 That's great. Now if I'm drinking and water starts falling out of my mouth side of my mouth it's because I went to the dentist today. Oh lovely. So the one half of my face is frozen at the moment. Really? Yeah. But I also did my own hair. I cut my own hair. What do you think? Is it going to float me? No, no it wasn't. Like it looks great man. I like it. Yeah. Looks good. Pretty good. Yeah, not bad at all. Not bad at all. Looks really good. Good. So my start looks like my hair now looks like the hair I would draw on a drawing when I was a kid. If I drew a stick man or something to put hair on it that's the way my hair looks now. What a fascinating case. I didn't know any history until you talked about it Greg. It's crazy. I've never heard about it before. And I started looking for a place we could maybe weigh in and help with an Innocence Project one or whatever we see is what we see. Yeah. All right. Ready? Yeah. There we go. I'm Scott Rouse, my body language expert and analyst and I train law enforcement in the military and interrogation in body language. I created with Greg Hartley the number one online course body language tactics. Mark? I'm Mark Bowden. I'm an expert in human behavior and body language and help people all over the world to stand out win trust and gain credibility every time they communicate including some of the leaders of the G7. Chase? I'm Chase Hughes. I did 20 years of the U.S. military. Now I teach interrogation, behavior profiling, influence and persuasion to intelligence agencies and the general public. And I'm the author of the number one bestselling book, The Ellipsis Manual and this brand new book here, Six Minute X-Ray Rapid Behavior Profiling soon to be an owner of Scott's brand new body language book. Greg? I'm Greg Hartley. I'm a former Army interrogator, interrogation instructor, resistance to interrogation instructor. I've written 10 books on body language and behavior and I put together this course with Scott at BodyLanguageTactics.com. I work most of the time on Wall Street in corporate America today. All right. Well, today we're going to talk about a guy named Rodney Reid and this has sort of blown up over the past six, eight months. Greg, why don't you give us a little bit of background on what you found? Yeah. So guys, I'll be as factual as I can. This is a complex case. This is one that we love, one that it's such a mess that it's hard to read through anything and figure out what's going on. So I think this case is about 21, 22 years old. He's been in prison 21, 22 years, something like that, maybe even longer because I think he went in when he was 22 and he's 53 now. Anyway, he's accused of murder and rape of a woman in the town he was that he lives in and this is a town in Southern Texas, somewhere outside San Antonio. His response to that was that he was in a consensual relationship where there's a reason they found DNA on her. And since then, lots of things have changed, lots of evidence. If you go look this case up, you need to spend a lot of time. When you first open up this case, you'll find all one-sided information and you'll find all the other sides of information. It's a big deal. He was slated to be executed in that last minute, delayed that execution and that's now indefinite. He's on death row in Texas. Lots of celebrities are involved. The Innocence Projects involved. Dr. Phil has been involved. A whole lot of people have talked to him. There are many interviews. You'll have to go and spend time to understand how complex this case is. There's DNA evidence. There may have been mishandling of the body, some chain of custody issues. So we're not going to cover any of that today. We're going to say, what do we see in this interview? I'm also going to tell you that many of the interviews you'll see, the person may or may not be pro or anti Rodney Reed. In the case where they're pro and they're fist bumping the glass, those are a little suspect to me. This woman, when she's questioning, I will say this, she's not the best questioner I've met. I think she has a hard time being rude and asking hard questions. I've taught interrogation for a lot of years. That's the number one failure in interrogators. They have a hard time saying, hey, did you kill this girl? So her questioning style may not be good, but she does ask some very good, hard questions a couple of times and we'll get to see some body language. What we plan to do is not say Rodney Reed is guilty or innocent. We plan to say, here's what we see. And then at the end, we'll come back and say, what are you thinking? What are each of us thinking? Is that helpful? Yeah, perfect. Okay. You already look at the first little clip. Joel, here we go. And I mean, when Stacey was, when you found out about her homicide, what was that like initially when someone who you know, well was and see, I didn't find out. I didn't find out about her death till, I don't know, three, four days later because I had, what was with her earlier that week, you know, late night Sunday, early morning, Monday. And I find out about her death. Let's see the Thursday or Friday that week. Well, I hear about it. I don't believe it. And then there's something on the news. I've been told about it. And then there's something on the news and it just blew me away, you know, on the things that she told me, you know, when she said she told me that Jimmy, that Jimmy would kill that if he found out. But prior to that, he told me that I was going to pay, you know, so I don't know. And then when you got Jimmy involved with police, you know, because he was a police officer himself, you know, who can you say something to, you know, I'm saying when the police is always pointing his fingers at you from the beginning, it has to follow this. Okay, Chase, what do you got? We see something in here. I'm going to point out that's not the behavior stuff that we typically look at. When he starts off, he uses the word look. And typically people who are visually driven will speak with those visual words. They'll say something doesn't look right. It looks off. The guy's very bright. He's has a colorful personality. These words that describe visual things. And Greg talks a whole lot about baseline and deviations from baseline. And this is another way that we can gain a data point. So if someone starts using a conversation, using all of these visual words and then transitions to I remember when I heard this, something didn't sound right. And they told me this and I was listening to them tell me this. So that's a whole bunch of audio words. And he makes this transition in here, which I think is an interesting data point. And we see some eye movement in here that I'm sure you guys will unpack a little more, but we see a lot some internal dialogue going on. And we see a tiny shift to something that might be his truthful recall spot, which is kind of to his left directly to his left. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so I've watched enough of this guy's video you're dead on his recall, most of his video, his audio recallers or his visual recall is going to be somewhere on his left. His internal conversation is down his left. I've watched a whole lot of video in him. But a couple of things. Let's go back for a second. Let's talk about requests for approval. Remember, I say that when you use your face a lot, you etch, you leave behind your word is etch, mine is residuals chase, but you leave behind a lot of marks on your forehead when you use your forehead a lot. This guy raises his forehead a hell of a lot. You can't miss it. Those muscles are frozen. And what happens, your momma was right when she told you your face is going to freeze that way. If you use your face enough, you end up with those lines in your forehead and he has those. He's doing it a fair amount. That's not what's important in this element to me. Watch, go back and watch him when he edits what he's saying, his forehead rises. When he is asking for approval, his forehead rises. When he is telling a story or concentrating, his brow is down. So that was a big tell for me early in this. This doesn't mean he killed anybody, but it means I'm going to watch him very carefully so that when he is doing that brow rise thing, I'm going to wonder why. Because in the middle of his editing, his story saying, I found out I heard, you saw that forehead rise. When he talked about, I didn't hear about it. I heard about it and his forehead rises. When he edits his story, when something changes and he's asking for approval, it's there. We want to pay really close attention. He blinks a fair amount in this. He does about 20 blinks in a minute and 14 seconds. I'm going to pay attention to that throughout this because there are a couple of times when his eyes flutter, but he doesn't blink a hell of a lot when he's walking through. When he's talking about Jimmy, by the way, Jimmy is her fiance at the moment that she dies. He's the first suspect and he has his own whole bag of monkeys to go with this thing. He's a mess. He goes to prison for rape later of someone else. We won't get into all the case, but go read this thing. It's a mess. When he talks about Jimmy, that's her fiance at the time who is also a sheriff's deputy or police officer. When he's storytelling, his forehead relaxes. When he gets to pertinent details, that blink rate increases and that forehead rises, makes me wonder, makes me wonder. Then at Jimmy saying to him, Jimmy said something to him that brow rises. The whole crux of his defense has been I was in a consensual relationship with her and Jimmy came and told me I was going to pay. That's what I got. Mark, what do you got? Yes, I agree. Lots of requests for approval there, which is interesting. It's a good start to a baseline because maybe he does request for approval quite a lot. We'll see what happens. Certainly from my point of view, he's really locked off because of the phone here. So I look at that and I go, okay, well, I might be in trouble here because we're not going to get a lot of big gross body movement here. We're not seeing illustrators, adapters coming into the frame only now and again. So I kind of go, oh no, we're going to miss a lot of what's going on. We've got lots happening in the face, though. Great detail there. And actually what we do see is when the body will often just lunge forward just a little bit. We do see when he gets to do shoulder shrugs, be they double or single. So we're going to have to look at the kind of the detail of the smaller movements in the body, which because he's locked off actually show up quite well. So I see him move forward on this stress point around