our mouth stays closed, this is against our instincts to open our mouth to take in more oxygen, which means the behavior is being concealed. So he's concealing this almost hyperventilation. So if you're ever called into court for anything, learn to recognize the difference between statements and questions. So keep in mind that pointing them out just kind of like an A-hole, will still stain the jury's opinion of you. But knowing the difference between somebody just making a statement with an upward tone at the end, that's not a question. And really get to understand the difference between a statement with an upward tone and an actual question. But she shows no emotional reaction about the ex-husband being shot, which was shocking to me watching this this morning. There was no real emotional eye movement, which is when our eyes moved down into the right for almost everybody in the world. And I wouldn't say there's a lot of clusters here, but there's certainly a lot of behaviors that we're going to further dissect in the videos that are coming up. It's all I got. So Mark. I give you that one. That was good. That's to demonstrate what isn't natural, you know? So I'm just giving like two very different performances there at the lean end. Do it again. Do it again. That's good though. That's good. You call yourself an actor. One of those tape replays. Do you recall on the right hand, left hand corner of the invitation, it says, help the bride and groom stock the bar for their wedding and bring a bottle of bullet bourbon? Do you recall that? Yes. You can put that aside. Now, you decided to go to ABC Lickers on Bed and Road to look for the bourbon, right? He did. Okay. You're not a big drinker. Is that fair to say? That is fair to say. You went to that store because you were familiar with it? I'd seen it close to my house, so. Close to your old house? Close to my old house. There could have been liquor stores that were closer to your current house. Sure. Now, when you drove to ABC Licker, you tried to go through Trescott. Is that fair to say? It was blocked. There are other ways to go to ABC Licker, right? You could have gone down other roads. I don't have the best sense of direction, so when I find a route, I just kind of keep using that route. I don't look for something else. Okay. You got to Mosaic at around 1 p.m. That sounds right. And your lunch was interrupted by investigator Isam who told you that something had happened? That's right. You went with him voluntarily? I did. You speak with him? You let police search your car? Yes. You were interviewed with the investigator from approximately 2.45 p.m. until 7.50 p.m.? Yes. He told you that your ex-husband had been shot and was unlikely to survive, right? Yes. You were in shock? Yes. You were pretty open with police, telling them a lot of things, right? They kept telling me they needed my help, and so I kept trying to help. Now, you remember on Direct, Ms. Kappelman asked you about this interview? Yes. And she asked you about all the people you mentioned during the interview, including Charlie? Yes. And you said I was just wheeling off names, right? Yes. In fact, isn't the first person in the interview that you mentioned was yourself? Yes. You said that you would understand if you were viewed as the prime suspect, right? Yes. Before you mentioned anyone else, you mentioned yourself? Yes. You told them about the motion to relocate? I did. You told them about the fight you had with Professor Markell that very morning about some swimming for the boys? Yes. You were spitting out a lot of ideas? I was. And you agreed to let the police search your phone? Yes. You agreed to let the police search your car? Yes. That's where they found that picture that I wasn't able to admit of the invitation to the bullet bourbon, right? Yeah. You agreed to be fingerprinted? Yes. You agreed to be checked for gunshot residue? Yes. You gave them your computer to be searched? I did. Towards the end of your interview, you asked if you could, you asked the police officer if you could call your parents, right? I did. And the police allowed you to do that? Yes. And you called your mother's cell phone sometime around 7.04 p.m.? Yes. And you spoke to your mom? I don't know if you remember, but do you remember your dad being in the shower because they were going out to dinner? I don't remember. Your mom didn't answer actually the first call and you called back a couple minutes later and she answered. Do you recall that? I don't. And when you called your mom, she was surprised? Yes. And you asked her to call Charlie and tell him what happened, right? Yes. All right, Mark, where do you go? All right, yeah. Look, she is very well controlled, I would say on the whole, but now we're getting some more chaotic, still subtle movements in the upper torso now. They're really subtle, but they're not direct. She's been still up until this point. Now we're getting indirect, subtle movements in the torso. So, you know, something is starting to edge on her a little more, I would say throughout this. Now, there's also this story here that she is very helpful, generally with the investigation, but she forgets calls with her family. So, look, there's nothing as strange as people, but it is kind of odd that she can be so helpful with the investigation and then so very forgetful around the calls that she's had with her family. It's not impossible, okay? It's not impossible that somebody can be like this. And further on as we go along this, and by the way, look, make sure you like and subscribe to us so that you can understand the journey that we're on, understanding how body language works, not only in each episode, but through our past episodes as well and the ones to come. But as we get onto these other clips that we're looking at, I'm gonna talk about what is possible and what is probable and both of those things not being the same thing because something is possible doesn't necessarily mean it's probable. Anyway, I think it's kind of interesting that she's so helpful, but then so forgetful around these family calls. It's not impossible to be like that. Is it probable that you would? Scott, what you got on this one? All right, for me, everything looks as it should. Her answers are fairly stable as is her cadence, volume and tone. So I think slightly we can see just a little bit of nervousness ramping up, but like Mark was saying, not a whole lot. It's kind of tough to see that, but nothing really looks out of place or odd to me. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, Mark, I think you hit dead on the head. One of the most important things to me in the entire world is baseline. So if you always, always, always answer in meticulous answers and then suddenly you change something's up, and this is a place she has to be cautious because you suddenly are going from being this lawyer who answers in even conditions and ensures that you understand the question before you answer it. I don't know, I don't remember. That's a big deviation and it's a dangerous one. And if you're listening, Wendy Adelson, I we're pronouncing that correctly, if you're listening and you're ever in a situation where you need to be believed, you got to be careful with that baseline deviation. And we all do it, all of us do it because we feel like something's not important and we blow it off. That's our brain saying prioritize what matters, but people like us are watching that and so our attorneys are looking for those openings to say why, why is the big question for us more than you did this, so you must have done that. And I think we're gonna see as she moves, deviation in body language and deviation in the way she responds to a question to let us know how important that question is to her. Why is what you have to dig for? Chase, what do you got? Yeah, you'll hit everything, but one thing here, the jury will always use an attorney to feel things. So they project both onto, I think they project onto the attorney and the person that that person is defending whatever they're feeling. And our brains are experts at pattern making. Greg, I think you talked about this a minute ago, but they do this to save us time and effort. So when something happens all the time, your brain develops a little program. So it can run faster in the future, like learning to drive a car, typing on a keyboard, tying your shoes. We do a lot of really complex stuff kind of automatically because of these little patterns our brains make. When a lawyer is boring for an extended period of time, the jury's brains all make these little programs, these little patterns, and they make a pattern of dismissing the importance of this voice every time they hear this voice. So they make a pattern of paying less attention and less attention, then they hear the voice and they say, oh, now it's time I hear that voice again. I can think about my to-do list back at home, pattern of going through the little tasks they need to get done this week, the groceries they need to pick up, the dry cleaning that they forgot to get a couple of weeks ago. So these patterns are all a result of boredom. So the brain says nothing of value is here, so it learns a pattern, but when they hear it, they can take that time to do something productive in their mind. This is how damaging asking boring questions and non-open-ended questions can be to a jury. So the people in the courtroom are there to discover things and hear things. And when every question is kind of a closed-ended statement wearing a cheap costume with a question mark on it, it gets boring kind of fast. And we're only hearing kind of these one responses from the witness, which means not interesting, which means the jury is learning, we're training them not to pay attention or place importance on that attorney's voice. So keep that in mind as we move forward. That's all I got. Chase, you want me to reinforce what you said? Look in the gallery. What? Look in the gallery. The guy was going, no, yeah, that's a news guy, I think. I think that's a news guy, yeah. They're all yelling it back there. It's like a yawn fast back there. Was that last? Yeah. Mine was a short, it might give me that one. One of those tape replays. You were pretty open with police telling them a lot of things, right? They kept telling me they needed my help and so I kept trying to help. Now, you remember on Direct, Ms. Cappelman asked you about this interview? Yes. And she asked you about all the people you mentioned during the interview, including Charlie? Yes. And you said I was just wheeling off names, right? Yes. In fact, isn't the first person in the interview that you mentioned was yourself? Yes. You said that you would understand if you were viewed as the prime suspect, right? Yes. Before you mentioned anyone else, you mentioned yourself? Yes. You told them about the motion to relocate? I did. You told them about the fight you had with Professor Markel that very morning about some swimming for the boys? Yes. You were spitting out a lot of ideas? I was. And you agreed to let the police search your phone? Yes. You agreed to let the police search your car? Yes. That's where they found that picture that I wasn't able to admit of the invitation to the bullet bourbon, right? Yeah. You agreed to be fingerprinted? Yes. You agreed to be checked for gunshot residue? Yes. You gave them your computer to be searched? I did. Towards the end of your interview, you asked if you could, you asked the police officer if you could call your parents, right? I did. And the police allowed you to do that? Yes. And you called your mother's cell phone sometime around 7.04 p.m.? Yes. You spoke to your mom, I don't know if you remember, but you remember your dad being in the shower because they were going out to dinner? I don't remember. Your mom didn't answer actually the first call and you called back a couple minutes later and she answered, do you recall that? I don't. And when you called your mom, she was surprised? Yes. And you asked her to call Charlie and tell him what happened, right? Yes. And you asked her to call Charlie and tell him what happened, right? Yes. You didn't speak with Charlie that day, right? I don't think so. On July 19th, the next day, you spoke to Charlie at 10.50 in the morning. You won't know the exact time, but do you recall speaking with him in the morning? I honestly don't. Do you recall letting him know that Professor Markell had passed away in the early morning? I don't remember the conversation. When your parents came directly to Tallahassee, correct? They did. They stopped in Orlando and they got there on the morning of the 19th, right? Yes. And when they got there, they were scared and frantic, right? Yes. Your dad didn't sleep, he couldn't get police protection so he planted his chair in the front of your window to make sure that no one was gonna come to your house and shoot it up, right? Correct. Now you all attended a memorial service on the 20th, right? Yes. And you arranged for the Markells to see the boys after the memorial service, right? They all came over my house. And you left Tallahassee, correct? Not on the 20th. On the 21st? Yes. And when you left Tallahassee on the 21st, did you bring all your belongings? I brought some swimsuits for the boys and some pajamas and I thought we'd be back in a day or two. And when you left, you were not yourself? I was a mess. You got to South Florida and you realized that you could not take care of the boys alone at this point in time. I hadn't slept in days and I was terrified. To get a little more specific, you wouldn't leave the house? No. And you would hardly eat? I wasn't eating, no. And ultimately, you decided not to come back to Tallahassee? I mean, I made that decision much later, but... Greg, what do you got? So here we go. This is the first time she says, I don't think so. She's been very specific to now. So this is a yes or no question and she's being led in this thing. Her blink rate, Chase, this is one of those great opportunities for us to talk about the difference in blink rate and shutter speed because she goes into her processor speed causes her blink to flutter. It's not the same thing as a high blink rate and I agree with you there. This is a different kind of thing. And that's a subtlety. You need to be doing body language for a little while to pick up. I mean, I've been doing it for a long, long time and probably never thought as much about that little flutter being processor before we all got together. So when I learned from you, processor speed, I think it's a good way to look at it. Her respiration is up. Again, why? We don't know why her respiration's up. It could be a lot of things. She does a disapproval lip, that piercing lips when he asked about her parents coming straight there. It makes me wonder was there some discussion that didn't go well or something else the reason that happened, but she does this heavy, exasperated exhale and a qualifier of honestly right in there as well. First time we heard the word honestly, okay? That might not mean anything. It might mean something dramatically different than we're thinking, but it comes up. And now they're starting to try to tie this to her for being for her benefit in some kind of way. And that's when we see that she does a short head stroke saying, I don't remember her mouth. And she touches her mouth with her hand. That's a big deal. And if you compare that short stroke of her head when she's saying it was not any benefit to me compared to when she was talking about her dad couldn't sleep, look at the difference in the two head nods. Those things indicate something is different going on inside her head. It could be there's a squabble, could be something else, could be that she has benefited from it even if she didn't want or it could be that she was involved in some way. We can't tell that. What we can tell is this. We also talk a lot about eye movement and baseline eye movement for recall. Here's a great one. Her eyes are fantastic for it because her eyes are so pronounced and she has very small pupils which means that the irises stand out and she goes to her right for recall. You can't miss it over and over and over again. She's going to go to a different place a couple of times and I'll point those out. She shows her more scree for shame. Don't know which with that chin boss involvement when she's talking about her father sitting in the front to protect her place, something to chase an hour joking, we would never sit in a window to protect any place. That's just a silhouette waiting for something to happen. And then she's legalistic in her answers. Here's if we book in my whole conversation about this in the beginning, she's not that I remember she's doing some odd answer. And then at the very end she even clarifies which day you're talking about. That's more what we've seen in her baseline than that first one. So it makes it look awkward. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, I agree. And this is the first time I've ever really talked about a baseline eye movement as well. I heard you talk about it. I was like, damn it. But it's kind of off to her right, which is great. And I think the attorney here might be using the word professor to increase the status of the victim, maybe to the jury. And right when she's saying, I don't remember the conversation. That's when we're seeing that eye flutter. And this is kind of like on a Windows computer when you go to task manager to kind of quit the stuff, quit a few apps or free up some space or you click on the Apple and force quit so you can get rid of some programs that are taking up stuff. And during the same statement, I don't remember the conversation. We're seeing an increase in upper body movement that's small head shaking, which is smaller than all the previous answers. And this is called a cluster of behavior. But this is the first genuine emotion that we've really seen on her face when the attorney's kind of contributing to these not really question questions about her father being unable to sleep and protecting her there. And to this point, really not seeing the following videos yet in my notes here, we are seeing some kind of grief there. This chin boss movement kind of comes up like this. And they even did a nonverbal behavioral study in New York City after 9-11. New Yorkers who are famous for not talking to each other would greet each other with that chin boss and a little bit of lip compression. And they called this the shared grief expression. So New Yorkers who didn't know each other would kind of give each other that look back and forth. Fascinating study. But I think there's some grief here. We don't know why. Maybe she did or participated in something to make her dad feel this way. Maybe she loves her dad and this made her feel overwhelmed with emotion. Maybe she's feeling empathy for her dad, the level of stress that he's experiencing. Maybe there's a combination of a few of those. And one indicator that some emotions are truly genuine is that people try to hold them back and control them instead of displaying them. So pay attention to that. Is somebody kind of trying to hold back an emotion? It's more likely to be true if someone's attempting to control it. And the lawyer asked, did you bring all your belongings? I love that because it's the first time I think we were really hearing an actual question. That is a question with a question mark at the end. I just wanted to highlight that, that we're actually hearing one. But when she says I thought we'd be back in a day or two, here's one quick pro tip for you, even though I hate that phrase. Always pay attention to any information that's injected in to an answer that has nothing to do with the question itself. These will always point in a very specific direction. No matter what conversation it is, if you just take a pile of everything that was injected that was not part of the question and then examine what that pile looks like afterward, they're gonna point in a certain direction. And I would probably expect anybody to pack and leave town with their kids to get them some new memories after something happened to their dad. And this is understandable to me. Just leaving town, that might make sense. You left and you were not yourself. You realized you could not take care of the boys by yourself. These are just all these statements are mildly frustrating. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, well, let me add one to that, which is the way the lawyer frames what I would call, what I suspect is an argument as a fight. So a fight for me, that may not be the same for you, but a fight for me would be something that actually physically happens. There's some physical action that goes on. And an argument is something that happens verbally. Sounds like they had a verbal altercation, not a physical altercation, and yet the lawyer says a fight. So interesting how that's framed up there. Also interesting how her memory is not that clear now around everything to do with Charlie, I think it is. And there's no explanation around why this lack of memory there, where she's been quite good at explaining why she takes a certain route and the patterns there. I might expect if suddenly I'm good at being able to do some stuff and then suddenly I have a failure in one area, then I might go, look, I'm not remembering that so well because of X. Yeah, and people like us then may come along and kind of needle into that, of course. But no explanation for that. Now, this leaving town and going, I guess, going home, if her description is accurate, and it's kind of hearsay description, it's her account of things. So I don't know how true it is, but if her description is accurate, it sounds to me like she goes into shock. She seriously goes into shock, she can't eat, she can't look after her kids. There's a whole bunch of things there that say there has been some kind of trauma has gone on and she is in serious shock. Now, I don't know whether she's being accurate about that. She seems to come across as not anything out of baseline stress talking about that. So I would suspect it's accurate. So around this event, though she's been very relaxed around talking about the killing of her ex-husband, it seems like from her story at the time, it did have an effect on her, though it could be something to do with the effect that it had on her father. If that's where she's getting that grief, it could be the shock, could be around affecting her family and how scared they might have been. Anyway, all interesting stuff. Scott, what do you got on this one? When she says, I don't remember the conversation right there, we're here in fading facts and her blink rate goes up. And she's not stressed because she's afraid of what's gonna be asked next. She's stressed because these questions are important as to what she was doing and how she was involved with the questioning going forward if that makes any sense at all. She sees it coming. She knows what's gonna happen next. So what's interesting to me here and Chase brought up the chin part, which going last gets knocked out of here. But we don't see any action in the brow. We see no grief from here up. We see nothing. There's no furrowing of the brow. There's nothing, but we do see that a little bit in the chin boss there. So maybe there's some grief there. Like you're saying Chase, maybe she's trying to hold it back and it could be true or whatever. And maybe she does feel bad about that, that it happened or whatever. But we're not seeing any grief on the billboard of emotion, which is the forehead and brow. We're not really seeing anything there. But an interesting cue we do see is that a single shoulder shrug with the chin pointing toward the shoulder. I don't have any research to back this up. There are no papers I'm aware of. But from my experience and from talking to other interrogators and other experts like Joan Navarro, which is who I learned this from, quite often you see that the single shoulder shrug and the chin go toward it, that indicates or denotes deception quite often, not every time. Like I said, I like to give you, on here, if you're a subscriber, if you hit like and a subscriber and you're familiar with our stuff, we'd like to give you things that we've researched so we know exactly where it came from. We'll go back to the matrix with it, with you if you wanna talk about it. And in this case, I don't have that only from what I've heard. And my experience with it, so there's no research for that as far as I know. But I think she knew that she would be on this trip a little longer or a little less than she actually knew, but she said she packed for that amount of day so it looked like she knew she was going for those amount of days. I don't know if that would make any difference or not with what happened, but something to me seems iffy there with her. And then once again, we're here in fading facts when she says she hasn't had any slept, she hasn't had any sleep for days and was terrified. So under the impression, she wasn't terrified and I don't think she lost a bunch of sleep for days and I think she did eat because I think she mentions not eating either. But I think she's saying these things to help qualify her story and make it sound more believable and give it more punch. One of those tape replays. And you asked her to call Charlie and tell him what happened, right? Yes. You didn't speak with Charlie that day, right? I don't think so. On July 19th, the next day, you spoke to Charlie at 10.50 in the morning. You won't know the exact time, but do you recall speaking with him in the morning? I honestly don't. Do you recall letting him know that Professor Markell had passed away in the early morning? I don't remember the conversation. When your parents came directly to Tallahassee, correct? They did. They stopped in Orlando and they got there on the morning of the 19th, right? Yes. And when they got there, they were scared and frantic, right? Yes. Your dad didn't sleep. He couldn't get police protection, so he's planted his chair in the front of your window to make sure that no one was gonna come to your house and shoot it up, right? Correct. Now, you all attended a memorial service on the 20th, right? Yes. And you arranged for the Markells to see the boys after the memorial service, right? They all came over my house. And you left Tallahassee, correct? Not on the 20th. On the 21st? Yes. And when you left Tallahassee on the 21st, did you bring all your belongings? I brought some swimsuits for the boys and some pajamas and I thought we'd be back in a day or two. And when you left, you were not yourself? I was a mess. You got to South Florida and you realized that you could not take care of the boys alone at this point in time. I was, I hadn't slept in days and I was terrified. To get a little more specific, you wouldn't leave the house? No. And you would hardly eat? I wasn't eating, no. And ultimately, you decided not to come back to Tallahassee? I mean, I made that decision much later, but. The long list of plans that you went over with Mr. Rashmall that you were gonna have in Tallahassee, post-murder date, none of those plans happened, right? No. Because you moved to South Florida, right? Because I felt unsafe to stay here, yes. Did you feel safe in South Florida? No. Did you buy a house in Tallahassee after the murder? No, I did not. Did you rent a house in Tallahassee after the murder? No, I didn't live in Tallahassee after the murder. Did the boys go to school that fall here in Tallahassee? No, all our plans were broken. What was the purpose of those questions? Of course you didn't, you moved to South Florida, you didn't have plans in Tallahassee that got executed. Why were you asked about all those things? I don't know why I was asked questions by the Defense Council. The book event that you were asked about, did that event happen? I didn't speak at the event, but the event still happened. Have you had several events related to that book that have happened? I have. And what events were those? Do you mean just in Tallahassee or do you mean in other places? Everywhere. I've spoken at various schools about human trafficking and about my book. I think there was one event that still happened in Tallahassee about a year later. Chase, what do you got? One phrase I'm gonna take away from this is post-murder date, post-murder date. And I think this was, you know, the manipulative nature of this is probably obvious to anybody over the age of 13 here. And I'm stunned that Defense didn't object to this question about his own questions. And maybe because he just has a hard time with questions to begin with. But her lips, I want you to watch the behavior of what we saw before and now being examined by the prosecution here. And her lips are now parted and you can get a screenshot of somebody being interviewed by their attorney and a prosecuting attorney and you'll see the difference and you won't even need to know context behind it. You can see the difference in most people. So this is a new behavior we're seeing and it's very common for witnesses to do this to appear more innocent when they're being questioned, especially by an oppositional person. So this subconsciously makes them, without them really realizing it, increases their look of innocence to the jury. And we do a lot of behaviors, especially on the stand unconsciously and to help to influence the jury. What I think would have been great here, and I'm on neither side of this because I know very little, would be the punishment question. And when it comes to interrogations, the punishment question is one of the greats. And maybe we're making it too popular here on the channel and now it's gonna like the jig is up for a lot of people out