Jimmy would kill her. So certainly from my point of view, in the narrative, the story he's wanting to tell, he wants to put a lot of emphasis on that. And we see his body lunge forward on that. What's interesting for me is that he doesn't answer the feeling question until a lot later on, he starts into a series of events. And those series of events place him not with the woman when she was killed. And then once he's placed not with her, then he talks about disbelief and blown away, which was the initial question, you know, how did you feel? Well, you know, you could answer immediately. I felt disbelief. I was blown away by it. But no, he starts into placing himself away from her before he goes into how he felt about it and then points the finger at a police conspiracy really around this. So, you know, interesting opening video there avoids emotion, gets into the story that best suits him, and we're going to have to look out for some subtle movements in the body because of how he's locked off. Scott, what do you got? All right. Well, this guy, like Greg was saying, he's really charismatic. He's been in there for a while. And he's got his story straight. These are some of the things I'm going to focus on as we go through this is his presentation of this. That's Mark's bag is presentation, but from the interrogator's perspective, I'm going to look at how he's giving us this picture. He's trying to create, what you do the same as when you're trying to pitch your idea if you're an entrepreneur, you try to create a picture in this other person's head that they can take home and give to their other person, to their wife, their husband, whoever. So when they go home and say, what do you think about investing in? Then go stick it in their head and they go, oh, I totally get it. Or I don't like that, whatever it is. So you're trying to create this picture in their head. And that's what he's doing. Now, his vernacular and his sentence structure have changed. I watched an earlier interview as well. And before he was kind of, as you will be, when you're young and you're up and run around, you get a lot of energy. He was a lot more energetic. And his story, it loped a lot better. Here, he's looking at his story in a linear fashion. He's telling it from a third person's perspective. If you'll start listening for that. So he does say, his pronouns and the way he uses his vernacular in some way says, I was there. Other ways, it's like we're looking at this thing laid out in a linear fashion, in other words. And his vernacular changes from when he was younger to now. He's been in prison. He's been talking to his lawyer, I'm sure, as often as he possibly can, reading law books and those types of things. And one thing that's changed in there in his sentence structure is instead of saying, before that, I did so and so, he would say, prior to that, this happened. Or this happened prior to that. I feel like Chase with a pen. And then the part that bothered me was when he said that the police officer told him, he said, you're going to pay. He says, he said, you're going to pay. What he should have said, or what normally someone will say is, he said, you're going to pay for this man. Here's what you're going to pay. He would say it from the law enforcement guy's perspective instead of you're going to pay from watching it in that third person's perspective. So that's one. But then again, this doesn't mean that he's a murderer or anything. It just means that something's changed in there. He may be tired of it. He may have separated himself from that person back then in his life when he was younger, which he discusses later on, when he was younger. And that's the way he thought. But he's looking at this from a third person's perspective. So that's that kind of is rubbing me weird. But we'll see what happens as we go along. When your inputs, remember, when you're in prison, your inputs are people who've been charged with crimes and the language you use is going to change and all of that over time too. Somebody pointed that out in comments on the Rebecca Fenton thing. Hers is a little bit earlier in the process. This guy's been there for a long time, been on death row, has talked to celebrities, talked to a ton of people. So his vernacular, I agree with you, Scott. His vernacular is going to change over time. Inputs change it. Outputs, right? And I mean, when Stacy was, when you found out about her homicide, what was that like initially when someone who you know well was? And see, I didn't find out, I didn't find out about her death till, I don't know, three, four days later, because I had what was with her earlier that week, you know, late night Sunday, early morning, Monday. And I find out about her death this either Thursday or Friday that week. Well, I hear about it. I don't believe it. And then there's something on the news. I've been told about it and then there's something on the news and it just blew me away, you know, on the things that she told me, you know, when she said she told me that Jimmy, that Jimmy would kill that if he found out. But prior to that, he told me that I was going to pay, you know. So I don't know. And then when you got Jimmy involved with the police, you know, because he was a police officer himself, you know, who can you say something to, you know, I'm saying when the police is always pointing his fingers at you from the beginning, it has to ball this stuff. Okay, we good? Yeah. What were your feelings for Stacy? Excuse me. What were your feelings for her? What do you mean as far as? Well, when you were, you know, even though she was engaged, there were real feelings there. There were, but at the same time, I was, I was seeing someone too at the time and we were both cheating. We were both, but we enjoyed our time together. You know what I'm saying? That's the way that's what it was going on. That was going on at the time. All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so there's one thing that jumps off the plate at me. And guys, remember, I'm looking for where to dig in. This is what I do. I'm looking for what gets my attention and makes me want to poke and understand more. When she asked this question, this is not the first time he's ever heard this question. Why would he have scrutiny and the deep inhale that he has there that indicate that someone is preparing for something complex when this is something he should have heard over and over and over again, and it shouldn't make him feel uncomfortable. And those are signs of discomfort, right? And by the way, if you're uncomfortable because of the question, you also wouldn't look confused. Those three pieces of body language to me aren't typically the thing. I don't get uncomfortable, confused and take a deep breath if I don't understand the question, right? If I don't understand the question, I'm like, what the hell are you talking about? Even if I'm in trouble, those three things together, we talk about clusters, we talk about baseline. This is a baselining exercise. It's the only time I see him do this. The other thing that's interesting to me, he eye blocks a fair amount in here. You'll see him closing his eyes to get away from the issue. And he eye blocks with his shoulders up and deep breathing. Like you said, Mark, you only really see his shoulders. You're much like you can with us. When she says engaged, he purses his lips. He does that. We typically associate that with disapproval. We associate that with a negative emotion. Why? Again, doesn't say he murdered this girl, this woman. It says, I want to dig in. I want to poke. I want to know why he did this. So then when they talk about when she says, what about your, I heard your mother warned you about this. You see that knowing smile of, yep, my mom said, this is going to cost me. And that smile is not a pleasant smile. That's just a smile. Again, as I look at him, I want to pay attention to processing time. He does this scrutinizing and confused thing to give his brain processor time so he can work out how he's going to respond. Does that mean a lie? No, but it means there's a pause. Ask all questions, go ask, pause, respond. And if a person needs more time, which I wouldn't expect after 20 years, then I'm going to want to dig in. That's the interrogator in my brain. Scott, what do you got? All right. We're seeing classic facial expressions you see in books. You see everything from Eggman to Joe Navarro's books we see in Mark's books, the hell all of our books. I say our books now. And we're seeing these classic facial expressions. We're seeing purse lips, which denotes indicates that he doesn't agree with what's being said there. Like going back to what Greg was saying. And he was a boxer, this guy. When she says or he was saying we were both cheating, what he does in there right after they takes that he closed his eyes, it takes a deep breath, then his head and then he starts that bothers him. But then he starts this when he starts his answer, his head starts, he starts bobbing and weaving like a boxer. I mean, his head goes down, his shoulders come up, he starts this stuff. I don't know if he's thinking that, thinking tactically like a boxer. But those guys, once you talk to them, you can spot a boxer standing four blocks down because the way their calves look in the back and the way they bounce on the front part of their feet, you'll see them do that quite often, especially if they're younger, even older boxers have a look to them from a distance. You can spot them. And some of the things that bother me were the part where he slips purse when she asked him that. But she says, after she asked that question about what are you feeling for Stacy, the purse slip says, this whole thing tells me, in other words, he didn't really have feelings for her. He just saw her as a sexual partner and he was cheating with her. And he was ashamed of being cheating because he said they both were and he was too. And everything we see in that from those classic gestures we're seeing tells that he's embarrassed about doing that. He knows it's wrong. We're not dealing with psychopath here. This guy understands what's happening. And he understands what he's done something wrong. And he's showing us that he doesn't realize he's showing us that. But that's what that's what's happening there. Greg covered most everything I had. I still think he had any feelings for at that to wrap that part up. Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So to that point of, does he have any feelings? Because this is the second time that he's avoided delivering on a feeling question and gone in a different direction. So here's what I would do if I were interviewing him. Because he purses his lips a couple of times, I'd be wanting to know what his mother said to him exactly. I'd want to know, hey, so tell me about this. What did your mum tell you about this? Also, I would want to make a gamble on some of the feelings that he could be feeling. And I would probably hit jealousy. I would probably go, hey, I'm just curious, were you jealous in this situation? Or were you envious? Or did you feel angry or lay down a few options? Now, the problem is when you lay down options, some people will just take an option just because it's there. It doesn't mean it's their emotion. It's a bit of a plant in some ways. But some people will grab hold of that emotion and develop it and then start to tell you what the real feeling is. Some will go, no, no, no, not jealousy. What I felt was, and they'll tell you the feeling that they have. So that for me is a bit of a missed opportunity there. But absolutely, we get those lips pulled around engaged, which is why I wonder whether there might be some jealousy there. So strong dislike of somebody attached to somebody else. Again, his mother may have told him something about this. Last thing about this is really low blink rate at the moment. So he's super calm here. Again, we're going to see some some differences to that as we go along. But a great baseline here is he's just calm and locked down and not getting involved in the emotion that could be here. There, that's what I got for you. Chase, what do you got? Thanks, Mark. And I think when we're talking about if you are asking somebody those emotional questions, one thing that you absolutely can do and you can do the same thing with names of people is read off a list and watch for the body to either freeze or show some kind of reaction. This is especially effective if they're in motion. So if they're a little bit more animated than usual, that's when you're going to see a freeze when that topic comes up. And I think the question about how he felt about her was unusual for him. All the people are asking, what's the status of the relationship? How often did you see or these are factual things that can be collected? This woman wanted to know how he felt about her. So I think that may have caught him off guard. And I think that may be one of the reasons he's not prepared to talk about feelings with this person. And we don't really bring that into court. I don't really discuss that with my attorney. And that's why we see this pause at the beginning and we see this that time gap between the finish of a question and the beginning of an answer is longer than usual for that reason. And we did see those purse lips, which some people call a clarinet hold in some corners, at their words, engagement and cheating around there. And I think there's some withheld opinions about whether or not she should have been engaged and whether or not what they were doing is really classified as cheating because of the status of that relationship, even though it was legally a certain way, it was emotionally or physically a different way. And we see a little bit of eye blocking when he's talking about them cheating. And when I say eye blocking, there's not a hand coming up, but that's a prolonged blink that lasts a couple seconds. We see the eyes just completely shut down, which is a great little data point here. We're going to collect some more baseline points here in a few minutes, but I'll leave it at that. Yeah, one thing to add, Chase, if you were to go back and watch video from earlier times, when he was asked what their relationship was, he would say, well, there was sex. That's how I categorized it. So yeah, good. And I agree, Chase. And at the top when she first asked him that long pause before he answers, that's that classic and buying time. What do what? And it locks in on her. That's why that's what I was talking about as well about these classic things we're seeing in there. So, but then again, doesn't mean he's done something horrible to this woman, to Stacey. So what were your feelings for Stacey? Excuse me? What were your feelings for her? What do you mean as far as... Well, when you were, you know, even though she was engaged there, were there real feelings there? There were, but at the same time, I was seeing someone too at the time, and we were both cheating. We were both, but we enjoyed our time together, you know what I'm saying? That's the way, that's what it was going on, that's what was going on at the time. All right, are we good? And then where were you during that time period when she was found? Or when this apparently happened, like on April 23rd at 3 a.m. At 3 a.m.? Yeah, where were you at that time? I definitely wasn't with her. I was, and I know I was getting ready to go to work because I had work. I had to be at work, I think maybe 7, in between, I was in between 6.30 and 9. I had to be at work. I was working at a superress. We were helping her to remodel the store. But at that time, in the morning, I don't know, I was, I couldn't really, just straight out, just tell you exactly where I was at that point. I was probably at my cousin's house, or either my mother's house, getting ready to go to work. All right, Chase, what do you got? This one is one of the most concerning. So we see another delay at the beginning, and this delay is called question repetition. There's two, typically two ways we can do this. We can repeat the entire question, which is more likely to be deceptive, or a partial part of the question, which is a little less likely to be deceptive. And one of them, I asked somebody, what were you doing Wednesday night? And they answer, what was I doing Wednesday night? And then they give the answer. The second part is when they just say Wednesday night, sometimes that can be just for clarification. But there's still a potential for that to be a deceptive behavior, especially when we're pairing it with other behaviors. And we see a definite eye block at the moment that there is some kind of denial starting to come out, a failure to answer, and 17 frickin' years we haven't figured out where you were at the time of the murder or talk to the people that you were supposedly with. That's bad. That doesn't look good to me. And we see some very strong internal dialogue when he's answering, and even more eye blocking towards the end around the second partial denial. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, totally the same chase. I mean, suddenly it becomes a real problem for me. Exactly that, the repetition of the question. I think it was very, very clear. I didn't think it needed repeating. There's some buying time on that, or some kind of questioning of the question to try and push back a little bit. But that could be fine, so long as you ended up with, I'll tell you exactly where I was at 3am. And I've got a whole bunch of people who will qualify exactly that, but he doesn't have that. What he has is, I don't quite know, it's a bit like, I mean, I don't want to make light of this, but I started wondering if he had tigers, because it's a little bit of a like 3am. I don't sometimes I go and get milk products for the tigers at 3am. I don't, you know, sometimes, sometimes not sometimes I step my uncles and sometimes around my mums. So you're either going, okay, we've got it, we've got a personality and a character here who just doesn't know where they are at 3am of any time of the week could be anywhere. That's the kind of life that they have. That's a possibility. Or we have somebody who knows exactly where they are, and they're not going to say where they are. I don't know which one it is, but it's a massive problem. It's a huge problem. At this point, I'm now start to feel like something is up and something's really going on here. Scott, what have you got for us? I agree with you. I think you knew exactly where he was. Those kind of answers, after 17 years, you better know where you were, because you've answered that question how many times? How many times were you asked that question day one? You'd figure that out. So something's up in there where he's getting ready to rearrange information to make sure he's, like I said, I was at my cousins. Yeah, I said it back then, remember? Yeah, but you also said you might have been at your mother's. You said you're getting ready for work. You also said these different things. This is one that bothered me the most, or one of the ones that bothered me the most, because there's so much deception going on in here. Again, he's bobbing and weaving as we go through this. When he re-grips the phone, if you'll notice that, he almost does a wince at that point. When he says, I couldn't tell you exactly where I was at that point. That's where he grabs the phone and you hear a little click and he goes, I couldn't tell you exactly where I was at that point. Then he gives this, again, this goes out just like Greg calls it chaff and read just chaff everywhere. Here's all these possibilities that could have happened. I don't know where I was 17 years ago on whatever that date was. I couldn't have no clue what was going on whatsoever. But I tell you what, if I had gotten in trouble that day or people kept asking me about what was going on that day, whatever it was I got in trouble for it, I'd know where I was. I would have found out. I would have asked around. I would know. He should know and he doesn't know. That's a big problem for me right there. I think he knows exactly where he was, but he's keeping all this information so he can later on put everything where it goes in a linear fashion to say, oh yeah, I did go to my mother's, but I went to it after I went to this, but before I went to this, so he can tell his story backwards or forwards, because at this point he can't tell that story because he's saying he doesn't know where he is at this, saying he doesn't know where he is. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, so I'm going to cover a few things. You know, people always say you guys seem to always agree. Well, that's because we're not because we talked about it. That's because we're seeing the same things and those some classic things. Let me tell you that I taught resistance to interrogation and I would be proud if my students were as good as he is at avoiding a question here. He's very good at avoiding the number one question a person has asked. Everybody's watched TV knows, Mark, where are we at on Tuesday, the January the 16th? Well, hell, that's the first question I'm going to ask you is where were you? He's been asked this. He feigns confusion when she's asking that question. The number one question he's been asking is the entire life, I guarantee it. That's a red flag. Guys, we're not saying he's guilty. We're saying here red flags that would cause my interrogator brain to go, hold on a second, something is going on. And not just one, there are clusters. This has a tremendous number of things going on. He feigned confusion in the beginning like, what are you talking about? That's a delay. He does. He's resistant to the question. Where were you when this happened? And then he seizes the opportunity. My notes say he resisted the question WTF right there. So if that gives you any idea what I'm thinking, then he seizes on her throw out three o'clock. A person who is guilty and who knew that something happened at 345 would say, oh, at three o'clock, I was nowhere around. We see that all the time in interrogation. So that's a red flag. Does it mean he killed this woman? Again, no. But it gives me a reason to want to dig in. He eye blocks when he answers, I was not with her at 3M. I definitely was not with her at 3AM. Usually people who are innocent don't say I was not with her. They tell you where they were. That's a red flag. Now, his speech pattern could be that he tells you what he didn't do. I don't know. I haven't spent enough time with him yet. He also does you hit it dead on Scott. He goes into internal conversation and he starts chaff and redirect. Then he gets irritated with her and his eyes narrow when she starts saying sorry to go back at the end. The other thing is I had to go to work sometime between 6.30 and 9 o'clock. Do average people have those hours? Maybe I'm missing something. I've never had a job where I could go to work between 6.30 and 9. I'm not trying to make light of a guy who's on death row, but I am telling you this is how a guy ends up in real trouble with an interrogator is by evading questions. Like I said, I taught people to be evasive and how to get away. If I were on this guy, I would nail down every one of these places that he's doing this and then add to it the request for approval when he says I was definitely not with her. Add to that when he's doing the vague question that brow goes up again. There's a baseline here guys we're looking at. I think that everybody wants to believe that people are innocent and and maybe maybe it's not murder. Maybe it's something else that he's hiding. It doesn't matter what we're not looking for. Did he murder this woman? We're looking at is he telling the truth based on what we see? That's all I got. Yep. And on the behavioral table of elements, this one clip scored a 16 on the deception scale. It's one of the most troubling for sure. I mean, I see immediately as the questions asked, he has this moment of surprise and to your point, why would you ever be surprised by this question? It's the first question you get asked. You must be asked it again and again and again. Well, even if you're going to have a story for it, why isn't your story just immediate? Yeah. Well, historically, he's not been honest and he's admitted to that about things. When I saw her, they showed me your picture. I said I didn't know her because I didn't want to get in trouble, which we'll get to later on. He's done the same. And Greg, well, we'll talk about the setup he uses to go through these things, Greg, in a little while. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then where were you during that time period when she was found? Or when this apparently happened, like in April 23rd at 3 a.m. At 3 a.m.? Yeah. Where were you at that time? I definitely would with her. I was, I know I was getting ready to go to work because I had work. I had to be at work. I think maybe seven in between. I was in between 6.30 and 9. I had to be at work. I was working at a super, as we were helping to remodel the store. But at that time, in the morning, I don't know, I was, I couldn't really, just straight out just tell you exactly where I was at that point. I was probably at my cousin's house or either my mother's house, getting prepared to go to work. All right. We good? All good. And even though there was, they said there was DNA evidence. Do you believe that? No, I don't. No, I don't. Absolutely. They can't be. I mean, what I do know is that the very person that supposedly had maintained those cases is David Boyd. And he's no longer on the police force from what I understand. But I don't, I think that there's at least that needs to be looked into as well because I don't, I don't believe it. All right. I'll go first on this one. All right. Well, when she says, even though they say there was no DNA evidence, DNA evidence, they said there was DNA evidence. Do you believe that? He says there can't be. That's the right answer. But what he says after that bugs me because he didn't follow up with, I wasn't there. That can happen. When you ask, when you sit down somewhere and you ask someone, so why, why, why, why should I believe you didn't rob this place or you didn't steal that stuff from the room over there? They'll say, because I don't take stuff. I'm not thief. Why am I supposed to believe you didn't, you didn't kill this girl? Because I'm not a murderer. That's why I don't do that. I'd never do, he doesn't go down that road. He just says, he just says, there can't be, which is the good answer. That's a good answer. That's the right answer. But after that's when it sort of falls apart for me. So we're dealing with this, the dichotomy of him doing the right answers. But over here, it sort of falls apart on these things. That's, that's all I'm gonna, that's all I'm gonna say on that part because there's a lot in there and it's short and I'll suck it up. Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So here's what worries me about this. Well, first of all, the way the question is being asked, I don't kind of like that. They said there was DNA evidence, there's either DNA evidence or there isn't DNA evidence. They put forward evidence. So as a questioner, I would be going, there's DNA evidence. What do you say to that? Rather than giving some possibilities of they may or they're allowing him to say he doesn't believe it. Because belief is a very different thing from what fact is or what truth is. They're not the same thing at all. And so that's why in the way this question is being put forward, it gives a lot of scope for him to weave around it or not say enough, really. You know, if you say to somebody, you know, what do you say to that and then let them run? They'll give you all kinds of stuff. So, but anyway, here's what I do see here. We do get a nostril flare during this. So I think he's starting to ramp up a little bit bit of bit of fight or flight or certainly some pressure is happening here. And his blink rate is up at the end from the way I look at it. So I think this DNA evidence idea is one of the things that can get him ramped up. Now, is that because there isn't any good DNA evidence? Or is it because there is and he knows there would be? I just don't know. But certainly, it's a hot point for him. And that's that's that's interesting to see. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, great, great catch. I'm going to now turn into interrogation instructor Greg and say, if you're asking, are you, did you, will you, those are called leading questions. And it means you're projecting the answer you want from the person and gives them the ability to walk away. Good questions should elicit a narrative response, meaning the person tells you something. So I don't say, do you believe this? I'd say, tell me about the DNA. That's it. End. Let them talk. Whatever they say is a trap. So he's given an out there. Now, I will also tell you, this one's conflicting for me. I agree with Scott dead on. There can't be. And when he stopped short, I'm amazed. There can't be because I was not there or something else. Here's what I say. If I'm an interrogator, I'm sitting across the table and say, Chase, your DNA was found here. You say there can't be. I'll say, why not? Because I want to know. I'm going to keep digging. So she fell short. Like I said, she's no interrogator, but that's okay. Her questioning, she is actually putting pressure on his story, unlike most people I've seen. Here's the other problem for me. There's congruency in his story in that he goes to internal internal conversation, and he's shaking his head and doing what he should do. But his blink rate increases dramatically. And I agree with you. When you get to the DNA, he's now doing 15. He's got 15 blinks across 30 seconds and most of it in the second half. That makes me wonder. So I'm conflicted here. I want to believe him because he's congruent. He falls short. She lets him have an out and then his blink rate goes through the roof. So I want to know why this is a why question for me. Of all of them, this is so far the least concerning except for that issue you bring up. Scott, he doesn't say, look, I didn't do it. It can't be because I didn't do it. Now he's told this story a million times. He's been in jail now 17 years, 18 years, something like that. He's probably told the story a million times. Maybe he just is done telling the story. But this is the one that is the hardest for me to reconcile. So with that, I think it's Chase, right? Yep. So I think it's interesting. His lack of belief is secondary to his denial of commission. But if we go back, her question says, do you believe that she specifically asked that? And in interrogations, there is a place, I think what Greg was talking about, in this instance, we need something that produces a narrative. But there is a definite place for some closed-ended questions there. Sure. And if you imagine I'm holding a giant box full of money and I will mail it to your house, if you can figure out the right open-ended question to determine how much money is in it. So I mean, once we get down to details, what time was it, those kinds of things? That's when we need those closed-ended questions. And those aren't leading. Those are not leading. Leading is yes, no. Those are, if it's a yes or no question, the only purpose we use for those in interrogation is to redirect the conversation or to cut a conversation short. That's it. That's it. And I think it was interesting, Mark talked about his nostrils flaring. He starts getting heated a little bit. I think it's worth noting that his chin also drops down and he starts looking up a little bit the moment that he starts speaking about this other guy, her fiance. And even though they said there was DNA evidence, do you believe that? No, I don't. Absolutely. They can't be. I mean, what I do know is that the very person that supposedly had