there. The punishment question essentially says, what do you think should happen to the person who did this? And it essentially asks somebody to determine their own fate if they're guilty. In this case, they might ask a question like, if someone was involved with this murder in any way, what do you think should happen to them if any evidence ever comes up in the future once everything starts to come to the surface? What do you think should happen to that person? So that's a good punishment question by proxy. So that's the punishment question by proxy. I think I just invented that term. Scott, what do you got? All right, yeah, I agree with you. The punishment questions is one of my favorites. That reminded me of it. I don't know why it reminded me of this story. And I hit the H on why. I don't know what's up with that. Anyway, my buddy Jason, who was the head homicide over here in Nashville, a while back, they had a guy that had their own, the impression had murdered somebody. And they said, you know, the last thing the person sees, they can take your retinas and pull those off and put them under a microscope. And it's always like a camera keeps that picture. So whoever he saw last is gonna be on his retinas and we're gonna be able to see who that is. But there'd be any reason for you to be in that picture to be on his retinas like that. And I think that's when he puked up that he did it. Anyway, I know Jason's gonna be watching this story. Do you know what I shouldn't say that? Anyway, I think this was a great tactical move by the prosecuting attorney because she just shot down a lot of the questions that the defense attorney asked to help qualify Wendy's story. So I think she did a great job. I really liked this attorney. She doesn't give a hoot about what's happening, about getting up in this girl's business. So this woman's business, excuse me. So I think it's, I really like her. I think she's, she'd make a great interrogator because she doesn't mind getting their fuss real good. Now, when Wendy says, I think there was an event that still happened until I see about a year later. She shows an expression of disgust. And it's so, it happens fairly quickly, but it's so big. I actually use it for the graphic for this video, for the thumbnail. So if you go back and once this is over, go back and look at the thumbnail for this, the graphic and you'll see that expression. And it was very brief. It was like three frames, I think three or four frames, but it's actually there and that's disgust. So whether that disgust is directed toward the questioning style of the attorney or specifically at the attorney herself or the answer even, I have no idea, but that just lets us know there's an issue there. Some, something's up in here. I don't know what, because again, like all of us, I don't know what the backstory is on this. We don't do that. We just go over the videos that we present here, that we show you guys. So again, if you'll subscribe and go back and watch some of these things you'll see what I'm talking about. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, look, I think what's happening here is just Wendy is being generally destabilized there. I think the disgust may be about that. I think the open mouth may be about that as well, that trying to take in more information, ready to, because there's a real pattern interrupt here, that the lawyer has started off by attacking covertly the questioning of the previous lawyer. And that's a pattern that certainly in the questions from the previous lawyer, you just weren't getting. They were, I mean, there were questions of some sort as you say, Chase, but they were relatively direct. We knew who they were directed towards. In this case, this lawyer really doesn't care about the answers that this person's giving. She's making a point to the jury, regardless of who she has on the stand here. I think that's probably disconcerting, it's destabilizing, quite an interesting thing to do. And I think the subject therefore, Adelson here, is showing elements of confusion around this. And I think that could be a tactic moving forward to get more interesting answers out of her as she becomes destabilized, because anybody watching this will have noticed she has been quite well controlled, though all of us here have seen some clear, but still subtle leaks of, tension and stress on the whole from an outside point of view. Let's say a lay person's point of view, they'd probably be seeing somebody who's very, very controlled and very, very relaxed on the whole. I think this lawyer is starting to poke at that. Greg, what do you think? You want more evidence? She's starting to poke at it and that it's perceived. There is a threat recognition. There's a threat assessment in Adelson as she looks. As she starts to talk about and asking her about feeling safe in South Florida, look at that disdain interface, her brow goes up, and then she does fading facts as she says no. So that's her first indicator that, okay, I had enough of this already, you can see it in her. And then she changes her movement. She becomes more wooden, her brow goes down, her eyes narrow, she's crinkling at the brow, and she's got incomplete head shakes now. And they're not just incomplete, they're incomplete to one side. She's nodding her head halfway. Go back and watch it, it's powerful. She sees the threat and she's not breaking eye contact with that threat. She's trying to make sure it's there. She does that twist in the chair again. Now we're starting to see her stress moves. Not big, very subtle. This is not, what is his name, Chris Watts? It's not that. This is very subtle, very subtle movement. And then she gets back to nailing down very specific questions because it's a threat. Do you mean in Tallahassee specifically? She's got the best eyes for eye accessing. I'm gonna show you an example of why memory is broken up in the way our eyes move because she's looking to her right to recall facts and recall things that she's done from rote, things she remembers. But when she's thinking about a specific incident in Tallahassee, watch those eyes go above the brow ridge into the visual. And she goes, one, I think. And Scott, I love the fact she shows that disgust. Here's the question. Is it disgust with the question? Is it disgust with the situation? Was it a holiday in or a days in or someplace that she was doing the event? Or maybe she couldn't be there and it was a big deal. That disgust could come from anything and we can't tell that. We can only see what we can see. That's the beautiful part of it. And the last thing I wanted to share is when you're talking about that retina thing, I wonder did he come up with that himself? Because the first time I ever read somebody use that was in Jack the Ripper case. I don't think he didn't invent that. No, but they had heard it. Yeah, Jack the Ripper. It was a London investigator who had somebody in there trying to put in the corner and use that as a technique. Yep, told them that they could see. And, you know, this guy had no idea and like, I still didn't do it. So that's the way it goes. One of those tape replays. The long list of plans that you went over with Mr. Rashfaam that you were gonna have in Tallahassee post murder date. None of those plans happened, right? No. Because you moved to South Florida, right? Because I felt unsafe to stay here, yes. Did you feel safe in South Florida? No. Did you buy a house in Tallahassee after the murder? No, I did not. Did you rent a house in Tallahassee after the murder? No, I didn't live in Tallahassee after the murder. Did the boys go to school that fall here in Tallahassee? No, all our plans were broken. What was the purpose of those questions? Of course you didn't. You moved to South Florida. You didn't have plans in Tallahassee that got executed. Why were you asked about all those things? I don't know why I was asked questions by the Defense Council. The book event that you were asked about, did that event happen? I didn't speak at the event, but the event still happened. Have you had several events related to that book that have happened? And what events were those? Do you mean just in Tallahassee or do you mean in other places? Everywhere. I've spoken at various schools about human trafficking and about my book. I think there was one event that still happened in Tallahassee about a year later. What is the prof's blog? You were asked about that on Cross. Yeah, it was a blog that Danny started with some of his colleagues to kind of promote community in the law professor world. And who reads the prof's? Probably other law professors and people interested in becoming law professors. Who is on the CRIM prof list serve? I don't know. Were you on the list serve for that prof's blog? I may have been on the list serve at some point. Do you remember seeing the post that you were shown on Cross? I do. And the post says something about Danny and I are planning to attend a conference that will begin Sunday, July 20th. Is there any other information on what you were shown about Dan's travel plans post murder other than that? I'm sorry, can you please repeat the question? The post says Danny and I, I guess it's another professor writing this thing. Danny and I are planning to attend a conference that will be in Sunday, July 20th. Is that the type of information that he would typically have on something like the prof's blog or Facebook? That sounds right. Okay, but as far as the date he's leaving, the flight he's on, that kind of stuff, would that typically be on the prof's blog? I don't, he wouldn't put what flight number he was on, but he would almost always communicate when he was going on a trip. Okay, so going to a conference that starts July 20th might be an example. Flying to New York tomorrow would be an example, but not a flight number. But he didn't put flying to New York tomorrow on this occasion? No. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, I think she genuinely, genuinely starts getting lost during this, the subject here. We see the eyes go up and wandering around and trying to find some kind of context or some kind of answer. I don't think she really knows where this questioning is going. I think she's destabilized by this, genuinely lost. And I think because of that, we get some very subtle or difficult to see self soothing. I believe her hands go down to her legs, maybe to her knees, and they just start rubbing up and down on the knee or the leg because we see some subtle movement in both shoulders there, which we haven't seen before. So whatever this lawyer is doing and for whatever reason, this lawyer might well be doing it. It's certainly having some effect. She's lost and she's anxious at this point, I would say. Greg, what do you think? Yeah, Mark, I don't know why. It could be that there's something very sensitive in these words, but something dramatic changes. Let's see the same pattern later and I'm gonna point it out to you again, but we're gonna see a very specific pattern of arousal. Something has changed in her here and whether it's because she's lost or because she wants to be lost is a different question. We can't say that. Her left shoulder is engaged. One shoulder, when she's asked about that list server, her respiration increases, she gives an indefinite answer again. Out of baseline for her. And here's that twist in the chair. All this gets my attention and then her blink rate jacks up when she's asked about those travel plans. Her respiration is so jacked up now that that mouth is open and she is feeling some stress from this. Now, also listen to the difference in her voice and hear the tone, the pitch of her voice is different than it was before. And that's because of Chase, what you're talking about with chest breathing, as a person, the respiration gets higher and higher and higher in their body, they're going shorter and quicker breaths. And that way they speak, that changing tone is a good indicator of stress. What causes the stress? We don't know for sure, but this is a really good indicator. And then Mark, I agree with you. She's doing batter up. She's doing batter on deck. She's rubbing her thighs under that table. That's a lot going on. Could it be because she's lost or could it be because she wants out? Not sure which. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, initially when I watched through this, I don't know the context behind this at all. But I watched this, there's these behavioral spikes about a server and access to, I don't know, some online thing, some online blog access. There's some serious stress around the dates and the travel and stuff. And I don't know much about the case of them. Maybe watched a five minute video this morning and a couple other things. But she's comfortable saying Danny's name here, very, very comfortable. And very often throughout the whole interview, the whole cross examination and the deposition here, but I'll throw in one caveat. I'll admit I have not personally spent much time at all analyzing somebody who's got immunity in a courtroom. That's a rare thing for us to see. But I think immunity might also act as a layer of behavioral insulation from stress around deception or providing some kind of misleading information either way. And then we hear the post-murder, like there was a BC and an AD. So everything was like post-murder date that was pre-murder or post-murder. And I think it's very unusual that there's a level of discomfort with her willingness to admit that a very simple and innocent sentence that's, I don't know the case, but this sentence of like someone leaving in New York at a certain time or whatever, she can't agree to that. She has to correct it and throw back a correction instead of agreeing to that being. She wants to rephrase it instead of letting the attorney just say it. And it seems simple to me. Maybe this is a huge piece of the case. I don't know, but that's very unusual behavior, especially for an attorney. Scott, what do you got? With you, I don't have enough information on this case to make any decisions about what's valid and invalid for this specific line of question here. However, I do see another expression of disgust. It's when she's talking about that flight and the flight number. So again, like Greg was talking about earlier, it may, like with a hotel, it may have been something bad with the other question and a bad hotel or something else in here. It may have been a rough flight or bad seats or that she had kids or whatever. But also there's a short shoulder shrug as that answer starts. And that lets us know that she's, or it indicates that she's not sure about the answer or she's uncomfortable with it or just doesn't feel good about the whole thing. So again, what these cues mean and how they relate to the question, I have no idea because I'm not familiar with the backstory of this case. And they may mean absolutely nothing, but what we're seeing when we see the disgust, it's pretty big both times. But then again, I'd say it and it could mean absolutely nothing. So that's all I got. Give that one to you Chase, because it looked natural. Thank you, it was. Yeah. This is not from one earlier. I didn't even get to mention. It's like, this is awesome. You stole it with that hand of the face thing. One of those tape replays. What is the profs blog? You were asked about that on the cross. Yeah, it was a blog that Danny started with some of his colleagues to kind of promote community in the law professor world. And who reads the profs? Probably other law professors and people interested in becoming law professors. Who is on the CRIM prof list serve? I don't know. Were you on the on the list serve for that profs blog? I may have been on the list serve at some point. Do you remember seeing the post that you were shown on cross? I do. And the post says something about Danny and I are planning to attend a conference that will begin Sunday, July 20th. Is there any other information on what you were shown about Dan's travel plans post murder other than that? I'm sorry, can you please repeat the question? The post says Danny and I, I guess it's another professor writing this thing. Danny and I are planning to attend a conference that will be in Sunday, July 20th. Is that the type of information that he would typically have on something like the profs blog or Facebook? That sounds right. Okay, but as far as the date he's leaving, the flight he's on, that kind of stuff, would that typically be on the profs blog? He wouldn't put what flight number he was on, but he would almost always communicate when he was going on a trip. Okay, so going to a conference that starts July 20th might be an example. Flying to New York tomorrow would be an example, but not a flight number. But he didn't put flying to New York tomorrow on this occasion? No. You were referenced several times, not on direct examination by the state, but by your brother's attorney on cross as a co-conspirator. Are you charged in this case? No. This isn't your trial, is it? No. Is your brother charged with conspiring with you to do a murder? No. Is he charged with conspiring with you to plan a murder? No. Is he charged with soliciting you to do a murder? No. Who is he charged with doing those things with? I don't think anyone. Have you had an opportunity to review his indictment in this case? I have not. An opportunity to take a look at that document to yourself. Who is your brother alleged you have done these crimes with? Catherine D. Magbanawa. Were you on the wire in this case, Ms. Adelson? No. So when the bump happened, are you familiar with the event that I'm referencing as the bump? I am, no. When law enforcement approached your mother on the street and handed her a piece of paper? Yes. Okay, when that occurred, who did your mother call? I don't know. Not you, right? Not me. Okay. And once your brother found out about the bump, did he call you about it? No. Who did he call? I don't know. Well, you listened to the calls to authenticate the voices, didn't you? Just to hear the voices, not to hear the content of the calls. Okay. And the voices were your brother's voice, right? But I listened to the calls just to hear who was on them so I don't know what content they're referencing. I heard your answer. My question to you now is your brother's voice was on the calls. He was on some of the calls I listened to. Your mother's voice was on the calls. She was on some of the calls I listened to. Did you have any secret meetings with your brother post bump that happened in South Florida? No. All right, Greg, what do you got? So while this is not a body language, it is certainly a behavior thing. I'm an attorney. I'm going to go testify in front of somebody and I don't read the charges. That seems a little, that strains rational believability to me. Just it does. And it's going to, all of these people who do true crime, they're all gonna jump on that because that's not normal. I'm an attorney. I know that what I say matters and I'm sitting in front of these people and I'm so prepared with everything else, that strains credibility that she hasn't read that. Her pupils are actually wider now. She has fairly narrow pupils. Usually look at the difference now. So you can see the stress is starting to build up. One of my favorite things is when she hands her the paper, how do you grab the paper usually? But when it's precious or dangerous, both those hands go out and grab it. And that is clearly the case here. We're going to see her when she sees a threat in paper or something that's going to nail her down, we see her do that. That's gonna have to do with guilt or innocence. That's got to do with threat. When you see a threat and you do it, you're indicating that. And it could be something precious too, like a letter from somebody you love who's no longer alive. That would be something. Look at a cup of warm tea on an episode of The Bachelor. Two hands, two hands. Yeah. I've never seen an episode of The Bachelor. I'll take your word for it. But I agree. Yeah, sure. Cause none of us should be on that one. But she's not giving anything away for this attorney. She's making the attorney work for it. And the attorney is going to turn on her and make her do it too. When she says, I listened to the calls to hear who's on them, come on, come on. Again, your straining credibility when you say things like that. And this attorney is probably pushing that to cause her to get to a certain place with the jury. Mark, she does my favorite thing. She brings up, she becomes suddenly Andrew talking about how he knew Epstein through his girlfriend. But remember, I'm holding his fingers and go, but it's Glen, it's Glen. She's doing that with, I'm listening for their voices, not for the content. Well, especially if it's somebody you love, you're going to listen to the words they're saying. My opinion. So this is a behavior difference. I then, I love when she tells her, I heard your answer. That's not my question. I love when somebody puts somebody on notice that you're not going to get away with that. And Scott, I love, I put this here for you specifically. This attorney, I can sense her feeling just like you. She's on my last nerve. You see that big swallow just before she goes back at her. I love that. You can see that mouth open and she's after more air now. She's breathing chest, inner chest and her upper lungs. So here we go. And then is that last thing she said, a fading fact that sure sounded like it to me when he said, did you have secret meetings with your brother in South Florida? No, sounds a lot like Candace on Dr. Philm. Scott, what do you got? All right. Speaking of those nose now, this is something that deals with Sonics and the audible part of this. When she says no those first two times, and when I say this, I don't mean they're exactly alike. I mean, these two, the two nose at the very beginning are exactly alike. They're the very same. It's almost like they were sampled and they were played twice. They weren't, but that's how close they are. The only difference in the second nose, she says, is there's this a slight little, when she opens her mouth in here, just a little tick, a little click. It's nothing she's doing because of something's bothering emotional, emotionally or anything, that little click noise. It just happens to be part of the sound of her mouth opening at that point. Those are so close. I've never heard somebody be able to repeat a sound the very same like that before. And it, I couldn't believe it. So I took him out and looked at the samples and you lay them on top of each other. I should put it on here and show you they're the very same. Unbelievable how close they are sonically. Now, can I point out something? Can I point out something? Yeah. That's a Grammy nominated sound engineer saying that not a body language guy. That's the first thing. Sorry to interrupt you, but it's important. Sounds too much like forensics to me. That's true, the forensics panel. That's true. That's true. Oh yeah, sorry about that. I get too much into the sound part of it anyway. But the three nose after that with her about her brother, they consecutively get lower in tone and they get longer as they go along. So I think there's something up here. She's got herself separated when they're about her but when they're about her brother, they're not more relaxed but they're lower and they're about a half DB lower sound wise for any audio guys out there or any women as well because I always get things from them saying, oh, if you'll take the, you know, drop you who sucked all the 300 out of your voice during the thing because this might move a lot. Anyway, so I thought that was fascinating. I've never actually seen or heard that before. It's almost like the same sample twice those first two nose but those three next ones after those, that sums up, I gotta be careful to say, but there's something going on here. I think she knows more about what's happening here than she's letting on. People usually do and that's probably why they have her up there then the impression that she does know more than she's letting on. And this attorney's trying to find out but something's going on there. I can promise you. Now, what does all this mean as far as I know there are no studies or papers on that kind of thing specifically again but I do have the impression that sums up. I'll leave it there for that. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, when she's talking about just listening to hear what content it is and not looking at the and not reviewing the content there. If you were around in the 80s this is the I read it for the articles argument. When the prosecutor asked this isn't your trial, is it? There's an increase in blink rate almost to a flutter here. It goes from a 21 to about a 58 in blinks per minute and just continuing to display this mouth open behavior. So you know when somebody leaves their lips slightly parted and their mouth is like a little bit open it's like they're ready to engage in a conversation. So this is often seen as a sign of being open and sincere and it's kind of like a kid doing this. It's like I'm listening, I'm ready to talk and there's I think a little more to it that this gesture can also remind us of innocence and honesty in many ways. If you just think about kids doing this they often have their mouth just slightly open when they're amazed or when they're learning something new when they're at their peak of innocence. So when we as adults might accidentally mimic this to try to appear a certain way can send a signal that we're being as open and honest as a child might be. And then when she does this little thing to show how much of the clip she listened to I'm just gonna name that we don't have to keep calling it that but I'm gonna name it to say that I claimed it I'm sticking my flag on this thing and call it a fragment illustrator. She illustrating tiny pieces or fragments of a film an audio tape whatever it is like she's holding something while she's explaining it. And it often means we've seen this many times even if the person isn't openly saying it that there's a limit of how much they have access to we saw this in I think we saw this in the Bob Lazar interview when he's talking about I had some access and you could see the fingers do this little thing I had some access to that facility. Yes, and you could see this limiting gesture right there. I want you to watch during this handover that was the first thing Greg that I saw this morning is like look at this two handed grasping behavior but I want you to watch very closely this clip is about to come back up on your screen again you'll see no eye contact she's looking at the documents as she's grabbing them there's no eye contact up at the attorney that's going to change in a couple of videos and it's going to change big time. That's all I got. Mark, what are you? Yeah, so around these two nose that you were pointing towards Scott are you charged? No, this isn't your case. Is it? No. I mean, Scott you're getting into some real subtlety there and I want to get into some subtlety around her shoulder which is I see the hair moving on one side which suggests the shoulder there's a tiny, tiny single shoulder shrug on both of those no answers to go along with your, you know bizarreness of the of the sonic structure there there's something tiny going on there I'm sure if you blow that up and you put a grid over the top of it you'll be able to see a micro shrug but it's enough to move the hair on one side just enough for me to detect it. So could be some uncertainty around those nose. It's possible. Yeah, it just it doesn't seem credible that you would only listen to a portion of the call unless that's what the police said we're just going to pay you a portion of this just just tell us who you're hearing or unless you said actually I don't want to hear the whole of this and then maybe some reasons why you go I don't want to hear the whole of all of this I don't want to hear anything about this but if it's your family I mean, if it were me there's only might be just about me, you know because you know on the whole I'm making up this whole world in front of me and so most stuff inevitably turns out to be about me but if it were me, I'd be like no, keep playing because I want to know what's going on here this is I want to know what's going on and if I told them to stop because I don't want to know what's going on or maybe they withheld it I don't know. Oh, but there is one little factor in there which is when she gives the rationale for why she only heard the snips of it her ration before her rationale there's a vocal click before that now I had said at the start vocal clicks seem to be in her baseline but it turns out we haven't heard one of those for a long time now they've disappeared out of what seemed to be the baseline at the start so there's definitely something going on around this I don't know exactly what it is but there's something going on here that's all I got on that one, let's have another I think those vocal clicks that we hear when people do that that's their way of getting attention they're saying I have something to say not by saying I have something to say and talking but I think it brings attention to what they're saying and it puts some kind of importance for them behind it to say, you know, as you see people when they sit back and talk to us from their minimal depth of knowledge about something that go, I think but I could be wrong, but that's what I think I do know some people who use it as the signal for look at me, I'm about to speak so you don't miss their first few words it's a way of going, hey, I'm about to and sometimes nobody looks and they're like and they don't start into their