maintained those cases is David Boyd. And he's no longer on the police force from what I understand. But I think that needs to be looked into as well, because I don't believe it. Okay, which one is this from? Five? This is five. Yeah. Sorry to go back, but just so I can ask you. So your attorney gave me, you know, how we were talking about the DNA. You didn't believe it was yours. Did you even know these women who you were indicted for? Well, one was a 12-year-old. And then the other Vivian Harbottle? Absolutely. I don't know these people. I never saw these people until that trial. What about the woman who claimed you attacked her in her truck, who testified in the sentencing phase? You're talking about, you're talking about you were never charged for that, but she testified in the sentencing phase. Is that Linda Schluter? Let me see. I didn't know any of these people except for the mother of my kids, Carol, Connie. Those are the three people that I knew, the Vivian and the 12-year-old you're talking about. Who were the names of the people you knew? What were their names? She said Carol? Carol, Connie, Connie, Carol. I was charged and those charges were dropped in this minute. And Connie, I went to trial with Connie's case and with her allegations rather, and I was acquitted. That was the time when I was young. I was getting ready to go to the Olympics, well, preparing to go to the Olympic trials and all that basically shattered those dreams. Okay, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, this was an interesting one. When she starts to talk about the 12-year-old girl, he has a demonstrative no. What I would expect, no. I mean, very aggressive. But right after that, he starts this head-bobbling thing that's awkward. When people are saying no all the time or they're saying yes, and then suddenly they start bobbing their head a little, there's a red flag for me. I want to know why you're bobbing your head. And I might actually in an interrogation, they never say, you got something wrong with your neck? Because interrogation is a rude business, I would lean over and ask a question. No, I might also be the nice guy and let or be the bad guy and let Chase come in and be the nice guy. Hey, he's kind of a jerk and. But that head-bobbing thing is suddenly odd. And then he does some requests for, guys, every time he edits, I'm telling you, every time he edits his story, that brow goes up. Every time he asks something that sounds a little fishy to me, that brow goes up. If it only happens one time, no biggie. But this is consistently happening, which is why I'm concerned. He drops his chin, the cover's throat and brow beats her and does that whole false confusion thing. When in fact, they're talking about the woman that caused him to be caught up in this case, the woman who claimed that he raped her, who was there in the sentencing. Now, I'm going to say this, I can't remember the woman's name, but she didn't testify at my sentencing and get me the death penalty. I would probably remember a person who did that. And I don't think I'd have to say, are you talking about this? He knows who she's talking about. There's a pause. And then he goes on about, he's using that whole pause thing, that whole confusion piece, just to give himself time to think. Now, do I think he's lying about killing the woman? Don't know. Do I think he's covering up something? Absolutely. I think there's something in here that needs some digging and understanding. And the woman he's talking about just for your knowledge, go look her up, claim that he raped her in her truck. He got in her truck, asked her for ride. When she gave him a ride, he asked her for sex. She said, no, he bashed her head in the steering wheel and then raped her. That's the story. And now I want to go into details because I don't know all the details. But that's the person. Then he moves into this piece and he chooses to talk about the case after whatever she was asking him the original question was. And he doesn't talk about the rapes or any of that. He starts talking about the case again and he moves to, I was young. That sounds like an excuse. That sounds a lot like an excuse. And then a redirect. And I was working on going to the Olympics. That's holy ground to Americans. Hey, I was a good kid. I was going to the Olympics. That's taking yourself back to I was a good kid. I didn't do anything wrong. Oh yeah, I might have done some stuff wrong, but that was back when I was trying to go to the Olympics. That always I want to know why that came up. Not at all related to the story. Did you rape anybody? Well, I was getting ready for the Olympics. Okay. And did you rape anybody? It just it automatically makes me want to know why again, this doesn't mean he raped or killed anybody. It just makes me want to know why you're taking holy ground there and why you were saying but I was young then has nothing to do with it. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, agree with everything so far. That's brilliant. You guys have hit a lot of this stuff. I think the I was young is a justification statement with nothing after it. And the I'm going to the Olympics or I was training for the Olympics is a resume that comes right after it just to build up his credibility. But we see strong eye blocking when he's talking about knowing Vivian. And we see more strong eye blocking when he's talking about the involvement with Connie. And I want you to pay attention. The moment he mentions this 12 year old person, we see a massive eye flutter downward eye movement internal dialogue followed with an eye flutter. And I'll pass it over you more. Yeah, so I got a big problem with this, which is, you know, on top of everything that's been said so far, what I see after the mention of the 12 year old girl and when he's saying or just before when he says no, which does sound quite emphatic, although there are some strange cadences up the front of it that I wouldn't expect with anything so emphatic. It doesn't just go flatten down. It kind of goes up down and flatten down. I'm a bit worried by that. What I'm more worried by is, I don't think it's a look of it doesn't feel like a look of approval to me at the start. It seems like a look of an eyebrows are doing recognition. It's a lot subtler, but the eyes just open the eyebrows go up a touch. And it seems to me like recognition before he then does an eye block. And then when the when the 12 year old is mentioned again later on. Again, he does what I seems to me to be a look of recognition. Now, is it recognition that he's internally he's going, yes, I did that or recognition of, okay, here's the 12 year old girl idea again. I don't know. But I'd want to dig a little bit deeper into that because I want to know why that this 12 year old girl has that effect on him. And then we go into these, these looks of concern and leaning in, which again, feel like a massive red flag for me as he starts to help the interviewer. Now, all the same, the interviewer is either disorganized or could be playing disorganized. I think there's a good, there's a, it could be a good strategy now and again to play disorganization so you can win over some help from whoever you're interviewing and get them talking more could be one or the other. But certainly he complies with the idea of being, you know, wondering what's going on and trying to be as helpful as possible in this situation. Again, that's a red flag for me. I don't like this video at all. I don't like it at all, not happy with it. There, that's what I got. Scott, have we heard from you? Not yet. All right. So here's what bothers me about this is we go from talking about, like you guys were talking about earlier, talking about somebody's and dad him for rape all the way down is going to be a boxer on all the stuff that happens in between there. I mean, that's the juxtaposition of you're a rapist and then you're going to, might be going to the Olympics, unbelievable how he squirms his way, gets his way through there. There's a girl named Lisa Heschley when I was in high school. I was in love with her. Had the biggest crush on her. And I'm not going to say the other two girls names deals. These other two girls said I threw stuff at her, but it wasn't me. But I know the guy who did. Yeah, but they said it was me and I remember their names. I remember those two girls to this day. I remember their names. So I think if, if this guy was in court and, and chase, you know how it is, you've been in court when, when it's something you've worked and you look at somebody and they're up on the stand and they're getting after your guy or your guys getting after that guy, especially if they're getting after your guy, you remember that person's name. I remember those people's names when I go do that. So this is, this is not, he remembers those people again falls back to his not having told the truth before, I think in here. And I think we're just seeing, I'm not going to go into the details since everybody's covered him, but we're not seeing honesty here because he would remember those people. And that when he freezes at the beginning, you see those, those eyes get big. You see those whites of his eyes as he's frozen, as she's, as she, once he realizes she's asking about those boy, he locks right in on her. He knows exactly where she's going with it. And when she says, do you know them? He's like, no. Nope. So that really, that bugs me. Doesn't mean he's a murderer. Doesn't mean he murdered that girl. But I think he remembers, remembers those people and remembers their names. Just like those girls who said, I do that stuff with Lisa Heschley. And I know I didn't. It wasn't me. It's John Shannon. No baggage. I thought you were going to take that to your grave. And now, now everybody knows. No, it was John. Sorry to go back, but just to see what I can ask you. So your attorney gave me, you know, how we were talking about the DNA. You didn't believe it was yours. Did you even know these women who you were indicted for? Well, one was a 12-year-old. No. And then the other, a Vivian, a hard bottle? Absolutely. I don't know these people. I never saw these people until that trial. What about the woman who claimed you attacked her in her truck, who testified in the sentencing phase? You're talking about, you're talking about, You were never charged for that, but she testified in the sentencing phase. Is that Linda Schluter? Is that Linda Schluter? Uh, let me see. I don't know. I didn't know any of those people except for the mother of my kids, Carol Connie. Those are the three people that I knew, the Vivian, and the 12-year-old you talking about. Who