sentence because their click hasn't it's a subtle way of gaining attention sometimes and it doesn't work every time I do think at other times it's an absolutely unconscious way of showing that there's some worry about what's to come or what just went and there are places it's used go, sorry, Greg go ahead, please we used to call it an observation invitation all of those behaviors of like somebody goes okay, like anything like that to like let's bring attention here because I'm about to and to me it is also used as well that's exactly the same thing and you see it and they'll let me tell you guys they go and do all that kind of stuff to follow it yeah, it's a separator for sure I think we're all on the same one yeah, I think I've found this woman's adapter and nobody's seen it yet and I didn't see it for a couple of videos from now so I haven't brought it up yet so I'll be talking about it so I don't think anybody's seen it see if you can find it because when I pointed out to go, oh, holy smokes good, that's good it's tiny but I think when you see it it'll make sense and I'll explain why as we go through it can't wait ah, that's a tie sorry, fellas one of those tape replays you were referenced several times not on direct examination by the state but by your brother's attorney on cross as a co-conspirator are you charged in this case? no this isn't your trial, is it? no is your brother charged with conspiring with you to do a murder? no is he charged with conspiring with you to plan a murder? no is he charged with soliciting you to do a murder? no who is he charged with doing those things with? I don't think anyone have you had an opportunity to review his indictment in this case? I have not an opportunity to take a look at that document to yourself who is your brother alleged you have done these crimes with? Catherine D. Magbanowa were you on the wire in this case, Ms. Adelson? no so when the bump happened are you familiar with the event I'm referencing as the bump? I am, no when law enforcement approached your mother on the street and handed her a piece of paper? yes when that occurred, who did your mother call? I don't know not you, right? not me okay and once your brother found out about the bump did he call you about it? no who did he call? I don't know well you listened to the calls to authenticate the voices didn't you? just to hear the voices not to hear the content of the calls okay and the voices were your brother's voice, right? but I listened to the calls just to hear who was on them so I don't know what content they're referencing I heard your answer, my question to you now is your brother's voice was on the calls he was on some of the calls I listened to your mother's voice was on the calls she was on some of the calls I listened to did you have any secret meetings with your brother post bump that happened in south florida? no you were asked about Jeffrey LaCasse in a way that your relationship ended what is okayCupid? okayCupid is a dating website were you on that dating website? I was were you on that dating website at the time that you were dating Mr. LaCasse? no I wasn't and were you speaking so I guess if you weren't on it you weren't speaking to multiple men from the website during the time you were dating Mr. LaCasse and I'll remind you that you provided your phone in this case and it was celebrated downloaded argument broke didn't you just say that you weren't on okayCupid at the time that you were dating Jeffrey LaCasse? I don't know when we say I officially stopped dating Jeff LaCasse but there's a chance that I mean I don't remember in 2014 whether I had gotten the app and started talking to people before we officially broke up okay so my point is there's a chance that he was right you were being unfaithful or at least talking to other people he had a reason to be jealous I think he had some serious jealousy issues that may or may not have been founded yeah I think we got from your testimony that you believe he had serious jealousy issues my question to you is did he have a reason to be no so he was wrong he was wrong in June when he accused me of being with multiple people that I wasn't with yes uh Chase what do you got? I was surprised watching this as an attorney that she didn't describe okayCupid as a social site uh to begin with but she might have got hammered doing that but she takes the objection from her brother's counsel as a win you can see this kind of like this hair adjustment here with Mark's obsessed with hair he's going to talk about that I'm sure uh that he's going to talk about that hair movement there was I frozen there for a second? no everybody else was yeah oh okay all right everybody too so if you want to see some incredible proof of how spot on that lip parting display is when it comes to displaying innocence I want you to watch this clip look at the precise moment that there's an objection from the defense counsel her lips closed shut and the entire expression of this agreeableness leaves her face entirely this is one behavior that you can look for in your everyday life just by seeing both ends of this watch for when lip parting behavior starts if the person's lips are closed during a conversation and watch when it stops if the person's lips are parted like it just did like you're gonna see again in this video and when she says he was wrong in June when he accused me I'd like to know when he was right when was he correct about these accusations she makes a strong point about this being accurate in only a specific period of time and I'll let you know when I started reading today is this uh book here written by Wendy Adelson this is her uh book here and it is about human trafficking I wouldn't I don't think I would give it a five-star rating on Goodreads but it does illustrate some interesting concepts about identity and what's allowed and not allowed in social situations in a fictional uh context I guess uh Scott what do you got all right when she's asked about okay Cupid she rubs her left leg that hand goes down and she rubs it that lets us know some something's up there that's stressful for it and there's at some part where she says I don't know we actually see disgust there so there's something going on there with that relationship with Mr. LaCrosse or LaCosse whatever his name is um in that question um and plus the fact I think she's the the attorney's trying to make her feel a little bit embarrassed about that when because the way she says that she's so aggressive saying it I I think the attorney's great I like when she asks questions oh man me too I think she's awesome so then the attorney asked didn't you say you're on okay Cupid at the time you're dating Mr. LaCosse and when the attorney's yeah and so when the attorney says time that's what we're seeing that that disgust and we see some I flooded some some uh I'm the platter at that point so and and you can say that's blocking or you could say it's a a queue of stress or whatever but something's up there something's bugging her about that it may be the guy she may not you know she may be at that point may be over him so that that could be what's uh floating around in there and that's what we're seeing it's her reaction to that uh but I think she may know may know the timeline she's laid out is different than what's on her phone so I think that could possibly be making her feel uncomfortable about uncomfortable about what she's talking about and there's a whole lot of squiggling in her chair we haven't really seen much of that at this point and she's used a lot of animation which is answering the question as well and this again is a stress queue when you're to look for when you're asking someone a question that's that's fairly important start looking for things like that because everything changed right in there for every which starts squiggling around the chair now when the attorney uh says he had a reason to be jealous Wendy says um I think he had some serious jealousy issues she once again pulls that bottom lip down and like I said before typically that when someone does that and see that bottom lip being pulled down the side that's just um they're feeling doubt or being uncomfortable or some kind of discomfort someone in the impression the discomfort is the because the question is designed to generate stress for her because I think she's trying to get her worked up then she sees she can get her a little flustered so when she goes in even even harder she may you know not like what was that Jack Nicholson thing you can't handle the truth but I think she's trying to get in there and get a little bit flustered so she can't think straight Mark where do you go uh yeah so I think this is a attorney smackdown going on I think you got two attorneys with this moment of going up against each other I think it's interesting that that she's been kind of called out twice on what is really a judgment call which is you know when did the dating when did the dating finish I mean well you know what do you mean by dating what do you mean by finish it's like it becomes there is there's no code around that and if there was a code if there was some kind of book that you could go to is like this is when dating has finished like nobody's following that code anymore I mean maybe the jury are maybe this this this attorney knows something about the jury and is going okay I think we've got we've got a fairly conservative jury here socially conservative that you know there is a definite break up time and if you break up before that and you join some kind of other social site before that time that's the all all morals have been broken you're you're clearly a horrendous lady of the night in that so because I think you there's some social stress trying to be pushed here and I don't think this other attorney who's being questioned is going to buy that at all not going for it and so it's easy to break because you know dating starting and ending it's a moveable feast there's no it's it's all a judgment the same with did this person have reason to be jealous well I don't know like where's the where's the rule book on that what's reasonable what is a reasonable situation for this guy to be jealous and what's unreasonable what the person being questioned there is going I think it was very unreasonable his jealousy so in the end it's going to come down to what the jury think about this because you got two attorneys here going at each other and one is not going to allow the other to pin them down to to any strict dates around this so I just think that was quite fun to to see uh Greg what do you go on this one yeah and I agree with you she puts it off pretty quickly but she does show stress and she shows a significant amount of stress and the reason it's important to me is because we're going to look backward and take this as that so when we look back at video six if you remember all of the things that happened when she was asked about a listserver she was twisting in her chair her respiration was up she did a whole bunch of rubbing her leg and she was moving around all that same response to stress we're seeing here what what we know is that when people are feeling a certain way they typically do the same things so for example if you have children chase you're in your discipline your child they're going to respond in a light fashion most of the time most of us respond in like fashion we're back to patterns patterns of behavior baselines and deviations what we see here when she's asked about okay cupid she knows this is going to be something she has to defend and it's going to be stressful so we can see her then twist in her chair rubber legs all those same things and go back and look and compare the two when she moves her hair off her ear I think that's getting prepared or framing I don't know which I would call it but getting prepared for the next step I think she's like okay now it's on it's I've called this I'm just a girl in the past and people get offended by that but that is a defensive move and get ready here it comes in most cases I do think that when she's presented with the evidence she changes her story becomes vague we're back to the same thing she did again all those behavior patterns showing us that she was uncomfortable and she went to vague language she does that chaff and does not answer the question he had a reason to be jealous she pushes off topic and the woman comes back at her and then when she gets to force her to be specific getting her very specific even then when she does that he was wrong in June there's a change in her cadence as she's thinking through what to say so all that doesn't matter except we're seeing the exact same behavior here as we saw in video six the only thing they have in common is what's going on inside the processor of the person doing it so then you get to say why is she feeling this way when she's going to be called on the carpet about a dating app which really has no significance and doing it when she's asked about that list server is there something she's afraid of in each of those situations is there something that's pushing her buttons for some other reason I don't know but these two stand out for me from every video we watch because there's a pattern shift from what we saw as baseline that's all I got yeah and mark to your point Scott and I were very covertly picking a jury one time do you remember what I'm talking about this situation and both of us probably look like we were like sketch artists because like they were asking these questions and stuff and both of us were kind of looking up and like filling these notes out but at the end of the day we build a profile for these attorneys saying they're going to be very sensitive to this word and this word very specific vocabulary here's the themes that are going to piss them off here's what's going to make them happy here's the character story archetypes that they're going to relate to it is like a comprehensive package and that they might might have had some trial consultant people involved in this who knows one of those tape replays you were asked about Jeffrey LaCosse in a way that your relationship ended what is okay cupid okay cupid is a dating website were you on that dating website I was were you on that dating website at the time that you were dating Mr. LaCosse no I wasn't and were you speaking so I guess if you weren't on it you weren't speaking to multiple men from the website during the time you were dating Mr. LaCosse and I'll remind you that you provided your phone in this case and it was celebrated downloaded argument didn't you just say that you weren't on okay cupid at the time that you were dating Jeffrey LaCosse I don't know when we say I officially stopped dating Jeff LaCosse but there's a chance that I mean I I don't remember in 2014 whether I had gotten the app and started talking to people before we officially broke up okay so my point is there's a chance that he was right you were being unfaithful or at least talking to other people he had a reason to be jealous I think he had some serious jealousy issues that may or may not have been founded yeah I think we got from your testimony that you believe he had serious jealousy issues my question to you is did he have a reason to be no so he was wrong he was wrong in June when he accused me of being with multiple people that I wasn't with yes okay does date do Dan's parents know whether you committed this crime or not I don't know how to answer that question how would they particularly back at the time that she sent that email it was fresh at that time right I'm sorry what was fresh though all the events that were occurring the arrests that was two years after Danny's murder I don't know what she knew or didn't know I know that my children don't belong in foster care was it a specific foster care that she was requesting be called in the event that the children had no place to go and we're going to be going into the custody of the state she did suggest a specific foster care agency a Jewish run foster care agency a Jewish foster care all right why don't you first on this all right I'll go first on this one so this is one of the reasons I really like this attorney because she's getting in there trying to start some with this with with Wendy and to see if she can get her you know knocked knocked off her course there and get her all kind of jumbled up and and not be able to talk about clearly what she's trying to talk about but I think she's she's spot on in doing that because I think it's actually working now what I want to talk about here is because I didn't have a lot for this one is there's a guy there in the background the pink shirt and he's on the if you're looking at he's he's on there to the left so look at this he's back he's right behind that guy that looks like remember mr roper from threes company looks like norman fell a little bit like across between norman fell and bill clinton if you put him together he's got that sweat around the guy right there in the pink shirt right behind him and I think the hairdo on that guy is what most people think my hat looks like when I wear it because it looks like it's been put on at an angle like this I don't know if it was like a soft serve hair ice cream machine and it's it's at an like I said it's at an angle I'm not making fun of him but I'm just saying I'm not alone I think his hair is real and I'm not alone and if you're out there brother I'm with you mark what do you got I used to have a guy that I worked with and he had a hat and for the English people you'll you'll know if I say the walnut whip English people will probably know British people will know what I'm talking about but for anybody else if you think about the the poop emoji it's that kind of thing anyway he had a hat that was just like that that he'd wear in all seriousness and it was very hard to hold a conversation with him when he was wearing that that hat very hard to to take him at all seriously and it was a very serious chat but what have I got for this particular video Scott I think it is working on her because she's getting a little bit more aggressive now we're getting these these slightly narrowed direct eyes I think that you know targeted focus is going on when we're talking about the kids and foster care but that is congruent I think with the idea of your kids being put into foster care there's some aggression now from art from and targeting from our subject so she is getting the rise out of her but the behavior coming back I think is congruent for the rise that she's getting out of her uh Greg what have you got any strange hats yeah first of all I'm not I'm not critiquing anybody's hairstyle so I was critiquing it I'm saying it's I'm just pulling it out you got you got something to work from I got nothing so I couldn't pass it up so a couple of things with her I agree with you Mark she narrows her eyes and goes to eye lock and she starts lawyering the question about what she's asking and the prosecutor's patronizing her so you get it that's an important part of this back and forth and trying to shake her off kilter I don't understand them not a law professor I don't understand the specific kind of immunity she's been granted and what kind of thing might come out that they could use like don't know don't know any of that so if you're a lawyer put the comment down below and what could happen if she says x y or z I think she's protected but that part doesn't matter the last part is she's talking about her mother-in-law her ex-mother-in-law when this whole thing broke loose was talking about putting the children in foster care if the wife was arrested if Wendy was arrested so there would be some animosity there and and if you want to bring out animosities talk about people's children and putting me in foster care I'm sure you'll get that same for many of us what you got Scott I chase sorry uh he all had me at soft-serve ice hair machines poop emojis in bald gas let's just go to the next one Mark said poop one of those tape replays does date do Dan's parents know whether you committed this crime or not I don't know how to answer that question how would they particularly back at the time that she sent that email it was fresh at that time right I'm sorry what was fresh though all the events that were occurring the arrests that was two years after Danny's murder I don't know what she knew or didn't know I know that my children don't belong in foster care was it a specific foster care that she was requesting be called in the event that the children had no place to go and we're going to be going into the custody of the state she did suggest a specific foster care agency a Jewish run foster care agency a Jewish foster care okay I want to talk about where you went when you left your residence on the day of the murder you tried to turn on to Trescott and then you ended up where I went um I was supposed to go to a party that night a stock the bar party so I went to a liquor store to pick up what they had asked for as the present for their party so I went to the liquor store I picked up the alcohol I stopped I think I got gas and then I went to lunch to meet my friends in the liquor store purchase appears to have occurred at 1249 based on the receipt do you have any reason to dispute that timing sounds right okay and then from there to the restaurant yes and where was the restaurant located um mosaic I actually don't remember I just remember I would go north on uh Thomasville road all right so and is the restaurant where law enforcement came to speak with you and you ended up going with them to the police station right that's correct Greg what do you got yeah watch the impact of all these things we've been talking about about the back and forth because her entire respiration is all up here now and you see her whole body moving as she's talking it's it or she's breathing in heavy it's almost like she's heaving this response may sound a little bit rehearsed because I think she's probably come up with exactly how she's going to tell this story over time does that mean it's a lie don't think so and we know that she has evidence for all those places she went because she was at the restaurant at this time she was at a liquor store at this time so all she's doing is telling her story and one of the things it does point out Scott Bray says bigger illustrators are probably more often true than deceptive and we see that in her she's doing all the right stuff there are a couple of things here that that are interesting for me though um all the elements of what she's saying here are true and then she does something that you'll see in your life every day when you get an altercation with somebody and you're going back at it back and forth and back and forth the first time you find common ground and people do it naturally guys like me who would take advantage of it know that you're feeling that way when you immediately become over accommodating because the first common ground you get when you're in an altercation you over accommodate you're trying to get back to common with them people that know that can take advantage of you and manage that and manage your delivery of that and make you feel stupid make you feel manipulated or make you do something for them so just be cautious when you're doing that realize that it's innate in humans to try to mend that bridge as quickly as you can but be careful that people don't take advantage of that manipulate it and turn it back on you uh mark what you got yeah so look for me the timeline and this windback gesture that she's doing for me that seems congruent that seems like it makes sense chase i'll come to you next because i'd like to hear your view on on on whether it makes sense for you but it feels feels right uh to me but there is something about it which is quite labored so i think um though it's accurate what she's talking about she needs us to know exactly how accurate this is and also i think it's labored because she is a little bit um uh off balance throughout all of this i think to everybody's point here the the the attorney has done a job of destabilizing her i think she's destabilized i think the information is accurate but she's trying to find clear balance throughout this and and and get herself back on point i think the eyes go to the right kind of place as well for her to be recalling actual directions uh but chase i'd be interested if you see any subtlety in that that doesn't quite ring true what do you what do you got it's like you we teed this up it's perfect i'll tell you exactly what you saw and exactly why that seemed off let me tell you something about what i did today and all of it's going to be true i woke up this morning i had some coffee and i filmed a youtube video something is missing here because i did two things in a row and then i go like this to talk about the third thing there's something here in this timeline that she's built here from her left to her right which is how we typically build timelines and i'm moving from my right to your left so it makes more sense so she starts out with this i did this thing this thing and then i did this i wonder what was going on inside of this one foot long window when two giant chores that might have taken half an hour are this big what happened inside that little window and mark you right there i home or where she normally looks to access information up into her right is there and the attorney the prosecutor is holding this pin the whole time while she's asking these difficult questions this has been proven i think in some studies definitely in every interrogator that i know of holding a pin and acting like you're about to write down a bunch of notes reduces honesty dramatically acting like you're about to write everything down and everything's being like recorded on some big form uh really reduces somebody's openness and somebody's honesty i know interrogators who use like the back of a torn apart Walgreens receipt and a little pencil to take notes like they forgot their notepad and stuff it increases the level of openness because there's a lack of permanence the pin and the paper suggests there's some permanence to their behavior and our number one according to me anyway in interrogation is to force a person into short-term thinking which means they're not thinking about the consequences of what they're saying and doing as long as they're being honest scott what do you got all right now has anybody been thinking about those that adapter i was talking about earlier non-stop okay because in this one she does in this clip she does it 37 times and it's it's one of those things that's hidden in plain sight and it's something she does over and over and over again i went back and watched once i saw this i didn't want to add it from the beginning to here because it was such a big deal i couldn't believe i didn't see it and when i tell you what it is you go ah it's her her nostril flares she does it 37 times in this one clip and they're sometimes they're big sometimes they're small now quite often when things happen like this it's it's like you can view it like a tick like what her brother has you know so but she's trying to get rid of that built up stress and tension now usually when you see some of my flare their nostrils like that i got a big nose it's gonna be easy for you see and they'll do that they'll do this with it they'll and breathe in they'll they'll flare their nostrils and push there it's not lip compression it's just it is but it isn't what we usually look at is what i call stress mouth or compress lips they smush their lips together with their teeth as they flare their nostrils and when you do that anytime you goof around with your mouth or someone does and you touch your lips or push on your lips that sends a signal to your to your brain that says let's relax you need to relax something's up and that's what we're seeing here that's what she keeps doing over and over and over and i counted like i think i was up to 150 something when i stopped and i started again but i got from the beginning up to now there are so many of them and it's i don't want to say it's mind blowing but i can't believe i didn't i didn't see it up to now but look for it when you go back to because when once you start doing this on her you're not going to be able to to stop looking at it or looking for it now see if you can all the panelists see if you can count these as we go through on this how many times she doesn't see if you can count the 37 that i found there may be more but this tells us that her stress level is higher than it looks initially and this is her biggest and i think only besides a couple of those uh let's see the leg rub that might be one of the the few adapters we've seen that might be the only adapter and i think that might be why we haven't seen any or seen very many it's because that is such a big deal here so take a look at that from here on out and you'll see it over and over and over again uh mark what do you got uh i i've been i think we're all done everybody are we okay i was like hey chase i i came in late and and scrambled through these i missed and then or i would have been all over that you know that because when you say and then yeah oh yeah this big jump yeah yeah great and great catch and scott i did not notice her nose watch it i've got a big one everybody go oh my god what's wrong with his nose let's see keep doing that but hers i don't think it's fatigued but it's not as big as mine one of those tape replays okay i want to talk about where you went when you left your residence on the day of the murder you tried to turn on to tres scott and then you ended up where i went um i was supposed to go to a party that night a stock the bar party so i went to a liquor store to pick