were the names of the people you knew? What were their names? She said Carol? Carol, Connie, Connie, Carol. I was charged, and those charges were dropped and dismissed. And Connie, I went to trial over Connie's case, and with her allegations rather. And I was acquitted. That was the time when I was young. I was getting ready to go to the Olympics, well, preparing to go to the Olympic trials, and all that basically shattered those dreams. All right, we good? Great job. And so one thing in talking to your attorney, he said he talked to you this morning as well. He was going to talk to you. The only thing that concerns him is those other sex assaults he were indicted for that you have maintained your innocence on as well. He said that's the only thing that concerns him. What about you? How do you feel knowing those indictments are still hanging out there? Well, that stuff is not true. I feel that if that would have been true, they would have tried beyond that stuff, you know what I'm saying? And it's just not true. It's just something that they brought up right before my trial because there was nothing in my background that they could use to get me to death penalty. And I think they just brought something up. Just a bad, bad, I don't know. All right, Greg, what do you got? I don't have a whole lot on this one, but I will say his blink rate is high in this one. I think I counted 13, 14 and 40 seconds. That stuff is not true. If that stuff is true, why wouldn't they try me for that? Well, they're trying you for capital murder is why they wouldn't try you for that. Because then they come convoluted and they come ask all of us who work around legal system lawyers, know that you got to be careful how you take something to court or you get it thrown out and right. So they're going to be very careful with that. I think they charged him with two counts of murder, one for just murder and one for murder during sexual assault or something. But he takes a deep breath in there as he goes to internal conversation at one point that makes me want to say, what's that about? Nothing else really big. I mean, I expect him to say exactly what he says there. Look, I didn't do anything. That's not true. And he does use a contraction. That stuff is not true. I mean, he doesn't use a contraction. Sorry. That stuff is not true. We often say, most people say it's not true. Isn't true is what most people would say. So nothing here and no smoking gun for me. Maybe I'm missing something with that. Mark, I'd hand it to you. Yeah. No, I've got a huge amount on this. I think what this is about for me is somebody who's locked into this system in their mind and may well be locked into a system as well. What I see is acceptance, discomfort and then resignation. And I think the resignation comes at the end around the idea of the death penalty. I think that's the trajectory that I'm seeing him going through. And I think this is why it leads on. We'll see in the next video to maybe the one after, but there's some talk. I think it is the next one. Talk about being locked into a system that he's trapped essentially. So for me, acceptance, then there's discomfort and then there's resignation. That's all I got for you. Chase, what do you got? What's the difference between not true and didn't happen? I would say in psychology, when we're speaking, that's a big difference. And what's the difference between a lack of evidence and it didn't happen? And it seems to suggest that he's more focused on truthfulness based on evidence than whether or not there was a commission of a crime. And we see something here straight out of the interrogation handbook of John Reed, which is a failure to make a confident, positive denial of any of these things. And I'll just leave that there. Scott, what do you got? He got most of mine. Dang it. Okay, anyway, when he says I didn't do any of that and he keeps calling it stuff, he didn't say, I didn't rape anybody. If you get in there and they're talking about this stuff, you're not going to call it, think I got in trouble for some stuff, got in trouble for rape. I didn't rape. That's the first thing out of your mouth should be, I didn't rape anybody. I'm not a rapist. I didn't do that. He doesn't go back in the defense of, hold on a minute, you're talking about rape. He says, and they said, he refers to the rapes and assaults, both all that as something. And the other one's his stuff. But he seems calm like none of this stuff has bothered him. But I think that goes back to preparing for that and try it where he's like, he's a master of deflection or redirection where he's trying to be calm. So no attention is brought to that. So we can scoot right on to kind of blow it out of the way and move forward. There's so many things going off that say he's that for sure, he's not being honest about a lot of things. You know, that that's the part that bothers me the most here. Everything I was, some of the most of the things I was going to talk about got covered. Those, that's the big one that bothers me is he refers to rape and assault as something and stuff. You want to clean it up, right? Then you say, wait a minute, I didn't rape anybody. They said, I raped these girls. No, and you go back into the, into the, no, I didn't do it part of it. You've seen that a hundred times when you're, when you're leaning somebody for that. That's, that's, that's the road they go down. That's the road you, and you know it. So you push them down that road and they go and then, and then you have your steps, you go from there. I don't, I don't, I don't know. That don't, this one really bothers me. That's, that's the part when he calls it something and stuff. I think this is a great example, right? Each of us see something that causes us to red flag and, and it's different things. If it were one thing and we all jumped on it and we're all hammers on one nail, would be different. But guys, for my taste, this guy needs some attention. And I don't mean by every celebrity on earth saying whatever, but I think it's worth scrutinizing and looking. Do I think the guy deserves a death penalty based on all the confusion? No. I mean, I'd love to see and I dug for tape of this woman's fiance. It appears this woman just surrounded herself with chaos and bad news. Now, whether she did intentionally, that's not whatever. Poor woman. She ended up dead on the side of a road. And there's chaos and stuff surrounding her at every turn. If he was involved with her, okay. But I'd love to see video of this police officer who was later indicted, charged and served 10 years or nine years, something like that in prison for rape. I'd love to see video with him, too, so we can try to figure out what's going on. All we're doing is basing it on what we see here. And all of us are seeing red flags. That's the problem. Didn't he kill himself, the police officer, or did he kill himself? So I don't, I don't remember. No, this is guys, you want to go a made for TV movie. People who've been involved in investigating this have killed themselves. There are all, there's all kinds of, I mean, go look at the body count around this thing. It's chaos and a mess. The real accusation and the real, the reason there's so much celebrity behind this is because there are accusations that this guy framed Rodney for rape and murder because he killed her. He threatened Rodney and said, you're going to pay for this. There's also parts in there where he, this guy later admitted he had, or told an Aryan brotherhood guy while he's in prison, he had the killer because he was having sex with a black guy. Not in those words, much harsher, nastier words. And so this is a mess. This is a horrific case. There's nothing good. For me seeing all of this, I had hoped to just turn to here and go, yeah, I hope that guy's not guilty. Boom. I hope he said be heroes and say let's help because that's why I started looking at the case. Now, if we go pick another video, you're going to see a very different approach. That's what's interesting. Yeah. Let's do the next one. Let's do that. Let's do it next week. Let's do the five year one next week. So you can see the difference. Okay. All right. That's what we'll do. And so one thing in talking to your attorney, he said he talked to you this morning as well. He was going to talk to you. The only thing that concerns him is those other sex assaults you were indicted for that you have maintained your innocence on as well. He said that the only thing that concerns him was what about you? How do you feel knowing those indictments are still hanging out there? Well, that stuff is not true. I feel that if that would have been true, they would have tried me on that stuff. You know what I'm saying? And that it's just not true. It's just something that they brought up right before my trial because there was nothing in my background that they could use to get me to death penalty. And I think they just brought something up. Just a bad, bad, I don't know. All right. Be good? Yep. Just move along. Where are you going to say, Chase? I will say that what Greg was talking about of replacing the words, we can call that psychological distancing or severity softening. I have seen many cases where a person who is innocent was exposed to the gruesomeness of a crime scene is less likely to use harsh words, stab, murder, rape, kill, those kinds of things because of the trauma that they went through. They soften it in their brain. But there's typically a very distinctive difference in all of the other behaviors to where those things just stand out as an outlier type of behavior. Okay. Right. We talk all the time about when you find a body, there's no place in your brain to put that information unless you've been involved in the murder, those kinds of things. Scott and I talk about it in the true crime workshop. And when your brain has a box to put stuff in, it treats it differently than when it doesn't. And that's the reason they're avoiding the word when they've done it because they don't want to recall that word and it pulls up all the other details with them. But if they're avoiding it for other reasons like they've seen the body and they're horrified and it was somebody they loved or cared about, yeah, it's a different approach. And you've been asked this a dozen times throughout the year, but you've got new audiences along the way, new generations. For instance, I wasn't reporting back in 1996 and I wasn't in Austin at the time. But why is it you who did not do the crime? You did not hurt Stacey. Tell me why, you know, it wouldn't have been you. Excuse me. It wasn't you. It wasn't me. Absolutely not. It had nothing to do with it. Now, you know, like you mentioned, the new generation's a lot of it. I mean, it's been 18 years, 19 years almost, you know, since her dad. It's been about 17 years since I've been locked up, a little over 17. The things that I know now, if I knew then I wouldn't be locked up. And the things that I do know now, it kind of bothers me to the point where, you know, it's the system, this very same system that has me locked up and on death row is the very same system that's out there watching over our children. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so I guess, look, you know, if you looked at it, you could kind of go, hey, there was a really good denial in that. You know, it wasn't me. But look what led up to that. The questioner here, and I think it's fair to say this is not, this is a moment of really, really bad interviewing. I'm sorry to say. But we get, tell me why you didn't do it. And then it progressed because he says nothing, which is good resistance. You know, I would say he just says nothing. She crumbles first by then reiterating the question and it develops and develops until she finally says, it wasn't you. And he says, it wasn't me. I mean, what a brilliant progression. I mean, it's just extraordinary. So go back and watch that as what not to do. What was the other thing? Oh, the other thing is the logic at the end. So here's the logic that he's playing at the end from my point of view. He's suggesting that if you agree that children are unsafe at the moment, and most parents will often will always go, Oh yeah, I think children are, you know, child safety is a real concern. He's saying, well, the same system that causes those children to be unsafe is the same system that has locked him up and put him on death row. And so therefore you can't trust your children are unsafe because you can't trust the system that looks that's meant to look after them. Therefore the system that incarcerated and put him on death row can't be trusted either. It's a wonderful piece of false logic or what we call crooked thinking there, brilliantly executed. That's what I got for you. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, I think we clearly hear the reporter use the word murder several times. He doesn't use it once. He uses the word her death. And this is what we called severity softening. And when he says I've been in here for 17 years, close to 19 years, we see his first really good data recall. So where his eyes look up and to his left, we see that. And now we can retroactively go back. So what else have we asked him about data? Where were you at 3am on this evening? Did we see that same little recall movement? Did he look in the same direction? The answer is no. And this goes up and to his left for his data recall or whatever the Greg term is for it. And there's a drastic failure to answer one of the critical classic interrogation questions. Why not you? Why wouldn't you have done something like this? And there's some really good interrogation questions that are part of the interview before the interrogation begins. Why wouldn't you have done this? Who might have done this? Did you tell your friends and family about this when it happened? There's some ways that interrogators can maybe trick you into revealing whether or not you're guilty or innocent and then start the interrogation if you don't answer those questions the right way. This is a great one. Why wouldn't you have done this? And in an innocent person's response, there's myriad ways that it could be answered. But you would typically hear something like I would never do this. We had a relationship. I respected her. I'm not a rapist. I'm not a murderer. I'm not a killer. All of those kinds of things might be acceptable. But we're missing that in this piece here. Greg? Yeah. So let's go back a couple of things. You're the absolute positive affirmation of lack of guilt. There's no that. There's not a person saying, I didn't do this. Look, he waits to your point, Mark. He regurgitates something she says. It's an echo. What's interesting is he has a recognition flash when she says, why isn't it you? And then suddenly, boom, oh, it isn't me. And he used her exact words. There's a reason why he has not been accessing because he's not answering questions. He's telling a story. And I don't mean he's making up something. I forget that for a minute. I'm not saying he's lying. I'm saying he's just simply not answering questions. He is telling a story. And his story has little to do with the question most of the time. He's saying, look, I was railroaded. OK, got it. You're railroaded. Now answer the question. That's the way I respond to people. When I ask him a question, they say, you don't understand. I was mistreated. I got it. You were mistreated. Now, where's the money? I just jumped past all of that. But I'm an interrogator, not a reporter. It's a very different mindset. What's interesting is once he goes to that, she feeds him the information. He regurgitates it. Then he, let's make this about something else. He turns it now to holy ground is what I call what he's doing. He's plowing new holy ground. He avoids the question entirely and just doesn't bother to answer it. That's evasion, guys. All the red flags here came for me when I watched this video because that's evasion. That's how you get away from questions. If you ask me, I mean, you could ask me where was I on Tuesday. Hey, have you seen my watch? That's the same thing he's doing. It's just not that blatant. He's turning it into the system. OK, we get it. You feel you've been railroaded. Answer the questions and we'll help you. That makes sense. Scott, what do you got? I'm with Chase. He didn't say I didn't do it. I'm not a murderer. I'm not a rapist. I didn't do this. I'm telling you, there's no pushback on that. Nothing at all on that. Yeah, that's all I got. I think we got everything covered on that one. Let me just add one more thing in which I saw in my notes down here. But after he does say it wasn't me, he then recovers his breathing and coughs afterwards. There's no other place in this video where I see him having to recover breathing and do a cough of some sort afterwards. Obviously, people coughing, that doesn't mean they're lying to you. But it stands out across this video. This is the only time we've seen him do this. So it makes me feel like it was an extra effort to... Oh, I've frozen. Have I frozen? He froze in there. Green shot. Utter distaste. I got him. There we go. I got him before he got off. Wow. That was good. Your note. You saw something in your notes. Oh, should I just repeat that again? Yeah. Well, start halfway through because I want to keep that. All right. Coming back to you. I don't know whether I've got any more to say on it, which is just... Yes, it doesn't mean you're lying if you cough. It's just that's the only time that we've seen him do it. It would make me suspect that it was an effort for him to say those words and he's then having to compensate for that afterwards and, you know, recenter himself, get his balance after that, get his breathing in check. There. That's what I got for you. And you've been asked this a dozen times throughout the year, but you've got new audiences along the way, new generations. For instance, I wasn't reporting back in. 1996. And I wasn't in Austin at the time, but why is it you who did not do the crime? You did not hurt Stacey. Tell me why. You know, it wouldn't have been you. Excuse me. It wasn't you. It wasn't me. Absolutely not. I had nothing to do with it. Now, you know, like you mentioned, the new generation's a lot of it. I mean, it's been 18 years, 19 years almost, you know, since her dad. It's been about 17 years since I've been locked up a little over 17. The things that I know now, if I knew then I wouldn't be locked up. And the things that I do know now, it kind of bothers me to the point where, you know, it's the system, this very same system that has me locked up and on death row is the very same system that's out there watching over our children. And so, I mean, now with this new audience, what would you say to the public now? I guess, what are you looking forward to most that gets out during trial? What's most important that people know about this case and you? About this case. And you? And me. I mean, if you had any opportunity to say anything, I want you to have a platform to tell me. I'm innocent. I'm absolutely innocent of this. And I had to live here 17 years. I've got kids now. My parents are getting older, you know, and I've got grandkids. Yeah, and they're getting older too. Getting big. You've seen them. Yes, I saw them. All right, Greg, what do you got? Yes, I'm going to go full circle, guys. Remember, in the beginning, I talked about the guy etching his face or having residuals about asking for approval. When he says, I am absolutely innocent. His forehead is up. This is why I've got this feeling. This guy needs some conversation. We need to talk to him. Then he starts to shift gears and he goes to holy ground. But all the stuff that we've talked about, one other, his internal conversation, you want to know where it's at? Here's proof positive. She asked him a question that requires you to talk to yourself to answer it. She asked him, what would you want other people to know? Ding down left. So every time we go back and we look at him answering a question where he goes, ding, guess what? He's having an internal conversation. He's not responding in a way that is factual. He's telling you what he's analyzed. That doesn't mean he's lying necessarily. It means you ask me, where was I on Tuesday? And I go, wonder why they're asking me that? That's an internal conversation too. But typically factual people respond quickly, give you an answer, and they don't have to think about why they're going to tell you something. So he goes to internal conversation. Good baseline says, hey, here's what people need to know. Then he goes, I am absolutely innocent. That is a red flag because the way he's used his brow in the past when he's editing his conversation or when he's changing things. So now I really want to know, and he's using your word against Scott, absolutely. So innocence is like unique. It doesn't need a qualifier. That's all I got. Okay, Chase, what do you got? Chase, what do you got? So we see some severity softening here when he says I'm innocent of this, which is an unusual phrase. And why does the interviewer have to basically force him to pronounce his innocence? And we see that here in this question. And there's no anger about the incarceration. Granted, it's been a long time, but he