up what they had asked for as the present for their party um so i went to the liquor store i picked up the alcohol i stopped i think i got gas and then i went to lunch to meet my friends in the liquor store purchase appears to have occurred at 1249 based on the receipt do you have any reason to dispute that that sounds right okay and then from there to the restaurant yes and where was the restaurant located um mosaic i actually don't remember i just remember i would go north on uh thomas full road all right so and is the restaurant where law enforcement came to speak with you and you ended up going with them to the police station right that's correct you suspected your brother could have been a part of this right i suspected lots of people could have been a part of it but he was one of the people right while i was talking with law enforcement for six hours terrified out of my mind i offered them every possible idea i could come up with right and one of the possible ideas was that your brother could have murdered your child's father i didn't really believe that was possible it was part of the plot for you to be able to have plausible deniability about this absolutely not is it better for both you and your brother if you don't know the details of this i don't even understand the question that you're asking me when did you first become aware that you might be a suspect in this case i mean as the ex-wife i assumed i was a suspect from the beginning what was your first thought when you were asked if anyone might have murdered dan marquel for your benefit i thought oh my god maybe if i hadn't divorced him he would still be alive maybe maybe this is my fault because i complained to the wrong person maybe danie gave a student a bad grade and they came after him i just was trying to think of who possibly could have wanted to hurt him but you didn't say any of that before the first thing you said was charlie right i don't think so page 25 of your interview line five through 15 do you have any reason to dispute page 25 not five hours into it you say charlie might have done it right can i see please you may this is going to be tab one mark what do you got so uh the prosecution here is being super dramatic now which is you know quite fun to to see it's quite a quite a show i quite like it but i would say here is the moment where we've got possibility versus probability so the argument here is look i went through every possibility of people who could be involved and of course you know most everybody shows up in every possibility because of course most everything has a possibility to it that's the nature of possibility but it comes down to is it probable is it probable and possibility and probability are not the same thing by any means she says i didn't believe it was possible but she so but really now and this could be just me being pedantic is really she should be saying um and maybe this is just to get back at everybody who leaves comments down below with the most pedantic things possible uh so i'm gonna be one of those probable yeah very pedantic people that says no what you should be saying is i didn't think it was probable but maybe there is an element there of of of saying the wrong word for a good unconscious region a reason now i i don't i can't read people's minds i can't get into their unconscious it is possible that she uses the word possible rather than probable for an unconscious reason there um because because of course he is the person being prosecuted at this point and therefore it is more probable that he is involved rather than just a possibility anyway i'm chasing myself in in in circles here uh chase straighten it out for me she makes a denial here in the video she makes a denial and her denial here is different than every denial that she makes throughout the entire interview the entire cross examination the volume of her voice the latency which means the time between the end of a question and the beginning of an answer the latency is different her saying the word absolutely scott's going to get all over that and probably tell you more about it than i know there's a nod and a shake of the head at the same time we've never seen her do this up to this point there's a very strong deviation from her baseline a nod and a shake she's affirm every time just affirming something she's nodding very clearly and she shakes her head very clearly she does both in this tiny little movement here uh at the same time then her eyes are widening for this as well all out of baseline and it's all inside of a cluster of behaviors that we typically see with a person who is being potentially deceptive there and this is where the acting i think starts you can see this market difference in her behaviors from all the previous videos and i don't think this is because this is the first time being deceptive this is the first time she's having to directly address something in contrast to the sea of ambiguity that she's kind of been able to swim in up until this point there's increased head tilting widening of the eyes prolonged head shaking uh no like this long after she's done talking keep shaking her head so what's missing i always ask this in every video what's missing one description of an emotion she's talking about everything she went through and only these logical reasoning and unemotional thought processes about the incident no description of any how it affected her how it might affect the kids especially and when the prosecutor goes to show her the binder of documents i want you to pay very very close attention to this i want you to see this because it's going to really be very dramatic for you when you see it watch windy's absolute desperation to make eye contact with this prosecutor as she's moving to get these papers the moment the prosecutor grabs the binder and then faces her windy's head tilts a little bit she blinks a few times it instantly shows grief on her face the moment the prosecutor makes eye contact with her and you'll see it when the video plays back up here it's incredible scott what do you think all right you're right yeah the attorney asks was part of the plot for you for you to be able to have plausible plausible deniability about this big helpful and wendy says absolutely not we quite often we've heard on this if you're a subscriber if not please subscribe you've heard us talk about when people say the word absolutely and most of the time when they say absolutely they're not being honest i'm not saying she's not being honest i'm not saying she's telling the truth i'm just pointing that out to you but what we should be seeing here is a solid head nod illustrating confirmation as she says no absolutely not but like chase was just saying and and i defend this every every every time this comes up and i always say when they're shaking their head yes they're saying they're illustrating on the specific words that their brain is trying to to make important in other words for you to see and for you to understand then here we're not seeing that she's saying yes and no it's it's not even circular it's really odd i agree with the chase i haven't seen somebody pull this one off like that because i think in her mind i think it's hitter that she's saying yes but she should be saying no not totally in the in the frontal cortex but i mean it's somewhere in there she knows she should be saying no but she's saying yes and she's fighting that so she knows something's wrong so that odd head bobble there everyone watching this all the panelists who've watched this for a long time will go why does that make me feel weird that makes you feel weird because your brain says i'm seeing something there and something's not right i don't know what it is yet but something's odd and something's not right here now that behavior puts me on alert from that moment on then the attorney asks um is it better for both of you both you and your brother if you don't know the details keep an eye on her nostrils there the the all this flaring that we've seen at this point it disappears it subsides and she's for some reason starting to shut down a little bit so she's not even thinking about adapting at that point so i think there's something up here and then wendy says um or wendy should exhibit behavior that would indicate she's a bit angry and she tries to do that she tries to to make it look like she's angry but we're not seeing anger there when you see somebody who's angry and they their eyes are all squinted and all that hers are wide open but when you see let's go to the squinted eyes part when somebody gets angry and they squint their eyes and look at you they're not angry if the eyes are just squinted if they're squinted and you see that inside part of the eyes there open up like there's like a psychopath or something they're mad because they're squinting as their eyes are trying to stay open because their brain's saying we may have to go with this person we may be fighting here in just a minute because they're getting mad and their eyes will do that so we're not seeing that here what we're seeing here is not anger we're seeing fear this put fear in her her mouth is open her eyes are wide are wide open so when we should be seeing anger she's trying to give the impression she's angry that's not what it is it's fear so i'm under the impression i could be wrong probably am she knows more than she's saying and i think we should pay attention pay attention to that because from now we're gonna see a couple other uh indications of fear here because that's again that's not anger we're seeing fear uh greg what do you got well she starts off with some nervous laughter which we always say is a great indicator that something is mismatched when a person's laughing with nervous energy at the beginning of this and then she moves to absolutely not and she that's the first time again we've heard absolutely first time we've heard an emphatic declaration also her body language shifts when she does that you're saying it she tries to do anger i see it a little disgust at the same time she's trying to do anger and then she turtles if you look at her head here and go back to the very first video you'll see her head is lower than it was in relation to that backboard always a good place to have a measure chase i love the thing you brought up because something else changes too when she makes that hard eye lock with her and trying to get her attention and right after that grief what happens immediately is her eyes go away from her and to that document almost like it's now the threat because she has said something that they can counter and it's in writing there's a transcript this is an interesting change for her and we can see because watch those swallows and all those tense muscles in her neck and throat you can see it and watch her following that around i think she's thinking at that point i think i remember but i want to be sure now you got a threat i'm bringing it out and i'm bringing it out to show you exactly what you said that's a whole lot of palm water if you're wrong and we'll see how that goes i struggle every time we film a video trying to mimic the behaviors that y'all are talking about and then trying to cover up the fact that i just tried to mimic i do them sometimes intentionally just because muscles you know like when scala started with the nostril flaring i was like don't do it don't do it don't one of those tape replays you suspected your brother could have been a part of this right i suspected lots of people could have been a part of it but he was one of the people right while i was talking with law enforcement for six hours terrified out of my mind i offered them every possible idea i could come up with right and one of the possible ideas was that your brother could have murdered your child's father i didn't really believe that was possible was part of the plot for you to be able to have plausible deniability about this absolutely not is it better for both you and your brother if you don't know the details of this i don't even understand the question that you're asking me when did you first become aware that you might be a suspect in this case i mean as the ex-wife i assumed i was a suspect from the beginning what was your first thought when you were asked if anyone might have murdered dan markel for your benefit i thought oh my god maybe if i hadn't divorced him he would still be alive maybe maybe this is my fault because i complained to the wrong person maybe danie gave a student a bad grade and they came after him i just was trying to think of who possibly could have wanted to hurt him but you didn't say any of that before and the first thing you said was charlie right i don't think so page 25 of your interview line five through 15 do you have any reason to dispute page 25 not five hours into it you say charlie might have done it right can i see please you may this is going to be tab one page 25 what i say here is that he would never do it right under the highlighted part i say no he would never page 25 line five through 15 i mean my brother the one his name is charlie the one i'm really close to he makes a lot of jokes in that taste and it was a joke he made he bought the tv for me this morning that got broken and then i was talking to him about whether it made sense to pay or fix it or whether i should get a new one and it was always like it was always his joke that like he knew that danie always treated me badly and it was always his joke he said i looked into hiring a hitman and it was cheaper to get you this tv so instead i got you this tv and you do say you don't think he would do it but can we agree you brought up his name on page 25 of the interview i did when asked would you ever ask someone to do something like this you say not in a million years when asked okay do you think someone would do this for your benefit without asking you you say no and when isam starts to ask you what good does it serve you say i mean my brother the one his name is charlie isn't that how it went this is the transcript but i think there's also inaccuracies in the transcription all right do you want the culpable parties held accountable for murdering the father of your children absolutely i'm grateful they're already in jail but not if it's your family it's not my family i mean somebody hired him right not necessarily somebody paid him i learned something this morning yeah me too you didn't want him held accountable if it was your family members didn't you tell law enforcement that that's not what i told law enforcement what did you tell law enforcement i told them that the person who did this should be held responsible and that i had nothing to do with it page 122 line 7 through 12 if somebody tried to kill my ex-husband they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law the investigator says regardless of who it is and your answer is i mean it would be different if i thought it were my brother but i don't think it was my family it's different now isn't it no it's not different that's exactly what i did is right here no that's not a further questions all right chase what do you got you're started over all right chase what do you got so he's been comfortable looking at her every moment that we've seen so far until right now and he looks away and one thing you'll notice is that his hand is here and then at the very specific moment there's talking about making those jokes you'll see his wrist turn inside then he starts covering about half of his face so the exposure and concealment of our arteries can almost stand on its own as a measure for somebody's level of comfort or fear and at this point he's covering half his face won't look at her his blink rate starts going way up it goes from like a 19 to about a 58 and blink rate is so reliable because it's unconscious we're mostly unaware and and it's hard to control during times of stress concentrating on your blink rate means that you're going to leak out behaviors everywhere else because you're not managing yourself and we spend a lot of our time looking into people's eyes when we're having conversations so that's why blink rate is such a great barometer for somebody's stress level and one thing I've trained an attorney in very recently is when you're referring to a transcript that has something you don't like in there you never say the word the to describe it it's always a transcript not the transcript so if you're an attorney remember that you want to sound you want to slightly start discrediting a transcript or something that's typed up there it's always a transcript a transcript of the thing so there's eight ways that somebody can conceal or manipulate information and I've got no doubt everyone's going to be debating on whether or not she was truthful but I don't think that's the best argument to have out of those eight ways of manipulating information that I teach the one that she's doesn't really do much of at all is direct deception but in my opinion what I've seen in this video there are five of these behaviors there's self enhancement there's cover-up there's a mission avoiding and selective truth there and her answer to the justice question which is like what should happen to these people which I call the justice question was so ready to go that she couldn't wait to get it out and every part of that was a deviation in her baseline and this is why knowing baseline is 50 times more important than memorizing a long list of possible deceptive behaviors knowing baseline is the best thing you can do sometimes there is no direct deception going on but you need to look for changes in that behavior and Scott I've called on you so many times but you've gone last so many times that I'll call on you again what you got bless you I in my healing like we talked about last week I think this is I hope I appreciate you helping with my healing deep blessings now apparently the attorney has has a little bit of interrogation experience or she's familiar with it because she says she asked a classic question again what do you think should happen to the person who did this in other words that's a part of the read technique that's one of the things you use that's one of the first questions you ask when you go you don't open up with that obviously but you go in and it's your style you ask that question it may not be a question just like that but she asks like this she says do you want the couple culpable parties held accountable for murdering the murdering the father of your children and Wendy again answers absolutely they're already in jail and again we see fear here the eyes are open and the mouth is open and she's trying she thinks she looks angry she's trying to look angry but she's not she's not exhibiting fear or anger she's exhibiting fear I'm gonna leave it there I think because I think that that is so important what we're seeing there as to what's happening here Greg what do you got yeah I'm only gonna say a couple things about her the reason that she's let's talk about the prosecutor prosecutor is using that bait question or I'm sorry that punishment question is because she's repeating what a good interrogator said in the interrogation room and it's in the transcript that's the reason she's doing as they Scott though but it's a good it is a good example of an interrogator knowing what he's doing when he's talking to a source or a perpetrator and the other thing is I think when all that anger that pseudo whatever that is it comes out I think that's just her releasing at that prosecutor it has nothing to do with feelings about the situation I think it has more to do with feelings here because it's just out of character and way too pronounced for everything else she's done I'll leave it at that on her let's talk about him because I when you chase I watched him more than I I cared more about what he was doing he starts off with lip compression after she says he would never do it and that converts over to a real smile with his eyes closed almost smug almost your close eye talking thing chase and I think that's because he's probably uncertain what she said until he heard that I mean he's not been in that interrogation room and then when she wilts and goes to that that new thing where she's talking about um I said he would never do it and then she brings up the jokes about him saying it would be cheaper to have him killed or I would have him killed watch him then because then it changes dramatically his face goes to one of acceptance like well that's that I'm done now I think you can see him realizing how much damage that one sentence from that transcript and I think it's a really good indicator maybe that's why she gets this demonstrative anger maybe that's why the emotion comes out but I'm with you chase you can be deceptive without outright lying there's many ways that people can be deceptive like only answering the question you ask conditioning the question you ask and specifically answering in a way that is meaningful that all she has to do is say she thought her brother killed him for this to start to sound like she was in conspiracy with him so all those questions that she's asking poking and prodding were you involved in those kinds of things now come to the forefront if she says I thought he did it I really thought she so she goes out of her way and she goes and says nope I've never really thought he did as a matter of fact here and then watch that chin down overthrow and she questions to accuracy the transcript that is not in baseline that's a deviation I think all of us are going to red flag on that one mark what do you got yeah I still think it's quite a nice attorney versus attorney kind of smack down I think they're both playing quite a hard game when one is obviously in a worse off position than the other because one is on the on the wrong side of the stand in the in this particular you know one is not being paid one is is she's not the you know she's not accused of anything but she is in the defensive position and so what chance does she have for some aggression well I think she looks she's been pushed into a situation whereby the narrative is that she was maybe somewhat entertaining the idea of a murder maybe not conspiring but but there would be benefit and she's entertaining it even in a in a in a joking way is enough to put to put to get that jury to look at the brother in an even harsher potential light so look here's here's what you never want to happen is is for the is if you're trying to control the narrative for somebody take control of the context because if you can pull back and reveal if you can look at the situation with a bigger context you can completely ruin somebody's narrative and that's what the subject here tries to do and and doesn't go far wrong on it which is to go look let's just have a look at what I say before and after you know give me the transcript let's have a look at that were I really trying to control the narrative here I would move to another question and not even get her to to read anything from there it would look look belligerent and like I'm not listening to her but I think she does pull back to enough context whereby some people not necessarily that jury but some some people would go yeah fair bit taken out of context there one of those tape replays what I say here is that he would never do it right under the highlighted part I say no he would never page 25 line 5 through 15 I mean my brother the one his name is charlie the one I'm really close to he makes a lot of jokes in that taste and it was a joke he made he bought the tv for me this morning that got broken and then I was talking to him about whether it made sense to pay or fix it or whether I should get a new one and it was always like it was always his joke that like he knew that Danny always treated me badly and it was always his joke he said I looked into hiring a hitman and it was cheaper to get you this tv so instead I got you this tv and you do say you don't think he would do it but can we agree you brought up his name on page 25 of the interview I did when asked would you ever ask someone to do something like this you say not in a million years when asked okay do you think someone would do this for your benefit without asking you you say no and when isam starts to ask you what good does it serve you say I mean my brother the one his name is Charlie isn't that how it went this is the transcript but I think there's also inaccuracies in the transcription boy all right do you want the culpable parties held accountable for murdering the father of your children absolutely I'm grateful they're already in jail but not if it's your family it's not my family I mean somebody hired him right not necessarily somebody paid him I learned something this morning yeah me too you didn't want him held accountable if it was your family members didn't you tell law enforcement that that's not what I told law enforcement what did you tell law enforcement I told them that the person who did this should be held responsible and that I had nothing to do with it page 122 lines 7 through 12 if somebody tried to kill my ex-husband they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law the investigator says regardless of who it is and your answer is I mean it would be different if I thought it were my brother but I don't think it was my family as well different now isn't it no it's not different that's exactly different today isn't it here no that's not a further questions just one more thing all right mark up to this point how are things look to you well here's what I've really enjoyed about this I'm especially at the start of this enjoying just how kind of buttoned down she is and has really taken control of her body language but yet still there's some really subtle stuff happening in there I don't think we often see that kind of subtle behavior showing through when somebody has kind of locked themselves down so well so interesting to see that control at the start chase if you've made it with us up to this point then you probably are one of those people that know how important and universal a lot of these behavioral skills are so it's painless to hit that like button it definitely helps us with the youtube algorithm and the subscribe button down below and we'll keep teaching you for as long as you want to hang around in this video I think it's a perfect testament to how powerful and revealing that our bodies are just as human beings our bodies want to tell the truth all the time and we can't control the whole body all the time and I think this is just a great example because she's trained in litigation and deposition and interview and all this stuff she also got immunity here which acts as another layer to kind of insulate her sorry from showing signs of discomfort and stress and this prosecutor did such an incredible job starting out with these small easy questions to help us people like us form a baseline as we're getting started here and Scott I loved the nostril flare thing when this premieres on Thursday when people are watching it which will be right now I'm going to be counting that Greg would what are you up to now yeah I love when people tell us that body language is snake oil and you know what my response to them is most of the time and they understand it it's a beautiful thing and the reason that we are usually trying to be convincing with our body languages it is our tool to convince you what we need what we want I can communicate with you more effectively by using it and so when it gets hijacked is when you're trying to hide it to your point chase and the more practice you have the better you're going to be but it even still leaks and I think the two places that caused me some concern were around video six and video eight where she was stressing and showing stress signs around the list server where they're announcing where they're traveling and then around where she was on the dating app both those things have different something different to generate them but the same outcome so did she have any part in this hang on if there's ever a trial we'll figure that out what we're just telling you is what we saw in these videos and that's it Scott what do you got yeah I agree with you one of my favorite things is when we in the comments and I read all the comments is when people say well you should do videos where you don't know the outcome and I'm like we'll go watch the 40 we've done or you didn't know the outcome but we were right so that's that that gives you an idea of how body language isn't a pseudoscience and it is it is something that is research we do that we do that some of the research we reread all that we make sure everything we're telling you is in other words true and in fact fact not just fact based but facts and so because a lot of times the information we give people for what we do if we give them the wrong information again and killed so just going on in google and something tells somebody oh the what is it 3855 rulers communicate 738 55 ruler communication means you know body language is 93% of communication or we know that's just crazy talk it's not true at all so that's one of the things I like about that now in this I think this is a great example of seeing someone who I'm under the impression and I could be wrong that they have guilty knowledge and by guilty knowledge I mean they're saying they they know more about what happened than they're letting on they know or admitting to that's what I think is happening here that's just me I could be wrong just my opinion but I think that's what we're seeing I think it's a great example of it I think when this thing is over I'll be vindicated or smushed either way I don't know all right fellas think this is another good and we'll see you next time so what do you got