doesn't say I've been locked up here. It's not I've been falsely imprisoned here. It's I've been living here for 17 years, which I think is an unusual phrase for someone trying to communicate to the world that this system that keeps your children safe is what got me here in the first place. And I'm innocent. Scott, what do you got? I agree with you guys. He says absolutely again. He doesn't say, I didn't kill. I want everybody to know I didn't kill this girl. I'm not a murderer. And that would be it. Period. I'd shut my mouth at that point. That's really all I got. But I agree with you. After watching his baseline, Greg's point to all that, it's hard to go in with the old NLP eye movement stuff. But the way Greg, you explained this stuff was we go along that not everybody goes to the same place as that the NLP thing was on the right track. They just didn't finish the research on it. Didn't didn't go any further than what they talked about right in that little group or however that worked. Every eye movement, every person is going to go somewhere in their head. And if I ask you enough questions, I can determine roughly where you're going and look for deviations all we're talking about. This is baseline, guys, just like when I say, well, he did this because I know where what he was doing then. You ask, I ask you a question. Hey, what do you think Mickey Mouse will look like in 2,900 AD? Then your eyes are going to drift around. You're going to think about it. You have some internal conversation. You might access some visual cue, but it's not that you're going to go ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. You're going to go where you go. And everybody's going to be a little different. So anyway, I think, yeah, we can't say that a person goes here because of this, but you can clearly say when he was having an internal conversation, his eyes drifted down to his left. We saw it. Yeah. Okay. Mark, where do you got? Yeah, so not a lot more than what you've said there, but what interests me about this is, again, he avoids the question on about his own feelings, about what people should know about him, rather than the case. He seems kind of confused or perturbed by talking about the idea of talking about himself. An element of that feels to me like it's, you know, like when you get involved in some really terrible podcast and the interviewers just asking you just, you know, bad questions and you're tired. It's the third one you've done today and it's like, oh, not the question of, you know, what's the top piece of body language for telling if somebody's a liar? It's like, oh, God, do I have to answer that one again? It feels a little bit like that to me, but I think also there is an element there of not wanting to reveal how he feels, any kind of self-reflection about himself. I can totally understand that. The guy's in prison. This will get broadcast. The other inmates will see that. He's got to put up a certain front, a certain face, I would imagine, you know, though he's, you know, he's a handy lad. I'm sure, you know, he's still having to survive himself and he's on death row and, you know, that must have a huge psychological effect on you and maybe not wanting to reveal the fears that you have inside you around that, that, you know, potential death in the future. So yeah, just again, we circle back to this idea of him avoiding the feelings and avoiding the self-reflection. That's kind of interesting to me, but more than that, I don't have. And so, I mean, now with this new audience, what would you say to the public now? I guess, what are you looking forward to most that gets out during trial? What's most important that people know about this case and you? About this case. And you. And me. I mean, if you had any opportunity to say anything, I want you to have a platform to tell me. I'm innocent. I'm absolutely innocent of this. And I had to live here 17 years. I've got kids now. My parents are getting older, you know, and I've got grandkids. Yeah, and they're getting older, too, getting big. You've seen them. Yes, I saw them. All right. Well, there you have it. That's the breakdown of the Rodney Reed interview of this one. We're going to do another one next week. Now, let's go around the room and see what everybody thinks about what we've seen and how they feel about what what's probably going to happen next. Mark, you want to go first? Yeah, the biggest red flags for me. Well, the biggest one is this, the 3 a.m. piece. Where were you? What were you doing? Some some definition around that. And because there is no definition around that, it feels very odd for me. I'm sure everybody will be able to list in the comments below all the reasonable reasons and educate me around that. But for me, just on this video, that alone is a huge red flag along with all the rest. I'm sure other people will talk about. Chase, what are your thoughts? Yeah, I think this was a deceptive interview all in. And I none of us here gathered a ton of evidence. We didn't analyze police files. We analyzed an interview. And we're not analyzing the evidence or determining truth or guilt. We're determining whether or not the interview was truthful, straightforward, and honest. And in my opinion, it wasn't, Greg. Yeah, guys, when I started looking for videos, I was looking for something with the Innocence project to say, look, maybe we can contribute something. I really want this guy to be innocent. The guy's on death row. He's got to stay of execution, maybe indefinite at the moment. But I don't see it here. I don't. There's something. Am I saying he is guilty of murder? No, but there's a lot of red flags here to make me want to dig in and say, why? The why piece is how people end up here. Now, all of you can write in the comments. We don't know we're talking about whatever. We all are saying the same thing. We're not. We didn't discuss this. We didn't come in here and say, hey, let's say this guy did this. We simply looked at this. And there's places where these guys saw things I didn't see. I watched when I watched the other video we'll watch next week. We'll talk about what we see there. But guys, at the end of the day, this is what we see based on this video, based on the questions asked. If we were controlling the conversation, if we got the chance to go talk to him, we might see something different because we would control the conversations, not feed him information. He could bounce back at us and those kinds of things. This is as much art as science. We'll all tell you that. We have to look at what we get and we go from there. So join us. Pay attention. Go do your own homework. Look at this guy. Where he's sitting. Do I think that I would like to know this guy was executed with no more information I have? Absolutely not. And I think a lot of people have called for that. Now, if I were his, the woman's family, how would I feel? I don't know. But without enough evidence to make me feel like somebody should be executed, never mind my opinion on death penalty or not, this is a complex case. And we're just trying to add more texture to what we see. Scott. Right. I agree with you 100% because we're not here to judge the guy and say he's guilty or innocent. But we're just here to tell you like Greg and Mark were saying, we're just showing you what we see. We're explaining what we see. So we're not saying he's a murderer or he's not a murderer. Personally, I don't think there's enough fear that says he killed that girl. You know, he doesn't say from my point of view, just from watching the interviews I've seen, that the two that I've watched, he doesn't have any of the hallmarks of the psychopath at all. He's talking about feelings. He really is experiencing feelings, I believe. It sometimes it takes up to a year to be able to diagnosis a true psychopath, but from just looking at him from, you know, across the room going, is that guy one or not trying to spot one? I'd say no. So we're not dealing with a murderer, a guy who's out doing that all the time. I think he, in his life, in the life that he was leading at the time, I think he actually stepped in some poop. And I think he is paying for that now. Because once you start hanging around in different groups, or there's a lot of stuff going on that shouldn't be going on, sometimes you'll step in it. I think he did. I think that's what we're looking at here. I didn't see anything that said, that showed me that he was a murderer. I just saw a lot of red flags that said, I'm not telling the truth on a lot of stuff. A lot of different questions, especially going back to what Mark said, that those things bother me, but those things, they're supposed to bother you. So that's okay. But I don't think we're looking at a murder situation here. Having said that, we don't know enough. I don't think we have enough information on whether to say he did that or not, from what I've seen and from what I can tell, whether he killed or not. I don't think he should be killed. Although he's on death row, I don't think there's enough to show that he killed that girl. Scott, for me, this is the thing I said to you yesterday. When you say somebody's not a murderer, we can't tell that from looking at this. And what you mean is a professional murderer versus, because what kind of people kill people? People kill people. All kinds of people kill people. Murders of passion, murders of moment, murders of heart. Tons of this stuff happen every day. An average person, you know, snaps and does something stupid or horrible. I mean, it happens. But we can't see enough from here and Chase, we can't say enough. We didn't go dig into the evidence. We're not evidence folks. We're not forensics folks. We're not weighing in and saying, by all means, he's innocent or by all means, he's guilty. We're saying we see the thing that caused us concern in this interview. Yeah, exactly. All right. Well, thanks for watching. And if you like what we're doing, please subscribe. And our shows come out on Thursday, sometimes Wednesdays, if I get them edited early enough. And click that little bell as well and then let you know when we have one come out. So, all right. We good? Good. All right. See you guys next time. I'm going to hit in the mouth of the gun. That's why I had teeth right there. You'll see it looks like I have a gap or something in there. So my tooth is cut out and just hit sideways. Well, I have a... This looks like English teeth. Oh, don't do that, man. What are you... Don't do that. Oh, my God. What's going on? God, dude, don't do that. What are you doing? No tendons. They're torn out. Yeah, that horse tore them. Don't be doing that, man.